Speaker setup on a corner is really nice, allows speakers to be with good separation, still keeping them close enough to ear. The transition is clear as ever and its so much fun sit right at it, lean back for some nice roomy sound, distance, and lean forward when want to zoom into something. Very interactive, which is niceStill the transition is front of sofa so not perfect, but sound is fine on the sofa as well like before.
Sorry again derailing, but since I already wrote some observations I'll add some more even though they are not project specific... The effect of adjusting spatial presentation by moving back-and-forth around the transition zone works nicely if DI is relatively smooth and constant, frequency spectrum of the sound doesn't change at all basically, at least not noticeably. Only the stereo image qualities change, which kind of allows the zoom in/out effect to happen I think. I would think that if treble was lost due to beaming, or some other anomaly like strong edge diffraction made frequency response vary significantly within the zone then it could be quite annoying experience to move around. With smooth response it is very nice thing, like poking head inside the sound, or out if needed, at will.
Some songs are clearly mixed with either far field sound only while others perhaps on the nearfield. For example old rock records with full L/R panning can be quite annoying listened closely. Any record that has strong highs panned to only L or R channel like many jazz records, drums on another while the solo on the other. Gets too wide easily, weird sound. Listening classic that is poor in this way and works better listened far away is for example Zeppelins moby dick
While Pink floyd Shine on you crazy diamond is very good either far or close, no extreme pans.And from here its easy to conclude the far field listening works better on average: because any record ought to work far field nicely, while on the close field some can be annoying with extreme panning for example. Also, it might not be easy to find the good sound on close field if the speaker has problems, and the close field might be so close to speakers that its just not practical or fun. Most of the room is beyond the critical distance as well.
Having very good and smooth DI would benefit both listening distances I think. The higher the DI at low frequency the further out into a room the close distance extends. I speculate that DI around 700-1000Hz defines how close you need to be in order to have meaningful bandwidth critical distance extend past you and get nice close sound, usually DI rises past this. To get nice spatially even sound target for very smooth and flattish DI. 700Hz was picked from others, Griesinger, Geddes, could be more, could be less for even better sound.
Last edited:
I design my crossover using XSim and attached are some basic measurements I took for the speaker using the TX drivers. Before the TX speaker, I have also built a speaker using the Satori MR16P with the TW29DN-B. Basically the TX speaker is better than the MR16P speaker in every aspect except when listening to vocal, it seems the MR16P has more texture to it. Whereas the TX speaker has much better clarity and more accurate vocal reproduction. Just wondering if the Purifi mid driver will have the best of both world.
Attachments
Last edited:
You asked for my preference, and that is a hard question. At this point, I have no preference. On some recordings, the TX stystem is preferable. On others, the Purifi-waveguide is preferable. On many recordings, I do not prefer one to the other, even though they sound slightly different.
The perception of "meat" in the vocal range is very dependent on the ratio of the fundamental to the harmonics. So in other words, the frequency response from 100 - 500 (range of fundamental) vs the response from 500 - 2500 Hz (range of harmonics). On my system, I have a 12" woofer handling the range form 20 - 200 Hz, so I don't know how much of my experience will carry over to your situation.
Small changes in frequency response can affect how we perceive the "meat" of male and female vocals, the weight of piano lower registers, and many other instruments. I have found I can use DSP to make a given recording sound just right, but this EQ setting may not be right for the next recording. Another thing I have found is that when the MW16TXT and the Purifi driver are both EQ'd to be equivalent to each other, the subjective differences between them become very small. It is very hard to tell them apart.
j.
What are we looking at here, all gated measurements? Merged? Smoothed in-room? The area below the baffle peak often gets a dished shape to it after flattening the response, leaving a dip in the 200-600hz area. That doesn't seem to be an issue with yours, but I'm not really clear on how this was measured, so it's hard to say how accurate it is. You actually have a slight hump in this area as if your baffle is 2 feet wide, but I'm sure that's not the case.
Hi, that's basically it. Except speakers are against wall and listening triangle makes roughly a square with the room corner. Edited the image to correspond my earlier post description
This is how I had the speakers before:
Left wall is basically all window so I cannot put everything facing that way, one speaker there with the corner setup is fine, not much of an practical issue. Right section of the room is kitchen, so can't put speakers there either
On-wall speaker placement is nice, wall behind a speaker contributes some but quite little. The speakers are designed to work with the wall, with some success at least. If you imagine the situation basically "front wall" early reflections are minimal like before, but now with corner setup there is basically no "back wall" early reflection at all, and "side wall" early reflections happen closer to 10ms. Also direction of early reflections change a bit compared to typical wall placement. Basically all side wall reflections were pushed further in time, and lower in level as well. Floor and ceiling reflections would be pretty much the same as before.
Sound seems more enveloping with this setup, and perhaps more detailed. But all this is very early so not sure if there is much difference in the end. Need to switch back within few days and listen if there really is audible difference between the corner setup and the wall setup.
What is greatest here with the corner setup the speakers critical distance is same as before but basically I'm bit further into the room now. Also the speakers are quite far apart, straight angle triangle instead of equilateral. With the close listening distance this gives very very wide sound, and makes the hard panned instruments sound too far apart and weird, a minus. Did not try this wide with the on wall placement, need to try it as well.
Sound is nice far away as well.
Bass went down with the setup, had to boost and adjust filters. Not sure if its better or worse either. Listening spot is quite close where it was before but the speakers are now in very different position to modes. There is also a small sofa in the corner between speakers. This might suck some bass out. Probably helps absorb and diffuse some early reflections on the corner as well.
Last edited:
That's the tricky thing with listening comparisons - you need to get stuff leveled and EQed REALLY good to do a meaningfull comparison of material or drivers.
These TX are very good in the midrange but at higher levels Purify should be clearly better at low frequencies?
Forgot to mention sound is great also at the sofa in the corner, can be adjusted from very spacious to headphone feel with toe-in and leaning back/forward.
This is very practical listening setup actually, sit in the corner and speakers on the walls. Speakers could be at any distance I think, and they would always be right at the walls and unobstrusive. Very big sound, unnatural perhaps, but great fun at least for occasional use.
This is very practical listening setup actually, sit in the corner and speakers on the walls. Speakers could be at any distance I think, and they would always be right at the walls and unobstrusive. Very big sound, unnatural perhaps, but great fun at least for occasional use.
Those are gated measurements at 0.5ms and no smoothing was applied. All measurements were taken with the mic at tweeter level 2 feet away because my measuring room is not really an ideal place for measurement. I wouldn't say there is any hump in the response curve because the whole response curve is almost +-1dB from 200Hz to 15kHz. Btw the baffle is about 10.5" wide.
Hi Jim, thanks for your detailed and honest response as always. It is interesting that you mentioned about the 12" woofer, that is something I am planning to incorporate into my system. One of the latest 12" driver from FaitalPro 12RS430 looks pretty good to me, hopefully we can get more reviews on this driver soon.
I assume gating 0.5ms is typo. If not, then it might be the issue, very little measured data below 1000Hz => you do not know what happens in the range Hifijim and Augerpro write about.
SB Acoustics SB34NRXL75-8 is a great driver which I use and have tested. Pretty sure the Faital is not in the same league and price difference is not that much.
https://hificompass.com/en/speakers/measurements/sbacoustics/sb-acoustics-sb34nrxl75-8
Ok, 5ms is good enough. Looking at the graph in #383, the filters are acoustic LR2. There is no significant issue. I have experience with MW16TX and TW29TX. Your perception of less meat is actually good and is what I hear as well. Paper versions have more weight, richer sound. Anyway, it would be good to see full picture, do you have also off axis responses?
Few points:
1. midwoofer 5k peak might be worth suppressing.
2. I assume, if the filter is simple LR2, you used also RLC to suppress 500-1000Hz bump created by LR2.
3. ~3kHz area could make the sound more offensive, lighter, and less weight. It is about perception and proportions of certain frequency band to another.
4. actually whole treble area could be tilted down by ~1dB. At least you can try ...
@Pida I am glad that I am not the only one hearing the difference between the TX and paper version woofer. I do have the off axis measurement but it was done without good proper setup and the room is definitely not suited for off axis measurement. It may not be the most accurate off axis measurement, nevertheless I will still upload the plots. The measurements were done at 15, 25, 35 ,45 and 55 degree.
1. I have tried adding a 0.22uf capacitor parallel to the woofer inductor to knock down the 5k peak, but some how I preferred the sound without the 0.22uf capacitor.
2. Yup, I did use a RLC to suppress the 500-1000Hz bump.
3. In fact I find from 2kHz-5kHz region to be offensive, using 90dB as an average, I tuned this region to be slightly lower.
4. I tried that too but in the end I preferred this current setting and left it more like a flat response.
1. I have tried adding a 0.22uf capacitor parallel to the woofer inductor to knock down the 5k peak, but some how I preferred the sound without the 0.22uf capacitor.
2. Yup, I did use a RLC to suppress the 500-1000Hz bump.
3. In fact I find from 2kHz-5kHz region to be offensive, using 90dB as an average, I tuned this region to be slightly lower.
4. I tried that too but in the end I preferred this current setting and left it more like a flat response.
