Will your new program run on a mac? Does it have all the info you had talked about posting here?
Dan
You'll have to ask keyser. I'm just an interested observer/student with no dog in this hunt (other than I've heard SL's Orions at a friend's house and I thought they sounded very good -- definitely got my attention).
I don't know - Can a Mac run a .Net app? I thought that they could these days.
Yes this software does all that I talked about here and some that I haven't. I haven't decided how to handle the proprietary stuff, so its best to just keep it close.
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't CD just means to an end -- having the room sound be about like the direct sound? Is that only important at high frequencies?
Seems like it'd be easy enough to kill that and the other frontal one and hear what happens to imaging, soundstage, and spaciousness....
Last edited:
The there are going to be a few differences that will provide difference in perception:
1. When using speakers, there is the interaural issue that is very insignificant with earphones.
2. Listening room effects mixed with recording room effects.
3. When I did recording, the mics were inside the earphone, and the earpone was worn same as listening. What this does is the interaction between earphone and canal is also taken into consideration during recording. With the SL approach, there might be some filtering effect due to the mic location. The done side of the way I recorded is that I seem to also get earphone scrubbing and blood circuilation into the recording.
Well yes I do think that you are wrong. To me CD means the same "relative" response in all directions (it can, and should, drop in level, but not change shape). What you said earlier would allow for the direct sound spectrum to be different than the reverberant sound spectrum as long as the average direction matched the reveberant spectrum, each individual direction would not have to. Thats not a strict enough requirement.
This is important down to the point where our hearing starts to loose temporal resolution - i.e. it changes the way the signals are processed -at about 500 Hz. Below this frequency the nueral firings are becoming synchronous with the temporal signal and we are loosing the ability to distinguish reflections etc. as temporal events. This ability is most accute at about 2 kHz and falls on either side of that frequency.
So lets say it halves each octave away from 2 kHz. This makes it pretty much negligable above about 8 kHz and below about 500 Hz - when compared to 2 kHz. And it means that 1 - 4 kHz is critical. And it makes 4-8 kHz just as important as 500 - 1 kHz. These are the fundamental principles behind doing things the way that I do.
Last edited:
Oh I don't mind sharing the data, it's just that I don't have any to share right now. I have listening-axis FR data for individual drivers, and just screenshots for the system responses and polars.
Next time I take some measurements I'll save the individual polar responses and I can share them with you. I'm not sure if the off-axis angles will be accurate enough for what you need though. I'll try and do my best 🙂
Check out the off axis graphs of Zaph's driver: Zaph|Audio - ZA14W08 Woofer
Looks strikingly similar to what I've measured.
Dan
Looks strikingly similar to what I've measured.
Dan
Definitely not. It seems they do OB and coax designs. Not a road I want to travel again. Did you think that response was an OB or a coax or were you responding to something other than what you quoted?😕
Dan
Just bored and thought about other useful experiments I've done.
Here's 2 woofers in undamped boxes separated by a few dBs and bass boosted:
Same 2 woofers, one box damped, bass flat:
Dan
Here's 2 woofers in undamped boxes separated by a few dBs and bass boosted:
Same 2 woofers, one box damped, bass flat:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Dan
Nope, I was responding to your post saying the D220/PE 10" speaker was the best speaker you have heard. I thought Emerald Physics built speakers with that combo and people say they sound really good.
I was not connecting back to your measurements at all, just curious about what speaker sounded great with the D220/PE10.
I attend different concerts where there is a little more excitment, movement, screaming, singing all around me. No way to record the event.
Its a very cool idea if there isnt any localize sounds interupting it. Like a guy signing off key next too you 😉
What you decide and choose its completely up to you. Im not sure what you are asking when you post "wish you had some for your implementation"....I have posted a couple times now that I have ALL the CDs and Waveguides we are discussing (plus augerpro did the measurements) and the Celestions are cheap like the D220, cost has no bearing on the conclusions (measurements back up my opinion). The D220 was the worst of them all mounted on the PE 10" waveguide. Again, you are 100% right this is my opinoin but Its not just me alone, evidence shows that the D220 alone is a bad CD...look at the CSDs.
The only person in this little back in forth without evidence is yourself. I have compared them side by side, I have the measurements to back that up and since you seem to not see them on Augerpro's site I will post them for you in a minute.
With the Celestion 1745, 1500Hz is fine with the Celestion 1425 then about 2KHz.
I confused how you know that the throat mating with the CD has an issue since you have never had them? Im curious because I thought they mated very well.
What about the bad throat of the PE 10"/Selenium choice?
That longer narrow tube throat does cause more issues then anything the QSC does. You can ignore my opinion but just ask Geddes about a screw on design.
Last edited:
Here is the D220 CSD, which I think is bad
Here is the Celestion 1425 CSD, which I think is better.
We can even look at the two tone distortion measurements
D220, has higher distortion levels.
1425
Yes, the debate around the audibility of all this is well known but still I have listened to both and you have not....I have concluded the D220 isnt good. The data backs up my opinion on that.
You can still choose to say the D220 is good for you. Im cool with that but please stop posting that Im being purely subjective.
Now maybe a bolt on version of the d220 is better, There has been several posts in other waveguide threads stating that the longer narrow throat of a scew on design is a bad thing for waveguides.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Here is the Celestion 1425 CSD, which I think is better.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
We can even look at the two tone distortion measurements
D220, has higher distortion levels.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
1425
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Yes, the debate around the audibility of all this is well known but still I have listened to both and you have not....I have concluded the D220 isnt good. The data backs up my opinion on that.
You can still choose to say the D220 is good for you. Im cool with that but please stop posting that Im being purely subjective.
Now maybe a bolt on version of the d220 is better, There has been several posts in other waveguide threads stating that the longer narrow throat of a scew on design is a bad thing for waveguides.
Seems like it'd be easy enough to kill that and the other frontal one and hear what happens to imaging, soundstage, and spaciousness....
Unfortunately, those kind of tests have never been conducted in an objective way.
Bought a Smyth Realiser to generate my own subjective data but I'm still months away from doing anything meaningful.
Hi Dan, yes I too have found it useful to do measurements to check the difference between damped and undamped boxes. I used nearfield measurements for my tests, which probably exaggerate the problems, but sure show you when you have fixed them!!
Below is shown two measurements of one of my midbass units, one in the bare box, and one with damping material added. I think it should be obvious which is which! 😉
Note that these measurements were done quite a few years apart, and with different software, however I can assure you the peaks that are there (1st measurement done with speaker workshop) are real and compared to other measurements I took at the time the peaks were substantially reduced, however they weren't reduced as much as my current damping material which is the recent blue measurement.
Tony.
Below is shown two measurements of one of my midbass units, one in the bare box, and one with damping material added. I think it should be obvious which is which! 😉
Note that these measurements were done quite a few years apart, and with different software, however I can assure you the peaks that are there (1st measurement done with speaker workshop) are real and compared to other measurements I took at the time the peaks were substantially reduced, however they weren't reduced as much as my current damping material which is the recent blue measurement.
Tony.
Attachments
Just bored and thought about other useful experiments I've done.
Here's 2 woofers in undamped boxes separated by a few dBs and bass boosted:
Same 2 woofers, one box damped, bass flat:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Dan
Thanks! that is a great little test.
Could you explain what you used for dampening? Also, Was it placed on the walls or was it loosely placed inside.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.