Yes, I gathered that, but I was asking if your definition of a 'better frequency response' took anything else into consideration or if you simply assume a flat axial response is optimal without further reference or accounting for matters proven to significantly impact on behaviour. I am not saying these are mutually exclusive with a flat axial response: however, it is a fact (not a matter of debate: scientific fact) that they are not necessarily, or even frequently, synonymous either.
Last edited:
Yes, I am thinking about a flat frequency response. I have a pair of Hedd Type 07 studio monitors and they are really flat. When engaged with their own plugin (Hedd liniariser) it compensates for freq and phase for a true liniar response. And I love them, so yes, I was asking for the one closer to that "ruler" flat response
Last edited:
On-axis, and accounting for differing driver sizes, dispersion properties etc.?
This is the point I'm making. People often demand flat axial response in all times and all places without always understanding that there are a host of other aspects to driver & speaker output that influence whether a flat axial response will actually give the results they expect. Take your Hedd Type 07, and the fact that you love them when they have their flat EQ response. I don't doubt that for one instant, but the Type 07 is a 2-way using a 7in midbass and an AMT tweeter. The crossover frequency, individual on / off axis (polar) responses of these drive units are in no way analogous to a 3in wideband drive unit, which to give the most obvious example will likely have much more limited dispersion (i.e. rolls off more quickly off-axis) at higher frequencies. I'd need to find some measurements of the Hedd to confirm that, but it's likely to the point of certainty. As a result, you may get a flat axial response with them, but in practice it may sound rather lacking at the top end because that early off-axis rolloff affects the HF power response.
Re the CHN and FE85, neither are ruler-flat on-axis. The former wasn't designed to be, the latter may not have been either.
This is the point I'm making. People often demand flat axial response in all times and all places without always understanding that there are a host of other aspects to driver & speaker output that influence whether a flat axial response will actually give the results they expect. Take your Hedd Type 07, and the fact that you love them when they have their flat EQ response. I don't doubt that for one instant, but the Type 07 is a 2-way using a 7in midbass and an AMT tweeter. The crossover frequency, individual on / off axis (polar) responses of these drive units are in no way analogous to a 3in wideband drive unit, which to give the most obvious example will likely have much more limited dispersion (i.e. rolls off more quickly off-axis) at higher frequencies. I'd need to find some measurements of the Hedd to confirm that, but it's likely to the point of certainty. As a result, you may get a flat axial response with them, but in practice it may sound rather lacking at the top end because that early off-axis rolloff affects the HF power response.
Re the CHN and FE85, neither are ruler-flat on-axis. The former wasn't designed to be, the latter may not have been either.
Last edited:
Well, I work in a recording studio and have a bit of acoustic knowledge 
Of course I don't expect it to not change freq response off axis, so I was actually taking this for granted, the fact that I expect to talk about their response in a limited region +/-15 degrees off axis. That's how I expect to listen to a speaker and to feel it's strengths and weakneses.
As for Hedd, there is an article in italian, but Chrome translates it rather well. It's about the little brother Type 05 (which has a almost 6" woofer) but has a number of graphs
HEDD Type 05 Series ONE - Nearfield Studio Monitor
Of course I don't expect it to not change freq response off axis, so I was actually taking this for granted, the fact that I expect to talk about their response in a limited region +/-15 degrees off axis. That's how I expect to listen to a speaker and to feel it's strengths and weakneses.
As for Hedd, there is an article in italian, but Chrome translates it rather well. It's about the little brother Type 05 (which has a almost 6" woofer) but has a number of graphs
HEDD Type 05 Series ONE - Nearfield Studio Monitor
Last edited:
Right, that's progress. We're not mind-readers (well I'm not, although I can't speak for anybody else ) so unless you tell us, I don't take anything for granted.
The Hedd data in the link you post basically confirms what I'm saying: as you can see from the polars, it has quite wide dispersion out to about 12.5KHz above which it progressively narrows. I don't know of any 3in wideband drivers that can achieve that simultaneously with a flat on-axis response. For example, the Scan 4424 and its 8424 stablemate, which have probably the flattest axial response of any on the market, are narrowing by about 4KHz, and that drop-off in the HF power response can in some cases cause a slightly dull presentation, which is why I'm saying be careful about simply assuming a flat axial response with 3in wideband units will give you the results you expect (the same issue can apply to tweeters with limited dispersion abilities &c).
Either way, the above is most of your answer: if flat axial response is all you're interested in, and your listening circumstances are set up to reduce the influence of the HF power-response / early reflections (which as you know from working in a studio, can affect percieved timbre and spacial cues) then the Scan 4424 or 8424 have the flattest response of any units currently available TTBOMK. At the more affordable end of the market, the Tymphany TC9 or TG9 also follow that object.
) so unless you tell us, I don't take anything for granted.The Hedd data in the link you post basically confirms what I'm saying: as you can see from the polars, it has quite wide dispersion out to about 12.5KHz above which it progressively narrows. I don't know of any 3in wideband drivers that can achieve that simultaneously with a flat on-axis response. For example, the Scan 4424 and its 8424 stablemate, which have probably the flattest axial response of any on the market, are narrowing by about 4KHz, and that drop-off in the HF power response can in some cases cause a slightly dull presentation, which is why I'm saying be careful about simply assuming a flat axial response with 3in wideband units will give you the results you expect (the same issue can apply to tweeters with limited dispersion abilities &c).
Either way, the above is most of your answer: if flat axial response is all you're interested in, and your listening circumstances are set up to reduce the influence of the HF power-response / early reflections (which as you know from working in a studio, can affect percieved timbre and spacial cues) then the Scan 4424 or 8424 have the flattest response of any units currently available TTBOMK. At the more affordable end of the market, the Tymphany TC9 or TG9 also follow that object.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.