So Jon, a 30 hz to 150 hz 18" driver sunds like a 8" driver at matched spl and EQ ?
No patern difference with a tweeter dome and a vertical ribbon after EQ at listening position despite the walls, the floor, the furnitures and the ceilling?
not talking about HD3? HD5..., It's a little if an ESL could sound like a PA loudspeaker ???? Hard to admit... Why not to involve a school for blind people in your test, maybe they could like it ? Though odd idea...
No patern difference with a tweeter dome and a vertical ribbon after EQ at listening position despite the walls, the floor, the furnitures and the ceilling?
not talking about HD3? HD5..., It's a little if an ESL could sound like a PA loudspeaker ???? Hard to admit... Why not to involve a school for blind people in your test, maybe they could like it ? Though odd idea...
Last edited:
Nopa, not right.
Makes no difference max SPL-wise, whether 4, 8 or 16 ohms.
Power (watts) is same for all three.
What varies is voltage and current to provide same power.
The 3fe22 in any form is rated at 40W max, for about 106-107dB at 1m.
If you're measuring higher than that, I'd say it's either predominantly from low-mids SPL, or SPL calibration is off...
I know that I shouldn't say anything as this will just draw me into this, but I can no longer resist (kinda like watching a train wreck).
It's true. All drivers sound the same when sufficiently EQed and level matched when placed in a cabinet resulting in similar diffraction. IF (very big if coming) and ONLY IF you listen in the near field, reflected energy is sufficiently low, and SPL is low enough that even the least efficient driver is well within it's low distortion domain. I have experienced this myself at home with various drivers under much less rigorous conditions than Joe's experiment.
But the real point is - no one listens to drivers like that. You would have to be listening pretty quietly and you are practically wearing the speakers like headphones. Plus (just like with headphones) there would almost no visceral impact due to the low SPL. No fun...
So, yes technically IMHO Joe's statement is correct. But this information itself is of little value as it implies conditions no one wants to impose on themselves. A more interesting experiment would be to take a few drivers of roughly equivalent Sd * Xmax and blindly compare those (level matched, EQ, etc.). Now that would tell you something!
OK - now go ahead and flame me ;-)
It's true. All drivers sound the same when sufficiently EQed and level matched when placed in a cabinet resulting in similar diffraction. IF (very big if coming) and ONLY IF you listen in the near field, reflected energy is sufficiently low, and SPL is low enough that even the least efficient driver is well within it's low distortion domain. I have experienced this myself at home with various drivers under much less rigorous conditions than Joe's experiment.
But the real point is - no one listens to drivers like that. You would have to be listening pretty quietly and you are practically wearing the speakers like headphones. Plus (just like with headphones) there would almost no visceral impact due to the low SPL. No fun...
So, yes technically IMHO Joe's statement is correct. But this information itself is of little value as it implies conditions no one wants to impose on themselves. A more interesting experiment would be to take a few drivers of roughly equivalent Sd * Xmax and blindly compare those (level matched, EQ, etc.). Now that would tell you something!
OK - now go ahead and flame me ;-)
Here here!
These threads are strangely compelling.... Kind of Big Red Button with "Do not press" written on it... You know you shouldn't, but...!
I would say comparing small and large drivers that differ that much is just taking this test to the extremes in order to show what theoretically could be done.
But for practical applications the conclusion that it would theoretically be possible to make different driver types of approximately the same size behave the almost same way (by the application of EQ) is the interesting one. It can make driver choice easier.
Regards
Charles
The most balanced and "accurate" post for a long time, I'm pretty sure that driver choice was one of the intentions of Jon? Rest of denial mafia, read a bit better and use logic please
Logic in the sense of ignoring power handling, off axis power response, the potential long term audibility of distortion characteristics and offsetting driver response with crossover complexity simplifies choice?Rest of denial mafia, read a bit better and use logic please
Attachments
Yep. I would also be curious to know what musical content was used for auditioning since this has a major impact on the result: listening to a single classical guitar compared to a full big band jazz orchestra does not put the same effort on a midrange driver...
In the fine tuning of my speakers, I could easily notice a details loss when moving the xover frequency from 2,5 kHz to 3 kHz on the SAME 6,5" driver that measures very well up to 10 kHz without any EQ (SB Acoustics). So, that such different drivers may sound the exactly same up to 7 kHz is something I can't buy easily...
Read better, all info is in the thread! Near field listening, big room, can drivers be detected at comfort levels of both drivers and listeners. If you can't hear it, start to think what it means of your capabilities. If you can't differentiate these wide range of driver sizes, what does it mean with drivers of same size, even in normal listening distances.
I drive my horns under the cut off frequency, yet they sound better than anything I had before in the room. But of course, I should be in a straight jacket also
You're right, I forgot that qualifier. Tack it to the list.
The test provides insight but the conclusion as expressed in the thread's title is an overstretch.
You're right, I forgot that qualifier. Tack it to the list.
The test provides insight but the conclusion as expressed in the thread's title is an overstretch.
If it's an overstretch or not is not important, start to question your own beliefs!
I work in development, making tests in a lab is crucial, but it's a pain in the proverbial butt. However, statistic proof is your light in the end of the tunnel (If you’re in luck, it’s not a train)
Testing humans has turned out to require a lot of specialization outside of the EE area. Many ways to go wrong and think it was done right. For things like listening tests, study "Sensory Discrimination Tests and Measurements - Sensometrics in Sensory Evaluation," by Jian Bi. That would be a good start. https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Sensory...nsory+Evaluation,+2nd+Edition-p-9781118733530
- Status
- Not open for further replies.