Imho it's a myth, difference is in the driver lookrelated to the price and just the caps explains it all... two hours later the MKPs caps have aged enough and that's why the B driver sounds different than A !
Sorry, It's my Outlander moment !
Sorry, It's my Outlander moment !
But do we still care about a 5ms to decay to inaudible levels, if the instruments take 50ms or 200ms?That is true as long as all frequencies decay at the same rate, unlike in this example:
![]()
Just because something is measurable doesn't mean it is audible on certain content.
Of course, if it's difficult to measure, that doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't audible. If it's not measureable, even with very careful measurement procedures and high performing measurement equipment, it's not audible.
Well a rim shot recorded in an acoustically dead studio won't take 50 ms to decay.
More to the point: It is true that the frequency response of a speaker system is the dominant factor in our assessment of the quality and enjoyment of the system. Floyd Toole and others have demonstrated this beyond doubt.
But once a system has achieved a flat on-axis frequency response and a uniform off-axis response, other aspects become important in determining if the system under question is merely very good, or if it is outstanding. Other factors such as the levels of harmonic distortion, particularly odd-order HD... intermodulation distortion... Dynamic compression... and yes, delayed resonances. These separate the good from the great.
More to the point: It is true that the frequency response of a speaker system is the dominant factor in our assessment of the quality and enjoyment of the system. Floyd Toole and others have demonstrated this beyond doubt.
But once a system has achieved a flat on-axis frequency response and a uniform off-axis response, other aspects become important in determining if the system under question is merely very good, or if it is outstanding. Other factors such as the levels of harmonic distortion, particularly odd-order HD... intermodulation distortion... Dynamic compression... and yes, delayed resonances. These separate the good from the great.
But once a system has achieved a flat on-axis frequency response and a uniform off-axis response, other aspects become important in determining if the system under question is merely very good, or if it is outstanding.
what does that mean, flat freq response from 20hz to 20khz? or from 100hz to 20khz? or 1khz up to 40khz? or 300hz to 3khz? or what?
To inaudibility (-30dB+)? I think you'll be surprised how long that takes. It's not the reverberation of the room that is the problem, it's the instrument itself.Well a rim shot recorded in an acoustically dead studio won't take 50 ms to decay.
what does that mean, flat freq response from 20hz to 20khz? or from 100hz to 20khz? or 1khz up to 40khz? or 300hz to 3khz? or what?
I don't have my copy of Toole with me, it is in my office. But I would say from experience that flat, smooth, uniform horizontal dispersion from 100 Hz to 10 kHz will get you pretty far... 40 Hz to 20 kHz is much better.
To inaudibility (-30dB+)? I think you'll be surprised how long that takes. It's not the reverberation of the room that is the problem, it's the instrument itself.
I am not sure what position you are arguing... Are you saying that internal cone resonances and cabinet resonances do not matter? I can come up with absurd examples where they clearly would wreck the sound. Are you saying that resonance within 50 msec do not matter? Or some other time window?
There is clearly a market for expensive drivers with little or no resonance within their intended operating range, and the quest for better drivers has been going on for 50 years or more... The market is a great arbiter or truth... if low resonance was merely snake oil, this would have been a passing fad, but it is not. It is obvious to me that people are hearing something they like with low resonance drivers, and are voting with their wallet.
IMO amplifier control can and must make a difference to cone break-up. At one end of the cone the voice coil is part of an electro-magnetic damping system. At the other end, a mechanical surround also absorbs vibrations.
It's understandable that different cone materials will have different natural resonances, but the *extent* to which those resonances can be prevented, or exacerbated, depends at least in part on the amplifier topology, which controls the voice coil side.
It seems to me that proper tuning at high frequencies is sometimes a forgotten and neglected part of system design. An extreme example would be servo control that forces the VC's position (or velocity) to always be "correct" in terms of the input signal, but with no regard for mechanical reflections. Ripples on the cone may be forced to "bounce back" when they hit the voice coil, leading to resonance at certain frequencies where the dimensions are just right for standing waves to occur. Similarly, standing waves can also occur in the air cavity inside the box, especially if the cone is very stiff, and the motor control is also 'stiff'.
At the other extreme, I just built a prototype amplifier to test this stuff out — a MOSFET class-a, with current feedback — and the paper cone Dayton 3.5" point source speaker really does sound different. All the s's, f's, and t's and so on are soo articulate. And I know it's not the EQ -- the tonal balance is hot, but I used parametric EQ to bring it down a bit, and the smoothness is still there. It's just clarity. And I doubt that it's "euphonic" HD. It's a myth. HD would go hand in hand with IMD, which is not nice unless you like a veil of grunge.
While we're on the subject of sibilance, those high frequencies are basically just shaped noise. So there are lots of non-harmonic frequencies clashing, potentially causing IMD, whenever harmonic distortion is present.
It's understandable that different cone materials will have different natural resonances, but the *extent* to which those resonances can be prevented, or exacerbated, depends at least in part on the amplifier topology, which controls the voice coil side.
It seems to me that proper tuning at high frequencies is sometimes a forgotten and neglected part of system design. An extreme example would be servo control that forces the VC's position (or velocity) to always be "correct" in terms of the input signal, but with no regard for mechanical reflections. Ripples on the cone may be forced to "bounce back" when they hit the voice coil, leading to resonance at certain frequencies where the dimensions are just right for standing waves to occur. Similarly, standing waves can also occur in the air cavity inside the box, especially if the cone is very stiff, and the motor control is also 'stiff'.
At the other extreme, I just built a prototype amplifier to test this stuff out — a MOSFET class-a, with current feedback — and the paper cone Dayton 3.5" point source speaker really does sound different. All the s's, f's, and t's and so on are soo articulate. And I know it's not the EQ -- the tonal balance is hot, but I used parametric EQ to bring it down a bit, and the smoothness is still there. It's just clarity. And I doubt that it's "euphonic" HD. It's a myth. HD would go hand in hand with IMD, which is not nice unless you like a veil of grunge.
While we're on the subject of sibilance, those high frequencies are basically just shaped noise. So there are lots of non-harmonic frequencies clashing, potentially causing IMD, whenever harmonic distortion is present.
If it's not measureable, even with very careful measurement procedures and high performing measurement equipment, it's not audible.
This may be true... but we can not assume that our current knowledge of how the ear-brain interface works is complete knowledge. There may be ways of measuring sound in the future which explain preferences which today seem unexplainable.
This has happened before. The early days of solid state electronics produced some horrible sounding equipment, but the state of the art measurements at the time (frequency response, S/N ratio, harmonic distortion) would have predicted these electronics to be downright awesome... Most recording engineers, mastering engineers, and many hifi nuts preferred the sound of their obsolete tube equipment... Then someone (associated with Harmon Kardon I recall) discovered a new kind of distortion called transient intermodulation distortion... it seems the old tube amps did not make much TIM, but those early solid state amps had an audible signature due to TIM... This new knowledge led to a great improvement in solid state electronics all through the 1970s and 1980s.
Short story long:
The reason why I'm here in this forum is because of upgrades to an amplifier in my car that made me realize I need to upgrade my home audio.
I've been using the same amplifier off and on since the end of the last millennium and it has always sounded great, when it gave up I decided to have it repaired and go for all the SQ upgrades.
There is songs that I've heard hundreds of times that now has notes in them that I've never heard before, a lot more air and transparency.
I also realized that I can play louder, distorsion (according to my ears) isn't creeping up slowly, it's pretty much one 'click' away on the head unit.
If this is due to the amplifier alone, or if the signal is cleaner and agitates the speaker less to a cone break-up I couldn't tell you, it's above my knowledge.
But the system was tried and tested for years, amplifier removed and sent off, then re-installed to the same system.
Now to try and create something similar sounding in my house...
The reason why I'm here in this forum is because of upgrades to an amplifier in my car that made me realize I need to upgrade my home audio.
I've been using the same amplifier off and on since the end of the last millennium and it has always sounded great, when it gave up I decided to have it repaired and go for all the SQ upgrades.
There is songs that I've heard hundreds of times that now has notes in them that I've never heard before, a lot more air and transparency.
I also realized that I can play louder, distorsion (according to my ears) isn't creeping up slowly, it's pretty much one 'click' away on the head unit.
If this is due to the amplifier alone, or if the signal is cleaner and agitates the speaker less to a cone break-up I couldn't tell you, it's above my knowledge.
But the system was tried and tested for years, amplifier removed and sent off, then re-installed to the same system.
Now to try and create something similar sounding in my house...
But do we still care about a 5ms to decay to inaudible levels, if the instruments take 50ms or 200ms?
The transient attack of an instrument is more important that the sustained note or decay. Have you tried this test before?
Timbre Test on Vimeo
This sounds like the difference between soft and hard clipping. It could be the result of more feedback. Indirectly, this could also have affected the damping factor.distorsion (according to my ears) isn't creeping up slowly, it's pretty much one 'click' away on the head unit.
Once I went CFA, I was hooked.class-a, with current feedback
This sounds like the difference between soft and hard clipping. It could be the result of more feedback. Indirectly, this could also have affected the damping factor.
That might very well be the case. I know bias adjustment and cap upgrades was mentioned, but it might have been a lot of other things as well that was done.
It's a UK made Genesis amp, so the quality wasn't bad to begin with, but possibly outdated.
- Home
- Loudspeakers
- Multi-Way
- Why drivers sound differently?