SY said:
I think, if we want to define one, it wouldn't be too difficult to define the measure for driver detail (if it is at all useful), as this is pure physics.
Do remember that driver detail is different with speaker detaill, and that driver detail relies on many other parameters, more critical is the frequency band.
We can see what makes sound is reproduced (accurately) when small signal is introduced into the voice coil. The cone moves back and forth. Here we want the membran/cone to be lightweighted but rigid at the same time. And we need a good mechanism to pull the membrane/cone back to its original position quickly. This last parameter is affected by air pressure around it, so by how it is mounted on the baffle/box.
With the existence of other driver to produce the same frequency, the detail can be lost because of different phase of the moving masses.
So basically we know what to choose and do if we want a detailed system. For a midwoofer in a 2-way speaker, where we apply quite a wide band of frequency, there is even more requirements for the driver to be able to reproduce the music (which comprises of different frquencies) in detail.
I don't like a cone that seems to be "uncontrolled". Good sound (thus also detail) is achieved when during reproducing music the cone is always softly vibrating "relative" to its X position (X as in X-max), not only that other rough vibration relative to the magnet.
Is it the mind, or the attitude/character?
I'm not talking for the majority but I think sight doesn't affect my judgement. When I change my capacitor into a better one, sure I hope that there will be an improvement, but I'm ready to put the original back if there's degradation.
Having good ears is most benefial when price/look doesn't correlate with sound quality.
Even if it is widely known that A sounds better than B, when I cannot hear the difference, I cannot see why I have to think that one should be better than the other? It will be clear that they sound the same to my ears, and that is it. May be it's about character/attitude?
Wait. You may still benefit from "good hearing" if you understand that not every differences should be able to be differentiated by ears on the spot (at once)!
In greater sense, sometimes you have to think why you never happy listening to the 8xOS stuffs, or why no speaker with series-XO has ever become a classics...
What I mean, for most of the cases, I found that a blind ABX testing is useless. I'm good with ABX testing, but still I find it useless. You need more "time" to feel it, as it might be a "distortion" that you cannot hear but feel.
Hmmm... I think you're right SY (about how our brains work), it is "like" that...
But brains work based on logic. You have to have "assumptions" for you to jump into conclusion. Class-A should sound better than class-B, Mundorf should sound better than Solen, etc. As in programming, we can empty/clear this "memory" of assumptions.
How much this will reduce the "memory" effect, or, will it clear up completely, that's another issue, but the logic/method works.
But brains work based on logic. You have to have "assumptions" for you to jump into conclusion. Class-A should sound better than class-B, Mundorf should sound better than Solen, etc. As in programming, we can empty/clear this "memory" of assumptions.
How much this will reduce the "memory" effect, or, will it clear up completely, that's another issue, but the logic/method works.
I've read several hobbyhifi magazines and they are stating that units with low Rrms (mechanical resistance) will offer better detail, does anybody know why?
A fuzzy waterfall response may indicate lower detail, but I've already read some rave reviews (including detail performance) of speakers with rather poor waterfallresponse (hybrid esl).
Personally I like my modified audiostatic electrostatics very much as they present details in an effortless end relaxing way.
My Stax headphones will do even a better job regarding detail retrievement.
A fuzzy waterfall response may indicate lower detail, but I've already read some rave reviews (including detail performance) of speakers with rather poor waterfallresponse (hybrid esl).
Personally I like my modified audiostatic electrostatics very much as they present details in an effortless end relaxing way.
My Stax headphones will do even a better job regarding detail retrievement.
Unfortunately, we can't. Or maybe "fortunately" - my wife and I spent Friday night watching Penn and Teller demonstrate that point over and over, and I must say that the brain's trickery can provide hours of entertainment.
There are a lot of things we can measure about drivers. Correlating those measurements to a subjective perception of "detail" is a lot trickier. Some might say that it's a phony parameter- for example, my favorite drivers are not the very best as far as distortion measurements. Could that extra distortion be what I (and several others in this thread, apparently) perceive as "detail"? Could the peakiness of horns be a key to what others get as "detail" in those kind of drivers?
Yes, first we must define what "detail" is. It is possible, as how "loud" can be related to decibel (not watts).
Distortion has nothing to do with "detail". Yes, stiff and lightweight cones tend to bring detail as well as distortion (as side effect) at the same time. But that detail is not that distortion.
Certain cone material (and its design) might be able to produce small signal accurately, but only for certain limited high frequency, and for only a few decibel. If this "detail" can be amplified by horn, then there is nothing "wrong" to say that the horn is detail (since we have no consensus yet) even tho the frequencies are not linearly/equally amplified.
IME, the Focal "W" cone has the best ability to produce detail of a wide band of frequency sounds. They have big enough x-max, and the cone can vibrate easily and quickly related to it's x position. High frequencies can be heard clearly along with mid-bass resolution. Certain Audax driver's cone OTOH (I think it is aerogel?) can create "detail" only in very limited highish frequency.
And there is "detail" that you can only hear from a movement of high volume of air, moved by wide cones. Can small midrange/midwoofers create this kind of "detail"? Yes, with help of baffle/reflection (some says about using multiple drivers but I have not enough experience to achieve that with multiple drivers). I want the details that can be produced by my Audax be amplified into PA level, but I know it is not as easy as adding more drivers or horn because part of the response come from the baffle/box.
Well, you're right, it could be complex/trickier, as people tend to think in only one "domain".
I think if you can get what I mean in my posts, those statements (about mechanical resistance and waterfall) are correct/reasonable.
My friend offered me his electrostat for very "cheap" price. I know what this thing can do or cannot do. It's like tube amps, favored by many, but not my cup of tea (at least not at "that" price level)
It's a very "fuzzy" sort of "logic" . . . and there are always "assumptions", whether you (consciously) recognize them or not.
The very notion that you can do that is an (unfounded) "assumption". It takes very carefully structured experimental technique to remove "observer bias" . . . we can't do it "in our heads" . . .
For the visaton TI100 this is true Rms =0,22 kg/s. A Esl owner once told when he listened to them it had comparable sound to the Final esl not the same but it comes close.
audax HM100Z0 Rms=0,92kg/s
fostex fe103 Rms=0,47kg/s
Tangband W4-657 Rms=0,37
Last edited:
I never got the HM100ZO's but out of the 3 small woofers ive ever used, I would say the AP130ZO.
Visaton AL130's are smooth but the detail of the midrange the Audax presents still beats them, and the older Audax HP(HM?)130 paper coned variant. the AP100ZO's simply dont compare at all.
Im really quite a novice though, so im sure i missed out on some good midwoofers
**didnt read the whole thread as it is rather long, but if we are talking midranges then maybe also consider trying the visaton AL130M, my experience is with the midwoofer variant, and it produces smooth clean midrange but maybe lacks a little in dynamics? either that or it sounds SO neutral, than its sounds flat. im not sure. the different VC would probably make a massive difference to detail of reproduction through the midrange.
Last edited:
I quit using the term "detail" sometime ago. Instead i use Allen Wright's Downward Dynamic Range (DDR). The ability of a DUT to clearly reproduce very small signal in the presence of a much larger signal. It is these tiny bits of information that enhance the illusion of reality.
One should be able to measure this. I don't know anyone that has.
dave
I tried drivers from some different technologies and I believe there are many factors which give "details"...From his specs and techs I agree the TI100 certainly is a very good driver but it is way not the only one, particularly at its price point. SEAS magn and Accuton notably are on par.
most detailed, and dynamic?
compression drivers, in front loaded horns.
by a mile.
i'm currently listening to JBL 2435, very detailed, i also really liked goto and radian a lot.
the best i've heard though is the myemia field coil driver built into a 650hz LeCleac'h horn MyEmia
detail, dynamics, tone-- great sound.
compression drivers, in front loaded horns.
by a mile.
i'm currently listening to JBL 2435, very detailed, i also really liked goto and radian a lot.
the best i've heard though is the myemia field coil driver built into a 650hz LeCleac'h horn MyEmia
detail, dynamics, tone-- great sound.
Break-in ("burn in"?) plays no role in what I was discussing and suggesting.
The system is a constant.
If a system consistently retrieves more detail, that is good.
But the "hit" on a music stand is not a test for "detail" as it is possible to make
a system that "brings out" this event, but actually has less true resolution or detail.
-----------------
Regarding the comments on compression drivers and horns, yes but.
Potentially they offer many benefits, but there are deficits as well.
Which is why we are having this discussion. No free lunch, just a list of compromises to balance.
_-_-bear
At what point do you subjectively draw the line between a "detailed driver" and a "well done system" (enclosure, driver integration, notch filtering, room, seating position, high dynamic range)?
I mean
-i've heard differences in detail from superior cabinet design. I'm not basically a proponent of constrained layer damping, .5 qtc on any loudspeaker box.
-directivity surely has some effect on what we initially hear and what gets smeared.
-on its own, something like the aformentioned W22 would surely color the sound above its passband
-is ability to reproduce high SPL transients under control as important to detail as low SPL artifacts?
So how can you subjectively state that a driver was responsible for this.
The concept that measurements don't tell the whole story just implies a lack of access to research that corellates this sort of thing.
Last edited:
Source - amp - speaker - air(space) - ears - brain...
Most people concentrate on the first half of the chain. Those nodes are also where the market and RD power have been working hard on...
The latter half of the chain has been largely ignored, and (unfortunately) still is. It seems only a small group of people here are taking actions from the receivers' end.
Back to the topic, I think, the most detailed driver is the one nearest to me.
(Honey, I shrank the speaker driver, so you may connect it directly to your eardrum. Or better yet, to the stapes )
Most people concentrate on the first half of the chain. Those nodes are also where the market and RD power have been working hard on...
The latter half of the chain has been largely ignored, and (unfortunately) still is. It seems only a small group of people here are taking actions from the receivers' end.
Back to the topic, I think, the most detailed driver is the one nearest to me.
(Honey, I shrank the speaker driver, so you may connect it directly to your eardrum. Or better yet, to the stapes )