The measurements appear to be done with JA's usual reliability. His comments in the Measurements section, likewise. It's not something I would buy for reasons of basic acoustics of the genre and the questionable reliability of this specific product.
I'm not the target audience for the "review," so I didn't read that, but I cannot fault the reliability and usefulness of the measurements.
Seems super weird. Couldn't one just buy a pair of horns, compression drivers , and highpass them at different frequencies for a lot less?
I don't get how a typical user time aligns it accurately or avoids phase cancelling / boosting problems.
But then, I've been off the wall enough to try to beat comb filtering in tweeter line arrays by varying centre spacing with golden ratio, and using higher efficiency tweeters at ear height.
Guess I can't really know about this without trying it, but I don't think these could work well without low passing the tweeters they're intended to work with.
No, they can not aid dispersion, they just send a relatively narrow beam of high frequency components into the room. There will be some lobes created as well where this beam interacts with the sound from the main speakers. Not much good can come from it in measurements, unless it would miraculously repair a fault in the main speaker.
You may like the effect though. At least it does something real.
You may like the effect though. At least it does something real.
Seems super weird. Couldn't one just buy a pair of horns, compression drivers , and highpass them at different frequencies for a lot less?
But that wouldn't be nearly as um.. "exotic."
se
Interesting the use by JA of the word "palpability" - this is a corollary of "convincing", when the hearing understands, without conscious effort, more of what was captured in the recording - and this device points out the relevance of higher frequencies coming through well to achieve this.
Franks suggesting your grey matter is a bit low from too much porn ..
Porn? Too busy with the real thing...
Yep, not an improvement in dispersion.
Typically, you would want a second tweeter mounted on the back of the cabinet
ORION++
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/251522-nao-note-ii-rs-cnc-cut-baffles-uk-2.html
or use a ribbon tweeter without the back cup so it plays like a dipole
NaO Note Design Objectives
There are other examples of rear mounted tweeters around I'm sure.
Personally, I've found direct sound is everything - put your head as close to the dead centre in front of a single speaker as you're comfortable with, while it's delivering reasonable levels of volume - if anything sounds not quite right, edgy, unpleasant, 'false', then there's your problem - fix that, and everything improves. Doing anything else is just a kludge, is not part of the critical work that needs to be done, IMO ...
The biggest problem is that any changes you make to suit your own hearing are unlikely to suit anyone else's.
I've been left wondering what some reasonable, intelligent people were hearing in the systems they have painstakingly assembled and tuned over years.
For my subjective tastes , I cannot abide a flat playback response around 4 kHz , and am guilty of a 4 db dip there in most of my speakers .
In most factory made stuff I find the 10000 - 15000 hz annoying.
Many of my audiophile friends like things sloped down from 5000 hz on.
Most sources and amps are pretty decent now, so to me that leaves the speakers
as the weakest measured link in a system.
I've never heard a "super amp" driving truly humble speakers.
I have heard so called mid fi components with cheap 14 gauge wire running very expensive speakers ; speakers demo'd in the same room a week prior with very expensive pre and power amps, and source.
The speakers still produced excellent sound.
There's almost certainly no system which can sound pleasing to everyone, as long as everyone's hearing is differently impaired.
On the plus side, scientists have isolated the gene active in hummingbirds which allows continuous repair of their hearing.
Maybe what hearing's lost can be found again!
My reference is the sound of live instruments, played with passion and intensity - if you stand right next to someone competently playing a real saxophone with gusto, with guts and drive, and you find that displeasing, objectionable - then what I'm after won't interest you.
Those sloping down of the high frequencies situations are a dead giveaway to me, I'm sorry to say - that says the systems are generating far too much high frequency distortion; the easy solution is to "tame it" by cutting and cutting the high frequencies reaching the ear - which also guarantees that the sound can never be convincing.
Remember, I'm not after 'nice' sound, I'm after realistic sound - and unless one goes for it with full conviction for what is required then I would suggest it's unlikely to happen ...
Those sloping down of the high frequencies situations are a dead giveaway to me, I'm sorry to say - that says the systems are generating far too much high frequency distortion; the easy solution is to "tame it" by cutting and cutting the high frequencies reaching the ear - which also guarantees that the sound can never be convincing.
Remember, I'm not after 'nice' sound, I'm after realistic sound - and unless one goes for it with full conviction for what is required then I would suggest it's unlikely to happen ...
Natural Sound IS Natural...
Hearing may differ among individuals, so yes, we all hear natural sounds differently.
And that is the key....to compare systems/speakers to natural sounds, be they spoken word, musical instruments, birds, leaves rustling, waves crashing onto the beach etc, etc....
If the system is good enough, all reproduced sounds will sound good.
You state that you like 4dB dip at 4kHz........that is the classic 70's/80's 'loudness contour' that makes speakers sound impressive/exciting in the showroom, but far divorced from correct reproduction.
You also state that your mates like drooping response above 5kHz.
Do you and your mates prefer listening to voices and natural sounds with these characteristics ?.
I contend that these preferences are products of listening to systems that add dirt/nasties in these bands (and we have all heard such systems)....yes one solution is to apply these eq's, but then you are departing from true and correct sound, and merely improving the situation but not correcting it.
When systems/speakers are truly good and devoid of nasties, these eq's truly sound all wrong, and the omissions are obvious.
Try sitting outside so that you have natural sounds as reference....if the system is wrong it will clearly sound so.
If the system is correct, the two sounds sources will compliment each other.
Dan.
Hearing may differ among individuals, so yes, we all hear natural sounds differently.
And that is the key....to compare systems/speakers to natural sounds, be they spoken word, musical instruments, birds, leaves rustling, waves crashing onto the beach etc, etc....
If the system is good enough, all reproduced sounds will sound good.
You state that you like 4dB dip at 4kHz....
....that is the classic 70's/80's 'loudness contour' that makes speakers sound impressive/exciting in the showroom, but far divorced from correct reproduction.You also state that your mates like drooping response above 5kHz.
Do you and your mates prefer listening to voices and natural sounds with these characteristics ?.
I contend that these preferences are products of listening to systems that add dirt/nasties in these bands (and we have all heard such systems)....yes one solution is to apply these eq's, but then you are departing from true and correct sound, and merely improving the situation but not correcting it.
When systems/speakers are truly good and devoid of nasties, these eq's truly sound all wrong, and the omissions are obvious.
Try sitting outside so that you have natural sounds as reference....if the system is wrong it will clearly sound so.
If the system is correct, the two sounds sources will compliment each other.
Dan.
Supertweeters
When I was kid I used to read Audio magazine, and there were always these ads in the back for a "Mark Levinson Reference System". It consisted of a ML active crossover, some amps, a pair of Hartley 24" subwoofers, stacked Quad ESL's, and "Decca Ribbon Tweeters". I had heard the Quads, and wondered what benefit stacking a pair of them provided, and wondered about the ribbon super-tweeters since the Quads sounded pretty good in the treble region to me. I never heard one of those setups, but I did hear some Decca ribbons once. I was in Montserrat BWI and was invited to a party at George Martin's Air Studios. I had been on island for a week or so, and had not seen or heard a decent domestic sound system (though the live music was outstanding). At Air Studios there was a nice system playing "background" music, which consisted of a nice reel-to-reel, some electronics I either didn't see or don't recall, and a pair of obviously bespoke speakers employing what looked like KEF drivers and... Decca ribbon tweeters! As I recall the whole thing sounded pretty good, though the music was the stuff they played on the radio there. I kept wishing they would bring out some tapes from the studio!
When I was kid I used to read Audio magazine, and there were always these ads in the back for a "Mark Levinson Reference System". It consisted of a ML active crossover, some amps, a pair of Hartley 24" subwoofers, stacked Quad ESL's, and "Decca Ribbon Tweeters". I had heard the Quads, and wondered what benefit stacking a pair of them provided, and wondered about the ribbon super-tweeters since the Quads sounded pretty good in the treble region to me. I never heard one of those setups, but I did hear some Decca ribbons once. I was in Montserrat BWI and was invited to a party at George Martin's Air Studios. I had been on island for a week or so, and had not seen or heard a decent domestic sound system (though the live music was outstanding). At Air Studios there was a nice system playing "background" music, which consisted of a nice reel-to-reel, some electronics I either didn't see or don't recall, and a pair of obviously bespoke speakers employing what looked like KEF drivers and... Decca ribbon tweeters! As I recall the whole thing sounded pretty good, though the music was the stuff they played on the radio there. I kept wishing they would bring out some tapes from the studio!
FM curve much ...
That's where bad speaker design, digital grunge and bad amplification gets you all the time, soft thru this region hides all the nasties , hence your 4db dip across the presence region. Also having your speaker flat acoss this range is as important as how you got it flat , things like baffle design, xover design , quality of xover and driver components chosen, if wrong can make your speaker system unlistenable.
...
Last edited:
My current speakers have just enough dip in them to conceal a little cone breakup. Aside from one spike at 4500 hz ,when combined with the tweeters, the pair measures within a 3 db window from 200 hz to 16000 hz , test tones at 70 db read at 3 meters.Hearing may differ among individuals, so yes, we all hear natural sounds differently.
And that is the key....to compare systems/speakers to natural sounds, be they spoken word, musical instruments, birds, leaves rustling, waves crashing onto the beach etc, etc....
If the system is good enough, all reproduced sounds will sound good.
You state that you like 4dB dip at 4kHz....
You also state that your mates like drooping response above 5kHz.
Do you and your mates prefer listening to voices and natural sounds with these characteristics ?
Dan.
Live music 4000hz bugs me so I'll probably dip again....
As for natural sounds, voice and music are quite good through these, some (not all) movie soundtrack background sounds are strangely off from expected timbre.
No,my buddies 5000hz downsloped systems sound lifeless to me.
Just coincidently this morning I connected a pair of supertweeters from Visaton to my system, in preparing for our SACD/CD difference testing later this year. The main speaker is a wideband Tangband supported by a trio of subwoofers below 50Hz, but mostly I leave the subs off as I don't really miss them too much.
Initailly I crossed the supertweeters over at 8kHz with 12dB/Oct butterworths. Indeed I feel the need to roll off the main Tangbands at the same frequency to keep a balanced soundfield, although I did feel the supers improve the high end.
Later I moved the xover to 10kHz.
It is also instructive to listen to the tweeters only and mute all the rest. Amazing how low the level is from the supers, very low, because I probably only hear the lower part of their spectrum and that is rolled off below 10kHz. Yet I can tell (at least I think I can) when they are on or off with the mains going at reasonable level.
Jan
Initailly I crossed the supertweeters over at 8kHz with 12dB/Oct butterworths. Indeed I feel the need to roll off the main Tangbands at the same frequency to keep a balanced soundfield, although I did feel the supers improve the high end.
Later I moved the xover to 10kHz.
It is also instructive to listen to the tweeters only and mute all the rest. Amazing how low the level is from the supers, very low, because I probably only hear the lower part of their spectrum and that is rolled off below 10kHz. Yet I can tell (at least I think I can) when they are on or off with the mains going at reasonable level.
Jan
- Status
- Not open for further replies.