Cloth Ears.... no arguements intended....
I guess I was clarifying things to myself as well....
certainly I am not qualified to suggest anything to anybody, except that I am not qualified....no offence was intended.
Concerning how critical we all are of our own creations, I think when we do make something we are proud of, we want to share it with those that mean something to us (whose opinion we must value at some level).
I would have very much liked to have gotten other folk's impressions of my latest creation(OK, I designed 'em, and helped build them ), because I think this pair of loudspeakers are quite good, and they are one of the truly full range (as opposed to fullrange, single driver) loudspeakers I have heard. They seem to do most everything correctly. Unfortunately I could not bring them to planet10's place during the recent Van Isle diyAudio'fest, where they would have been scrutinized by folks whose ears I trust. And they are reasonably affordable (and certainly so when compared to other speakers that can produce the same frequency range and dynamics).
Is the construction method the best? No, chrisb(and others) can easily out gun them in terms of build quality, although I do like the over-all look and finish. And a better cabinet would mean not DIY... or at least better DIY, with better methods and tools than I have available to me.
and yes, I start lots, but rarely finish.
I guess I was clarifying things to myself as well....
certainly I am not qualified to suggest anything to anybody, except that I am not qualified....no offence was intended.
Concerning how critical we all are of our own creations, I think when we do make something we are proud of, we want to share it with those that mean something to us (whose opinion we must value at some level).
I would have very much liked to have gotten other folk's impressions of my latest creation(OK, I designed 'em, and helped build them ), because I think this pair of loudspeakers are quite good, and they are one of the truly full range (as opposed to fullrange, single driver) loudspeakers I have heard. They seem to do most everything correctly. Unfortunately I could not bring them to planet10's place during the recent Van Isle diyAudio'fest, where they would have been scrutinized by folks whose ears I trust. And they are reasonably affordable (and certainly so when compared to other speakers that can produce the same frequency range and dynamics).
Is the construction method the best? No, chrisb(and others) can easily out gun them in terms of build quality, although I do like the over-all look and finish. And a better cabinet would mean not DIY... or at least better DIY, with better methods and tools than I have available to me.
and yes, I start lots, but rarely finish.
Re: subjective vs. objective
There are few people in this business that I respect more than Floyd. We don't agree on everything, but Floyd is no "sell-out" nor would he ever intentionally be dishonest. I don't believe this claim for a minute as this is not something that Floyd would ever do. I would take Floyd's "sell-out" position in a minute!
I am saying that I could predict how an independent group of listeners would rank order the speakers with the following caveats: 1) I could not predict any ONE listeners preferences 2) the sample size for stability would be directly dependent on the capabilities of the listeners. In other words, if the listeners were "experts" then I would bet that I could get the rank order of these three correct on average. If the listeners were taken off of the street, it would take more than ten to twenty before the sample was large enough to be statistically significant. But predict any ONE listeners preference - impossible, even my own.
Nanook said:
There are few people in this business that I respect more than Floyd. We don't agree on everything, but Floyd is no "sell-out" nor would he ever intentionally be dishonest. I don't believe this claim for a minute as this is not something that Floyd would ever do. I would take Floyd's "sell-out" position in a minute!
bzfcocon said:
I am saying that I could predict how an independent group of listeners would rank order the speakers with the following caveats: 1) I could not predict any ONE listeners preferences 2) the sample size for stability would be directly dependent on the capabilities of the listeners. In other words, if the listeners were "experts" then I would bet that I could get the rank order of these three correct on average. If the listeners were taken off of the street, it would take more than ten to twenty before the sample was large enough to be statistically significant. But predict any ONE listeners preference - impossible, even my own.
Re: Re: subjective vs. objective
I'm pretty sure you have listed all this stuff before and elsewhere, but would you mind doing a very quick thumbnail sketch of the attributes necessary for a well grounded speaker?
from very hazy memory of Floyds findings, I recall the important ones being a 'good' on axis response coupled with a 'good' and even off axis response..power response??
The room obviously has a lot to do with it...even tho the speakers set up on the revolving carousel at the NTC all had the same room to contend with, I wonder if different results may have been gotten with a different room? In other words maybe the room the testing was done in unfairly hindered some speakers over others, and a different room would have reversed the tables?
Based on your 'ability' (not in the derogatory sense) to predict the rankings based on measurements...on the whole do you feel that you yourself would agree with the 'majority'? In other words, are the measurements you base your predictions on some sort of 'universal' parameters that you find apply to you as well??
gedlee said:
I'm pretty sure you have listed all this stuff before and elsewhere, but would you mind doing a very quick thumbnail sketch of the attributes necessary for a well grounded speaker?
from very hazy memory of Floyds findings, I recall the important ones being a 'good' on axis response coupled with a 'good' and even off axis response..power response??
The room obviously has a lot to do with it...even tho the speakers set up on the revolving carousel at the NTC all had the same room to contend with, I wonder if different results may have been gotten with a different room? In other words maybe the room the testing was done in unfairly hindered some speakers over others, and a different room would have reversed the tables?
Based on your 'ability' (not in the derogatory sense) to predict the rankings based on measurements...on the whole do you feel that you yourself would agree with the 'majority'? In other words, are the measurements you base your predictions on some sort of 'universal' parameters that you find apply to you as well??
The details answer here would be pretty long, but here is a short one.
I pay almost no attention to the on-axis response of a loudspeaker. Thats because in the toed-in situation that I use one is never on-axis and I always consider the full forward field of the source in its entirety. No one axis is any more important than another in this forward field, which extends from say 0 degrees to about 30 degrees - when toed-in this is where the listeners are. Toeing in is important to critical, but few speakers can do this because they don;y have a controlled off axis response.
Very high angular resolution is required as well as the usual frequency response resolution. A polar map (level versus frequency and angle as a surface plot) is required as this shows resonances in the power response very clearly and these cause colorations in the sound even if they are not problems in the forward field. The impulse response is important as it must not have delayed ringing or non-minimum phase effects - many of which are not readily visible in the frequency domain.
Its easier to actually look at the drivers to see what the thermal response will be as this will be almost obvious. There are thermal tests that show these effects, but they completely correlate to what you would expect - bigger drivers handle power better - its a no brainer.
Minimum cabinet diffraction is important and once again, looking at the cabinet tells more in this regard than the microphone measurements. Diffraction is a low level, but highly audible effect.
Get these things right and your speaker will be in the top 10%.
I pay almost no attention to the on-axis response of a loudspeaker. Thats because in the toed-in situation that I use one is never on-axis and I always consider the full forward field of the source in its entirety. No one axis is any more important than another in this forward field, which extends from say 0 degrees to about 30 degrees - when toed-in this is where the listeners are. Toeing in is important to critical, but few speakers can do this because they don;y have a controlled off axis response.
Very high angular resolution is required as well as the usual frequency response resolution. A polar map (level versus frequency and angle as a surface plot) is required as this shows resonances in the power response very clearly and these cause colorations in the sound even if they are not problems in the forward field. The impulse response is important as it must not have delayed ringing or non-minimum phase effects - many of which are not readily visible in the frequency domain.
Its easier to actually look at the drivers to see what the thermal response will be as this will be almost obvious. There are thermal tests that show these effects, but they completely correlate to what you would expect - bigger drivers handle power better - its a no brainer.
Minimum cabinet diffraction is important and once again, looking at the cabinet tells more in this regard than the microphone measurements. Diffraction is a low level, but highly audible effect.
Get these things right and your speaker will be in the top 10%.
Re: Re: subjective vs. objective
I don't deny Dr. Toole's body of work, nor many of his assertions. It had allowed for the successful development of a Canadian loudspeaker industry. Obviously his contributions had been significant. I'm sure he has forgotten more than I will ever know regarding acoustics and loudspeaker design.
The "sellout" comment is based on the fact that my tax dollars educated this man, who , rather than stay in the country that provided him with the education and the facilities to become an "expert", chose to leave. It is more a comment regarding this choice.
gedlee, you can believe what you want, but there is no sinister motive on behalf of my acquaintance, nor any reason for him to lie.
gedlee said:
I don't deny Dr. Toole's body of work, nor many of his assertions. It had allowed for the successful development of a Canadian loudspeaker industry. Obviously his contributions had been significant. I'm sure he has forgotten more than I will ever know regarding acoustics and loudspeaker design.
The "sellout" comment is based on the fact that my tax dollars educated this man, who , rather than stay in the country that provided him with the education and the facilities to become an "expert", chose to leave. It is more a comment regarding this choice.
gedlee, you can believe what you want, but there is no sinister motive on behalf of my acquaintance, nor any reason for him to lie.
Re: Re: Re: subjective vs. objective
This is a rather unrealistic point of view. The US has probably trained more intellectuals in other parts of the world than anywhere.
I thought you meant his sellout was going into industry. Floyd himself would agree that he was not able to do as much from within industry as he was from without, but you can't argue with his choices. He had a great job in Souther CA that Canada could never have offered him. I love Canada, I live right across the river, and Toronto is my favorite city in NA (Chicago is close, and New Orleans), but I can see why someone might move to the US. Being on the border we see it all the time. The standard of living for an engineer is much higher here than in Canada. Your country is great, but you make the choices, just like we do, that drives whether people stay or leave.
Nanook said:
This is a rather unrealistic point of view. The US has probably trained more intellectuals in other parts of the world than anywhere.
I thought you meant his sellout was going into industry. Floyd himself would agree that he was not able to do as much from within industry as he was from without, but you can't argue with his choices. He had a great job in Souther CA that Canada could never have offered him. I love Canada, I live right across the river, and Toronto is my favorite city in NA (Chicago is close, and New Orleans), but I can see why someone might move to the US. Being on the border we see it all the time. The standard of living for an engineer is much higher here than in Canada. Your country is great, but you make the choices, just like we do, that drives whether people stay or leave.
Hello,
How would you measure for example spaciousness and envelopment? (as defined by Griesinger http://www.davidgriesinger.com/)
These are the things we hear in reality (among others).
- Elias
How would you measure for example spaciousness and envelopment? (as defined by Griesinger http://www.davidgriesinger.com/)
These are the things we hear in reality (among others).
- Elias
gedlee said:
Spaciousness is well defined, but not envelopment.
Spaciousness comes from the amount of acoustic energy that lies after the first 20-30 ms. Its not a problem to look at the rooms reverbereant field in this time region.
But its not the measurement that is a problem its the actual creation of spaciousness in a small room. Because getting large acoustic sound in the later time region means a highly reverberant acoustic. But this, in a small room, can be a disaster for the early reflections. What one needs is a high directivity source to place a large direct field at the listener and to delay the arrival of the early reflections in a very live room. This gives one the highest later sound energy without a disasterous early sound field full of the early reflections that destroy the imaging.
You can read about how this is achieved in more detail at my web site. You will see from the reviews that it works very well.
Spaciousness comes from the amount of acoustic energy that lies after the first 20-30 ms. Its not a problem to look at the rooms reverbereant field in this time region.
But its not the measurement that is a problem its the actual creation of spaciousness in a small room. Because getting large acoustic sound in the later time region means a highly reverberant acoustic. But this, in a small room, can be a disaster for the early reflections. What one needs is a high directivity source to place a large direct field at the listener and to delay the arrival of the early reflections in a very live room. This gives one the highest later sound energy without a disasterous early sound field full of the early reflections that destroy the imaging.
You can read about how this is achieved in more detail at my web site. You will see from the reviews that it works very well.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.