MWAF judges sheets

[PWR RYD]

Anyone else receive theirs? My came yesterday. I was VERY happy with the comments and scores they gave my speaker. Going in I knew I would get very low points for originality and craftsmanship. Heck, they are a 7"/1" two way that sit in a plane black box :D But the positive comments and scores regarding the balance, voicing, imaging, etc. was what I was super glad to hear about

[Paul K.]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

Mine haven't arrived yet:( but Dan Neubecker got his either this last Friday or Thursday.
Paul

Anyone else receive theirs? My came yesterday. I was VERY happy with the comments and scores they gave my speaker. Going in I knew I would get very low points for originality and craftsmanship. Heck, they are a 7"/1" two way that sit in a plane black box :D But the positive comments and scores regarding the balance, voicing, imaging, etc. was what I was super glad to hear about

[rmeinke]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

Hey Craig,
What speaker build was this?

Thanks!
Rich

Anyone else receive theirs? My came yesterday. I was VERY happy with the comments and scores they gave my speaker. Going in I knew I would get very low points for originality and craftsmanship. Heck, they are a 7"/1" two way that sit in a plane black box :D But the positive comments and scores regarding the balance, voicing, imaging, etc. was what I was super glad to hear about

[Brewski]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

Anyone else receive theirs? My came yesterday. I was VERY happy with the comments and scores they gave my speaker. Going in I knew I would get very low points for originality and craftsmanship. Heck, they are a 7"/1" two way that sit in a plane black box :D But the positive comments and scores regarding the balance, voicing, imaging, etc. was what I was super glad to hear about

Yeah I got my scores in yesterday and sonically both the Ruinations and the Levitations did well. One surprise to me was that the Ruinations ended up out scoring the Levitations which I didn't think was going to happen. Levs -Tone 7.3/Bass 6.7/Imaging 7.6 Ruins - Tone 8/Bass 8/Imaging 8

Take it easy
Jay

[Jeff B.]

Re: MWAF judge's Personal Comments

Anyone else receive theirs? My came yesterday. I was VERY happy with the comments and scores they gave my speaker. Going in I knew I would get very low points for originality and craftsmanship. Heck, they are a 7"/1" two way that sit in a plane black box :D But the positive comments and scores regarding the balance, voicing, imaging, etc. was what I was super glad to hear about

Ben told me going in that people would really like some feedback - positive or negative, if it would help them understand how I judged the speaker. I took his advice and tried to offer both types of comments as constructively as possible. If I felt the speaker did something really well I tried to pass that along. If I felt it missed the mark somewhere that caused me to give it a lower score, then I tried to say what that was and why. One of things I experienced though was that I ended up with very little time to actually write any comments since we would move to the next speaker so quickly. As a result, a lot of comments were scribbled semi-legibly, so I hope this isn't a problem for anyone.

Another thing - Some will find on my sheets that some numerical scores were scribbled out and new numbers given. This happened when I would listen to a speaker early in a category, give my scores, and after listening to a couple more speakers in the same category I would sometimes feel that I needed to boost the score of an early speaker in a particular area after listening to the same tracks over a few different speakers. It was really hard on those first couple of speakers to really know where they would stand with other speakers in the group, especially when we switched to a new set of test tracks. If you are one of those contestants who have marked out numbers from me, this is why, and you will generally find that I raised your score the second time.

Just an interesting comment - I personally found that the toughest category with tighest competition and with the highest overall sound quality for the group was the Under $200 category. Many of the speakers in this category were among the best I heard all day. Some of them, if they had been dropped into the Unlimited class could have taken away prize money, even though they didn't in the Under $200 class, such was the luck of the draw. FWIW, the cost of the speaker didn't sway my judgement - I simply listened to what it sounded like and judged accordingly. The thing that wasn't related to the sound - the craftsmanship, was actually the easiest thing to give a score too.

If someone has a question regarding one of my comments on their sheets, let me know. If I can help you with your design, I would be glad to assist.

Jeff B.

[scottmc]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

Thanks to the judges and PartsExpress on this. Overall I thought this competition was much better than last year (only 2 I have attended). Thanks for the comments from the judges. I pretty much agreed with the judges picks for the winners and they did a great job.

Personally my opinion: I question using different source material for each category. While not hearing the same sounds all day helped keep some sanity, it did not allow for comparison between categories. I thought the open unlimited material was the toughest and did not contain a "great" track to show off the "best" sound. While some other categories had some easier tracks and may have let the speaker sound better overall. In any case, hearing the same across categories would have allowed myself to judge all the speakers as a whole.

Obvious suggestion, next year don't use any dynamic range tracks. I also thought 3 tracks at 3 minutes wasn't enough. I liked 5 tracks and 5 minutes at DIY Indiana, even if that means limiting entries. Obvious suggestion 2, is to have a maximum time limit for contestants.

Thanks Jeff and All.

[davepellegrene]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

I thought they were suppose to be sent out. I just figured it didn't happen. Hope to get mine.

Dave

[Wolf]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

Anyone else receive theirs? My came yesterday. I was VERY happy with the comments and scores they gave my speaker. Going in I knew I would get very low points for originality and craftsmanship. Heck, they are a 7"/1" two way that sit in a plane black box :D But the positive comments and scores regarding the balance, voicing, imaging, etc. was what I was super glad to hear about

Got mine Saturday...

I'm glad Jeff entertained my request, as it was helpful.

I'll post up mine if anybody wants to see. Normally the MWAF site gets them posted later when the pics and vids get uploaded.

Later,
Wolf

[Paul K.]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

I disagree completely with your suggestion to NOT use any dynamic range tracks. Playing a bunch of vocals or other music with limited (compressed, perhaps) dynamic range will likely end up with just about any average speaker sounding good. It happened last year in the Over-$200 Category by accident apparently and was, IMO, a bit unfair to builders whose speakers had more dynamic ability. I do agree that three, 1-minute tracks aren't really enough, but more will not be used unless fewer entries are allowed or more time is set aside.
Paul

Thanks to the judges and PartsExpress on this. Overall I thought this competition was much better than last year (only 2 I have attended). Thanks for the comments from the judges. I pretty much agreed with the judges picks for the winners and they did a great job.

Personally my opinion: I question using different source material for each category. While not hearing the same sounds all day helped keep some sanity, it did not allow for comparison between categories. I thought the open unlimited material was the toughest and did not contain a "great" track to show off the "best" sound. While some other categories had some easier tracks and may have let the speaker sound better overall. In any case, hearing the same across categories would have allowed myself to judge all the speakers as a whole.

Obvious suggestion, next year don't use any dynamic range tracks. I also thought 3 tracks at 3 minutes wasn't enough. I liked 5 tracks and 5 minutes at DIY Indiana, even if that means limiting entries. Obvious suggestion 2, is to have a maximum time limit for contestants.

Thanks Jeff and All.

[brkitup]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

I got my sheets yesterday, and thought the scores were interesting. One judge thought the imaging of my "110s" deserved a 9, while another judge thought they were a 4. This seems like a huge difference considering they were sitting in the same general area. I was also surprised to see that my tonal balance scores were really high, since I had crossover problems and ended up with a huge dip in the upper midrange (which Wolf correctly identified in his listening notes).

All in all the scores were pretty accurate though, and I definitely didn't deserve a place among the winners in the under $200 category. I agree with the sentiment that the <200 speakers were amazing.

[Wolf]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

I also agree with your sentiment, Paul. We need the dynamic capability represented.

As to the tracks, it's how PE does it to save time, and I also agree it's not enough to really gauge a project. It's just the way it has to be.

Later,
Wolf

[Wolf]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

It's in the ear of the beholder. I don't know what to say there.

Later,
Wolf

[Jeff B.]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

I got my sheets yesterday, and thought the scores were interesting. One judge thought the imaging of my "110s" deserved a 9, while another judge thought they were a 4. This seems like a huge difference considering they were sitting in the same general area. I was also surprised to see that my tonal balance scores were really high, since I had crossover problems and ended up with a huge dip in the upper midrange (which Wolf correctly identified in his listening notes).

All in all the scores were pretty accurate though, and I definitely didn't deserve a place among the winners in the under $200 category. I agree with the sentiment that the <200 speakers were amazing.

This isn't as odd as it may seem at first glance. I'm trying to remember all of the speakers; were your's the large reworked three-ways? If not, correct me as to which were yours. However, I am curious which judge gave you the 9 for imaging. I was sitting in the middle and I think that gave my a real advantage on how a speaker imaged. I think I could hear things that Jerry and Phil could not pick up as easily since they were sitting much more in front of one speaker or the other. For a large baffle speaker, sitting at their listening angles, imaging may have been much more impacted off-axis than for a small two-way.

As for the dip in the upper midrange - the vertical listening axis is everything, and for where we were sitting it simply may not have been revealed - especially for the short tracks we were listening to. Remember, dips are not so easily discerned with some music compared to peaks. Those reveal themselves very quickly.

Jeff B.

[brkitup]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

This isn't as odd as it may seem at first glance. I'm trying to remember all of the speakers; were your's the large reworked three-ways? If not, correct me as to which were yours. However, I am curious which judge gave you the 9 for imaging. I was sitting in the middle and I think that gave my a real advantage on how a speaker imaged. I think I could hear things that Jerry and Phil could not pick up as easily since they were sitting much more in front of one speaker or the other. For a large baffle speaker, sitting at their listening angles, imaging may have been much more impacted off-axis than for a small two-way.

As for the dip in the upper midrange - the vertical listening axis is everything, and for where we were sitting it simply may not have been revealed - especially for the short tracks we were listening to. Remember, dips are not so easily discerned with some music compared to peaks. Those reveal themselves very quickly.

Jeff B.

Thanks for the comments. My 110s are the large 3-ways sitting behind me in my profile pic. Phil gave me a 9 for imaging, you gave me a 7, and Jerry gave me the 4:( I think a 7 is pretty much right on, based on my own listening impressions.

Anyway, I'm glad the "correct" speakers won each category. Several people seemed to like my design, but I'm not satisfied with them. I'm to go ahead and rework them and take them to InDIYana next year. I have three other projects planned for next year's MWAF (plus one from my wife) Thanks again.

[Wolf]

Re: MWAF judges sheets

I'm to go ahead and rework them and take them to InDIYana next year.

Cool, we'll be glad to have you up here!
It's good to get the women involved whenever possible. ;)
Later,
Wolf