Yeah, and read more of Doug Rife's white papers carefully without misinterpreting them
😎
I cant answere that for you. Listen to new QUADS to help give you the answere.
All these many details and things add up. Iif you did all you could then you have a really exceptional and more accurate system. No one thing matter a lot, except maybe freq response flatness.
Its the attention to many big and little details which eventually makes a great accurate sound system.
Do the best you can with the resources available to you.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
I bought his very first MLSSA PC card... the very first one he ever sold. Was before he became DRA Labs. Put it in a lunch-box PC. Mid 1980's. I have read lots from him and used his hard/software with updates for ever. Learned a lot by using it.
Do you have anything specific in mind to add?
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Of course. One of the reason I stick to 24dB/oc slopes for my filters. Butterworth, Tchebychev or bessel, depending on the circountances and drivers.
About places, the acoustic is indeed a complex situation. I take a lot of care to get speakers having the same directivity curves at the crossing frequency. IE Horns.
Working in free air (Or anechoic chamber) helps a lot to get rid of the room's resonnances. The mike has to be placed in the ideal situation (see attached)
Attachments
The Quads, although dipole, are not immune to the influence of the room, I don't see your point TBH.
yes. What is important is not the absolute phase on continuous signals, but that attacks (front of a square wave) arrive in the same time to the ears from the two speakers. it makes all the difference in transients restitution (drums, percussions, attacks of the guitar or piano chords), a point i'm very sensible to.
Pay attention, please. QUADs will make square waves...does that ability matter to you? I cant answer that for you.
THx-RNMarsh
Scott, our brain is very good to separate the initial sound from reverberated components of it. Both in interpretation and localisation.
The problem of the dipole is the acoustic short circuit at the low frequencies.
Reason why we have to linearize the response curve in free air from enough distance.
A solid conductor will skin as freq goes up. The core of the wire will lose inductance at 15nH Max.
Litz will not do that, so hf inductance will be higher than a wire that skins.
Litz will also resist proximity effects. Yes the current may go to the side of every strand, but the net centroid can only move a maximum of half a strand diameter.
So we concur, Litz will have a more consistent inductance with frequency.
Jn
Your speakers (and mines) are limited in bandwidth (fractionate, suspension resonance) and their membranes have a lot more inertia (phase turns) than the one of the electrostatic. So, we need two drivers and crossovers.
I don't see the "certain points in space" question.
The problem of the quad is they are limited in SPL and low frequencies bandwidth. Too, the dipole is not ideal. May-be a good thing should be to set them in a wall between two rooms. But it should be dangerous for the speakers, if any pressure differences between the rooms, opening and closing a door, by example.
Yes, but in addition the polarity seems to be important too, namely for the instruments that tend to produce wavesforms of the asymmetrical kind.
As usually it depends and there will be differences in the individual response to a polarity change.
Do-you mean global polarity of the whole speaker assembly ? Yes, I think our ears are not symmetrical, and more sensible to pressure than the opposite. Some preamps offers absolute phase inversion switch. But it need to be tested on each record, if you find this point of importance.
You have to set a single pulse. Or work in free air or anechoic chamber.
You can do-it in a decently damped room with some habit, as said Richard, with close miking. Look at the front edge to have-it as vertical (fast) as possible.
I 100% agree with all of that except for the flat fr......that must be tuned to the room/LP ( imo anyhow) and by ear, fr doesn’t come up flat.
Like I said just my observations of measurements vs. ears.
Not sure what you mean... for a 'like' better condition?
"Frequency response is the single most important aspect of the performance of any audio device. If it is wrong, nothing else matters." – Floyd Toole, 2009
"Multiple studies of listener preferences for loudspeakers have shown that trained listeners prefer systems with smooth flat frequency response, both on and off axis, and deep bass [4].
See F.Toole.
-- regarding accuracy -->
Accuracy Applied: Part 1 In A Series On The Keys Of Loudspeaker Measurements - ProSoundWeb
They will save a lot of time here.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Were the listeners trained to listen for flat frequency response? Anything else they were trained to listen for?
If primarily the former, then no wonder they prefer it.
JC has mentioned multiple times that he considers time domain response more important FR (although presumably not to the complete exclusion of FR, more than one factor may may be needed).
The other thing we might want to consider about measuring FR with a omni mic is that what it picks up sounds most similar to what we hear if we plug one ear and put the other ear where the mic would go. That's not how we normally hear a lot of perception is lost, so maybe some reasons why it might not be optimal relative to Bob's listening preference.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.