Official MWAF 2017 Thread - RESULTS ARE POSTED

[craigk]

Jim, everything you suggested is right on. I think the designer should be allowed to place speakers what ever distance apart they voiced them to be. The distance the speakers were apart at MWAF was way to far. The other thing that could work for boundary reinforcement would be a portable, easily moveable 4x8 panel you could place behind the speaker to sort of simulate some wall reinforcement.

[GTPlus]

This was something else we discussed as we were placing chairs. Feedback regarding center chairs vs walking room would be great, although we had the chairs spread apart pretty far so the aisle may not have been needed in reality.

Keep the ideas coming fellas.

I'll reiterate what others have said, great job to PE this year on the set up and overall event. I always look forward to it.


One thing I really liked, that I don't think anyone has mentioned, was how the speakers were set up together as a category this year with signs. It make it easy to do a once over to see what is going to be played in each group.

For seating, IMO since you had the row spacing of the chairs farther apart this year you really don't need the center aisle. Might as well give more centered spaced chairs. Though I'll be honest, I end up standing in the back, since most places I sit there is usually a well placed noggin in the way of at least one of the two speakers

Also, was there a specific reason the speakers were on the wall they are? I'm guessing there was, but it might be better to inverse the whole set up next year so the door is once again toward the back of the room.

[1100xxben]

Oh, what the heck... I'll give my 2 cents too...

First off, as many have mentioned, a very big thank you goes to PE for putting this event together. This was the first year that I have participated and I had a great time. They kept things moving along very well, and it is truly appreciated that they were flexible and willing to tweak some things as we went along (i.e. start times and SPL level). Of course, a weekend with receiving a free, geeky t-shirt and hat, listening to some great speaker designs, and scoring some major discounts at the tent sale (on items I really didn't need to purchase anyway) always makes for a good time. Winning a prize and getting to buy more gear with a gift card is just icing on the cake.

My feedback on the event: I agree and disagree with a lot of other people's sentiments, so I won't mention most things that have already been mentioned, but here are a couple of the main things I'd like to bring up:

- I liked the idea of using some form of band-limited pink-noise to set the SPL level of each speaker, but 1k-4k with sharp roll-off seems a bit tight (to me). What about using A-weighted pink noise? This eliminates the ultra-high and ultra-low frequencies from skewing the level setting, but still puts emphasis on our ears most sensitive range around that 2-3 kHz mark. If not A-weighted, maybe just extend it so that the noise is 400-4kHz? Again, just suggestions.

- Can adjustable stands be available next year? Or, possibly some blocks to put under the stand and raise them up a little. I like to have my stand-mounted speakers adjusted to locate the tweeters at ~ear-height, but I felt like most of them were way too-short (and I'm not just saying that because I had some of the shortest speakers there ). If not, then maybe I'll just bring my own stands next year, like Nick did

- I agree that 3 minutes of music is a little on the short side. Five, one-minute tracks would be great.

- I don't know what the resolution for this would be, but listening to the 15 speakers in the under $200 category is almost too much in one sitting. It's very difficult to compare the first couple you listen to, to the last couple that you listen to. At least, with my short memory/attention span, it is.

- Since this is the first year that I participated, I don't know if this is the norm, but I like the fact that you listed off all the demo tracks before-hand so we could each have a listen and familiarize ourselves on our known speakers in a known environment.


Again, a huge thanks to PE for putting on such a fun event.

[Paul K.]

Adding another 2 minutes of music to the house tracks would have added about 70-75 minutes overall on Saturday, with the last note played around 4:30 to 4:45, but we did take an hour and a half break for lunch, which could easily be shortened to 1 hour.

It is difficult to keep track of what one hears and likes over 15 speakers, but if you take notes on each speaker on each track of music, like I did, it helps big time.
Paul

Oh, what the heck... I'll give my 2 cents too...

First off, as many have mentioned, a very big thank you goes to PE for putting this event together. This was the first year that I have participated and I had a great time. They kept things moving along very well, and it is truly appreciated that they were flexible and willing to tweak some things as we went along (i.e. start times and SPL level). Of course, a weekend with receiving a free, geeky t-shirt and hat, listening to some great speaker designs, and scoring some major discounts at the tent sale (on items I really didn't need to purchase anyway) always makes for a good time. Winning a prize and getting to buy more gear with a gift card is just icing on the cake.

My feedback on the event: I agree and disagree with a lot of other people's sentiments, so I won't mention most things that have already been mentioned, but here are a couple of the main things I'd like to bring up:

- I liked the idea of using some form of band-limited pink-noise to set the SPL level of each speaker, but 1k-4k with sharp roll-off seems a bit tight (to me). What about using A-weighted pink noise? This eliminates the ultra-high and ultra-low frequencies from skewing the level setting, but still puts emphasis on our ears most sensitive range around that 2-3 kHz mark. If not A-weighted, maybe just extend it so that the noise is 400-4kHz? Again, just suggestions.

- Can adjustable stands be available next year? Or, possibly some blocks to put under the stand and raise them up a little. I like to have my stand-mounted speakers adjusted to locate the tweeters at ~ear-height, but I felt like most of them were way too-short (and I'm not just saying that because I had some of the shortest speakers there ). If not, then maybe I'll just bring my own stands next year, like Nick did

- I agree that 3 minutes of music is a little on the short side. Five, one-minute tracks would be great.

- I don't know what the resolution for this would be, but listening to the 15 speakers in the under $200 category is almost too much in one sitting. It's very difficult to compare the first couple you listen to, to the last couple that you listen to. At least, with my short memory/attention span, it is.

- Since this is the first year that I participated, I don't know if this is the norm, but I like the fact that you listed off all the demo tracks before-hand so we could each have a listen and familiarize ourselves on our known speakers in a known environment.


Again, a huge thanks to PE for putting on such a fun event.

[JavadS]

Javad I really enjoyed the informal get together. lots of good speakers and music. next year I will have the source covered, I am giving myself a very nice integrated stereo for Xmas. so just bring your laptop and we will be good to go. I am also still amazed at the quality of your cab. easily in the top 5 best of all times I have seen at a DIY event. hope we can do this every year.

the ATC drivers did not come from Dan's find.

Thanks Craig! Agreed it was a great time and super casual, all the conversations in between are great too =) I appreciate the comments on the Strafi, that means a lot too!

Correct that ATC mid is only available from ATC and they only sell it as a warranty type replacement, very hard to get a hold of.

Javad

[4thtry]

This one was not listed in any of the posts above. Correct me if I am wrong, but this speaker did not actually compete in the Under $200 category. But it was there. Perhaps the designer experienced some type of mechanical problem at the end of the show. It was the smallest speaker sitting in the middle of the back table.


SP44
By: Perry M.
Category: Under $200.
Project Name: "The Nine-Octave Nanos"

[ani_101]

the nine octave nanos were playing the hotel room.....

[JavadS]

This one was not listed in any of the posts above.

Perry played these at the after event and they sounded great, way better than they should have, used a Fountek I believe, same one as in his grill cloth covered CBTs.

[4thtry]

Just adding a few more pieces of missing data. Then I will stop.

By: Rory B.
Category: Under $200

From my InDIYana 2016 records for this speaker:
Project Name "Iguanas"
Drivers: GRS 85W-4, 4PR-8, Beston RT002A

[4thtry]

SP01
By: Tony H
Category: Dayton Audio
Project Name: "Cube"

[4thtry]

Finally, the project name for the under $200 category, SP19, by Steven G, was "Cherry Brovox Tower"

[jhollander]

I really liked Rory's Iguanas and scored them quite high in the under $200 category.

[ugly woofer]

I'm just going to say a big thank you to Parts Express again for putting this on. This year was much more efficient than previous years.... so kudos to the new setup. Thank you Javad for the after session.

My 2 cents
This is just for fun, we need to relax and enjoy.
The center aisle is necessary but could be substantially narrowed
Much wider range on the pink noise
I couldn't disagree more about the audience vote being fifty percent, because thanks to Javads after party I can tell you that what I heard at mwaf and what I heard at the hotel do not match 100%. I would lean more toward the judges just vote and perhaps the audience is the tie breaker if the need arises, but I also know that people need to feel involved so I think the judging should remain as is.

I love MWAF and look forward to it every year. It was great seeing all you guys again, and I honestly believe that the quality of the entries gets better every year, I can't wait to see what you guys bring next year.

[Paul K.]

After all of the winners were announced, our emcee said that peer votes broke two ties by the judges this year, and I think the judging and peer votes setup works quite well as is.
Paul

I'm just going to say a big thank you to Parts Express again for putting this on. This year was much more efficient than previous years.... so kudos to the new setup. Thank you Javad for the after session.

My 2 cents
This is just for fun, we need to relax and enjoy.
The center aisle is necessary but could be substantially narrowed
Much wider range on the pink noise
I couldn't disagree more about the audience vote being fifty percent, because thanks to Javads after party I can tell you that what I heard at mwaf and what I heard at the hotel do not match 100%. I would lean more toward the judges just vote and perhaps the audience is the tie breaker if the need arises, but I also know that people need to feel involved so I think the judging should remain as is.

I love MWAF and look forward to it every year. It was great seeing all you guys again, and I honestly believe that the quality of the entries gets better every year, I can't wait to see what you guys bring next year.

[bcodemz]

Brain, if I'm one of those you were worried about letting down, put that out of your head. When I heard the amount of bass you were able to finesse out of those tiny enclosures, I was floored. At the same time, my first impression was they were too thick, the same thing you realized as soon as you heard them at the contest. By the time we met again at Javad's Hotel, you had taken the additional BSC out and when you played them again I was shocked at how much better they sounded. It's a real shame more people couldn't have heard them again after you fixed em, they were nothing to sneeze at. In fact, I think they held their own against everything that played in the conference room Saturday night and there were some FANTASTIC speakers there. Mission Accomplished on a Reference Mini man, you've got my respect.

Thanks everyone for the words of encouragement. And yes Kevin you were the one I was most worried about letting down. It relieves me to know you weren't disappointed. It is indeed unfortunate that more people couldn't hear what we heard in the hotel meeting room afterwards. After everyone left I stayed till 2am listening to music on them. It sounded so much better than my living room that I couldn't stop listening.

As good as they sounded in the hotel room, I've only scratched the surface. It is possible to recreate the processing I had on them with a complex and exceedingly expensive passive crossover. Even the bass boost can be done because there was no limiter. I'll be adding a number of *well-implemented* DSP magic sauce to them to achieve a whole another level of performance that no passive crossover cannot hope to do. Next time it'll be something special.

On a few other issues, here's my 2 cents.

The judge's score should stay the same way at 75%. The audience is not in the sweet spot, and will hear very differently than the judges. We're all listening very off axis, and likely there are a number of people blocking the tweeter. Also, a lesser known problem is that the room is long enough to have audible high frequency loss due to atmospheric absorption, which will favor overtly bright speakers.

In terms of music, I think it should be increased to 4 minutes. The additional minute should be for a 4th song that is well known for most people (i.e., stereotypical audiophile songs). It is very difficult to judge a speaker with music we've never heard. By having a well known song in the mix, people will have a reference to compare to.

I think the band limited pink noise is a great idea. I'm not sure why there are still volume inconsistencies as this should have minimized them. One thing I suspect is that the mic was facing straight instead of facing directly at one speaker. Speakers that have narrow dispersion or acoustical lobing in the 1-4KHz range may measure lower than they really are. One thing I suggest would be to have the pink noise in a separate track instead of being in the beginning of the first track. Now you can have a much longer pink noise. Chris doesn't have to constantly repeat the beginning of the tracks for the pink noise and can focus better on the calibration process. Instead of pink noise in the beginning of the first track, it should be replaced with silence to give Chris enough time to walk away after the calibration process.