Most of us define cone resonances as some kind of energy storage and delayed output. Of course one can debate an infinitely small section of a cone at the rim doesn’t move at a certain frequency due to ‘transverse waves’ which I would refer to as temporal elastic deformation. (I’m skipping bell modes here). But then there hardly would be energy storage, would there? And there would be no need for friction in the surround (Yeah, I still don’t see it). As soon as this section would move at a phase shift of more than 120 degrees, it would lead to less sound output and at 180 degrees cancellation would occur. But at that moment a resonant mode is present I guess.
A movement in coherence with the whole cone (below 120 degrees phase shift) wouldn’t classify as resonance (unless at a lower frequency the cone would be resonant already of course). And such movement would not need resistive behavior of the surround either, because the resistance would in fact lead to earlier breakup.
At least this would be my logic. I really think you are talking about cone resonances. And no, cone weight alone isn’t any quality criterium in itself. Why would it?
A movement in coherence with the whole cone (below 120 degrees phase shift) wouldn’t classify as resonance (unless at a lower frequency the cone would be resonant already of course). And such movement would not need resistive behavior of the surround either, because the resistance would in fact lead to earlier breakup.
At least this would be my logic. I really think you are talking about cone resonances. And no, cone weight alone isn’t any quality criterium in itself. Why would it?
It's not about pulling apart things or just about measurements. I think you're totally missing the point if that would your take on those things (with you I don't mean you personally, but more like "one" or "someone")
It's about gathering information to judge certain things an an equal level as much as possible. Ideally cross correlating with hearing tests.
Just using a bunch of speakers in some kind of environment where most of them are either not optimized for, or have very obvious differences in sence of performance, is for me personally not useful.
Actually, I have quite some very different experiences with most of the drivers mentioned.
The reason why mentioning those kind of things and that there is a very big difference between subjective and anecdotal listening tests is important.
Otherwise we run the risk of spreading misinformation and drawing wrong conclusions based on non objective data.
I am totally cool if that is not someone's cup of tea, in fact I don't even care. We all make non rational decisions and have our own taste. Do whatever makes you happy and fullfilled.
But let's make the difference extremely obvious between subjective taste made by subjective (debatable) "tests" (if you can even call it that) and actual objective data.
"Sweet", "musical", "whatever" in my description of the Altec 288 is in other words an enjoyment of the enhanced overtones achieved by the fragile, very thin, lower power handling diaphragm of that particular driver. While not as energetic and clear as some of the shorter throat and more compact compression driver options, it is more colored with overtones in a way that is very pleasing with music that is also sweet and rewards such a characteristic.
On the topic of subjective... I have found that scooped mids ~100hz-1000hz to a degree, sometimes more scrutinizingly patented as the Harman Curve lol, omitting the boost at 3khz and the rolloff thereafter, is preferable to a flat frequency response.
On the topic of subjective... I have found that scooped mids ~100hz-1000hz to a degree, sometimes more scrutinizingly patented as the Harman Curve lol, omitting the boost at 3khz and the rolloff thereafter, is preferable to a flat frequency response.
Last edited:
I dont have anything against what you're doing. Not one bit. I'm just surprised the measurement police haven't picked you apart yet onlu giving subjective impressions. I'm glad you posted what you did and thought I was being clear about it.
As long as we all are clear this talk is exactly the same talk as talk about wine, art or whisky. It’s talk about taste. And it comes with all kinds of subjective terms which themselves lead to discussions, plus a lot of assumptions that have no backup, leading again to discussion. Likely fun to do and certainly leading nowhere.
My personal thoughts are the tests conducted is not sufficient or parameters chosen for the tests are not representative of how real life sound performance depends on. And that part is the flaw in the arguments for those who believe that measurements tell everything. They just represent tests that are easy to conduct and in many ways connected to theorectical models.
For example. Compression drivers are typically measured at 1W and have typical sensitivity of 120db/watt. But the sound of the brush of high hat of a drum set is probably about 20-30db below normal music level if you look at a VU meter. If you take that normal listening level is probably between 80-90db. The power that we will be feeding the compression driver is in the microwatt level. So is the FR curve still the same? Can't say... Nobody measures it in the microwatt level....
Similar to other aspects as well, normal tweeters in the milliwatt level...
So true performance is somewhere between measurements and subjective listening impression.
Oon
For example. Compression drivers are typically measured at 1W and have typical sensitivity of 120db/watt. But the sound of the brush of high hat of a drum set is probably about 20-30db below normal music level if you look at a VU meter. If you take that normal listening level is probably between 80-90db. The power that we will be feeding the compression driver is in the microwatt level. So is the FR curve still the same? Can't say... Nobody measures it in the microwatt level....
Similar to other aspects as well, normal tweeters in the milliwatt level...
So true performance is somewhere between measurements and subjective listening impression.
Oon
There was a thread (maybe it disappeared because I can't find it) where the goal was about studio monitors. There something caught my eye:
"Accuracy and neutrality, and good engineering rather than marketing" and whether the speakers actually sounded any good was hardly relevant because of the professional application.
Well, that didn't sit right with me. For one thing, selling the appearance of engineering IS marketing, and if there's something not quite right with the sound there may well be something wrong with how they were engineered. Not to mention the irony of a producer wanting to mix using speakers that somehow represented a social 'average' rather than a personal favourite, even though a personal favourite is surely what everyone would want. So it seems like a bit of a con. Not to mention my ever-growing ability to pick holes in some of the (supposedly) best tech.
I occasionally have my own creative desires, and have, on occasion, made amateur recordings and touched them up on computer. And you know what I would use for "nearfield monitoring" today? A pair of 4-5" full-range drivers. If I need more bass: make them 'WAW' 2-ways. At one point I had 3-way speakers plugged into an 8ch sound card with digital filters on JACK2 and the whole thing was a PITA to tune and maintain, never mind actually focusing and being in a creative zone.
Hi,
transducers ought to be most linear the less there is excursion, so most truthful with the micro watt level. I have no reason to doubt this with any drivers because all parameters have least variance the less there is excursion, iow the driver/enclosure system is most linear with least movement; both electrical and mechanical, air in any chambers and so on, very little heat etc. On very low levels relationship to ambient noise changes, and how your hearing system detects it all of course. Perhaps try with mic, which can hear so low levels that we cannot
About milezone test in general; well, it is about listening to frequency responses mostly because that is the easiest to hear, the most audible thing on any driver, and thats already visible in driver datasheets more or less accurately. Then, any breakup, transducer diameter (directivity) etc, can make a difference. But, these differences reduce when driver is implemented as part of a speaker system, right driver chosen for any given application and system adjusted for best performance. For example, if there is more "clarity" with a 15" driver than with another, its probably visible in frequency response chart and its due to its lows (max SPL) are compromised, or it has more distortion to give impression of more clarity. Is this good or bad thing? It is good if there is separate bass system so the bass for this one doesn't matter, or if its a fullrange application where all you listen to is one driver just like that. If it was a subwoofer for a party system then listening to high frequency (clarity) makes very little sense and the other driver could win in this application.
Also, while mms is relevant to some extent depending on what the application is I'm not sure if mms has much to do with sound quality. Take the lowest mass driver, which ought to sound best, then add some bluetack or something to it to double the mass, did the sound get worse?
So, while its interesting to see and wonder about such tests, everyone please do not take it granted unless your application is exactly the same as the authors, otherwise there is a possibility being lured to a wrong driver. Be sure what the author test is for and how it relates to your room, system and preferences and so on. Instead of comparing drivers good sound is about optimizing a whole system, not just any particular driver on their own. Having said that, there is no reason individually good sounding driver wouldn't sound good on an application as well, its just not mandatory. Picking "best" drivers doesn't make a system yet, its much more complicated than that, start from hearing system, sound in room and so on
when system is designed for an application, and the system is finalized then one could compare drivers as part of the system, always tuned for best performance.
Last edited: