I wonder how the effect was observed, the second harmonic distortion produced by a speaker, or any other object, has to be far higher than that produced by the sound travelling through the air, quite a challenge, perhaps it's just theory?
My way of minimising the boxy sound in a speaker.
DIY 3 way Aerogel Audax speaker is a TL adapted from Wireless world Bailey design using triangular tranmission line with 3 different sized sections. The 4 in midrange (covers 400hz to 4000hz) speaker enclosure is a taper rectangle box with a depth of about 14 ins to help reduce backpressure. The whole speaker enclosure resonance frequency is around 300 hz. The triangle sections reduces standing waves and smoothen the sound output. The TL open end design mimics the open box section by guiding the backcone sound out instead of bouncing about inside muddling the original signal. The midrange box 300hz resonance is way below its passband to be of consequence.
I didn't try to suppress the box resonaces by damping mainly becos TL have very low backpressure and most importantly I realised the slight resonance impart a smooth warm tone to the sound. The sound pressure built up in a closed box imparts a boxy coloration bcos the sound pressure have nowhere to go but reflect back towards the cone as a very small delay and muddles the sound. Midrange is easier to deal with as it can be dampen down with soundproofing and bigger cavity to relieves the cone back pressure. However I think The best midrange box is the nautilius cavity.
For frequency below 500hz in my experience TL , Aperiodic and the nautilius enclosure give a more clear and airy sound as the back cone sound is not reflected back but guided out.
For freq above 4Khz the backcone sound is usually not a big issue but if you run the tweeter around 1.5 to 2 khz up it is a good idea to get a tweeter with a small vent behind it to give it a more open sound.
My personal preference is having the xo above 4khz for the tweeter and below 500hz for woofer as our hearing is extremely sensitive to to the midrange spectrum (500 to 4000hz)
DIY 3 way Aerogel Audax speaker is a TL adapted from Wireless world Bailey design using triangular tranmission line with 3 different sized sections. The 4 in midrange (covers 400hz to 4000hz) speaker enclosure is a taper rectangle box with a depth of about 14 ins to help reduce backpressure. The whole speaker enclosure resonance frequency is around 300 hz. The triangle sections reduces standing waves and smoothen the sound output. The TL open end design mimics the open box section by guiding the backcone sound out instead of bouncing about inside muddling the original signal. The midrange box 300hz resonance is way below its passband to be of consequence.
I didn't try to suppress the box resonaces by damping mainly becos TL have very low backpressure and most importantly I realised the slight resonance impart a smooth warm tone to the sound. The sound pressure built up in a closed box imparts a boxy coloration bcos the sound pressure have nowhere to go but reflect back towards the cone as a very small delay and muddles the sound. Midrange is easier to deal with as it can be dampen down with soundproofing and bigger cavity to relieves the cone back pressure. However I think The best midrange box is the nautilius cavity.
For frequency below 500hz in my experience TL , Aperiodic and the nautilius enclosure give a more clear and airy sound as the back cone sound is not reflected back but guided out.
For freq above 4Khz the backcone sound is usually not a big issue but if you run the tweeter around 1.5 to 2 khz up it is a good idea to get a tweeter with a small vent behind it to give it a more open sound.
My personal preference is having the xo above 4khz for the tweeter and below 500hz for woofer as our hearing is extremely sensitive to to the midrange spectrum (500 to 4000hz)
Rather back up your own experiences with plausible theories and measurements that don’t point out otherwise.I also tend to like a 3-way with the mids from 300 Hz to 6 KHz when possible. 400 Hz to 4 KHz is good but the Fletcher Munson curve still shows us as being very sensitive at 4 KHz so I cross above that whenever possible. I tend to like well made paper and paper composite cone mids; 4 inch to 5 inch. the best (personal taste for sure but when done right; they sound much more natural than harder cones)...FWIW...
Hi Scott, pardon my grammer. High frequency tweeter backwae is usually blocked by the magnet assembly. All of which is very close to the tweeter dome. high frequency wae is usually reflected back out through the dome itself and a portion of it being converted to heat as it impinge the magnet mass. Since the distance is so small the reflected wave is acceptable and not an issue. The stored energy in the tweeter cone is I think very important as a heavier cone will tend to move slower and store enregy and then releasing it later ..muddling the sound. It is also why even a cheap planar ribbon sound so effortless and airy.
What I am saying is just my observation with no concrete proof. I been dabbling in audio for 40 years listened but not owned high end speakers so take what I hv to say with abit of salt. Personally I think the speaker is the most important part of the audio chain and a 2 way n fullrange speakers are too much of a compromise technically to be a good sounding speaker. Its also the reason why box sound is more prevalent in small 2 way speaker.
I am just saying in general so there are exceptions but if we want good sound get a good big 3 way speaker with proper time alignment and room equalization amplifier ...sit back and enjoy.
What I am saying is just my observation with no concrete proof. I been dabbling in audio for 40 years listened but not owned high end speakers so take what I hv to say with abit of salt. Personally I think the speaker is the most important part of the audio chain and a 2 way n fullrange speakers are too much of a compromise technically to be a good sounding speaker. Its also the reason why box sound is more prevalent in small 2 way speaker.
I am just saying in general so there are exceptions but if we want good sound get a good big 3 way speaker with proper time alignment and room equalization amplifier ...sit back and enjoy.
Hi oldspkguy, yes I agree with you about having it between 300hz to 6khz. The problem is getting a midrange to handle it well enough without overstretching the physical limits of it.
Everytime a signal of 300hz and a 5khz signal goes into the speaker there will be intermodulation of sound wave. 300hz is very low and requires a 5 in speaker to handle comfortably at normal listening levels.
in my opinion 5 in speaker cannot handle over 4khz due mainly to physical constrain of cone size and weight. Yes there are speakers that can do it no doubt but there is no need to pay exponentially more for a small difference.
Fletcher munson curve is the very reason why a flat frequency response is not the way to good sound. To achieve realistic sound the response curve have to boosted greatly depending on loudness and personal taste. Another variable is the individual ears response compare with the typical human hearing .This actually is quite significant and is also the reason to listen to the speaker yourself and judge it base on your preference rather than peers approved ideals.
Everytime a signal of 300hz and a 5khz signal goes into the speaker there will be intermodulation of sound wave. 300hz is very low and requires a 5 in speaker to handle comfortably at normal listening levels.
in my opinion 5 in speaker cannot handle over 4khz due mainly to physical constrain of cone size and weight. Yes there are speakers that can do it no doubt but there is no need to pay exponentially more for a small difference.
Fletcher munson curve is the very reason why a flat frequency response is not the way to good sound. To achieve realistic sound the response curve have to boosted greatly depending on loudness and personal taste. Another variable is the individual ears response compare with the typical human hearing .This actually is quite significant and is also the reason to listen to the speaker yourself and judge it base on your preference rather than peers approved ideals.
I think you will find the trend is only among a particular group of enthusiasts. Those with more of an interest in technical sound quality are rather unlikely to view the use of a strongly resonating cone with a ragged beaming response as a good idea in a frequency range where the ear is sensitive.
agree; my "mid" is actually two different drivers. I have the newer Mark Audio Pluvia 7PHD (paper cone) and the SB Satori MR16P-4 in parallel. I have very high quality resistors in series so the amplifier "sees" about 4.5 Ohms minimum. I have an electrical 1st order HP X/O calculated to about 650 Hz and the LP is 2nd order calculated to about 3200 Hz. BUT, the combined output is acoustically more like 300 Hz to 6000 Hz. I don't notice any beaming or comb filter effects at all. From the listening position; I think it sounds as good as any very high end, wide band mid or full range. Put it this way; I have never owned a better sounding mid band set up and I have been doing speakers well over 50 years now. I think it is true world class and would love to do an A/B/X with ANY mid driver from ANY brand at ANY price range; I think it would do as well as even a $1000++ Accuton, if not better!
I am feeding these with my Yamaha A-S701 and IT has never sounded better! Even at a louder volume level I would not normally try; I detect ZERO stress, strain or distortion; just pure musical bliss. [NOT for everyone obviously but it's good enough to last me the rest of my time here on Earth]...
Cheers!
Hi oldspkguy, good to know you found sound nirvana. I subscribe to the idea of if it sounds perfect for you it is perfect for you. Maybe once in a while check out the latest gadgets thats pops up and compare it to what you have but then again remember what you hear cannot be better then the source. A lot of professional sound mixing equipments if you open them up you discover there is probably filled with supposingly garbage resistors ,electrolytic capacitors and the famous OPAMP chip 741 used for post processing. The AV directors may hv hidden hearing disabilities in certain frequencies band and tend to overcompensate during the mixing.Finally one of the most common audio mixing idea..compressing the sound levels to suit packaging and technical needs.
Ones mans meat is another mans poison, I personally never like the sound of metal and plastic cones but once in a while I find certain metal drivers sounding very good.
Do you remember the famous Bose 901? Certain type of music can sound incredible using the bose 901. Yes its widely criticizes for not following the audiophile norms but if u just listen with an open mind its a great speaker in its own way.
Guess I shouldn;t rant on out of topic here. So thanks for the respond,Cheers
Ones mans meat is another mans poison, I personally never like the sound of metal and plastic cones but once in a while I find certain metal drivers sounding very good.
Do you remember the famous Bose 901? Certain type of music can sound incredible using the bose 901. Yes its widely criticizes for not following the audiophile norms but if u just listen with an open mind its a great speaker in its own way.
Guess I shouldn;t rant on out of topic here. So thanks for the respond,Cheers
i do not understand this, as far as i know the metal parts in a driver motor is a very poor absorber, one could say it is an efficient reflector, so how can any sound wave be absorbed to heat in these very hard parts? most tweeters do have some porous absorber of felt or foam within the structure.
i do not think a heavier cone slows transients down as it is often said that transient response is a function of frequency and phase response. a heavier cone will lower the self resonance of the spring mass system of the driver, the driver can go lower at the expense of sensitivity. i would guess a low mass ribbon tweeter sounds airy because of the limited low end and often with a very wide horisontal dispersion.
I agree with that, and also instinctually think that it is not capable of deforming the box to any great extent.
I also think that what travels through the cone is the higher frequency energy where the ear is sensitive, and not as the post prior to your states.
Re 2 or 3 way, this raises the question of what you personally find an acceptable compromise. I could not live with the arcs of JM lab or Wilsons with 5 drivers all focussed on the listening spot.
As soon as I move I hear the multiple sources. Three ways I can just tolerate, but 2 are better for me in this respect.
To me, Fletcher-Munsen curve is the very reason why a flat response is required.
Point 1, yes if the energy is reflected efficiently it is not converted.
Point 2, heavier cone producing a lower efficiency has been extensively discussed, and it seems it is wrong, but I'd like to see and understand the proof.
I built a plasma tweeter, in the past because it was difficult remaining convinced in the face of all the misinformation.
I had to hear it for myself. Now, I don't expect anyone to take a subjective opinion as gospel, but I couldn't see what all the fuss was about, not in the slightest.
I agree with your assessment. I think that polars and T/S parameters tell you what you want to know about a tweeter.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.