is there a specific sound to drivers from different brands? 😕
do scan-speak have their sound? seas? sb acoustics? visaton?
do scan-speak have their sound? seas? sb acoustics? visaton?
Sometimes yes, but along the same line, drivers from the same manufacturer can sound wholly different.
Practically every driver design, whether from the same manufacturer or not, has it's own characteristics and thus it's own sound.
Do some companies favour a particular sound... Yep. I think they do.
A question on my mind would be do they sound the same after being equalised and crossed to their useable range..
the question arised when i read a post in a different thread where the poster compared driver mfr's to car mfr's, sb acoustics where a cheap car, s-s where like a bmw and accuton like a supercar, and this where for sound quality
this got me thinking, yeah maybe sb acoustics drivers do sounds a bit laid back and shut in and not so much fun or finesse. s-s sounds more agile and upfront and more details. and accuton, wow this is pure magic, this is music at its finest
this got me thinking, yeah maybe sb acoustics drivers do sounds a bit laid back and shut in and not so much fun or finesse. s-s sounds more agile and upfront and more details. and accuton, wow this is pure magic, this is music at its finest
Agreed. But I do believe that a hard-cone driver, is more pistonic in it's range, which potentialy can make it sound more detailed than a softer cone. Maybe this is due to the softer cone being like a damper, to smooth out the breakup - compared to the harder cones, that need a notch filte or EQ to remove their typical big breakup.
So when I experiment with different 5" midranges - I tend to sense more detail from the hard cones like Accuton, than with SS - even though the FR was very flat +/-1dB in both cases.
Hmm, much happening in the breakup region. What if it were crossed out, same frequency for each woofer of the same size, for example?
Which addresses many / most of the mechanical issues, but at least in part leaves the question of distortion performance as related to the motor design. Granted, as Toole & others have indicated, up to a point HD isn't necessarily as audible as the measurements might imply, but that only holds up to a point. Assuming all units are operating as pistons and any stopband resonance is shunted sufficiently low to be inaudible, then if the motors are roughly equal, they should sound the same. Personally I think some characteristics are overstated & a good number of drivers would sound much more similar under those conditions (even identical) than many would like to believe. But that does leave a lot of leeway though, and relies on quite a few assumptions. Cone profile & dispersion will come into it as well, since those may affect the overall polars if you maintain a given XO frequency.
Last edited:
Any mechanical device, or even object, will have its own natural resonances.
Each set of resonance sounds will be determined by the materials, shape, and any applied damping, the latter with varying degrees of application and success.
Essentailly there are two different types of cone; pistonic, and flexible, the latter an attempt to achieve a broader band in application. These tend to be more self damping because the required flexibility necessitates materials which have more inherent damping.
The former tend to ring, and so external damping is applied to absorb the energy from them.
With speaker design we are attempting to remove all of the natural resonances of all the materials, which is impossible, so it is q question of degree of success.
Each set of resonance sounds will be determined by the materials, shape, and any applied damping, the latter with varying degrees of application and success.
Essentailly there are two different types of cone; pistonic, and flexible, the latter an attempt to achieve a broader band in application. These tend to be more self damping because the required flexibility necessitates materials which have more inherent damping.
The former tend to ring, and so external damping is applied to absorb the energy from them.
With speaker design we are attempting to remove all of the natural resonances of all the materials, which is impossible, so it is q question of degree of success.
Interesting point - since some drivers should sound the same - maybe they mostly sound different, because people treat them differently, because of their design, rather than the true potential they might have. So in a sense, they might sound very similar, if they were part of a design that gave them the best working conditions.
But who makes a true blindtest with different setups, that takes full advantage of different drivers? The Harmon test that Toole refer too, might be one of the only ones that truely come close to such a one:
YouTube
I use an AE TD15S woofer and actively cross to an 18Sound 6ND430. They have a smooth flat overlap from 100hz to over 2000hz. I can sweep the crossover point from 200hz to 700hz and get a different sounding system across the range. After spending an afternoon listening vocal heavy music I settled on a bit over 400hz for best balance between Johnny Cash and Ricky Lee Jones.
Perhaps; it would also depend on how 'true potential' and 'best working conditions' are themselves defined though. For example, paper, poly et al cone drivers are often designed for and used by those who desire a higher crossover frequency or a shallower crossover acoustical slope. Rigid metal cones designed with an eye to pistonic operation usually have either a narrower usable BW, or require steeper crossover slopes and / or stopband notches on the primary cone mode, so it's a different set of requirements, with their own balances of merits / demerits. Ultimately a matter of personal taste, which is also often reflected in parts of the driver design which may have been deliberately created to produce a given signature. Some understandably swoon over Kate Mara; I'm more in the Emilia Clarke camp.
Last edited:
They can sound different but not in a particular wisch of a brand vs another...imho ! But when they are focusing on a standalone technology as full ceramic, rohacel sandwich and so on.
If I dare, here a beginning of an answer perhaps :
At the opposite, they all try to satisfy the market on which they are : PA, DIY, speakers Manufacterers, Cheap market for low cost stuffs and so on.
Thiel&Smal parameters are known to acheive a sound/load, so main differences betweens brands are on design & material to reduce the most possible a sound signature and distorsion. But whatever nano thingy, Rohacel, bambou stuffed with Hermes silk coated with Chanel N°5 or japanese paper made from the last master, you have always to choose the driver according the trade offs of the design, voice coil length, turns and so on not being the last.
I would say : their goal is you can not hear it (no sound signature) but you can see it on the cone, face plate...marketing ! Measurements have the last word : we all want to see consistent datas - production often is not- edited from manufacterers : polar plots, LCR model of the drivers, % variation beteen two units as Kef for instance did in the 70s 80s. Distorsion curves till H5...
As AllenB suggested : EQ, DSP, easy multi amp nowadays, change many things...and reduce uncertainty in the final result.
According to me it's hard to say a brand has a particular sound, sources are not neutral, amplifiers are not, rooms are not and we don't listen to in anechoic chambers.
If I dare, here a beginning of an answer perhaps :
At the opposite, they all try to satisfy the market on which they are : PA, DIY, speakers Manufacterers, Cheap market for low cost stuffs and so on.
Thiel&Smal parameters are known to acheive a sound/load, so main differences betweens brands are on design & material to reduce the most possible a sound signature and distorsion. But whatever nano thingy, Rohacel, bambou stuffed with Hermes silk coated with Chanel N°5 or japanese paper made from the last master, you have always to choose the driver according the trade offs of the design, voice coil length, turns and so on not being the last.
I would say : their goal is you can not hear it (no sound signature) but you can see it on the cone, face plate...marketing ! Measurements have the last word : we all want to see consistent datas - production often is not- edited from manufacterers : polar plots, LCR model of the drivers, % variation beteen two units as Kef for instance did in the 70s 80s. Distorsion curves till H5...
As AllenB suggested : EQ, DSP, easy multi amp nowadays, change many things...and reduce uncertainty in the final result.
According to me it's hard to say a brand has a particular sound, sources are not neutral, amplifiers are not, rooms are not and we don't listen to in anechoic chambers.
In my opinion, no.
I had fun few weeks ago with friends when we compared four sets of speakers. Each set was perfectly equalized in listening position to be perfectly flat. I am talking about all system, not individual drivers.
Well, no surprise, there were differences between four systems.
I was pleased that my preference matched that of my friends, most of the time.
We did not do any fancy double blind stuff. Just fun.
The point i want to make is, even equed, they have differencies in their off axis response, differencies in directionality index, they each 'spray' the room differently.
We hear first arriving signal, then reflected little later. But it all together makes input to the brain.
Why should they not merely sound the same after eq
Eq takes away the original characteristics of a driver
Like the buffoons who diss pa drivers
Audiophooly
Hi if vs pa
A chap on here did a test of individual drivers and after dsp etc could not tell the difference but got slated
A wavelength is a wavelength
Eq takes away the original characteristics of a driver
Like the buffoons who diss pa drivers
Audiophooly
Hi if vs pa
A chap on here did a test of individual drivers and after dsp etc could not tell the difference but got slated
A wavelength is a wavelength
Except when it doesn't. EQ can do the square root of jack to alter the innate dispersion and distortion properties of a drive unit which are a function of physical configuration and design (cone profile, suspension, motor design &c.), and these can, and do affect perceived behaviour, as decades of acoustic research has demonstrated.
They are indeed mistaken if they insult well-designed drive units primarily envisioned for pro-audio (we've moved on from pure public announcement units) but applied appropriately in any situation where they may provide quality results.
Perhaps you could provide a link and the context?
Quite. Alas, drive unit performance is not as simple as the magical appearance of wavelengths, since efficiency, distortion performance, power handling, dispersion, crossover frequency & order and the quality of the latter's design also play a major role.
Without reading any other posts, a driver designer has to make a huge number of compromises. What set to use? This leads to the situation where you hope you can get some consistancy across a range of drivers of a makers specif series of drivers.
For instance, MA Alpair 5.2/3/A6.2m/A7.3/ms/A10.3/11ms all sound broadly the same whie the A6.2p/A10p/A12.2p do, but the A7p does not (i wish it did),
dave
For instance, MA Alpair 5.2/3/A6.2m/A7.3/ms/A10.3/11ms all sound broadly the same whie the A6.2p/A10p/A12.2p do, but the A7p does not (i wish it did),
dave
Actually, no.
Eq can and does correct for mismatches in level between drivers. But it can't change the differences innate in the frame, cone material, cone depth and linearity of the motor.
I'm thinking quite a bit more is changing other than the crossover frequency.
How you do it is of little consequence. What matters is that you know about it and do something 😉