Good luck
Good luck finding a driver that has response from 250-5k Hz and sounds great.
Any driver that can do the lower mid range with authority will suffer from cone cry in the upper frequencies.
Any driver that does not suffer from cone cry, can not reach down into the lower mid range with authority.
Please understand that I am not saying this kind of driver does not exist,
I'm just saying good luck trying to find one.
Good luck finding a driver that has response from 250-5k Hz and sounds great.
Any driver that can do the lower mid range with authority will suffer from cone cry in the upper frequencies.
Any driver that does not suffer from cone cry, can not reach down into the lower mid range with authority.
Please understand that I am not saying this kind of driver does not exist,
I'm just saying good luck trying to find one.
benchmark
Dual 57's per side, but filtered 18db/oct below 100Hz.
It's been done, and is still the benchmark.
If still not loud enough for you ?
Use 4 per side. The end. Have a nice day.
Dual 57's per side, but filtered 18db/oct below 100Hz.
It's been done, and is still the benchmark.
If still not loud enough for you ?
Use 4 per side. The end. Have a nice day.
Absolutely not. Depends on the application. Exactly like saying that every competent tweeter should go down to 2khz. Irrelevant.
from 250hz, it's not common.
But starting from 400hz, you have lots of choices, starting with the 3'' domes and compression drivers.
5khz is not really a limit we should worry about, especially with the EQ... It really starts to be a problem around 6 or 7khz.
if a driver is out of his range at 5khz, then maybe it's because his design makes it better for lower-end (i.e. a midbass) and then irrelevant in the test.
Anyway, it's completely pointless to argue about that for the simple reason that anything out of 500hz-5khz just won't be listenable.
If the driver cannot do it, it's discarded. Period.
Guys, in case you missed it:
Here is the list of potential contenders:
Scan-speak 10F/8424G00
Voxativ AC-1.6
ATC SM75-150
Seas exotic F8
Fostex FF85wk
Vifa/Peerless TG9FD-10-8
Visaton Ti100
Visaton B200
Radian PB950 w/BE and short horn
Alpair 7.3eNc
Airborne FR151 paper cone version
Airborne FR151 wooden cone version
Here is the list of potential contenders:
Scan-speak 10F/8424G00
Voxativ AC-1.6
ATC SM75-150
Seas exotic F8
Fostex FF85wk
Vifa/Peerless TG9FD-10-8
Visaton Ti100
Visaton B200
Radian PB950 w/BE and short horn
Alpair 7.3eNc
Airborne FR151 paper cone version
Airborne FR151 wooden cone version
Add Fostex FX-120 and Alpair 6p to your list. Von Schweikert is still using the FX-120 in their Unifield 3 speaker system.
jeff
jeff
Last edited:
Bad comparison.
In fact, a competent tweeter should cover a minimum of 3 octaves. I'm using myself a tweeter that DO NOT cover a minimum of 3 octaves and i wouldnt call that tweeter a ''competent'' one, but rather a ''tricky'' one.
Secundo, because of mechanical limits, you cannot push a tweeter on the lower-end with EQ boosts without damaging it.
But you sure can push a midrange to sing a little higher...
thanks but the list is closed for at least round 1 and 2.
(unless a fairy delivers a DX4 in front of my door, of course...) 😛
i'll answer that with a copy-paste:
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.
another copy-paste:
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$, which is by far the most prefered and did 2nd as the most realistic... for 1/5 of the price of 1st place.
---------
That's only an example of the data/conclusions we could obtain with this test. Nothing less, nothing more.
---------
Let's continue to play in a parallel reality:
The two most boring scenarios possible:
Scenario #2:
48 out of 50 are unable to identify the drivers from each others, most of the time.
Which leads to some kind of dead-end, that could raise questions about the methodology or difficulties to identify drivers.
If the methodology is good, then it could lead to conclusions that spending a lot of money on ''exotic'' midrange driver is pointless, since there is hardly any audible differences.
Scenario #3
33 out of 50 are able to identify (...)
No clear preferences nor realism differences among all drivers. It all differs depending of the musical excerpts.
Obviously boring because while it may be possible to identify the drivers from each others, there is not much to notice regarding quality and realism. Maybe because the diffences are subtle, maybe because it depends of the ears and/or music listened.
So far, and to be honest, i'm more afraid of scenario #2 than anything else.
Ok, then let's speculate on the upcoming results. Let's play with imaginary data:
They're is 4 drivers, let's call them: A-50$, 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.
---------
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.
So far, and to be honest, i'm more afraid of scenario #2 than anything else.
So bottomline, here are the facts:
1. We know the identification won't be that easy.
2. In case the scenario #2 happens, it leads to some kind of dead-end.
So the idea here is to make the part 1 (first round of the test) as accessible as possible to every ears. That means different sounding/technology drivers, different ears (ages, background, etc..) and a methodology that allows some chances (enough playback time, a minimum # of excerpts, chance to practice blindlessly, etc..)
1. We know the identification won't be that easy.
2. In case the scenario #2 happens, it leads to some kind of dead-end.
So the idea here is to make the part 1 (first round of the test) as accessible as possible to every ears. That means different sounding/technology drivers, different ears (ages, background, etc..) and a methodology that allows some chances (enough playback time, a minimum # of excerpts, chance to practice blindlessly, etc..)
You are missing a point.
Upper limit is the important part of the definition what is a tweeter and what is a midrange. If a driver can not reach 10 kHz, it is not a tweeter!
Every competent tweeter should reach about 20 kHz. Irrelevant if it can't go down to 2 kHz.
Every competent midrange should reach about 5 kHz. Irrelevant if it can't go down to 200 Hz.
Last edited:
well keep for you ,lucky the world don't need a dsp for speaker !
vinyl is not over never be 😉
If a blind test is performed, A is vinyl direct, B is vinyl with high end DSP EQ correction inserted, without explaining what is the difference between A and B, no one will say B sounds bad because B is DSP inserted, and most people will probably prefer B, I guess...