Ok, got it 🙏
Yes, for LS series boxes but what about FHXL and pensils? Not needed or not developed yet? What sort of equipment needed for measurement and tuning, costs? Maybe I missed it but why no measurements for the popular diy boxes as above?
"and where can we find the full specs and measurements for the MA drivers itself?"
https://www.markaudio.com/
https://www.markaudio.com/
When you buy driver's model Maop, you will get everything you need to create your own box.
You get measured individual parameters for your particular drivers.
The parameters are very close to each other in a pair.
You get measured individual parameters for your particular drivers.
The parameters are very close to each other in a pair.
For me it really has to do with what you are after.
Soundstage is not a single category that one speaker can outperform another. For example the clarity and precision of the separation that you can get with single driver speakers is amazing, but if you are looking for a big soundstage then multi-driver speakers can be more effective. Listening to an orchestra on the latter can give the illusion of being in the concert hall without the need to separate instruments as well. Open baffle and panel speakers can have a similar effect.
In my experience, the single driver speakers that don't need any crossover are much better at bringing out differences of the chain (DAC,preamp/poweramp..) compared to multi driver speakers (if the ability to drive the speakers is taken out of the equation).
Other than the type of music, parameters such as how the recording was mixed, room reverberations, placement, etc play a huge role in the sound and different speakers can lead to vastly different experiences.
Finally, frequency response even measured within the listening environment is only a small part of the equation and being flat does not always result in the best listening experience.
Excellent!, thanks Sir. So have to buy first in the case of MA
Interesting to see what sort of data comes with the Sibelius itself
This is a warning re: my question...
Try Shostakovich 8th, III. Allegro non troppo on Naxos with Petrenko... I suppose you attend live venue performance of classical music so you know how it "sounds"!?
//
Orchestral music on concert levels with single 10 cm driver?? You guys are so funny
Not required. As a general point (there's humour here, but it's a serious side too that many overlook): since these are boundary-loaded designs. i.e. the floor, front wall and corner [if relevant] are intended to form the final stage of the horn expansion, like all other such enclosures. So anechoic measurements are essentially worthless, because you're not measuring the complete horn. The downside to this is that you're stuck with in-room measurements, with all the issues that entails, since for the same reason (i.e. they're boundary loaded designs) it's almost impossible to take a nearfield LF measurement and then merge or splice it to the farfield.
As for measurement equipment in general, same as anything & depends how far down that particular rabbit hole you want to go. For frequency response, distortion etc., you need a dedicated calibrated measurement microphone, stand / stands, and desired software. Some packages like SoundEasy & LspCAD have not-so-basic & basic [respectively] measurement software included; other options are REW (free) ARTA (sort-of-free but sadly being discontinued to full capability NLA as the developer isn't selling licenses any more) Holmimpulse etc. Whether you go USB (single channel) or dual channel microphone setups (latter with separate power) is a matter of debate, with some dismissing the former out of hand as it can't as-is provide correct time-of-flight. There are workarounds for that though, and personally (using both) I don't have an issue -the simplicity of a USB setup also makes life a lot easier for those starting out. Learn to walk before you can run, as ye olde adage goes. 😉 Many superb designers like the late & much missed Jeff Bagby used USB setups, so claims you can't get good results are up against formidable issues (otherwise known as reality 😉 ). Are they as capable in outright terms? No, but as noted, depends just how far you want to go: good enough is good enough, and many never find the need to do more. I have Omnimic available, as well as a dual-channel ARTA setup & the former tends to get just as much use. Clio Pocket is another integrated option, albeit a bit more expensive. As for impedance measurements, you can make your own jig, either with resistors or with a separate amplifier & run REW or an alternative, or buy something like DATS -also inexpensive, integrated & user friendly. Again, I've got both, & the latter usually gets as much or more usage. Yevgeniy at HFC uses its predecessor (WT3). These are low-voltage measurements, but good for consistency.
Which ones are you thinking of that aren't included in the MA data sheets? Not that they're perfect, & since I'm a consultant to them, I've been pushing for some changes. But there aren't many that I can see that aren't included. Tabulated data is largely similar, sans Zo which most single driver users never bother with & can be calculated if desired from the other specs. For Ls & Lp substitute Le at 1KHz & 10KHz. Rp and %shift in a box (latter depending on what box) aren't much value to most end users, so 'we' tend to omit.
As for the graphs, MA publish basic separate axial FR and impedance plots. CSD uses exactly the same data you see on an FR chart -it's only the way it's presented that's different. The only other one Jordan provide is a THD plot, which is nice-ish to have, but with my critiquing hat on -THD isn't actually much use, since it doesn't tell you anything about the effects per se. For that, you need individual HD plots, ideally 2nd - 5th order, & if they can be done at different drive levels, so much the better. Very few manufacturers provide that, especially larger scale ones, partly for lack of time as the people taking, and then presenting the measurements often have other things to be doing (like building drive units), and partly because frankly, they are concerned a/ about information overload for people with only a basic knowledge, and b/ as an extension from that, not everybody understands how to read plots like that, or what they are saying. It's not always as obvious as it might seem, and again, they are concerned that some berk (as often happens) ascends their soapbox and starts pontificating inaccurate information which impacts sales. At the end of the day, they're companies, not charities, & can't afford to risk getting pasted in that way. So it becomes a judgement call about how much (or little) you provide, keeping in mind your main target audience -the bulk of which in many cases aren't necessarily highly knowledgeable about technical performance etc.
That’s some complexity as you dive deeper and there are costs also if one persists. not sure if the average diyer will have the appetite to go down this path. That’s why I indicated these type of work best suited for a well resourced speaker manufacturer or a professional consultant, like your good self 😉- my point exactly!
Last edited:
Claims is right (gigantic advertising graphics not required 😉 ), since like anything it depends what is meant. A 27Hz tuning arguably covers the full orchestral range, depending on what you include in that (64ft organ pipe racks need not apply). However, while it might cover the frequency range, it certainly doesn't cover the LF dynamic range of an orchestra at realistic (aka 'live') SPLs. Assuming you listen at 85dB at your listening seat, that means you need at least 20dB LF headroom to cover dynamic peaks, and that ain't going to happen. Remember too that since with a point source SPL decreases at -6dB per doubling of distance. So if you happen to listen at, say, 2m away (fairly close) and the speaker sensitivity is rated at 1m, then you'll need 4x the input power and double the excursion just to hit that baseline SPL, eating into the limited headroom available. There's a reason big systems with HE 15in woofers & compression horns exist. 😉
Not particularly. About £200 should get you a decent calibrated USB microphone, microphone stand and DATS. If you use REW (not my favourite, but free & still supported) then you can do without DATS, albeit slightly less conveniently, & get away with a few inexpensive resistors & clip leads or wago connectors. So call it about £100. You can spend much more if you wish, and many do if they are serious about this side of the hobby -it becomes (much) more important if you get into multiway speaker design. The point is though, for a very modest sum in the context of this pastime, you can hhave a serviceable measurement rig. Certainly not cutting edge, but if we accept that 'councils for perfection' are not actually necessary for many users, esepcially those new to this side of things, then it's sufficient for basic and even some more advanced uses. The rest, i.e. learning measurement techniques, deciding alignments etc. is basically up to the individual & how interested they are in that side of things. Many are -I'm an example of that. Some others aren't, & are more interested in the actual building & finishing of things. Depends where your focus lies. It's only when you get to, say, very specialised hardware / software design (such as actual component production & advanced digital filtering) that a speaker manufacturer necessarily pulls ahead. And in their case, it's often as much about production consistency, finish & minimising overheads as it necessarily is about outright performance.