I agree that it will not be easy. And people will tend to get tired and unfocused unless they are of the audiophile class and are super interested in the results etc.
Let's face it, most people don't really care, up to a point, how good it really sounds as most are more interested in the music rather than the sound quality.
Let's face it, most people don't really care, up to a point, how good it really sounds as most are more interested in the music rather than the sound quality.
The point is not everyone is going to be eq'ing these drivers, if in fact they want to actually use them in a system they want to build. Yes I agree that if a driver with a nasty spot is fixed it can change it's perception of sound quality. But eq'ing to get a flat response in every driver is not the right way either.
If that's the way the test is going to be setup then I'm not interested in the results as I want to hear what people think of one raw driver compared to another raw driver with the same xover parameters, same baffle, level matched etc.
If that's the way the test is going to be setup then I'm not interested in the results as I want to hear what people think of one raw driver compared to another raw driver with the same xover parameters, same baffle, level matched etc.
You seem to view the whole not-flat-natural-response as... as feature.
it's not something you want to keep or protect at all. It's only the design and mechanical limitsof the drivers (and sometimes manufacturer's/budget range limits as well).
Visaton knows very well his B200 response is bumpy, they can (they do) make drivers which much smoother response... Why they still do B200 ? Because it delivers something different than their smoother response drivers. More energy, to begin with.
I myself discarded the B200 completely many years ago, because when compared to Scanspeaks, Peerless, Morel, Supravox, etc... it sounded like some untamed driver stallion, and since i didnt use EQ very much at the time, i didnt understood the potential there. Then i revisit and gave it a chance with the EQ and a good integration. I discovered a truly great wideband/midrange driver, one I now consider among the best bang for the bucks.
I completely understand your point, really.
I'm sorry, it's absolutely certain that's the way the test will be made. It would be an error not to do so.
Ten years ago, maybe i wouldnt do it that way, but in 2016 ? I think DIYers who are not using DSP/EQ are missing one of the best tools that is available.
Well on this we can agree to disagree.
As long as you set out in your testing what you have done to each driver during it's test then people can draw their own conclusions.
No speaker manufacturer is going to listen to drivers that are electronically eq'd when looking for a driver for their new speaker as it would be impossible to replicate in any finished product, barring of course a system in the 100k bracket.
As long as you set out in your testing what you have done to each driver during it's test then people can draw their own conclusions.
No speaker manufacturer is going to listen to drivers that are electronically eq'd when looking for a driver for their new speaker as it would be impossible to replicate in any finished product, barring of course a system in the 100k bracket.
I couldnt agree more.
Educated-guess here: less than 1% of the population is interested in the sound quality.
I agree that if people have the means to do the eq'ing in their own system then great, but this well be very few I would think. So it would be more meaningful to not eq each driver to be flat, or maybe do it both ways. Yes it means more testing.
Myself I know less than a handful of people who are really into super hi end audio, all the rest only want something that's better than the clock radio, lol.
Not sure to understand your meaning.
Manufacturer's that are serious enough have R&D rooms and they test different drivers (as we did ourselves for the past 10 years).
I don't see any problem with EQ and drivers whatsoever, except maybe when you slide on the room-correction thing, but that is another story completely.
What I mean is that it's very hard to replicate an electronic derived eq curve using passive xovers and still have it sound good. 99% of speakers still use passive xovers
I doubt even on this forum that there are very many who have systems capable of this or the money to invest. We are in the minority even on this forum. Not to mention it takes a lot more than just having the electronics to actually do an eq, but then you need the capabilities to graph the curve using quality mics etc.
There is more and more manufacturers who enters in the active-speakers dance, though.
the big names couldnt do it, but smaller out-of-the-box-thinking companies are doing it more and more.
the big names couldnt do it, but smaller out-of-the-box-thinking companies are doing it more and more.
well, take a look at this:
https://www.minidsp.com/products/minidsp-in-a-box/minidsp-2x4-hd
275$ including the mic. Not bad, uh ?
Or even better: their plateamps. The very plateamps i'll use for this test 🙂
I agree that maybe more manufactures might be getting into it but that is with already packaged goods. You're not proposing that in this test as you're still doing it for the DIY guy.
So the DIY needs to know what driver is best under the conditions he is capable of using each driver.
If it was me reading the final results I would be saying that's great but now I have to spend X$ more to achieve the same results and the wife isn't going to go for that. So to that person the results are interesting but useless to him and he moves on.
Maybe in the header title say this isn't faint of skinny wallets or something, lol.
So the DIY needs to know what driver is best under the conditions he is capable of using each driver.
If it was me reading the final results I would be saying that's great but now I have to spend X$ more to achieve the same results and the wife isn't going to go for that. So to that person the results are interesting but useless to him and he moves on.
Maybe in the header title say this isn't faint of skinny wallets or something, lol.
Yes not bad for the price I guess for a two-way system. I hadn't noticed the pricing had come down this far. Actually is would be cheaper in the long run to use this type of setup rather than going passive as we all know how expensive good sounding caps cost these days. Just 2 decent caps could cost more than that.
Of course it comes down to what drivers you will be testing too. Are you testing mids that are in the $100 to $200 range or $500 to $800 range. Personally I don't put much faith into any plate amp sounding good, sorry, so it's only for the $100 mids then fine. I'm not saying that there aren't some good sounding less expensive drivers but you usually get what you pay for in the way of good sounding drivers.
Of course it comes down to what drivers you will be testing too. Are you testing mids that are in the $100 to $200 range or $500 to $800 range. Personally I don't put much faith into any plate amp sounding good, sorry, so it's only for the $100 mids then fine. I'm not saying that there aren't some good sounding less expensive drivers but you usually get what you pay for in the way of good sounding drivers.