OK so only ever two drivers are compared. This makes the original premise that no one could pick any difference with any of the drivers a little misleading. The real statement is that no one could pick a difference between two particular drivers.
Were any pairings of say a 2" driver compared to a 10" driver in the AB/X, it is not clear from the first post. Certainly 150 rounds is way less than every driver combination.
Also Art's question was something I was thinking was critical (I haven't seen an answer yet). You say it was a "good room". Does that mean that there was room treatment to deal with reflections etc?
Tony.
Cmon, it's perfectly possible to conduct a creditable test without reading Tool of course. The biggest flaw in this thread is that the whole testing procedure was not described in the first place. With details in setup, procedure and results - the lot. It cant simply be judged as it is now. That will take a few pages to do in a complete manner.
//
Even if they did not cover all combinations the result should still be relevant. Would the strange if they would have missed the only magic combination that would yield a positive determination. BTW, with 150 rounds, they could actually have covered all combinations (which is 66 if there were 12 drivers under test).
That's probably because they replaced the audio engineers with marketing people 😀
What I was wondering about: were the these tests performed at various output levels, or just a single one (which)?
What we here is direct + indirect sound.
We can't EQ off axis response to match on axis response as both will change.
As every driver has an unique on and off axis response, you can't make 2 drivers sound identical.
2 drivers with similar frequency response can sound very different.
It is not the frequency response but the spectral decay (frequency response in time) which is most important measurement to how a driver sounds. See first link in my sig.
We can't EQ off axis response to match on axis response as both will change.
As every driver has an unique on and off axis response, you can't make 2 drivers sound identical.
2 drivers with similar frequency response can sound very different.
It is not the frequency response but the spectral decay (frequency response in time) which is most important measurement to how a driver sounds. See first link in my sig.
Last edited:
You seem to be suggesting that distortion and decay rates were completely inaudible across your group of drivers. We can only assume that you included high and low distortion units in the mix as well as fast and slow settling units, but there are no details of the units used.
Assuming that there are audible differences radiating from the drive units, a poor listening environment could mask these difference. IMO, a test like this could only be valid if performed in an anechoic chamber.
Similarly, poor recordings or playback equipment could diminish differences.
There are plenty more flaws in this test, as presented, which is a pity because it is a very interesting subject.
reading first and last page (9), what is the purpose of this thread?
just like...
if you ride 125cc bike @80mph and 1000cc bike at the same speed, the rider and others on the street will say they are at the same speed
so OP wants to say (in a bar full of Harley owner), get rid of your 1000cc bike, any decent scooter will be the same speed at 30,40,50,60,70,80 mph
and back to topic, it seems that OP wants to say : ACR 610 ($4 each) will sound the same as SBA SATORI MW16P-8 when they are eQ'd to the same output 😀 😛
i know that OP already created several thread about several testing, it's just the final conclusion that is not acceptable
Hifi ACR | ACR Speaker
btw, they are produced bu the same company just different line products
just like...
if you ride 125cc bike @80mph and 1000cc bike at the same speed, the rider and others on the street will say they are at the same speed
so OP wants to say (in a bar full of Harley owner), get rid of your 1000cc bike, any decent scooter will be the same speed at 30,40,50,60,70,80 mph
and back to topic, it seems that OP wants to say : ACR 610 ($4 each) will sound the same as SBA SATORI MW16P-8 when they are eQ'd to the same output 😀 😛
i know that OP already created several thread about several testing, it's just the final conclusion that is not acceptable
Hifi ACR | ACR Speaker
btw, they are produced bu the same company just different line products
Hmmm yes, too long since I have done combinations and permutations! Math failure on my part! 🙂 But considering the text of the below post
I'm thinking probably not a lot more than 6 combinations were tried, which would be the minimum to compare all 12 drivers on hand....
edit: also another thing. Only listening to one, then the other then the X and having to decide, is not enough IMO. How can someone become familiar enough with the charateristics of each driver to be able to make an identification after only hearing each one once?
Tony.
Last edited:
Yes, even though (as Jon pointed out, somewhat ironically repeating a line I've heard often from the subjectivist camp) we never listen pure test tones, I do think it would be interesting.
Siegfried Linkwitz's article about testing numerous midrange drivers used a sine test tone amplitude modulated at 1/10th the frequency of the tone. With a 15Hz modulated 150Hz tone he described the differences between drivers as easy to hear, harder at 800Hz.
That was never in question. The premise of the thread is that when eq'd, we weren't going to hear a difference between a 10" pro woofer and a 2" exit compression driver, if the bandwidth was limited. I simply suggested a way to show that is likely far from the truth.
Oh, to be clear - I agree with you. I only noted Jon's counterargument because it amused me since I've heard it more often from the 'other side' in hand-wavy explanations of why 0.001% THD just isn't good enough from a power amplifier.
I think it's very likely that a pure test tone will reveal audible differences.
Establishing that differences are audible under some (reasonable, e.g. within the rated power handling of the driver) conditions seems a worthwhile goal. Obviously how and when music signals might mask those differences or any correlation to subjective preference are further questions.
It is an accepted form of practice,
Test/measure some kind of difference.
Refer to, or conduct a study on the audibility of that kind of distortion.
Is there enough in this case to be an issue..
Test/measure some kind of difference.
Refer to, or conduct a study on the audibility of that kind of distortion.
Is there enough in this case to be an issue..
True. Questionable if it always works as intended though: Human psychoacoustic (medical) testing is very hard to do properly.
Last edited:
Hi Jon, thanks for the followup.
I had fully understood what you were doing as far as ABX, and didn't think you were trying to make any subjective rankings or assessments. Like you say, ABX is very straightforward.
That no one can simply correctly identify such disparate drivers you described, is what i find so incredulous.
I mean, 320-7200 Hz spans about 4.5 octaves.....
When you say no one can identify a 2" CD vs a 10" pro mid,
i'm like wow! and huh???
To start, not many CD's have any output at 320Hz to begin with...which in part was why i asked how you mounted the drivers. Was a horn needed for loading ?
And a true pro 10" would be optimized for SPL, with bandwidth that falls off waay below 7200Hz.
It would take some crazy EQ boosts, and/or cuts, to level out those two drivers from 320-7200 Hz.
It would also require a fairly low listening level to compensate for the radical EQs needed.
I was hoping you would tell me that you used the DEQX to make EQ and level adjusments.
And then describe a low level listening environment for the ABX.
That begins to at least maybe pass the smell test........
But when you say not much effort went into EQ, and folks still couldn't identify...like i said before...wow! and huh??
I assume the levels were fairly low... can't be blasting peoples ears all day. We both like live dynamics and no small driver has a chance in hell at keeping up with a prosound 10" at the upper end of its capabilities.
JonBocani "...No Audible Difference!" threads have never been credible.
I'm waiting for the people who defended the one on dacs to start defending this one
I'm waiting for the people who defended the one on dacs to start defending this one
Just a note... I'm am reading Tool's book... not red all of it yet. But I'm past the section where he writes about experience and blindtesting. The main thing he points out in that respect - is that the inexperienced points out the same things as the experienced - but - the experienced listener just does is quicker and with more confidence.
Is has to be done blind, since both groups have problems with sighted test' - cause they either have "experience" or gets intimidated by looks, brand or price.
The test itself... I have EQ'ed tons of speakers - and just because the FR is flat - does not make them sound exactly the same. You can make them all be minimally irritating - at the same level - but especially FIR correction - like in DEQX - kills all dynamics, but you get that fine flat FR.
We really need to measure everything - and do it in the same manner for all speakers - a standard!
I do agree that you can make more speakers sound pleasing, by adding EQ at a sensible level. And for test - I do agree that removing sound beneath 3-400hz is good too - cause that is so incredibly dominated by the room, that EQ becomes a differenct animal, than above this frequency. Also above 7-8Khz - the sound-energy becomes very low and only adds very little in the total picture.
To make a 10" and 2" sound the same...... arhhh.... that's a tough one. You might see a nice flat curve - but at 800hz, most 2" start falling like a brick - unless at a very low level - sensitivity-level anyone??
What we might benifit from all of this - is - something that we might know deep down - but many neglect. Is that measuring the FR, has to be done well - and EQ has to be done very well too - or else we very easily get into deep trouble. Speakers that measure well - not those silly ones done in the sweetspot, where everything is one big averaged mess - but chose done with care and effort - mostly sound good.
I measured the Focal Alto Utopia BE - and it measures flat and nice - sound good too. It just lack openess cause of the passive design. My own system measures flat - but sound way more open - because it's active and different drivers.
I agree that some might no hear that difference - and it was not done blind. But everything in the Focal paper midrange just explains so very easily why I find it dull compared to my Accuton midrange. Cause I ditched all paper midranges in my active system for the same reason.
FR alone is good - but not enough 😉
Is has to be done blind, since both groups have problems with sighted test' - cause they either have "experience" or gets intimidated by looks, brand or price.
The test itself... I have EQ'ed tons of speakers - and just because the FR is flat - does not make them sound exactly the same. You can make them all be minimally irritating - at the same level - but especially FIR correction - like in DEQX - kills all dynamics, but you get that fine flat FR.
We really need to measure everything - and do it in the same manner for all speakers - a standard!
I do agree that you can make more speakers sound pleasing, by adding EQ at a sensible level. And for test - I do agree that removing sound beneath 3-400hz is good too - cause that is so incredibly dominated by the room, that EQ becomes a differenct animal, than above this frequency. Also above 7-8Khz - the sound-energy becomes very low and only adds very little in the total picture.
To make a 10" and 2" sound the same...... arhhh.... that's a tough one. You might see a nice flat curve - but at 800hz, most 2" start falling like a brick - unless at a very low level - sensitivity-level anyone??
What we might benifit from all of this - is - something that we might know deep down - but many neglect. Is that measuring the FR, has to be done well - and EQ has to be done very well too - or else we very easily get into deep trouble. Speakers that measure well - not those silly ones done in the sweetspot, where everything is one big averaged mess - but chose done with care and effort - mostly sound good.
I measured the Focal Alto Utopia BE - and it measures flat and nice - sound good too. It just lack openess cause of the passive design. My own system measures flat - but sound way more open - because it's active and different drivers.
I agree that some might no hear that difference - and it was not done blind. But everything in the Focal paper midrange just explains so very easily why I find it dull compared to my Accuton midrange. Cause I ditched all paper midranges in my active system for the same reason.
FR alone is good - but not enough 😉
Last edited:
How does EQ 'equalize' off-axis room contribution from drivers with different dispersion patterns?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.