We discovered that motorcars are faster and better than horses, we won't try to find drugs that enhance horse's speed. 😉
Thanks for the nice words Jay. What I meant to say that if you want to compare by ear a set of drivers off axis in line with part I of this test, you have no other option but to eq at the same position as where the microphone is.
A point that Allen made is that nobody has clearly defined the point of this test. I think it started when Jon wanted to find out which mid range is best by organizing a listening test. The interesting thing is that he eq´d all drivers, which I have not seen done on this site before. Simple enough, and then a good thing happened.
The original test derailed because there was a null result. A null result is not at all the same as no result. It can be very educational, and so it is in this case. The proposed off axis test is the kind of thing you are supposed to do when Ms. Serendipity taps on your shoulder.
Vacuphile
Thank you for your reply. Completely agree with your second and third paragraph. I'd also like to thank Jon Bocani for posting these results that clearly weren't what he was expecting. Shows intellectual honesty.
Jay
Thank you for your reply. Completely agree with your second and third paragraph. I'd also like to thank Jon Bocani for posting these results that clearly weren't what he was expecting. Shows intellectual honesty.
Jay
Intellectual honesty being essential for progress. I look forward to more evidence based commentary.
One point I was trying to make is that some issues can't be EQed successfully and maybe this should be limited to those that can, which include those that don't create issues that are variable across different axes.
Another point is that a mid driver with a low pass filter will not transcend to sounding natural until a higher range is properly crossed to it and tonally balanced. This suggests a fixed crossover point for the tests and not running the mid up to where it beams unless that is part of the test design. Also the word smooth might be more appropriate than flat.
Another point is that a mid driver with a low pass filter will not transcend to sounding natural until a higher range is properly crossed to it and tonally balanced. This suggests a fixed crossover point for the tests and not running the mid up to where it beams unless that is part of the test design. Also the word smooth might be more appropriate than flat.
ähm,
surprised anyone ???
Maybe someone is also interested in tweeters:
https://www.ak.tu-berlin.de/fileadm...ter_performance_beyond_spectrum_and_phase.pdf
Last edited:
I didn't know if the "Full Range" speaker forum members here sit and listen to one single midrange. I thought they listen to stereo speakers like others 😀
Fun aside: While I do in now way doubt that the single most important parameter is on-axis frequency response, one has to keep in mind that testing with midrange drivers only could possibly be flawed.
On the one hand I do agree that we do not have the influences of tweeters and woofers in this setup but listening to midrange only can be quite annoying to some people, which could also influence their perception and/or bias.
Regards
Charles
On the one hand I do agree that we do not have the influences of tweeters and woofers in this setup but listening to midrange only can be quite annoying to some people, which could also influence their perception and/or bias.
Regards
Charles
Hello,
re. https://www.ak.tu-berlin.de/fileadmi..._and_phase.pdf
Perhaps I read a couple of paragraphs wrongly - but this seems flawed as they're listening to the different tweeter types through another diaphragm ( headphones ) to reach their conclusion. There is a possible influence of the said diaphragm on the outcome of the listening test.
re. https://www.ak.tu-berlin.de/fileadmi..._and_phase.pdf
Perhaps I read a couple of paragraphs wrongly - but this seems flawed as they're listening to the different tweeter types through another diaphragm ( headphones ) to reach their conclusion. There is a possible influence of the said diaphragm on the outcome of the listening test.
If we would trust the result 100%, we might have to conclude that midrange units are completely useless, because EQ-ed wide range units are much more preferable than crossover-ed narrow range multiple units with a lot of headache such as phase issue, etc.
I wonder if the OP's conclusion is FR or 2 way is better than 3 way, I mean denial of the existence of midrange unit.
I wonder if the OP's conclusion is FR or 2 way is better than 3 way, I mean denial of the existence of midrange unit.
Last edited:
Pretty dificult discussion ! Nobody agree really about a frequency range, nore about the load (while we see a lot of sealed cabinet here).
So if we start from the point than Jon like EQ to benchmark drivers at the end: what are the winners?
Drivers which needs sealed load for better transcient or open bafle if we reduce the frequency range tested ? Or drivers which needs less XO if passive filter ?
Or finally all drivers are a Satori like an other 😀 when EQed? (I try not to write: ESL57!)
So if we start from the point than Jon like EQ to benchmark drivers at the end: what are the winners?
Drivers which needs sealed load for better transcient or open bafle if we reduce the frequency range tested ? Or drivers which needs less XO if passive filter ?
Or finally all drivers are a Satori like an other 😀 when EQed? (I try not to write: ESL57!)
Unfortunately not that simple.
1. Fullrange drivers are still very limited in xmax/xmech for any serious EQ correction in the first two octaves and even in the first three sometimes.
2. Even if the xmax/xmech of said fullrange driver would be acceptable, you won't have any high output at those low frequencies, unless it's a very small room or unless you have plenty of them (i.e. Line array).
3. Even though high frequencies are less of a problem with a fullrange driver (you will most probably get it flat up to 20khz with an EQ) you won't be able to change the directivity limits. Maybe a lot of people can live with that but not everybody.
So basically wideband/fullrange drivers would mix up great with EQ but the overall output is (very) limited.
Anything between Sd 100cm² and 190cm² is not much to count on for 8-9 octaves at once, don't you agree ?
And then, you're xmax limited...
I'll thread lightly for any re-interpretation of my own conclusions 😉
but i can tell you this:
If i had to build the lowest possible cost speakers for a small-sized room (let's say less than 25m³) i'd go with fullrange drivers.
If i had to build the lowest possible cost speakers for a medium-sized room and/or for high output on 9-10 octaves, i'd go with 2-way (F.A.S.T. or sub+CD or else).
If i had to build any speakers (low or high cost) that covers full 10 octaves with medium or high output for any room size that exceeds 50-60m³, i'd go for 3-way and maybe 4-way, in a case of HT where 10-40hz might be more important.
Bottomline, there is no ''denial of midrange'' nor fullrange driver can be considered ''magical'' of some sort...
A fullrange can be compared to a Swiss knife: will get the work done and will be most appreciated in camping, however it would be a very poor tool for a restaurant kitchen.
360hz-7.2khz is listenable.
Enjoyable? No. But listenable, yes.
After many hours of research and trials, i have decided to use that bandwith. The vast majority of drivers were able to be EQ'ed in that bandwith, including ATC dome and Dayton woofers (!)
When you think about it, that bandwith is very similar to what we hear in many places such as elevators, shopping malls, etc... or from various equipment, including laptops, ipad, smartphones, portable bluetooth speakers.
I had zero complaint so far regarding that from people who passed the test.
On the other hand, it would be unthinkable to listen Tweeters or Woofers alone, in the same fashion in their respective bandwith.