I understand your point. Basically it's a case of WIIFM...
Ok, then let's speculate on the upcoming results. Let's play with imaginary data:
They're is 4 drivers, let's call them: A-50$, B-200$, C-500$ and D-1000$.
Now, Scenario #1, let's pretend a total of 50 participants did the test and the results are:
17 out of 50 were not able to identify clearly the drivers, most of the time.
28 out of 33 prefered the driver B-200$ over every others.
19 out of 33 found the driver D-1000$ as the most realistic.(1st place)
12 out of 33 found the driver B-200$ as the most realistic (2nd place)
What conclusions would that lead to ?
I believe, right off the bat, we can discard the C-500$ as an interesting option.
A-50$ might be a good value, but it's discarded since the test is about World's best.
Now, the D-1000$ might be realistic, but its not prefered. So that would be a good motivation to make a new test session, i would say. To clear things up with more participants, different competing drivers, etc...
The ''winner'' of this imaginary part 1 ? I'd say we would all agree B-200$, which is by far the most prefered and did 2nd as the most realistic... for 1/5 of the price of 1st place.
---------
That's only an example of the data/conclusions we could obtain with this test. Nothing less, nothing more.
*so their answers about preferences and realism are discarded, obviously.
(only 33 participations will count)
Let's continue to play in a parallel reality:
The two most boring scenarios possible:
Scenario #2:
48 out of 50 are unable to identify the drivers from each others, most of the time.
Which leads to some kind of dead-end, that could raise questions about the methodology or difficulties to identify drivers.
If the methodology is good, then it could lead to conclusions that spending a lot of money on ''exotic'' midrange driver is pointless, since there is hardly any audible differences.
Scenario #3
33 out of 50 are able to identify (...)
No clear preferences nor realism differences among all drivers. It all differs depending of the musical excerpts.
Obviously boring because while it may be possible to identify the drivers from each others, there is not much to notice regarding quality and realism. Maybe because the diffences are subtle, maybe because it depends of the ears and/or music listened.
The two most boring scenarios possible:
Scenario #2:
48 out of 50 are unable to identify the drivers from each others, most of the time.
Which leads to some kind of dead-end, that could raise questions about the methodology or difficulties to identify drivers.
If the methodology is good, then it could lead to conclusions that spending a lot of money on ''exotic'' midrange driver is pointless, since there is hardly any audible differences.
Scenario #3
33 out of 50 are able to identify (...)
No clear preferences nor realism differences among all drivers. It all differs depending of the musical excerpts.
Obviously boring because while it may be possible to identify the drivers from each others, there is not much to notice regarding quality and realism. Maybe because the diffences are subtle, maybe because it depends of the ears and/or music listened.
well, for starters scenario #2 might make lose my bet against you! 😛
but, yes, if we look at the big picture that would be a good news. But only if the methodology is unquestionned, which i doubt.
but, yes, if we look at the big picture that would be a good news. But only if the methodology is unquestionned, which i doubt.
Last edited:
Not sure how to answer. Either way, tests like this will always be controversial for any number of people. You can only do what you can do and let people draw their own conclusions with the results obtained by the methods chosen.
I still think the results will be interesting regardless of how you do the tests because they will be actual listening tests and not response tests only.
I still think the results will be interesting regardless of how you do the tests because they will be actual listening tests and not response tests only.
Jon I think you need consider whether you want this shootout to be useful for 100% of the DIY community, or only 5%. Because at this point your position seems to be 1) after *full* EQ there is virtually no difference in sound, and 2) full EQ is the only way to go, why bother with the rest of the study? I'll tell you why: because 95% of the DIY community will use passive crossovers. And I don't consider room correction in AVR's to be the sort of EQ that you are doing (or anyone with a fully active system would solely be doing.)
Certainly full EQ is worthwhile, but I think you should also do the same auditions with the sort of EQ that would be implemented in a passive design: crossover, leveling, and *possibly* a notch for an egregious peak.
Certainly full EQ is worthwhile, but I think you should also do the same auditions with the sort of EQ that would be implemented in a passive design: crossover, leveling, and *possibly* a notch for an egregious peak.
Eldam,
I know what model Troels used as I talked with him and I also talked with Per Skaaning about what Troels used. Did I try a set of his, no I didn't.
I outlined to Skaaning what I was had for my other drivers, my cabinet, the enclosure size for the existing mid etc etc and Skaaning suggested the one I ended up getting. Do they sound better than the previous Dynaudio M560D mids I was using, yes.
I know what model Troels used as I talked with him and I also talked with Per Skaaning about what Troels used. Did I try a set of his, no I didn't.
I outlined to Skaaning what I was had for my other drivers, my cabinet, the enclosure size for the existing mid etc etc and Skaaning suggested the one I ended up getting. Do they sound better than the previous Dynaudio M560D mids I was using, yes.
Tomahawk is convinced that, onced EQd, and within normal mechanical/electrical limits, most midrange drivers will be impossible to distinguish from each others in a given bandwith.
I think (and bet!) the opposite.
But let's be honest: i might be wrong.
I think (and bet!) the opposite.
But let's be honest: i might be wrong.
I bet it's close. Think of all the designs ever published. How many are active? Few. Also, for every one of us that is deeply involved in doing our own designs - and more likely to use the state of the art in technology - there are thousands building published (passive) designs or buying kits from DIYSG, or JeffB's kits, or Troels' kits.
Yes i understand, but it's technology, guys... IT MOVES FAST.
Take computers for example: do you think hardcore gamers would want to build a machine with 3 years old technology ? I bet not.
Makes me really think diyaudio population tends toward beginners level rather than expert level, and i thought it was the opposite. My bad, i guess.
...on the other hand, would it useful/fun to know that one or many underdog components would come out good of this test ?
I mean: if a 100 bucks driver ''defeats'' the exotic/expensive products, wouldnt it be nice for DIYers to know that ?
I mean: if a 100 bucks driver ''defeats'' the exotic/expensive products, wouldnt it be nice for DIYers to know that ?
See that's the Aristotelian thinking that concerns me. You are drawn to perfect concepts, which, for good or bad, are simply not applicable in the real world, and especially to most people.
Chasing perfection is of course worthwhile, especially to the few who achieve it. But if you want your work to have the widest utility among the widest cross-section of people, you're going to have to consider a more typical EQ approach.
And yes, you absolutely should investigate the full EQ results. Just don't forget about investigating the sort of EQ that would be most used also (notice I didn't say best).