Few months ago after looking at Klang+Ton measurements I said on this forum that Visaton B80 is best small FR driver, same as 10F but for about half of price..
Now you have same measurements, results of comparasion, and still talking and thinking about all other..
I think that only few people want to learn something, most just want to spend some time..
Only difference between two best drivers, B80 and 10F, and all others is smaller THD.. that is obvious..
The cymbals or drums are too soft in relation to the Norah's voice, though the "cymbal' is subtle
. As the first track of this clip of this test 4, according to me it's not an usefull track either (the n° 2 & 3 are more usefull ! )Do you hear the détails of reverbaration with the Piano in my clip 2 ?
Didi you hear also So WHat from Kind of blue for cymbals ? At least a Good Cello recording is also Something usefull: between between bass and violin !
Melody Gardot made stuning reccording on the two first albums ! In a modern register and femal voice : London Grammar is full of echo information (artficial but subtle with a big soudstage and depth : ).... Hey, did you mp3ed Chesky Reccord and played with the différences between mp3 & the original tracks ?
Last edited:
Off topic, but has anyone heard the seriously expensive Morel SCM634? It seems like this might be a place to ask, even tho' it is larger. If too off topic, please ignore. Thanks!
http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/287-036-morel-scm-634-specifications.pdf
http://www.parts-express.com/pedocs/specs/287-036-morel-scm-634-specifications.pdf
Guys, I think we have mostly to learn why they liked the bloody (a too nice word for it imo) Dayton and didn't prefer the two first of Jay is talking to above, especially the B80 in the same sound family of the Dayton, but much better everywhere ???
Because not liking the 10 F coud be a question of too low XO or personnal taste but to prefer the Dayton (A) over the B80 (F) is more than odd to me
: do the people tested it with a headphone ? or a system with resolution enough ?I would like to know what is the cone material of the people who polled for the A ? Paper mostly ?
What coulb be interresting is to climb the XO of the 10F from 200 to 300 hz and reccord it again without changing the B80 and benchmark the two again if X find a difference himself ?
Last edited:
maybe not in relation to a 5", but with a 3" or a2.5" in a same test, the Sd seems much bigger ! As it a littlier brother ?
Guys, I think we have mostly to learn why they liked the bloody (a too nice word for it imo) Dayton and didn't prefer the two first of Jay is talking to above, especially the B80 in the same sound family of the Dayton, but much better everywhere ???
Because not liking the 10 F coud be a question of too low XO or personnal taste but to prefer the Dayton (A) over the B80 (F) is more than odd to me
I would like to know what is the cone material of the people who polled for the A ? Paper mostly ?
There is one area that A differs from all the rest: it has a +3dB Q=1.6 bump at 1.7kHz. This area is very sensitive to our perception of presence and soundstage. I have heard of mastering engineers juking this spot (up to 2.5kHz) by just a mild 2dB low Q boost to bring out the presence of a track. I know the the specifics of this particular bump because I was able to flatten it perfectly with the same values with -3dB cut. I actually recorded all 3 clips with this EQ and was going to submit to the poll as driver "C".
I changed my mind at the last minute because I thought you all would have a riot once you found out I tricked you with the same driver but with one EQ'd flat at this one spot. Now thinking back, it may have been an interesting psychoacoustic experiment.
It could be some people prefer this lively little 1.7kHz rounded peak.
Don't forget the logic that people can forgive/accept average performance with no mistake than 99% perfection with 1% mistake [May be similar to: you make one small mistake and people forget a whole lot of your kindness].
If so, then what mistake has been made? [I have always associated FR and lively sound with distortion myself. But I can forgive the unnaturalness in fiberglass]
Long time ago I have found that the most important variable for enjoyable and musical sound/music is "sonic". This is hard to explain technically but I know it when I hear it. And A is probably the best in this category. This is actually in line with the full range concept [may be those who picked A are mostly full range users]...
Listen to clip 1, the electric guitar performance. Only A produces the real musical tonality correctly imo. But something has made it an "outlier" that may trigger people's suspicion. I think it is because it has been recorded a bit off axis.
CSD of a driver is like reverb, but very short term and often very frequency selective.
I have a Strymon Big Sky sterero reverb for my guitar rig (I also design and build stereo guitar amps as a hobby). I programmed one footswitch for the spring reverb simulation (good for surf music), and the next footswitch for digital Hall reverb (minimal coloration) (better for everything else). Switching between the two I hear that the spring simulation has a very weird FR on the reverb tail. Weird but enjoyable in its own way, at least for a while. It sounds very frequency selective.
I wonder if this doesn't translate to the very short term CSD reverb decay of a driver, thereby affecting the feel of the sound almost as much as the steady state FR of the driver. Those two Strymon reverbs sound similar at first, but feel VERY different.
If the FR and non-linear distortion differentials between the drivers under test are very close to the same, then maybe this is what's left to explain different perceptions. Some distortions may not be consciously perceivable, but could still affect the feel of what we do perceive.
I have a Strymon Big Sky sterero reverb for my guitar rig (I also design and build stereo guitar amps as a hobby). I programmed one footswitch for the spring reverb simulation (good for surf music), and the next footswitch for digital Hall reverb (minimal coloration) (better for everything else). Switching between the two I hear that the spring simulation has a very weird FR on the reverb tail. Weird but enjoyable in its own way, at least for a while. It sounds very frequency selective.
I wonder if this doesn't translate to the very short term CSD reverb decay of a driver, thereby affecting the feel of the sound almost as much as the steady state FR of the driver. Those two Strymon reverbs sound similar at first, but feel VERY different.
If the FR and non-linear distortion differentials between the drivers under test are very close to the same, then maybe this is what's left to explain different perceptions. Some distortions may not be consciously perceivable, but could still affect the feel of what we do perceive.
Hummm, I must listen again the A with first clip ! I remember I found Something which was a little elegant in the A, maybe this is what you are talking about ??
For me they are more or less all ful range!
I believe maybe thi sis the term "distorsion" which needs more concensus as the signification is not maybe the same for each ! I.E. : did I mistake on clip 3 with F driver when I identyfird distorsion in some vocal peaks ? I mean peaks & distorsion are two different things ! Whas it clipping ?
On the A driver I found all is centred in a smal average dynamic gap : so no life, nore clearness : if you pump up the volume : spl climbs, but the dynamic is even more compressed as it is only the average spl which is climbing : going further to the higher notes (= even less dynamic)... That's why I find maybe usefull to know the cone material of the systems of the testers... (at minima if no headphones !)
Jay : the Dayton is n° 3 in relation to the 10F you prefer (first) ? Then B80 : second (I mean if you would test only this three ones) ?
For me they are more or less all ful range!
I believe maybe thi sis the term "distorsion" which needs more concensus as the signification is not maybe the same for each ! I.E. : did I mistake on clip 3 with F driver when I identyfird distorsion in some vocal peaks ? I mean peaks & distorsion are two different things ! Whas it clipping ?
On the A driver I found all is centred in a smal average dynamic gap : so no life, nore clearness : if you pump up the volume : spl climbs, but the dynamic is even more compressed as it is only the average spl which is climbing : going further to the higher notes (= even less dynamic)... That's why I find maybe usefull to know the cone material of the systems of the testers... (at minima if no headphones !)
Jay : the Dayton is n° 3 in relation to the 10F you prefer (first) ? Then B80 : second (I mean if you would test only this three ones) ?
Last edited:
There is one area that A differs from all the rest: it has a +3dB Q=1.6 bump at 1.7kHz. This area is very sensitive to our perception of presence and soundstage. I have heard of mastering engineers juking this spot (up to 2.5kHz) by just a mild 2dB low Q boost to bring out the presence of a track. I know the the specifics of this particular bump because I was able to flatten it perfectly with the same values with -3dB cut. I actually recorded all 3 clips with this EQ and was going to submit to the poll as driver "C".
I changed my mind at the last minute because I thought you all would have a riot once you found out I tricked you with the same driver but with one EQ'd flat at this one spot. Now thinking back, it may have been an interesting psychoacoustic experiment.
It could be some people prefer this lively little 1.7kHz rounded peak.
I have found the opposite conclusion. Had you include C, I believe more preference would have been gained for the driver.
BTW, why not share the C file? Who knows the Dayton can be the true "winner"?
Last edited:
Nope, Morel only makes the 6" in the Supreme.
Too expensive to buy for these tests. Looks like a dang nice driver, tho'.
Last edited:
Indeed I think it would be very useful if those who favored A speak up.
In this listening test I have put A at the bottom of my preference list. But don't forget that we are mostly judging the sound from a certain setup, not the driver itself. Once you implement different setup [different XO, different woofer] things will/may change.
And don't forget what I have found regarding the "extra" bass performance on the B80. I have ignored this performance [because I think the bass should have been equal]. In real implementation, I might prefer B80 setup for having this performance which other drivers don't have.
Last edited:
In X's room, all these drivers could be equalized perfectly flat for direct sound at microphone, and would still sound different when recorded due to different off axis response.
X's CSD plots use 5ms moving window, and are all contaminated with early reflections.
I suspect that polar pattern of this driver gets rough >2kHz, given how deep its cone appears to be.
The DCX2496 does have faults from Hi-Fi perspective. Greatest problems are with user expectations. Users in home environments are typically driving it with tiny single ended source signals, and then connecting it to amplifiers with single ended inputs that peak with .775rms signals. Then they further exacerbate this situation with high efficiency drivers.
I run mine with digital input, and drive Hafler Pro2400/1200 amplifiers that peak with 2.25rms signals; and also have input attenuation. This is about 9dB higher signal over typical consumer gear.
Hooked up to drivers with 85-87dB/2.83v sensitivity, I've got to be closer than 1ft from drivers to hear processor hash picked up by output circuits in my space except in quietest times in middle of the night.
With DCX2496 it is all about gain structure.
DCX2496 is already a relic. Not worth a dime of anybodies time to mod. Much better off with any number of newer choices such as miniDSP. I get plenty of chuckles following the various DCX threads.
X's CSD plots use 5ms moving window, and are all contaminated with early reflections.
I suspect that polar pattern of this driver gets rough >2kHz, given how deep its cone appears to be.
The DCX2496 does have faults from Hi-Fi perspective. Greatest problems are with user expectations. Users in home environments are typically driving it with tiny single ended source signals, and then connecting it to amplifiers with single ended inputs that peak with .775rms signals. Then they further exacerbate this situation with high efficiency drivers.
I run mine with digital input, and drive Hafler Pro2400/1200 amplifiers that peak with 2.25rms signals; and also have input attenuation. This is about 9dB higher signal over typical consumer gear.
Hooked up to drivers with 85-87dB/2.83v sensitivity, I've got to be closer than 1ft from drivers to hear processor hash picked up by output circuits in my space except in quietest times in middle of the night.
With DCX2496 it is all about gain structure.
DCX2496 is already a relic. Not worth a dime of anybodies time to mod. Much better off with any number of newer choices such as miniDSP. I get plenty of chuckles following the various DCX threads.
I know what Toole and Geddes are saying regarding this early reflection modifying the signal. But in my perception [Note: in my listening perception, not in my opinion] the effect is subjectively not "that" bad.
Clipping is a terminology in amplifier where too high input voltage or too much signal gain cannot cope with limited supply voltage such the signal is "clipped/truncated/limited"...
In driver behavior or term, a "clipping", or a peak of signal simply equal to uncontrolled cone break up or distortion. This is why the usual simple "measurement" doesn't always work well because this is associated with certain frequency and certain musical content or extremes, and requires a combination of several measurement variables to understand the final effect.
If you perceived a vocal distortion with F [and A], the question is, didn't you perceived more distortion with the reference?? I believe you did. So?
Last edited:
With clipping Eldam could have meant the recording of the driver. Some modern clipping songs I definitely don't like that much, some Amy Winehouse comes to mind. That's not amp clipping but definitely clipping. Deliberately put into the song.
Not sure I follow that last bit, more distortion from the reverence clips?
regarding the PS95 (A) driver I wonder if most people who choose it listened primarily with the Barracuda (clip1) rock track. Rock/pop (amplified music) tracks don't have any inherently correct frequency response, some people may prefer it with boosted bass, some may prefer a bit more vocal presence... But with acoustic music, there is a correct sound, for anyone who has heard a piano, stand up bass, violin or saxophone in person. And if a speaker system does not capture that, it sounds artificial.
For me the problems with the A (PS95) recordings stood out most with the piano on clip2. The piano sounded like a nice yamaha on the reference track and other drivers. But with A (PS95) the piano lost all of its body and sounded like a cheap upright piano being played in a bathroom. This was the deal beaker for me and why I ranked A at the bottom (the marmite effect).
I have been curious about the PS95 before though and I know that X likes it. Cheap, cast frame, copper phase plug, paper cone. But after these tests (round1 & round4) I realize that the driver will need a lot of EQ for me to be able to enjoy it (similar to the FF105wk I own and enjoy after EQing). Yes the CSD does look very good, and harmonic distortion above 2k is also very good. But the 2nd order distortion bump (about an extra +10db) from 650-900hz range, which is right in the range for piano and female vocals, does not look so great. Especially since these were recorded at such moderate SPL levels. Am I curious now about the PS95...not really.
PS95
10f/8424
So what these tests have told me, is that I know what I like, I have consistently picked the same things (TG9,10F/8424,TC9) and I own and like the 10f/8424, so I am content and not so curious about any of the other drivers tested here anymore. But I will buy the TC9 and TG9 at some point since they are cheap and so I can see for myself the differences between them and the 10f/8424. I may also pick up the $65 10f/8414 to see how that compares too. Then I can feel more confident with recommending them to people who don't want to spend the money on the 10f/8424.
For me the problems with the A (PS95) recordings stood out most with the piano on clip2. The piano sounded like a nice yamaha on the reference track and other drivers. But with A (PS95) the piano lost all of its body and sounded like a cheap upright piano being played in a bathroom. This was the deal beaker for me and why I ranked A at the bottom (the marmite effect).
I have been curious about the PS95 before though and I know that X likes it. Cheap, cast frame, copper phase plug, paper cone. But after these tests (round1 & round4) I realize that the driver will need a lot of EQ for me to be able to enjoy it (similar to the FF105wk I own and enjoy after EQing). Yes the CSD does look very good, and harmonic distortion above 2k is also very good. But the 2nd order distortion bump (about an extra +10db) from 650-900hz range, which is right in the range for piano and female vocals, does not look so great. Especially since these were recorded at such moderate SPL levels. Am I curious now about the PS95...not really.
PS95
10f/8424
So what these tests have told me, is that I know what I like, I have consistently picked the same things (TG9,10F/8424,TC9) and I own and like the 10f/8424, so I am content and not so curious about any of the other drivers tested here anymore. But I will buy the TC9 and TG9 at some point since they are cheap and so I can see for myself the differences between them and the 10f/8424. I may also pick up the $65 10f/8414 to see how that compares too. Then I can feel more confident with recommending them to people who don't want to spend the money on the 10f/8424.
A peak can happen in certain distinct frequency and it depends on the musical content...
A recorded sound will be different from the reference. It will be modified. And the modification is not linear as per the whole frequency bandwidth. Most of the time the modification is of attenuation type. If the critical peak is attenuated, what then perceived is "less distortion". That's why it is possible that the reference is perceived to have more distortion than the recorded sound. This critical peak [where ears are very sensitive] lies between 1k-2k Hertz. Higher peak in this range will tend to be perceived [depends on your speaker] as more distortion.
That's why, like I said, A and F is actually closer to the tonality of the reference than the other drivers. TC9 is the worst. It may appear "clean" but less sonic and musicality. That's what people don't like about it.
Interesting discussions and arguments lately
Regarding PS95-8 being real voted in as third seems a got a lot attention now and notice at reveal X did write: A = Dayton PS95-8 at 30 deg off axis.
Like to hear how PS95-8 CSD/FR/HD plots is measured, because is they measured at 30º off axis as sound clips were recorded at to replicate what we heard ?
Comparing FR between TC9FD/PS95-8 that both were present at round 1 and 4 have no consistency (especially PS95-8 very different) in my eyes even knowing it was not same baffle/woofer setup these two rounds and why i could suspect PS95-8 is measured here round 4 at 30º off axis.
Round 1 black is TC9FD purple is PS95-8.
Round 4 light blue is TC9FD lime green PS95-8.
Regarding PS95-8 being real voted in as third seems a got a lot attention now and notice at reveal X did write: A = Dayton PS95-8 at 30 deg off axis.
Like to hear how PS95-8 CSD/FR/HD plots is measured, because is they measured at 30º off axis as sound clips were recorded at to replicate what we heard ?
Comparing FR between TC9FD/PS95-8 that both were present at round 1 and 4 have no consistency (especially PS95-8 very different) in my eyes even knowing it was not same baffle/woofer setup these two rounds and why i could suspect PS95-8 is measured here round 4 at 30º off axis.
Round 1 black is TC9FD purple is PS95-8.
Round 4 light blue is TC9FD lime green PS95-8.
Last edited:
So judging from your story here and viewing the graph:
The biggest peak between 1 and 2 KHz sounds more distorted, so more in line with the reference? That's A, on the graph. But the B80 is the lowest in that same range with the Vifa's and Scan Speak in between. Makes absolutely no sense to me what you're trying to say. I see no relation to A and F based on the output at 1-2 KHz. They do share some design features.
For me F was tonally more correct on Barracuda than the rest, compared to the original FLAC file. Seeing the FR response it makes sense to me.
I don't know what A was doing but I liked absolutely nothing about it. Judging with the "Rock" clip. That's why I said:
Indicating that it would probably be the secret entry (mystery driver).
Had the HF part of the B, D, and E speakers been corrected (in line with previous rounds) I have no doubt I would have picked one of those. If that same compensation had been used on F it would have made that one worse if you ask me.
A little voicing can go a long way. I remember listening to round 2, to what later turned out to be the 10F on the Nora Jones track. Listening on my arrays I was thinking, that midrange is to die for! Only to later realise I was listening to that midrange trough my speakers. So I could make them sound that way! I had heard them do it after all. And with a bit of (EQ) work I did get there.
Last edited: