Interesting comment.
Well, i'm sure not interested in what ''most people'' can do if ''most people'' uses last century's technology, while we have a strong foot in the 21st century.
Title starts with ''World's best'' and that implies using the best tools or at the very least, the up-to-date tools.
The forum where i come from, the use of DSP/EQ/Active is not questionned at all... since almost 10 years!
It's like digital v.s. vinyl: that debate is long over for us.
I feel a little bit like a visitor from another planet.
- ''Beam me up Scotty, they still use passive crossover here!''
- ''Beam me up Scotty, they still use passive crossover here!''
The biggest problem i stumble upon regarding active set-up is the DAC.
While good and inexpensive amplifier solutions are easy to find, good and inexpensive DAC solutions do not exist.
That is sure one (maybe the biggest) of the Pros of passive set-up: you only need one DAC.
While good and inexpensive amplifier solutions are easy to find, good and inexpensive DAC solutions do not exist.
That is sure one (maybe the biggest) of the Pros of passive set-up: you only need one DAC.
Nobody is debating the superiority of any one method. It's about utility. Carbon fiber is clearly the way to go for car bodies and chassis tubs, but for a variety of reasons it simply won't be the most common material in our lifetimes, so there is still merit to deciding which is the best steel to use in a given body panel.
Yes, because CF is expensive, difficult to produce and to repair at reasonnable cost.
But with solutions like miniDSP (v.s. passive components that are not cheap) what are the excuses ? Its accessible and affordable.
If it's the DAC (weakness of miniDSP, IMO) why not just use their nanoDigi ? Or pro audio solutions ?
Of course it's not easy to take measures, play with the DSP softwares, etc... There IS a learning curve. Agreed.
But so are the passive xovers in a DIY context, no ?
If I used your measure Jon, every material good around you would be recognized as totally obsolete. Every material, every form, every type of manufacture has been improved upon by some lab or R&D department. Some are even available for sale. Why are you still using such clearly inferior knives, tables, siding, insulation, automotive fuel types, clothing material, etc.?
"why" is beside the point, "what is" is the reality you have to deal with. Again your talking merits, I'm talking widest benefit/use.
I understand your point. And you are right to point out the widest benefit/use.
But then again, the title of this very thread says it all: it's some kind of quest to look for the ''World's best''.
In other words: i'm interested in Formula 1 topic, not compact 4-cyl commuter cars, even though it's an interesting topic as well.
Good news is: F1 technology might eventually help common road cars. Already did! 🙂
Brandon, don't forget that i'm surprisingly neutral about all this.
If a 50 bucks transducer beats a 2000 bucks one, i surely won't cry about it.
I'm just looking for straight, true, honest answers. Not answers that comes up from technical papers, unproven theories and wildly subjective reviews... No, real answers from the very source, right in front of me. And not even with my only ears, but with the ''help'' of many other pairs of ears.
In one word: unbiaised.
So, the problem with a Non-EQd set-up for this test, is one can argue later that once EQd, all drivers will sound the same, therefore the results are pointless if not EQd!
Simply put: you fill up ALL cars the same racing fuel. At least you'll know the Hyundai accent can beat the Mercedes with the racing fuel, even though you won't use racing fuel in real life. 😉
There is one thing i can do, though. And that's why discussions forums are for...
Part of the methodology, would be to apply some rules about EQ. By example, not more than 4 bands per driver, and no more than +/-5db per band.
Then, in the annoucement of the results, all EQ corrections for all drivers will be disclosed. So people can draw their own conclusions.
Is that make any sense ?
Part of the methodology, would be to apply some rules about EQ. By example, not more than 4 bands per driver, and no more than +/-5db per band.
Then, in the annoucement of the results, all EQ corrections for all drivers will be disclosed. So people can draw their own conclusions.
Is that make any sense ?
From post #1 in this thread...
"Hi everyone,
We will soon conduct a comparison (blind) test regarding Midrange transducers. Identification type blind test first, then appreciative test..."
And that was July 2015...
So where are "we" now?
"Hi everyone,
We will soon conduct a comparison (blind) test regarding Midrange transducers. Identification type blind test first, then appreciative test..."
And that was July 2015...
So where are "we" now?
exactly, not much! 🙂
but it seems to be very F1 for the vast majority of diyaudio... is it ?
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...nd-testing-need-your-help-71.html#post4793660
''we'' even did a bet 😀
seriously, i have no problem establishing rules about the EQ thing, if that makes people more comfortable.
Anyway, if too much EQing is needed on the extremes (400hz and 7khz) its a sign that you're pushing the driver out of his comfort zone. Therefore its pointless for real-life application.
So, yes, clear rules make sense about that.
But what would be acceptable ?
3 EQ bands maximum ? 4, 5, 10 ?
Is there a minimum as well ?
And the amplitude ? +/- 3db, 5db, 8db ?
Will it depends of the drivers group, or same for all groups ?
Anyway, if too much EQing is needed on the extremes (400hz and 7khz) its a sign that you're pushing the driver out of his comfort zone. Therefore its pointless for real-life application.
So, yes, clear rules make sense about that.
But what would be acceptable ?
3 EQ bands maximum ? 4, 5, 10 ?
Is there a minimum as well ?
And the amplitude ? +/- 3db, 5db, 8db ?
Will it depends of the drivers group, or same for all groups ?
I don't think so. There is a complete world of users on here that won't use any EQ at all. But there's also a growing group that does things a bit different.
The point is, why compromise your research to please others. You will never be able to please them all. It's probably better focus on your own road ahead.
No doubt there will be interest in your results on here. There will also be doubt no matter what the results are going to be. The results will be questioned.
Personally I expect the differences between the midranges to be negligible after EQ. If it isn't the EQ method probably needs work 😉.
Hopefully we'll see soon.
As long as the driver itself is happy and within it's comfort zone, why compromise?
Last edited:
Keep in mind that the less amplitude corrections can be made, less the bandwith can be.
i.e. +/- 3db might be difficult to get as low as 400hz on all drivers. So it might be pushed at 500hz (for all drivers of course) and therefore be a less listenable experience.
Same here applies for upper-end.
i.e. +/- 3db might be difficult to get as low as 400hz on all drivers. So it might be pushed at 500hz (for all drivers of course) and therefore be a less listenable experience.
Same here applies for upper-end.
Ok, but wouldnt you agree that +/- 12db correction would be excessive ?
i mean, wouldnt you draw a line somewhere ?
Lol, you're asking a guy who uses 16 dB of boost in his system, but with all drivers well within their comfort zone.