Maybe, maybe not. Measurements are tricky and, so far at least, mainly explore the surface, the meat is under the surface. And in your case, from some of the contradictory optimum FR curves you have promoted, it seems you don't know what they mean either so AFAIK your comments are as useful as a car on blocks is a means of transportation.
The Behringer may measure well, but the ones i have heard aren't worth owning.
dave
So much talk and not a single measurement. The science behind measurements and how they correlate to listener preference is quite well-established by now. How much longer are you going to continue to ignore it?
Behringer 2030P - sturdy cabinet "flat response" - imo mediocre->poor sound on music I liked but only listened for an hour or so as they were for my kid - impression = "one note drone" on Gary Karr's bass (probably partly from weak motor woofer) - crappy on Louis Kentner's Liszt operatic paraphrases (old Vox recording on CD) - -as tragic as they were, were no more unlistenable than a Nirvana Super10 without BSC, etc. in a 70 liter/41Hz tuned reflex. (Nirvana's real T-S of qts ~0.41 and fs around 50 would call for a different cabinet) The funky little China built Traynor with oval CD waveguide in the on-axis graphs below was the least offensive of this lot. Just my opinion and my hearing ain't great.
its good for the poor hobbyist to invest in a cheap but sturdy plastic turntable of sufficient size and strength to handle many speakers.
- make a paper circle protractor so the cabinet can be accurately rotated to desired angles.
Julian Hirsch in his 1955 "The Audio League" report overview of Karlson, included a fake corner (size not specified) to aid in testing
corner loaded speakers in his list of tools ;^)
its good for the poor hobbyist to invest in a cheap but sturdy plastic turntable of sufficient size and strength to handle many speakers.
- make a paper circle protractor so the cabinet can be accurately rotated to desired angles.
Julian Hirsch in his 1955 "The Audio League" report overview of Karlson, included a fake corner (size not specified) to aid in testing
corner loaded speakers in his list of tools ;^)
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
You're missing the point. Your claim was that full range drivers are "are generally smoothly changing". Objective measurements show they are not.
True but only measurements will take us one step further. Comments like "When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail" aren't helpful. You're simply dismissing the scientific method without adding anything useful.
Some measures do, some do not, some, on the same driver, show quite different results. Which do you choose?
Do keep in mind that only the best drivers stick around here, the less capable examples are not considered.
dave
That conclusion is crap. Not worth the words used to say it.
You cannot build a house with just a hammer, many here think you can. Similarily you cannot categorize a speaker with just FR measures. Many of the tools to do that have not yet been invented.
dave
Anechoic, infinite baffle or anything that approaches it.
As long as objective data is ignored drivers 'stick around' because of various reasons, not because they are 'best'.
It is not one tool of FR alone. We have harmonic distortion multiple harmonic plots not one value of THD (please don't quote Geddes again), there is impulse response, there is CSD, there is minimum phase, and there is SPL dynamic range. When all these measures look good, the speaker WILL sound good for all genres.
And how do you interpret it. You have on different occasions suggested that very different FR curves are best.
It is not ignored, it is taken with an appropriate amount of skeptism.
dave
You keep dismissing the usefulness of 'the hammer' but you fail to mention what else is needed. Stop being destructive, add something constructive.
What is there to interpret? It shows unmistakably how the driver radiates energy.
Did I? I don't think so. Care to share examples?
Skepticism is good but only if there's evidence that the status quo might be wrong. Questioning the status quo just because you want to be different is unreasonable.
I have said what is needed has not yet been developed. I have suggested some of the things that are needed (not here yet), many of these having to do with understanding the ear/brain perception system. Some of the tools needed to explore this properly are starting to be seen in a primitive format.
When man's ancestors started developing tools they were rocks for pounding, sticks for poking. It took a long time to develop the battery operated recip saw and the wealth of construction tools we now have. 3D printing is still very primitive but we are starting to see how that might well revolutionize how things are built.
Our available tool-set for evaluating speakers is quite primitive and our understanding of how to interpret terms of ear.brain perception even more so.
I am not precient, do not ask me to suggest tools that do not yet exist, all i can fo is point out that the set is not yet sufficient.
dave
You don't need to invent tools that don't exist yet. All I'm asking you is to accept what has been discovered so far. Telling everybody that the world isn't flat doesn't help if you are unable to present evidence that the world might be round.
You expressed that the FR response of a vintage Lorenz was near perfect (rolling off such that at least the top octave was quite depressed) and then saying that something much flatter desirable.
What is the status quo? Who sets it> Toole suggests that any measurement not taken in an anechoic chamber is worthless (i don't believe that to be totally true)... but that would leave out almost all the measurements posted here.
People ignore that, but use his (and Olive's) preference results as gospel -- ignoring the quite limited scope of those results. Which by the way rely on the subjective perception of the ear/brain of the trained listeners in the panels.
It seems that the set of our most advamced scientific studies all fall back on what people hear.
dave
Sure you do. When i was starting out, KEF was just starting to develop the tools that the progress of computers & manufacturing are now making readily available. There are more tools at that stage of development that are still far too expensive for amateurs. And understanding of the ear/brain are continuing. Rapid progress is being made but some of the tools needed are still too pricey and too restrictive.
Progress is continuing, you just have to have patient. You seem to want to use your rock to try to explain the world.
dave
Ultimately, the time-resolved transient response of a driver *completely* describes its acoustically measurable (via microphone) response. The IR is the inverse FFT of the frequency response and is closer to the truth of a speaker's behavior. We measure FR because it is easier to do than measuring IR with a transient digitizer. The IR tells us if the speaker rings or has sibilance, or is able to provide a sharp and clean transient from percussion instruments (plucked or struck strings, drums, high hats, rim shots, cymbals, etc). FR without the IFFT to IR won't tell you if it rings (although a sharp big peak around cone breakup is a dead giveaway).
- Status
- Not open for further replies.