Site Links
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
In this Discussion
Who's Online (5)
- a4eaudio 3:46AM
- jholtz 3:46AM
- rjj45 3:46AM
- Silver1omo 3:46AM
- Tom_S 3:46AM
Please review the site Rules, Terms of Service, and Privacy Policy at your convenience. Rules, TOS, Privacy
Get familiar with the reaction system: Introducing the Reaction System
Great, very accessible measurement article.
...by the great Joe D.
http://www.audioxpress.com/article/testing-loudspeakers-which-measurements-matter-part-1
http://www.audioxpress.com/article/testing-loudspeakers-which-measurements-matter-part-1
I have a signature.
Tagged:
Comments
There is no way a complex ibteraction of several variables and datapoints mean anything! DOOM DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!
Thanks!
His criteria are: flat on-axis, slight dip in top octave within the listening window, and no excessive blooming off-axis - which I think we can all agree are the essentials for achieving a good sounding speaker.
Nowhere does he endorse the "POLARS OR DIE GRRRRRRRRRRR" approach of Pallasshole.
I am actually looking forward to the rest of the article. There is convoluted disscussion as to the threshold at which measured anomlies become audible due to HRTF's and the complex integration of ALL individual factors once a beer is in hand, and the play button is pressed.
It was very nice to see Toole's work pop up as to the threshold of high Q vs low Q errants.
There is a build thread "over there" using very good drivers in handsome cabinets where there is a slight, slow rise in the treble then it flattened out. When the OP was asked if it sounded too hot, he explained a few times it did not, and if the level.was lowered it sounded a bit dull. No other measurements.
He was poked quite a bit about it and in the "final" version the treble was flattened. Makes me wonder if he felt obligated to change it even though he liked it.
With no other data the world may never know, but depending on off axis reaponse, waterfalls and (dum dum duuuuuuum!) the room he may have been onto something and it may have been a better speaker for it.
Its a careful balance and like Vance D. states in the LDC it is a complex interaction of a limitless number of variables that detirmines a loudpeaker's sound.
TL;DR Measurements are critical and no great speaker can be deaigned without them, but knowing what matters and how the elements work together mean more.
Not sure what build you are referencing, it is OK to link to stuff here. If it is Wolf's TL/Morel build - there was some feedback on the brightness of it from Indy IIRC, as well as some denial of the brightness from the designer. It happens, especially if you persist and insist on simulating everything.
The problem with nesting yourself within simulators is they are so limited on so many levels. They cannot correctly predict diffraction or the off-axis behavior of drivers - especially those with breakup modes. They do not take into account distortion, and really lead the user down a path of insanity as they obsess over perfectly flat on-axis and a deeeeeeeep reverse null. Both admirable goals, but on a flat baffle design with traditional 4th LR crossovers that ruler flat response will exhibit inevitable blooming off-axis, and the so-called "power response" simulator does not accurately capture that effect. It implies it, of course.
End of the day - measure, measure, measure.
http://techtalk.parts-express.com/forum/tech-talk-forum/69285-ne225w-pm180-viawave-design-build-thread
Twoard the end... I think the question was reasonable, it was as things wore on that it got sketchy for a bit then *poof* the response is flat.
OP may have "seen the light" and flatter may have sounded more enjoyable in the end who knows, but for sake of nothing else but the urge to learn, I wish there was more there.