What Drivers to Stay Away from When Building Loudspeakers

[TheStalker]

Based upon your name alone I can tell you wont, but please go away.

ADTG is HARDLY a troll. Maybe a self-medicated goblin or a gremlin, but not a troll.

Your use of personal attacks clearly demonstrates you are the forum troll. If you ever forget, just look under your name!

You remind me so much of Ridikas it's ridiculous.

I write personal attacks? Look around and in the mirror buddy.

 

[j_garcia]

 

[monkish54]

I write personal attacks? Look around and in the mirror buddy.

The only person I've ever attacked on this or any other forum is Ridikas. In fact, I honestly apologized to him because I was out of line. I'm not attacking your person, Stalker, I'm attacking your actions. We should be held accountable for the things we say on this forum. I'm not attacking you as a person. I don't know you as a person. I simply ask that you either change your behavior or stop posting. Those little red bars tell me that others agree.

Anyway, I will entertain the idea that this is a thread created for more than trolling.

You stated that active XO's should not be used. Why is this? Active crossovers are almost completely superior to their passive counter parts. The only downfall is money. IMO, the ULTIMATE speaker would be active. There is simply less trade off.

 

[j_garcia]

Ahhh, Ridickass, one of only a very few people to earn the ignore list...until now...or again or whatever.

 

[TheStalker]

The only person I've ever attacked on this or any other forum is Ridikas. In fact, I honestly apologized to him because I was out of line. I'm not attacking your person, Stalker, I'm attacking your actions. We should be held accountable for the things we say on this forum. I'm not attacking you as a person. I don't know you as a person. I simply ask that you either change your behavior or stop posting. Those little red bars tell me that others agree.

Anyway, I will entertain the idea that this is a thread created for more than trolling.

You stated that active XO's should not be used. Why is this? Active crossovers are almost completely superior to their passive counter parts. The only downfall is money. IMO, the ULTIMATE speaker would be active. There is simply less trade off.

See, here's the thing... I agree that active is theoretically better, but... Show me one speaker which sounds amazing and is using an active crossover. I've listened to quite a few DEQX set-ups, but never came away amazed. Now after listening to Dynaudio Evidence Platinum and B&W 800 Diamond, I feel like I'm in music heaven. Going purely on what my ear likes, active crossovers are not it. At least nothing that has been made yet.

 

[monkish54]

See, here's the thing... I agree that active is theoretically better, but... Show me one speaker which sounds amazing and is using an active crossover. I've listened to quite a few DEQX set-ups, but never came away amazed. Now after listening to Dynaudio Evidence Platinum and B&W 800 Diamond, I feel like I'm in music heaven. Going purely on what my ear likes, active crossovers are not it. At least nothing that has been made yet.

Firstly, I would say that you can't initially blame the active xo for any of the DEQX setups you've heard. Just because they are active, doesn't mean they are designed properly. Perhaps they use a midrange through breakup or the bass alignment is off, etc. There is simply no telling.

Secondly, I can't show you any speaker that sounds amazing if the instrument of measurement is your ear. I'm not you. I will say that I'm not a big fan of the B&W 800D or the Dyn Confidence C2.

 

[TheStalker]

Firstly, I would say that you can't initially blame the active xo for any of the DEQX setups you've heard. Just because they are active, doesn't mean they are designed properly. Perhaps they use a midrange through breakup or the bass alignment is off, etc. There is simply no telling.

Secondly, I can't show you any speaker that sounds amazing if the instrument of measurement is your ear. I'm not you. I will say that I'm not a big fan of the B&W 800D or the Dyn Confidence C2.

I was all about measurements once. Hardcore. But you know what I came to realize? When it comes to sound, it's very difficult to measure what sounds good and design something to sound good. You can have the best measuring speaker in the world, but who cares if it sounds flat, closed-in, and boring? Here's a challenge. Try to be as open minded as possible and not biased. Go out and listen to everything that you can find. Use only your ears and make a list. It will open your eyes and you'll see the light.

I'm very close to concluding that the very best speakers ever made were purely accidental. The measurements only get you into ballpark, lightning in a bottle gets you the heart and soul.

 

[monkish54]

I was all about measurements once. Hardcore. But you know what I came to realize? When it comes to sound, it's very difficult to measure what sounds good and design something to sound good. You can have the best measuring speaker in the world, but who cares if it sounds flat, closed-in, and boring? Here's a challenge. Try to be as open minded as possible and not biased. Go out and listen to everything that you can find. Use only your ears and make a list. It will open your eyes and you'll see the light.

I'm very close to concluding that the very best speakers ever made were purely accidental. The measurements only get you into ballpark, lightning in a bottle gets you the heart and soul.

When I was talking about the instrument of measurement being your ear I wasn't necessarily saying it had to be a microphone, I was saying since I don't have your ear I can't tell you what will sound good.

]I was all about measurements once. Hardcore. But you know what I came to realize? When it comes to sound, it's very difficult to measure what sounds good and design something to sound good.

I stated it much more eloquently in another thread somewhere but I can't find it. I don't particularly care what "sounds good". I seek speakers that are neutral and act as a window to the music, not speakers that act as an instrument themselves. I would rather have a neutral speaker over a colored speaker even if I found the colored speaker more enjoyable.

 

[walter duque]

What do you think about these drivers? Any good or what?????

 

[TheStalker]

What do you think about these drivers? Any good or what?????

Pretty darn good. Used them myself numerous times, just slightly different tweeters. The Revelator woofers are GTG. Having said that, NOTHING beats the poly cones in the Audio Technology (Skaaning) drivers. They are simply magical. They are fast and have an incredible snap. They bathe your ear with tons of micro detail in the midrange. And all while being extremely musical and polite. No harshness, or forwardness, or analytical presentation.

 

[monkish54]

Pretty darn good. Used them myself numerous times, just slightly different tweeters. The Revelator woofers are GTG. Having said that, NOTHING beats the poly cones in the Audio Technology (Skaaning) drivers. They are simply magical. They are fast and have an incredible snap. They bathe your ear with tons of micro detail in the midrange. And all while being extremely musical and polite. No harshness, or forwardness, or analytical presentation.

I'm not a fan of ring radiators, though they have their place. Audio Tech is alright. They are quite over priced, IMO. Some of their units posses a very linear frequency response but they lack the linear excursion and linear motor I would expect at their price point. Why not go with Illuminator or Revelator drivers at the $300 mark? *shrugs*

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/klippel-reviews-driver-specs/124745-audio-technology-c-quenze-18h-automotive-version.html

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/klippel-reviews-driver-specs/115001-scanspeak-illuminator18wu-4741t00-klippel-test-data.html

 

[TheStalker]

I'm not a fan of ring radiators, though they have their place. Audio Tech is alright. They are quite over priced, IMO. Some of their units posses a very linear frequency response but they lack the linear excursion and linear motor I would expect at their price point. Why not go with Illuminator or Revelator drivers at the $300 mark? *shrugs*

Car Audio | DiyMobileAudio.com | Car Stereo Forum

Car Audio | DiyMobileAudio.com | Car Stereo Forum

The Illuminators cannot produce that magical midrange that Audio Techology can. The light poly cone of the Audio Technology drivers sounds like Stax headphones. The speed, snap, micro detail is just sensational. It's very addicting. Illuminators are edgier and slower. That amazingly effortless presentation is a bit gone.

 

[monkish54]

The Illuminators cannot produce that magical midrange that Audio Techology can. The light poly cone of the Audio Technology drivers sounds like Stax headphones. The speed, snap, micro detail is just sensational. It's very addicting. Illuminators are edgier and slower. That amazingly effortless presentation is a bit gone.

The Illuminator's are ±0.5db up to 1khz and ±1db from 100hz to 2khz with great HD and very linear inductance.* Any edginess you've heard came from a speaker crossed far too high. AFAIC, the Illuminators are the (midwoofer) drivers to beat right now.

*18WU/4741T-00

I've personally heard the Illuminator in the Salk Silk and I was incredibly impressed with the performance of that speaker.

As for the Illuminators being faster or slower, I'm not sure what that means...

The drivers can move frequently enough to produce, say, 3000hz, and thus fast enough (S=D/T) to do so at db level X, but if the drivers have the exact same radiating area, are placed in the same location, and played at the same SPL they will move the same speed. The magnetic field strength (BL) necessary to move them at this speed (read SPL) might be different but that's not really relevant. Even if it was, the Illuminator has a much more linear BL anyway...

 

[TheStalker]

The Illuminator's are ±0.5db up to 1khz and ±1db from 100hz to 2khz with great HD and very linear inductance.* Any edginess you've heard came from a speaker crossed far too high. AFAIC, the Illuminators are the (midwoofer) drivers to beat right now.

*18WU/4741T-00

I've personally heard the Illuminator in the Salk Silk and I was incredibly impressed with the performance of that speaker.

As for the Illuminators being faster or slower, I'm not sure what that means...

The drivers can move frequently enough to produce, say, 3000hz, and thus fast enough (S=D/T) to do so at db level X, but if the drivers have the exact same radiating area, are placed in the same location, and played at the same SPL they will move the same speed. The magnetic field strength (BL) necessary to move them at this speed (read SPL) might be different but that's not really relevant. Even if it was, the Illuminator has a much more linear BL anyway...

No offense, but this is all about ten years ago for me. I'm way past these basic measurements and novice explanations. I can tell you that the rabbit hole has not even been entered yet if we are to include psychoacoustics. Keep digging and you'll see how complex and confusing it gets. Best advice that I can give you is to just go out and listen Or better yet, purchase the Audio Technology drivers and the Illuminators and play around yourself.

 

[monkish54]

No offense, but this is all about ten years ago for me. I'm way past these basic measurements and novice explanations.

None taken. No offense to you, but I'm not sure you are. You made a claim that is simply, provably incorrect.

I can tell you that the rabbit hole has not even been entered yet if we are to include psychoacoustics.

Well if we are talking about "speed" and pschoacoustics my first thought would be group delay as that is what many hear as "speed".

 

[monkish54]

The Illuminator's are ±0.5db up to 1khz and ±1db from 100hz to 2khz with great HD and very linear inductance.* Any edginess you've heard came from a speaker crossed far too high. AFAIC, the Illuminators are the (midwoofer) drivers to beat right now.

*18WU/4741T-00

I've personally heard the Illuminator in the Salk Silk and I was incredibly impressed with the performance of that speaker.

As for the Illuminators being faster or slower, I'm not sure what that means...

The drivers can move frequently enough to produce, say, 3000hz, and thus fast enough (S=D/T) to do so at db level X, but if the drivers have the exact same radiating area, are placed in the same location, and played at the same SPL they will move the same speed. The magnetic field strength (BL) necessary to move them at this speed (read SPL) might be different but that's not really relevant. Even if it was, the Illuminator has a much more linear BL anyway...

For the sake of complete accuracy, the two drivers being discussed do not have the same radiating area, and thus one will travel faster. Let's see how much. Both drivers are in a sealed box with a QTC of 0.703.

At 50.03hz the Illuminator is playing at 104.309db and the Audio Tech is playing at 104.308db. The illuminator is subjected to 200 watts of power and the Audio Tech is subjected to 464 watts of power.

At this SPL the Illuminator is moving at 1.80483583 mph

At this SPL the Audio Tech is moving at 2.04186952 mph

This is 806.83381mm/s and 912.79735mm/s respectively.

The Audio Tech drive unit is moving a little faster to compensate for the smaller SD. It's also moving farther through a non-linear motor than the Illuminator is moving through a very linear motor, and is soaking up 2.32 time the amount of power doing it.**

**This simulation was done at an SPL neither of these drivers were meant to play in a sealed box at 50hz. The xmax for each driver is 16.127mm and 18.245mm at 50.03hz- the Illuminator being the former.

The group delay at 50.03hz for the Illuminator and Audio Tech driver are:

Illuminator
3.958ms

Audio Technology
3.015ms

That is a very, very small amount of delay. In the case of the Illuminator that is ~1/5th of a 50.03hz wavelength and even less for the Audio Tech driver. The rule of thumb is less than 2 wavelengths for any frequency being played. Again, the Illuminator signal hangs on for 1/5th of one wavelength. If you can hear 3 vs 4ms of group delay at 50.03hz, you should add speaker ports to the list of technologies the industry should do away with.

With this in mind, I amend my statement. You did not make a scientifically inaccurate statement and I apologize for accusing you of having done this. However, the validity of your claim that one of the drivers has more detail because it is a tad faster is clearly rubbish. The Illuminator is far more linear than the Audio Tech, soaks up less power (less VC heating, less impedance increase, less power compression, etc.) and they are both well behaved in respect to group delay in the "ideal" sealed enclosure for each. This leads me to believe the specific speakers you heard or the room was at fault for the "slow" sound of the Illuminator and not the design of the driver itself.

Also for the sake of complete accuracy, you claimed one driver sounded "faster" in the midrange not the bass. Since these are 7" drivers, I wouldn't use them even close to 3khz. I'm sure you agree. If you would like, I will use a smaller Audio Tech driver and compare the group delay to an Illuminator of similar size at a higher frequency. I don't want to just go ahead and do it because I'm unsure of which Audio Tech driver you heard and it would be most accurate to run simulations with that specific driver. I would very much like to run that simulation as you could be correct. My goal is to discover the truth, not prove you wrong. I would guess whichever driver has more surface area will have increased group delay at higher frequencies. I don't think the simulated delay will be significant, but perhaps it will be.

To your point, the Audio Tech driver is far better behaved at 3khz and would pair much better with a tweeter in a CD waveguide than the Illuminator. To my point, the linear xmax is quite low, so it wouldn't do too well in the low end of the spectrum when paired with a CD waveguide.

 

[TheStalker]

But have you heard both drivers? I've heard the Illuminator and actually designed with AT and Revelator. You present very basic measurement parameters. There's much more to sound. We haven't even begun to scratch the surface with our current knowledge and measuring techniques. Read some of the more interesting articles here: Linkwitz Lab - Loudspeaker Design The more you dig, the more complex the maze becomes. And sometimes the ear is the only way to make a final judgment. Basic measurements are just there to get a designer in the ballpark. Take a look at the Scanspeak silk Illuminator tweeter and the Beryllium tweeter. On paper and using most common measuring techniques, they are 99% identical. But to an ear, the difference is night and day.

 

[monkish54]

Take a look at the Scanspeak silk Illuminator tweeter and the Beryllium tweeter. On paper and using most common measuring techniques, they are 99% identical. But to an ear, the difference is night and day.

Can you give me a link? I don't see a silk Illuminator tweeter.

 

[TheStalker]

Can you give me a link? I don't see a silk Illuminator tweeter.

Come on brew. It's all over the web: The Madisound Speaker Store

 

[lsiberian]

Oh I missed out on all the fun.

I guess my speakers are going to suck because they use ribbon tweeters and active crossovers.

Don't worry guys OP just got out of school for the winter break. A bored kid that probably loves audio as much as trolling. This way OP gets to do both.