SE WI Tower speaker GTG - Page 50

not so much to me anyway...Between Terry's Salk and the Catalyst on the first three songs I didn't think I'd be able to tell the difference at all unless something changed. I eventually felt I could tell the difference - but I thought they were more alike than different until I encountered distortions.

So with you previous thoughts Kwarny, you'd be a good one to include ---
For that matter - anyone especially certain they could ID something or other would be a great candidate!

It's like the ole pepsi vs. coke challenge. Do you think you can tell the difference? I thought for sure I could. I usually think I don't even like pepsi, but I do like coke. I participated in a challenge one time where a dixie cup on hot pepsi and a dixie cup of hot coke was served and I had to guess which was which. I couldn't -- and neither could the rest of the class. Accuracy in total was a bit worse that 50% if IIRC. Speakers are probably something like that. You may be able to ID your speakers if they sounded like they do in your room - but take them out of your room and put them in a room without the same sound and EQ and it's really a lot more difficult than I bet we'd all like to admit.

Who knows. I would have thought subwoofer enthusiasts could somewhat more accurately pick out the difference between and ported and sealed subwoofer. Pretty much all the voters failed miserably - and in the subwoofer world - ported vs. sealed is supposedly one of the biggest gaps in SQ difference and often a "first question" that may be asked of a potential customer to determine which way to recommend their direction. Kinda funny when you think about it.

That is just it, did the ribbons have a different frequency response than the coaxials that made that difference? If so, if EQ was added to make the same response would there be a difference then? If so, I bet it would be much closer, maybe, this is just guessing and curiosity. I measured my M&K's, Triads, and DR's and they all had a different response. The triads were much smoother and not as bright where the M&K's were brighter and more forward. The triads high frequencies were dead flat and the M&K's had a rising response. The DR's were all over the place and it sound like it. Once I eq'd them they sound like a combo of both.

See above. Read Floyd Toole's studies on EQing above the Schroeder frequency. Doing so introduces other issues, and it also changes the designed characteristics of a speaker. So you're basically no longer comparing speakers; you're comparing your own tailored response and sound. How is that useful for anyone but yourself? And how does that show which speaker is actually better designed? Even if you are able to get the frequency response the same for each speaker, what about off axis, dispersion characteristics of different drivers, the different cross overs and the affect they have on sound, the sound power measurements, etc? What about the time domain and phase differences? They'll all add to a different sound, and EQ won't change all of them.

Mark's design with that AMAZING plateamp allows a design to do all those things and MORE.

About the only thing better than one of those plateamps would be an Xilaca XM 2040
and a couple/thrice of Bruno's nCores.

The biggest thing I learned from the GTG as a forum fly on the wall is how affective a DSP active xover with integrated digital amps can make to the SQ! I wonder if JTR down the road might also use such amazing plateamps.

I'm still curious about the transport/converter. Nobody has mentioned as far as I can tell what DAC was used.

Perhaps you should direct your questions towards Marks dedicated forum for questions such as those... http://www.seaton-sound-forum.com/?forum=86963

He also has a dedicated thread here on AVS, I'm sure you'll get a quicker response... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1094517


From what I have gathered about your posts here in this thread, you have a pretty good knowledge of audio, and like to test people in a demeaning manor... Perhaps you could make your suggestions elsewhere, or learn some forum educate - seems to me that people have already started to ignore your comments as you like to BAIT people to get a rise out of them... which is obviously the reason you felt the need to apologize - as you should --- but I'm sure you've heard the story of "The Boy the Cried Wolf"....

You guys are also for forgetting that Harman International has already performed a number of double blind level matched speaker tests (in a controlled environment) in which even non-trained listeners could hear a difference. This has already been done, guys, and the results of the case studies speak for themselves. Jonathan, have a chat with Randy about how difficult it is to perform a true blind speaker test. He has actually had conversations with doctor Sean Olive about it.

MUSHRA/ABX with an RS232 controlled A/B switch. The software I posted earlier is capable of this with some programing changes to the patcher. All the other testing is not scientific or statistically accurate enough. Obviously this isn't something people would do at a GTG but for a designer/manufacturer that software could be invaluable to gain insight into the perceived sound of your target market/customer base or to measure the designers own perceived changes to say... xover or DSP active xover settings etc. Max is so amazingly easy to program that either patcher could be modified to achieve these goals.

Max/MSP

MUSHRA Max/MSP Patcher

ABX Max/MSP Patcher

Whitepaper on MUSHRA/BS.1534-1
http://www.itu.int/rec/R-REC-BS.1534-1-200301-I/en

A lot more measurements than FR are needed to tell the whole story.

Here is a good read between Ascend's NrT tweeter and the RAAL 70-20XR.

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages...on%20Tower.pdf

My experience with the RAAL...a whole lot of detail, smooth, and not bright. Very hard to understand the description without actually hearing it.

Randy agrees with you Brandon on the blind testing and he forwarded the material to me. I will read it. He also said he has decided he wants no part in the endeavor - as critics come out of the woodwork no matter what you do.

He is using SpeakerPower as does JTR and Danley.


MKTheater is using the DR200 designed by Bill Fitzmaurize. The crossover has low/high pass filters, but doesn't try to "tame" the frequency response. Just like any DIY subwoofer, the end user can decide to EQ the the drivers to the cabinet first or just EQ to the room. Since the DR200 is designed for pro audio use everyone that uses it will have EQ. All pro audio guys EQ to their venue above the Schroeder frequency.

I'm going to be doing some tests myself below the Schroeder frequency and have already invited Archaea to participate. I have several DIY dual opposed subs with 15" drivers. They have an inductance hump that needs to be pulled down by about 8 dB and the bottom end needs to be lifted with a L-T. I'm going to EQ the drivers to the box first and then EQ to the room and listen if it sounds different than just EQing to the room. The first method is what happens when you buy a commercial sub with a built in amp. The second is what most DIY guys do.

Below is a comparison of the close mic of my sub before and after EQ:

Okay so there are now at least 3 of us who believe this?

So for the record, HuskerOmaha, Archaea, & AcuDefTechGuy agree that we would not be able to tell much difference (significantly) if the speakers were all played within their means.

Anyone else agree with this statement?

Well, if you do decide to move forward and make an attempt, I wish you the best of luck. Based on what all the professionals of the industry say, this could be the most Difficult audio endeavor that you embark on. Best wishes.

Nuance, can you link me to that white paper? I'd like to read it.

For contrast take a look at this blind demo as well.
http://www.matrixhifi.com/contenedor_ppec_eng.htm

If playing the Dream On song by Kelly Sweet, I would disagree until the blind test proves otherwise. I was under the initial impression that Archaea agreed with me that the Kelly Sweet song exposed differences where the JTR's and Catalysts shined.

Whether who agrees with who or who doesn't is meaningless as they are all opinion. Have any of you who've participated in even one single blinded speaker test? But I digress, the case studies is that I have already mentioned have already proven what I have stated. Asking the opinions of the people that you already know agree with you is Nothing more than fishing. Are you going to bring anything constructive into this thread?

Oh I do --- except I think the other speakers were pushed outside their means a little bit in that room on the dynamic peaks - which I said multiple times in my reviews - hence the distortion I heard sitting closer to the speaker. At least that's my understanding?!?!? - so if we dropped the volume say -6dB or so to the point where no speaker was overplaying it's ability and we had a HPF engaged at 80hz (cutting off all frequencies below 80hz) it would be more difficult to distinguish perhaps???

I know I don't...

IMHO there is noway that the coaxial compression tweet from Italy is going to compare to the Raal from Serbia. They are completely different driver technologies with different acoustic properties and 8CXT provides midwoof duties as well. As you can all tell I'm certainly no expert but from every pro speaker designer's comments I've read say that Raal tweeter is the most amazing unit they have ever tested. That's not to say it's the "best" tweeter in the world but it's arguably in the top five. As for the 8CXT I can't comment because I've never heard it nor read measurements of it. I've not seen very many consumer audio products that use it other than Seaton Audio. I'm sure it's used in pro audio a lot. Raal on the other hand is used by many "high end" consumer speakers.

Here is an interesting thread on the forum regarding coaxial drivers.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1239093

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hlight=coaxial

PS the second thread shows some measurements for 8CXT and it's NO CONTEST... Raal eats it for breakfast across the board... BUT one can only wonder before/after active xover/DSP EQ corrections. What that can do for CN and polars I dunno...

Most of the info is available to the public on Harman international's website and Sean Olive blog, but yes, I will send you one of my favorite ones that I just happen to have a copy of at home.

I agree that "good" speakers sound more alike than different.

That said, to hear differences in these good speakers depends heavily on what they are fed.

I follow you Jonathan. I think such a blind test would be very interesting, and I would love to partake in such a test if arrangements could be made.

The goal of any speaker manufactor is to reproduced source material accurate with no coloration and nuetral sound. The closer each speaker comes to that goal the more they sound the same and become difficult to distinguise between. So assuming the listening enviorment is good enough 100% accurate and 100% nuetral should sound the same everytime.
thats my guess
wvchris

To clarify....since I dont want my opinion misconstrued and used in some tally war...

I wholeheartedly believe you can tell speakers apart in blind testing and notice differences.

In our blind and unblinded sub testing, I would choose short parts of each playback scene or material track, and try to discern differences between the setups. I think Archaea does the same thing.

If you look at the scores of our blind GTG for example, the subs that were most expensive or thought of in a higher class did end up ranked the best for the categories BUT people had no freaking clue reliably which subs amongst the top tier they were. We all looked silly. I loved it.

You probably can't just throw this example at speakers, but in the exercise itself is the example.

So yes I'm sure you'll be able to delineate groups but within them it would be interesting to see the accuracy of picking the correct speaker and with what confidence.

The reactions would be the best part.....and the conversations after.

a) 100% accurate/neutral only exists in theory...

b) nope, that's not the goal of "any" speaker manufacturer... it is the goal of "some" speaker manufacturers...

I'd agree with that, but EQ cannot alone do everything to completely level the playing field. There will still be sound quality differences due to differing designs, drivers used, crossover implementation, etc. EQ cannot do it all. It is better to used a controlled environment free of reflections.

Jonathan, also reference "Sound Reproduction" by Floyd Tools; he's the leading pioneer in the industry on this stuff, and his book will be very enlightening. I'll get you that paper when I return home from taking my kids to the Y.

I would also think the better ones hearing is the the easier it would be to tell the difference. I know that is a simple statement but it can be overlooked because some people really have goldenears. not many
wv chris

WOW great job of EQing there! You nuked the 58Hz hump and open up the 13Hz null. What type of DSP etc did you use?

Very true.

Thanks. I use REW for measuring and suggesting filters. My microphone is an iSEMcon EMM-7101 with custom calibration down to 5Hz. The mic is basically flat and is down .26 dB at 5 Hz. I use an HTPC as the source and JRiver Media Center for all EQing. I did the EQing at Subfest 2011 and you can read more about JRiver in that thread. They have made some improvements since then and I can now run the REW sweeps directly through JRiver and also use JRiver to provide EQ for all PC sources such as games, Netflix, Hulu, etc.

I'm very familiar with JR and have used it for some years. Well not recently as Cinemar no longer use it and I no longer use it either. I installed the latest and WOW has Jim has sure done a lot of work to it ehh!

desertdome thanks for that thread as well! I'm archiving that info for future reference. GREAT WORK!

I agree completely.

And I base this opinion on both rationale and experience with auditioning many speakers and owning many speakers.

Speaker #1 plays the note of middle C accurately/faithfully.

Speaker #2 plays the note of middle C accurately/faithfully.

Speaker #3 plays the note of middle C accurately/faithfully.

All 3 speakers will play the note of middle C accurately/faithfully. They will sound the same.