I want to point out a technical matter that we seem to describe differently. Early reflection cant add loudness to midrange.
Only reverberation can and this is in hundreds of milliseconds.
So it does not have to do with walls bur with the room as a whole.
A 3dB dip intetionally engineered from 1-3Khz cant be a preference of someone accustomed to live music. My 2 cents.
Only reverberation can and this is in hundreds of milliseconds.
So it does not have to do with walls bur with the room as a whole.
A 3dB dip intetionally engineered from 1-3Khz cant be a preference of someone accustomed to live music. My 2 cents.
salas said:
ok, then please can you explain why elary reflections improve the signal to noise ratio if the ear does not translate them as an increase of spl ?
http://caa-aca.ca/PEIWEBpage/abstracts/classroom.htm
besides, if the early reflections do not influence the spl we hear, why was MLSSA's Adaptive Window developed in the first place?
jomor said:
Early reflections are used in large rooms to prevent loss of sound energy. If a room is well designed, sound can be more effeciently reach a longer distance. It is not used to increase spl, just prevent loss.
The reason why in MLSSA windowing is used is to measure the original energy distribution of the source. If reflections are included, the energy is redistributed. Since reflection itself occures from an original energy source, according to the law of energy preservation, the total energy cannot be increased, but can be redistributed.
original energy distribution has nothing to do with how the human brain translates (feels) that energy.
copying from MLSSA's website:
ear tends to ignore late reflections in the treble region while giving them some weight in the mid-range and much more weight in the bass region. The Adaptive Window is a frequency-variable time window that emulates this behavior
http://www.mlssa.com/mlssa/BROCHUREp3.htm
on the other hand, i believe that the trick is not just to study the classic methods of speaker building, but to study and understand the human hearing, it would be too easy to design the perfect system if our ear-brain was a mic and pre amp, but unfortunately its not, there is a very complicated algorythm running in our brain, responsible for our hearing, which is far away from just undestanding a speaker's spl (anechoic or in room) measurement.
I guess that practical evidence would say more to most.
I am quoting Jhon Atkinson of Stereophile:
"An analysis of 74 loudspeakers that I performed in 1991 [59] also showed a good correspondence between flatness of measured on-axis response and listener preference. Grouping loudspeakers by the log-frequency-weighted standard deviation of their response between 170Hz and 17kHz—the weighting was to compensate for the linear spacing of the frequency bins produced by the FFT process—I discovered a clear correlation between flat on-axis quasi-anechoic response and the tendency for the loudspeaker to get a positive review in Stereophile. This correlation also appeared when the overall results of blind listening tests performed by the magazine were analyzed ''
I doubt that speakers with dips would make the grade.
I am quoting Jhon Atkinson of Stereophile:
"An analysis of 74 loudspeakers that I performed in 1991 [59] also showed a good correspondence between flatness of measured on-axis response and listener preference. Grouping loudspeakers by the log-frequency-weighted standard deviation of their response between 170Hz and 17kHz—the weighting was to compensate for the linear spacing of the frequency bins produced by the FFT process—I discovered a clear correlation between flat on-axis quasi-anechoic response and the tendency for the loudspeaker to get a positive review in Stereophile. This correlation also appeared when the overall results of blind listening tests performed by the magazine were analyzed ''
I doubt that speakers with dips would make the grade.
In speaker design it is important to associate the tested data with what is heard, and adjust test methods is be able to interpret the results and its relation with what is heard, that is the most effecient way to make adjustments. Unforfunately, is would cost a fortune to get the instrumentation capable of doing that.
salas said:
Did you ever try it?
You can do a real test for your self. Make a dip at the midband, and call a piano player (if possible) to listen. If you have already tried it, I can think of a dozen reasons that could make it fail, like if you use cheap chinese drivers, dont flush mount them, dont have routed baffle edges, dont have a baffle step correction, dont have the phases matched at the cross area etc.
Did it many times. Yes I do have a close friend who has a highest teaching degree in classic guitar and we do a lot of diy and listening together.
I also had many voicing sessions with another friend a classical piano player in many projects.
The speakers I use lately have PHL midrangers. Hardly Chinese.
Anyway if you think that a subdued response from 1-3kHz by -3dB helps matters then its your cup of tea.
For me, my friends, John Atkinson's systematic tests and all others that never pioneered such a dipping theory for the 25 years I read about sound seems we prefer another cup.
I have never been a speaker designer, but my first impression, judging by the thread title was "Hmmm.......sounds like a midrange dip". Having read through it, it seems that indeed the speaker in question does have a midrange dip. Some people actully prefer that setup, and speakers, like the WATTS, exploit odd dips and phase funnies in the midrange to accomplish a distinctive sound. Whether it is accurate or not, isn't the object. Making $$$$ is.
Jocko
Jocko
I've just replaced the 5.7Ohm resister with a 2.2ohm and the sound is closer to what I would like but still it's not quite there yet.
I forgot to mention that the tweeter I am using is Aurum Cantus G2si but Troels said that his tweeter and mine should be interchangeable.
The bass is slightly overwhelming though I think it is caused by room acoustic since the bass does not seem to affect the lower midrange. I will probably have to lengthen the port a bit.
What I'll do next is reduce the 2.2mh inductor a little and increase the 2.2ohm to 3 or 3.3 ohm.
I forgot to mention that the tweeter I am using is Aurum Cantus G2si but Troels said that his tweeter and mine should be interchangeable.
The bass is slightly overwhelming though I think it is caused by room acoustic since the bass does not seem to affect the lower midrange. I will probably have to lengthen the port a bit.
What I'll do next is reduce the 2.2mh inductor a little and increase the 2.2ohm to 3 or 3.3 ohm.
Exactly. This thread started because someone found a speaker with a mild dip distant. Imagine what he would say for engineering a deeper one on purpose.
I do agree that idiosyncracies have followers. And yes speakers with a carefully voiced identity but based on strong grounds of low cabinet coloration, low thd, and strong dynamic range like the Watt can bring $$$.
Fair enough, but yes the Watt & Puppy always sounded distant to me (listened to System 4 and 5, dont know how it has evolved by now). I liked the Witt best for voicing from Wilson.
I do agree that idiosyncracies have followers. And yes speakers with a carefully voiced identity but based on strong grounds of low cabinet coloration, low thd, and strong dynamic range like the Watt can bring $$$.
Fair enough, but yes the Watt & Puppy always sounded distant to me (listened to System 4 and 5, dont know how it has evolved by now). I liked the Witt best for voicing from Wilson.
Jocko Homo said:
Too many unknowns for me to be of much use. About the only definitive thing I can say is that Andy2 should not be adjusting the value of only the one resistor. This will change the load impedance presented to the HP crossover filter and screw things up very nicely. This design has an L-pad already built into it. This is here explicity so that you can change the driver level *without* changing the overall load impedance. So when increasing the series resistor, you also need to decrease the parallel resistor at the same time.
As far as a recessed midrange goes, here are the things that I would look at first:
a) The tweeter -- I am deeply suspicious of the quality control of Chinese made drivers, and they tend to have a lot of unit-to-unit variability. It is quite possible that this is the entire problem. Is there a way to make a measurement?
b) This design is far more revealing of other details than 99% of what is out there. You will end up hearing things you've not heard before, so small details can make a big difference. I would start by looking at the sound quality difference made by changing the type and amount of the internal cabinet stuffing. Next, I would look at the electronics, cables, equipment racks, cables, and other such tweaks.
Good luck!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.