advertisement


Harbeth M40.2 vs Graham Audio LS5/8

cooky1257 said:
Yes I'm well aware of the Neumann info-you really should block your port and get a sub.
Click to expand...

Since your knowledge is vastly superior could you tell me I can ditch the port plugging by high-passing my ported speakers at a frequency above the system resonance?

cooky1257 said:
YYou brought up Tannoy DC's.
The Tannoy link merely informs you it is perfectly possible to design a 2 way with low IMD.
Click to expand...

And the Neumann link merely informs that a three way is better than a two way in that respect (which is better than one), and going three way also gives potentially lower harmonic distortion in the bass.
This is clear in the graphs, which is why I like them.

cooky1257 said:
If you are intent on criticising designs and their designers it's best to be a bit more circumspect and a bit less dogmatic
Click to expand...
Like I've said a few times, my comments are in relation to absolute performance. A 2-way is the minimum but can be bettered.
All topologies have advantages and disadvantages but some have higher performance potential than others.
 
tuga said:
Since your knowledge is vastly superior could you tell me I can ditch the port plugging by high-passing my ported speakers at a frequency above the system resonance?
Click to expand...

Hmm jokes aside, Yes, I'd maybe still obstruct your port or at least fill with some damping material if its a pathway for reflected midrange output, turning your speakers into a sealed box by blocking off the ports will cause roll off to start higher in frequency, it would need to be modelled....If you really want to do this then I'd roll them off as high as you can get away with-the porting limits cone excursion anyway so to feel the IM benefit....note by introducing a sub you will also introduce more group delay..
http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neum...ing_knowledge_faqs_general-answers_question13
....see what I mean by compromises?-they're a bitch.


And the Neumann link merely informs that a three way is better than a two way in that respect (which is better than one), and going three way also gives potentially lower harmonic distortion in the bass.
Click to expand...

Do you know if those those graphs are from Neumann models or just worse case to establish a more general point?
 
Here's Troels Gravesen take on measurements (I wouldn't be surprised if he's built more speakers than anyone in the world)

Quote:
"A few comments on MEASUREMENTS before you start interpreting all the readings below.
First of all, if we think measurements will tell us how a speaker sounds, we're wrong. The perception of sound is way too subjective to be reflected in any measurements we can perform. A loudspeaker system is meant to give us a satisfying idea of an acoustic event and for some people a pair of 5 USD ear-plugs are enough, others spend 200 kUSD on a truly full-range pair of speakers - and the latter may not be happier than the former.
Measurements may give us an idea of tonal balance of a system, i.e. too much or too little energy in certain areas, although dispersion characteristics play a vital role here. A two-way 7+1 and a three-way 7+4+1 may display similar horizontal dispersion, yet sound very different. Measurements may tell us about bass extension if far-field measurements are merged with near-field measurements. In addition to this, ports may contribute to bass extension. Most of we diy'ers do not have access to an anechoic room for full-range measurements from 20-20000 Hz.
What cannot be seen is what kind of bass performance we get in a given room. Bass performance is highly dependent on in-room placement of your speaker and the same speaker can be boomy in one place and lean in another. Actual SPL level at 1 meter distance and 2.8V input is useful for en estimate of system sensitivity and combined with the impedance profile may give an idea of how powerful an amplifier is needed to drive the speaker to adequate levels.
What measurements do not tell is the very sound of the speaker unless displaying serious linear distortion. The level of transparency, the ability to resolve micro-details, the "speed" of the bass, etc., cannot be derived from these data. Distortion measurements rarely tell much unless seriously bad, and most modern drivers display low distortion within their specified operating range.
Many people put way too much into these graphs and my comments here are only meant as warning against over-interpretation. There are more to good sound than what can be extracted from a few graphs. Every graph needs interpretation in terms of what it means sonically and how it impacts our choice of mating drivers, cabinet and crossover design.
What measurements certainly do not tell is the sonic signature of the speaker, because speaker cones made from polypropylene, aluminum, Kevlar, paper, glass fiber, carbon fiber, magnesium, ceramics or even diamonds all have their way of adding spices to the stew. Nor do measurements tell what impact the quality of the crossover components add to the sound, from state of the art components to the cheapest of coils and caps, they all measure the same if values are correct, yet sound very different."
 
Subjectivly I've owned 10" Tannoy studio monitors with bodged crossovers (I replaced the ICW (Clarity Cap) caps with Mundorf supreme) and the thing that stood out when I first played them was the very realistic, clean midrange - female and male vocals were excellent.

I've heard my own diy speakers bass modulate the midrange (sounded like a robot) but that was at very high volumes and the drivers I used were asked to produce far more bass than they should. I never heard that with my Tannoys, even at very loud volumes. So although dopler distortion does exist, I don't think it's anything to worry about in reality.
 
Prof Wolfgang Klippel; Linear and nonlinear distortion is unavoidable in current electroacoustical transducers using a moving coil assembly driving diaphragms, cones, and other radiators. The regular distortion is deterministic and can be predicted by using linear and nonlinear models and identified loudspeaker parameters in an early design stage. Finding acceptable limits for those regular distortions is an important part in defining the target performance at the beginning of loudspeaker development.

Subjective evaluation is required to assess the audibility and the impact on perceived sound quality. Some distortions which are audible might still be acceptable or even desirable in some applications. Systematic listening tests, nonlinear auralization, and objective assessment based on a perceptual model are useful tools to assess regular distortion.
 
cooky1257 said:
Some distortions which are audible might still be acceptable or even desirable in some applications. Systematic listening tests, nonlinear auralization, and objective assessment based on a perceptual model are useful tools to assess regular distortion.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that, Quote from Paul Carmody speaker pages - "The Classix II is designed around the Dayton DC160 6.5" woofer. It's pretty easy to tell that I have a penchant for this driver--you may also notice that audiophiles and engineer-types eschew the DC160. I think it's all a matter of looking at the driver objectively vs. subjectively. Objectively, it has a "simple motor design" and its harmonic distortion graphs aren't all that impressive. Subjectively, however, this driver is "euphonic"--meaning that most ears find it very enjoyable and pleasing to listen to, despite poor measurements. I believe that if a driver sounds really good, then it's a good candidate for a speaker design, regardless of how it measures."
 
fatmarley said:
Funny you should say that, Quote from Paul Carmody speaker pages - "The Classix II is designed around the Dayton DC160 6.5" woofer. It's pretty easy to tell that I have a penchant for this driver--you may also notice that audiophiles and engineer-types eschew the DC160. I think it's all a matter of looking at the driver objectively vs. subjectively. Objectively, it has a "simple motor design" and its harmonic distortion graphs aren't all that impressive. Subjectively, however, this driver is "euphonic"--meaning that most ears find it very enjoyable and pleasing to listen to, despite poor measurements. I believe that if a driver sounds really good, then it's a good candidate for a speaker design, regardless of how it measures."
Click to expand...
Indeed, Klippel are the High Priests of measurement but that's their comment and philosophy ;-)
You can be sure Paul Carmody will get the best out of that driver-a trade off of craft.
 
eastone said:
Here's some cut-n-paste info that I think is highly pertinent to this discussion:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Click to expand...

Would it be of any worth to anyone else but me if I had and said I preferred one over the other because (insert what you like)?
That is absurd.

It's much more informative to discuss the pros and cons of each one and let the OP decide according to his taste.
 
fatmarley said:
Subjectivly I've owned 10" Tannoy studio monitors with bodged crossovers (I replaced the ICW (Clarity Cap) caps with Mundorf supreme) and the thing that stood out when I first played them was the very realistic, clean midrange - female and male vocals were excellent.

I've heard my own diy speakers bass modulate the midrange (sounded like a robot) but that was at very high volumes and the drivers I used were asked to produce far more bass than they should. I never heard that with my Tannoys, even at very loud volumes. So although dopler distortion does exist, I don't think it's anything to worry about in reality.
Click to expand...

cooky1257 said:
You brought up Tannoy DC's.
Click to expand...

Now I understand where the confusion comes from.
I meant to say that Tannoy and Genelec and I think Kef avoid doppler distortion either through horning or waveguiding the tweeter, my bad...

tuga said:
If the tweeter is located concentric to the woofer it is possible to reduce the dispersion of the tweeter at the bottom of its operating range, though the movement of the cone would produce Doppler distortion. Tannoy uses a horn tweeter, Genelec and I think Kef use a waveguide.
Click to expand...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...%20Paper.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2YwBUYa4wwIu_YJuOSB6U-
 
cooky1257 said:
Hmm jokes aside, Yes, I'd maybe still obstruct your port or at least fill with some damping material if its a pathway for reflected midrange output, turning your speakers into a sealed box by blocking off the ports will cause roll off to start higher in frequency, it would need to be modelled....If you really want to do this then I'd roll them off as high as you can get away with-the porting limits cone excursion anyway so to feel the IM benefit....note by introducing a sub you will also introduce more group delay..
Click to expand...

It was a rhetorical question but thanks anyway. Getting a pair of subs has crossed my mind but I hadn't thought about the group delay.

cooky1257 said:
http://www.neumann-kh-line.com/neum...ing_knowledge_faqs_general-answers_question13
....see what I mean by compromises?-they're a bitch.
Click to expand...

I also mentioned compromises.
Notwithstanding some topologies produce better performance than others.
 
eastone said:
The OP is asking for opinions on sonic qualities from people who've heard both speakers. You've heard neither.

I can see that you're trying to add to the discussion but the way you go about it really just amounts to thread-crapping.
Click to expand...

Some ( and not so) useful discussion here. In reality I can only judge them fairly when they are both inserted into a system which is sympathetic to both. Each of the designs has advantages and disadvantages I am well aware of, but hopefully will get the chance to hear both.
Interestingly enough I have experience with large two way systems the Spendor SA3 which uses a 12" Bextrene bass which is a diferent version to that used in both the BCIII and the S100 series, so tuned to work well above 2K. An even more interesting beast is the BBC LS5/1AE which uses a 15" Goodmans bass driver and a pair of Celestion HF1400 tweeters. In earlier versions one was rolled off above about 5 Khz, in later versions (the pair I have) they run in parallel from 1.7Khz. I only learnt this recenly when in conversation with one of the KEF Engineers who worked on the production version (realisation) of them!!
 
tuga said:
Don't mention Troels, @cooky1257 says he's just a man in a shed...
Click to expand...
Ah very good weasel comment ignoring the fact you shouldn't bring arguments from another forum here. The thread was about the Yamaha's NS1000 but the context was the obsession with so called 'improvements' and the ridiculous supposition driven by hifi nervosa that 'men in sheds' know more than the engineers who designed the NS1000M or, as was my rant, the fact I've yet to hear an 'improved' Tannoy crossover circuit that was better than a recapped original.I also pointed out that any crossover modified for 40 year old drivers and based upon measuring those drivers is actually specific to those drivers and not necessarily a generic one size fits all solution.

PS I responded to your request for help, I'm very generous with assistance or advice but in your case in future I'll regard any requests as purely rhetorical.
 
Last edited:
darkmatter said:
Interestingly enough I have experience with large two way systems the Spendor SA3 which uses a 12" Bextrene bass which is a diferent version to that used in both the BCIII and the S100 series, so tuned to work well above 2K.
Click to expand...

It was also slot loaded, which should help with dispersion at the top of its range.
 
cooky1257 said:
You are full of it. You were talking about off axis response irregularities from the step between a large drivers dispersion and a wider dispersion dome tweeter at crossover.
Click to expand...
Read again.

I said that using a tweeter inside a midwoofer improves the transition between both drivers off axis but the movement of the cone produces distortion.

I missed that bit of writing saying that Tannoy and others solve this. If you compare the dual-concentric of a TAD with that of the Genelec you will understand what I mean.

I like chatting with you but your agressiveness and fanboyism are a bit unpleasant...
 
cooky1257 said:
The thread was about the Yamaha's NS1000 but the context was the obsession with so called 'improvements' and the ridiculous supposition driven by hifi nervosa that 'men in sheds' know more than the engineers who designed the NS1000M or as was my rant, the fact I've yet to hear an 'improved' Tannoy crossover circuit that was better than a recapped original.I also pointed out that any crossover modified for 40 year old drivers and based upon measuring those drivers is actually specific to those drivers and not necessarily a generic one size fits all solution.
Click to expand...

Yes, heard friends speakers re-caps etc etc thought they nearly always sounded worse, only 'upgrade' or better resortration is to replace aged components with like for like components, have broken (sound wise) sevaral speakers as a yongster trying to 'upgrade' them.
 
Yank said:
It was also slot loaded, which should help with dispersion at the top of its range.
Click to expand...

Yes the width of the slots in both the SA3 and the LS5/1 are around 7" which translates to the wavelength of sound at around crossover of both systems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top