Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31

Thread: Audible Physics XR3M-LE and AR3K Driver Test Discussion

  1. #11
    Tester Extraordinaire ErinH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,247
    cvjoint, I understand where the confusion really started and that was completely my fault. I've edited that particular post to make it clear that my point wasn't that this driver WILL sound the ways I posted; rather that the driver shows different characteristics to me than it does you and that goes to show that SQ really is subjective even though we realize the fundamental goal of a sound system should be to produce the original content faithfully. Preference just seems to take over whether we like it or not.

    However, if we know what's 'behind' the driver, we can use that to help define our preferences in a technical viewpoint and make us a much wiser shopper.
    Last edited by ErinH; 04-13-2011 at 04:37 PM.
    Your ears: The best tools you have... and they're free, too!

  2. #12
    Tester Extraordinaire ErinH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,247
    Quote Originally Posted by shinjohn View Post
    Erin,
    This is great data, really appreciate your efforts to post it. I for one think it's an invaluable thing for the DIY community that you are doing. Really excellent!
    Might I suggest the discussion portion of this thread be parsed into a separate thread?
    Thank you very much. It truly is a wear mentally and physically so I appreciate that folks appreciate it. ;)
    *I stayed up until 1 am posting this stuff last night and slept for 5 hours afterward. It's very time consuming.
    Your ears: The best tools you have... and they're free, too!

  3. #13
    Founding Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by shinjohn View Post
    This is great data, really appreciate your efforts to post it. I for one think it's an invaluable thing for the DIY community that you are doing. Really excellent!
    Might I suggest the discussion portion of this thread be parsed into a separate thread?
    +1 to all of the above. Except, being a pedantic twit, I would've written "These data are great!" as my first sentence.

    I think it would be beneficial both in terms of ease of finding measurements and in terms of learning from them if "results" were locked down and "discussion" commenced in a separate thread (perhaps with a link on the bottom of the locked measurements).

    As for my thoughts...I'll wait until things are moved to make things (presumably) easier for the mods (Or unless they're not. If they are, this post can be happily deleted.) However, one general observation. I don't think linear distortion (aka nonflat frequency response) is necessarily a big deal. Today we have processors to fix that. It's the nonlinear stuff that's more problematic. However, it's also fairly clear that these drivers cease being a linear system at a point somewhat south of 2kHz. The interesting question, then, is why. Is it by design, or is it because of some surround/phase plug/other resonance that could be much harder to treat and/or be one of those things that one doesn't necessarily glom onto right away but might contribute to longer-term listening fatigue. The downside is that the only real way to answer the "why" is to look what (to steal a term of art from academia) peer and aspirational drive-units do in the same region, and see what's different. I'm surprised we don't see anything corresponding to the FR bump in the impedance curve.
    Last edited by DS-21; 04-13-2011 at 04:54 PM.

  4. #14
    Tester Extraordinaire ErinH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,247
    Jay, I agree about the mfg perspective.
    Ultimately, I hope to ultimately get some feedback from MFG's (not just Mark; future tested drivers' manufacturers, too) regarding why it might be we're seeing what we're seeing.

    Also, I agree about FR not being a huge driving factor. I look at it form the perspective of "okay, how much will I likely wind up trying to fix". But, realistically, I've not had huge issues with drivers' FR in a long time. The real meat to me will be the HD plots which I hope to be able to correlate to sound.


    Regarding the FR bump vs. impedance, keep in mind that the two tests were performed differently. Why? Because small signal alalysis is typically done in a free-air, non-mounted manner. Of course, I'm early enough in the game to change that regimine (ie: before I start down the road of further testing). I can easily do t/s and impedance sweeps with the driver on a baffle if that is a group decision. Realistically, as long as the methods are consistent then the relative data is good. I certaintly wouldn't say that my data is Gospel (aka: absolute). The work and effort was put into this task to make it as rooted in application as necessary, taking aspects from others' test setups and implementing some of my own. My goal was to stay on the path of what we are used to seeing given that, if someone does slip and try to compare mine to another, at least the methods will be somewhat the same.

    but again, I've been seeking input/advice on this topic for a month now. I implore everyone to give their two cents now. It's not too late, but the deadline is QUICKLY approaching. ;)
    See the MSS Test Plan thread for further discussion.
    http://www.mobilesoundscience.com/f1...html#post10182
    Last edited by ErinH; 04-13-2011 at 05:39 PM.
    Your ears: The best tools you have... and they're free, too!

  5. #15
    Founding Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    274
    Erin,

    One (hopefully non-annoying) suggestion. Could you throw another, similar driver on there that is known to generally not have such issues (say, an Aura NS3 or Scan 10F) measured at the same distance to see if the ~2kHz hump repeats? There's a chance it could be a measurement artifact.

    And I somehow missed the discussion of impedance measurements before. I think it would be more useful to have the impedance measurements taken along with the FR measurements. Or, perhaps, run them both ways a few times to see if there are any notable differences. (I've not tried that experiment.) If not, obvious go with whatever's easiest.

  6. #16
    Devil's Advocate Adam_MSS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,578
    Real Name
    Adam
    I haven't examined the data in detail yet (on iPhone between meetings at the moment) but I would like to caution folks against jumping to definitive conclusions that may not be well founded. Certainly there is a lot of value to be gathered from the data, however, we can do ourselves (and the "science" of mobile audio) a disservice if we are not holistic in our evaluation.

    It's entirely reasonable to identify concerns, apparent anomalies, etc. and then frame a discussion around the potential causes and implications of such. I think it's somewhat less reasonable to jump all the way to "it will sound bad" or "it will sound just like the artist intended". There can be little certainty in such statements absent some larger contextual framework (the discussion about whether sounding "good" is related to accuracy of reproduction or listener preference could fill a book). Relative comparison has more merit, but still we have to be mindful that we are ultimately listening to entire "systems" in varying "environments" and those intentionally vague words appropriately imply the number of variables at play, most of which are not evaluated in a carefully controlled test like this.

    Thank you Erin for providing this data. It is extremely valuable and will increase in value as we see additional data from other drivers using this same setup and methodology to allow us to evaluate relative performance.
    You don't use science to show that you're right, you use science to become right. - R.Munroe

    The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them. - W.L.Bragg



  7. #17
    Tester Extraordinaire ErinH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,247
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    It is extremely valuable and will increase in value as we see additional data from other drivers using this same setup and methodology to allow us to evaluate relative performance.
    I've tried to stress this numerous times and it can't be said enough. My data is not absolute. It is what I've obtained and should be viewed singularly with caution while placing more weight in relative data I post down the line.



    Jay, I had planned to do so with the 18w sometime on Friday. The next two days are blackout days for further testing, unless my baby goes to bed early tonight.


    FWIW, the klippel arrived today but I'm still waiting for the key to unlock the case.
    Last edited by ErinH; 04-13-2011 at 07:09 PM.
    Your ears: The best tools you have... and they're free, too!

  8. #18
    Founding Member 86mr2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by ErinH View Post
    Jay, I had planned to do so with the 18w sometime on Friday.
    Awesome to see some data! Like Jay says, I am eager to see some "known" drivers in the setup, it gives me some perspective on the results. If it were not cross border, I'd send you my Dayton RS-180's and TB W3-871's to try.

  9. #19
    Founding Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post
    Except, being a pedantic twit, I would've written "These data are great!" as my first sentence.
    Nice catch. I may not be alone in my usage of the term as a mass noun, but that doesn't make it right.

    Quote Originally Posted by wikipedia
    In English, the word datum is still used in the general sense of "something given". In cartography, geography, nuclear magnetic resonance and technical drawing it is often used to refer to a single specific reference datum from which distances to all other data are measured. Any measurement or result is a datum, but data point is more common,[1] albeit tautological. Both datums (see usage in datum article) and the originally Latin plural data are used as the plural of datum in English, but data is commonly treated as a mass noun and used with a verb in the singular form, especially in day-to-day usage. For example, This is all the data from the experiment. This usage is inconsistent with the rules of Latin grammar and traditional English (These are all the data from the experiment). Even when a very small quantity of data is referenced (One number, for example) the phrase piece of data is often used, as opposed to datum. The debate over appropriate usage is ongoing.
    Many style guides[2] and international organizations, such as the IEEE Computer Society,[3] allow usage of data as either a mass noun or plural based on author preference. Other professional organizations and style guides[4] require that authors treat data as a plural noun. For example, the Air Force Flight Test Center specifically states that the word data is always plural, never singular.[5]
    Data is accepted as a singular mass noun in everyday educated usage.[6][7] Some major newspapers such as The New York Times use it either in the singular or plural. In the New York Times the phrases "the survey data are still being analyzed" and "the first year for which data is available" have appeared on the same day.[citation needed] In scientific writing data is often treated as a plural, as in These data do not support the conclusions, but it is also used as a singular mass entity like information. British usage now widely accepts treating data as singular in standard English,[8] including everyday newspaper usage[9] at least in non-scientific use.[10] UK scientific publishing still prefers treating it as a plural.[11] Some UK university style guides recommend using data for both singular and plural use[12] and some recommend treating it only as a singular in connection with computers.[13]

  10. #20
    Tester Extraordinaire ErinH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    1,247
    Ask and you shall receive...

    ScanSpeak 18w/4531g PDF with MFG response:
    https://www.madisound.com/store/manu...00-feb2011.pdf

    My measured response and 0 and 30*.
    I'm almost tit-for-tat with their 0 degree results. Not sure what axis they use for the others, however, it looks like it's close to my 30* measurement except for the boost I have @ 12khz. Fussy baby, so analysis will have to be picked up later.

    Last edited by ErinH; 04-13-2011 at 10:05 PM.
    Your ears: The best tools you have... and they're free, too!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •