We are ALL experienced listeners... To be precise: "Not detectable by the selected listeners". If you want the listener to be able to detect differences, select the listeners from those who passed the Klippel test with -54dB (less than 0.2% distortion).
Many of us have discovered that (and many more) long time ago. People are hard to convince and prefer to refer to the literature from the IQR.
It IS very easy to measure the differences. If you understand and believe in my hypothesis (that human ABX skill is far too low than what their brain can actually do in perceiving differences), you will trust the measurement, not your ears. I can skip the measurement and trust my ears because to some extent I know that my ears will not contradict the measurement.
I don't need the measurements in order to differentiate the performance between the drive units when the distortion is so high. I have correlated my listening with numbers. I have set some thresholds. Meaning, I can see the measurement and know what to expect if I listen to it. The measurement will save my time and ensure better differentiation than my ears.
There's nothing wrong with theory. Who is "me/we" (rhetorical)??
Thanks, but I'm familiar with those and we have disagreements. He drew his conclusions after doing experiment with some ears...
OTOH, I didn't have to gather and pay so many listeners to draw my conclusions because I have competent ears. And there is no boundary between the ears who listen and me who draw the conclusions...
You are right it was a 'we' not a 'me'
Jay you sound as though you are an outlier so perhaps Jon and Gedes results doesn't impact on your perspective. They do mine.
Jay you sound as though you are an outlier so perhaps Jon and Gedes results doesn't impact on your perspective. They do mine.
Last edited:
Yes, so it is not right to use words like "we cannot hear...". Instead, use "most of human cannot differentiate..."...
Alright, but remember my hypothesis. If you cannot differentiate between driver A and driver B in a controlled ABX, don't assume they are the same. Who knows you may be able to feel that they are different next time...
You should post a picture of your extra special magical ears Jay?
I just don't know anymore. The more I'm in this hobby the more "rationalist" solutions seem to make sense....strange that.
I'm only semi pulling your leg though 😉
I just don't know anymore. The more I'm in this hobby the more "rationalist" solutions seem to make sense....strange that.
I'm only semi pulling your leg though 😉
This question leads to the realization how important off axis behaviour is. Now, this is mainly an enclosure related issue below a certain frequency, which depends on baffle size. Above that frequency, all drivers of a given diameter behave roughly identical as far as beaming is concerned. Experiments have shown that concave diaphragms behave fairly identical to convex ones in this respect.
In other words, when you eq on-axis, it will be quite easy to sort the drivers by ear on size, with the smallest having the least high fall off. So there is no other option but to eq at the mic position, so off axis.
I was trying to say that as much as the different technologies/philosophies involved in our hobby fascinate me it seems that at the end of the day a solid state active 3 way computer controlled system seems like the most rational/pragmatic way to get high quality audio.
Not particularly exotic or exciting but sensible and high performance.
Would I love a SET vinyl system with giant full range horns? Absolutely but I'm not really sure it would be the best bang for the buck at all.
Just my two cents.
I'm starting to look at Hi-Fi like people who search for bigfoot, chasing shadows, being convinced something is there when really it's highly unlikely.
And I'm glad you took my humour well, I do my best to be civilized on this forum but sometimes can't help myself. 🙂
Ha! Listen to this... I have many (good) amplifiers, but the one that I use a lot is a cheap one... And I don't use vinyl at all. 99% of the time I listen to FM radio or MP3... But it doesn't mean that I'm okay with anything or being easy to please. I can't stand many tube systems with Fostex-like fullrange... I can't stand headphones... I don't use switching supply and amplifier.
Point is, I know the truth. I know how to meet my expectations.
Bigfoot?? Shadow?? Are you thinking that people are searching for something that they have never known/seen/met/heard before??
Good listening experiences are true. Listening as if the singer is in front of you... Listening as if you were there... Crying when listening to sad songs... Etc... Most of the time, those different experiences come from different systems... It is a psychological thing and finding the technical cause requires very deep knowledge.
Regarding to this effort to find the best midrange, how will you do it? Is there the best midrange at all? So when you cannot identify driver A and driver B in an ABX, will you choose any of them and believe that they will be equal?
What if I can do the ABX and can tell you clearly their difference, will you still
choose any of them because you believe that it will not affect you as your ears are less sensitive than mine? What if I train/tell you how to do the listening and suddenly you can hear the difference?
For me, the most important thing in my system is that it must produce enjoyment, which can only be possible when there is minimal fatigue/distortion. Second order distortion (loved by most subjectivists) is not the way to go because all kind of distortions produce fatigue.
Technically (without using ears), I will look at the distortion measurements of the drivers. How meaningful is the distortion data for me? Very meaningful, as I have done my homework correlating what I hear in a sound with the numbers (Note that this is impossible to be done by any experts if they don't have good ears).
After that major enjoyment/fatigue criterion (in passive system, this also has correlation with phases, something that most people don't know), the other criteria are something "nice to have". And my favorite among these "nice to have" is the driver ability to produce micro-details. Funny though, this usually have trade-off, namely the distortion! 🙂
Vacuphile
In your post #225 I'm not sure what you mean. Are you advocating aligning the speakers parallel to the listening axis?
Jay Reed
In your post #225 I'm not sure what you mean. Are you advocating aligning the speakers parallel to the listening axis?
Jay Reed
There was a consideration, whether to use the DSP to equalize the on-axis signal (putting the mic on-axis) or to equalize the off-axis signal (putting the mic off-axis)... The listener's ears will/should be put at the location of the mic, I believe, to ensure that the FR is flat at the listening axis...
By putting the mic off-axis, we expect to remove drivers that do not perform well off-axis (e.g. beaming). This is probably to avoid having drivers that perform well in the test (on-axis) but then perform badly in the daily use, because off-axis listening is what we mostly do in daily listening (even with stereo, we don't always align the 2 speakers with the listening axis).
Still, there are things that cannot be solved with this test... (e.g. you cannot force that when off-axis is flat, on-axis will be flat too)
By putting the mic off-axis, we expect to remove drivers that do not perform well off-axis (e.g. beaming). This is probably to avoid having drivers that perform well in the test (on-axis) but then perform badly in the daily use, because off-axis listening is what we mostly do in daily listening (even with stereo, we don't always align the 2 speakers with the listening axis).
Still, there are things that cannot be solved with this test... (e.g. you cannot force that when off-axis is flat, on-axis will be flat too)
Last edited:
If the beaming is wanted, then what.
The implications of off-axis performance have not been clearly defined in this thread. What does the off-axis response mean? If it is the same or different to 0 degrees, what causes this? Some reasons are not positive, some are, and some are neither.
Also what is the end result of it, room reflections, cabinet contributions, or beneficial directivity? Is this what is trying to be compared in this thread?
No one has clearly defined the point of this test. If it is to test the effect of equalising resonance for a flat response then shouldn't it be done with minimal diffraction baffles (would they even be the same for each test unit?) and taken outdoors so the directivity is irrelevant? Then also the listening axis would be less relevant, especially if the drivers were cut off before they beamed.
Alternately they could all be forced to the same directivity. This would be a lot of work and for little benefit. Otherwise if their directivity is what is being compared then the application will go beyond equalisation.
Yes. So what. But beaming is not the same with directivity control (e.g. difference in purpose and angle). This is a midrange test that still requires a tweeter to anchor at say 7kHz. At 7kHz tweeters are already flat so beaming of the midrange is not wanted (i.e. bad power response of the mid-tweeter system). It is hard to find cone midrange that doesn't beam so bad at this frequency.
It was clear that it is to find the best midrange (qualitative) but first must pass the test for audible difference. It is just that many people were not prepared with the result of the differentiation test 😛
In real life, we cannot avoid off-axis listening and room effects, but in a qualitative test we should understand and be able to ignore the effect of FR variations and only judge based on the right quality measures (distortions etc).
Otherwise, just refer to the directivity issues as has been studied by GedLee 🙄 (and use single compression HF driver)
You questioned whether to EQ to 0 degrees or some other angle. I question whether it would make a difference, especially if the room and cabinet are taken out of the equation?
On a side note, beaming is used for directivity sometimes and sometimes it is crossed to be out of band, when used correctly.
On a side note, beaming is used for directivity sometimes and sometimes it is crossed to be out of band, when used correctly.
I didn't question anything. JayReed questioned Vacuphile for his reponse to Jon's question regarding position of the mic. I tried to clarify.
Off-axis response is not only determined by room (and cabinet diffraction) but it is the driver cone behavior. People cross tweeter at very low frequency such as 1k5. This is bad for the tweeter but good for the woofer in term of beaming (and distortion of course). Will this make a difference? Of course. Look at how 4" drivers beam at 7kHz. What will the FR look like at 30 degree off-axis? Fall-off, then flat again after the tweeter chiming in at 7kHz.
I know I shouldn't do this.
I asked Vacuphile in his post #225 was he advocating aligning the speakers parallel to the listening axis. I am well aware of the various cases involving how the speaker is oriented and the various rationals one choses to use to equalize at the listeners position. The reason I asked Vacuphile is I've learned to respect his tech and listening abilities. He doesn't play games. He doesn't do virtue signaling.
I asked Vacuphile in his post #225 was he advocating aligning the speakers parallel to the listening axis. I am well aware of the various cases involving how the speaker is oriented and the various rationals one choses to use to equalize at the listeners position. The reason I asked Vacuphile is I've learned to respect his tech and listening abilities. He doesn't play games. He doesn't do virtue signaling.
Thanks JayReed. One of my comments to Vacuphile might have been crossed with the other thread, thanks for the opportunity to re-read.
I just measured a Dayton AMT4Pro (here it is used between 1k (3rd HP) ->) from 1 metre playing maybe 85 dB or a bit more... (2nd and 3rd - 3rd is lighter) Good drivers today measure distorsion in amp level territories. Second graph shows only odd dist 3,5,7.
Attachments
Last edited:
I think the test setup with EQing is OK. But test results will only be valuable to those who will build a system using EQ. So maybe each driver should also be tested without EQ but still with crossovers. That would be valuable to none EQing people. The single driver with EQ is more of a academic test and hard to see the value - to claim from this that "everything" sound the same if EQed is questionable.
Now the test with single driver is a very unnatural situation which will in practice never occur so it is maybe of only academic value (if any). How about a 2 driver setup like a stereo setup but both DUT driven by same signal so that it would produce a phantom mono source. This is of great practical use. Here also both EQ and without.
An other yet developed version is to introduce an house reference bass and treble system which is constant for all DUTs - now the sound can be judged/compared as a total system and not the very unnatural limited FR as conducted - still it is only the MF driver that is changed so any difference would be due to the DUT.
Mono phantom may be turned into stereo also of course.
//
Now the test with single driver is a very unnatural situation which will in practice never occur so it is maybe of only academic value (if any). How about a 2 driver setup like a stereo setup but both DUT driven by same signal so that it would produce a phantom mono source. This is of great practical use. Here also both EQ and without.
An other yet developed version is to introduce an house reference bass and treble system which is constant for all DUTs - now the sound can be judged/compared as a total system and not the very unnatural limited FR as conducted - still it is only the MF driver that is changed so any difference would be due to the DUT.
Mono phantom may be turned into stereo also of course.
//
Last edited: