Welcome, regarding measurement mic fooling us guess it doesn't matter because only variable is DUT and therefor they all replicate if an little error is there compared super precision calibrated B&K thousand $ mic.
Sorry I have to smile to have just realized during this round that people are not seeing what I have seen from the start... [which I will write in the next post, I hope]Yes, in two rounds the clips sounded VERY similar. Both are coming from the same manufacturer but the prices are different. Then we may ask what is the difference between the two? From listening, TG9 had much higher distortion. The distortion I believe is more exposed in this round than previous one, I believe X can later confirm that, may be as difference in gain or something.
My View On The Issue --> Weakest Link
I just realized the situation during this round, that people do not see what I have seen... So my confusions regarding people's thinking:
(1) Since many years ago I have said that FR flatness is not important but too many experts have gone against that. The truth is because people just cannot see what other variables are available and equally important and that often we cannot choose but face the trading off situation.
(2) People are comparing the clip with the reference, why??? Haven't I said in several threads and occasions that NONE of the clips are close to the reference? So what do you expect from comparing them?? Are you all honest judging sounds only using your ears or not? Planet10 is of course correct regarding the reference [I thought it was too obvious to even to mention], but so what?? I think I know very well that they are different but I also know it shouldn't "waste" any effort.
(3) Bob is saying regarding treble issues and Eldam and others talking about peanut butter. I was confused [because technically they are all correct but so what?], but now I understand that most people cannot hear beyond frequency response and thus there is or there isn't treble is so important for them.
Here is what I think:
[1] If you can't hear the difference between the reference and the clips, why the difference should become too important for you? I can hear the difference but it is not important for me.
[2] Here is the link: Original source >> WAV file >> CDPlayer >> DSP >> Amp >> Microphone >> MP3 >>>>> Your digital player processing with setups that most people don't understand >> Sound card >> Amplifier >> headphone or speakers >> Ears which have different acuity and frequency response.
Where do you think the weakest link is???
It is most probably: your ears OR your headphone/speaker OR your digital setup. As long as all the clips are handled in the same manner [which they were], the difference with the reference shouldn't be the weakest link.
If you think that the treble is important, well, which one do you think is better in your system with a tone control: a bad system with elevated/adjusted treble, or a good system with reduced treble?
Of course, what I'm trying to say is not clear But so what?
I just realized the situation during this round, that people do not see what I have seen... So my confusions regarding people's thinking:
(1) Since many years ago I have said that FR flatness is not important but too many experts have gone against that. The truth is because people just cannot see what other variables are available and equally important and that often we cannot choose but face the trading off situation.
(2) People are comparing the clip with the reference, why??? Haven't I said in several threads and occasions that NONE of the clips are close to the reference? So what do you expect from comparing them?? Are you all honest judging sounds only using your ears or not? Planet10 is of course correct regarding the reference [I thought it was too obvious to even to mention], but so what?? I think I know very well that they are different but I also know it shouldn't "waste" any effort.
(3) Bob is saying regarding treble issues and Eldam and others talking about peanut butter. I was confused [because technically they are all correct but so what?], but now I understand that most people cannot hear beyond frequency response and thus there is or there isn't treble is so important for them.
Here is what I think:
[1] If you can't hear the difference between the reference and the clips, why the difference should become too important for you? I can hear the difference but it is not important for me.
[2] Here is the link: Original source >> WAV file >> CDPlayer >> DSP >> Amp >> Microphone >> MP3 >>>>> Your digital player processing with setups that most people don't understand >> Sound card >> Amplifier >> headphone or speakers >> Ears which have different acuity and frequency response.
Where do you think the weakest link is???
It is most probably: your ears OR your headphone/speaker OR your digital setup. As long as all the clips are handled in the same manner [which they were], the difference with the reference shouldn't be the weakest link.
If you think that the treble is important, well, which one do you think is better in your system with a tone control: a bad system with elevated/adjusted treble, or a good system with reduced treble?
Of course, what I'm trying to say is not clear
But so what?
Just for reference, the TC9/TG9 is made by Tymphany in china and the 10f/8424 are manufactured in Denmark by ScanSpeak. Not the same manufacturer.
There was a bit of convoluted history in there (History of Scan-Speak).
http://www.scan-speak.dk/news/20090421a.pdf
and at some point for a short time (2006-2009) Tymphany did own ScanSpeak, but ScanSpeak drivers were always manufactured in Denmark. Then in 2009 there was a split where the Vifa/Peerless brands and designs remained with Tymphany in china and Tymphany sold off ScanSpeak (high end designs, danish engineers, Denmark manufacturing) and it came under new Danish management. Also the TC9/TG9 dates back before the split, so they were almost certainly designed by ScanSpeak engineers.
But the ScanSpeak Discovery 10f/8424 is a newer design appearing after the 2009 split so it can be considered the evolution of the TG9. But all Discovery drivers are manufactured in Denmark.
And as an aside, when Tymphany aquired ScanSpeak in 2006, some engineers were not happy and left, forming a new company called SBAcoustics. SB Acoustics :: Home
Last edited:
Oh, I forgot if we have different prediction of the TG9
Honestly I feel you are probably predicting the right one. I don't remember why I initially predicted the same clip as the TG9.Remember when I mentioned the concentration of fiberglass in 10F versus TG9? I thought the TG9 has less fiberglass than 10F [which shouldn't easily be audible], simply because they didn't sound alike. But it is true that this clip [which you think is TG9, now I think is a driver I haven't heard] has "stiffer" cone than B80 but not as stiff as fiberglass in 10F.
I have simply refused to use other variables except ears, to remove the bias as much as possible, and to separate the "guess" [which usually is technical bias] and the "fact" [which is my ears acuity, which can objectively be tested].
The FACT is I heard two clips with very similar sound [Actually the mystery driver also sounds close to TG9 but strangely not to 10F]. Another FACT is that I have heard and compared TG9 and 10F before and I had difficulty to differentiate them [except for the sibilance] because they are damn close.
So, of course there is a possibility that in this round, TG9 and 10F are not the two drivers that I guess they are. But that has nothing to do with the "fact"...
X, Any Change To Distortion Test Input Signal This Time?
Thanks for explaining that. I couldn't remember it. I was awful at History lesson in high school.
Some people here are expecting cheap driver that perform above its price.... Initially [first impression] I thought that the clip that I think a B80 was a TC9. But I thought it was too good to be true [otherwise everyone will purchase TC9]
My initial impression too, I thought that the clip that I now think a TG9 was a 10F. But I thought that was too bad to be true, because the distortion was too high. But if this driver is really TG9 then it could be the "winner". Cheap but sounds good. And the issue then will be the distortion that seemed to be too high.
But I have a plan with 10F in a 4 way, only to perform around 1kHz to somewhere it will match with the tweeter distortion and dispersion.
So if TG9 would perform equally well in that narrow band, I may want to try it. May be there will be no more chance for me/us to hear how the drivers compare in higher XO point but if X measured the driver distortion with higher input signal than usual [so all drivers will not perform similarly], the data will be very useful. I'm like Zaph, thinking [not just thinking actually] that non linear distortion of drivers is very critical.
Thanks for explaining that. I couldn't remember it. I was awful at History lesson in high school.
Some people here are expecting cheap driver that perform above its price.... Initially [first impression] I thought that the clip that I think a B80 was a TC9. But I thought it was too good to be true
[otherwise everyone will purchase TC9] My initial impression too, I thought that the clip that I now think a TG9 was a 10F. But I thought that was too bad to be true, because the distortion was too high. But if this driver is really TG9 then it could be the "winner". Cheap but sounds good. And the issue then will be the distortion that seemed to be too high.
But I have a plan with 10F in a 4 way, only to perform around 1kHz to somewhere it will match with the tweeter distortion and dispersion.
So if TG9 would perform equally well in that narrow band, I may want to try it. May be there will be no more chance for me/us to hear how the drivers compare in higher XO point but if X measured the driver distortion with higher input signal than usual [so all drivers will not perform similarly], the data will be very useful. I'm like Zaph, thinking [not just thinking actually] that non linear distortion of drivers is very critical.
not quite pink
A 42k sample of clip-2 with 128 point FFT averaged window for A,B,D,E and F:
This looks very similar to X's pink spectrum comparison of UMM-6 and H4 microphones, but peak is shifted up. I've listened to this 0.875 clip continuously looping while applying PEQ of various depths and widths at various points in the spectrum. Elements of drivers frequency response can be more similar, but doesn't change the character of how the drivers seem to fill the recording space. EQ doesn't change polar pattern of drivers. Based on driver documents and looking at 30 degree and 60 degree off axis responses, they show significant differences. Differences in rate of roll off and peaking behavior in off axis responses has big impact in a highly reflective room.
Headphones/earbuds are best way for getting into X's recording space.
A 42k sample of clip-2 with 128 point FFT averaged window for A,B,D,E and F:
This looks very similar to X's pink spectrum comparison of UMM-6 and H4 microphones, but peak is shifted up. I've listened to this 0.875 clip continuously looping while applying PEQ of various depths and widths at various points in the spectrum. Elements of drivers frequency response can be more similar, but doesn't change the character of how the drivers seem to fill the recording space. EQ doesn't change polar pattern of drivers. Based on driver documents and looking at 30 degree and 60 degree off axis responses, they show significant differences. Differences in rate of roll off and peaking behavior in off axis responses has big impact in a highly reflective room.
Headphones/earbuds are best way for getting into X's recording space.
Eldam and another member grouped the drivers into two categories: AF for warm sound and BDE for high definition. I think what Eldam seen is this graphics where AF are at the bottom, while BDE at the top...
Hmmm... this is so confusing... because at different "segment" each driver perform differently...
I just listened again, all drivers producing cymbals [and drum] at 0:25 of clip2 from Barleywater and the result is very surprising!!! [This is the first time I compared ALL of the drivers one by one]
Sound wise, there are three groups of drivers that may represent driver technology: GROUP AE, GROUP BD and GROUP F. D leading in group BD and E leading in group AE.
Now I understand why some people with good ears in this thread picked and rated drivers differently... It depends on what we are listening to
And I will have completely different opinion if I base my opinion on this cymbal/drum segment only Attachments
Now I understand why some people with good ears in this thread picked and rated drivers differently... It depends on what we are listening to
yes this is why it is a subjective blind comparison. gives us each a chance to see what our blind unbiased impression is of these drivers. side purpose is to see if there are any dominate preference patterns by allowing us to vote. This isn't some test or competition to see who has the best ears.
for example I know I prefer a flat frequency response primarily with clarity (low distortion) and dynamics coming second and third. ideally we have it all, but this is rare. I have consistently picked the flattest response driver in these tests.
Does clarity equate to low distortion? I like clarity too but in an occasion I had a trade off between clarity and something else in a crossover and I didn't pick clarity [precisely intelligibility]. It was the best intelligibility I have ever achieved. From outside the house I could clearly understand what were being said in a radio discussion.
I rate low "distortion" very highly. By this I mean a non fatiguing sound [using speaker, not headphone, because headphone is fatiguing for me].
"Dynamics" is not a clear terminology. People tend to use this word for many different things. I prefer the term "musicality" which is also vague [and of course different with dynamics].
Between B80, 10F, TG9, TC9, what is the ranking in term of flatness?
If I had time I will listen all the 5 drivers at several segments with different instruments plus vocal, and score them at each segment, then the winner should have the highest total score. But I already had the winner
But interesting is that ranking is different at different segment. And it seems it is easier to predict which driver is which if we compare ALL at the same short segment.For me it would be interesting to see the result if no poll was visible and no text files attached. It seems like when voting starts, there is a difference in preference compared to the end of poll. Coincidence, maybe not....
Or, are the late voters simply sitting and torture themselves endlessly comparing files to the known reference track? Well, then it is not un-biased or? How many voters have used reference track for guidance???
In my opinion, the weak link is the bag of skin that consumes the music
Peter
Or, are the late voters simply sitting and torture themselves endlessly comparing files to the known reference track? Well, then it is not un-biased or? How many voters have used reference track for guidance???
In my opinion, the weak link is the bag of skin that consumes the music
Peter
Jay, can you even remember what driver name you put to which file? Even after reading your txt file I get lost in your descriptions.
Personally I think the frequency response IS important (*). I was thrown off in this round by drivers sounding a bit different from previous rounds. X has explained there is a difference. That difference is in the higher frequency response. Part of me is also puzzled if the enclosure for the full range driver has something to do with it. Up till now it was the spiral enclosure, now it is the "Dagger".
We all go in with a bias, at least the people that have participated in previous rounds.
But the sound quality is different from round to round and does play a role in the picking order.
I think this is as much a learning experience for X to find the best way to do these tests as it is for us to listen to them.
But the people that listen to the tests can all have different priorities as well. We are in the full range part of the forum here.
Many enthusiasts of full range drivers like to find a driver with a certain enclosure and with minimal parts get the best sound (for them). No EQ allowed and a minimum of passive components (if any) to get the job done.
There's also a group represented here that isn't shy of using either passive or active help to get where they want to end up. I know I'm one of that group. They will view a test like this in a totally different way.
There is no wrong way to enjoy this hobby, but there will always be different ways.
(*) I use quite a bit of digital help for my own speakers. I play a lot with different techniques and ways to see what it does. But that also made it very clear for me that tiny differences in FR response can make quite the difference in the overall sound. Especially the differences in the upper part of the frequency spectrum.
Differences or a different balance in lower frequencies are easier to ignore as one can get used to that more easily. Like ignoring the room effects, something we do without thinking about it. Those room effects become quite obvious if you play back the sound recorded in your own room on headphones. Or worse even: play it back in your room on that same system.
It took me quite a while to get used to the sound again after hearing a (virtual) recording of my own room played back on the same system. I couldn't as easily ignore the room effects anymore. Something that I did on auto pilot without thinking before that test.
Here we have room effects too, and even though they will largely be the same the point made by Barleywater is very true. Off axis response will matter on how the different clips will sound.
Personally I think the frequency response IS important (*). I was thrown off in this round by drivers sounding a bit different from previous rounds. X has explained there is a difference. That difference is in the higher frequency response. Part of me is also puzzled if the enclosure for the full range driver has something to do with it. Up till now it was the spiral enclosure, now it is the "Dagger".
We all go in with a bias, at least the people that have participated in previous rounds.
But the sound quality is different from round to round and does play a role in the picking order.
I think this is as much a learning experience for X to find the best way to do these tests as it is for us to listen to them.
But the people that listen to the tests can all have different priorities as well. We are in the full range part of the forum here.
Many enthusiasts of full range drivers like to find a driver with a certain enclosure and with minimal parts get the best sound (for them). No EQ allowed and a minimum of passive components (if any) to get the job done.
There's also a group represented here that isn't shy of using either passive or active help to get where they want to end up. I know I'm one of that group. They will view a test like this in a totally different way.
There is no wrong way to enjoy this hobby, but there will always be different ways.
(*) I use quite a bit of digital help for my own speakers. I play a lot with different techniques and ways to see what it does. But that also made it very clear for me that tiny differences in FR response can make quite the difference in the overall sound. Especially the differences in the upper part of the frequency spectrum.
Differences or a different balance in lower frequencies are easier to ignore as one can get used to that more easily. Like ignoring the room effects, something we do without thinking about it. Those room effects become quite obvious if you play back the sound recorded in your own room on headphones. Or worse even: play it back in your room on that same system.
It took me quite a while to get used to the sound again after hearing a (virtual) recording of my own room played back on the same system. I couldn't as easily ignore the room effects anymore. Something that I did on auto pilot without thinking before that test.
Here we have room effects too, and even though they will largely be the same the point made by Barleywater is very true. Off axis response will matter on how the different clips will sound.
Last edited:
I hope not. I didn't see any changing trend. But I'm sure there will be big surprises when the result is revealed
Because no one sent me one to test. If you have one to donate to the cause, send it to me and it will be included in the next round.
Yes of course [and I like it that you got lost
]. But yes I have been confused. Initially I thought it was the setup improvement that make drivers sound different in this round. But its so confusing that if the most favored driver from previous round turn out to be the looser and the mystery driver that is not part of the "previous winners" turn out to be the winner, then it is not "acceptable".My preference is fortunately valid since the beginning [except temporary preference in the first minute of listening]. I have compared it with all other drivers and it has no weakness.
I think something is NOT RIGHT here and we will find out later after the big reveal. I hope I will finish my amp today so I can listen through my speakers... I'm not a headphone guy. Headphones just hurt my ears...
I also think so
What I was saying is that there are other things that is also important and that there is always trade off.Distortion is another variable that is "subjectively" more important.
In multi way speakers, the trade off is more...