or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers ›  Wilson Audio Thor's Hammer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Wilson Audio Thor's Hammer - Page 6

post #151 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

A logical discussion of the issue would require identifying what engineering characteristics define 'slow sounding', then compiling data with various subs that confirms the thus far assumed relationship between driver size and said characteristics. In the absence of objective data all one has is subjective opinion, which is not sufficient to validate a theory.

I agree Bill. It needs to be quantified but since I am not a qualified engineer for this I don't want to make any false technical statements which is why I quoted what I saved from a post Tom made somewhere, I thought it might be of some use to those seeking a more technical explanation.

I can not explain why it happens, I can only tell you what my experiences were.
post #152 of 223
The higher x-max drivers will dig deep better so they will include the slower frequencies with the Midbass. So it may seem slower but in reality it is just reproducing the full spectrum accurately. You need to high pass, Eq, every setup the same and have the same type if driver to compare one to another. You can't compare a high x-max 18 with a low x-max high sensitivity 12 for 100 hz. If you really want to compare driver size you need to play an 18 with 30 mm of x max and a 12 with the same or designed the same.
post #153 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decadent_Spectre View Post

My opinion is based on personal experience when trying out various drivers in sealed and ported alignments keeping all things equal such as frequency response,room and listening position. I have also altered the sealed box size to alter the box Q but no matter how I sliced it the 21s I was testing were sluggish compared to the 15s. I know and agree that much of the "speed" comes from the higher frequencies yet the 15s still had more control to them when covering the same frequency range as the 21s.

I am obviously not on the same level as someone like Tom so I can not say precisely why this occurs but it does.

I used to believe that size did not make a difference based on the posts here and some of the theory I read until I did my own A/B tests. Theory is good but sometimes it is best to do the tests yourself. Measurements are needed but in the end it is about the sound. Measurements are a means to an end. The end is always subjective sound.

I have used some pro 21" drivers that have good frequency response up high, everything says they should work well with a XO around 120-150Hz but in actual practice and listening the smaller driver sounded much better and "punched" harder but the 21 went louder of course. Josh tested this driver on data bass and also mentioned that it could be used as high as 400Hz but I don't agree. My thoughts are this driver should be used no higher than 80Hz or so.

http://www.data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=71

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decadent_Spectre View Post

My post had nothing to do with the Wilson sub, merely presenting my thoughts that large drivers tend to be slower sounding so to speak.

My thoughts, as I posted in my follow up post, are a reflection of my own testing of various drivers. I am referring to the 18" LMS Ultra. The Ultra excels in a very specific use and this can be gleaned by looking at the data bass results. It excels at the low bass region below 30Hz in a small box coupled with room gain. At this job I don't believe there is a better driver out there but I was specifically addressing the topic of "slow sounding" drivers. I will emphasize this is my experience with drivers and of course people have different thoughts on the subject.

I would encourage others to use larger and smaller drivers that are both pro style and higher xmax car/home audio type in different cabinets in the same room/setting with the same frequency response and make their own conclusions. I found the exercise to be more informative than any of the theory discussions I have read on AVS or elsewhere. It takes some effort,time and money but for me it was a worthy investment.

My subjective results have been a bit different and I disagree with a few things...

Bass is inherently slow...The only way to change speed in the bass is by modifying the frequency or the level of the signal. That being the case when people talk of speed it is often assumed to mean that there is a sluggish response to the initial rise time of the transient or a lingering of the signal as the cone settles to rest and this is the cause. That there is some smearing and or dragging of the start and stop of the signal. There are some errors in signal tracking with every bass system including in the time domain that is no surprise, but I am dubious at how audible these timing differences are when we are speaking of a few MS difference in the bass range especially with masking content we are much more sensitive to going on at the same time, unless it is truly excessive like due to an overdriven system, or a very bad resonance somewhere in the passband.

Now to point out something else...Bass output is predictable based on swept volume. If you are comparing a 21" woofer to a single 15" and driving both in the same alignment to the same output levels with the same exact FR shape the 15" is working twice as hard because it only has half of the cone area. The 15" needs to be driven 6dB harder to keep up with the 21" which means that it has to move twice as far so it can displace the same amount of air. Since any change in the speed at which the woofer changes direction will alter the frequencies being produced it has to cover twice the total distance in the same amount of time so the 15" actually is moving faster...However that is a bad thing not a good thing, as typically twice as much driver stroke would entail higher power input, less linearity, higher distortion, more mechanical noise etc...If you add a second 15" driver things are at parity with the 21" more or less. Consider that it takes about 5 10" drivers to equal the cone area of one 21". The moral here is that yes most of the time the smaller drivers are moving faster, but it is because they are being driven much harder and they are struggling to produce the signal.

Generalizations by cone size or driver xmax or even mms simply cannot be made IMHO.The control of the motor over the cone assembly in even a weak motored sub driver completely dominates the moving mass and suspension stiffness. A much heavier load for example is the air mass seen by the cone during operartion. A larger SD cone requires a more powerful motor to produce a qts similar to a smaller driver size however it also requires more smaller drivers to make up the sensitivity and output headroom of one larger driver. Let's make a very simple number comprising the information of the drivers motor strength and the area of the cone and call it the "control factor". A CF of 0.185 for a typical 21" driver requires a BL^2/RE of approximately 310. For the reduced area of an 18" it drops to about 224. For a 15" it is now 152 or just about half for approximately half of the cone area as expected. Only 89 for a 12" driver, 61 for a 10" , 42 for an 8" etc. Now that is a static number without a whole lot of context or meaning. Consider that two 15" drivers may have the same BL^2/RE indicating that the motors are equally powerful, but if one only maintains 80% of peak strength over a range of 12mm and the other maintains it over a range of 36mm clearly one is actually far more powerful of a device.

I completely disagree with your subjective comments on the LMS ultra...That has a VERY powerful motor, incredibly low distortion, linearity, well controlled inductance and prodigious headroom, it is also fairly efficient and sensitive in the bass range. It is one of the cleanest most precise bass drivers I have personally encountered from 10-150Hz. That is about as pure as a big powerful subwoofer is going to get IMO. I have listened to almost every alignment imagineable with so many different bass drivers I can't remember them all. I also liked the 21LW1400 and heard nothing slow or sluggish about it until overdriven. YMMV.

Tom's quote explains why there can be some energy storage or delay issues and note that he is making a point that these can be largely affected by filter effects not to mention room acoustics, alignment, etc...only one factor is the driver itself. The driver inductance can create a filter effect which will cause issue however if you consider that this typically occurs most significantly above subwoofer crossover and that in order to meet the same acoustic roll off as a less inductive design will require a less aggressive electronic filter at the end of the day... Inductance also has effects on sensitivity, efficiency and distortion.

I am highly doubtful that anyone would be able to reliably differentiate between 2 different bass drivers running in the same alignment under blind conditions as long as the test is setup correctly. The primary contributers to differences in subjective quality are IMHO due to either: Frequency response differences (Including well outside the filter points), radically different alignments, room acoustics, different placements, sensitivity or level differences, one system being less capable and encountering: Compression, elevated distortion, mechanical noise, cabinet noise, port noise, etc, before the other system and then there is how equal the integration with the rest of the mid and high frequency speaker system is done. There are so many factors to consider. Ideally you would have the systems listened to blindly by multiple people with subjective scoring cards and comments, random order, setup outdoors to remove the room equation, with identical placement, identical equipment other than the drivers, identical alignments (sealed for simplicity) and enclosures as much as possible, FR's within 1dB from at least 10Hz to up past 300Hz, level matched within 1dB, both systems running the same material and both completely within their capabilities let's say a good 12-15dB below any headroom limits. At one time there was some discussion about a GTG to try something like this but it never developed. I would certainly love to see the results of something like this regardless of which way they turned out.

Clearly the raw response of various drivers/systems is vastly different and will sound that way. I'm currently of the opinion that the gap can be narrowed to the point as to be virtually indistinguishable from each other by modifying their performance to match a predetermined response goal or each other, as long as used within both their limits. Anyway this is all my opinion just as you have yours FWIW. There are a lot of people in both camps.
Edited by Ricci - 7/26/13 at 9:48am
post #154 of 223
Ricci,
I agree, I have tested all my systems at reference and the only difference between them was low frequency rolloff. Once I boosted down low I could make every system sound the same. The subs with less rolloff required less power down low so at the same levels it had less THD, but never enough to hear the differences, just the measurements showed the differences.
post #155 of 223
Ricci,

I understand your points about the theory of audio, I have read these points before and I can understand what your trying to say but I could hear a difference and I did my best to match everything as precisely as I could. I definitely want to know why I heard it. I tried comparing the systems with different LPFs and found the differences to be lessened with a 80Hz LPF which is why I said so in my previous post about the 21LW1400 which makes more sense given the "speed" comes from the higher frequencies.

I will add that during the tests I found sealed to have more speed/control than ported boxes using the same driver. This can probably be explained by the impulse response differences I think. Maybe what I heard pertaining to 15s and 21s can also be explained by this? What do you think?
post #156 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decadent_Spectre View Post

Ricci,

I understand your points about the theory of audio

Ricci speaks well beyond just theory as you say. The man has volumes of experience, with numerous subs, in controlled testing environments. Nice to read something really logical today. Thx for your comments Josh.
post #157 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decadent_Spectre View Post

Ricci,

I understand your points about the theory of audio, I have read these points before and I can understand what your trying to say but I could hear a difference and I did my best to match everything as precisely as I could. I definitely want to know why I heard it. I tried comparing the systems with different LPFs and found the differences to be lessened with a 80Hz LPF which is why I said so in my previous post about the 21LW1400 which makes more sense given the "speed" comes from the higher frequencies.

I will add that during the tests I found sealed to have more speed/control than ported boxes using the same driver. This can probably be explained by the impulse response differences I think. Maybe what I heard pertaining to 15s and 21s can also be explained by this? What do you think?

Without knowing the full details of the speakers in this context I'm going to ask what I think is the obvious question. Who built the enclosure and was it designed properly for the drivers? The obvious assumption that needs to be made is that the system as a whole must be properly designed and built to maximize the driver's capabilities.

I can tell you that given the same driver, I'll bet my life that Ricci, Bill, and the majority of the DIY guys on here will be able to build an enclosure for the driver so that is MUCH cleaner and "faster" sounding than I ever will be able to. I am just a beginner and still learning to use WinISD and REW. I wonder if all these differences people claim to have heard is due to the fact that they were listening to sub-optimal design and build of the enclosures for the drivers. This is especially true of non-sealed enclosures as port/vent design is pretty complex (to me at least) and is dependent on many factors that the designer needs to take into consideration.
post #158 of 223
With the lack of any data. I would say expectation bias would be as good of a guess as any. smile.gif

Great post Ricci. cool.gif
post #159 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by polizzio View Post

Ricci speaks well beyond just theory as you say. The man has volumes of experience, with numerous subs, in controlled testing environments. Nice to read something really logical today. Thx for your comments Josh.

I am not saying Ricci lacks experience and I don't know why you would say he has experience when we already know he is experienced. To me much of what he has said is theory and measurements, what one hears is always subjective. He notes his post reflect his opinions.

You may choose to believe others words but I choose to test things for myself and will continue to do so.
post #160 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by duc135 View Post

Without knowing the full details of the speakers in this context I'm going to ask what I think is the obvious question. Who built the enclosure and was it designed properly for the drivers? The obvious assumption that needs to be made is that the system as a whole must be properly designed and built to maximize the driver's capabilities.

I can tell you that given the same driver, I'll bet my life that Ricci, Bill, and the majority of the DIY guys on here will be able to build an enclosure for the driver so that is MUCH cleaner and "faster" sounding than I ever will be able to. I am just a beginner and still learning to use WinISD and REW. I wonder if all these differences people claim to have heard is due to the fact that they were listening to sub-optimal design and build of the enclosures for the drivers. This is especially true of non-sealed enclosures as port/vent design is pretty complex (to me at least) and is dependent on many factors that the designer needs to take into consideration.

The enclosure was correctly made. Sealed is the easiest box to design and build.

Luke, I was expecting it to be the same having read the points Ricci makes before. I was surprised if anything.
post #161 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decadent_Spectre View Post

I am not saying Ricci lacks experience and I don't know why you would say he has experience when we already know he is experienced. To me much of what he has said is theory and measurements, what one hears is always subjective. He notes his post reflect his opinions.

You may choose to believe others words but I choose to test things for myself and will continue to do so.

You're entitled to your opinions....but when you said the LMS5400 was a sluggish, muddy air pump, I got off the train smile.gif
post #162 of 223
Again,
I'm guessing the subjective differences are tied to the time domain; either alignment with the remaining spectrum, or the LF decay.

The wildcard is inductance, and how much instantaneous current the wall/amplifier combo can provide.

Thanks
post #163 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decadent_Spectre View Post

The enclosure was correctly made. Sealed is the easiest box to design and build.

Luke, I was expecting it to be the same having read the points Ricci makes before. I was surprised if anything.

I have done some testing myself and have come away with opposite conclusions. I agree with everything Ricci has said and place myself in the bass is bass camp. If it sounds different, I believe there is an objective test that can show why. I have a buddy who thinks the ported svs subwoofers are not musical subwoofers. I don't agree and believe it is b/c they don't have a lot of midbass output and keep there linearity up to max output. Some subwoofers have limiting which allows them to increase ouput while compressing/limiting the low end altering there percieved sound approaching the limits.

People doing there own testing is great and I encourage it. However when there is no data to correlate with the subjective findings I find the conclusions to not be very useful for others. There are too many biases involved in this kind of research for conclusions to be drawn, and dbt testing has shown this time and time again. One set of tests I find great for the correlation of subjective with objective data to be the Keith Yates way down deep tests. Good read.

http://www.hometheater.com/content/way-down-deep-i
post #164 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Kamp View Post

I have a buddy who thinks the ported svs subwoofers are not musical subwoofers. I don't agree and believe it is b/c they don't have a lot of midbass output and keep there linearity up to max output. Some subwoofers have limiting which allows them to increase ouput while compressing/limiting the low end altering there percieved sound approaching the limits.

Along these lines, and as I have mentioned before, I think subs with more harmonic distortion can mistakenly be found to be more detailed or more articulate or musical or whatever. If you compare a low harmonic distortion sub with a high harmonic distortion sub, you could possibly come away finding the clean sub 'missing' upper frequency stuff which is only being erroneously added by distortion. And since it is higher in frequency, it is more easily perceivable. This would help to explain why all those small woofer subs have a reputation for being 'more musical'; they will have loads more distortion when pushed beyond a modest output level.
post #165 of 223
Luke, I can understand why people want data. If I had not experienced it myself and heard someone else say this I would probably not believe it since you read these posts on here but in other places you read things that are contrary to what is posted here. I decided to see for myself. Bias can easily creep in from both sides of the coin, whether your in the objective or subjective camp. Whom do you believe? I think its a matter of getting the right mix of both.

Certainly there are some differences between the 2 drivers to offer differing perceptions. Something is going on in the time domain.
post #166 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decadent_Spectre View Post

Luke, I can understand why people want data. If I had not experienced it myself and heard someone else say this I would probably not believe it since you read these posts on here but in other places you read things that are contrary to what is posted here. I decided to see for myself. Bias can easily creep in from both sides of the coin, whether your in the objective or subjective camp. Whom do you believe? I think its a matter of getting the right mix of both.

Certainly there are some differences between the 2 drivers to offer differing perceptions. Something is going on in the time domain.

So the lms 5400 has time domain problems above 30hz? A tested pro 21 with f3 around 70hz with low distortion high output above shouldn't be used above 80hz? Still sticking with the objective camp myself. The whole point of dbt is keeping bias out as much as possible, and results show this.

I agree shady, higher distortion is more bass. I also think this could be why a smaller driver could be percieved as having more punch. If it has high level harmonics in the punch region, of course it has more punch.
post #167 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Kamp View Post

So the lms 5400 has time domain problems above 30hz? A tested pro 21 with f3 around 70hz with low distortion high output above shouldn't be used above 80hz? Still sticking with the objective camp myself. The whole point of dbt is keeping bias out as much as possible, and results show this.

I agree shady, higher distortion is more bass. I also think this could be why a smaller driver could be percieved as having more punch. If it has high level harmonics in the punch region, of course it has more punch.

Bias suggests unfair prejudice. I went in with an open mind as I have already said, of course you may choose to believe I was biased if you wish.
post #168 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decadent_Spectre View Post

Bias suggests unfair prejudice. I went in with an open mind as I have already said, of course you may choose to believe I was biased if you wish.

There are many different bias's as well as user error in a test like this. You are welcome to your opinion. Disagreeing with Bill and Ricci on this subject could be considered dunning-kruger effect imo. I will be waiting on your white paper regarding proper subwoofer testing. Good luck.
post #169 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Kamp View Post

There are many different bias's as well as user error in a test like this. You are welcome to your opinion. Disagreeing with Bill and Ricci on this subject could be considered dunning-kruger effect imo. I will be waiting on your white paper regarding proper subwoofer testing. Good luck.

You don't seem to be able to digest someone having an opinion that does not hold with yours.
post #170 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decadent_Spectre View Post

You don't seem to be able to digest someone having an opinion that does not hold with yours.

I have no problem with differing opinion. Like i said before a buddy and myself disagree with svs and i am fine with it. Its when people differ from proven science. When someone does their own test then uses it back up bass myths is what i cant digest. Proof is in the pudding and you aint got none. I will leave the subjective to their $200,000 mains that measure poorly and their dual drive 15" unpowered enclosure for $20,000. Thats my opinion and i am sticking to it. wink.gif
post #171 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke Kamp View Post

I have no problem with differing opinion. Like i said before a buddy and myself disagree with svs and i am fine with it. Its when people differ from proven science. When someone does their own test then uses it back up bass myths is what i cant digest. Proof is in the pudding and you aint got none. I will leave the subjective to their $200,000 mains that measure poorly and their dual drive 15" unpowered enclosure for $20,000. Thats my opinion and i am sticking to it. wink.gif

You can't digest that someone does not agree with your opinion that science has proved that "bass is bass". So my opinion is that you can't digest other opinions smile.gif

I would suggest you not frequent forums such as this if you can't digest any written post for any reason. The internet does not bow to one's inclinations.

Good day.
post #172 of 223
Data Bass testing found the SVS PB Ultra 13 sub quite impressive, with exceptionally low distortion results. That 13.5" massive xmass driver is impressive and noteworthy. Test data and listening indicates it surely isn't sluggish or sloppy. A friend has one, I find it favorable for music myself.
post #173 of 223
Eh, It sounds like he did the best job he could with his test, he's not saying that he's right about anything other than he found a difference. I don't see any reason not to believe him.

There are a lot of reasons for him to get worse performance from the LMS other than just the driver being inherently "slow". Maybe his amp cant handle the back EMF from that monster.
Maybe its a bad driver. Who knows.

BTW I think if we changed the word "slow" to "late" it might be a little more descriptive.
post #174 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decadent_Spectre View Post

You can't digest that someone does not agree with your opinion that science has proved that "bass is bass". So my opinion is that you can't digest other opinions smile.gif

I would suggest you not frequent forums such as this if you can't digest any written post for any reason. The internet does not bow to one's inclinations.

Good day.

Correct if someones opinion is against proven science, i am on the side of science. As Bills quote states, the laws of physics aren't swayed by opinion. I digested Ricci's post just fine and that is the kind of posts i come here for. smile.gif

Good day.
post #175 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decadent_Spectre View Post


science has proved that "bass is bass". 

^^^This. EDIT: Meaning, the right data will tell if sub A is better (better capabilities = sound better) than sub B. If the two are very similar in capabilities, minute differences (measurable, but likely infinite combinations) in sound characteristics will end up deciding one's preference of one sub or the other. The subs you compared likely differed in capabilities or test environments significantly.

 

DS, no one is saying that you don't have a right to your opinion. However, there is no science behind it, and therefore simply a preference. Preferences are per individual and can never be argued. We do not want to argue your preference. You like what you like no matter how much science disproves you....and that's okay, as that is your preference and cannot be argued. Sounds like you may like higher THD...good for you.

 

However, Reference is science backed as Bill, Josh, and others have mentioned. Trying to convince others that your preference (without science) trumps science (reference) is just silly. It is irrelevant how many subs you've built and compared to each other to come to this conclusion. Without science backing it, it applies to only 1 person, you. Trying to convince others that your theory is correct (and other should try it) because that's what your ears heard, is really saying "The world is flat...really it is. I personally can't disprove it as much as I've tried, so it must be true. Do the same test yourself, and you'll find the world is flat too!" rolleyes.gif

 

Good day.


Edited by dominguez1 - 7/26/13 at 5:43pm
post #176 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by dominguez1 View Post

^^^This. EDIT: Meaning, the right data will tell if sub A is better (better capabilities = sound better) than sub B. If the two are very similar in capabilities, minute differences (measurable, but likely infinite combinations) in sound characteristics will end up deciding one's preference of one sub or the other. The subs you compared likely differed in capabilities or test environments significantly.

DS, no one is saying that you don't have a right to your opinion. However, there is no science behind it, and therefore simply a preference. Preferences are per individual and can never be argued. We do not want to argue your preference. You like what you like no matter how much science disproves you....and that's okay, as that is your preference and cannot be argued. Sounds like you may like higher THD...good for you.

However, Reference is science backed as Bill, Josh, and others have mentioned. Trying to convince others that your preference (without science) trumps science (reference) is just silly. It is irrelevant how many subs you've built and compared to each other to come to this conclusion. Without science backing it, it applies to only 1 person, you. Trying to convince others that your theory is correct (and other should try it) because that's what your ears heard, is really saying "The world is flat...really it is. I personally can't disprove it as much as I've tried, so it must be true. Do the same test yourself, and you'll find the world is flat too!" rolleyes.gif


Good day.


Hmm! I guess the poor guy should just forget what he found by using a fundamental of experimental science and not theoretical produced a result that he found interesting and decided to post on it only to be met by the same group that hide in the name of science while offering no proof as to why this man's experiment produced a result different from what it theoretically should . Have you done any of the experiments he noted in his post ? Can you shed any light on the subject other than what you guys always seem to post but have no science of your own to back it up.
post #177 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by dominguez1 View Post

^^^This. EDIT: Meaning, the right data will tell if sub A is better (better capabilities = sound better) than sub B. If the two are very similar in capabilities, minute differences (measurable, but likely infinite combinations) in sound characteristics will end up deciding one's preference of one sub or the other. The subs you compared likely differed in capabilities or test environments significantly.

DS, no one is saying that you don't have a right to your opinion. However, there is no science behind it, and therefore simply a preference. Preferences are per individual and can never be argued. We do not want to argue your preference. You like what you like no matter how much science disproves you....and that's okay, as that is your preference and cannot be argued. Sounds like you may like higher THD...good for you.

However, Reference is science backed as Bill, Josh, and others have mentioned. Trying to convince others that your preference (without science) trumps science (reference) is just silly. It is irrelevant how many subs you've built and compared to each other to come to this conclusion. Without science backing it, it applies to only 1 person, you. Trying to convince others that your theory is correct (and other should try it) because that's what your ears heard, is really saying "The world is flat...really it is. I personally can't disprove it as much as I've tried, so it must be true. Do the same test yourself, and you'll find the world is flat too!" rolleyes.gif


Good day.

You seem to misunderstand my position, I am not trying to convince anyone that I am right. There are many kinds of bias and some obviously stem from what one thinks is the ideal bass system and what they might own and so forth. People are free to believe what they prefer and I could not care less what they think. I posted my thoughts that larger drivers are sluggish on a topic and it upset a lot of people who queried why so as to find reasons to say I was wrong since my view did not please them, I clarified my position and answered their questions. I don't agree with your assumptions that I like higher THD but you are welcome to your opinion as well of course. Individuals or groups of people always think they are right, who is to say they are wrong? They will never believe it and the other group will always insist you are wrong. You believe science proves bass is bass, I do not. I feel science proves that there are differences (read below), the question is can you hear it and for me the answer is that I can.

As you note there are infinite combinations of differences, if you compare all the graphs posted on data bass of different drivers you will notice differences in their waterfall plots, impulse response and other measurements and these may have contributed to what I heard. The 15 I used is not posted on data bass.

With that I must take my leave of this thread, no point in continuing to argue. Clearly some people can not accept other views.

Good day.
Edited by Decadent_Spectre - 7/27/13 at 3:25am
post #178 of 223
How about you tell us which 15 you used and maybe we can get a good understanding of what happened. I don't believe that driver size matters as long as they are excellent drivers of equal quality. Maybe your 15 is just a better driver for those frequencies. I would not say it is because it is smaller because again why not an 8 inch driver then? I am running 13's myself and like them better than my 15's and 18's I had. I also like them better than my 12's. Of course I need more of them to compete at the same spl's as the big boys but I do have 12 of them. I am testing an AVR vs my separates right now and the AVR does one thing better, deeper extension, however the separates are sounding better to me. I am using the auto EQ in the AVR vs the manual EQ I performed myself. They should sound the same right? Not yet.
post #179 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Decadent_Spectre View Post

it upset a lot of people who queried why so as to find reasons to say I was wrong since my view did not please them.
It's not a matter of pleasing anyone, it's simply that you have presented no evidence to support your conclusion, other than "This is what I believe". Loudspeakers aren't the same as either religion or politics, what you believe doesn't matter, it's what you can prove. All you've proven so far is that you lack any engineering skills to back up your beliefs.
Quote:
I feel science proves that there are differences (read below), the question is can you hear it and for me the answer is that I can.
What science has proven time and time again is that those who insist that they can hear the unmeasurable are only fooling themselves.
post #180 of 223
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

It's not a matter of pleasing anyone, it's simply that you have presented no evidence to support your conclusion, other than "This is what I believe". Loudspeakers aren't the same as either religion or politics, what you believe doesn't matter, it's what you can prove. All you've proven so far is that you lack any engineering skills to back up your beliefs.
What science has proven time and time again is that those who insist that they can hear the unmeasurable are only fooling themselves.

Bill, I respect your work and opinions so I am going to reply to your post.

As I have already stated there are differences in various measurements such as impulse,group delay and so on between drivers on data bass and these differences may account for what I heard or maybe it is something else, I have no way to verify what caused the difference as the frequency response plot was basically the same. Differences between drivers have been measured on data bass so I don't agree with it being unmeasurable. The difference is that I did not measure all the data that data bass does, that does not mean a difference was not present, only that I did not measure everything data bass does.

Also as stated I offered my views, if you or anyone else feels I need to prove it to them because they disagree then you are mistaken, I am not here to convince anyone of anything. If someone wants me to change my views it is upto them to prove it to me and I remain unconvinced. I saw a post, I replied with my thoughts, that's really all there is to it. If I hear an A/B comparison that shows big drivers can sound equally controlled and fast as smaller drivers I will change my views until then I am sticking to my beliefs.

I hope that clarifies things for you.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers ›  Wilson Audio Thor's Hammer