This expectation seems very different from the upper midrange brightness and "zing" you were reporting about this ribbon driver a few days ago.
Ron’s New System
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
This expectation seems very different from the upper midrange brightness and "zing" you were reporting about this ribbon driver a few days ago.
I don't know. I think it's rational to assume that the ribbon drivers do experience some break in. Either the original 4kHz brightness peak never was there and was a spurious iPhone app product, or it was there, and it has largely gone away all by itself, like magic.
Ron,
Presenting a single measurement to show or correlate something at 4000 Hz is meaningless and misleading - the wavelength is less than 10 cm. The minimum we can do is averaging a reasonable number of spatial distinct points - usually reviews take 20-30 measurements. I usually take 10, I am lazy.
Quoted from the John Atkinson the Stereophile Alexx V review
"I averaged 20 1/10-octave–smoothed spectra, individually taken for the left and right speakers, in a rectangular grid 36" wide by 18" high and centered on the positions of JCA's ears to produce the Alexx V's spatially averaged response (fig.4, red trace). "
John Atkinson wrote excellent articles in Stereophile about how the magazine measures speakers, the limitations of measurements and possible correlations. See https://www.google.com/search?as_q=...com&as_occt=any&safe=active&as_filetype=&tbs=
From his conclusion of the series
"• Any sound quality attribute always depends on more than one measurement.
• No one measurement tells the whole story about a speaker's sound quality.
• Measuring the performance of a loudspeaker involves subjective choices.
• All measurements tell lies.
• Most important, while measurements can tell you how a loudspeaker sounds, they can't tell you how good it is. If you carefully look at a complete set of measurements, you can actually work out a reasonably accurate prediction of how a loudspeaker will sound. However, the measured performance will not tell you if it's a good speaker or a great speaker, or if it's a good speaker or a rather boring-sounding speaker. To assess quality, the educated ear is still the only reliable judge."
IMO they are the minimum we must read before posting or discussing measurements. As always, IMP, YMMV.
Dear Ron,
what you just wrote, reminds me of myself doing almost the same approach to new things as you have done. I can relate to everything in your last post… I so happy for you, because I know how fun these periods are - breaking in new stuff - trying to get the most out of it. Don’t stop Ron… have all the fun you can with your monster system.
Nice that you concider the Helmholtz… They truly works…
All the best
/ Johan
In my view a Flat / down sloped FR is simply a basic requirement of good LS design , a rather important one
It doesnt lie , but off course its better to take 10 measurements and average them out , if a bump or gap persists you know you are on to something .
PS But i can also imagine that certain designers choose a transducer design that doesnt have the best FR but is capable of ( in their view ) more important sonic attributes , off course FR doesnt tell the whole story
It doesnt lie , but off course its better to take 10 measurements and average them out , if a bump or gap persists you know you are on to something .
PS But i can also imagine that certain designers choose a transducer design that doesnt have the best FR but is capable of ( in their view ) more important sonic attributes , off course FR doesnt tell the whole story
Last edited:
Been there , Done that …. He has evolvedWhy , did he move to cones ?
No, ribbons and planars tend to be smooth through the midband. Upper mid, lower treble zing was above that. As I posted, BG tells you that there is a resonance that must be tamed with a notch filter…it’s not speculation and it doesn’t go away with break in. What could happen with break in is that the frequency shifts a bit due to loosening up and matches better with the notch filter.
May also occur when a ribbon is pushed to operate close to or beyond the manufacturers specifications …
This post seems to me to be largely inapposite and way overbroad to what I am talking about. Where did I describe or extrapolate the overall sound of the speaker from my measurement of a single frequency peak? These excerpts have very little relevance to what I wrote about a single peak around 4kHz.
The excerpts and most of your post relates to holistic, overall sound quality and the numerous measurable ingredients that go into creating that sound quality. A single frequency response peak, which is all I referred to, has very little to do with overall "sound quality" or "how a speaker sounds" or with comprehensive measurements of a speaker.
The averaging process is needed to understand broadly and comprehensively the sound of speaker overall. One does not need 20 samples of a visually observable and sonically audible frequency peak.
Where did I post that a single observed peak "tells the whole story about a speaker's sound quality"? Where did I suggest that I am measuring the entire "performance" of the speaker?
Again, these excerpts discuss many issues not put into contention by my observation of a single peak. Feel free to discuss comprehensive speaker measurement and holistic assessment of sound quality derived from comprehensive speaker measurement in a general academic speaker measurement thread.
Your only potentially relevant point is your first one: "Presenting a single measurement to show or correlate something at 4000 Hz is meaningless and misleading."
I am not an acoustician, but this does not make sense to me. How is a measured frequency response peak, which correlates perfectly with a subjectively heard frequency response peak, "meaningless and misleading"?
Last edited:
Thank you, but "upper mid" and "lower treble" mean different different frequencies to different people.
Which frequency or narrow frequency range is the "zing" you are talking about?
i think when you get on the bathroom scale in the morning, you do get some truth. but it's not telling you the health of your heart, or your brain, or your blood, or if you can walk 5 miles or run 100 yards, or walk up a flight of stairs. or even stand up with out tipping over. or remember your name, smell the roses, or see the scale.
however the number on the scale is significant. but it's just a part of the picture....that might tell you "something".
however the number on the scale is significant. but it's just a part of the picture....that might tell you "something".
Given appreciation towards the unique situation of having the manufacturer, their US importer, and a prominent dealer all in the room to examine your speakers. As well that the better part of a decade in the crates appears to have created some material differences from those reported by two other owners with more immediate installations. While also accounting for the fact _____ is going to be ______ and all of this is what makes WBF great.
How out of line would find shoving aside all else to ask what your unmeasured, unverified, underlying gut feeling is about the sound and where you can make explorative changes within the room to confirm these. To your ears and the fine sense of guests you host who are less encapsulated in the environment you live in.
I interpret this to ask:
1) What is my current feeling about the sound?
2) What are the opportunities for future experimentation to alter the sound?
Please confirm, and I gladly will answer.
Consider it an upbeat social nicety attempting to push aside all the work and worry. To solicit a noncommitting answer that might prove insightful.
If you lightly pointed a finger at something that might produce positive changes within your room. What would that currently be?
yes, there is the visual part. ooooohhh, yuck.That's what mirrors are for.