I have only seen TC9 measurement by Barleywater. I just assume that other expensive drivers do not have that issue. If you have measured all of them and you found TC9 better than the rest, well, you should be right.
I used that 300Hz peak argument only to justify my listening impression of certain labelled driver. The argument can be wrong but what I heard is not. We can ask BYRTT why he put TC9 literally at the bottom of his list, can't we?
Yes, it is easy to use software to predict which driver is which. But it is only ears that have the capability to hear and judge and thus put ranking (on the sounds, not drivers). There's possibility that BYRTT put TC9 low in ranking because it lacks detail (which is true) but I didn't put it down because of that. In final round consisting of the best drivers I will prefer to rank based on enjoyment (which critically means less distortion, which is probably the same criteria BYRTT used in the ranking).
Sure you wont hear the distortion if you lower the cone displacement by paralleling them.
Okay, will try to do that later. It's hard to type using OSK.EXE
Son of a gun! So at 300Hz B80 has very low H3 but very very high H2. That explains why in my note I have always associated B80 with H2 distortion!
But in this round I wasn't annoyed by H2 from B80. May be because of the better setup, or/and the less vocal in the clip. I only noted B80 for having vocal that I want/like to listen at the end of the rock clip.
But in previous round you put B80 (B) sound at the top list but predicted that B80 was the one at the bottom (H). It tells me that you love H2 more than me hehe
But now after you guessed correctly you didn't put B80 at the top. You must be prejudice or hate this particular driver hihi
Hi,
I will get around to listening sometime today, and I'm looking forward to the impressions.
I have listened to music in an anechoic chamber, and it does not sound unnatural at all....
It sounds like headphones. But with the triangular sound field that headphones lack.
Lack of reflected sound is hardly a bad thing at all (ref my earlier posts in the last poll about disliking the stereo recording of a mono source. The only upshot of such technique is to highlight the room sound excitation due to polar differences between drivers. Whilst that is a benefit, I'm not sure the subjective effect tells us anything, except the personal listening preferences of a single user.
I still stick by my earlier remark concerning stereo repro of a mono source - its misleading and makes critical listening difficult to have confidence in (for me anyway)
Jay, you do understand that this is a BLIND test and that the order the drivers are listed on page1 (TC9FD, 10F/8424, B80, TG9FD, mystery) does not equal the ABDEF order, right? The driver order is randomized and assigned a blind letter.
XRK, I will finally have some time today to listen to these clips, but I also suspect this round will be difficult. I secretly hope that the votes will be evenly split among all the drivers which would confirm that these are all top-notch drivers and that "random" personal preference is just the final deciding factor.
XRK, I will finally have some time today to listen to these clips, but I also suspect this round will be difficult. I secretly hope that the votes will be evenly split among all the drivers which would confirm that these are all top-notch drivers and that "random" personal preference is just the final deciding factor.
Last edited:
I was surprised how similar these drivers sounded. But it's a good news – we don't have to spend a lot of money for really good performers.
I have found three drivers which sound more lively with high frequencies extended. But this attractive sound may derive from stronger cone breakup effects as well.
Two drivers are more balanced and one of them may even seem dull. This is the driver I have chosen, as possibly it is smoother and easier to equalize properly.
I have found three drivers which sound more lively with high frequencies extended. But this attractive sound may derive from stronger cone breakup effects as well.
Two drivers are more balanced and one of them may even seem dull. This is the driver I have chosen, as possibly it is smoother and easier to equalize properly.
Just a quick comment that the recording in stereo and picking up the room effects is very distracting for me this time. But this is very easy for me to adjust with my Saffire MixControl (I use a focusrite saffirepro 14 audio interface).
But I noticed something very strange when doing this. For example in B-clip3. If we listen to only the left recorded channel it sounds much different to the right recorded channel. The right channel of this clip has much less bass and an slightly hollowed out midrange, while the left channel of this recording has a more full sound. Here is a mono-recording of just the left and right sides of B-clip3.
You can also see from a peak-frequency response of each channel that the right channel has about -5db drop in the 40-300hz region compared to the reference recording and the left recorded channel.
left channel
right channel
and here is the peakFR of the reference-clip3
XRK, is this speaker placed slightly closer to the right wall of the room when recording? We could be hearing some reflections or phasing effect from the right wall in the right channel and a bass boost room echo being picked up on the left channel.
OK I might be cheating a bit here by analyzing the recordings, but we can see that driver B has a slight peaking in the 7-12khz range, a strong dip in the 12-16khz range and the a rise again above 16khz compared to the reference recording. (which looks surprisingly like the FR of one of the well known drivers here)
Either way I think I will only listen to the left recorded channel for all the clip when listening, assuming that the speaker was kept in the same location in the room for all the driver recordings
But I noticed something very strange when doing this. For example in B-clip3. If we listen to only the left recorded channel it sounds much different to the right recorded channel. The right channel of this clip has much less bass and an slightly hollowed out midrange, while the left channel of this recording has a more full sound. Here is a mono-recording of just the left and right sides of B-clip3.
You can also see from a peak-frequency response of each channel that the right channel has about -5db drop in the 40-300hz region compared to the reference recording and the left recorded channel.
left channel
right channel
and here is the peakFR of the reference-clip3
XRK, is this speaker placed slightly closer to the right wall of the room when recording? We could be hearing some reflections or phasing effect from the right wall in the right channel and a bass boost room echo being picked up on the left channel.
OK I might be cheating a bit here by analyzing the recordings, but we can see that driver B has a slight peaking in the 7-12khz range, a strong dip in the 12-16khz range and the a rise again above 16khz compared to the reference recording. (which looks surprisingly like the FR of one of the well known drivers here)
Either way I think I will only listen to the left recorded channel for all the clip when listening, assuming that the speaker was kept in the same location in the room for all the driver recordings
Attachments
Last edited:
Hmm, I haven't used the reference clip before and not this time either. That's cheating
Two drivers were quite quickly selected in "Barracuda" clip. Then guitar riff and vocal selected the smoothest driver according to my ears. The other clips were difficult to find differences among them.
Two drivers had problem with mis-alignment of one micron in the voice coil and in one magnet, the flux was not flaxed at the right height
Peter
Two drivers were quite quickly selected in "Barracuda" clip. Then guitar riff and vocal selected the smoothest driver according to my ears. The other clips were difficult to find differences among them.
Two drivers had problem with mis-alignment of one micron in the voice coil and in one magnet, the flux was not flaxed at the right height
Peter
Jeshi,
I think what you are seeing is the offset tweeter relative to the baffle. The mic is centered on the tweeter or driver under test and the woofer is thus offset to the LEFT of the XY mics. Woofer is closer to the left channel so it may have a bit more bass. The room walls are about even as I have walls at 45 deg to left and right. So maybe mixing down to mono from stereo recording is best.
I think what you are seeing is the offset tweeter relative to the baffle. The mic is centered on the tweeter or driver under test and the woofer is thus offset to the LEFT of the XY mics. Woofer is closer to the left channel so it may have a bit more bass. The room walls are about even as I have walls at 45 deg to left and right. So maybe mixing down to mono from stereo recording is best.
Ok that makes more sense. Glad that it is more simple (the left mic is closer to the woofer) than any room/echo/reflection effects.
I will just listen with the left channel of the recordings and ignore the right channel. This is safer than mixing down to mono since it could cause phasing effects from the two channels.
Two drivers had problem with mis-alignment of one micron in the voice coil and in one magnet, the flux was not flaxed at the right height
Peter
So you noticed that too
He knows - he does this everytime, which is why we called him Goldenears. But he hasn't committed the predictions to a record yet which is why Byrtt asked for it to be recorded before the reveal.
The H4 uses two cardioid microphones pointing two different directions. Speaker doesn't appear to be symmetrically placed in listening space. Speaker is symmetrical to two walls in room that isn't a cube. Sum of H4 microphones doubles intensity of direct sound of speaker while retaining each microphones capture of different room reflections. The resultant mono mix of H4 microphones leaves less for the brain to think about.
Microphones may well have different low frequency response; but this is mostly in woofer range, which is essentially identical for all clips. Overlays of jeshi's pictures show dominance of direct sound >400Hz:
X, can you diagram layout of speaker and H4 orientation in room?
Microphones may well have different low frequency response; but this is mostly in woofer range, which is essentially identical for all clips. Overlays of jeshi's pictures show dominance of direct sound >400Hz:
X, can you diagram layout of speaker and H4 orientation in room?
You guys are making too much of this difference in left and right. Here is layout of speaker and mic relative to room walls etc. I was off by 5 inches for the left right wall balance, but maybe that is a good thing?
Attachments
...working on Round 5 & new OEM driver on the way
While you all are listening and voting, I am collecting data for the next round. Still waiting for a few more drivers to show up but let me tell you what is in store for you.
I have the following drivers so far:
1. Fountek FR88EX (aluminum cone 3.5in with Nd magnet, 8 ohm)
2. Tymphany NE65W-4 (alumimum cone 2in with Nd magnet, 4 ohm)
3. Vifa TC7FD00-04 (paper cone 2.5in with ferrite magnet, 4 ohm)
4. Tectonic Elements TEBM46C20N-4B (3in flat paper BMR with Nd magnet, 4ohm)
On the way (driver number 5) is the "Alpine HF3" a super cool new full range driver, mostly unbeknownst to this forum... a diyAudio member tipped me off to this driver which is an OEM 3.5in fullrange with a parabolic carbon fiber/poly cone, 19mm dia aluminum dustcap, Nd motor with copper shorting ring unit made by Alpine specifically for the Jeep Wrangler. This member is kindly providing this driver and should be here any day now. It has some interesting (and impressive looking) specs for the price ($18 to $22) and is available at any Jeep dealer (part number 68223392AA).
More info can be found here (go to 16:30 to see description of new driver):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b25jj_zzINQ
Here is a screenshot of the frequency response:
Anyhow, Round 5 may include another driver if I get one before the testing ends. It will be the same setup as Round 4 so you can directly compare with the drivers being discussed in this thread now.
While you all are listening and voting, I am collecting data for the next round. Still waiting for a few more drivers to show up but let me tell you what is in store for you.
I have the following drivers so far:
1. Fountek FR88EX (aluminum cone 3.5in with Nd magnet, 8 ohm)
2. Tymphany NE65W-4 (alumimum cone 2in with Nd magnet, 4 ohm)
3. Vifa TC7FD00-04 (paper cone 2.5in with ferrite magnet, 4 ohm)
4. Tectonic Elements TEBM46C20N-4B (3in flat paper BMR with Nd magnet, 4ohm)
On the way (driver number 5) is the "Alpine HF3" a super cool new full range driver, mostly unbeknownst to this forum... a diyAudio member tipped me off to this driver which is an OEM 3.5in fullrange with a parabolic carbon fiber/poly cone, 19mm dia aluminum dustcap, Nd motor with copper shorting ring unit made by Alpine specifically for the Jeep Wrangler. This member is kindly providing this driver and should be here any day now. It has some interesting (and impressive looking) specs for the price ($18 to $22) and is available at any Jeep dealer (part number 68223392AA).
More info can be found here (go to 16:30 to see description of new driver):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b25jj_zzINQ
Here is a screenshot of the frequency response:
Anyhow, Round 5 may include another driver if I get one before the testing ends. It will be the same setup as Round 4 so you can directly compare with the drivers being discussed in this thread now.
Attachments
Last edited:
I think this was the most pleasing round so far. I'd opt to lock in the settings used here as the reference setup. Starting from round one this round did sound quite a bit better.
I'm trying to stay away from over analysing and refuse to look at the wave shapes. I just hit play and choose. Well, I did hit play more than once. Just put my vote in and hope for the best. Thanks, X for this round. The only thing that could have made it better for me was if the long lost family member was in it too, you know, the "Kevlar" one. Too bad that never happened.
Don't take it too seriously folks... just enjoy the ride.
I'm trying to stay away from over analysing and refuse to look at the wave shapes. I just hit play and choose. Well, I did hit play more than once. Just put my vote in and hope for the best
. Thanks, X for this round. The only thing that could have made it better for me was if the long lost family member was in it too, you know, the "Kevlar" one. Too bad that never happened.Don't take it too seriously folks... just enjoy the ride.
I think this was the most pleasing round so far. I'd opt to lock in the settings used here as the reference setup. Starting from round one this round did sound quite a bit better.
I'm trying to stay away from over analysing and refuse to look at the wave shapes. I just hit play and choose. Well, I did hit play more than once. Just put my vote in and hope for the best
Don't take it too seriously folks... just enjoy the ride.
Thanks, Wesayso. Glad you had fun. I agree too many folks are over analyzing and getting out their software to look at spectra etc.
thanks XRK. The placement doesn't need to be perfect, just that it is consistent between the driver recordings.
It is just that this test is getting so much harder this time since all the drivers sound good and the difference in picking could really come down to very small differences. This time I really need to pull out all the stops to pick a favorite. I am even pulling all the tracks into my DAW and thinking about listening with a high-pass filter to remove the effect of the XO and woofer.
Don't take this as a criticism, take it more as a complement to your testing method that it allows such precise small differences to be picked up by the recordings and test setup. I am still a little surprised how well this testing setup is working for us to discern difference between the drivers