..and did they sound "faster" than something like a Morel tweeter (assuming the same bandwidth and intensity)?
BTW, it's not necessarily "one better" - in that it's a tweeter and not something lower in freq.. (..and in fact most "gravitate" toward using "fast" as a descriptor with bass, not mid-range or treble).
In my experience CLSII's are still very "present" in my memory (almost 30 years later) for sounding noticeably "faster" than other designs in the lower mid-range and upper bass. This is despite the fact that I know they measure very poorly with linear decay. (Acoustat's I heard also had this quality, though they were considerably worse overall than the CLSII's.)
Another example for me was the lower mid-range on a Lowther in a back-loaded horn - very "fast" sounding.
Both examples though had plenty of flaws which basically resulted in a response of "..if only they didn't do this, and this, and this, poorly".
BTW, it's not necessarily "one better" - in that it's a tweeter and not something lower in freq.. (..and in fact most "gravitate" toward using "fast" as a descriptor with bass, not mid-range or treble).
In my experience CLSII's are still very "present" in my memory (almost 30 years later) for sounding noticeably "faster" than other designs in the lower mid-range and upper bass. This is despite the fact that I know they measure very poorly with linear decay. (Acoustat's I heard also had this quality, though they were considerably worse overall than the CLSII's.)
Another example for me was the lower mid-range on a Lowther in a back-loaded horn - very "fast" sounding.
Both examples though had plenty of flaws which basically resulted in a response of "..if only they didn't do this, and this, and this, poorly".
Last edited:
My first speakers and headphones after graduation were ESL63 (ARC D70 II) and Stax Lambda Pro (SRM1-MkII). If only guitar fortissimo hadn't sounded like harp. So naturally I moved on to Lowther and other fullrange etc, while keeping as "constant reference" various-size Monitor Audio Studio all-alloy drivers and first-order-XO (vent often plugged). Transcient response realism and articulation accuracy (micro-dynamic linearity etc) have been number one and two for me. (Gold standard being >100 live acoustic instrument/voice concerts from front row.)
The other week I wondered if my speakers' speakers ( !!! ) were in quadrature or not. Or whether some discontinuity from perfect quadrature would have provoked a different sound.
I lived in fear the last days of 2022
😵
Then I ate and drank, slept...now, who cares ??
😆
I lived in fear the last days of 2022
😵
Then I ate and drank, slept...now, who cares ??
😆
I have the gut feeling that often people talk of "fast bass" when it is actually lacking low end extension.
Regards
Charles
Regards
Charles
Although I admire Joseph's attempt, i.m.o. the elephant in the room is not discussed yet: the plots look like single point on axis measurements. What we perceive is also determined by off axis behaviour. The two DUT's will have rather differing off axis behaviour, thus illuminating the listening room/space in somewhat different ways.
Yet I am curious to learn whether Joseph perceived differences in feeding the drivers with square waves.
Yet I am curious to learn whether Joseph perceived differences in feeding the drivers with square waves.
I don't want fast because 'normal' done right will cleanly produce the fastest transients.. but it won't be that way unless the recording is that way.
No.
Over the holidays i had friends over. Besides eating and drinking and talking, we compared four pairs of speakers in my main system. And played lots of muzik. All day, all night.
But, every time i changed to next speakers, i performed eq. I always eq with behringer mic and behringer ultracurve 31 band using build in auto function to flat in the listening position.
I do this every time i make change to the system. Weather speaker change, or preamp, or amp...
This is constant, eq flat in the listening chair, ultracurve has 100 memories, so no problem.
This is how i compare stuff.
After a lots of various types of muzik, we all agreed on the best speakers. So the #1 was clear. Most neutral, musical, accurate, clean, smooth, sweet, least amount of flawes, no apparent distortion.
Interesting, we all agreed on #1.
But when it comes to others, the order was slightly different.
Inspite of eq, some sounded little brighter, more highs. I contribute this to directivity. Some speakers have wider spray of sound with less directivity. Inspite of eq, they sound brighter.
And vice versa.
I know eq is not the answer to everything, but this is what i decided to do long time ago, so i keep doing it.
Similarly with amplifiers, i do eq, and due to the differences in damping factor, some eq is required, mainly for classA amps.
Back to speakers.
Out of four pairs we compared (i have more...but it would not be practical) each still had its own signature. Each i could live with, but still some of us had different preferrence.
Part of the character of each speaker is musicality, coherence, focus, stereo image, soundstage. And dynamics too. Maybe speed is part of it.
Long post sorry.
Had a quick look at your data.
First - when you want to compare speakers you have to match them AT LEAST to +-0,5dB! You have up to 5dB difference ... that doesn't work!
Second - check THD. Over frequency and with a few different levels. There is so much information in there - e.g. high K2 gives asymmetric response with square waves. And you can check if your speakers are working correctly or are overdriven.
Third - share some details about your measurement setup if you want us to comment the measurements. You need same baffles, distances etc cause this influences the measurement significant.
And - your phase measurement seems off - it looks like there is some delay which is not compensated.
Discussing measurements, finding differences and discussing psychoacustic terms like "fast" only makes sense when the data is reliable. And I fall for that often enough in my career - everyone faces the same difficulties 😉
First - when you want to compare speakers you have to match them AT LEAST to +-0,5dB! You have up to 5dB difference ... that doesn't work!
Second - check THD. Over frequency and with a few different levels. There is so much information in there - e.g. high K2 gives asymmetric response with square waves. And you can check if your speakers are working correctly or are overdriven.
Third - share some details about your measurement setup if you want us to comment the measurements. You need same baffles, distances etc cause this influences the measurement significant.
And - your phase measurement seems off - it looks like there is some delay which is not compensated.
Discussing measurements, finding differences and discussing psychoacustic terms like "fast" only makes sense when the data is reliable. And I fall for that often enough in my career - everyone faces the same difficulties 😉
Mostly I would say that this is a testament to that a mic does not behave as your ear-brain.
//
Fast bass often is lean bass without much extension. A bump in the lower mids can give this impression, even if the system is somewhat underdamped. Most of the time a perceived tonal imbalance will indirectly enhance otherwise less noticed areas. People can be suckers for slightly emphasized upper mids and treble. This all depends on what level the music is being played back at, so an initially detailed sounding speaker can become harsh and fatiquing to listen to at higher volume.
Our ears also prefer to hear a certain amount of coloration that can make a speaker sound engaging and interesting. Only people with educated ears are typically drawn towards a truly clean and accurate sounding speaker. The other unaware consumer who typically buys Bose and Beats products won't care about accuracy and will likely only listen to music passively to have some background noise as a distraction.
Our ears also prefer to hear a certain amount of coloration that can make a speaker sound engaging and interesting. Only people with educated ears are typically drawn towards a truly clean and accurate sounding speaker. The other unaware consumer who typically buys Bose and Beats products won't care about accuracy and will likely only listen to music passively to have some background noise as a distraction.
I have tried to reason what might be fast bass and came to conclusion its likely rooms influence. If the bass of a speaker system is lean like profiguy and phase_accurate suggests the bass is probably more balanced in room. In room response stays without significant peaks and probably sounds "fast". On the other hand reflex boxes and subs and stuff people like to associate with "slow" extend the bass and activate room modes that boom. So I think impression of fast bass is not directly property of speaker but rooms and how it interacts with it.
Well, could be group delay or headroom stuff as well. Its certainly not cone acceleration because cone acceleration is SPL, frequency response.
Anyone have "fast" or "slow" speakers? Try them outside. My theory should turn speaker that can be described "fast" indoors into "lean bass" outside. a "slow" speaker should turn "fast" when brought outside. Perhaps easier would be just to EQ a system indoors 🙂
Well, could be group delay or headroom stuff as well. Its certainly not cone acceleration because cone acceleration is SPL, frequency response.
Anyone have "fast" or "slow" speakers? Try them outside. My theory should turn speaker that can be described "fast" indoors into "lean bass" outside. a "slow" speaker should turn "fast" when brought outside. Perhaps easier would be just to EQ a system indoors 🙂
Thank you for the constructive feedback. I'll revisit.
Can we measure "Fast"?
I'd say yes, very easily; but so simply so, it gets nearly entirely overlooked.
Ok, first what 'sounds' faster...? Full-range, transient perfect response, is my answer.
For a given bandwidth, flat frequency (magnitude response) sounds faster than uneven response.
Flat phase across that flat magnitude sounds yet faster.
Extending the given bandwidth to the far edges of audibility, with flat frequency & phase response .........sounds as fast as it can get, to my ears.
So Bottom line...... flat mag and phase across the widest bandwidth achievable, is the definition of "Fast", imso.
Measured by the two bedrock audio measurements that all others are built off of.... simple freq response magnitude and phase.
(And being entirely objective: I've found it remarkable how all ancillary measurements, ......impulse, ETC, step, square waves, spectro, wavelets, CSD, burst decay, etc....all improve together in lock-step with improvement in mag and phase.)
just my fast 2c 🙂
Not sure I am following. Given this reasoning wouldn't a reasonable 2 or 3 way with a wider flatter response therefore sound faster?
I don't the the number of ways matter.
I think all that matters, is for whatever the speaker type...is flat mag and phase across its achievable bandwidth.....for best transient response within that achievable bandwidth.
If bandwidth is extended by multi-ways, then same prime objective applies. Keeping mag and phase flat across the extended bandwidth.
Problems are, and at the roots of "fast" debates,
-is that keeping bandwidth's frequency response (magnitude) flat, is difficult at the ends of the spectrum, especially the low end.
Subwoofer integration for example.
-and keeping phase flat is increasingly difficult with each additional way added to extend bandwidth, due to xover count.
Full range electrostat vs 2-way vs 3-way....etc. Each way added moves further from flat phase (assuming passive or IIR xovers)
I think all that matters, is for whatever the speaker type...is flat mag and phase across its achievable bandwidth.....for best transient response within that achievable bandwidth.
If bandwidth is extended by multi-ways, then same prime objective applies. Keeping mag and phase flat across the extended bandwidth.
Problems are, and at the roots of "fast" debates,
-is that keeping bandwidth's frequency response (magnitude) flat, is difficult at the ends of the spectrum, especially the low end.
Subwoofer integration for example.
-and keeping phase flat is increasingly difficult with each additional way added to extend bandwidth, due to xover count.
Full range electrostat vs 2-way vs 3-way....etc. Each way added moves further from flat phase (assuming passive or IIR xovers)
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe the "sounds fast" phenomenon lies in the drivers' suspension control. Seems to me that the better controlled driver suspension would lead to less signal overhang leading to better perceived transients ... so "sounds faster" to the listener. Doesn't Klippel provide for some testing in regard to driver suspension parts? Might be that one particular drivers' ratio of mass to suspension stiffness differs from another drivers' which leads to the "fast(er)" sensation.
I suspect that the suspension is relatively insignificant compared with the enclosure loading the driver, particularly the floppy ones associated with hifi speakers. The spider(s) generally have far greater control of the cone than the suspension, however I do accept that the surround does play a role in terminating the cone's edge and damping unwanted vibration modes.
People often get hung up about individual specs of a driver, overlooking the application in a complete system. A woofer with lower Qts in a less than optimally designed vented box can sound much worse than a high Qts woofer in a correctly designed and dampened large sealed box. Box alignment has way more to do with it all than the driver itself, regardless how nerdy the specs are.
Designated bandwidth and application matters alot, as you can have a larger budget LF driver with seemingly poor specs on paper ie high Le, low BL perform very well in an infinite or open baffle design operating under 100 hz at minimal required cone excursion, keeping HD low. I've often been surprised how tight and articulate a cheap large woofer can sound in this type of application.
Designated bandwidth and application matters alot, as you can have a larger budget LF driver with seemingly poor specs on paper ie high Le, low BL perform very well in an infinite or open baffle design operating under 100 hz at minimal required cone excursion, keeping HD low. I've often been surprised how tight and articulate a cheap large woofer can sound in this type of application.
