Thank you, BYRRT for that very kind review, but you leave me no room for improvement 😱.
After all I'm still working on the eyebrows...
I notice the hardness you speak about when listening with headphones. After hearing it played back in my room (twice the room effects) it's hard to unlearn hearing my room while playing normal music. After all, for the most part we hear what we want to hear or what we are most focused on.
Looking forward to hearing your room gmad, also curious as to what music you will choose. I'll upload a different song next time, one that I actually really like.
Might be an all instrumental piece, maybe a track from Rodrigo y Gabriella as I've been playing them a lot lately.
For me it sounds as the line arrays are really on track regarding tweaking even classical music you reported they fire with satisfaction meaning probably all genres get a thumb up. In that line arrays can't be listened near field but at a distance you probably have only the room back to make improvement 😱. From the ZAPPALOGY you seems have "the exact mathematical design" and express miss the "eyebrows", are you sure eyebrows isn't there for example by accident painted white or something 🙂.
You say i leave you no room for improvement, well then try this maybe the tweak can produce "eyebrows". A resonance and inductance compensation network sometimes called motion compensation or impedance linearization. Electrically it damp cone movements locally at speaker end of speaker cable. Haven't heard it on TC9FD but other drivers and can be a knight and day mod.
X, not saying it is harsh, just thinner in the mid than I'm used to.
I would still have the down slope of my lines active while listening to your track actually. I just tried on my headphones and compared to the original track. Less crisp if that is at all the right term to use. It is missing some of the warmth of the original song for me, can't put my finger on what it is exactly. But as said, I've been used to ("conditioned to" might even be a better term) a warm sound and that could be why my lines are more pleasing to me with a downward slope.
Comparing my convolved file to the original track keeps that warmth to the voices. Maybe even a touch too much.
That warmth is what attracted me to the youtube clip from Kenrick. The JBL has that in spades (too much actually). The Avantgarde has it too, but you notice less of the room in that one compared to the JBL.
Just tried my EQ and headphones in JRiver with your track, downward slope from say ~ 400 Hz to -4 dB 20000 Hz and the warmth is there for me. Making it sound like the original played without EQ. That's what I meant when I said crisp, probably not the right term to use. Could be entirely me. I'm funny that way.
I'm particularly sensitive at 6 KHz, as acknowledged by measurements in the hospital a while back when I had a hearing check. That might have something to do with it. When I had my amplifier in repair I got it back and played it with my old speakers that I've had forever. After a few songs I had a feeling something was off. Looked at the dials and noticed the treble knob was turned up just a bit. Probably happened during transport. Backed it off again to default and all was well again in my world.
Let's get X's track on this new page to get some more views, mine can't be the only opinion on it:
By the way, I still say: build the other half! I like the bass output, what is this reference setup exactly?
I would still have the down slope of my lines active while listening to your track actually. I just tried on my headphones and compared to the original track. Less crisp if that is at all the right term to use. It is missing some of the warmth of the original song for me, can't put my finger on what it is exactly. But as said, I've been used to ("conditioned to" might even be a better term) a warm sound and that could be why my lines are more pleasing to me with a downward slope.
Comparing my convolved file to the original track keeps that warmth to the voices. Maybe even a touch too much.
That warmth is what attracted me to the youtube clip from Kenrick. The JBL has that in spades (too much actually). The Avantgarde has it too, but you notice less of the room in that one compared to the JBL.
Just tried my EQ and headphones in JRiver with your track, downward slope from say ~ 400 Hz to -4 dB 20000 Hz and the warmth is there for me. Making it sound like the original played without EQ. That's what I meant when I said crisp, probably not the right term to use. Could be entirely me. I'm funny that way.
I'm particularly sensitive at 6 KHz, as acknowledged by measurements in the hospital a while back when I had a hearing check. That might have something to do with it. When I had my amplifier in repair I got it back and played it with my old speakers that I've had forever. After a few songs I had a feeling something was off. Looked at the dials and noticed the treble knob was turned up just a bit. Probably happened during transport. Backed it off again to default and all was well again in my world.
Let's get X's track on this new page to get some more views, mine can't be the only opinion on it:
By the way, I still say: build the other half! I like the bass output, what is this reference setup exactly?
Last edited:
You mean a DAC like this one?
http://www.amazon.com/Tda1543x4-DIR9001-TDA1543-Parallel-Muse/dp/B0095NSFJQ
It's a folded bass horn of my own design coupled with a 2-way conical synergy style horn on top. System sensitivity is about 98dB at 2.83v. All controlled with a miniDSP 2x4 running as 1x4.
Interesting! Somehow figured it would be a synergy type setup. Have you tried to playback the track on that same system?
(double the room effect to see how that sounds)
You've got to be brave though, it gave me a scare to hear my own room that loud 🙂.
(double the room effect to see how that sounds)
You've got to be brave though, it gave me a scare to hear my own room that loud 🙂.
One problem with a tall unshaded array is that your seated listening height might be off the center of the array. The driver coupling is less linear as well. Having listened to both straight and CBT 1-way arrays I feel the CBT design performs much better; however you do lose some output as noted here.
If you use a significant amount of equalization to extend the bass then the extra headroom of the unshaded array is probably the best option; however, at that point a 2-way array with larger woofers is what I would do. I have a CBT using ten 4" woofers and I can get very good bass extension and still have enough headroom to play at loud levels.
Not long ago I designed a straight array using ten 6.5" woofers and ten ribbon tweeters per side. I have a 12-channel amp set up so that I can attenuate the line with different shading levels. I shot response plots with and without the shading. In some areas you actually can see where the output increased with the shading and it allowed me to use a more reasonable crossover point. With smaller drivers this moves up the range where interference is an issue; however, the shading will still help smooth out the response.
Wesayso, Are your graphs, as the one quoted above measured at 1W/ 2.83V input?
Have you measured distortion at higher levels?
Rick Craig, thanks for your feedback.
Certainly not 😀. The SPL is somewhat calibrated with a RadioShack SPL meter but the above won't take 1W in the midrange. It migh exceed that in the bass due to the equalizing being done.
All I'm looking for is comfortable levels to get the graph. To loud and my room rattles. It's a living room after all with lots of things that can rattle. Most notably of all my metal ceiling and the window blinders. But I do want to play loud enough to overcome the ambient noise.
All I'm looking for is comfortable levels to get the graph. To loud and my room rattles. It's a living room after all with lots of things that can rattle. Most notably of all my metal ceiling and the window blinders. But I do want to play loud enough to overcome the ambient noise.
I asked as I am not getting any idea how loud your system can go within reasonable THD.
These little drivers when playing single has very bad distortion in the lower bass region.
I am really curious to know if array-ing them helps in lower bass distortion.
The only reference I've got is the MCLA project (the corner array with dayton N90).
Murphy says his arrays can play 113dB at 1m distance @ 50hZ with 5% 2nd order & 3.5% 3rd order distortion!
But then I guess the N90 have somewhat lower distortion at low frequencies than the TC9.
However I haven't read any positive views of the MCLA anywhere!
Maybe its due to very poor high freq performance ( > 3 % harmonic distortion above 3KHz) of the drivers. Sadly arraying does not help at those frequencies, if I am right.
I understand your problem with testing or even enjoying concert level music!
But it would have helped a lot for others considering a design similar to yours.
These little drivers when playing single has very bad distortion in the lower bass region.
I am really curious to know if array-ing them helps in lower bass distortion.
The only reference I've got is the MCLA project (the corner array with dayton N90).
Murphy says his arrays can play 113dB at 1m distance @ 50hZ with 5% 2nd order & 3.5% 3rd order distortion!
But then I guess the N90 have somewhat lower distortion at low frequencies than the TC9.
However I haven't read any positive views of the MCLA anywhere!
Maybe its due to very poor high freq performance ( > 3 % harmonic distortion above 3KHz) of the drivers. Sadly arraying does not help at those frequencies, if I am right.
I understand your problem with testing or even enjoying concert level music!
But it would have helped a lot for others considering a design similar to yours.
I'd say don't guess but measure the ND90 to be sure. If I have to guess the TC9 drivers are hard to beat, certainly considering cost. The TG9 8 ohm might even be better (looks that way on paper) although not sure about low end distortion for the TG9 being better than the TC9 at higher drive levels.
From Zaph Audio the distortion of a TC9:
Compared to the Aura NS3 (closest I could find resembling the Dayton ND90)
The ND90 would have to be far better than the Aura to beat the TC9.
Think about it, with 25 drivers playing if you put 25 watt in, it's still only 1 watt for each driver. Distortion in the low end up to 110 dB at 50 Hz I wouldn't worry about when placed in a corner like the Murphy array. Away from the corners they should be able to do 50 HZ @ 110 dB too.
Look at the graph above from the TC9 and my graph you posted and now figure out if an array of TC9's helps lower distortion in the low end 😉.
From Zaph Audio the distortion of a TC9:
Compared to the Aura NS3 (closest I could find resembling the Dayton ND90)
The ND90 would have to be far better than the Aura to beat the TC9.
Think about it, with 25 drivers playing if you put 25 watt in, it's still only 1 watt for each driver. Distortion in the low end up to 110 dB at 50 Hz I wouldn't worry about when placed in a corner like the Murphy array. Away from the corners they should be able to do 50 HZ @ 110 dB too.
Look at the graph above from the TC9 and my graph you posted and now figure out if an array of TC9's helps lower distortion in the low end 😉.
I somehow missed the NS3 at Zaphaudio. The Dayton N90 should be exactly the same as NS3. Dayton website mentions it as direct replacement of the NS3.
I thought NS3 having a better distortion profile at low end as I use to follow the Klippel tests at www.medleysmusings.com
The site has not tested the Vifa TC9. So I compared the TC9 graph from Zaph with the NS3 from Medleys. The Klippel NS3 graph shows way much better HD than the TC9 at Zaph. Please note that the NS3 is tested at 90dB against the TC9 at SPL around 84dB!
Now, the tests from both the sites on the NS3 doesn't match.
zaph shows both 2nd & 3rd order HD at 100Hz at -20dB
but Medleys shows 100Hz 2nd order HD at -30dB & 3rd order HD at -40dB
Note that Medleys has the fundamental 100Hz at 108dB while it should be around 84dB at Zaphs. This makes results even more contradictory.
High frequency HD results in both tests looks pretty bad though.
Someone must be doing it wrong since the margin of difference is pretty big.
Wish I'd find some Klippel on the TC9 too.
I thought NS3 having a better distortion profile at low end as I use to follow the Klippel tests at www.medleysmusings.com
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The site has not tested the Vifa TC9. So I compared the TC9 graph from Zaph with the NS3 from Medleys. The Klippel NS3 graph shows way much better HD than the TC9 at Zaph. Please note that the NS3 is tested at 90dB against the TC9 at SPL around 84dB!
Now, the tests from both the sites on the NS3 doesn't match.
zaph shows both 2nd & 3rd order HD at 100Hz at -20dB
but Medleys shows 100Hz 2nd order HD at -30dB & 3rd order HD at -40dB
Note that Medleys has the fundamental 100Hz at 108dB while it should be around 84dB at Zaphs. This makes results even more contradictory.
High frequency HD results in both tests looks pretty bad though.
Someone must be doing it wrong since the margin of difference is pretty big.
Wish I'd find some Klippel on the TC9 too.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
I trust Zaph's tests - consistent with the HD levels that I measure for the TC9FD. It's true that HD should be referenced to same SPL output though. The ND90 will have better low frequency performance as it has a lot more xmax. That is why 25 of the TC9's will have the ability to do lower bass without much excursion. I highly doubt the sound quality in the mids and highs for the ND90 is going to be as clean and smooth as the TC9FD, currently, the king of flat response drivers as seen in both objective and subjective comparisons so far. Perhaps the ND90 can be added in round 2? With only 82dB sensitivity, it will need double the power to achieve the same loudness. I think the RS100 with same 4mm of xmax and higher sensitivity is a better choice. Even the PS95-8 would be a contender with this driver.
Last edited:
Zaph mentioned the inconsistent behavior of the NS3 as the above shown new NS3 tested worse than an earlier version of the NS3. Lets see, here's the older version, with any luck the Dayton is based on that one:
Last edited:
Hello xrk971,
You mentioned earlier about tymphany TPY03 drivers.
Did you test them yet? I am curious because I may be able to lay my hands on a few of those for an array. 🙂
I am also curious how the dayton RS100 would compare to the TC9. Its heavy cone at 4.25g Mms doesn't look good for HF though. The TC9 would have been perfect at 3.5mm excursion!!
You mentioned earlier about tymphany TPY03 drivers.
Did you test them yet? I am curious because I may be able to lay my hands on a few of those for an array. 🙂
I am also curious how the dayton RS100 would compare to the TC9. Its heavy cone at 4.25g Mms doesn't look good for HF though. The TC9 would have been perfect at 3.5mm excursion!!
The TYP03 drivers were said to be shipped by a member in India some time ago. Although I never received confirmation that they are shipped yet. Regarding the RS100 vs TC9FD - more info in then Objective Comparison thread and also the Subjective Blind Comparison thread. The RS100 is a very nice driver with deep bass capability. It lacks the highs of the TC9FD but with a little EQ boost it can be very good.
I guess we are both talking about the same source 😀
Please update your initial listening impressions incase you receive yours earlier.
Adventures with JRiver...
This thread is on several different, yet related topics, so I hope people reading this thread can follow along...
I am going to share my continuing adventures with the JRiver software wesayso is using for his arrays. Naturally, I am sharing this to give others an additional perspective on using this software as a DSP option for EQing arrays or any other system for that matter.
I can first start out by saying, that JRiver Media Center 20 is a very high quality piece of software with an amazing DSP engine, limited by the hardware and quality of your PC. If You have any desire to use your PC for high end audio and home theatre applications, You will want this software, even if You are using another player. The cool thing, is You can channel all your computer audio through the DSP engine of JRiver using the WDS driver, including youtube videos and computer games.
As I found, JRiver has a large learning curve, and finding good instructions takes some goggling, as You can do so much with this software.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was having problems with playing certain DVD movies. As it turns out, this is an encryption issue for copyright protection for certain production studios, like Disney and Paramount, so JRiver can not "unlock" these disks. There are two work arounds. One is installing AnyDVD to remove the encryption. I have not tried this yet, but I will down the road, as AnyDVD also will allow me to skip the FBI warnings and previews at the beginning of the movie. Being an Artist, I respect copyrights and the such, but I did not pay my hard earned money to be nagged! It is claimed that AnyDVD not have access to the menus and some of the features like BD Live, so if that is important to You, You may want to consider a different option. The second option is using another player to play movies and using JRiver's WDS driver to run the audio. So You can use PowerDVD, Media Player Classic, Windows Media Player, etc. The one challenge You may run into is delayed audio due to latency, depending how much DSP You use and how fast your computer is. Some players have options to delay video to sync it with the audio, and this is something I will be learning myself.
Having said all of that, I can say JRiver has a superior picture compared to the other players, and I have not even started to play with the madVR options yet. So eventually I will be going the AnyDVD route, especially when I get my Blu-ray drive.
I will note here also, that if You like Foobar and want to run additional DSP, You can with JRiver. Audio wise, JRiver is equal to Foobar, with a better user interface. The advantage to Foobar is that it is free.
Okay, enough marketing
This thread is on several different, yet related topics, so I hope people reading this thread can follow along...
I am going to share my continuing adventures with the JRiver software wesayso is using for his arrays. Naturally, I am sharing this to give others an additional perspective on using this software as a DSP option for EQing arrays or any other system for that matter.
I can first start out by saying, that JRiver Media Center 20 is a very high quality piece of software with an amazing DSP engine, limited by the hardware and quality of your PC. If You have any desire to use your PC for high end audio and home theatre applications, You will want this software, even if You are using another player. The cool thing, is You can channel all your computer audio through the DSP engine of JRiver using the WDS driver, including youtube videos and computer games.
As I found, JRiver has a large learning curve, and finding good instructions takes some goggling, as You can do so much with this software.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I was having problems with playing certain DVD movies. As it turns out, this is an encryption issue for copyright protection for certain production studios, like Disney and Paramount, so JRiver can not "unlock" these disks. There are two work arounds. One is installing AnyDVD to remove the encryption. I have not tried this yet, but I will down the road, as AnyDVD also will allow me to skip the FBI warnings and previews at the beginning of the movie. Being an Artist, I respect copyrights and the such, but I did not pay my hard earned money to be nagged! It is claimed that AnyDVD not have access to the menus and some of the features like BD Live, so if that is important to You, You may want to consider a different option. The second option is using another player to play movies and using JRiver's WDS driver to run the audio. So You can use PowerDVD, Media Player Classic, Windows Media Player, etc. The one challenge You may run into is delayed audio due to latency, depending how much DSP You use and how fast your computer is. Some players have options to delay video to sync it with the audio, and this is something I will be learning myself.
Having said all of that, I can say JRiver has a superior picture compared to the other players, and I have not even started to play with the madVR options yet. So eventually I will be going the AnyDVD route, especially when I get my Blu-ray drive.
I will note here also, that if You like Foobar and want to run additional DSP, You can with JRiver. Audio wise, JRiver is equal to Foobar, with a better user interface. The advantage to Foobar is that it is free.
Okay, enough marketing
NSB Arrays EQed through M-Audio...
Now on to some impressions:
I did get my M-Audio to work in WASAPI. I can not get the main PC volume controls to sync up with this DAC (M-Audio driver problem), but thankfully I can get the JRiver volume to sync with the internal digital volume inside the M-Audio. I am not sure if this volume is bit perfect or not. But, I can say this DAC does sound better then the Realtek. The Realtek has a very forward and sharp sound. The treble is just outright nasty and shouty. It is a shame, as for movie playback, the 5.1 settings in JRiver are the most versatile in the industry. I could dedicate different PEQ settings to each channel, including the subwoofer. Unfortunately the "shouty" nature of the Realtek could not be over come with the DSP, as it is a character of this DAC. But I can say, that running the Realtek WASAPI through the DSP created the clearest sound I have heard through this DAC. As it stands now, for the best sound quality overall, I am limited to two channel playback through the M-Audio.
So far I have only used the Graphic EQ on my arrays, as I had that setting already figured out. I would like to set up my measuring system and dial in the Parametric EQ and try some convolution. But running the "known" EQ curve through the M-Audio has produced better results. The arrays sound closer to the tone of the Aveburys. The Avebury still has the arrays beat on intimate details, 3D soundstage and a more refined high. But the arrays do integrate better with the subwoofers then the Avebury does. The arrays have a more even upper bass between 80 - 200 Hz.
I am curious to know from You other array listeners out there: Does your soundstage width narrow when You EQ up the highs above 10 kHz? I have noticed when I turn these frequencies up, the sound becomes more "centered" and less "spacious" The tone is better with these sounds added, but spaciously I prefer the natural roll-off of the NSB. Is this a "beaming" issue or is it a phasing issue of the graphic EQ? I would like to do the same EQ curve with FIR filters in convolution to see if that makes a difference...
All and all, I like the sound, yet I still desire a more "resolved" high and I would like to keep the wide staging I like so much about the arrays. Of course it is possible that the "resolved" highs could be obtained using a better DAC...
Now on to some impressions:
I did get my M-Audio to work in WASAPI. I can not get the main PC volume controls to sync up with this DAC (M-Audio driver problem), but thankfully I can get the JRiver volume to sync with the internal digital volume inside the M-Audio. I am not sure if this volume is bit perfect or not. But, I can say this DAC does sound better then the Realtek. The Realtek has a very forward and sharp sound. The treble is just outright nasty and shouty. It is a shame, as for movie playback, the 5.1 settings in JRiver are the most versatile in the industry. I could dedicate different PEQ settings to each channel, including the subwoofer. Unfortunately the "shouty" nature of the Realtek could not be over come with the DSP, as it is a character of this DAC. But I can say, that running the Realtek WASAPI through the DSP created the clearest sound I have heard through this DAC. As it stands now, for the best sound quality overall, I am limited to two channel playback through the M-Audio.
So far I have only used the Graphic EQ on my arrays, as I had that setting already figured out. I would like to set up my measuring system and dial in the Parametric EQ and try some convolution. But running the "known" EQ curve through the M-Audio has produced better results. The arrays sound closer to the tone of the Aveburys. The Avebury still has the arrays beat on intimate details, 3D soundstage and a more refined high. But the arrays do integrate better with the subwoofers then the Avebury does. The arrays have a more even upper bass between 80 - 200 Hz.
I am curious to know from You other array listeners out there: Does your soundstage width narrow when You EQ up the highs above 10 kHz? I have noticed when I turn these frequencies up, the sound becomes more "centered" and less "spacious" The tone is better with these sounds added, but spaciously I prefer the natural roll-off of the NSB. Is this a "beaming" issue or is it a phasing issue of the graphic EQ? I would like to do the same EQ curve with FIR filters in convolution to see if that makes a difference...
All and all, I like the sound, yet I still desire a more "resolved" high and I would like to keep the wide staging I like so much about the arrays. Of course it is possible that the "resolved" highs could be obtained using a better DAC...