A lot of experimentation has gone into correlating measured and perceived qualities of loudspeakers, with very clear conclusions being drawn.
Loudspeakers that measure identical on the most relevant parameters will sound identical.
This is not to dispute your point that in loudspeaker design, compromises have to be made, and that some of the largest audible differences in audio can be found where electro-mechanical transducers are involved.
Loudspeakers that measure identical on the most relevant parameters will sound identical.
This is not to dispute your point that in loudspeaker design, compromises have to be made, and that some of the largest audible differences in audio can be found where electro-mechanical transducers are involved.
Last edited:
There's only one compromise: once you accept that after the speaker the system is no longer time-variant and there's absolutely no use of any measurement ( and if there is any regarding sound it should be with the vector notation and not scalar )
Zobels and all that have resurfaced again, were hot from January 6 to January 31, 2014, start somewhere from here
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
John Curl's Blowtorch preamplifier part II
George
What have you done? Killed the argument? Or has everyone gone off to find more ammo?
"IME I well agree loading R is subjectively cleaner/better than no loading R, but I was never convinced that shunt '8R/6R' is optimal, to me the result is overly/unnaturally damped besides the power wastage issues, I haven't tried values like 50R so. "
Dan --- Try 33-50 Ohms. Listen to the bass, also esp if it is a tuned port enclosure with multiple high Z resonance peaks.
THx-RNMarsh
Dan --- Try 33-50 Ohms. Listen to the bass, also esp if it is a tuned port enclosure with multiple high Z resonance peaks.
THx-RNMarsh
Last edited:
Repeating a length comparison is not by any means proof of anything other than length difference.
A 4.9 meter cable has been demonstrated to reflect audio signals below 10khz, even below 2khz. Not pseudoscience, not subjective, but facts and measurements. Proof.
Also, your measurements contain the information I discuss, you just don't realize it yet.
Had you run the cusp graph, you would have seen.
Jn
Again, you think in terms of prop delay. Very incorrect thinking.
Jn
I don't understand this objectivist/subjectivist controversy about speakers.
They are perfectly imperfect devices. Distortions, various non linearity and resonances in the time domain. A lot of factors are in work. Membranes , suspension, magnetic assembly, variations of impedances and efficiency with temp. (power) etc...
Even the chassis of a speaker introduce problems, not to forget the way a lot of parameters will be modified by the listening room.
We can measure a lot of those defects. We cannot traduce those measurements in listening impressions. So, we need both, to try to do the best as possible.
We have Thiel and Small to calculate enclosures. It works... It helps to choose a transducer to approach a requisite. But the perfect device will never exist.
So, at the end, you are obliged to use your subjective ears to "voice" a speaker assembly. And use a lot of "tricks".
Because we are able, now, with DSPs to approach linear response curves, if you compare two corrected speakers assemblies, with very close response curves, you can, most of the time, note a VERY different character in the reproduction.
When I was working on my own speakers, I had spend hours and hours of listening, just to tune the relative level of the two ways. Even a 0.25dB of change is drastic: you do not see a lot of difference, looking at the response curve. That's because each speaker reproducing half of the bandwidth, the acoustic power change is drastic.
Speakers are not an exact science, while we, of course, try our best on a pure technical point of view.
First, proper measurement technique and presentation.
You show two measurements, but the first statement is open end/speaker only, second is 150 ohm termination added.
Look in my galley at the settling time graph. That is what you will see, albeit different numbers as different conditions.
That looks like three independent conditions.
And, did you just parallel a 150 ohm resistor to the speaker? What did you expect to see?
If your plan is to not do any more tests, you are not succeeding. However, I also value your contributions here so ask you to remain please.
With that setup of amp, cable, drive, try resistors only first, with values ranging from 4 to 500 ohms. No speaker in parallel.
Jn
There was a lot of content in those write ups, I do agree. I hope other find them of value.
I recommended Pavel scan the full mismatch range to show the cusp, we will see..
Jn
So, it is technically flawed because you say so without any supporting evidence other than you know what your talking about?
Elaborate in a clear technical manner exactly why you say his reflection bridge technique is flawed. He took the effort to first use his HP unit, then engineered one capable of 53 dB performance at 1khz, then used it, documented it, and showed through good engineering practice how it verified exactly the analysis he did (and which you agree is correct but anybody can do that).
You are cherry picking, discounting without evidence clear test and analysis, expecting us to buy you discounting actual evidence based on nothing but your good looks, and NOW, you are attempting a tactic I really did not expect of you, trying to claim that I am an unknowing partner in snake oil.
Jn
Why??? I am interested in testing under real world audio conditions and not the conditions that have no influence to audio sound. I do not need to be trained in cable behavior, I know it quite well though I am not boasting on every possible occasion how good I am in it. Guys here are talking about resistive termination of a speaker cable at speaker terminals, so I have shown the measurement under such conditions. I also have a direct comparison of both measurements (with and without terminator parallel to the speaker). Cable wave properties are absolutely unimportant in audio. And the cable is terminated also by a real speaker box because it is the way how it really works. VHF cable analysis makes no sense here.
Maybe you do not realize, but your theories are supporting the audio charlatanism here. Unless you come with firm results that would reflect in audio signal and its perception.
Ringing and resonance requires stimulus content have those frequencies present. I would recommend it in two conditions, if you are a hundred feet from a high power RF source, or if you are running a very high bandwidth amp and high capacitance low z cables.
Jn
You have provided test which have no meaning within the context of the discussion. I am not your typical audience, I see how you miss it, how you discount that which you choose not to believe.
That is the second time you have mentioned the "others", as if non technical people are the enemy. You have blinded yourself in your disdain for those "others", and are now trying to beat me down as being a co-conspirator In a war of us against them.
It is your fear of them that is the problem. You are blindly fighting any engineering analysis or test result which you deem are aid and comfort to the enemy.
You need to get over that.
As you can see, that schtick does not work on me. Try valid tests that are focused on the discussion at hand, that will impress me.
Also, historically speaking, I am not one to accept pseudoscience nor charlatans. You know that of me...or you should.
I also am not one to blindly discount anybody because they think differently. In my line of work, EVERYBODY thinks differently. That is not something to disdain, but celebrate.
Sorry for the diatribe..
Jn
Last edited:
The Shangri-Las were Meatloaf's inspiration they(I) sayYouTube
YeeeeeHa!
I forgot about them. Nice bike too!
What about intermods or digital audio escapee RF causing suitable stimulus ?.
Whatever the mechanism, something changes by addition of loading resistors and IME the change is subjectively beneficial.
Dan.
As an engineer, I would have to see before and after as measurement. Since you are clearly a subjectivist, I MUST casually reject anything you propose.
I am always critical of your espousings, especially ones not based on actual science...however..
I note with casual interest how Richard and Demian are give a free pass when they discuss a resistor terminating the line and it's beneficial effect because they provide a reasonably technical explanation, whereas you are rejected because you are on the other side of the fence...
And me, there is still consternation as to what side of the fence I sit on. To paraphrase Neo...there is no fence..
And don't get me wrong Dan.. I still hate your guts..
Jn
- Status
- Not open for further replies.