Originally Posted by LTD02
"Not sure if it's a meds problem..."
nah, dave, i am actually against most of them, and i suspect that you are too. same page.
what i was suggesting is that there is an incongruency between what you are suggesting (excursion is all that matters) and what thilo designed in the lms. if you want to shoot down linear motor structure, inductance management, large motors for good damping, and the rest of it, then do so. but please do it in the context of the target, and my personal situation is not the target. simply tear thilo apart by showing why his product, which you characterize as the "most overhyped product of all time" is such.personally, i don't have a horse in the race
, so if you win or he wins, i couldn't care less. well, i would actually rather you win since you champion the lower price point drives.
as for the sound quality not captured in simple frequency sweeps, warp knows what i'm talking about, so does his visitor. 'not is one of the smartest guys around here...he knows too or he wouldn't have 'wasted' the enormous amount of money on his system that he did. i'd be sympathetic to your explanation that "more extended" bass sounds slower because it is more accurate if these guys didn't have full range systems, but they do. what you are measuring as frequency response is not the end all be all of bass. there is more too it than that.
This is the reason I regard most posts like yours with less significance. Theories and subjective comments are cool, but carry far less weight than empirical data.
Do some research. 99% of the sub drivers Thilo has designed have the same inductance roll off as the ones measured in this thread. Subwoofers are not mid-bass woofers. Model the LMSU with a LR4 LPF at 80 Hz, which virtually everyone from Tom Holman to the newest DIYer on this forum will apply in actual use, and show the comparison here, then we can have a more informed discussion.
If you buy a dozen different drivers and place each of them into a basic sealed box and compare how they sound when driving them with the same signal through the same amplifier, you will notice a difference in SQ. not and Warp and visitor will say "This one is better", but they never show why that's so or what the 'better' one is being compared to to reach that conclusion. You are suggesting it's because the LMSU is big motor, linear transdux laser inductance Q-supreme technology, blah, blah, and I'm saying it's because they each have a different FR.
Here is a comparo of 2 wildly disparate drivers before and after L/T and a 100 Hz crossover:
Now, your argument is that you (or Warp, or not or anyone else) will hear some significant difference that just happens to result from some as yet unidentifiable and indescribable phenomenon when both of these subs are placed in the same room at the same spot, giving the same FR at the LP.
I'm saying that the before graph shows that your assertion will be correct (but, that negates 'same FR'), for what I would say is not only an identifiable reason, but glaringly so.
I'm also saying that the bottom graph will change that to a crap shoot, dependent upon who's being blindfolded.
Has not, Warp or anyone else compared a couple of dozen drivers in those same boxes, rooms, placements, EQ'd to the same in-room FR with the data to go with the preference comments?
So, what are the known and measurable metrics?
Group delay? I've had that conversation with Tom Danley and scores of others. GD is a derivative of FR
. Same in-room FR, same GD. This is why many argue that ported can sound as good as (they mean the same as) sealed "if done right" (they mean with same in-room FR).
THD? Again, directly derived from FR
. Room boosts low end, low end THD drops. Room/phase/placement causes a dip in FR, THD goes up at that frequency. Unless you set out to purposely build and operate a system to produce lots of THD through sloppy set up and over driving, there is no THD in-room. It doesn't matter if you use the Fi Q or the LMSU, the THD at the LP with program source is none.
Compression? Again, FR. Can you hear compression? Only if it affects FR by more than a couple of dB and in a specific range of BW to alter FR
. There is none, again, unless you have built half the system you need and push it to twice the system you need. I've shown the SSD-based system in-room compression sweeps vs not's posted in-room compression sweeps. I've gone a step further and showed digital vs mic'd speclab graphs of the most difficult soundtracks on earth at reference level and... compression? There is none.
Transient response? Again, derived from FR
. This is a perfect example of subjective comments not only being suspect, but in this case actually describing the opposite of transient response. The narrower the BW, the less TR, but the more subjective comments will describe better TR. All TR discussions aside, the bottom line is that TR is FR is TR is FR... So, same FR, same TR.
Dynamic Tracking: This is what most really are referring to when the say TR. How well a driver tracks dynamics (transients) in program source. This is the most difficult phenomenon to actually measure and interpret. To my knowledge, no one has developed a good methodology or metric. Even if they did, I'd love for anyone here to discern dynamic tracking differences in a movie soundtrack that demands a driver reproduce a 10-80 Hz simultaneous frequency spread effect. Not gonna happen. A device designed to give flat in-room response from 3-80 Hz will not be distinguished by fractions of milliseconds differences in some narrow slice of that BW.
If there's is some magical physical phenomenon that no one through the ages has yet identified, but has this undeniable effect on subjective preferences, then tell me what it is. Until then, your harassment holds no water.