Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • mzisserson
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    Originally posted by Jeff B. View Post
    You know, that just doesn't add up. That's been my point. I have found that my measurements match up to how the speaker subjectively sounds very closely, and not just in my home but in venues like InDIYana where they were heard by dozens of people. Anything that sounds "piercingly bright" should not measure flat. So, I am confused about what "textbook perfect" means in the context of this statement. If, on the other hand, you measured a driver in one environment and designed based on those measurements, and then listened in a completely different environment with very different acoustics, then I could see why you might need to make some adjustments. I try to keep that environment constant throughout the process.

    Jeff
    Would it measure well if the distortion was high? It can be independent if not necessarily a breakup, no? Just wondering, because I have heard similar things. And when people describe a speaker as bright, it usually has amounted to excess enegery in the 3-6K band. Though it should be higher, it usually is not.

    Leave a comment:


  • spasticteapot
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    I'm by far the least competent talking head in the crowd, but have you run distortion tests at high output? I remember once seeing a comparison of the Peerless HDS (now budget ScanSpeak) tweeter next to the AirCirc; the results were very similar at low levels but the AirCirc was markedly better if you crank up the juice.

    Lobing and off-axis dispersion could definitely be issues, but I wouldn't imagine it being problematic at that low a crossover frequency.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jeff B.
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    Originally posted by fjhuerta View Post
    textbook-perfect, yet piercingly-bright.
    You know, that just doesn't add up. That's been my point. I have found that my measurements match up to how the speaker subjectively sounds very closely, and not just in my home but in venues like InDIYana where they were heard by dozens of people. Anything that sounds "piercingly bright" should not measure flat. So, I am confused about what "textbook perfect" means in the context of this statement. If, on the other hand, you measured a driver in one environment and designed based on those measurements, and then listened in a completely different environment with very different acoustics, then I could see why you might need to make some adjustments. I try to keep that environment constant throughout the process.

    Jeff

    Leave a comment:


  • critofur
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    In the last decade or two, I have only heard ONE model of speaker (DIY or Commercial) which did not have some charactaristic which I did not like. Every other speaker I've heard has had some aspect or another about the sound which I found displeasing (this includes multiple events such as MWAF and DIY Indiana).

    Here is the average of measurements from the "listening window" of 15 degrees in all four directions (L, R, U, D) done by the National Research Council of Canada:



    EDIT: I made a mistake that is the "2" version, it is the original, not the "2" that I liked, I have not heard the 2, though the measurements are almost the same, I could not find the chart for the original...

    Leave a comment:


  • GranteedEV
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    Originally posted by fastbike1 View Post
    So wait a minute, are you saying that the simulation should/does/can account for the environment the speaker is in? Very interested in your reasoning if that's the case.
    Dunno about the simulation doing that, but to whatever extent is practical, there are some things that shouldn't necessarily need to be voiced by ear. You can generally decide what kind of dispersion pattern or lower midrange balance you want to shoot for for example, before you ever touch the sims, simply by examining the room and intended placement.

    Like I said, it's not cheating to compensate for it afterwards, but it highlights that someone wasn't accounted for in the first place. IME when you compensate for one thing (IE sibilance) with EQ of any sort, you may be messing up another thing (tonal balance of, say, a trumpet). How do you hit a broad range of instruments' tonal balance if the measurements aren't agreeing with the ears? They "should".

    Leave a comment:


  • fastbike1
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    Glad you've got something (or are closer) that you like better.

    Originally posted by fjhuerta View Post
    It's incredible how much of a change a simple resistor can make.

    Before, I thought my "flat on axis, controlled off axis" speakers were textbook-perfect, yet piercingly-bright.

    I lowered the mids a bit, and the tweeter a bit more (2 dB, nothing brutal).

    Now, my ears "lock-in" the bass as the "correct" signal, and not on the tweeter and mid (thereby making the speaker "bright"). I feel everything a lot more balanced. Even pink noise sounds as it should (or at least, as I've learned it should).

    Amazing what a difference such a minimal change can make!

    Leave a comment:


  • fjhuerta
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    It's incredible how much of a change a simple resistor can make.

    Before, I thought my "flat on axis, controlled off axis" speakers were textbook-perfect, yet piercingly-bright.

    I lowered the mids a bit, and the tweeter a bit more (2 dB, nothing brutal).

    Now, my ears "lock-in" the bass as the "correct" signal, and not on the tweeter and mid (thereby making the speaker "bright"). I feel everything a lot more balanced. Even pink noise sounds as it should (or at least, as I've learned it should).

    Amazing what a difference such a minimal change can make!

    Leave a comment:


  • billschu
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    Having heard Mike's Fatbelly's in my own listening room that I've heard quite a lot of high end speakers in, I'd like to mention that the dip wasn't really apparent to me.

    I did hear a slight emphasis around 2Khz but it was really subtle and only apparent when listening to horns. That being said, my reference speakers at the time had a slight dip around 2Khz so everything is relative.

    I think it comes back to power response. The tweeter is going to have some seriously wide dispersion around 1Khz so it's going to excite more energy in that range into the room. I suspect the phase skew there helps to lessen that effect in a more gradual manner and help make the dispersion disparities between the drivers blend better.

    Remember that he's mixing a woofer that could almost be called a 10" with a dome tweeter. A delicate operation for sure.

    Bill

    Originally posted by mzisserson View Post
    If you have any suggestions to the poor decisions I made with the Fatbelly's, I am all ears. Furthermore distortion actually DECREASES at x-over through the tweeter's response. Simulated power response is smooth, to spite the dip in fq response. SO at what point to you quantify an arguably audible phonomea showing up on a microphone as precieveable, or not precieable to the complexity of our earS?

    What's the white stuff in bird p00p? It's p00p too! Sometimes things that should not work, do. Jeff is very correct as to a single measurement not defining a speaker's sound. Heck, you look at Stereophiles measurements of ANY speaker and they are all over the place. Yet many are raved about from the $199 pioneers to the $35,000 monsters of moneymaking. Quite honestly I have found waterfalls, simulated power responce, distortion and impedance to mean more than anything. Sure, it's my flavor and everyone like's their own. But bottom line is if it sounds good, there is not question that it is a good design.

    The whole point is I would hate to see anyone discourage taking whatever path works for them. Weather we like it or not, there is more than one way to skin this cat. If voicing gets anyone happy with their design, so be it. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • mzisserson
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    Originally posted by johnnyrichards View Post
    Some 90db distortion sweeps would be interesting to see.
    IOU..... Will do by the weekened. I agree.

    Leave a comment:


  • fastbike1
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    So wait a minute, are you saying that the simulation should/does/can account for the environment the speaker is in? Very interested in your reasoning if that's the case.


    Originally posted by GranteedEV View Post
    It's not cheating, but I do sincerely believe the need to voice is highlighting some fundamental design flaw, somewhere. For example, those drivers would have very wide dispersion... that might not be the best idea.
    Last edited by fastbike1; 05-16-2012, 12:47 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • GranteedEV
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    It's not cheating, but I do sincerely believe the need to voice is highlighting some fundamental design flaw, somewhere. For example, those drivers would have very wide dispersion... that might not be the best idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnnyrichards
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    Some 90db distortion sweeps would be interesting to see.

    Leave a comment:


  • mzisserson
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    Originally posted by johnnyrichards View Post
    Mike, what is the excursion of that dome tweeter?

    Don't take it personally, just speculating. I think the 1K crossover was the poor choice, and no coincidence that you have a depression in that region to make it work.
    None taken. The Fs is 475Hz and 1.6mm is listed as the excursion. .3mm is "linear". As I said the weird thing is the distortion measured very low either way. .. Mabye jclin is onto something that 5th order does come way up from 600 to 1K. The brickwall on the Fatbelly's tweeter is 800Hz, crossed at -3dB at 1200 with a 2nd order slope to 800.

    5th order... weird. What the heck caused 5th order? I never pay much attention beyond 3rd unless something is heinously wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnnyrichards
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    Mike, what is the excursion of that dome tweeter?

    Don't take it personally, just speculating. I think the 1K crossover was the poor choice, and no coincidence that you have a depression in that region to make it work.

    Leave a comment:


  • mzisserson
    replied
    Re: "Voicing" or "tuning" a speaker after a simulation... cheating?

    Originally posted by johnnyrichards View Post
    This is why I love this forum. There is nothing wrong with flat on-axis, provided off-axis doesn't create its own problems (think about the bloom above the crossover point in 4th order LR networks for example).

    A dip is often used when drivers are not working in their optimal range - most cheap midwoofers have a rising 3rd order harmonic in the crossover range, suppressing the fundamental in that region can help "fix" it, call it a BBC dip if you want to, but it works equally well to combat certain driver shortcomings. I am starting to think most deliberate dips are the result of poor decisions elsewhere, not necessarily a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination - but to use Mike's "Fatbellies" as an example, I wonder if the forwardness he experiences with the tweeter in normal polarity is from the low crossover point? The dip very well could be helping to mask some distortion in that range.

    On the bottom end, a high Q bump can help mask the lack of extension of smaller drivers, or help mask floor bounce. I find it amusing that many of us (myself included) will look at drivers with a high Q with suspicion and then go ahead and engineer that into our designs

    Then there is the room and music preferences and personal hearing loss...

    These are the threads the boys from Harman need to chime in on - they have some experience removing the eyeballs and wallets from the listening experience.

    If you have any suggestions to the poor decisions I made with the Fatbelly's, I am all ears. Furthermore distortion actually DECREASES at x-over through the tweeter's response. Simulated power response is smooth, to spite the dip in fq response. SO at what point to you quantify an arguably audible phonomea showing up on a microphone as precieveable, or not precieable to the complexity of our earS?

    What's the white stuff in bird p00p? It's p00p too! Sometimes things that should not work, do. Jeff is very correct as to a single measurement not defining a speaker's sound. Heck, you look at Stereophiles measurements of ANY speaker and they are all over the place. Yet many are raved about from the $199 pioneers to the $35,000 monsters of moneymaking. Quite honestly I have found waterfalls, simulated power responce, distortion and impedance to mean more than anything. Sure, it's my flavor and everyone like's their own. But bottom line is if it sounds good, there is not question that it is a good design.

    The whole point is I would hate to see anyone discourage taking whatever path works for them. Weather we like it or not, there is more than one way to skin this cat. If voicing gets anyone happy with their design, so be it. There is nothing inherently "wrong" with it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X