When is good too good?

[Geoff Millar]

Agreed, good speakers should work well with all types of music; some, like Paul Carmody's "Tarkus", could be 'voiced' for rock music but will still play anything well.

Geoff

[wogg]

I get down to 40Hz with the RS180P-8 in my build Supernova Minimus. It's an EBS alignment, so they benefit from a little tone control or wall placement. I've got them set with +6 on the AR bass tone control, measurements at the listening spot without gating show decent bass to 40Hz as well with a nice slow downward slope all the way up. Based on the model with the PE specs, the F3 should have been 60, but they ended up tuned a little lower and perform better than that.

http://woggmusic.com/supernova-minimus-speaker-build/

[fpitas]

Thanks everyone for your input! A lot of great responses.

Some takeaways so far:

• Metal cones can sound harsher without proper care in the crossover
• Paper/fabric cones are generally more forgiving
• The amount of HD is less important than the characteristics of it. (I remember an interview with Dr. Earl Geddes where he said something similar)
• Speakers lend themselves to certain genres of music. A set great for jazz won't necessarily work for rock.
• To sound more appealing for most music (à la Sonos) voicing choices like downward slopes and a dip in the midrange can be used, at the expense of making other music not sound its best.
• EQ can be used similarly, either by modifying the track directly or using external EQ.

About HD, are there specific things to look out for from a HD measurement graph? Right now I only know to broadly look for amplitude across the frequency range (e.g driver X has lots of HD <80Hz).

I've certainly heard speakers that do all types of music well. The Revel Salon2 and the JBL K2 S9900 come to mind, but I'm sure there are others. Very different designs and drivers, but the engineering is solid. Any speaker is the sum of its parts. Drivers get all the attention and press, but good designers also obsess over things like the crossover, the polar pattern, having a sturdy non-resonant cabinet etc.

[Geoff Millar]

There's another MLTL design for a RS180P MTM somewhere on PETT, but it's a relatively large cabinet; if I can find the link I'll post it.

Geoff

[rpb]

The PE data sheet shows 74hz in a small ported box. It's good to know that better alignments work for it.

[Geoff Millar]

The stated F3 of my RS180P MTMs is low 40s; Curt kindly designed a Mass Loaded Transmission Line which extended the lower end. For most of our music I leave the sub off; when playing some LPs the sub tends to emphasise the rumble and warp which can plague the medium.

They really sound very good and look cool: I have a spare pair which Id like to try as a TM, maybe with an SB tweeter if the budget will stretch.

Geoff

[rpb]

I guess the challenge here is that a more expensive driver "might" be better.

I really like the RS180P and am working with it at the moment. In my country I can get it for around $80 wholesale (and unfortunately this is still a 'budget' driver - 30 bucks won't get you much in Aus)

In my opinion though the SB Acoustics MR16P kicks it to the curb. It goes for $180. I personally still find that reasonable for a top quality driver.

It can come down to the cost of manufacture which is a factor that does not correlate with the quality of the outcome. SB is my go to at the moment. You're getting the classic Danish engineering for the cost of Indonesian manufacture. The build and sound quality are outstanding and I think that represents excellent value.

You really won't do better than the SB by paying double+ for a scan-speak equivalent which suffers from a much higher cost of manufacture!

The RS180p looks like it would be a good option if used with a sub. I really like the RS270p driver I have. If the 180 is similar, it's a winner..

[DeZZar]

I guess the challenge here is that a more expensive driver "might" be better.

I really like the RS180P and am working with it at the moment. In my country I can get it for around $80 wholesale (and unfortunately this is still a 'budget' driver - 30 bucks won't get you much in Aus)

In my opinion though the SB Acoustics MR16P kicks it to the curb. It goes for $180. I personally still find that reasonable for a top quality driver.

It can come down to the cost of manufacture which is a factor that does not correlate with the quality of the outcome. SB is my go to at the moment. You're getting the classic Danish engineering for the cost of Indonesian manufacture. The build and sound quality are outstanding and I think that represents excellent value.

You really won't do better than the SB by paying double+ for a scan-speak equivalent which suffers from a much higher cost of manufacture!

[rpb]

Thanks everyone for your input! A lot of great responses.

Some takeaways so far:

• Metal cones can sound harsher without proper care in the crossover
• Paper/fabric cones are generally more forgiving
• The amount of HD is less important than the characteristics of it. (I remember an interview with Dr. Earl Geddes where he said something similar)
• Speakers lend themselves to certain genres of music. A set great for jazz won't necessarily work for rock.
• To sound more appealing for most music (à la Sonos) voicing choices like downward slopes and a dip in the midrange can be used, at the expense of making other music not sound its best.
• EQ can be used similarly, either by modifying the track directly or using external EQ.

About HD, are there specific things to look out for from a HD measurement graph? Right now I only know to broadly look for amplitude across the frequency range (e.g driver X has lots of HD <80Hz).

For my purposes, I suppose a way to approach it is voice a speaker to make 70% of my collection sound good, then use EQ in some capacity (or build another set of speakers) for the remaining 30%. But I'm also in this for the fun of the actual design and build process, so maybe as long as I get something enjoyable I shouldn't worry too much

I might have opened a can of worms by associating price with quality. I absolutely know the cost vs quality scale is no where near linear or even accurate. What I was more implying is other than space characteristics (Vas, diameter), most can agree the RS180P-8 sounds better than a TCP115-8. The RS180 also costs almost 4x as much. The idea by saying "the 30$-80$ price range" was looking at things like an RS180P-8 or W5-1138SMF. That said, given how little experience I have in this hobby I'm still not familiar with how a lot of drivers can sound. I would also be interested in threads about excellent value drivers.

Everything matters.... at least a little, and sometimes more. If you use a sub, the demands on the mid-bass are greatly reduced. If you don't want a sub, then don't try to get bass from a 4" woofer. You will be dis appointed. I have some 6.5" woofers that work pretty well in my room. The bass is good, but they need a 1 cu-ft box. I have a smaller pair of speakers with a 5.25" woofer. They are nice with a sub, and the size looks like I want. A few months ago, I temporarily assembled a 3-way with a 10" woofer, 6.5" mid, and 1" tweeter. It probably smokes anything else I've built, but it's rather large. My wood working skills are not too good, so it would be big, and ugly. Small and ugly + sub is easier to live with!

More on the topic. I have a theory. Much of the older music has limited bass. In a system with a sub, if the blend is not really good, the bass in an old recording may never quite make the sub audible, and the bass that is rolled off at 80hz just fades away. Perhaps a speaker with prominent bass at 60hz is better for such music. A quick look at the RS180p shows very limited bass. (f3 of 74hz.)

I design my speakers to sound good with the music I like the most. If other music sounds so so, then I just don't play it much, if ever. I'm sure there is some compromise involved in my voicing, but generally my response is close to flat. (As measured with my non calibrated mic.)

[JonathanPenner]

Thanks everyone for your input! A lot of great responses.

Some takeaways so far:

• Metal cones can sound harsher without proper care in the crossover
• Paper/fabric cones are generally more forgiving
• The amount of HD is less important than the characteristics of it. (I remember an interview with Dr. Earl Geddes where he said something similar)
• Speakers lend themselves to certain genres of music. A set great for jazz won't necessarily work for rock.
• To sound more appealing for most music (à la Sonos) voicing choices like downward slopes and a dip in the midrange can be used, at the expense of making other music not sound its best.
• EQ can be used similarly, either by modifying the track directly or using external EQ.

About HD, are there specific things to look out for from a HD measurement graph? Right now I only know to broadly look for amplitude across the frequency range (e.g driver X has lots of HD <80Hz).

For my purposes, I suppose a way to approach it is voice a speaker to make 70% of my collection sound good, then use EQ in some capacity (or build another set of speakers) for the remaining 30%. But I'm also in this for the fun of the actual design and build process, so maybe as long as I get something enjoyable I shouldn't worry too much

I might have opened a can of worms by associating price with quality. I absolutely know the cost vs quality scale is no where near linear or even accurate. What I was more implying is other than space characteristics (Vas, diameter), most can agree the RS180P-8 sounds better than a TCP115-8. The RS180 also costs almost 4x as much. The idea by saying "the 30$-80$ price range" was looking at things like an RS180P-8 or W5-1138SMF. That said, given how little experience I have in this hobby I'm still not familiar with how a lot of drivers can sound. I would also be interested in threads about excellent value drivers.

[fpitas]

I've never really been a big subscriber of the "good speakers make bad recordings sound worse" kind of thinking. There are a lot of recordings that sound bad when I listen on a nice set of speakers, but they don't sound any better on crap speakers... it's just that the good recordings get brought down closer to that bad recording's level. The bad recordings still sound bad.

There's nothing about good speakers that will make a bad recording sound worse except more relative output in a range that better exposes the recording's flaws. If you wanted to design a speaker that helped to "smooth over" the flaws of a recording, I'd still use high quality, low distortion drivers, but design the system to have a bit more of a fletcher munson curve as opposed to flat. Take away a little midband, especially around 5khz, and the speaker will likely be more forgiving of bad recordings, but will also have less perceived detail on everything.

I agree with most of that. A little overall downward slope, like Troels Gravesen often does, also helps "warm up" crappy recordings, without hurting the good ones very much. Once upon a time the listener just tweaked the tone controls a little. Now we have the illusion of audiophilia while the manufacturers save by not installing tone controls.

[jim85iroc]

I've never really been a big subscriber of the "good speakers make bad recordings sound worse" kind of thinking. There are a lot of recordings that sound bad when I listen on a nice set of speakers, but they don't sound any better on crap speakers... it's just that the good recordings get brought down closer to that bad recording's level. The bad recordings still sound bad.

There's nothing about good speakers that will make a bad recording sound worse except more relative output in a range that better exposes the recording's flaws. If you wanted to design a speaker that helped to "smooth over" the flaws of a recording, I'd still use high quality, low distortion drivers, but design the system to have a bit more of a fletcher munson curve as opposed to flat. Take away a little midband, especially around 5khz, and the speaker will likely be more forgiving of bad recordings, but will also have less perceived detail on everything.

[wogg]

"But I've never come across anyone that wanted more harmonic distortion in a music reproduction environment."
Tube aficionados. They may not explicitly say they want more even order harmonic distortion, but that's exactly why they like their tubes.

[Geoff Millar]

I think that depends on your collection: if all we had was 60s or before, or poorly recorded and /or mixed material, I'd rather have less clear and detailed speakers.

I found retail high priced speakers disappointing, one reason why I decided to go DIY. Re frequency response, I think there's one nameless but famous company which takes legal action against people who publish its products FR graphs....

[fpitas]

Yeah but often the films are fun. Seldom so with poor recordings.