soooo in a typical room , am I to believe that IF I take two planer magnetic midrange drivers with identical constructions ( same identical magnets, foils, plastics, etc.
BUT one is a 5x5" size and the other is a 10x10 " size. They will sound same?
Seems to me the dispersion alone would change the sound eqed or not ?
BUT one is a 5x5" size and the other is a 10x10 " size. They will sound same?
Seems to me the dispersion alone would change the sound eqed or not ?
updated post#1 with the info about the horn.
*Only horn that could fit our cube + had good reviews + was good for 500hz.
I know there is probably BILLIONS of better horns out there. But that's besides the point entirely, it was not a comparative test about horns, but about drivers as various as compression driver and 8'' woofer, to 3'' fullrange.
Feel free to organize another similar test using a bigger testing cube with a bigger/better horn if you wish.
*Only horn that could fit our cube + had good reviews + was good for 500hz.
I know there is probably BILLIONS of better horns out there. But that's besides the point entirely, it was not a comparative test about horns, but about drivers as various as compression driver and 8'' woofer, to 3'' fullrange.
Feel free to organize another similar test using a bigger testing cube with a bigger/better horn if you wish.
Thank you for showing us that you are at least as bad at amateur psychology as you are at sensory testing.
Got it Scott.
I think it's a misunderstanding, that's all.
When I say I didnt put much effort in EQ is simply because I had a list of 22 or 25 drivers to test (finally did only 8) and I had to make an EQ for each. So instead of trying to make a flat FR from 360-7200hz and SPL-matching that would be within 0.1db, it was 0.5-1.0db. That is, for me, ''sloppy''. Because for my own system, I would spend the time to get it as precise as I can.
That being said, I was ready to redo the EQ on all drivers -IF NEEDED- after the pre-testing phase. But it appears, Ô surprise, that even with ''sloppy'' EQing, the drivers were indistinguishable.
So, why would I want to put more time on the EQ when the very reason to do so at first was to ''hide'' the drivers ?
Is my logic explained clearly enough?
Oh but I'm not, sir.
On the contrary, I think I nailed the 3 reasons like a sniper.
People usually don't want to put efforts in anything that have a slight risk of shaking their reality, their beliefs and their truths.
People here are inviting me to read Toole. Let me invite you to read Søren Kierkegaard and let's talk later, shall we?
Amateur!
MY! ultimate midder will have a voice coil made of room temurature superconducting wire on a multi-dimensional hypercube former, operating in an infinite magnetic field where all of the force lines are perfectly parallel all the way out to the edge of spacetime itself...😀
Mike
Last edited:
Well, I can understand why, but without anything (I stress) personal implied, it's still poor methodology / procedure if you are engaged in what seems to be being presented as a scientific psychoacoustic study which you intended to present more widely. You have to be strict about such things, even if you think it isn't necessary.
What would likely have prevented much questioning would be if you had started the thread giving in a single post:
-Full details of test / experimental objectives
-Full details of test proceedure and the analysis undertaken in order to establish those boundaries
-Full details of the test setup, equipment, room & the units compared
-Full test results, your analysis of these and conclusions you drew.
You can still do that, and it will prevent further wasted time & effort by all parties: the rest of us won't have to spend time speculating and second guessing what you have done, and you won't have to waste time answering queries that could have been avoided in the first place. Assuming your objective for the thread was providing information for discussion, said information is what's required rather than statements sans supporting data and somewhat random hints about what was actually done. A reasonable degree of scepticism in the absense of this is understandable n'est ce pas?
What would likely have prevented much questioning would be if you had started the thread giving in a single post:
-Full details of test / experimental objectives
-Full details of test proceedure and the analysis undertaken in order to establish those boundaries
-Full details of the test setup, equipment, room & the units compared
-Full test results, your analysis of these and conclusions you drew.
You can still do that, and it will prevent further wasted time & effort by all parties: the rest of us won't have to spend time speculating and second guessing what you have done, and you won't have to waste time answering queries that could have been avoided in the first place. Assuming your objective for the thread was providing information for discussion, said information is what's required rather than statements sans supporting data and somewhat random hints about what was actually done. A reasonable degree of scepticism in the absense of this is understandable n'est ce pas?
People allergic to EQ (DSP, digital processing of any kind, etc..) are all over the place on Audiophilia. Our friend, Planet10, waits for a 24/192 DSP... Many reasons, many angles, many types of allergies. But it's not my circus, not my monkeys. People are free to choose what they want, exactly as I am.
As for the EQ sloppyness, I took it for granted that people here would understand that ''sloppyness'' would actually HELP to identify the drivers. Not the other way around. Simple logic.
My JOB, as a blindtest organizer, is to be sure no participant will identify ''X'' with clues that are not part of the test. By exemple: We had a protocole to turn the rotative plate 10 seconds in ''random'', just so the participants wouldnt know if, say, after ''B'' was presented, ''X'' was identified as ''B'' just because the plate didnt rotate... You know what I mean?
I'm not saying people are cheaters, I'm just saying that people that are extremely focused on something will try to grasp any clue available. Especially in this somewhat competitive context (testing people's own skills).
So, that story of EQ sloppiness is entirely irrelevant as a potential ''test flaw''... Actually, on the contrary, it just SHOWS how overestimated are our ears/brains combo.
Last edited:
Thank you for the demonstration.
And I'm the bad amateur in psychology.
Ok...
Mark, can we discuss the topic, por favor, in a constructive way? This ego-driven stuff is going nowhere.
🙂
Scott, let's get real here.
I organized 3 ''official'' blindtests.
The first one involved hundreds of participants and was covered by a journalist (Alain Brunet) from one of the biggest media in Canada, Lapresse.ca. who is also the founder of panm360. He knows the music, to say the least... Among other participants: sound engineers, musicians, luthier and lots and lots of audiophiles.
The two others were not as big but were conducted with the same seriousness, in the same audio lab, with the same equipment.
I can say that's already more than what 99.9% of amateurs would be willing to do.
Now, I'm not part of some University research program. Nor some multinational R&D project that is backed-up with millions of dollars. These tests costs money. It takes time to organize, time to recruit the participants and time is money. Not to mention buying the components required for the test.
So, I warmfully welcome everyone, everyone... To organize their OWN test. The way they want. And start threads about it, if they want...
But I feel I did my part, especially as an ''amateur''. 😉
The most interesting part in this discussion, is that people continue arguing with price per driver.
I have been involved as a professional for over a decade now and there is little correlation between price and performance (obviously there is a little).
But I think most people don't seem to understand that giving a driver an nice looking face (so that nice rounded rim/frame/basket you're looking at, or the nicely rounded magnet on the back, or coated materials) will add A LOT to its price, while it adds close to nothing to its performance.
The same goes to some extend for cone materials.
While some materials do perform DIFFERENTLY, the price can increase exponentially compared to something like (impregnated) paper.
Typically this becomes very clear when you've experienced OEM versions of the same driver.
Which are quite often butt naked, perform the same but are really just a fraction of the price compared to the "good looking" part bought in the same amount of numbers.
That being out of the way, I personally miss quite some context in this experiment.
Mostly thinks like what sound pressure levels are we talking about and such?
Because that will say a lot how drivers perform.
I have been involved as a professional for over a decade now and there is little correlation between price and performance (obviously there is a little).
But I think most people don't seem to understand that giving a driver an nice looking face (so that nice rounded rim/frame/basket you're looking at, or the nicely rounded magnet on the back, or coated materials) will add A LOT to its price, while it adds close to nothing to its performance.
The same goes to some extend for cone materials.
While some materials do perform DIFFERENTLY, the price can increase exponentially compared to something like (impregnated) paper.
Typically this becomes very clear when you've experienced OEM versions of the same driver.
Which are quite often butt naked, perform the same but are really just a fraction of the price compared to the "good looking" part bought in the same amount of numbers.
That being out of the way, I personally miss quite some context in this experiment.
Mostly thinks like what sound pressure levels are we talking about and such?
Because that will say a lot how drivers perform.
Not that bad. I mean, I wouldnt listen to music that way, but it was very comfortable for everyone since it was presented as a test. Nothing more, nothing less.
We tried to get the widest bandwith possible but at some point we were limited by the drivers.
On the other hand, testing tweeters or sub/woofers would require a common speaker, or it would be unbearable.
Was thinking the same thing. The level must have been in the comfort zone of all DUTs. The results seem still provisionally valid if a little more constrained.
You like to debate more than you like to provide useful information about what you did.
Are you ready to say how you selected your test subjects? Demographics? Randomization?
Did they have a chance to train on the equipment prior to testing?
Any positive controls?
Why did you use a class-D amplifier?
Why do you describe the dac as a $4,000 studio dac rather than describing technically for what it is, an outdated PCM1794 dac?
Have you done any college coursework in sensory testing?
Have you studied any of the present-day academic sensory testing literature?
Why is getting details out of you like pulling teeth, why don't you just provide what people are asking for?
What is the 'cube,' and how was it constructed? Separate volumes for each speaker, sealed/ported, volume per speaker, front surface area, tested for vibration, etc.?
Because you have no positive controls we don't know if your apparatus could be used to detect any level of true-audible transducer differences.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.