Tweet
As soon as I got back, I traveled for work and had a very busy weekend. Sorry for "late" feedback...
I wish I would have known there was a get together at the hotel afterwards. Somehow, I missed that memo. :( I would have loved to hear more in a more intimate setting!!
Did anybody get pictures of my Unlimited entry, the "Mighty Mighty Bass Tones" (MMBT), while they were playing? I was up front, nervous, and forgot to step back and get one while they were playing.
I also noticed that the Nine Octave Nanos were not played during the competition. Hm.
Again, THANK YOU to all for putting on the event and for those that attended and participated. It's great to share and learn
Regarding Feedback on the Event Logistics:
First and foremost... I have also hosted some of these DIY events and participated in numerous over the years. I sincerely appreciate the effort and time from everyone at PE!! THANK YOU for the time, resources, and energy that went into everything!! And thank you for all the great prizes and offerings!! And the food, soda, and beer! And the super helpful and friendly staff!
1: The 1k-4k noise track for level matching, I think, is an excellent idea. However, I feel the execution was wrong.
Since there was a wide variety of speaker placement and toe-in, the directional nature of that high-frequency test one had a drastic effect on the volume. The mic was in the middle of the room in front of the judges table. Most of the time, the speakers were aligned with the tape marks. But even the difference between the outer and inner position would have a tangible impact on the measured output of the test signal. Because of this, I believe it should be a rule to follow the placement and toe-in for consistency. So that the mic for level setting is in the same relative location for every pair of speakers. Allowing people to change the width and toe-in is going to create a change in the sensitivity/pickup of the test signal. And if you move the mic to be "in line" with the them, you're going to change things and create an uneven playing field. For instance, keeping the same separation distance and toeing them in 10deg different is going to change the "blending" point drastically. If you were to move the mic to be "in line" with the speakers... which speaker? To move it in line with L speaker, you're going to be way off axis from the R speaker. And therefore get less signal from the R speaker and therefore have a lower comparative output. If you move the mic back to be in the same "blending" position of L & R, then your mic is further away from the speakers and the speakers will have to get more input to generate the same relative output measurement at the new mic position further back. And, then, maybe the judging table is in the way. Or the judges.
Anyway, to keep the "volume" or SPL the same, the limited band noise track is great, because low frequency output varies tremendously, which will also vary measured response from the mic tremendously. So, I think the bandwidth limited test tone is great. But for all the reasons above, I think it's important to keep the speaker positions and direction (toe-in) exactly the same for every pair. Yeah, it might not be what they were "designed for" or how they are listened to at home by the builder. But, this is the only way to actually get close to an accurate "level matched" scenario in order to keep things "equal." The point is to have an equal playing ground and compare them... not to set it up how the designer wants and inevitably change the playing field each time.
It may not be "ideal," but it is much more "fair" from a competition (keep things "equal") standpoint.
2. The room size was great. Layout was great. There was appropriate damping with carpet and hanging (thin) drapes to complement the hard walls. I think this was pretty representative of average living room in terms of how "dead" it was.
3A. I appreciate that there were different tracks for the different classes from a sanity standpoint. Hearing the same tracks 50 times gets tiring. Been there. But, it's also a bit unfair. For each new set of tracks, the listener has to re-acclimate to the new songs. I suggest playing the new set of tracks on a "reference" pair of speakers that are the same speakers used to start every class. This isn't "reference" as in the best of the best, but just something that provides a common reference point of view. Heck it could even be a commercial set of speakers. Or maybe the CBT array that was being demo'd this year. This gives everyone a chance to hear the tracks without having to also "judge" a new set of speakers on new tracks. I also suggest that the "reference" speakers be the pair that is played at the beginning and during break periods with music. This helps establish and keep a constant reminder psychologically of how the reference speakers sound.
3B. I don't think the music tracks were all that great. That's easy to say as an outsider. But, I heard several other people mention the same. I've had to pick tracks. It's hard. I feel that 5 tracks instead of 3 tracks would be better - more diversity and better opportunity to better evaluate each pair of speakers. I also admit that this is a double edged sword... listening fatigue, making the day longer, more work up front, etc. I know. I get it. But, I think more variety would be better.
4. Height. For consistency, I think there should be adjustable stands to keep the tweeters (or most directional HF driver) at the same height. All entrants would know going in that this was where they would be positioned when played for the competition. Ideal or not, at least it would be consistent and fair. This is something I've wanted to implement in my event(s) for the future. A lot of HF content gets lost in the heads or even chests in front of us.
5A. Unlimited Class. This is tough, since I'm obviously biased. My MMBT entry was forced into Unlimited class because I had a plate amp in them. But, I also specifically designed them to be powered with and for only a standard speaker-level input. No external XO. No separate bi-amp scenario. There was nothing different in the signal getting to the speaker than any other Passive XO entry. That said, I still would have been in the $200+ class and still wouldn't have won. I just don't think they're "Unlimited."
5B. Unlimited Class. Re: the "if they're in the Unlimited Class, they shouldn't have a problem at any volume/SPL level" type comments... I mean. Come on. That's pretty ridiculous and unfair. Even the Linkwitz Orions have limits. I think Unlimited is a misnomer. I agree with Jim Holtz - see 5C.
5C. I would recommend revising the Unlmiited Class title to "Active Crossover Class" or "Non-standard Setup Class." "Unlimited" is a bit unfair and sets a psychological bias.
6. Anonymity. Psychologically, we are all biased. Maybe it's looks. Maybe it's because of what driver somebody used (or didn't use). Maybe because you know this one uses "boutique" crossover parts.
I would like to recommend that for each category, the listening is BLIND.
One way to achieve this could be:
All the speakers in a given class/category are moved to the front behind a wall. And, using a blackout cloth (grill cloth, sheet, etc.), the speakers are listened to without knowing what's "behind the curtain." The only people that know are PE/event staff that are randomly swapping out each pair. And that there would be music/noise to cover up any audible cues for what might be getting setup (e.g. play something on the aforementioned "reference" speakers).
For the unlimited class, this gets a bit difficult due to complicated setups and problems. For these, maybe have all the entrants from the class behind the curtain also. I'm sure they'll want to listen to other entrants/competitors. To avoid interaction with judges or peers, maybe they are free to walk back and forth to the back of the room from "backstage."
After judging results are turned in at the end of each class, reveal all the speakers in the class, and let each person give a 1 minute introduction on their design.
Just an idea.
7. It's up to the event host and coordinator, for sure. I understand and am not complaining. But, personally, I would like to have a set of awards strictly based on Sound Quality (preferably "blind" - see #6). I appreciate beautiful woodwork, innovative concepts, true DIY efforts, ingenuity, and things like 3D printing. But, focusing or weighing these things anywhere near the sound quality of a speaker is backwards to me. I'm not saying it's not important. But, I would argue that it's not nearly as important.
I wish I would have known there was a get together at the hotel afterwards. Somehow, I missed that memo. :( I would have loved to hear more in a more intimate setting!!
Did anybody get pictures of my Unlimited entry, the "Mighty Mighty Bass Tones" (MMBT), while they were playing? I was up front, nervous, and forgot to step back and get one while they were playing.
I also noticed that the Nine Octave Nanos were not played during the competition. Hm.
Again, THANK YOU to all for putting on the event and for those that attended and participated. It's great to share and learn
Regarding Feedback on the Event Logistics:
First and foremost... I have also hosted some of these DIY events and participated in numerous over the years. I sincerely appreciate the effort and time from everyone at PE!! THANK YOU for the time, resources, and energy that went into everything!! And thank you for all the great prizes and offerings!! And the food, soda, and beer!
And the super helpful and friendly staff!1: The 1k-4k noise track for level matching, I think, is an excellent idea. However, I feel the execution was wrong.
Since there was a wide variety of speaker placement and toe-in, the directional nature of that high-frequency test one had a drastic effect on the volume. The mic was in the middle of the room in front of the judges table. Most of the time, the speakers were aligned with the tape marks. But even the difference between the outer and inner position would have a tangible impact on the measured output of the test signal. Because of this, I believe it should be a rule to follow the placement and toe-in for consistency. So that the mic for level setting is in the same relative location for every pair of speakers. Allowing people to change the width and toe-in is going to create a change in the sensitivity/pickup of the test signal. And if you move the mic to be "in line" with the them, you're going to change things and create an uneven playing field. For instance, keeping the same separation distance and toeing them in 10deg different is going to change the "blending" point drastically. If you were to move the mic to be "in line" with the speakers... which speaker? To move it in line with L speaker, you're going to be way off axis from the R speaker. And therefore get less signal from the R speaker and therefore have a lower comparative output. If you move the mic back to be in the same "blending" position of L & R, then your mic is further away from the speakers and the speakers will have to get more input to generate the same relative output measurement at the new mic position further back. And, then, maybe the judging table is in the way. Or the judges.
Anyway, to keep the "volume" or SPL the same, the limited band noise track is great, because low frequency output varies tremendously, which will also vary measured response from the mic tremendously. So, I think the bandwidth limited test tone is great. But for all the reasons above, I think it's important to keep the speaker positions and direction (toe-in) exactly the same for every pair. Yeah, it might not be what they were "designed for" or how they are listened to at home by the builder. But, this is the only way to actually get close to an accurate "level matched" scenario in order to keep things "equal." The point is to have an equal playing ground and compare them... not to set it up how the designer wants and inevitably change the playing field each time.
It may not be "ideal," but it is much more "fair" from a competition (keep things "equal") standpoint.
2. The room size was great. Layout was great. There was appropriate damping with carpet and hanging (thin) drapes to complement the hard walls. I think this was pretty representative of average living room in terms of how "dead" it was.
3A. I appreciate that there were different tracks for the different classes from a sanity standpoint. Hearing the same tracks 50 times gets tiring. Been there.
But, it's also a bit unfair. For each new set of tracks, the listener has to re-acclimate to the new songs. I suggest playing the new set of tracks on a "reference" pair of speakers that are the same speakers used to start every class. This isn't "reference" as in the best of the best, but just something that provides a common reference point of view. Heck it could even be a commercial set of speakers. Or maybe the CBT array that was being demo'd this year. This gives everyone a chance to hear the tracks without having to also "judge" a new set of speakers on new tracks. I also suggest that the "reference" speakers be the pair that is played at the beginning and during break periods with music. This helps establish and keep a constant reminder psychologically of how the reference speakers sound. 3B. I don't think the music tracks were all that great. That's easy to say as an outsider. But, I heard several other people mention the same. I've had to pick tracks. It's hard. I feel that 5 tracks instead of 3 tracks would be better - more diversity and better opportunity to better evaluate each pair of speakers. I also admit that this is a double edged sword... listening fatigue, making the day longer, more work up front, etc. I know. I get it. But, I think more variety would be better.
4. Height. For consistency, I think there should be adjustable stands to keep the tweeters (or most directional HF driver) at the same height. All entrants would know going in that this was where they would be positioned when played for the competition. Ideal or not, at least it would be consistent and fair. This is something I've wanted to implement in my event(s) for the future. A lot of HF content gets lost in the heads or even chests in front of us.
5A. Unlimited Class. This is tough, since I'm obviously biased. My MMBT entry was forced into Unlimited class because I had a plate amp in them. But, I also specifically designed them to be powered with and for only a standard speaker-level input. No external XO. No separate bi-amp scenario. There was nothing different in the signal getting to the speaker than any other Passive XO entry. That said, I still would have been in the $200+ class and still wouldn't have won. I just don't think they're "Unlimited."
5B. Unlimited Class. Re: the "if they're in the Unlimited Class, they shouldn't have a problem at any volume/SPL level" type comments... I mean. Come on. That's pretty ridiculous and unfair. Even the Linkwitz Orions have limits. I think Unlimited is a misnomer. I agree with Jim Holtz - see 5C.
5C. I would recommend revising the Unlmiited Class title to "Active Crossover Class" or "Non-standard Setup Class." "Unlimited" is a bit unfair and sets a psychological bias.
6. Anonymity. Psychologically, we are all biased. Maybe it's looks. Maybe it's because of what driver somebody used (or didn't use). Maybe because you know this one uses "boutique" crossover parts.
I would like to recommend that for each category, the listening is BLIND.
One way to achieve this could be:
All the speakers in a given class/category are moved to the front behind a wall. And, using a blackout cloth (grill cloth, sheet, etc.), the speakers are listened to without knowing what's "behind the curtain." The only people that know are PE/event staff that are randomly swapping out each pair. And that there would be music/noise to cover up any audible cues for what might be getting setup (e.g. play something on the aforementioned "reference" speakers).
For the unlimited class, this gets a bit difficult due to complicated setups and problems. For these, maybe have all the entrants from the class behind the curtain also. I'm sure they'll want to listen to other entrants/competitors. To avoid interaction with judges or peers, maybe they are free to walk back and forth to the back of the room from "backstage."
After judging results are turned in at the end of each class, reveal all the speakers in the class, and let each person give a 1 minute introduction on their design.
Just an idea.
7. It's up to the event host and coordinator, for sure. I understand and am not complaining. But, personally, I would like to have a set of awards strictly based on Sound Quality (preferably "blind" - see #6). I appreciate beautiful woodwork, innovative concepts, true DIY efforts, ingenuity, and things like 3D printing. But, focusing or weighing these things anywhere near the sound quality of a speaker is backwards to me. I'm not saying it's not important. But, I would argue that it's not nearly as important.
Comment