I'm not going to comment other than to say that I think an interesting test would be to use a tone generator at any frequency within the described bandwidth rather than a music source and conduct the tests again. Start at say 500 Hz and go up to 5 kHz in increments and see what the results are. I have a feeling some of the differences would become clear.
Last edited:
Hi JonBocani.
Many thanks for another fab feather ruffling thread! I'm sure many lurkers like myself will be following with great interest! My fantasy alnico magnetted, rectangular voice coiled, dead sea scroll grade papyrus coned, goop spot encrusted midrange drivers shall forever remain over the audiofool rainbow!
Many thanks for another fab feather ruffling thread! I'm sure many lurkers like myself will be following with great interest! My fantasy alnico magnetted, rectangular voice coiled, dead sea scroll grade papyrus coned, goop spot encrusted midrange drivers shall forever remain over the audiofool rainbow!
I wouldn't dare to presume what you did or didn't hear and why would it have any relevance to me? These discussions are always pointless and go nowhere, endless repetition and ducking and diving. As someone alluded to, the OP has used a variation of his usual clickbait thread title, he's probably just bored.
The relevance to you is that you commented in an illogical way! Pointless, I would disagree, ducking and diving though
Of course it will be differences with such broad spectrum, keep the driver in its comfort zone and it will be a different story
You'll have to be more specific. The sound a speaker makes and what people hear are not synonymous, it's very much a personal experience.
Hello Mark,
Sorry for my bluntness but: the EQ methodology is entirely irrelevant, in the context of my test. Here is why:
At the very start of the project, the intention was to find ''the best'' midrange driver. Not to fool everyone's mind with an identification blind test. It was rather a appreciative blind test that I had in mind, which means ''which one from A and B do you like the most'' sort of test...
But the thing is, any appreciative blind test MUST follow an identification blind test. The very logic behind that is you can't say you prefer chocolate ice cream from vanilla ice cream if tasted blindly you can't even differentiate the two... So far, you follow me?
So here is the thing: I DID NOT put much effort in the EQ. Was even a bit sloppy, to be honest. Simply because, in my mind, that was not the real test at that moment. In my mind differences would be soooo obvious between each drivers that I made that test more as a formality.
But then, BOOM. Surprise. Even with that sloppy EQ, leaving obviously sonic differences between each drivers, we were UNABLE to spot them from each other.
See where I'm going with that?
Why bother doing some ultra-precise 1/48 octave EQ within 0.1db if the sloppy EQ is already blurring everything and fooling our senses?
...on the other hand, you can be damn sure if we were ABLE to spot, say, the compression driver from the Voxativ, I would have made further EQing to make sure it couldnt be improved...
So basically, a bad EQ or a sloppy SPL-matching would have HELP to identify said drivers, not the other way around. It's simple logic.
In fact, basically ANY flaw in that test, in regards of calibration or misalignment of axis, would have open doors to spot the drivers.
But it didnt happen. Not even close.
Last edited:
Can you imagine Marty, I paid thousands for a pair of Voxativ fullranges that basically were indistinguishable from some 10$ drivers...
But, hey, let's be fair with the german marvel: it was able to go well over 100db, and all the way to 18-20khz without EQ correction, and with pretty decent power response for a 8 incher. Not to mention the nice look.
Well, I still expected more from it.
EQ and SPL matching was made obviously to avoid identifying the drivers solely because of their (huge) natural differences...
But now that I made the test, I wouldnt be surprised at all if two similar specd drivers would be indistinguishable even NOT matched with an EQ or SPL..
In fact, it takes a minimum of 0.3db differencial and sometimes up to 1.5db differencial to spot a difference in regards of SPL.
Also, on the frequency response, you can have as much as 1/2 octave differencial and not being able to spot it blindly...
1.5db and 1/2 octave... that's a lot.
For the participants, it would be both difficult to bear round after round and probably more confusing than simply music.
Also, results would be somewhat irrelevant. One can argue that nobody listens pure tones. Well, not normal people at least.
The biggest FLAW in the test appears to be the qualifications of the listeners, which you so far have failed to reveal or discuss. Without qualified listeners the rest of anything you post is useless.
Have you ever read Toole? It does not appear that you have.
Are you talking about the holy quest of the golden ear?
What is, for you, a ''qualified listener'' ?
Would be very curious to hear about the official definition of that.
Good point.
All the info is in the other threads but I will make the effort to gather everything I can in post #1 later.
And to answer your question: yes, the midrange: 360hz-7200hz exclusively.
First, it was planned as the first of few speaker tests (next would have been tweeters and woofer/subwoofers)...
Also, was the easiest to organize because it's bearable to hear only 360-7200hz alone, while testing the tweeters and subs would have needed a common midrange/fullrange...
Also, pushing the drivers as low as 360hz was a challenge for some (the Radian 950PB-BE) and it was a challenge to push some to 7200hz (Dayton woofer), so we decided that 360-7200hz bandwith was the maximum possible for that test.
Last edited:
You haven't answered the question as to whether you have ever read Toole or not on this subject. From the looks of your approach to testing it would appear that you have not.
These discussions are always pointless and go nowhere, endless repetition and ducking and diving. As someone alluded to, the OP has used a variation of his usual clickbait thread title, he's probably just bored.
That's a rather presumptuous assumption, isn't it ?
These discussions, my dear fellow DIYer, are ''always pointless and go nowhere'', as you say, when some individuals are not participating in a constructive fashion.
Should I presumptuously assume you are one of them?
Next.
I wonder where you've been, back with a vengence now it seems.
You know people like to assume one of two camps in this arguement, they never change their minds, ie, a waste of time.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.