Fair enough, but you are making a lot of assumptions as to what the OP meant
Probably one should do each speaker at a time - gets hold of any differences between sides. But I'm still in a sort of exploratory phase so I'll leave that bonus for later
- I just want a decent balance. Listening to it now, I think it could take a little more energy upwards also. I'm not sure the B&K is the "right" one...Sorry btw, I didn't read the topic better... it clearly says drive. Still...
//
Yep, this post, and my edit acknowledging the same, hit exactly the same time.
I totally agree a driver's minimum phase freq response variations should be flattened out.
IMO, almost no minimum phase variations should be left uncorrected within the driver's intended passband and crossover summation region(s)....it's all win, no lose.
It's cool that this is true for each individual driver, no matter what the overall response design goal is, for the speaker as a whole.
So this discussion really should define what 'flat response' it's talking about...
a driver or a system ?...
cause they sure as heck are different animals.....
Probably one should do each speaker at a time - gets hold of any differences between sides. But I'm still in a sort of exploratory phase so I'll leave that bonus for later
Sorry btw, I didn't read the topic better... it clearly says drive. Still...
//
If you get bored with the BK one and have an easy way to re EQ then try the JBL Synthesis curve (My system is close to this) Bass guitar and kick drums sound spot on for my ears...
Attachments
The OP was just a troll folks. Made a wild claim complete with saying he can't back it up. "simply put, our ear/brain is much more sensitive to the timing and wave shape but not SPL, so speaker sound quality must only be judged by serious listening, not just FR." So really can't take this guy seriously. Just a waste of time really. No reason for his opinion, so no reason to give it any credibility. Just my two cents. ; )
Yes I got that feeling at the beginning. But since I have participated I willl have to refrain from doing the deed
I suggest everyone pay attention to lojzek Tony.
thanks everyone who tried to provide useful inputs, no matter you agree or not.
honestly i have zero interest or spare time to read your book, as i have read through the "Loudspeaker Design Cookbook" by Vance Dickason and also studied many speaker design notes.
i design/build/measure my own speakers, with some time and patient its no difficult to attain a reasonably flat FR.
i have common tools such as sig-gen, LCR meter, SPL meter, DSO etc to help me to get the job done, from dacs, amps to speakers.
honestly i have zero interest or spare time to read your book, as i have read through the "Loudspeaker Design Cookbook" by Vance Dickason and also studied many speaker design notes.
i design/build/measure my own speakers, with some time and patient its no difficult to attain a reasonably flat FR.
i have common tools such as sig-gen, LCR meter, SPL meter, DSO etc to help me to get the job done, from dacs, amps to speakers.
Probably one should do each speaker at a time - gets hold of any differences between sides. But I'm still in a sort of exploratory phase so I'll leave that bonus for later
Sorry btw, I didn't read the topic better... it clearly says drive. Still...
//
Due to mutual coupling there will be excessive bass if that curve is for one channel only
Please read at least one basic book about loudspeakers and acoustics first. Than, you can learn that frequency response can not be measured with a sine wave generator and a simple SPL meter. I believe that all other participants in this thread know that.
Oh, you have read the excellent Cookbok by Dickason. Good for you! So, why are you are not using information from that book?
And why you don't want to read another excellent book? Is the Cookbook the only book on loudspeakers which you have read so far? Speaker design notes aside? Just for your information, speaker design notes usually are more marketing hype than real engineering information.
Again, with signal generator and SPL meter you can not measure frequency response, if you have not access to an anechoic chamber and B&K automated sig. gen. and microphone connected to a chart recorder.
Most drivers are capable of an decent output with decent THD. And even cheap drivers can have a quite flat response. So why do people think some premium drivers with uneven FR sound way better than a cheap driver with flatter response? Even at levels with no audible THD? Why do so many think that one speaker is more dynamic than another with equally flat response? Why do we talk about how two different speakers can differ in how open a sound is, if a speaker sounds damped or how the transients are when the two speakers both have very low THD and a nice flat response? How come people hear a crossover even if the FR and THD at the listening postion is nice and clean? How come people think that different speakers need a different amount of power before the music stops sounding flat and starts to leave the speaker to fill the room?
FR is like measureing how even a gradient from red to blue with a fixed brightness a monitor can produce. Where red is bass and blue is treble. And THD measurements only measures if there are any noise in the gradient. But there are more to how good a monitor is isn't it? What if the monitor with the perfect graident can't show details in the dark parts of a night scene, or if the bright moon lack details? What if it can't show the bright light of the moon without loosing detail in the dark parts? Well it isn't very dynamic isn't it? Everyone understands what dynamics is in image reproduction. How HDR allows details in dark and bright parts of the photograph simultaneously. But when it comes to sound, dynamics seems to be considered some mysterious unmeasurable thing that can't really be explained.
Why do I never see a measurement of a speakers dynamic capabilities? Why do I never see measurements of how well a FR scale with power?
A completely frictionless driver should be able to produce exactly 100 times the sound energy at 10W as it does at 0.1W. But no speaker is frictionless. And the percentage of energy lost to friction is different at different energy levels. As long as you only measure FR at 1W, and never measure how well it scales with power you will never measure dynamics.
A driver can be perfectly flat at 2W, and be just as flat at 0.1W. But if the percentage of energy lost to friction is higher at 0.1W than it is at 2W then the sound at 2W will have far more than 20 times the power despite having only 20 times the input. The speaker with the nice flat FR and low THD when measured at both 2W and at 0.1W won't be able to produce the weak background details if it's a high friction driver. The details will drown in the disproportionately loud foreground.
Think about it, a brick lying on the ground will move a lot with a lot of force applied, move a little less with a little less force applied, but wont move at all with little force applied. Only the movement of frictionless things can scale linearly with applied force.
Many of todays drivers are so focused on flat response and low THD that they are designed with high mechanical damping. But I suspect that high mechanical damping punishes faint details in the sound and gives less dynamics.
How would it be if we measured monitors the same way we measured speakers? Only cared about how well it reproduced frequencies at a set power level and didn't care about how well it behaved at different power levels? If we didn't care how the different colours scaled with power applied? How would our monitors perform if we didn't measured or cared if they had low contrast and lost all details in dark parts as soon as they should produce some brightness?
I haven't been into designing my own speakers for that long. But since I've got a very clear picture of where I find commercial speakers in my price range are lacking, I have been very determined for what to listen for in my search. And I have listened to lots of speakers the last year. And high Qms has been a common thread to all drivers that has been able to produce faint details while simultaneously also producing louder sounds. Since I found this relationship a few months back it has been confirmed and strengthened with every speaker I've listened to since.
In speakers with low Qms I have only heard faint details if they are produces by another driver than the one producing the louder noises. Let's say loud bass and faint birdsong or violins.
Imagine when I found that the manufacturers that made high Qms drivers pointed at the high Qms as the factor behind dynamic sound. And how their philosophy was to keep Qms as high as possible. Why does speaker manufacturers and enthusiast swear to that low physical damping (high Qms) gives a more dynamic sound if FR and THD says it all?
Just think about what dynamic sound really is, and start looking for it. And you realize that a flat FR has nothing to do with what makes a driver dynamic.
FR is like measureing how even a gradient from red to blue with a fixed brightness a monitor can produce. Where red is bass and blue is treble. And THD measurements only measures if there are any noise in the gradient. But there are more to how good a monitor is isn't it? What if the monitor with the perfect graident can't show details in the dark parts of a night scene, or if the bright moon lack details? What if it can't show the bright light of the moon without loosing detail in the dark parts? Well it isn't very dynamic isn't it? Everyone understands what dynamics is in image reproduction. How HDR allows details in dark and bright parts of the photograph simultaneously. But when it comes to sound, dynamics seems to be considered some mysterious unmeasurable thing that can't really be explained.
Why do I never see a measurement of a speakers dynamic capabilities? Why do I never see measurements of how well a FR scale with power?
A completely frictionless driver should be able to produce exactly 100 times the sound energy at 10W as it does at 0.1W. But no speaker is frictionless. And the percentage of energy lost to friction is different at different energy levels. As long as you only measure FR at 1W, and never measure how well it scales with power you will never measure dynamics.
A driver can be perfectly flat at 2W, and be just as flat at 0.1W. But if the percentage of energy lost to friction is higher at 0.1W than it is at 2W then the sound at 2W will have far more than 20 times the power despite having only 20 times the input. The speaker with the nice flat FR and low THD when measured at both 2W and at 0.1W won't be able to produce the weak background details if it's a high friction driver. The details will drown in the disproportionately loud foreground.
Think about it, a brick lying on the ground will move a lot with a lot of force applied, move a little less with a little less force applied, but wont move at all with little force applied. Only the movement of frictionless things can scale linearly with applied force.
Many of todays drivers are so focused on flat response and low THD that they are designed with high mechanical damping. But I suspect that high mechanical damping punishes faint details in the sound and gives less dynamics.
How would it be if we measured monitors the same way we measured speakers? Only cared about how well it reproduced frequencies at a set power level and didn't care about how well it behaved at different power levels? If we didn't care how the different colours scaled with power applied? How would our monitors perform if we didn't measured or cared if they had low contrast and lost all details in dark parts as soon as they should produce some brightness?
I haven't been into designing my own speakers for that long. But since I've got a very clear picture of where I find commercial speakers in my price range are lacking, I have been very determined for what to listen for in my search. And I have listened to lots of speakers the last year. And high Qms has been a common thread to all drivers that has been able to produce faint details while simultaneously also producing louder sounds. Since I found this relationship a few months back it has been confirmed and strengthened with every speaker I've listened to since.
In speakers with low Qms I have only heard faint details if they are produces by another driver than the one producing the louder noises. Let's say loud bass and faint birdsong or violins.
Imagine when I found that the manufacturers that made high Qms drivers pointed at the high Qms as the factor behind dynamic sound. And how their philosophy was to keep Qms as high as possible. Why does speaker manufacturers and enthusiast swear to that low physical damping (high Qms) gives a more dynamic sound if FR and THD says it all?
Just think about what dynamic sound really is, and start looking for it. And you realize that a flat FR has nothing to do with what makes a driver dynamic.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.