^ Yeah kimmosto is good tuning the speakers no question about it, the grand master VituixCAD wizard 😀
I've never heard that speaker, or speaker that would use any of the drivers, or any kimmosto made speakers for that matter. I'm bound to judge the performance only by looking at the graphs and I've observed it is easy to make better looking graphs with with waveguide, minding how the acoustic system plays together and measures. No special tricks needed in the xo, or at least there is no need to know any tricks, just tune it up.
Contrasting this speaker the one Kimmosto commented earlier behind link vineethkumar posted, this one has optimizations in the acoustic domain like not too big woofer, some thought in the c-c spacing, slants, xo to suit, passive radiator, state of the art woofer and what not, even custom PIR weighting probably reflecting reality better to his knowledge. Well though out system and this will produce good results, but can't get as smooth graphs as with waveguide. At least I don't see how it would. This one is probably one of the most advanced top of the line small direct radiating two way speakers we have and probably sounds very good, but has still bumpy DI which could be smoother with waveguide. Would it sound better I have no idea. But to get performance further than this the physical construct needs to change. In the end it is just matter of making a product to suit application, what ever that is.
I've never heard that speaker, or speaker that would use any of the drivers, or any kimmosto made speakers for that matter. I'm bound to judge the performance only by looking at the graphs and I've observed it is easy to make better looking graphs with with waveguide, minding how the acoustic system plays together and measures. No special tricks needed in the xo, or at least there is no need to know any tricks, just tune it up.
Contrasting this speaker the one Kimmosto commented earlier behind link vineethkumar posted, this one has optimizations in the acoustic domain like not too big woofer, some thought in the c-c spacing, slants, xo to suit, passive radiator, state of the art woofer and what not, even custom PIR weighting probably reflecting reality better to his knowledge. Well though out system and this will produce good results, but can't get as smooth graphs as with waveguide. At least I don't see how it would. This one is probably one of the most advanced top of the line small direct radiating two way speakers we have and probably sounds very good, but has still bumpy DI which could be smoother with waveguide. Would it sound better I have no idea. But to get performance further than this the physical construct needs to change. In the end it is just matter of making a product to suit application, what ever that is.
Last edited:
Hello.
Can someone provide FRD and ZMA files for the Scan Speak D2608/913000 and SB Acoustics SB17NRXC35-4?
Can someone provide FRD and ZMA files for the Scan Speak D2608/913000 and SB Acoustics SB17NRXC35-4?
Last edited by a moderator:
The March Sointuva is a good comparison where the lower DI has been flattened with the waveguide.
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/march_audio_sointuva/
Does it sound better, I don't know either. Normally a DI that goes up and down has a greater impact on the in room and power response, kimmo has juggled that nicely.
I think so too, was able to make best compromise by his words as seen on the graphs. I have no reason to suspect any issues with the sound although I'm not sure which kind of listening situation (room) the speaker is optimized.
The March Sointuva shows smoother graphs overall due to the waveguide mostly, and probably sounds very good as well. Power is very smooth, DI as well, some humps and dips here and there, perhaps this was optimized for different listening situation. It is quite clear that a flat on-axis wasn't the main target on either. It would be very interesting and much fun to have blind listening test between the two but not sure would it prove anything or give more knowledge to relate graphs to sound. They both probably sound like the creators wanted, as good as possible 🙂
Edit. the Sointuva has clearly optimized for ruler straight (sloping) sound power leaving the top octave(s) rising on-axis response and even the listening window seems rising. I remember some Toole graphs showed that at listening position the highest highs don't correlate to sound power but more with the on-axis response? Perhaps Sointuva is designed and optimized for nice imaging and balanced sound, ment to be toed-in? Either this is best compromise for the system (that has beaming highs), and/or the designer knows better than target graphs in CTA-2034.
I don't see much marketing department involving on either design, which is nice. It looks like both designers knew what they were doing, doing it for the sound. Perhaps there is lot more to learn on these designs and graphs? . 🙂
Last edited:
Sorry, didn't mention in the text the other speaker I was refering to is Kimmosto designed Taipuu Speakers Kero Active fluid linked to few posts ago.
Here is the link
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php?44128-VituixCAD-v2&p=640418&viewfull=1#post640418 .
Here is the link
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showthread.php?44128-VituixCAD-v2&p=640418&viewfull=1#post640418 .
Very high frequencies in real rooms tend not to be perceived much more than the direct sound due to absorption by air and every surface in the room making it hard for them to return. Speakers with an up-tilted on axis tend to sound too bright to me regardless, but there is always the balance of directivity and on axis to reach a happy medium.
Edit: This comment in the review thread regarding toe is interesting
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...r-the-march-audio-sointuva.29677/post-1040734
But it seems there was a measurement error in design and the HF was not intended to be so hot
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...r-the-march-audio-sointuva.29677/post-1040275
There are no target graphs that I know of, only interpretations of the Toole and Olive research.
Always but we are starting to drift away from simulations of ideal drivers...
Last edited:
The above design from kimmo is pretty much what I had in mind when I suggested to you before that you could use a tapered cabinet with a non waveguided tweeter to do better than might be expected of a dome tweeter on a baffle.
Taipuu Kero Active is not available, but passive version is. Kimmosto designs crossovers for Taipuu, with constraints from the company regarding layout and driver units. This is my understanding from reading Finnish and foreign hifi forums. Kero is not listed on the company's homepage at all, but passive version can be found from one vendor. 7600€/pair sounds pretty high price for passive bookshelf 2-way, but is on par with Sointuva.
Purifi doesn't lis a single tweeter, it looks like https://sbacoustics.com/product/sb26adc-c000-4/ And notice, not with a waveguide!
https://www.audiokauppa.fi/Taipuu-Kero-jalustakaiutinhttps://taipuuspeakers.fi/en/taipuu-speakers/
Purifi doesn't lis a single tweeter, it looks like https://sbacoustics.com/product/sb26adc-c000-4/ And notice, not with a waveguide!
https://www.audiokauppa.fi/Taipuu-Kero-jalustakaiutinhttps://taipuuspeakers.fi/en/taipuu-speakers/
Last edited:
These are traced directly from the datasheets, so do not include any effects of bafflestep/edge diffraction, nor (for the SB17) the LF shape or impedance given by whatever box loading/tuning you decide on - you'll need to add in all of those yourself.
HTH
David.
Yeah these were interesting. Kimmosto participating there as well. This discussion gives a feeling the graphs don't tell the whole story 🙂 And indeed, the discussion seems to have triggered offshoot thread which tries to discuss about how the measurement data and rankings are presented in the ASR forum. It looks like the loudspeaker data ranking seems to yield products that are optimized for best rank and not for best sound... This seems to be happening in the amplifier tests as well..
Trusting Kimmosto on this one. I hope he keeps on posting on the forums so we can follow and learn for more how to relate perceived sound to the graphs 🙂
Here are few experiments done on ideal drivers in VCAD I posted on some other threads:
Here trying to examine D'appolito woofer configuration with different sized woofers:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/asymmetrical-dappolito.381667/post-6906366
Here investigating if baffle step can be compensated by another driver on backside of the enclosure:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/baffle-step-compensation-methods.230342/post-6907917
Both done in quite a hurry and didn't think them experiments thoroughly, please comment on the respective threads if you check them out and spot errors or information / experiments I missed, thanks 🙂
Here trying to examine D'appolito woofer configuration with different sized woofers:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/asymmetrical-dappolito.381667/post-6906366
Here investigating if baffle step can be compensated by another driver on backside of the enclosure:
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/baffle-step-compensation-methods.230342/post-6907917
Both done in quite a hurry and didn't think them experiments thoroughly, please comment on the respective threads if you check them out and spot errors or information / experiments I missed, thanks 🙂
I have neglected this thread for a while... sorry about that.
The Taipuu speaker shown in post 150 is an interesting example. It employs the Avalon-style bevels, but with more rounding. I am certain it has a very smooth diffraction response. However, I do not know how I would simulate that baffle in VituixCad. At high frequencies, the baffle will appear to be trapezoid. At low frequencies, the baffle will appear to be appear to be a rectangle with radiused edges. There will be some range of frequency which transitions from rectangle to trapezoid. I don't know how to handle that with VituixCad. Perhaps the baffle sim for the woofer can be a rectangle (sized as the outer box), while the baffle sim for the tweeter can be a trapezoid. But this is a course, simplistic approximation, and how close would it match reality? Without a much more sophisticated BEM to compare it to, it would be just speculation. If I ever build a cabinet such as this, I think I will have to make a prototype box to measure the diffraction response... That or learn to use one of the more sophisticated BEM applications.
Sometimes, while reading the ASR forum, I get the impression that some of the people there have become so focused on the spinorama data that it has become a fetish. If you asked some of them to listen to a new speaker and then decide if they liked it or not, the response would be "How could I know if I like the sound, if I have not seen the data?"... ouch...
I am particularly disappointed in the laser-like focus on the Preference Score... I estimate the tolerance on the preference score as applied to any given individual as +/- 1.0 at best.
j.
The Taipuu speaker shown in post 150 is an interesting example. It employs the Avalon-style bevels, but with more rounding. I am certain it has a very smooth diffraction response. However, I do not know how I would simulate that baffle in VituixCad. At high frequencies, the baffle will appear to be trapezoid. At low frequencies, the baffle will appear to be appear to be a rectangle with radiused edges. There will be some range of frequency which transitions from rectangle to trapezoid. I don't know how to handle that with VituixCad. Perhaps the baffle sim for the woofer can be a rectangle (sized as the outer box), while the baffle sim for the tweeter can be a trapezoid. But this is a course, simplistic approximation, and how close would it match reality? Without a much more sophisticated BEM to compare it to, it would be just speculation. If I ever build a cabinet such as this, I think I will have to make a prototype box to measure the diffraction response... That or learn to use one of the more sophisticated BEM applications.
I follow the ASR forums, but only as a "lurker". Kimmo courageously challenges the orthodoxy over there. I agree with him about the practical limitations of Test data. The data can absolutely tell us which speakers will sound bad. The speakers that test well are very likely to sound good to most listeners. But among the speakers that test well, the data can not tell us which ones we will prefer, or why. If Tmuikku, Juhazi, and I all auditioned a collection of speakers that tested very well in the spinorama, I am confident we would agree that the speakers all sound good. But they would not sound the same. Which ones would sound better to me, and why? And if Juhazi prefers different speakers than I do, the data will not be much help in explaining that.
Sometimes, while reading the ASR forum, I get the impression that some of the people there have become so focused on the spinorama data that it has become a fetish. If you asked some of them to listen to a new speaker and then decide if they liked it or not, the response would be "How could I know if I like the sound, if I have not seen the data?"... ouch...
I am particularly disappointed in the laser-like focus on the Preference Score... I estimate the tolerance on the preference score as applied to any given individual as +/- 1.0 at best.
j.
^I agree with you 100% about ASR and preferences. I used to be more active there, and I presented strong criticism againgst starting to do speaker reviews with NFS. I must say that I was right questioning his knowhow and timetables, reviews don't go deep enough, Amir even resisted doing distortion tests! Total mess when others started to calculate and publish Preference ratings. A single number telling how good a speaker is, damn it, and Olive himself abandoned that long time ago! And those pre-school level "discussions" in each thread. Sigh... Then race of SINAD of dacs and amps etc. that readers LOVE and OBEY...
Erin's AudioCorner is doing it right, he has long history testing and making speakers, and a humble mindset.
Erin's AudioCorner is doing it right, he has long history testing and making speakers, and a humble mindset.
Last edited:
I agree with both @hifijim and @Juhazi
In local hifi forums in my country, these days some people take ASR as the golden reference for purchase decisions and force others also to just buy based on reviews and ratings on ASR. They claim that everything about speakers can be measured now and no auditioning is required. It has gone to the extent that if somebody mentions that along with the objective data, subjective listening impressions are also need to determine if one likes a speaker or not, it is met with very strong criticism which often escalates into name calling and needing mods to close down threads. 😀
I don't have much experience designing speakers. Due to my interest in speakers and my EE background, I try to learn things bit by bit. With each bit I learn I get more excited and learn more about this hobby. I follow ASR for the detailed measurements that they publish which gives insights into the engineering that has gone into a speaker so that I can learn more about all this. But at no point am I going to buy things just based on Amir's impressions or looking at the spin data alone.
In local hifi forums in my country, these days some people take ASR as the golden reference for purchase decisions and force others also to just buy based on reviews and ratings on ASR. They claim that everything about speakers can be measured now and no auditioning is required. It has gone to the extent that if somebody mentions that along with the objective data, subjective listening impressions are also need to determine if one likes a speaker or not, it is met with very strong criticism which often escalates into name calling and needing mods to close down threads. 😀
I don't have much experience designing speakers. Due to my interest in speakers and my EE background, I try to learn things bit by bit. With each bit I learn I get more excited and learn more about this hobby. I follow ASR for the detailed measurements that they publish which gives insights into the engineering that has gone into a speaker so that I can learn more about all this. But at no point am I going to buy things just based on Amir's impressions or looking at the spin data alone.
I have started looking at Vituix predicted preference ratings while simulating. I can get quite high preference ratings in simulation 🙂 I find it helpful in telling me where to draw the line when doing a tradeoff or fine tuning a PEQ. Recent changes allow the equation to be customized. Perhaps that enables it to be customized to match one's preferences.
^ Perhaps! Need to start paying attention to the scores, if they correlate to prototype I'm tweaking.
Made simple experiment just now, a simulated xo that is in my mono system DSP currently, but was then tweaked bit further by ear. I reflected the changes back to the simulation and the reference scores got ever so slightly better (all of them three)! Correlates with the score, nice.
Then checked out previous configuration with slightly different slopes, but equally nice graphs otherwise "flat" everything. This new one sounds a lot more lively while the previous is kind of flat sounding, kind of boring in comparison. The scores are roughly the same, the latter is probably a bit better though which correlates to better perceived sound. Since the score was pretty high already on the previous boring configuration I could have been happy for that and make millions selling it!!1😀 (I wonder If I preferred the previous setup if swapped to that now..?)
Next up, micromanage the system even more to the score and see if there is still something to tweak by ear? Gonna make jillions!😀 I've got no idea what attributes to the perceived difference in sound. Obviously the graphs are bit different, while the physical construct stays the same.
Here's the data
Previous "boring" sounding setup
8.108 Equation 9 with sub
9.44 Equation 10 with sub
8.985 New custom equation
current "lively" sounding setup
8.113 Equation 9 with sub
9.333 Equation 10 with sub
9.167 New custom equation
edit:
Notice how the scores are almost the same on both, notice the better sounding has lower scores on the Equation 9 and 10! The bass is different but the difference in sound is not in the bass I think, because both have it similar sound on bass. These have different slopes on the mid/tweet and while the on-axis / power stuff is pretty much the same there is difference in delays and what not. Small change in ER DI as well. Could be anything though. And no idea if the absolute quality is good or not, or how it sounds in stereo 😀 Perhaps the main takeaway is that it is very hard or impossible to rate a speaker with one number, like mentioned.
Made simple experiment just now, a simulated xo that is in my mono system DSP currently, but was then tweaked bit further by ear. I reflected the changes back to the simulation and the reference scores got ever so slightly better (all of them three)! Correlates with the score, nice.
Then checked out previous configuration with slightly different slopes, but equally nice graphs otherwise "flat" everything. This new one sounds a lot more lively while the previous is kind of flat sounding, kind of boring in comparison. The scores are roughly the same, the latter is probably a bit better though which correlates to better perceived sound. Since the score was pretty high already on the previous boring configuration I could have been happy for that and make millions selling it!!1😀 (I wonder If I preferred the previous setup if swapped to that now..?)
Next up, micromanage the system even more to the score and see if there is still something to tweak by ear? Gonna make jillions!😀 I've got no idea what attributes to the perceived difference in sound. Obviously the graphs are bit different, while the physical construct stays the same.
Here's the data
Previous "boring" sounding setup
8.108 Equation 9 with sub
9.44 Equation 10 with sub
8.985 New custom equation
current "lively" sounding setup
8.113 Equation 9 with sub
9.333 Equation 10 with sub
9.167 New custom equation
edit:
Notice how the scores are almost the same on both, notice the better sounding has lower scores on the Equation 9 and 10! The bass is different but the difference in sound is not in the bass I think, because both have it similar sound on bass. These have different slopes on the mid/tweet and while the on-axis / power stuff is pretty much the same there is difference in delays and what not. Small change in ER DI as well. Could be anything though. And no idea if the absolute quality is good or not, or how it sounds in stereo 😀 Perhaps the main takeaway is that it is very hard or impossible to rate a speaker with one number, like mentioned.
Last edited:
