# 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)



## Niebur3

*6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

Finally, the test you have been waiting for is finished. Before you read the results I would like to give you some insight. As with the first Ultimate Midrange Test, this was intense with much help, research, and time devoted. Many of you were grateful for my efforts and I have received numerous requests for more qualified reviews of this caliber. I know many of you have been wondering why i went to such an effort to give You magazine quality results. It's because I have been wanting to start a quality publication for the mobile audio industry for some time. I truly love this industry and for many it's a passion. In the coming months we will be releasing more details and the first issue to follow which will include this test amongst others. Please respect my efforts and read the whole article in its entirety. 

Thanks again for being patient and a special thanks to all the members who donated their time, money and/or drivers for use in this test. Enjoy!


Note: 
This thread is intended for discussion of test results and methodolgies when applicable. To view the history of this test and how it came about, along with discussions that took place before the test itself was performed, please visit my thread here:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...ve-listening-shootout-dyn-hat-scan-focal.html


----------



## TexZen

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I think I'm about to pass out with anticipation...

Thanks for all of your time & hard work!

:rockon:


----------



## SkizeR

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Am i missing something or are these not the results? lol and your page has 1 more like


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I haven't fully read this yet; just did a quick cursory read through it. some results are a bit surprising, others aren't. 

scan speak 18wu as a pack leader. glad to see my praise held up in this testing. 

the 18sound's results are surprising, given everyone's love for it. I've yet to really look at data for it and still have yet to test the one donated for this particular test.


great work, Jerry. from what I've seen, the attention to detail is excellent and the data really helps provide a strong technical aspect to a subjective listening test.

kudos. 

- Erin


----------



## DAT

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

WOW, I got some questions, ... Hey the L6se is not a tier 1 driver?


----------



## SkizeR

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

DAMN GOOD WRITE UP!! Thank you so much for putting forth your time and effort. Thanks for securing my Scan Speak/Anarchy setup. (knew they would both do great in the test haha)


----------



## Hanatsu

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Nice, I actually guessed that the Anarchys would end up at 4th place or so. I thought some of the tested would end up higher. Scan 18WU and the Exodus would be the top performance vs price in this test I guess. Thanks for all the work you put into publishing this, looking forward to the details later on


----------



## adrenalinejunkie

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Will check this out in a bit. Thanks for all the hard work guys.


----------



## Wesayso

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Very nice write-up! Too bad the revelaters didn't make it into the test. I bet they would have ended up high too based on Zaph's testing. 
And how about that Anarchy! Great reading!


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

***EVERYONE, PLEASE REMEMBER TO "LIKE" MY PAGE SO I GET AN ACCURATE COUNT***


----------



## ISTundra

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Thanks Jerry for the efforts to conduct the test and put this summary together. Question tho... what if you're one of the 1% (people not on FB). Anywhere to get a PDF of this?

I've owned 4 of these drivers (Scan, Phass, Pioneer, HAT), and I'd agree with the results, except I'd put the Pio mids above the HAT's.


----------



## bbfoto

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry,

I hope that you and your family are feeling better. And I want to congratulate you for producing an excellent...no, OUTSTANDING write up.  It is very well-written and organized, and both the subjective impressions and the data were presented in a very clear, easy-to-read, informative format...love the inclusion of the bar graphs! I know that you needed to keep the subjective impressions short and sweet, but I wish that there would have been a bit more descriptive analysis for some of the drivers (gotta complain about something!). 

I apologize to everyone here if in fact the Seas drivers were defective in any way. I had a suspicion that something might have been "off" after seeing Erin's Klippel results. I would have expected slightly better results after knowing how Zaph rated them and many others' impressions. Regardless, I doubt it would have changed the results more than a single tier in their performance rating, and I am very appreciative for having them included in the test for comparison. You have to have something bad to compare the good to. 

I would be happy to "like" your Facebook page, however I am not a member and do not plan on signing up due to their privacy and content/copyright policies (I am a professional photographer). So consider one more "like" even if it's off the record. 

I may be missing it because I am not a Facebook member and not able to sign into the site, but my only major dissapointment in the article is that nowhere did I see a reference or even mention of the DIYMA community forums and/or that this test was for the most part organized, and contributed to, by its members. In addition, nowhere did I see a link or reference to Erin's site, contributions, and/or his work regarding the Klippel tests and results.

Otherwise I am extremely pleased by the quality and caliber of the actual testing and your write-up.  THANK YOU to all who contributed their drivers, time, and money to make this test a reality! 

Well done!




P.S. Anyone wanna buy a pair of Awesome _looking_ Seas W18NX?!


----------



## nomed

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

If the creator wont mind, I have created PDF file from the FB link.
I will post link for the old people who live without of Facebook


----------



## Notloudenuf

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



ISTundra said:


> Thanks Jerry for the efforts to conduct the test and put this summary together. Question tho... what if you're one of the 1% (people not on FB). Anywhere to get a PDF of this?


This.



bbfoto said:


> Jerry,
> 
> I would be happy to "like" your Facebook page, however I am not a member and do not plan on signing up
> 
> I may be missing it because I am not a Facebook member and not able to sign into the site, but my only major dissapointment in the article is that nowhere did I see a reference or even mention of the DIYMA community forums and/or that this test was for the most part organized, and contributed to, by its members. In addition, nowhere did I see a link or reference to Erin's site, contributions, and/or his work regarding the Klippel tests and results.


This.



nomed said:


> If the creator wont mind, I have created PDF file from the FB link.
> I will post link for the old people who live without of Facebook


Please let this happen.


----------



## masswork

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Thank you so much for all the work!


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Contact me if you don't have a facebook account and don't want to create a facebook account and I will direct you to my photobucket account. I really want everyone to use facebook, if possible.


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



nomed said:


> *If the creator wont mind*, I have created PDF file from the FB link.
> I will post link for the old people who live without of Facebook


The creator does mind, thus I have deleted your post.

Don't shoot the messenger. Jerry asked for people to contact him directly if you can't access the report via Facebook. This is his baby, so I hope people respect his wishes, regardless of how much of a (temporary) bind it may put you in.


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



bbfoto said:


> I apologize to everyone here if in fact the Seas drivers were defective in any way. I had a suspicion that something might have been "off" after seeing Erin's Klippel results. I would have expected slightly better results after knowing how Zaph rated them and many others impressions. Regardless, I doubt it would have changed the results more than a single tier in their performance rating, and I am very appreciative for having them included in the test for comparison. You have to have something bad to compare the good to.


FWIW, I don't think you had a defective (or two) driver at all. Nyugen's test back in 2005 yielded the same LSI curves; though the numbers were a bit different (yet, still the xmax values were the same). I think you got legitimate drivers. They just happen to not perform as well as we all had thought/hoped. Of course, consider the design is still pretty old (in relative terms).


----------



## Danometal

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Just liked your page bro.


----------



## nomed

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



bikinpunk said:


> The creator does mind, thus I have deleted your post.
> 
> Don't shoot the messenger. Jerry asked for people to contact him directly if you can't access the report via Facebook. This is his baby, so I hope people respect his wishes, regardless of how much of a (temporary) bind it may put you in.


Accept my sincere apologies.:guitarist:




PM could had same effect...


----------



## pionkej

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry,

Thank you for undertaking all of this. I'll admit that I'm actually not one bit surprised that my 660's wound up in the middle of the pack. Out of the box, they DO have a very mellow and rolled off bottom-end (which your comments seem to point to being the largest drawback). Luckily, my 6to8 can apply a shelf filter in the crossover section and knocking down 80hz and up by about 6db's really brings these things to life. Erin's testing shows JBL underrates their excursion numbers and I took advantage of that by extending the low-end response through equalization. 

Please don't take any of my above comments as contradicting your results for the 660. I honestly agree with them. I simply wanted to share that with the proper setup and some EQ work a driver that doesn't perform perfect "out of the box" CAN still do VERY WELL. In the case of the 660's, I personally believe they can hang with some of the Tier 1 drivers you tested...which is why I still rock them!  Thanks again!!


----------



## bbfoto

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry,

I don't want this to be an excuse for people to copy or post a separate PDF of your article against your and this sites' wishes, but it is my understanding that technically you no longer own the copyright to this work since you have posted/hosted it via Facebook. You might want to read Facebook's privacy policy and terms of service to confirm/deny this.

Just a head's up. ...and you are welcome to delete this post. I will contact you for a PDF or your photobucket link.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Thanks for the test, but I wonder about the results...some are quite contrary to my experiences.


----------



## quality_sound

Niebur3 said:


> Finally, the test you have been waiting for is finished. Before you read the results I would like to give you some insight. As with the first Ultimate
> Midrange Test, this was intense with much help, research, and time devoted. Many of you were grateful for my efforts and I have received numerous requests for more qualified reviews of this caliber. I know many of you have been wondering why i went to such an effort to give You magazine quality results. It's because I have been wanting to start a quality publication for the mobile audio industry for some time. I truly love this industry and for many it's a passion. In the coming months we will be releasing more details and the first issue to follow which will include this test amongst others. Please respect my efforts and read the whole article in its entirety.
> 
> In order for me to proceed down this path, I need your guys help. The results for this test are accessible via my facebook page. *Please “like” my page.* This will give me an accurate count going forward of the demand, giving me valuable information to be able to start this new publication.
> 
> Thanks again for being patient and a special thanks to all the members who donated their time, money and/or drivers for use in this test. Enjoy!
> 
> High Definition Mobile Audio - Omaha, NE - Retail and Consumer Merchandise | Facebook
> 
> *To all who have used my FaceBook to read this....thank you! One member has already made a .pdf and tried to post a link. I have my reasons for not doing this as a .pdf and they are clearly stated above. Anyone who wishes to try this again will not only have the post and link removed, but will be subject to any and all copyright infringement penalties available by law.*
> 
> Contact me if you don't have a facebook account and don't want to create a facebook account and I will direct you to my photobucket account. I really want everyone to use facebook, if possible.


Wait, you're in Omaha??? I'm here this weekend visiting my daughters.


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



quality_sound said:


> Wait, you're in Omaha??? I'm here this weekend visiting my daughters.


Man, I would have loved to meet you. Small world.


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry, is there any way we can get scans of each testers' results? I'd really like to see how a person's subjective terms are used vs another's. I'm a fan of "raw data".


----------



## ISTundra

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

While I think it would be great to see notes/comments from the test group about each driver, if you do so, I think they should be blind and random comments. If you were to list tester A's specific comments about each driver, some douchenugget(s) on here who may not agree with that tester's perception will start making assumptions about that tester's ability to evaluate what they were hearing and then before you know it people start complaining.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Agreed^. I'd love to see individual comments, with identities censored of course.


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

i could care less if the listener's identity is known. i just want to see comments. :shrugs:


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry, thanks for the great work you've been doing. 
Titanic work for you there... Want to "like" your facebook but I don't have an account either... 
Could you please PM me your photobucket infos in order to have a higher resolution files? 

Thank you and all the best, 
Kelvin 

PS: am still reading so I'm saving my comments for later


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

All the comments were summarized in the write-up about the drivers. I took their words when writing the results....literally using the words that were written on the score sheets. You are already seeing them and I won't be posting any of the scoresheets...sorry. 

If Brian is wanting to divulge some of his thoughts, since he was one of the testers, he is free to do so now that the results are out.


----------



## StylinLP38

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Great job! Much better than all the audiophile reviews writting up on any of the audio forums for car and high end audio. I know, ive written several on AudioAsylum. It's not quite as in-depth as Stereophile magazine would do but impressive nother the less. 

Anyone know where the Morel ELATE 6" speakers would fall in this list? They cost just as much thats for sure....after reading your review I am evaluting sticking with Morel or go with Dynaudio


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



StylinLP38 said:


> Great job! Much better than all the audiophile reviews writting up on any of the audio forums for car and high end audio. I know, ive written several on AudioAsylum. It's not quite as in-depth as Stereophile magazine would do but impressive nother the less.
> 
> Anyone know where the Morel ELATE 6" speakers would fall in this list? They cost just as much thats for sure....after reading your review I am evaluting sticking with Morel or go with Dynaudio


Thanks for the very kind comments. This write-up, along with the "Ultimate Midrange Shootout", was done in a way to set the standard for the testing methods. Future tests will focus much more on result oriented writing and less on the methods leading up to the test. Much more in-depth! Glad you like!


----------



## jpswanberg

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry, thanks again for all of your hard work. A big "like" from my wife's fb account (don't have one, so I used hers). At some point in the future (way down the road), how about tweeters? John


----------



## rugdnit

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



StylinLP38 said:


> Anyone know where the Morel ELATE 6" speakers would fall in this list? They cost just as much thats for sure....after reading your review I am evaluating sticking with Morel or go with Dynaudio


I didn't want to piss on the thread, but no doubt it would have been nice since the Dynaudio and Morel sets are often compared. Must have been some very tough decisions to select the drivers they did and am very appreciative of the effort for sure. THANK YOU JERRY! Hope you are all feeling better!


----------



## bbfoto

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Niebur3 said:


> All the comments were summarized in the write-up about the drivers. I took their words when writing the results....literally using the words that were written on the score sheets. You are already seeing them and I won't be posting any of the scoresheets...sorry.


Hmmm...that's a shame. I think that this would be valuable information as well and I really don't see how it could detract from your report/article, especially if the comments are anonymous. A summary is just that, a summary. Having the details of a greater sample of comments "in context" will most likely provide more insight. However, I do realize that it would be a lot of work to extract and post all of these. Are there any of the test listeners that would be opposed to this?

I would also appreciate more specific notes posted here regarding the implementation of the specific drivers in actual installs that the forum users are personally familiar with, such as John Pionke's post regarding the JBL 660GTI's. (Thanks for that.)

Either way, IMO the M.O. of this test was ground-breaking, and I appreciate all the care that was taken.


----------



## Mic10is

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Thanks for the effor to conduct the test and write up the reviews. As Erin stated some of the "reviews" are quite surprising and very contradictory to other reviews and data on drivers.


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> Thanks for the test, but I wonder about the results...some are quite contrary to my experiences.


Have heard maybe half of the drivers tested but I was really interested in knowing why the 6ND430 was in Tier #4: 









I know it does not tell the whole story but since the SPL has been matched within 0.2dB and the Xovers are set to 80Hz and 2.5kHz @ 12dB/oct slope (I used the 1kHz-2.5kHz range for this graph to level match) - I now understand why it did not fare well in the test. Midbass SPL is seriously lacking... 

I demand a rematch  lol joking. 

That's all for me regarding comments... 

Jerry, other than the Dynaudio (I know you would have suggested this one), which one would you recommend as a pure midrange from let's say 200Hz to 2.5kHz? Phass or Scan (or any of the Tier #3)? Your opinion needed, thanks... 

Kelvin


----------



## danno14

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Glad to see the results, and much appreciate the efforts. I hope that I get mine out of the trash before the garbage man gets here!





jk 
Even more seriously considering them in use as MR now though!
Thanks Jerry


----------



## Inferno333

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry,

Thank you for conducting such an expansive test. I will read the whole thing over the next couple hours before I head to bed.

I'm moving to Omaha after I get back from this deployment. Maybe we'll have to demo each others system sometime.


----------



## nepl29

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Thanks for all the hard work you put it in this write up Jerry!!! Keep up the good work brother...Im extremely pleased that the 650s did well in the test .. I might have to order a back up set from Russ  LMK when you gonna do the amp test, i might be willing to send you one of my Brax MX4

Quick question..is it ok the share the link on my FB wall?


----------



## wdemetrius1

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

WOW!!! Hands down, one of the best test, that I have ever seen.


----------



## Hanatsu

Listened a few of these drivers, never heard hybrid, jbl, phass,18sound or the seas. In a 3-way Exodus is an outstanding driver, agree on the comments about it in the article. Good thing about these is that they work IB mounted inside a door. 18WU remains the best driver I've heard yet to date though. Not a big fan of Dyn but they do make some quality stuff, noone can argue with that. 

Really nice read, although I'm not on FB much I logged in and liked your page


----------



## leogun

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Great write up mate
thanks for all of your hard work


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

How many of the drivers were brand new and how many had break in time?

Fwiw I still haven't heard the 18sound that I sent in. Just a bit confused since zaph said it could be part of a reference level system...it's distortion profile is better than the illuminator.


----------



## DAT

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> *Thanks for the test,* but I wonder about the results...*some are quite contrary* to my experiences.


I agree... some of us have tested or heard some of those Mid Woofer's, the thing that blows me away is the Scan 18wu it has excellent bottom end even below 80hz but the midrange is not the smoothest, The Exodus Ex -Anarchy is a bottom feeder, used in a 2 way it's ass. " like have a sub and a tweeter only ", I figured the JBL 660GTI, and the Audio Technology would be much higher, as I have been told buy several guys that these are some of the best they have used and they have a GREAT set of ears, but hey the test was conducted and the lay-out you did on Facebook was nice " print abit small for laptops "


----------



## Wesayso

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> How many of the drivers were brand new and how many had break in time?
> 
> Fwiw I still haven't heard the 18sound that I sent in. Just a bit confused since zaph said it could be part of a reference level system...it's distortion profile is better than the illuminator.



Check for a possible reason post # 39 above


----------



## TexZen

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> How many of the drivers were brand new and how many had break in time?


re: break in time:

From the 3rd paragraph on the 3rd page:

"The drivers were tested in the passband of
80 Hz and 2,500 Hz with 12dB/octave
electronic crossover slopes, and all drivers
were properly broken in using pink noise and
random music offerings for the manufacturers
recommended time frame and volume."


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I didn't remember any of the diy drivers calling for a break in or a break in method. Dyn and Phass do.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I am pleased as punch to have real data on my speakers.

And happy to pitch in.

I was expecting a plain Jane write up, not that beautiful layup Jerry did...that was a work of art.


----------



## pionkej

I know hindsight is always 20/20, but I think a "scorecard" would have been useful here. If you've ever seen a Car and Driver comparo you'll know what I'm talking about. 

Pick categories like: midbass presence, midrange clarity, instrument separation, on-axis response, off-axis response, and fun to listen to (like C&D's fun to drive). Everything is graded on a 10 point scale. Results are tallied and averaged. All drivers are then ranked by this average score. 

The advantage to a method like this is two-fold:

First, even though all of the judging is still subjective, the final ranking is not. It is now dictated by "the highest score wins". 

Second, this gives a numerical based system for people to compare the drivers side-by-side. Something for people to actually be able to weigh the compromises on when making a selection. For example, even though the Dyn was a Tier 1 driver, I might not find it's performance over a Tier 2 driver to be worth the $1200 entry price. 

Again, I'm not saying any of this to pick at the results. I just wanted to suggest it since you indicated possibly performing more tests like this in the future. 

One last note, I don't have a Facebook account and therefore couldn't "like" it.


----------



## Stage7

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Very polished and professional write up Jerry. Thank you and all who made this happen. The comments on the Dynaudio 650 echo what I hear every day. Just incredible speakers, and well worth the price of admission.

I'm curious if the final standing of the 660gti is inline with the subjective listening testing Bikinipunk did after he klippel tested it?


----------



## bbfoto

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



pionkej said:


> I know hindsight is always 20/20, but I think a "scorecard" would have been useful here. If you've ever seen a Car and Driver comparo you'll know what I'm talking about.
> 
> Pick categories like: midbass presence, midrange clarity, instrument separation, on-axis response, off-axis response, and fun to listen to (like C&D's fun to drive). Everything is graded on a 10 point scale. Results are tallied and averaged. All drivers are then ranked by this average score.
> 
> The advantage to a method like this is two-fold:
> 
> First, even though all of the judging is still subjective, the final ranking is not. It is now dictated by "the highest score wins".
> 
> Second, this gives a numerical based system for people to compare the drivers side-by-side. Something for people to actually be able to weigh the compromises on when making a selection. For example, even though the Dyn was a Tier 1 driver, I might not find it's performance over a Tier 2 driver to be worth the $1200 entry price.
> 
> Again, I'm not saying any of this to pick at the results. I just wanted to suggest it since you indicated possibly performing more tests like this in the future.
> 
> One last note, I don't have a Facebook account and therefore couldn't "like" it.


I'm just amazed that this test actually got done and feel that everyone involved did a great job, especially Jerry on his beautiful write-up. 

However (always the pessimist), I would have preferred your suggested "scorecard" method as well, for the the same reasons you mention, John. I had suggested exactly this in a post in the original thread. It might seem like too much data to gather and compile at first, but IMO no more difficult than judging a typical competition with just 11 cars to judge, but with many more judges comments and scoresheets/rankings to increase the accuracy of the results and the validity of the overall subjective impressions. As Erin mentioned, it would add another dimension to the test if this information were compared to the objective test data.

Again, I am thrilled to have the data that we do, and appreciate how well the test was carried out. But still, IMO, making the individual scoresheets available (anonymously) would add valuable information to the data and overall test, though I understand it might open a can of worms and possible criticism of the specific categories that were or were not included or ranked.

Just my thoughts for the future. Hopefully, with each successive test, the methods will be refined to near perfection.


----------



## xxx_busa

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry, 
Thanks to you and all involved with the testing and the unbiased reporting. I'm a little suprised with the SEAS drivers but not shocked, I've heard matching 2 drivers at a distribution point (ie: Meniscus, Madison) is next to impossibly anymore. so really no suprise. Have heard many of the drivers, I must say only 1 or 2 surprises.

THANK YOU !!!


----------



## req

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Cool write up, i agree about the midrange top end of the exodus, but they really shine in a 3 way system from about 50hz up to around 300hz or so. I can't comment on the rest of the drivers. 

I do agree that a scorecard for the listener would be a good idea and that data could easily be fitted into the results.

Exelent photographs and layout as well. I will finish reading this on my drive back to virginia today.


----------



## Hanatsu

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> How many of the drivers were brand new and how many had break in time?
> 
> Fwiw I still haven't heard the 18sound that I sent in. Just a bit confused since zaph said it could be part of a reference level system...it's distortion profile is better than the illuminator.


It's supposed to be in a ported enclosure. Sealed it would sound really thin, guess the low end can be interpreted as muddy if the midbass have low amplitude. Midrange should be outstanding though according to Zaphs HD graphs. Then again, my Fountek FR88EX has better HD graph than Scan 12M in the 3-4" mashup test, wonder how many agrees that the Fountek is better than the Scan 12M, I've never compared so I dunno  Unsure how much HD affects the subjective listening test. IM distortion is not shown in zaphs graph and it tend to be more noticeable than HD. Usually when a driver inhibit low tall order HD, IMD is usually pretty low as well. 

I do wonder what kind of characteristics that make the "Tier1" drivers that good in the measurement data. There is linear and non-linear distortion which can be derived into subcategories which is more or less audible. Everything contributes to an audible characteristic which each speaker has, it would be really interesting to get an understanding on how the distortion profile in the "Tier1" compares to each other and how they compare to the others.

May not be the most distortion free speaker that subjectively sounds the best.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Agreed about the ported bring up the bottom end in a room. Cabin gain might do similar in a car.


----------



## Scott Buwalda

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Thanks Jerry, nice write-up. 

Alas, with respect to the L6SE wide-bandwidth midrange/midbass, I can't have both light moving mass and wide-bandwidth operation and low Fs and bottom-octave authority. It's a trade-off. I'd love to see these results with no lowpass. <wink>


----------



## req

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I still find it hilarious that a driver that sells for $180/pair did so well in comparison to $800/pair and higher


----------



## rton20s

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I agree. I would be really interested in seeing a similar comparison done on drivers/component sets that are generally found at a more reasonable price bracket. Pretty much everything tested was "cream of the crop." And while I really appreciate the testing, enjoyed the read, and liked the FB page... some of us have pretty strict budgets. 

It would be interesting to see how the more budget priced drivers/component sets stack up. Perhaps if this publication takes off, that might just be something we get to see. I'm also anxious to see what happens with the amp testing that was strongly hinted at in the article.


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

you guys keep harping on HD... but I think what would really be more interesting to see is how measured FR relates to the results. first stop is linear distortion (FR). the nonlinear testing would be the next step. I was hoping Jerry would mic the driver's and provide measured FR in the listening environment for each speaker pair tested. I thought at one point in our conversation he said he was going to. to me, that would be more beneficial than any other data posted, including my own testing and Zaph's. I think people often get hung up in the nonlinear distortion aspect rather than the linear distortion aspect; ie: how smooth is the driver response.

Jerry, if you happened to save any of the measurements from your level matching, I'd really like to see it. It doesn't even have to be at the level you prescriped (82dB @ 10 feet); just the curve of the driver+room at seated position would be excellent. from that, we may be able to draw some pretty significant results. 

as an aside, you level matched these drivers using what criterion? were they all set to 82dB at a single tone (such as 1khz) or within some passband? this is the tricky part. most testers prescribe an spl at a given frequency just to make everything on an even keel. I know we talked a lot before you did this... not sure how far you got with some of these things but I do believe it's very important to the test and would be good to know.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Nonlinear testing only means something if you are using the drivers to their limits like playing them with no crossovers.


----------



## ~Spyne~

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Really great write-up, Jerry. Your time and effort, and that of those who assisted with the testing, is much appreciated.
Looking forward to a similar amplifier test and possibly an 8-9" test, too.


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> Nonlinear testing only means something if you are using the drivers to their limits like playing them with no crossovers.


agreed. to an extent. if it's a midrange playing down to 80hz, then it's a different situation. but all of these seem to be playing a pretty nominal passband so I could give a rip about nonlinear here. but folks are referencing HD testing from Zaph, so ...

so, like I said, I would really like to see the linear distortion measurements (aka: frequency response)


----------



## james2266

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Congrats on a great job done to all and especially Jerry. I grabbed a quick read of the article this morning but it was rather rushed before work but it sure looked professional and well constructed. 

I will ask for the same thing that a few others have asked in this thread. I would like to have your impression (or anyone else's really) as to how these creme de la creme drivers stack up to some of the more mainstream (but still good-great quality) drivers out there. Drivers that are well used like my Hertz Mille drivers, the Dynaudio mw162, Morel drivers from the Supremo all the way down to the Elate and Hybrid classes and hell even the Dotecs possibly? I will also put a big second to a request in this thread for any direct comparisons between the Morel Elate 6 and the Dyn ES650 drivers. He is right, they are compared to one another alot it seems. Is it deserved tho?

Also, as a few have asked (myself included), how does a 6 inch compare to an 8 inch or larger midbass? I know alot have the old adage that there is no replacement for displacement. I am still wavering on that one it seems.


----------



## t3sn4f2

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



bikinpunk said:


> you guys keep harping on HD... *but I think what would really be more interesting to see is how measured FR relates to the results.* first stop is linear distortion (FR). the nonlinear testing would be the next step. I was hoping Jerry would mic the driver's and provide measured FR *in the listening environment *for each speaker pair tested. I thought at one point in our conversation he said he was going to. to me, that would be more beneficial than any other data posted, including my own testing and Zaph's. I think people often get hung up in the nonlinear distortion aspect rather than the linear distortion aspect; ie: how smooth is the driver response.
> 
> Jerry, if you happened to save any of the measurements from your level matching, I'd really like to see it. It doesn't even have to be at the level you prescriped (82dB @ 10 feet); just the curve of the driver+room at seated position would be excellent. from that, we may be able to draw some pretty significant results.
> 
> as an aside, you level matched these drivers using what criterion? *were they all set to 82dB at a single tone (such as 1khz) or within some passband? this is the tricky part.* most testers prescribe an spl at a given frequency just to make everything on an even keel. I know we talked a lot before you did this... not sure how far you got with some of these things but I do believe it's very important to the test and would be good to know.


xxxx2


----------



## asota

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Thanks Jerry, for a very thorough and non biased test. The Kipple tests did to some degree confirm the qualities of the drivers and expected performance, but when it comes down to it blind listening tests are the only way to confirm the nuances of tonality, detail, and stage separation. IMO whatever speaker sounds best to you in your application is all that matters. I do feel sorry for Jerry now after all his hard work so many folks are complaining about the results and wouldn't be suprised if he didn't go ahead with the amp testing.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I also think frequency response could be a huge telling factor here. I don't think with the spl levels used for listening that HD contributed to the way the results ended up.

Erin and t3sn4f2, the level matching was done with 20-20,000hz pink noise off of the Alpine Speed of Sound CD.


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Stupid question, but shouldn't level matching be done so that @ the Xover point, levels are the same? Level for the Dyn T330D never changes so it's logical (at least in my head lol) that the midrange level are brought so that @ the Xover point, smooth transition is achieved and "almost exactly" the same... 1 driver "shouldn't" be more airy than another if levels are set that way IMO. 

Am really not arguing, just really really curious which way is better to conduct a test such as this one. 

Kelvin


----------



## ErinH

TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL said:


> I also think frequency response could be a huge telling factor here. I don't think with the spl levels used for listening that HD contributed to the way the results ended up.
> 
> Erin and t3sn4f2, the level matching was done with 20-20,000hz pink noise off of the Alpine Speed of Sound CD.


So.... Is the 82dB an average dB from the entire band? If not then "20-20k" is nebulous. When a level value is used it has to represent something. Otherwise it's just a number.


----------



## adrenalinejunkie

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



asota said:


> Thanks Jerry, for a very thorough and non biased test. The Kipple tests did to some degree confirm the qualities of the drivers and expected performance, but when it comes down to it blind listening tests are the only way to confirm the nuances of tonality, detail, and stage separation. IMO whatever speaker sounds best to you in your application is all that matters. I do feel sorry for Jerry now after all his hard work so many folks are complaining about the results and wouldn't be suprised if he didn't go ahead with the amp testing.



I don't think they're complaining... Seems like they just want to know how things were done.


----------



## ErinH

adrenalinejunkie said:


> I don't think they're complaining... Seems like they just want to know how things were done.


Exactly. Jerry knows I'm not out to get him. He is someone I'd consider a friend. But I still have questions.


----------



## TOOSTUBBORN2FAIL

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



bikinpunk said:


> So.... Is the 82dB an average dB from the entire band? If not then "20-20k" is nebulous. When a level value is used it has to represent something. Otherwise it's just a number.


Agreed. That's all I could find in the write-up. I assume it was over the entire band, but without knowing its just a guess.

I'm also curious about what Kelvin said about matching at the x-over point. Seems like that could create other issues as well, if one driver has a rising response at 2.5khz, and another has a falling response there.



Like Adrenaline and Bikin said, its more of just wanting to know how things were done. The more that's known, the more helpful this is.


----------



## Mic10is

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Who were all the reviewers?


----------



## nepl29

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Guys,

Just to let ya know Jerry and his wife are very sick. He won't be able to respond to your questions for at least a couple of days. He does not want nobody thinking that he went M.I.A.


----------



## audioanarchist

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Which drivers in the test would handle loud SPL conditions better? Like really pushing things and still holding it's own and playing cleanly. I've heard the Scans can be pushed pretty hard and still maintain pleasant sound. As a metal head this matters to me. Any of them shine while being "cranked up"?


----------



## n_olympios

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry, first of all I hope you and your wife get well soon, this matters the most. 

Secondly, thank you for all the effort you put in this, it means a lot to the community. 

Thirdly, when you get a chance please direct me to your photobucket album as I (like others) am not a fb member and do not intend to become one.


----------



## Hanatsu

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



audioanarchist said:


> Which drivers in the test would handle loud SPL conditions better? Like really pushing things and still holding it's own and playing cleanly. I've heard the Scans can be pushed pretty hard and still maintain pleasant sound. As a metal head this matters to me. Any of them shine while being "cranked up"?


High Xmax drivers like JBL, Scan and Anarchy's should be your choice then. I run my anarchys IB in doors and they have incredible output, comparable to any "normal" 8-incher out there. You really need a midrange driver together with the Anarchys though, midrange ain't the best I've heard even though it's not in any means bad. Scan's do both midbass and midrange good. JBL I've never seen or heard so I can't speak for that one. If you got the money, go for the Scan, otherwise buy the Anarchys together with some 3" midrange/fullrange speaker. <<-- IMO


----------



## BrianAbington

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

When we were doing the listening test the Exodus woofer blended so well with the tweeter that I honestly thought it was the Dynaudio woofer. 

Then when we listened to the Dynaudio woofer I realized it blended even better so I knew that was the one. 

That exodus for as cheap as it is sounds incredible.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

18sound will handle high spl better than any of them.

Add a set horns and you will get louder cleaner than any of those with a tweeter or toy little full range.


----------



## audioanarchist

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> 18sound will handle high spl better than any of them.
> 
> Add a set horns and you will get louder cleaner than any of those with a tweeter or toy little full range.



Right now I'm running anarchy midbasses, Scanspeak 10f,s and Scan Speak D3004/602000 tweeter with an MS8. From reading on the MS8 it sounded like horns don't mingle well with it auto tune wise. 

The weak link in my setup seams to be the mids. The 10f's seem to be the first to start straining and that's kind of the worst because I'm a mid-range kind of guy. This doesn't really apply to this thread though, don't wanna off topic anything.


----------



## Hanatsu

My observation is that low linear distortion/FR is more pleasing to the ear than the non linear ones. If odd oder/tall order HD increases over a certain point it often affect the character of the speaker, at low to moderate volumes HD may not be very audible, I believe we're more sensitive to IMD in terms of non-linear distortion. FR on the other hand are very audible and I believe if you EQed the speaker to the same FR, hearing a difference at low/moderate volume (where non-linear dist is low) could be difficult.


----------



## audioanarchist

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Hanatsu said:


> My observation is that low linear distortion/FR is more pleasing to the ear than the non linear ones. If odd oder/tall order HD increases over a certain point it often affect the character of the speaker, at low to moderate volumes HD may not be very audible, I believe we're more sensitive to IMD in terms of non-linear distortion. FR on the other hand are very audible and I believe if you EQed the speaker to the same FR, hearing a difference at low/moderate volume (where non-linear dist is low) could be difficult.



So if you dabble in the non-linear area of these speakers the results might change up? Is Xmax and Sensitivity the tell all when it comes down to which sound best at 115 db?


----------



## Hanatsu

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



audioanarchist said:


> So if you dabble in the non-linear area of these speakers the results might change up? Is Xmax and Sensitivity the tell all when it comes down to which sound best at 115 db?


Power response is a very important parameter which is often overlooked. Could be because it hard to measure and not many manufactures show that data. Sensitivity helps with power compression, less heat in the VC when you doesn't feed tons of power through it. Xmax/linear throw does help with output. Vd (Volume displacement) which is Xmax*Sd(cone area) together with T/S parameters determine your max SPL in a given enclosure (add cabin gain to that then).

It's not hard to make a speaker that sounds good at low volumes, the most extreme example is a pair of headphones. As volume increases the demand on the speaker increases. T/S parameters change with excursion and suddenly the "optimal" enclosure ain't that optimal anyone. High output distortion and power response is the two most important specs imo. The large signal parameters can only be measured by a klippel but the rest with a mic and some computer software. Different parameters are more or less important in different drivers as well. A dedicated midrange doesn't need excessive cone excursion for example. 

As for distortion, tall order HD will produce noise far away from the fundamental tone. Let's say a 5th order HD at 600Hz produce a tone at 600*5=3000Hz right in the middle of the most sensitive area of our hearing (check fletcher-munson curves). This can be very audible as you increase the volume. Imo a midbass driver should do what it does best; producing midbass, not midrange. Use a dedicated driver for that. Midrange will lose clarity and detail at high excursion because of increased distortion, there is no such thing as a perfect speaker, only compromises. IMD is also an audible form of distortion that screws up separation and clarity in speakers. Basically it's an overlay of different frequencies that plays at the same time, for example if 100+1000Hz played at the same time, IM could cause a distortion at 1100Hz. This is also a form of non-linear behavior. Far more audible/intrusive than natural occurring harmonics like 2nd order HD. IM is harder to measure than HD is often overlooked as well. I know Clio software does IM in any case... This is getting kinda offtopic now lol.

Anyway check out Klippels side for a listening test on different forms of distortion overlayed on music and/or test tones and check out the audibility threshold. 

Listening Test


----------



## LBaudio

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



n_olympios said:


> I (like others) am not a fb member and do not intend to become one.


Same here......
Thanx for your time and for posting this test....
I have expected that some drivers will be scored higher, maybe under different conditions.....


----------



## BuickGN

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



audioanarchist said:


> Which drivers in the test would handle loud SPL conditions better? Like really pushing things and still holding it's own and playing cleanly. I've heard the Scans can be pushed pretty hard and still maintain pleasant sound. As a metal head this matters to me. Any of them shine while being "cranked up"?


The 650 is excellent in this category. I've given it everything my HD600/4 has to offer with what looked to be about an inch of excursion and the midrange remained clear and detailed, absolutely no audible change from low volume. I had no idea how hard I was pushing them because they were showing no signs of distress but a few minutes with the door card off scared me into going with the 9" Dyns. Not the speakers fault, just the fact that I felt bad that I was pushing them so hard because they're only a 6.5".


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

115 in the midrange is a lot of sound.

Xmax means nothng for a midrange used as a midrange.


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



bikinpunk said:


> agreed. to an extent. if it's a midrange playing down to 80hz, then it's a different situation. but all of these seem to be playing a pretty nominal passband so I could give a rip about nonlinear here. but folks are referencing HD testing from Zaph, so ...
> 
> *so, like I said, I would really like to see the linear distortion measurements (aka: frequency response)*


Would like to thanks Erin for his view... Completely forgot about it. 
We have the data (future data to come), we have the subjective reviews, only thing missing is the freq response @ the listening spot. 

Kelvin


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Hey guys....actually feeling somewhat better. A sinus infection and mono (still suffering from) can really make you feel ****ty.

As for the questions asked....



thehatedguy said:


> How many of the drivers were brand new and how many had break in time?


I know the 18Sound, Scan, Exodus, and PHASS were previously used and broke-in already. I know that 3 of the drivers were new...Dyn 650's, HAT L6SE's, and Audio Technology. These all were broke in about 150 hours on my sound board before the test. I wasn't sure about the Pioneer, JBL, Vifa, or Seas. Erin did test and break-in the JBL and Seas. Since the break-in status of these 4 were unknown, they were all played on my board for about 50 hours before the test. So to answer your question, all drivers were broken-in.




bikinpunk said:


> Jerry, if you happened to save any of the measurements from your level matching, I'd really like to see it. It doesn't even have to be at the level you prescriped (82dB @ 10 feet); just the curve of the driver+room at seated position would be excellent. from that, we may be able to draw some pretty significant results.
> 
> as an aside, you level matched these drivers using what criterion? were they all set to 82dB at a single tone (such as 1khz) or within some passband? this is the tricky part. most testers prescribe an spl at a given frequency just to make everything on an even keel. I know we talked a lot before you did this... not sure how far you got with some of these things but I do believe it's very important to the test and would be good to know.


I did not save any of the data regarding the Frequency Response. We used a tripod mounted meter and mic that was provided by Focus Mastering.....very high quality. My computer was dedicated to measuring in-box T/S Parameters. 

The level matching, I noticed within the write-up, was a typo (as there were several mis-spellings - happens when you are trying to write a document being sick and on meds...lol). We were within 0.9 dB's level matching (in lieu of the .2dB in the write-up). The Mid-woofers and tweeters were run through the driverack processors, which allow for 0.1 dB adjustment steps. We (myself and Doug), level matched the tweeter to the mid-woofer, using the 0.1dB adjustments, while running pink noise. All the frequency responses were relatively flat using no equalization, although there were some peaks and dips, so the matching was fairly straight forward. Doug then brought the master level up to level match the set to our specified test volume. This again used the pink noise, but was done to within 0.9dB's. This process took around 5-7 minutes, and Doug is an expert at level matching, considering his profession.



Mic10is said:


> Who were all the reviewers?


Myself, My wife, Doug (owner of Focus Mastering) and Brian (BrianAbington here on DIYMA). 





I consulted with several industry experts before this test (including Erin) and we talked about many aspects and things we wanted to do. 

Before some people ask why I didn't do this or that, please remember, we listened to 11 drivers based on your request (5-6 was the original goal), spending a total of 9+ hours (including setup and take-down), so some of the things suggested/requested just wasn't feasible. It was important to test all the drivers within the same day (for consistency). It is also important to remember the 100+ hours and significant amount of money I personally invested to provide the best possible test I could. I opened my door to anyone forum member to come and be a part of this test and out of everyone, including the several that said they wanted to be involved and said they would be there on test day, only 1 forum member (Brian) was able to attend and help. With more help or fewer drivers, maybe everything could have been accomplished. 

So again, I'm not at all upset with your questions/concerns, just explaining all aspects of these questions/answers so everyone understands the entire picture. I promise you the test was run efficiently and effectively and the results are as accurate as possible. I also was personally surprised with some of the results, but after the multiple ways of figuring the scores, the placement in the Tiers was consistent from tester to tester. 

I hope you guys enjoyed this test and I hope to do more in the future.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

No the 18sound had never been powered up before you got them.


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

^^This is probably information that should have been more clear before the test. They looked like they had been used. I know you said they were in your kick now powered or screwed down, but to me it seems as that information was given regarding the availability of the drivers and ease of removing, rather then the drivers being new. Neither looked new. 

The lack of break-in may of had a minor effect on the score. I still don't see them moving up, as they had a long way to go, score wise, to get to Tier3.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I had mentioned that fact numerous times...that thay had never seen power. Also mentioned the enclosures you were building would be good for ported but too large for sealed.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Post 413 on the other thread in which you quoted clearly said those speakers " had zero play time on them." How much more clear could I have gotten?


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

My apologies, I missed that, or simply forgot in all the lead-up to the test. All drivers needed to be tested in identical ways, including enclosures, for accuracy of the test. We chose to emulate the size of a car door. Again, the assumption was this would be for use in a vehicle and the majority install these type of speakers in a car door, not a ported enclosure. With how poorly they scored, they could have had a substantial change after break-in and still ended up in Tier 4. When compared to the other drivers in this test (and considering the test paramaters), they did very poor. 

FWIW, Any of these drivers in this test or even beyond this test have the ability to sound better/wore depending on install, equaliztion, passband, etc.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Who is this mark Eldridge and why is he special? Lol

Oh how did the car do at the big show before this?


----------



## Hanatsu

Mic10is said:


> I'm pretty sure that everyone who heard our car this weekend would completely disagree w the review here of the 18sound.
> In fact the one major tuning adjustment we had to make was to make some cuts at 63-106hz bc I had too much midbass.


How was the speaker installed? IB/enclosure?


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Small sealed, about the size of mine...but mine will be ported.


----------



## StylinLP38

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Awesome shootout review! So informative. Now I know to stay way clear of *18sound* that stuff not going into my car!

You know what, this is one of the reasons I read both Sterephile magazine and Absolute Sound. There is alot of skill in reading magazine reviews! Ive been reading them for 15 years now and know how to read between the lines and determine where the reviewers are coming from. I know to take such reviews with a grain of salt. To only use them as a basis to gain my interest.


----------



## t3sn4f2

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Mic10is said:


> I'm pretty sure that everyone who heard our car this weekend would completely disagree w the review here of the 18sound.
> In fact the one major tuning adjustment we had to make was to make some cuts at 63-106hz bc I had too much midbass.
> When Mark Elderidge gets in and out of your car and says "this sounds wonderful" and after a few more tweaks Todd luliak gets out an explaims to several people that the car was "****in awesome"...as well many others with highly trained ears...*then looking at Zaph's tests and review stating that this speaker could be used in a reference level system*
> And also that 18sound are used by Clair Brothers which is one of the largest staging production company in the world and used in tours like U2 and Madonna plus at the Grand Ole Opry....I think that shows some flaws in the subjectivity in the test
> 
> IMO the reviewers were looking for a particular sound and preference
> Which is fine but let's show the full actual reviews of each person so all the readers have more insightinto each speaker


Not to nitpick, but it seems to me that what Zaph is referring to by "reference level" is not necessarily quality but dynamic range. Thanks to the increased power handling over the others, as well as the greater sensitivity.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I didn't read it that way...mainly because reference level play back is going to take more cone area than a pair of 6s. Plus the measured data was as good or better than the scans, seas, etc.

Did you look at his actual measured data and compare?


----------



## t3sn4f2

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> I didn't read it that way...mainly because reference level play back is going to take more cone area than a pair of 6s. Plus the measured data was as good or better than the scans, seas, etc.
> 
> *Did you look at his actual measured data and compare*?


Have many times but didn't look at the data this time. A Wilson Audio MTM+woofer/sub setup just came to mind and figured that was what he meant here.


----------



## AAAAAAA

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Guys obviously YMMV depending on install and especially tuning. The 2 biggest factors in the outcome.

This seems to give us a really good idea what to expect out of them in a typical scenario that may not reflect what alot of us "minority" DIYers do.


----------



## tnbubba

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

has anybody modeled the 18 sound and looked at the response cure..it's gonna sound ****ty in a big (IB) enclosure.. no bass and steeped climbing response curve above 1 k is gonna make it sound bright, nasally, and edgy.. never heard em never used em, not opposed to testing a pair if somebody wants to loan them but I don't have $250 to test something! alot of us stick to what we know works since we have rent n kids and bitchy ex's trying to wring more child support out of a bleeding turnip lol haven't looked at the review in depth enuff other than to say not really off from what I would expect just dealing with the basic drivers and companies were were dealing with. HOLY CRAP.. i posted this before i read the review of the 18...... damn quess i nailed that one!


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Mic10is said:


> And also that 18sound are used by Clair Brothers which is one of the largest staging production company in the world and used in tours like U2 and Madonna plus at the Grand Ole Opry....I think that shows some flaws in the subjectivity in the test
> 
> IMO the reviewers were looking for a particular sound and preference
> Which is fine but let's show the full actual reviews of each person so all the readers have more insightinto each speaker





Mic10is said:


> Kick panels are about .15cu ft plus a lot of insulation...yes everyone run far far away from 18sound speakers bc this review contradicts every other review of these speakers


I am actually really disappointed in this response Mic. Since when are stage speakers, mentioning being used on tours, considered "audiophile" quality? I have never been to a concert personally (of the nature you described) that would qualify as a "reference" listening level. 

There were NO flaws in the subjectivity of this test. It was blind. For the last time, I will NOT post the testers score sheets....I summarized what was written. You both almost have me mad enough to do it and you would get to see what the testers really said about the 18Sounds.....believe me, it wasn't pretty and I tried to soften it some. But I won't and I guess I will repeat for the next time it is asked....I will NOT post the testers score sheets....PERIOD!

Did you or thehatedguy even bother reading this test? The reason I ask, is I always thought the 2 of you were pretty intelligent when it comes to car audio, and yet the responses from both of you make me question this assumption. OBVIOUSLY, If you put the drivers in a different situation (enclosure size, passband, etc.), they would sound different, and this was clearly stated at the end of the results for these particular speakers. 

An example of this is...you state that you have these in a .15ft^3 enclosure, playing midbass with probably an eq. Yep, that is exactly how I tested them . If you do a typical install, door mounted and expect to play these in a 2-way configuration....they sound like ASS! Not saying you can't change everything and make them sound better...maybe even good, like YOU did. 

Maybe posting how you succeeded with these drivers, rather then mocking my test and trying to invalidate the results would have been a more intelligent way to go.




StylinLP38 said:


> Awesome shootout review! So informative. Now I know to stay way clear of *18sound* that stuff not going into my car!
> 
> You know what, this is one of the reasons I read both Sterephile magazine and Absolute Sound. There is alot of skill in reading magazine reviews! Ive been reading them for 15 years now and know how to read between the lines and determine where the reviewers are coming from. I know to take such reviews with a grain of salt. To only use them as a basis to gain my interest.


You do know this test was blind and controlled, unlike Stereophile and Absolute Sound....right?


----------



## Thumper26

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> No the 18sound had never been powered up before you got them.


Sorry, I'm having an idiot moment, but what was the model of the 18sound?


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

6nd430


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



subwoofery said:


> Stupid question, but shouldn't level matching be done so that @ the Xover point, levels are the same? Level for the Dyn T330D never changes so it's logical (at least in my head lol) that the midrange level are brought so that @ the Xover point, smooth transition is achieved and "almost exactly" the same... 1 driver "shouldn't" be more airy than another if levels are set that way IMO.
> 
> Am really not arguing, just really really curious which way is better to conduct a test such as this one.
> 
> Kelvin


Quoting myself here... Really wondering coz it's logical in my head but maybe not in the acoustic fields. 

Kelvin


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



tnbubba said:


> has anybody modeled the 18 sound and looked at the response cure..it's gonna sound ****ty in a big (IB) enclosure.. no bass and steeped climbing response curve above 1 k is gonna make it sound bright, nasally, and edgy.. never heard em never used em, not opposed to testing a pair if somebody wants to loan them but I don't have $250 to test something! alot of us stick to what we know works since we have rent n kids and bitchy ex's trying to wring more child support out of a bleeding turnip lol haven't looked at the review in depth enuff other than to say not really off from what I would expect just dealing with the basic drivers and companies were were dealing with. HOLY CRAP.. i posted this before i read the review of the 18...... damn quess i nailed that one!


For those that missed it  



subwoofery said:


> Have heard maybe half of the drivers tested but I was really interested in knowing why the 6ND430 was in Tier #4:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know it does not tell the whole story but since the SPL has been matched within 0.2dB and the Xovers are set to 80Hz and 2.5kHz @ 12dB/oct slope (I used the 1kHz-2.5kHz range for this graph to level match) - I now understand why it did not fare well in the test. Midbass SPL is seriously lacking...


Kelvin


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

i typed up a long reply and accidentally backed it out and can't get it back now... 


So, from the top again...


Personally, I don't see where Zaph's data makes the 18sound worth all the arguing. It performs well but it's not stellar (all drivers have their weaknesses).

The FR shows a shelf from 1.3khz+ of about 3.5dB.
From 160 to 500hz there's a slight roll off in response (very slight). *This lower midrange downward trend may extend further than 160hz for the 4 ohm version, since the 160ohm mark may or may not be driven by the nominal resistance (the natural roll off).
*Zaph's testing is of the 16 ohm version so the T/S & Impedance are useless. I need high-res results from Jerry's test to really see Zmax (I can read the T/S fine; just not the graph).

The HD looks fine. Nothing stands out. My personal take on that, though? It didn't do anything in Zaph's tests and it doesn't mean jack in this test. It's just that low. If anything, maybe this is why it didn't perform well. *worth noting is that Jerry's testing at 82dB/10ft is about 3dB more than Zaph's 96dB/0.5m.

Back to linear distortion:
That bump above 1.3khz could very well lend itself to the less than stellar review. Notice, too that the AT tested by Zaph has the same bump. It was called a Tier 3, right?
The scan 18wu has a bump but it's closer to about 1dB difference from 1khz to 1.5khz.


Outside of that, I got nothing.


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> I didn't read it that way...mainly because reference level play back is going to take more cone area than a pair of 6s. Plus the measured data was as good or better than the scans, seas, etc.
> 
> Did you look at his actual measured data and compare?


that's the thing, though. even he says that it makes a great midrange but the low end is sub-par (paraphrasing) and thus the recommendation of use as a pair and with a subwoofer. Again, though, that's the 16 ohm driver.

So, maybe my previous suggestion of reasons why it didn't perform well are incorrect. Maybe it comes down to perceived output (capability). Or maybe it's a combo of both and thus the 4th tier placing.


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



bikinpunk said:


> i typed up a long reply and accidentally backed it out and can't get it back now...
> 
> 
> So, from the top again...
> 
> 
> Personally, I don't see where Zaph's data makes the 18sound worth all the arguing. It performs well but it's not stellar (all drivers have their weaknesses).
> 
> The FR shows a shelf from 1.3khz+ of about 3.5dB.
> From 160 to 500hz there's a slight roll off in response (very slight).
> *Zaph's testing is of the 16 ohm version so the T/S & Impedance are useless. I need high-res results from Jerry's test to really see Zmax (I can read the T/S fine; just not the graph).
> 
> The HD looks fine. Nothing stands out. My personal take on that, though? It didn't do anything in Zaph's tests and it doesn't mean jack in this test. It's just that low. If anything, maybe this is why it didn't perform well. *worth noting is that Jerry's testing at 82dB/10ft is about 3dB more than Zaph's 96dB/0.5m.
> 
> Back to linear distortion:
> That bump above 1.3khz could very well lend itself to the less than stellar review. Notice, too that the AT tested by Zaph has the same bump. It was called a Tier 3, right?
> The scan 18wu has a bump but it's closer to about 1dB difference from 1khz to 1.5khz.
> 
> 
> Outside of that, I got nothing.


Thanks, wish there was a frequency response taken for each drivers @ the listening position - would have been the only data we could associate to the results and maybe relate to what the reviewers heard...

Kelvin


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry there have been nothing but great things said by people who have used those speakers IB in the door as a 2 way. Usually with horns since they are pretty efficient. I am not aware of anyone using them with dome tweeters.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

The Illuminator fr is a smiley face with a 3db bump from 50 to 300 and a large hump at 3k. The midrange is much more colored with energy storage and all of the distortion is higher.

So it would seem more bottom heavy and flatter/ balanced given baffle step.


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

in an ideal world. yes.

all the drivers I mentioned have a hump in response above the crossover point used in this test, that's why I didn't bother to mention it.
hd to me, anymore, is all but meaningless. it tells you where to cross over. that's pretty much it, IME/O. Take my opinion with a grain of salt, as always. 

indeed, the illuminator does have a dip in response. that's definitely something different about it. taking off from there, one of the main reasons of Jerry's testing was to see if there's any correlation to be drawn between subjective preference (really, that's all this test is ultimately) and the data we have at our disposal. regardless of how technically accurate the driver is.
so, that's what I'm trying to do right now. if I had the time (or, frankly, gave more than a flip about it) I'd pull up all the data, put it side by side, highlight the subjective points of each driver and then start doing comparisons. I usually am "that" guy but my GAF meter has been broken for a while now. Truthfully, I'm surprised noone else has done this, yet, though. We all are busy. But some care more about this currently than I do so I'm slacking on purpose. 

that's why I'm not arguing specifics. Rather, I'm trying to rationalize things.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry I would recommend finding some danley sound labs speakers out to see how audiophile pro speakers can get.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

In the seas defense those guys are light on the bottom endt too.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Erin I agree with post 117


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> Jerry I would recommend finding some danley sound labs speakers out to see how audiophile pro speakers can get.


A pair of GH 60 would be too big in my home theater  

Kelvin


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Mic10is said:


> Im intelligent enough to see the real purpose for this test. and out of respect for some of the other companies you represent, I will go no farther into this conversation. I hope you have a positive increase in your business to make all this worth it.


The purpose of this test is stated very clearly and most who have heard many of these drivers have stated their own similar findings. You are free to ask Brian, who was one of the testers and a person I have only talked to once, what his favorite speakers were. This test was always open to anyone who wanted to come and be a part, in which only Brian showed. This was a blind, subjective test with no ulterior motive, as you suggest, and I take offense to your insinuation.

As far as the 18Sound are concerned......In "your car" or in "Clair Brothers" productions are they used in a 2-way set-up? In "your car" or in "Clair Brothers" productions are they playing from 80Hz to 2.5kHz?

OK, I get that you are upset that others listening to these speakers in a controlled test, under identical conditions to 10 other speakers rated them at the bottom of the group, but until you, Mark Eldridge or anyone else sits in our test room and listens to these speakers under the same blind conditions as our testers, we stand by the published results. At the end of the day, if you like these speakers as much as you say in YOUR APPLICATION, why should you care what anyone else thinks?


----------



## DAT

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Mic10is said:


> Yes it is 2 way. but its 69 to 1.2k
> 
> as I said, good luck to you. Good job on the test--I hope you see a positive increase in business as a result of the published results on this test on your business page


:thumbsup:


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Most are run to 1.2 to 1.6k.


----------



## tnbubba

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

i was looking at 18 sound spec sheet not zaph..
oh well.. I personalty run 2 way dome mid tweeterless..
so I don't need any drive to go over 1 k. i do test any driver in my home system first.. active 4 way with separate modules( so i can easily swap out a driver module)
plus my drives have enough overlap i can test a variety of configs/. 2 way 3 way 4way etc.. and move the band pass around easily enough with a pc on some highly modded dcx2496's( which is only used in eval's btw).. so if a driver sounds ****ty and I cant make it sound acceptable there no way its going in a car.. the rest is left to modeling, education in interpreting manuals graphs and specs ant the actual application the driver is going to be used for. so maybe the 18 sounds like ass in that app?????


----------



## tnbubba

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

btw thanks for all the hard work.. kudos!


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Mic10is said:


> as I said, good luck to you. Good job on the test--I hope you see a positive increase in business as a result of the published results on this test on your business page


I stated that I am looking to start a publication and needed an accurate count of the people reading this review. I PM'd Ant several time leading up to the release about hosting this in a way I could get an accurate count. Unfortunately with his schedule, we were unable to get anything sorted out to accomplish this, no fault of Ant's. My wife thought of Facebook, do to the pressure I was receiving from forum members to post the results, simply because she knows the ins and outs and knew I would be able to get a fairly accurate count, unlike posting it in a thread on DIYMA. 

What I did get was the information I needed to move forward on a publication, which is all I asked for after spending the countless hours and my own personal money on the test itself.


----------



## 6spdcoupe

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Mic10is said:


> I'm pretty sure that everyone who heard our car this weekend would completely disagree w the review here of the 18sound.
> In fact the one major tuning adjustment we had to make was to make some cuts at 63-106hz bc I had too much midbass.
> When Mark Elderidge gets in and out of your car and says "this sounds wonderful" and after a few more tweaks Todd luliak gets out an explaims to several people that the car was "****in awesome"...as well many others with highly trained ears...then looking at Zaph's tests and review stating that this speaker could be used in a reference level system
> And also that 18sound are used by Clair Brothers which is one of the largest staging production company in the world and used in tours like U2 and Madonna plus at the Grand Ole Opry....I think that shows some flaws in the subjectivity in the test
> 
> IMO the reviewers were looking for a particular sound and preference
> Which is fine but let's show the full actual reviews of each person so all the readers have more insightinto each speaker


 Wow Mic, never thought of you to take this approach. However since you did, perhaps Dynaudio should not even have been listed to since it would 'automatically' make the top without question based on ..

They are used exclusively by the BBC
In part by little guys like Disney, CBS, NBC
Then there are studios like AIR and many others.
Did we forget to mention VW, Volvo, BUGATTI ? 

One actually Very great soundtrack that I happen to like a lot for home listening is the Dark Knight - Hans Zimmer (Great disc for any wondering).
Ahh yes, that was done in AIR studios on, well yes, Dynaudio gear !

So essentially by your tact, or lack thereof, the Danes had a win before it began, no ? 

Plain and simple ... it was a subjective 'test' with results posted back here. Interpret as you will, but bashing or criticizing is a bit much, dontcha think ? Second guess it for your own piece of mind, but to challenge something subjective is like me telling you what you do and do not like on your dinner plate.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

One of the comments about the anarchy could lead someone to believe they found the dyn sound favorable.

Which I don't understand how anyone knew what speakers they were listening to if the test was blind. How was it they knew the dyn was the dyn? A true blind test would remain blind to the participant even after it was over...completely over.


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> One of the comments about the anarchy could lead someone to believe they found the dyn sound favorable.
> 
> Which I don't understand how anyone knew what speakers they were listening to if the test was blind. How was it they knew the dyn was the dyn? A true blind test would remain blind to the participant even after it was over...completely over.


Maybe you are not understanding. Anything discusses was done only after all score sheets were turned in and in my possession. I am unable to control what someone personally thought in their own head while conducting the test. All comments in the test were derived only from the score sheets. Period!


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I was just asking a question. Things like that can be seen as having a certain predisposition to a certain sonic flavor.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I love Dynaudio...on public record saying that.

Trying to understand is all.


----------



## 6spdcoupe

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> I love Dynaudio...on public record saying that.
> 
> Trying to understand is all.


As do I along with many others. But, also on public record, it wasn't my point to make one seem to prevail or even defend it. Just pointing out the flaw in logic of one of the former posts. 

I have done several of these blind tests here for both home and car. They will, however, Never be published here due to such threads as this.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

If I were to do something like this, I don't think a ranking order should be included. Nor should comments like said about the anarchy. Why? Because it doesn't bring a sense of impartialness to the review. You took a subjective experience and have tried to make it objective. Such a thing is always bound to fail.


----------



## claytonzmvox

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Congratulations to everyone involved in the test, was deciding which buy and midbass was now a little clearer. You must have courage to take a test of that level, here in my country when such a test is done, there is always someone manipulating results to increase sales!!! Thanks Niebur3. Big test done!


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> If I were to do something like this, I don't think a ranking order should be included. Nor should comments like said about the anarchy. Why? Because it doesn't bring a sense of impartialness to the review. You took a subjective experience and have tried to make it objective. Such a thing is always bound to fail.


The premise of the test with Tiers was discussed from the beginning, same as the mid-woofer test. Brian made the comment you are referring to, and it was his personal thoughts. The results are the results as deemed by blind testers under the conditions stated in the test. 

I have in the test and on here many times (including in the mid-range test) stated that different results could be obtained with any of the drivers tested if any of the parameters in which the drivers played changed. My goal was to test with parameters similar to those used by 95+% of the people buying these drivers.

I stand by these test results and testing method 100%!


----------



## BuickGN

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Thanks for all of the hard work, Jerry. I hope the dicussion remains respectful. I'm looking forward to seeing/hearing your soundboard and your TL soon. Maybe I can buy Erin a beer for all of the trouble I've caused around here while I'm traveling.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

But you didn't exactly do that. You are saying these speakers will be used in a room without any eqing or things done in a car. Which isn't the case. Then any correlating data about the performance in the listening room was omitted from the results. Anyone and anyone knows that speakers will sound different on a sound board than in the car. And trying to make subjective data objective this way is setting yourself up for disaster.


----------



## ErinH

Jerry, I mentioned before you can use my site to host it. I'm sure I can track the progress. Already have google analytical.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

It's about the appearance of impropriety.


----------



## Hanatsu

bikinpunk said:


> Jerry, I mentioned before you can use my site to host it. I'm sure I can track the progress. Already have google analytical.


Dunno if its been asked before, did you klippel test (or planning to do) any of the speakers sent to you?


----------



## cvjoint

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> If I were to do something like this, I don't think a ranking order should be included. Nor should comments like said about the anarchy. Why? Because it doesn't bring a sense of impartialness to the review. You took a subjective experience and have tried to make it objective. Such a thing is always bound to fail.


On this topic, the test is likely to be *subjective as well as objective*. It is subjective in the sense that people's preferences for target curves (frequency response shape) plays a role in the results. It is objective because it makes use of multiple listeners, equalizes the amplitude across drivers, keeps the identity of the driver from being known in an effort to find the higher performing speaker. 

*So is there something wrong with having both subjective and objective portions in the same test? *Well no, with one caveat: the results should lend themselves to being decomposed in the two parts. That means, we should have an idea of the listener's preferences are for frequency response so that we know the objective residual and then rank the drivers. Which leads to the next question.

*How do we pin down people's preferences for frequency response? *Do even know that people have different preferences? Only one way to find out: in a controlled experiment where the other objective attributes of the speaker performance are kept the same from one observation to another. This part is missing. 

Then there is the objective, or true performance differences across speakers. Every test out there, this one, Ph.D. dissertations, working papers, etc are as credible as the quality of the experiment design affords. Some things that make for a good study: normalize the listening environment for all data points, large sample size, control and treatment group, separation of results into amplitude, frequency and time domains, no sample contamination, external validity and so on. Let's look at them one by one:

normalization:
-good: spl matched, same room
-lacking: spl matching rather crude, spl is frequency dependent and no steps have been taken to match spl at every frequency

sample size:
-basic undergraduate books in Econ. state 30 sample points as the rule of thumb for minimum sample size needed for asymptotics to kick in. Some research gets published on a bit less but I've never seen a paper published on 4 data points. 

control and treatment:
-there is no control here as far as I cant tell, no second test on the same speaker by the same listener provided to verify repeatability, no poor quality speaker to verify the high quality speakers in the group rank higher consistently. Basically, everybody gets treated. That makes the study more of an observation based test than an experiment per se. 

external validity aka do these results extend to the real world:
-the study does not say what happens when the test box is small, or leaky, or it's hot outside or humid, or the baffle is weak. There is no sensitivity analysis to any of this. That means unless someone uses these speakers exactly in these conditions it's hard to know how the results would change or whether they would remain the same. 

This may be a more direct point to thehatedguy. In Econ 1 in college, students learn that *it's erroneous to convert nominal data to ordinal data.* That's exactly what this test does by going from "smooth and balanced" to tier 1 and tier 2. This is an elementary and fundamental insight into the level of measurement. Level of measurement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So *my .02* go something like this, you need a high quality objective test to order speakers. Separate subjectivity out, which in itself requires a high quality objective test. All tests have shortfalls, some are better than others. The best ones usually get published in the best journals or get accepted to conferences following peer review. Without revealing my position on the quality of the test, or making recommendations on speakers I hope I've provided some benefit to the readers.


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

There you are...  Was wondering when you'd show up  

So... Where are those frequency response graphs? 

Kelvin


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



cvjoint said:


> normalization:
> -good: spl matched, same room
> -lacking: spl matching rather crude, spl is frequency dependent and no steps have been taken to match spl at every frequency


I was discussed before the test, that no eq would be applied, and this is acceptable in these type of tests.




cvjoint said:


> sample size:
> -basic undergraduate books in Econ. state 30 sample points as the rule of thumb for minimum sample size needed for asymptotics to kick in. Some research gets published on a bit less but I've never seen a paper published on 4 data points.


30 is impossible to do in a listening test. They wouldn't all even fit in the sound room. You would have to do the test in waves and over many days which would bring in more bad then good. 4 was lower then we wanted, but again, ask the forum why only 1 member was willing to take a full Sautrday to listen. Lots of people talk a good game and are willing to do anything, until that day comes and life/laziness sets in.



cvjoint said:


> control and treatment:
> -there is no control here as far as I cant tell, no second test on the same speaker by the same listener provided to verify repeatability, no poor quality speaker to verify the high quality speakers in the group rank higher consistently. Basically, everybody gets treated. That makes the study more of an observation based test than an experiment per se.


There was a control speaker. This speaker scored identically both times it was played, validating the listeners and the test itself. It is in the write-up and posted in the other thread about this test.




cvjoint said:


> external validity aka do these results extend to the real world:
> -the study does not say what happens when the test box is small, or leaky, or it's hot outside or humid, or the baffle is weak. There is no sensitivity analysis to any of this. That means unless someone uses these speakers exactly in these conditions it's hard to know how the results would change or whether they would remain the same.


REALLY, an infinite test with no ending? I think this is asking for a little much. Although, that is why I keep saying that under different conditions, one may achieve different results.



subwoofery said:


> There you are...  Was wondering when you'd show up
> 
> So... Where are those frequency response graphs?
> 
> Kelvin


I hope you are joking. Been answered already.


----------



## cvjoint

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Niebur3 said:


> I was discussed before the test, that no eq would be applied, and this is acceptable in these type of tests.


What do you mean by acceptable? If I buy a pair of speakers that's +3db -3db and drop it in that room you used for testing I might get a frequency response that's +5db -5db. Drop the same speaker in a car and the response can vary +10db -10db. That's a variation of 20db! 20db is the difference between "this is not loud enough" and "this hurts" like say a 2khz tone at 80db and 100db respectively. 

Then there is the whole issue of using EQ. to flatten the FR post installation. Can you tell your reader what the ranking would be if frequency response didn't play a role? Can you abstract from the testing environment to say something about what it would sound like in a car? This is a question of external validity. 




Niebur3 said:


> 30 is impossible to do in a listening test. They wouldn't all even fit in the sound room. You would have to do the test in waves and over many days which would bring in more bad then good. 4 was lower then we wanted, but again, ask the forum why only 1 member was willing to take a full Sautrday to listen. Lots of people talk a good game and are willing to do anything, until that day comes and life/laziness sets in.


The costs would be prohibitive I agree. A classical experiment, like the one you do typically costs a lot of money. I heard one at a seminar yesterday where the costs were $3,000 and it did not require anything but a laptop and a $20 pay for every participant. 

I'm a big fan of quasi-experimental design. I use Social Security Administration data files on over 4 million respondents, national data on foreclosures from top notch private sellers like RealtyTrac and Corelogic, and other administrative quality data from the Department of Education. In doing so, I look for ways in which history created quasi-experiments and separated observation units over control and treatment. Then I have the power of sample size and administrative data quality to punch out estimates and inform policy makers. Classical experiments are not the only way to answer questions, it depends on what kind of data history has already created for us.

Erin's and Vance Dickason's klippel results are as close as we are getting to a common database. A narrow set of questions can already be answered pooling this info together. But you will never see tier 1 tier 2 and so forth coming out of these tests. Speaker performance varies along different dimensions, it's not as easy as stamping steel grades on a bolt. 



Niebur3 said:


> There was a control speaker. This speaker scored identically both times it was played, validating the listeners and the test itself. It is in the write-up and posted in the other thread about this test.


If you provide actual responses from the listeners I think this will create a compelling argument. But we need to see actual responses because the data you collected is nominal in nature. "smooth" only equals "smooth", and "thin" only equals "thin". Any departure in answers from one session to the next and who knows what the difference between these nominal responses really is.




Niebur3 said:


> REALLY, an infinite test with no ending? I think this is asking for a little much. Although, that is why I keep saying that under different conditions, one may achieve different results.


That is the drawback to a classic experiment like the one you designed. It is the gold standard in many disciplines but it still has its short comings. Mainly, responses in a lab have to be applicable to real world situations (external validity). You could ask the listeners to grade speakers on an ordinal scale for example: bad, good, great, best, while designing a test that separates speaker performance over one dimension: amplitude, frequency response, time domain but keeps all other dimensions fixed.

In effect, a more thorough investigation would play back test tones, like the ones OmniMic, WinMLS, SoundEasy etc use but you would have actual people telling you things like, for a 80db 400hz test tone, how loud in db is the 2nd order distortion product, 800hz. So you would be replacing the mic with people and you would check their calibration by putting them in control and treatment groups. That is why professional devices like a $300 OmniMic are so useful. In one graph, you have a plot of one distortion type over all frequencies while keeping every other distortion type fixed using an ear (microphone) that has been calibrated to a higher precision and uses history-long chain of classical experiments like yours. You can answer very narrow questions that would take millions of dollars to answer through human subject experiments. 

On DIYMA folks want you to answer the big question, which one is better. In doing so you have provided them a ranking. The result is not as important as the method. Research presentations are 99% methodology, 1% result, because no one buys the result if the method is not Kosher. The ultimate test for your experiment is to send it to a journal that specializes in acoustics and see if you can publish it (aka get it peer reviewed). There is desk rejection stage you have to pass, then they assign two or more professionals to review it, if you pass this second stage you will have to revise and possible carry many more experiments until you convince your reviewers the work is solid.


----------



## SouthSyde

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



6spdcoupe said:


> As do I along with many others. But, also on public record, it wasn't my point to make one seem to prevail or even defend it. Just pointing out the flaw in logic of one of the former posts.
> 
> I have done several of these blind tests here for both home and car. They will, however, Never be published here due to such threads as this.


Amen!! I feel ya bro!


----------



## xxx_busa

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Science it is !!!




cvjoint said:


> What do you mean by acceptable? If I buy a pair of speakers that's +3db -3db and drop it in that room you used for testing I might get a frequency response that's +5db -5db. Drop the same speaker in a car and the response can vary +10db -10db. That's a variation of 20db! 20db is the difference between "this is not loud enough" and "this hurts" like say a 2khz tone at 80db and 100db respectively.
> 
> Then there is the whole issue of using EQ. to flatten the FR post installation. Can you tell your reader what the ranking would be if frequency response didn't play a role? Can you abstract from the testing environment to say something about what it would sound like in a car? This is a question of external validity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The costs would be prohibitive I agree. A classical experiment, like the one you do typically costs a lot of money. I heard one at a seminar yesterday where the costs were $3,000 and it did not require anything but a laptop and a $20 pay for every participant.
> 
> I'm a big fan of quasi-experimental design. I use Social Security Administration data files on over 4 million respondents, national data on foreclosures from top notch private sellers like RealtyTrac and Corelogic, and other administrative quality data from the Department of Education. In doing so, I look for ways in which history created quasi-experiments and separated observation units over control and treatment. Then I have the power of sample size and administrative data quality to punch out estimates and inform policy makers. Classical experiments are not the only way to answer questions, it depends on what kind of data history has already created for us.
> 
> Erin's and Vance Dickason's klippel results are as close as we are getting to a common database. A narrow set of questions can already be answered pooling this info together. But you will never see tier 1 tier 2 and so forth coming out of these tests. Speaker performance varies along different dimensions, it's not as easy as stamping steel grades on a bolt.
> 
> 
> 
> If you provide actual responses from the listeners I think this will create a compelling argument. But we need to see actual responses because the data you collected is nominal in nature. "smooth" only equals "smooth", and "thin" only equals "thin". Any departure in answers from one session to the next and who knows what the difference between these nominal responses really is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the drawback to a classic experiment like the one you designed. It is the gold standard in many disciplines but it still has its short comings. Mainly, responses in a lab have to be applicable to real world situations (external validity). You could ask the listeners to grade speakers on an ordinal scale for example: bad, good, great, best, while designing a test that separates speaker performance over one dimension: amplitude, frequency response, time domain but keeps all other dimensions fixed.
> 
> In effect, a more thorough investigation would play back test tones, like the ones OmniMic, WinMLS, SoundEasy etc use but you would have actual people telling you things like, for a 80db 400hz test tone, how loud in db is the 2nd order distortion product, 800hz. So you would be replacing the mic with people and you would check their calibration by putting them in control and treatment groups. That is why professional devices like a $300 OmniMic are so useful. In one graph, you have a plot of one distortion type over all frequencies while keeping every other distortion type fixed using an ear (microphone) that has been calibrated to a higher precision and uses history-long chain of classical experiments like yours. You can answer very narrow questions that would take millions of dollars to answer through human subject experiments.
> 
> On DIYMA folks want you to answer the big question, which one is better. In doing so you have provided them a ranking. The result is not as important as the method. Research presentations are 99% methodology, 1% result, because no one buys the result if the method is not Kosher. The ultimate test for your experiment is to send it to a journal that specializes in acoustics and see if you can publish it (aka get it peer reviewed). There is desk rejection stage you have to pass, then they assign two or more professionals to review it, if you pass this second stage you will have to revise and possible carry many more experiments until you convince your reviewers the work is solid.


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

For the love. To all the bashers on here..

All the work and time and effort put into this test and people get on here and *****...unbelievable. Try saying thank you since you aren't putting forth this much work.


----------



## ~Spyne~

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Exactly.
If you don't agree with the testing method, or don't like the results, no one is forcing you to reply in this thread, let alone even read it.

If you would have done the test differently, then go do it and stop bitching in here. Some of us appreciate the time and effort Jerry put into this (along with the other involved in the testing, and lending of drivers) and we also understand the limitations of the test. However we like that at least some effort was put into making it an even playing field, in that all drivers were tested in a consistent manner.

Again, trolls should leave.



Jerry, THANK YOU.


----------



## adrenalinejunkie

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

This is a forum guys.


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



adrenalinejunkie said:


> This is a forum guys.


Doesn't matter. The "Golden Rule" and civility should still be used


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

So you aren't ever allowed to question anything anyone says or does?

Right.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I think more people are trying to understand things than getting on here and bitching...as a lot of people have direct contrary personal experience with several of the drivers on the test.


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

You weren't questioning, you were pointing out flaw's that YOU think were made. Kind of rude to the guy that went through all the effort to make this test happen. Personal experience is just that...personal experience. The testers in this test had their personal experience. Neither this test nor anybodies personal experience is the hands down "this is what you will like." 

And would it really be a fair test to make eq changes to different drivers? no. Flat baseline testing, just like is done in the medical field. Flat baseline testing with as little variables as possible. Sure a driver can be made to sound fantastic with enough eq and dsp. But that's not what this test was about. either like it or hate it but don't bash on the work done. Unless you are going to do it, the way YOU think is right, keep your opinions for yourself. The parameters were set long before the test for everyone on here to see. If you don't like the way it was done, don't read it. simple as that. 

Like Momma always said,
"if you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all." Don't think that is too much to ask.


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

BTW...weren't your drivers the ones with all the expanding foam on one of them?


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Yeah and I never hid that fact either...that there was expanding foam on the basket. What does that have to do with anything? They had the same parameters after testing. So where are you trying to go with this?

Were you part of the test?


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Hell I was trying to make suggestions in the methodology and presentation to prevent more of this from happening.

Prior to.my daughter being born I was working on my masters degree in educational reasearch methodology. Those are the guy who write, design, and analyize those standardized tests everyone has to take these days. I know a little bit about statistics and testing...


----------



## asota

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Why was there foam on a driver that was new never used and not broken in? Most all name brand drivers can sound good on there own but when tested against others there flaws can be more noticeable. I don't think anyone has a problem with questions on the testing but to continually harp on it then accuse the tester of rigging the tests for his own financial gain I think thats where the problem lies.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Why does it matter why there was foam on the basket of one of the drivers? And yes they had never been played?


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Why it had foam on it...I bagged them up and foamed the kicks to shape them. I forgot and left them in the car and the foam got hot while curing and found a pin hole in the double bags and tape to squeeze into.


----------



## cvjoint

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



kizz said:


> BTW...weren't your drivers the ones with all the expanding foam on one of them?





asota said:


> Why was there foam on a driver that was new never used and not broken in? Most all name brand drivers can sound good on there own but when tested against others there flaws can be more noticeable. I don't think anyone has a problem with questions on the testing but to continually harp on it then accuse the tester of rigging the tests for his own financial gain I think thats where the problem lies.


Guys, should you be thanking thehatedguy for putting the effort in to ship his drivers, risking them, and laying out some cash for shipping??? Sounds to me like you too are being a bit bitchy, bashing and trolling right now. 

kizz if you want to talk golden rule I expect you to know it. At least tell us which golden rule you are referring to. If you want to talk about speakers I also expect you to have a basic understanding. You should at least know nonlinear distortion cannot be corrected via DSP.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Techinically my friend Kelvin paid for nthe shipping


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I know that. I wasn't the one complaining about his speaker sounding better with certain eq cuts.
the foam means nothing...just asking. And I was going to be part of the test but I couldn't get the day off work. Im not bashing, im defending. I don't care what degree was had or earned, what I care about is ungrateful people being...well ungrateful. So your drivers didn't perform well in "this" test. Deal with it. If it performs great in your car, great. Why are your feelings so hurt? 
And everyone was thanked for loaning their drivers. Jerry did that several times and now you sit there and tell him he did it all wrong. Then why did you include your speakers in the test? Me tell you thank you? I don't think so....I have zero reason to be thankful for anything you have said or done in regards to this test. And anyone who actually KNOWS jerry, knows the last thing he is concerned with is generating business and profit. Especially through a Fricking internet forum. He loves the hobby and loves helping people in it. Any little profit he "might" get from his hard work (remember car audio is a side job for him) is pure bonus.

So...the results are posted, there is no changing them. If you want to change them conduct your own test Mr. Know everything. Or else deal with it and move on.


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I understand completely there could have been 100 different ways to conduct this test. Each one would probably yield different results, however. It was done Jerry's way, with pure motives and intent in mind. How would it make you feel to be in his shoes? Do try and do something nice for the diyma community with his money and people are 
saying he did it wrong. Think about it

"Golden Rule"


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

What ungrateful like you?

Since we are on page 7, I will say this for the 7th time...I have NOT heard these speakers. I have heard about half or two thirds of the others though. I am trying to understand how they basically got called garbage when all of the other tests objective and subjective has said the contrary. Or is that a bit outside of your mental capacity? Then a bunch of nut huggers like you want to say I am attacking someone.


But I guess if you had just spent $300 on a set of mids that you bought since they had a lot going for them and hadn't heard yet, you wouldn't be curious about the rankings and comments...


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Ungrateful? I thanked jerry. Im grateful. Nuthugger? Not yet today, been too busy. Here's an idea, maybe you should hear your speakers first!


----------



## adrenalinejunkie

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I still can't seem to understand why the testers score sheets are not posted. After all, it is a subjective test. If the testers said good things about driver A, B, C Etc, great. If they said bad things about it, that's also great.


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

And name calling isn't necessary. I could call you an **** eating asshat but I didn't did I?


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Fwiw I used to be part of.listening tests back on eca. I would never try to objectify subjective experiences with no data and a small sample size supporting it. He is setting himself up for posts like these every time if he keeps on doing things this way.


----------



## autokraftgt

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Coming from the average consumer that I am, I just read the results and they solidify my thoughts....

The 18sound speakers sounded like complete garbage in my friends car....I mean COMPLETE GARBAGE!!! Are they supposed to be installed a "certain way?" Cause my friend and I installed them the way we've installed a thousand of other speakers with great success. This is coming from the majority of the population out there who want great sq and a return on their investment....well 18sound did not return the favor. They sucked...no other way to say it....they sucked! When I read the results I was not surprised at all....dyns always rock! I was surprised that 18sound was in the line-up. First thing I thought was "hey, those are the speakers that sucked"....they tested that way too, I was not surprised.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Try it and see. But you technically did...and could get a time out.



kizz said:


> And name calling isn't necessary. I could call you an **** eating asshat but I didn't did I?


----------



## MinnesotaStateUniversity

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Wow, thanks for the review! Your work is well appreciated.

Meh, I can see why his name is "thehatedguy" haha


----------



## autokraftgt

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



MinnesotaStateUniversity said:


> Wow, thanks for the review! Your work is well appreciated.
> 
> Meh, I can see why his name is "thehatedguy" haha


Be very careful...He could put you in a TIME OUT


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

You thought they sounded bad..mark Eldridge and Alberto Lopez liked them. You and your friend are surely the experts they are.


----------



## n_olympios

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Woah guys, I think this is getting out of hand.


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> Try it and see. But you technically did...and could get a time out.


Since im a nuthugger can I get a spanking too?


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Quick analysis shows that people in Omaha, NE don't like the 18sound, but people everywhere else really.like them.


----------



## autokraftgt

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> You thought they sounded bad..mark Eldridge and Alberto Lopez liked them. You and your friend are surely the experts they are.


Who the hell is Mark Eldridge and Alberto Lopez? haha
Are those people I am supposed to know? haha!
And you're right...we are the experts because I will always take my personal opinion on what sounds the best TO ME over what a Mark and Alberto say. Come on man...


----------



## MinnesotaStateUniversity

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> You thought they sounded bad..mark Eldridge and Alberto Lopez liked them. You and your friend are surely the experts they are.


"You thought they sounded bad."

^Irrelevant. He said "thought."

Who cares if he thought they sounded bad. It's subjective. You are comparing people, not drivers. 

Can I be the person that says what speaker sounds good & sounds bad!

No thehatedguy, you are the expert!


----------



## autokraftgt

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



MinnesotaStateUniversity said:


> "You thought they sounded bad."
> 
> ^Irrelevant. He said "thought."
> 
> Who cares if he thought they sounded bad. It's subjective. You are comparing people, not drivers.
> 
> Can I be the person that says what speaker sounds good & sounds bad!
> 
> No thehatedguy, you are the expert!


For Real....So the next time Iam in the market for speakers I have to contact a Mark and an Alberto and ask them what's the best sounding speaker because they have the best ears in the land......someone should do a review on who has the best EARS on diyma...oh wait, Mark and Alberto do!


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



autokraftgt said:


> For Real....So the next time Iam in the market for speakers I have to contact a Mark and an Alberto and ask them what's the best sounding speaker because they have the best ears in the land......someone should do a review on who has the best EARS on diyma...oh wait, Mark and Alberto do!


Mark is not on DIYMA but good try  

Dunno about Alberto though... Is he the same Alberto that owns IXOS? 

Kelvin


----------



## narvarr

subwoofery said:


> Mark is not on DIYMA but good try
> 
> Dunno about Alberto though... Is he the same Alberto that owns IXOS?
> 
> Kelvin


Sure he is...
http://diymobileaudio.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1737959

Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Alright. Since Jerry and Alberto have both heard them and Alberto owns Ixos, which Jerry sells..and Jerry has had Alberto tune his own car. Maybe Jerry could call Alberto and ask him wtf he was hearing since they heard two completely different things.


----------



## ErinH

Lets not drag Mark in to this silliness.


----------



## DAT

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



autokraftgt said:


> For Real....So the next time I am in the market for speakers I have to contact a Mark and an Alberto and ask them what's the best sounding speaker because they have the best ears in the land......someone should do a review on who has the best EARS on diyma...oh wait, Mark and Alberto do!


No but they have tons of experience in the field.

I'd just buy whatever Jerry is selling if you live in NE. Dynaudio makes great speakers, just pricey. 

While Jerry did a good effort with the listening tests, threads like this are always a failure.


P.S. Anyone that thinks the Ex-Anarchy sounds good as a 2 way , has to get their ears checked, that speaker digs low but mid range is lacking, 3 way sure! .


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Dave everyone from Omaha that's posting here are all prior customers of his...so they are buying what he is selling. Most all of it is good stuff though.


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I've never heard the 18sound so I have no opinion. I neither like them or dislike them. I am however attracted to unique looking speakers which those are.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

The surround looks weird moving in and out.

I've been curious about the phass stuff since maybe 2001 or 2002. Really enjoyed some of their metal dome tweeters from about then.


----------



## cvjoint

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



kizz said:


> I understand completely there could have been 100 different ways to conduct this test. Each one would probably yield different results, however. It was done Jerry's way, with pure motives and intent in mind. How would it make you feel to be in his shoes? Do try and do something nice for the diyma community with his money and people are
> saying he did it wrong. Think about it
> 
> "Golden Rule"


So there is nothing wrong with 100 studies getting 100 different results to you? Are you indifferent between any speaker out there or do you care about using a better product? 

It is quite evident at this point that A) you don't believe Jerry's experiment to be robust to changes in methodology B) following my outline you have decided that the cons outweigh the pros. If there is anyone out there making a judgement call it's you, and it is against the experiment. You can thank him all you want, but not knowingly you have expressed your stance against. You either don't care about anything, or don't believe the experiment to be good. 

You tend to think that I've stated a conclusion, when in fact I haven't. I only made a descriptive analysis of the features. I did not say the experiment is to weak to constitute evidence, nor did I say it's not robust. In fact, I said clearly that I won't take a stance. EVERY experiment has drawbacks, that is the way the world works. 

1. "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful"
Buddhism, negative form
example: don't critique others if you don't lie to be critiqued yourself
2. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"
Christianity, positive form
example: critique others if you like to be critiqued

Personally I give my research to my advisers, colleagues, present it at conferences, seminars and work study. Two or more minds are better than one. It's help and fostering of good ideas I'm seeking, I'm not a masochist who enjoys being punished.

By the positive golden rule, I like to receive criticism, and therefore I critique. Note, that's different than the negative form. Just because I like to be criticized doesn't mean I have to criticize others. So which is it? 

As a disclaimer I think criticizing often pays homage to someone's work. If I find it worthy to be read, and especially under a microscope than it's worthy and I have paid the greatest respect that I could. It matters more that I didn't do it to kiss ass, but out of self interest. There is an undeniable worth in a classic experiment of this sort that I believed to be interesting. 

You think you are the better person telling someone that his experiment nets the result it did by chance, and that 100 of these repetitions would net 100 different results? But it's ok right? Because you add Thank You to the end?


----------



## Wesayso

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I just hope thread derails like this don't stop people like Jerry to do this type of tests. I liked it even though it didn't get me the info I was after. I agree more could have been done to find the clue's why the woofers ended up in this ranking. But how would you know if you didn't try?
I would like to have read more about the tested woofer specific likes and dislikes and regret not more people were involved in the actual listening tests. That way we would have more clue's why they got ranked this way by reading their personal feelings on here. 
It is good to learn from this right? I can understand thehatedguy to want to know more on the woofers he send in. I would want to hear more too in that case.
If nobody had any comments, how would we learn to make future tests better?

I applaud the effort from Jerry, somehow I knew the Dynaudio woofer would end up top without ever hearing them but so did the Scanspeak Illuminator. I regret the Revelator wasn't in anymore. It is cheaper but according to things I've read it shines in the midrange so it would have fitted in.
But we can't have it all. This was it and maybe next time, as I do hope there will be a next time, we get frequency responses measured at the listening test location and score sheets.

By the way, do we still get the klippel data on the Phass woofers or did I miss it?


----------



## BuickGN

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



DAT said:


> No but they have tons of experience in the field.
> 
> I'd just buy whatever Jerry is selling if you live in NE. Dynaudio makes great speakers, just pricey.
> 
> While Jerry did a good effort with the listening tests, threads like this are always a failure.
> 
> 
> P.S. Anyone that thinks the Ex-Anarchy sounds good as a 2 way , has to get their ears checked, that speaker digs low but mid range is lacking, 3 way sure! .


Do you know of anyone that has tried the Anarchy as a 2-way and thought it sounded bad? 

Here's my one and only contribution to this thread and I'm out. Why weren't there more complaints about the testing method beforehand? I was looking forward to Erin's comments on klippel results vs the preferred sound. Is it looking like FR has the largest effect and HD is nearly worthless as long as it's below a certain point? Again, I would love if someone found a way to look at klippel results and know which speaker would sound the best to you. That would make shopping very easy. The top 2 speakers I've heard and they completely go along with my opinion of them.


----------



## Wesayso

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



BuickGN said:


> I was looking forward to Erin's comments on klippel results vs the preferred sound. Is it looking like FR has the largest effect and HD is nearly worthless as long as it's below a certain point? Again, I would love if someone found a way to look at klippel results and know which speaker would sound the best to you. That would make shopping very easy.


Somehow I was expecting that too! Seeing the klippel data connected to this listening test was part of the goal right? I'd love to know more about the effects of cone material on the sound too. 

Dynaudio uses different materials than Scanspeak. How did that change/influence the sound?


----------



## ErinH

Wesayso said:


> By the way, do we still get the klippel data on the Phass woofers or did I miss it?


No one has ever volunteered them. Though, I have asked a few times for the chance to do so.


----------



## Wesayso

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



bikinpunk said:


> No one has ever volunteered them. Though, I have asked a few times for the chance to do so.


So they remain a mystery brand... sorry to hear that, I was looking forward to that, just to try and learn a bit more about it all.


----------



## ErinH

Wesayso said:


> Somehow I was expecting that too! Seeing the klippel data connected to this listening test was part of the goal right? I'd love to know more about the effects of cone material on the sound too.
> 
> Dynaudio uses different materials than Scanspeak. How did that change/influence the sound?


Way too many variables to nail it down to any one specific feature. I have maintained the FR is most likely the largest contributor, if not the sole contributor here given the notional band pass, but determining what one piece of the driver dictates the FR isn't so easy. Most cone material issues are seen outside of the piston of range; in these cases close to the LPF but not necessarily close enough to say that all issues will shine through that crossover, depending on exactly where the modal issues occur. 

FWIW, I have already made one attempt at comparing a few of these drivers to the data we do have but I also don't have the luxury of time to pour through each in the analytical manner required to derive useful and challenging analysis. In other words, I'm too busy to do the task due diligence. Im typing this on a bathroom break.  And frankly, I'm just not as interested as I once was a few months ago. 

Don't let that stop you guys from attempting it yourselves, though. Pull up the available FR data from my tests or Zaph's and start comparing it. I'm happy to provide feedback on what is proposed from the analysis. 
You can work on HD/IMD after FR is looked at. Just my $.02.


----------



## cvjoint

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Klippel spits out CMS KMS LE and some other test parameters but not the ones that describe cone performance. About the only impact of cones on Klippel performance is in the CMS plot, and that's only if the cone bends to the degree it becomes a variable in the test aka. it's so poor quality it doubles as a surround. 

The other challenge is that the Klippel is primarily a large signal machine. When you combine the HP filter, box loading, quality of the speakers chosen, and the average power at the speaker terminals you may find too small of a signal to compare. The Klippel will give partial information into the speaker quality, precisely estimated, and over a wide range of power levels. The classical experiment here tries to give an overall ranking in a specific setting. They try to achieve very different goals.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I have seen 2 tests of phass speakers, both the older blue colored alinco magnet set. One was on eca and maybe here too since it was done by nyugen/cheapboy and the other was in CA&E where Casey Thornton did the technical side and Eric Holdaway did the listening.


----------



## Wesayso

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I realise that Klippel won't tell us much about the cone's influence on the sound, but generally cone materials do sound different or at least get that label. I would have liked to be able to link the materials to the sound heard during the listening test if it was noticed at all.

Glad we are a bit more on track with the thread again, at least I think we are  right?

Let's learn something so we can all benefit!


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Im going to keep this short and then im finished because my point isn't getting across either because im not being clear or people aren't listening.
your putting words in my mouth. I completely support and stand by Jerry's test, how he did it and his results. I have no argument with what he did. My stance is that he did a great job. That's it. There is nothing wrong with criticism ...in fact its a very good thing. But there is a proper time and way in which to deliver it. And its clear that wasn't taken into consideration in this thread. I have heard some of the speakers in the test and have my own opinions. I have read great things about a specific driver that did poorly. However, im not on here complaining about the testing procedure or the information provided because I can't believe "x" driver didn't do better with all the positive feedback it has received. There's no need for it, that's all im saying. I can't put it any simpler than that.

With that, im done responding. Typing over the internet is a terrible way to have a conversation such as this so how about we agree to disagree and leave it at that.

And you can quote whatever spiritual or religious junk you want to me to prove you are intelligent. It wont change anything on my end. I wasn't going to say anything at all originally but I can't stand it when good people get treated like crap. It isn't right.



B][/B]QUOTE=cvjoint;1739295]So there is nothing wrong with 100 studies getting 100 different results to you? Are you indifferent between any speaker out there or do you care about using a better product? 

It is quite evident at this point that A) you don't believe Jerry's experiment to be robust to changes in methodology B) following my outline you have decided that the cons outweigh the pros. If there is anyone out there making a judgement call it's you, and it is against the experiment. You can thank him all you want, but not knowingly you have expressed your stance against. You either don't care about anything, or don't believe the experiment to be good. 

You tend to think that I've stated a conclusion, when in fact I haven't. I only made a descriptive analysis of the features. I did not say the experiment is to weak to constitute evidence, nor did I say it's not robust. In fact, I said clearly that I won't take a stance. EVERY experiment has drawbacks, that is the way the world works. 

1. "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful"
Buddhism, negative form
example: don't critique others if you don't lie to be critiqued yourself
2. "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"
Christianity, positive form
example: critique others if you like to be critiqued

Personally I give my research to my advisers, colleagues, present it at conferences, seminars and work study. Two or more minds are better than one. It's help and fostering of good ideas I'm seeking, I'm not a masochist who enjoys being punished.

By the positive golden rule, I like to receive criticism, and therefore I critique. Note, that's different than the negative form. Just because I like to be criticized doesn't mean I have to criticize others. So which is it? 

As a disclaimer I think criticizing often pays homage to someone's work. If I find it worthy to be read, and especially under a microscope than it's worthy and I have paid the greatest respect that I could. It matters more that I didn't do it to kiss ass, but out of self interest. There is an undeniable worth in a classic experiment of this sort that I believed to be interesting. 

You think you are the better person telling someone that his experiment nets the result it did by chance, and that 100 of these repetitions would net 100 different results? But it's ok right? Because you add Thank You to the end?[/QUOTE]


----------



## Wesayso

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> I have seen 2 tests of phass speakers, both the older blue colored alinco magnet set. One was on eca and maybe here too since it was done by nyugen/cheapboy and the other was in CA&E where Casey Thornton did the technical side and Eric Holdaway did the listening.


Any of them still up somewhere?


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Ok I lied, last post. I think cone material is a major factor which dictates what we actually hear in comparison to what a klippel shows us. But im not very knowledgeable with klippel. That w is just my experience.


----------



## cvjoint

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

You'll need one of these at the very least: 
Scanning Vibrometer System (SCN)

Even if you manage to poll all these tools together, you would still need a metric to combine them, and therefore a full evaluation of a completed literature on the audibility of every parameter derived. See for example http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/THD_.pdf


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> Fwiw I used to be part of.listening tests back on eca. I would never try to objectify subjective experiences with no data and a small sample size supporting it. He is setting himself up for posts like these every time if he keeps on doing things this way.


I am doing it the proper way, minimizing variables. My test methodology is sound and I'm don't see a need to change any of it.



thehatedguy said:


> You thought they sounded bad..mark Eldridge and Alberto Lopez liked them. You and your friend are surely the experts they are.





thehatedguy said:


> Alright. Since Jerry and Alberto have both heard them and Alberto owns Ixos, which Jerry sells..and Jerry has had Alberto tune his own car. Maybe Jerry could call Alberto and ask him wtf he was hearing since they heard two completely different things.


I did call Alberto tonight. I talked to him about personal items (selling his house and moving to Florida) and then explained the test I did and that his name was brought up. 

*So, I asked, "so what is your experience with 18sound?", he said "I don't understand, what is 18Sound? I said, "A speaker brand you are supposed to own and really like." He said, "I have never heard of that brand before, so I can't comment." I said, "I will spell the name so you can make sure we are clear." After spelling the name, he again said, "I have never heard of that brand." (which is not surprising since I know he has no current aftermarket system in his vehicle)

I then asked Alberto if he would read my review and let me know his thoughts. He said, "of course, but I am out of town now, but should be able to next week." I will post his thoughts when he emails me back.*

I know you may have just been mistaken, but careful when throwing names around to justify a product. It also seems as a single comment from Mark (who could have been just being nice) is being spread around like the gospel.....pretty funny to me.



thehatedguy said:


> Dave everyone from Omaha that's posting here are all prior customers of his...so they are buying what he is selling. Most all of it is good stuff though.


FWIW, I have not asked anyone to post on my behalf (not that you said I did). KIZZ is a current customer and friend, Autokraftgt I have met and demoed speakers to. I also consider some forum members friends....should I list all of them so their opinion can be discounted as well?


And at the end of the day, none of this changes the fact that the 18Sound did poorly, given the parameters of my test.


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

:rimshot:

AWESOME!


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

What in the world is Diyma coming to?


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Wesayso said:


> I realise that Klippel won't tell us much about the cone's influence on the sound, but generally cone materials do sound different or at least get that label. I would have liked to be able to link the materials to the sound heard during the listening test if it was noticed at all.
> 
> Glad we are a bit more on track with the thread again, at least I think we are  right?
> 
> Let's learn something so we can all benefit!


Here is something Erin did last year that might help with the effect that cone materials have on drivers.

The AR3K and XR3M are basically the same driver with the difference being the cone materials. Not Klippel testing, but very good info to see the effects the cone materials may have.

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...745-audible-physics-xr3m-le-ar3k-drivers.html


----------



## chefhow

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Having heard the 18Sounds right out of the box with NO breakin and in a cabinet I HATED IT, IT SUCKED AND I DIDNT EVER WANT TO HEAR IT AGAIN. Then a few weeks later I hear it in the car untuned but in the car and WOW what a difference. Realistic, sick insane decay and life like wood and brass tones that I had never heard in a car before. Then it gets tuned and it was absolutely beautiful, smooth midrange, snappy attacking midbass with good depth and smooth sub to mid and mid to tweet transitions. 
Basically its no where near the same driver in a cabinet as it is in a car and until you test them in a car it doesnt mean much since we dont listen to drivers in cabinets in a room we listen in a small confined space


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Testing in a car would be great but very difficult to do simply because of time constraint. At least I would think so. Are there any magazines or companies that review speakers in a car environment? Im asking because I don't know and haven't seen it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.


----------



## Mic10is

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



kizz said:


> Testing in a car would be great but very difficult to do simply because of time constraint. At least I would think so. Are there any magazines or companies that review speakers in a car environment? Im asking because I don't know and haven't seen it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.


YES
Car Stereo Review, Carsound and others all did real IN Car Testing for their reviews. Major issue is those magazines no longer exist


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Throwing him under the bus? He wasn't too worried telling me. See, I have known him for almost 20 years now. 

But furthermore, so you like them in a completely different setting then I tested them....good for you....doesn't make my test any less truthful. I removed variables. 

If anything, you can only make the statement that they sound good (to you and maybe others), playing "x" passband, with "x" eq setting, in "x" particular vehicle. 

Dude, seriously, be happy you like them and they work for you. They went up against stiff competition in a very controlled test and placed in Tier4, do you need me or the other testers to say they sounded good to validate your liking of them? Or to feel better about your purchase? I don't get it.


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Mic10is said:


> YES
> Car Stereo Review, Carsound and others all did real IN Car Testing for their reviews. Major issue is those magazines no longer exist


Wow....what a way to find the best speakers for a particular vehicle.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry it is not tactful to post comments from a judge about every car at a show. Participants of said show are not involved in this discussion. He did judge Mic's car that had the speakers in it. He may have not have known what speakers he was listening to. Mark may not have either. Rather than asking about a driver, ask how that person's car sounded. In this case Mic and Lori Wallace's BMW.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

You ever read those old tests? 



Niebur3 said:


> Wow....what a way to find the best speakers for a particular vehicle.


----------



## [email protected]

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Who deleted Jerry's post about this Alberto dude scoring stuff to be nice in competitions?


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Whatever. Alberto is a very good friend of mine (20+ years) and speaks the truth to me.

Granted he may not have known we was listening to 18Sound, but he was also listening to an entire system (all speakers, amps, HU, Processor) and was comparing the "system" to the rules. Even if he absolutely LOVED the speakers, they are mounted differently and fully processed, playing competition music.

I WILL SAY IT FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME, DIFFERENT APPLICATION THEN MY TEST MAY LEAD TO DIFFERENT RESULTS! (but this doesn't invalidate my test one bit)

I absolutely guarantee if these had finished in Tier1, you two wouldn't be on here questioning my testing methods (and if you say you would, you'd by lying). 

These were blindly compared in a controlled environment as stated and finished in Tier4, enough said!

FWIW, I never said he scored stuff to be nice, I said that he has tact! Even if he said it sounded real good, doesn't mean he would have like them over the other speakers in our test. Some people say, yeah, your haircut looks good, when it doesn't. Don't know if that was the case or not, but it sure didn't make enough of an impression for him to investigate the brand further (or even remember the name).


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Jerry read post 216. To include every car at the show is disrespectful to everyone but the car in question.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



BeatsDownLow said:


> Who deleted Jerry's post about this Alberto dude scoring stuff to be nice in competitions?


I did. Blanket statements made about every car there isn't fair to the participants who are not here to defend themselves and not involved in this discussion.


----------



## cvjoint

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



kizz said:


> Ok I lied, last post. I think cone material is a major factor which dictates what we actually hear in comparison to what a klippel shows us. But im not very knowledgeable with klippel. That w is just my experience.


Cone material in the piston range of the driver has NO bearing on the sonic qualities of the speaker provided it remains stiff in that range. Where it has sonic signatures is if the cone is flexing and outside the piston range.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

George you are here to defend your stance. I don't care you insult each other as long as both sides can respond. There were 30 others involved who can't do that.


----------



## Niebur3

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> Jerry read post 216. To include every car at the show is disrespectful to everyone but the car in question.


My apologies.


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> Cone material in the piston range of the driver has NO bearing on the sonic qualities of the speaker provided it remains stiff in that range. Where it has sonic signatures is if the cone is flexing and outside the piston range.


furthermore, the data shows this. it is in the FR and doesn't really need much more than a few point measurements off-axis to show this. modes... decay... tomato, tomahtoe. 

that said, it is indeed my understanding that pistonic range is where the driver stays neutral in regards to in/out of phase movement of the cone (thus create comb filtering in it's own magnitude), but I do wonder if this is always true; it seems plausible there would be a case where a certain driver design (whether by flaw or intention) would exhibit flex in the cone that could result in these modal issues showing up lower in response. whether that's purely based on cone material, voice coil size (as this is one means of rectifying the cone's behavior) or a horribly designed basket that allows the driver to flex as excursion increases, I can't say. but, like I said... it seems that there's potential for these types of 'issues' to occur.


oh, sorry... were we still arguing over the 18sound or has the conversation drifted back on something that really matters?


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Wesayso said:


> Any of them still up somewhere?


I looked for it here, but nothing but alluding to both tests. The old CA&E test may be up but I doubt it.

You might be able to use the Internet archives to search the old elite car audio site.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Niebur3 said:


> My apologies.


It's all good.


----------



## cvjoint

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> George you are here to defend your stance. I don't care you insult each other as long as both sides can respond. There were 30 others involved who can't do that.


Well, next time you guys use appeal to authority make sure the guy is dead first . :biggrinflip:


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Erin, I think both situations probably happen. A smart designer/engineer could probably manipulate it a desired effect. Look at what mark fenton is doing with full range drivers...probably more out there but that is the most obvious example I can think of Atm.

And I'm sure a lesser designer would product effects...though maybe not desired or knowingly.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



cvjoint said:


> Well, next time you guys use appeal to authority make sure the guy is dead first . :biggrinflip:



Roger than bravo 1!


----------



## BuickGN

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



bikinpunk said:


> furthermore, the data shows this. it is in the FR and doesn't really need much more than a few point measurements off-axis to show this. modes... decay... tomato, tomahtoe.
> 
> that said, it is indeed my understanding that pistonic range is where the driver stays neutral in regards to in/out of phase movement of the cone (thus create comb filtering in it's own magnitude), but I do wonder if this is always true; it seems plausible there would be a case where a certain driver design (whether by flaw or intention) would exhibit flex in the cone that could result in these modal issues showing up lower in response. whether that's purely based on cone material, voice coil size (as this is one means of rectifying the cone's behavior) or a horribly designed basket that allows the driver to flex as excursion increases, I can't say. but, like I said... it seems that there's potential for these types of 'issues' to occur.
> 
> 
> oh, sorry... were we still arguing over the 18sound or has the conversation drifted back on something that really matters?


I remember something in Dyn's literature saying part of the reason for the large voice coil is to reduce or eliminate the cone modes. It's pretty crazy, a 3" coil on their 5.25" and (small) 6.5" driver, a 4" coil on a (small) 10" driver. I believe the 3.5" midrange has a nearly 1.5" coil. Yet their 12" sub "only" uses a 3" vc.


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Alright, let me add my criticism here...and let's take in to consideration I am friends with both Jerry and Mic and have no issues with anyone in this thread (though, sometimes I've wanted to strangle a couple of you, but it's all in good fun )....


Jerry, I know we discussed this test multiple times before you set out to do it. I feel somewhat responsible for those attacking you based on the methods you chose because I suggested (or, at least, agreed) that the logic was there. while not necessarily the way I would pursue this test entirely, I think you took reasonable steps to provide data based on common-use practice (ie: door mounted mids). I think that the possible mistep here, ultimately causing you grief in this thread are tied to :

I didn't notice the rationale posted for your test methods in the report.
The "raw" data taken by you is not provided. Personally, this creates a problem in two ways:

Listener "score" sheets. We are not allowed to view the subjective evaluations in their entirety simply because it's not available to us. Regardless of how little there is, how well you summarized it, or how little importance that set of data may be in your eyes to this test, I feel it is one of two factors here that should have been provided at a minumum. The second factor being....
Measurement data. I know at one point I encouraged you to take measurements of the drivers in the seated position (or at least in that realm) so we - the viewers - could have a much more pertinent set of data to analyze with the subjective review. I also know that I offered up my OmniMic for you to use for this and to take measurements with. However, I didn't provide you with the OmniMic simply because I forgot and that may have been a hindrance to this aspect of your test if you were of the mindset that you didn't want to keep bothering me about it. If so, that's my fault and I apologize. 


If you have these sets of data you have a much more complete evaluation. You have a report which essentially summarizes the findings and you have the raw data to support any theory you may have come up with. The listener's evaluation score sheet + the measured in seat data?.... *ballgame*. That's a homerun. That's why I asked about it in my earlier reply.

One other thing we discussed was on and off-axis listening. Was this performed in your testing? If so, is there a specific set of data that characterizes both of these individually? We discussed this at length and something you said gave me the idea for you to do this but (recalling what you said that tipped me in the direction of that suggestion) I'm not sure if that particular thing came through and if you then felt the need to not perform the various axes measurements. If you did, that data would be great to have here and your report would really take on a new dimension. Of course, having measurements (if you weren't able to provide any yourself) from Zaph, myself, or the like would really be the only way to make it worthwhile if trying to correlate subjective with objective on/off axis listening experiences. That said, even knowing how the listener's felt about all the drivers off-axis compared to on-axis might give the entire community an idea of what a poor polar response pattern might mean subjectively; even if the response was forced to rolloff due to a LPF.

To those who've read this reply and feel the need to call me a hater or anything of the sort, my suggestion to you is to not do that and re-read everything I've posted and discussed with Jerry before this test even lifted off the ground. I consider Jerry an asset to this forum and someone with a great goal but in some ways this test seemed to fall short of my own personal expectations and a couple small things could have been done to really make this one of the best references in audio (car or home) we've seen in a long time. And, who knows... maybe some of this can still be provided.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> Cone material in the piston range of the driver has NO bearing on the sonic qualities of the speaker provided it remains stiff in that range. Where it has sonic signatures is if the cone is flexing and outside the piston range.


I uasally do not get involve in much in the way of disagreeing with people on the forum as I am still learning and will be more then likely until my last breath, But

Well sir, I have to disagree here and truly wish people would look more into this aspect of speaker design. There is no way i simply cheap plastic cone will have the sonic proprieties of, says a Focal W cone. Give them the same motor they will sound different. I have had this proven to me. If the distortion figures are different then they should sound different correct? 

Honestly and maybe I should not even be saying this, but we have proven this time and time again, we build drivers for many different companies and they share motors and the difference in most cases is the cones used. Again look at the XR and AR 3 that have the exact some motor, voice coil, spider, surround etc.... the difference is the cone. And anyone who has used, listen to these too units knows these two units sound different. Add the BeM3 to the mix same motor much different cone, again different performance. 

Ok now you can simply consider on aspect, weight of the cone, that in itself will change the T/S of the driver even if the the motors are the exact some, so that in itself will cause the drivers to sound/perform different.

Look at my old Ebony and Soul, that are about the close to being the same driver as it gets. Just different cones, specs are so close i could basically use not response graph and T/S figures. NOT DISTORTION Figures! But they sound different. 

This is all i have to say, as I am not speaking what is suppose to be or what someone has said, i speaking for testing and using and hearing for the last 3 years.

O ya, many quote what they read and look over the data that is posted and may or may not understand it. But few truly know how all this relates to speaker design and even fewer know how and what, if a designer wanted to change a part of the T/S want he or she would do to to the motor get a the spec they want or a sonic signature for that fact. But if we did we all would be speakers designers at that point. 

Sorry if i got this thread off topic again!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



BuickGN said:


> I remember something in Dyn's literature saying part of the reason for the large voice coil is to reduce or eliminate the cone modes. It's pretty crazy, a 3" coil on their 5.25" and (small) 6.5" driver, a 4" coil on a (small) 10" driver. I believe the 3.5" midrange has a nearly 1.5" coil. Yet their 12" sub "only" uses a 3" vc.


alright, let's just say IF this is true (I'm not saying it is or isn't; let's just be hypothetical)...

speaking as a non-audio-transducer engineer, there really seems to be no need for a large voice coil to reduce modes on a driver playing such a low frequency range. so, if it's "only" 3 inches, that doesn't seem terrible to me. it begs the question, though, where would the trade off be? would a tweeter benefit from a "large" vc and if so, how large? 

at this point, we enter semantics because, unless I'm wrong, we're all just wannabe speaker designers.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



bikinpunk said:


> alright, let's just say IF this is true (I'm not saying it is or isn't; let's just be hypothetical)...
> 
> speaking as a non-audio-transducer engineer, there really seems to be no need for a large voice coil to reduce modes on a driver playing such a low frequency range. so, if it's "only" 3 inches, that doesn't seem terrible to me. it begs the question, though, where would the trade off be? *would a tweeter benefit from a "large" vc and if so, how large? *
> 
> at this point, we enter semantics because, unless I'm wrong, we're all just wannabe speaker designers.


Your on to something there sir, Really. I would like to see how many people can answer the question in bold with a why they feel the way they do.


----------



## BuickGN

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



bikinpunk said:


> alright, let's just say IF this is true (I'm not saying it is or isn't; let's just be hypothetical)...
> 
> speaking as a non-audio-transducer engineer, there really seems to be no need for a large voice coil to reduce modes on a driver playing such a low frequency range. so, if it's "only" 3 inches, that doesn't seem terrible to me. it begs the question, though, where would the trade off be? would a tweeter benefit from a "large" vc and if so, how large?
> 
> at this point, we enter semantics because, unless I'm wrong, we're all just wannabe speaker designers.


That's kind of what I was getting at. I'm sure it's the sum of the parts, maybe the cone material Dyn uses requires support around the center of the cone instead of the end/edges. Just wondering out loud. As far as I know most tweeters are edge driven on the outer diameter while most subs, midbass, and mids are driven from the inner diameter. Maybe that's not true 100% of the time. Only Dyn's midbass/midrange (3.5"-9") are driven from the "center" (why do I feel like I'm using the wrong word) of the cone, the rest are traditional. They could have done something like the 5" vc Morels with their sub but they didn't. Cone modes seem like a good explanation for a design that they must think is important since it makes compromises in other areas. 

I'm not trying to make this about Dyn but trying to understand how some of the things you mentioned in your previous post such as cone material VC size, etc., affect what we hear that might not show up in the measurements. I'm still trying to figure out how some speakers that test pretty close to one another can sound completely different.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Mark I am all ears. I enjoy learning, especially where what works on paper doesn't work in the real world.

Which is why I am seemingly latched on and focused on the 18Sound drivers in this test. That and I want to know if these particular drivers are bad/defective out if the box...$300 down the drain isn't something I really want to stomach right now. Hell they could have been bad and I didn't know it. Not trying to make excuses, but I wouldn't have sent them if they were bad.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Mark I have an idea, just need to explain it well...just from what I have seen in compression drivers, which generally have voic coils that are larger than the physical dome.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> Mark I am all ears. I enjoy learning, especially where what works on paper doesn't work in the real world.
> 
> Which is why I am seemingly latched on and focused on the 18Sound drivers in this test. That and I want to know if these particular drivers are bad/defective out if the box...$300 down the drain isn't something I really want to stomach right now. Hell they could have been bad and I didn't know it. Not trying to make excuses, but I wouldn't have sent them if they were bad.


To be honest I have used the 18sound 6ND430 6.5" that is in this test and the 8MB400 8" that was compared to the 2118H a while back. I too found the 18sound drivers to be very very nice. The 8MB400 is outstanding when used correctly.


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



narvarr said:


> Sure he is...
> M.S.E. Advanced SQ Seminar - Nov 10-11, Bixby, OK - DIYMA Car Audio Forum
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG GALAXY NOTE using Tapatalk 2


Never seen him around... Guess he mostly post in the event sub-forum. Good to know, thanks. 
Guess I was wrong :mean:

Kelvin


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Why you have to mention the 8s? Just to mess with me? That's not cool man.


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> Cone material in the piston range of the driver has NO bearing on the sonic qualities of the speaker provided it remains stiff in that range. Where it has sonic signatures is if the cone is flexing and outside the piston range.


That makes sense to me. Thank you! What Audible Physics said makes sense too. hmmmmmm......


----------



## cvjoint

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



subwoofery said:


> Never seen him around... Guess he mostly post in the event sub-forum. Good to know, thanks.
> Guess I was wrong :mean:
> 
> Kelvin


For that much money I'd rather see this:
AES San Francisco 2012 » Registration Prices

And some real celebrities:

http://www.aes.org/events/133/presenters/

Klippel, Linkwitz and dozens more...


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Wesayso said:


> I just hope thread derails like this don't stop people like Jerry to do this type of tests. I liked it even though it didn't get me the info I was after. I agree more could have been done to find the clue's why the woofers ended up in this ranking. But how would you know if you didn't try?
> I would like to have read more about the tested woofer specific likes and dislikes and regret not more people were involved in the actual listening tests. That way we would have more clue's why they got ranked this way by reading their personal feelings on here.
> It is good to learn from this right? I can understand thehatedguy to want to know more on the woofers he send in. I would want to hear more too in that case.
> If nobody had any comments, how would we learn to make future tests better?
> 
> I applaud the effort from Jerry, somehow I knew the Dynaudio woofer would end up top without ever hearing them but so did the Scanspeak Illuminator. I regret the Revelator wasn't in anymore. It is cheaper but according to things I've read it shines in the midrange so it would have fitted in.
> But we can't have it all. This was it and maybe next time, as I do hope there will be a next time, we get frequency responses measured at the listening test location and score sheets.
> 
> By the way, do we still get the klippel data on the Phass woofers or did I miss it?


Like that post a lot  

Never really cared for the ranking (well did before the test took place), just wanted comments from reviewers on each drivers and the associated frequency response @ the listenning spot in order to better understand associated type of sound and/or Klippel tests... 

Quoting myself one last time then I'm done  Jerry or Erin or anyone else really... Just'd like to know. 


subwoofery said:


> Stupid question, but shouldn't level matching be done so that @ the Xover point, levels are the same? Level for the Dyn T330D never changes so it's logical (at least in my head lol) that the midrange level are brought so that @ the Xover point, smooth transition is achieved and "almost exactly" the same... 1 driver "shouldn't" be more airy than another if levels are set that way IMO.
> 
> Am really not arguing, just really really curious which way is better to conduct a test such as this one.
> 
> Kelvin


Ohh... and I do like my 6ND430s - who has those crap drivers for sale cheap? I'll buy them, I'll buy them all  

Kelvin


----------



## BuickGN

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Guys, be nice to Jerry, we have to get an 8-9" midbass test out of him. When should I start removing mine from the doors?  

Maybe you can take me on a tour of the studio where this infamous test went down when I get there....


----------



## kizz

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Don't forget a tweeter and subwoofer test lol


----------



## Hanatsu

This is pure conjecture of course but I think IM distortion is the cause for loss of detail. IM causes what I would call smearing of frequencies and the lower you highpass a driver the more risk for close frequency IM. I think this is the reason why speakers with high 2nd order HD "sound warm, but less detailed", if the driver would inhibit high 3rd order HD but low 2nd order, there would be more spreading between the original tone and the distortion. It would sound more un-natural but it would give sense of better detail. Low linear distortion (Linear FR) helps with staging, tonality, presence. Extended FR on the low end gives more bass ofc. Just my thoughts about analysing speakers...


----------



## n_olympios

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



kizz said:


> Are there any magazines or companies that review speakers in a car environment? Im asking because I don't know and haven't seen it, but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened.





Mic10is said:


> YES
> Car Stereo Review, Carsound and others all did real IN Car Testing for their reviews. Major issue is those magazines no longer exist


A german mag does it as well, they use a Merc A-klasse as a test car and install each driver according to the manufacturer's manual (both front end speakers and subs). But IIRC they test them indoors as well. 



Niebur3 said:


> Whatever. Alberto is a very good friend of mine (20+ years) and speaks the truth to me.
> 
> Granted he may not have known we was listening to 18Sound, but he was also listening to an entire system (all speakers, amps, HU, Processor) and was comparing the "system" to the rules. Even if he absolutely LOVED the speakers, they are mounted differently and fully processed, playing competition music.


If anything, this goes to show something I've always been a believer of: you _can_ make mediocre speakers sound good (as well as great speakers sound bad). And before I too get bashed, I'm not saying the 18sound is mediocre, although I can understand why it scored less than the competition in this particular test. 

Regarding the Dynaudios and big voice coils, I think it helps reducing cone breakup as well. The dust cap is rigid enough since it has the vc under it to keep it in place (and domes are rigid structures anyway) and the remaining cone area is much smaller, which also helps. I wish I had the technical background to explain it in audio-engineering terminology, but I'm sure someone witty enough will.


----------



## Hanatsu

BuickGN said:


> I remember something in Dyn's literature saying part of the reason for the large voice coil is to reduce or eliminate the cone modes. It's pretty crazy, a 3" coil on their 5.25" and (small) 6.5" driver, a 4" coil on a (small) 10" driver. I believe the 3.5" midrange has a nearly 1.5" coil. Yet their 12" sub "only" uses a 3" vc.


I remember Zaph saying that the old 3" VC woofers where all bad from Dyn, Morel and HiVi, my DLS Iri8 also got 3" VC and it's not very good above 1,7kHz or so. Dunno which speakers he refered to, don't think it was the Esotar range which performs good. The small spider holding the VC in place is just that, small. Press the cone in one edge and the VC starts to scrape against the gap. Dunno what's the real benefit of using such big VCs in midbass/midrange drivers?


----------



## asota

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Mic10is said:


> Ive known him just as long.
> and I'm pretty sure when You talked to him, he didnt forsee you broadcasting your conversation all over the internet to validate your test.
> So yes, by doing so, you are throwing a highly respected person in the industry under the bus, but I guess that how you treat old friends.
> 
> My issue are the same thats been pointed out by others.
> Its a subjective test-yet the reviews of those involved were not posted.
> The Tier rating of drivers in a subjective test for no purpose what so ever
> The language used after the test to describe speakers that you do not sell. Its fine if they didnt test well under your parameter, thats all that really needs said--but you have to add your own spin on things.
> 
> The high degree of perception of impropriety --and Im not the only one bc majority of people on this forum who read this test that i spoke to at MECA Finals all found the end results very convenient to the brands you sell.
> 
> I have zero issues with the brands, I run Dyn in my Lancer, ran them in my Civic..Ive listened to several speakers from Phass on trips to Japan. Zero issues with Hybrid speakers etc...
> 
> But as thathatedguy pointed out--even the language used to describe speakers in the review means that testers were looking for a particular sound and were anticipating hearing the Dynaudio speakers.
> The test was tainted from the start bc of peoples own person bias toward a particular sound.
> Its like early 90s competition when everyone ran MB Quart--if your car didnt have that distinct metal dome tweeter harshness and paper cone sound, you had no chance of doing well.


I am a bit confused you say you run dyn's in your lancer that won top 24 and 18 sound in your bmw While the bmw did well in top 24 it scored poorly in Meca. Word I overheard on the bmw was it sounded dull and lifeless. While I'm at it; but a bit off this post, I am also a bit confused how you ran the bmw in modified class at finals when it ran in master class all year.


----------



## chefhow

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

He has 2 BMW's Chris, 1 in Master Class and Lori's runs in Modified. He ran the Lancer while he was building both cars this season.
As to how the car sounded, it was more realistic than any car I heard this past weekend. It wasn't the best, but the most realistic and life like. There are things those drivers reveal that most other drivers don't. It had attack, life and it staged very well.
It wasn't warm and bottom heavy like most cars tend to be and EVERY car that didn't have that heavy bottom end and warm processed sound did "poorly" as you said. Jorge Delgados car had the most unbelievable stage and imaging I have ever heard in a car. Layer after layer of depth and space of stage, it was so insane I actually had to start some tracks more than once to believe I was hearing what I actually heard.
Not sure who you spoke too but I don't think Lori/Mic had many people ask to listen to the car if any.


----------



## asota

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



chefhow said:


> He has 2 BMW's Chris, 1 in Master Class and Lori's runs in Modified. He ran the Lancer while he was building both cars this season.
> As to how the car sounded, it was more realistic than any car I heard this past weekend. It wasn't the best, but the most realistic and life like. There are things those drivers reveal that most other drivers don't. It had attack, life and it staged very well.
> It wasn't warm and bottom heavy like most cars tend to be and EVERY car that didn't have that heavy bottom end and warm processed sound did "poorly" as you said. Jorge Delgados car had the most unbelievable stage and imaging I have ever heard in a car. Layer after layer of depth and space of stage, it was so insane I actually had to start some tracks more than once to believe I was hearing what I actually heard.
> Not sure who you spoke too but I don't think Lori/Mic had many people ask to listen to the car if any.


Ends my confusion Thank you Howard


----------



## BuickGN

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Hanatsu said:


> I remember Zaph saying that the old 3" VC woofers where all bad from Dyn, Morel and HiVi, my DLS Iri8 also got 3" VC and it's not very good above 1,7kHz or so. Dunno which speakers he refered to, don't think it was the Esotar range which performs good. The small spider holding the VC in place is just that, small. Press the cone in one edge and the VC starts to scrape against the gap. Dunno what's the real benefit of using such big VCs in midbass/midrange drivers?


I think the benefit is cone modes or lack thereof. 

I wouldn't worry too much about what happens when you push on the edge of the cone. I've made subwoofers scrape by doing that. The coil doesn't rub during normal operation, so it doesn't really mean anything.

I don't know about the older Dyns because I've never run them but I've run the newer Esotecs and Esotars and I can't see any problems cause from a small spider. One of the improvements Dyn made in the newer Esotecs (152/162/172/182) was an improved spider that allows more travel. While the vc takes up a lot of the spider area, the spider on my 182 midbasses is about the size of the cone and the pleats are deep. Don't get me wrong, it's smaller than normal and when I got them I sat there pressing on the cone and watching the spider motion for 30 minutes lol. They have 4.5mm one way xmax and 13mm one way xmech, it's not bad at all for a midbass despite the small spider. The Esotars have very deep "pleats" and an entirely different material. I can say with certainty that the spider on the 650 is not so restrictive that it stops it from bottoming, they have a good 1" of stroke before that happens. So I'm sure the spider design and material can help to overcome the typical tradeoffs of a large vc.

I don't know what to say about your DLS not wanting to play above 1.7khz but I don't think it's the vc size. There are plenty 3" vc drivers that play higher, even up to 7khz. 

I think we get hung up on one area and forget what's most important, how they sound, the sum of all parts. Dyns are definitely at the top of the food chain, small spider or not. 

It's not like the engineers can't design a smaller voice coil to get around the spider issues. Instead, they chose to keep the large voice coil and improve on the spider design. There must be a reason they went that route, it's definitely not the cheaper route. It's definitely not the easy way but it must be important enough to them that they hang on to the design.


----------



## Hanatsu

BuickGN said:


> I think the benefit is cone modes or lack thereof.
> 
> I wouldn't worry too much about what happens when you push on the edge of the cone. I've made subwoofers scrape by doing that. The coil doesn't rub during normal operation, so it doesn't really mean anything.
> 
> I don't know about the older Dyns because I've never run them but I've run the newer Esotecs and Esotars and I can't see any problems cause from a small spider. One of the improvements Dyn made in the newer Esotecs (152/162/172/182) was an improved spider that allows more travel. While the vc takes up a lot of the spider area, the spider on my 182 midbasses is about the size of the cone and the pleats are deep. Don't get me wrong, it's smaller than normal and when I got them I sat there pressing on the cone and watching the spider motion for 30 minutes lol. They have 4.5mm one way xmax and 13mm one way xmech, it's not bad at all for a midbass despite the small spider. The Esotars have very deep "pleats" and an entirely different material. I can say with certainty that the spider on the 650 is not so restrictive that it stops it from bottoming, they have a good 1" of stroke before that happens. So I'm sure the spider design and material can help to overcome the typical tradeoffs of a large vc.
> 
> I don't know what to say about your DLS not wanting to play above 1.7khz but I don't think it's the vc size. There are plenty 3" vc drivers that play higher, even up to 7khz.
> 
> I think we get hung up on one area and forget what's most important, how they sound, the sum of all parts. Dyns are definitely at the top of the food chain, small spider or not.
> 
> It's not like the engineers can't design a smaller voice coil to get around the spider issues. Instead, they chose to keep the large voice coil and improve on the spider design. There must be a reason they went that route, it's definitely not the cheaper route. It's definitely not the easy way but it must be important enough to them that they hang on to the design.


Esotec 182 is actually a quite interesting driver for my next project, concider it to be a high value driver. Sounded very good when I heard a demo. My DLS have amazing output and they also have like 4.5mm linear Xmax. I don't think the 3" VC have some bad impact on the speaker so to speak, no pun intended. Measured HD on my DLS Iri8 and it has a large 3rd order HD peak at 1,7kHz and a spike in FR, cone breakup at 1,7k with a coated paper cone seems strange so I suspected before that the large VC was the cause, but reading the comments here leads me to the contrary. My 8" is intended for a 3-way setup, they didn't care for midrange in this specific speaker design perhaps...


----------



## BuickGN

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



Hanatsu said:


> Esotec 182 is actually a quite interesting driver for my next project, concider it to be a high value driver. Sounded very good when I heard a demo. My DLS have amazing output and they also have like 4.5mm linear Xmax. I don't think the 3" VC have some bad impact on the speaker so to speak, no pun intended. Measured HD on my DLS Iri8 and it has a large 3rd order HD peak at 1,7kHz and a spike in FR, cone breakup at 1,7k with a coated paper cone seems strange so I suspected before that the large VC was the cause, but reading the comments here leads me to the contrary. My 8" is intended for a 3-way setup, they didn't care for midrange in this specific speaker design perhaps...


If you ever use the 182 make sure the basket is out of sight. Its one of the ugliest rear ends Ive seen, at least to me. One if the things I like about it is you're not limited to a narrow bandpass. It plays up high better than your typical 9. I'm running mine from. 65hz to 750hz which is a little higher than many people with a 3-way.


----------



## [email protected]

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Dyn, Morel and DLS used/use a 3" coil so the magnet can go inside the coil, which is said to produce a better magnetic field. I dont think it has anything to do with cone modes.


----------



## BuickGN

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



BeatsDownLow said:


> Dyn, Morel and DLS used/use a 3" coil so the magnet can go inside the coil, which is said to produce a better magnetic field. I dont think it has anything to do with cone modes.


Dyns literature states cone modes as one of the benefits. I found it on one of their home speakers a while back. Ive always wondered if the large coil might be better at "absorbing" large transient peaks without burning.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

We can randomize cone modes by making the cone oval.


----------



## danno14

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> We can randomize cone modes by making the cone oval.


Interesting.....
Do you know of any manufacturer who has done this?


----------



## [email protected]

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



danno14 said:


> Interesting.....
> Do you know of any manufacturer who has done this?


I believe he is just talking about a 5x7 or a 6x9


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



danno14 said:


> Interesting.....
> Do you know of any manufacturer who has done this?


Eric Stevens when he owned ID  

Kelvin


----------



## Hanatsu

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



BuickGN said:


> If you ever use the 182 make sure the basket is out of sight. Its one of the ugliest rear ends Ive seen, at least to me. One if the things I like about it is you're not limited to a narrow bandpass. It plays up high better than your typical 9. I'm running mine from. 65hz to 750hz which is a little higher than many people with a 3-way.


I'm gonna use them in a 3-way setup without sub, so I guess 40-250Hz or so. They seem to be able to go pretty deep, at least they did in the demo car. I agree they look ugly as hell, but who cares - not gonna look at them. I was offered a pair of demo played MW182s for ~400$ so I think I buy them, as good as new anyway. This is getting pretty OT now ^.^


----------



## ErinH

subwoofery said:


> Eric Stevens when he owned ID
> 
> Kelvin


Automotive companies caused it, most likely. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need. Thank Ford. Not Eric. Lol.


----------



## cvjoint

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



subwoofery said:


> Eric Stevens when he owned ID
> 
> Kelvin


There are many manufacturers that have made oval speakers...

The problems associated with oval speakers far supersede the benefits. The only time I find them useful is when they afford a much larger surface area due to fitment issues and for bass use. 

I think the Vifa pentacone approach to be better, although cone slicing, adding ribbs, composites, geometric approaches (ie. honeycomb structures), sandwich diaphragms are other ways to get the same job done. 

At some point, you have to ask yourself how much does it matter? As far as I can tell the 7" Illuminator is better with the aluminum cone than it is with the paper. To me this shows that the material is not as important as the total sum of approaches. The Illuminator makes heavy use of geometry to stiffen the cone. Even the surround is made specifically to work with the aluminum cone.


----------



## danno14

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



BeatsDownLow said:


> I believe he is just talking about a 5x7 or a 6x9


Boy, don't I feel dumb! I should never reply to something I read on a (small screen) smart phone. I misread "cone" to be "coil", as in VC.... and got all sort's of cornfused


----------



## tnbubba

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

ya'll all need to be ***** slapped!


----------



## wdemetrius1

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



chefhow said:


> It wasn't warm and bottom heavy like most cars tend to be and EVERY car that didn't have that heavy bottom end and warm processed sound did "poorly" as you said. Jorge Delgados car had the most unbelievable stage and imaging I have ever heard in a car. Layer after layer of depth and space of stage, it was so insane I actually had to start some tracks more than once to believe I was hearing what I actually heard.



I completely agree with the comments on Jorge's car, while I heard a good bit of the cars there, I didn't hear many, that I would consider bottom heavy or warm processed. All of the cars that I heard were quite pleasant to listen to.


----------



## chefhow

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



wdemetrius1 said:


> I completely agree with the comments on Jorge's car, while I heard a good bit of the cars there, I didn't hear many, that I would consider bottom heavy or warm processed. All of the cars that I heard were quite pleasant to listen to.


D pleasant isnt REALISTIC and the purpose of what we are supposed to do in competition is to realistically recreate the recordings in a car. I'd be willing to bet that most of the recordings didnt naturally have an overly warm tone to them yet most cars you listened to did. I'm not saying that they didnt sound pleasant or even great because I didnt hear a single one that wasnt either of the mentioned but VERY few were what I would consider to be realistic.


----------



## subwoofery

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



bikinpunk said:


> Automotive companies caused it, most likely. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need. Thank Ford. Not Eric. Lol.


True... Doesn't mean you can't perfect it - oval drivers are mostly associated with loud coaxial rear-stage 

Kelvin


----------



## ErinH

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

true. just saying... let's not give ID sole credit for the 5x or 6x.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

No but them and il were/are the only good ones...most oval speakers are just an afterthought in terms of engineering.


----------



## wdemetrius1

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



chefhow said:


> D pleasant isnt REALISTIC and the purpose of what we are supposed to do in competition is to realistically recreate the recordings in a car. I'd be willing to bet that most of the recordings didnt naturally have an overly warm tone to them yet most cars you listened to did. I'm not saying that they didnt sound pleasant or even great because I didnt hear a single one that wasnt either of the mentioned but VERY few were what I would consider to be realistic.



I honestly don't get the statement that pleasant isn't realistic. I have never heard a recording that was realistic, that was not pleasant to listen to. I don't think that any artist that records music, would not want their material to be both pleasant and realistic. To me, they both go hand in hand.

I completely agree with you, we are suppose to realistically recreate the recordings in our cars, but where are the recording from? It's Live Music. I just heard someone playing a sax, yesterday and it was smooth, realistic, and warm. According to the MECA Demo Disc, on songs like "Ask Me Now", the narrator tells us that the track should have a "warm" and burnish tone to it. That leaves me to ask you what is your definition of overly warm, pleasant, and realistic?


----------



## ErinH

If the recording is pleasant and the car system somehow represents that, it would then be in some way realistic. Te degree of real depends on how accurately the system reproduces the recording. Bottom line, real is the goal and the accurate reproduction of the recording defines real. 

If you're a guy who twists knobs to tailor the sound to your preference then that's an ENTIRELY different topic altogether.


----------



## Hanatsu

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

HiFi = High Fidelity = High Accuracy

Accuracy = Able to reproduce the recording the way it was recorded without adding or subtracting anything. If the recording is pleasant so should the listening experience be. Realistic and accurate is the same thing in this case imo.

Agree with bikinpunk.


----------



## thehatedguy

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I dunno, hi fi doesn't necessarily equal high accuracy ...especially in the home audio market. There they seem like polar opposites IMO.


----------



## n_olympios

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

If you want accuracy in reproduction, get nearfield monitor speakers. 

I doubt you'd be able to live with them for more than a day though.


----------



## Hanatsu

n_olympios said:


> If you want accuracy in reproduction, get nearfield monitor speakers.
> 
> I doubt you'd be able to live with them for more than a day though.


Most people prefer colored sound, the sound gets colored both from the room and the equipment/speakers. Pleasing sound is often far away from accurate sound reproduction, just tried to seperate the different terms.


----------



## chad

*re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



thehatedguy said:


> Jerry I would recommend finding some danley sound labs speakers out to see how audiophile pro speakers can get.


Also Martin and Meyer.


----------



## Darth SQ

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Very good news.
All concerns have been worked out and Jerry (Niebur3) has been gracious in allowing his results PDF to be posted in this thread.
Please go to the very first posting in this thread to find the pdf file.
Special thanks to Erin (Bikinpunk) for finding a previously not known solution to getting Jerry what he needed for it to be posted on DIYMA and to Jerry in his willingness and desire to make this finally happen.
It is very important to state that the mod team and admin team consider Neibur3 an asset to DIYMA and look forward to his future projects that he is considering.
Lastly, our apologies to anyone that has been frustrated regarding this matter during the last few days.

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## SkizeR

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnallllyyyyyy..


----------



## adrenalinejunkie

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Awesome, time to DL. Thanks guys!


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



PPI-ART COLLECTOR said:


> Very good news.
> All concerns have been worked out and Jerry (Niebur3) has been gracious in allowing his results PDF to be posted in this thread.
> Please go to the very first posting in this thread to find the pdf file.
> Special thanks to Erin (Bikinpunk) for finding a previously not known solution to getting Jerry what he needed for it to be posted on DIYMA and to Jerry in his willingness and desire to make this finally happen.
> It is very important to state that the mod team and admin team consider Neibur3 an asset to DIYMA and look forward to his future projects that he is considering.
> Lastly, our apologies to anyone that has been frustrated regarding this matter during the last few days.
> 
> Bret
> PPI-ART COLLECTOR


Thanks to Bret, Erin and all the mods behind the scenes that were involved in helping to get everything worked out and figure out the technical side of things. I hope the community enjoys the results (in a much easier to read fashion) and I hope to bring more of these type of tests on a regular basis.

Thanks Again!


----------



## cvjoint

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Ghetto supah stahhh baby!


----------



## Darth SQ

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



cajunner said:


> some thoughts....
> 
> a speaker is only as good as the box it's mounted in, or something like that. (no, not paraphrasing npdang, the room is important, but the box itself.., the back side of the cone's contribution)
> 
> and what that does to different cone materials, is it reacts on the suspension and causes coloration, which is why cone material is important even in the "pistonic" region. The natural tendency for modes and ringing to develop as harmonics, and are acted upon by decaying energy inside a box, and I guess you can see where a paper cone might be affected more easily than a sandwich one, or you should..
> 
> now, this test (and I haven't clicked on the pdf, so I don't know anything more than what's been posted in the thread comments) has pushed certain company offerings higher up (in tiers, I presume?) than others.
> 
> The tier step model is the subjective ranking, whether you want it to be or not. It is the last word, the final judgement and carries a more significant weighting than comment cards or individual preference, response measurements, level matching, etc. because it is supposed to represent compiled results ending in a tally. It is the score, like it or not.
> 
> So where am I going with this, right?
> 
> now, not having seen the results, is it safe to say the highest efficiency driver got put at the bottom tier, and the test was done without equalization?
> 
> let's figure it out, then.
> 
> the results of this test has an outlier. And it's not the judges's fault, they try to be blind and impartial testers, so is it the test? I think it is. Given a venue change from living room/listening room, to the car interior, a lot happens to that response, objectively and especially subjectively. And using off-axis testing, changes in db level, background noise, and room modes are going to skew any speaker's ability to replicate the same tier performance in both environments.
> 
> So, ultimately you have to look at why these tests were done, to gain an appreciation for how the test parameters were chosen, because consciously or not the bickering in this thread is a result of those parameters. Along with whether to share the "rest of the data" that is comprised of individual scoring and subjective thought cards.
> 
> Even just the thought that it's a vendor doing the testing, has an effect.
> 
> So, I think I'll get around to seeing what is in the test in a bit, but before I do I'd like to say that there's room for many tests in this forum, and this is just one that has been approved by this site's mod/admin. The endorsement means something too, of course.
> 
> Now, if we put all these little details together, we don't have Consumer Reports style testing, and if that's what everyone wants, tough titty because this is how you make it in the world, you make your own luck and you buy your loyal following, and you inure as many as you can to your hand. And if someone points at you and says "why so fly?" you just say "that's the way it is, baby" and count the clicks that make you a supah stahhh..


What's a California junner?

Bret
PPI-ART COLLECTOR


----------



## rugdnit

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



cajunner said:


> beats me, I'm just here for the pretzels...



The best of Farmer Fran - YouTube


----------



## n_olympios

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



cajunner said:


> the results of this test has an outlier. And it's not the judges's fault, they try to be blind and impartial testers, so is it the test? I think it is. Given a venue change from living room/listening room, to the car interior, a lot happens to that response, objectively and especially subjectively. And using off-axis testing, changes in db level, background noise, and room modes are going to skew any speaker's ability to replicate the same tier performance in both environments.


Although I generally agree to the above, I must say that most times when a driver sounds good in a room, it will probably sound good in a car as well. And I only say "most times" because the rest of the time it's mainly due to improper installation/setup.


----------



## n_olympios

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Hmmm. Why am I under the impression that professional drivers that sound loud _and_ good can be found? Not that it's an easy task. 

Eq is bad, or if you will, an evil necessity as we say here. The less eq you have to apply, the better IMO. We have to deal with the car cabin issues, we don't need to deal with the driver's as well. Hence, unequalised drivers that sound good are ok in my book. 

Oh and, again in my opinion, you don't really need a sensitivity of 102 dB on a 6.5" midbass in the car, if the location/build is good. Unless we're not talking about sq anymore, in which case, you can never have enough. 

Edit: I was thinking about the 6ND410 with its 102db quote, but again the 6ND410's 92.5dB quote isn't too shabby either.


----------



## AAAAAAA

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

I think the most that we can get out of all of this is

Don't ask for advice before a test, ask for it after because that's when everyone chimes in.


----------



## cvjoint

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***

Silly wabbit, only the clueless ask for advice.


----------



## ErinH

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

cajunner, read the report. you could have just saved yourself your last post entirely.


----------



## subwoofery

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



subwoofery said:


> Stupid question, but shouldn't level matching be done so that @ the Xover point, levels are the same? Level for the Dyn T330D never changes so it's logical (at least in my head lol) that the midrange level are brought so that @ the Xover point, smooth transition is achieved and "almost exactly" the same... 1 driver "shouldn't" be more airy than another if levels are set that way IMO.
> 
> Kelvin


So? Which is it?  Still looking for an answer/explanation...

Kelvin


----------



## ErinH

I see what you're saying. It matters. But it may not. Truthfully, I'm having a hard time putting a reply in to words so ill wait until I can type it up and think it out.


----------



## subwoofery

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*



bikinpunk said:


> I see what you're saying. It matters. But it may not. Truthfully, I'm having a hard time putting a reply in to words so ill wait until I can type it up and think it out.


Awaiting eagerly for an explanation  

Kelvin


----------



## rjtapp

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

the bottom line is this in my cars, 
id rather have to reach over and turn it down than want to reach over and turn it up, and cant.
i have a old set of the pioneer premier 720prs that perform beautifully with the more power you put to them. car stereo review said back in the test that they performed better than components costing twice as much.
i just bought a set of diamond d6 components with the silk tweeters and put in my ranger. premiers are in my gto. both were run with the same amp. the premiers smoke anything ive heard including said diamonds.
moral is, if youve found a speaker you like, then buy it and dont worry what anyone else thinks or says. its your car, your ears, your money.
thank you Jerry, although the pioneers were not the best in your test, to my ears i love them. clean, clear, midbass the way i love it.
im in for the tweeter test and will volunteer my prs tweeters that are well broken in and i feel will fair well in the test.


----------



## rjtapp

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

to bad Jacobs high end components arent released yet, he's working on a mean set of components that i am definetly going to try and the mid drivers looked like they would also fair well in your test.


----------



## subwoofery

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*



rjtapp said:


> the bottom line is this in my cars,
> id rather have to reach over and turn it down than want to reach over and turn it up, and cant.
> i have a old set of the pioneer premier 720prs that perform beautifully with the more power you put to them. car stereo review said back in the test that they performed better than components costing twice as much.
> i just bought a set of diamond d6 components with the silk tweeters and put in my ranger. premiers are in my gto. both were run with the same amp. the premiers smoke anything ive heard including said diamonds.
> moral is, if youve found a speaker you like, then buy it and dont worry what anyone else thinks or says. its your car, your ears, your money.
> thank you Jerry, although the pioneers were not the best in your test, to my ears i love them. clean, clear, midbass the way i love it.
> im in for the tweeter test and will volunteer my prs tweeters that are well broken in and i feel will fair well in the test.


FYI, the Pioneer set you have is a level below the one in the test: TS-C172PRS 

Kelvin


----------



## cvjoint

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*



rjtapp said:


> the bottom line is this in my cars,
> id rather have to reach over and turn it down than want to reach over and turn it up, and cant.
> i have a old set of the pioneer premier 720prs that perform beautifully with the more power you put to them. car stereo review said back in the test that they performed better than components costing twice as much.
> i just bought a set of diamond d6 components with the silk tweeters and put in my ranger. premiers are in my gto. both were run with the same amp. the premiers smoke anything ive heard including said diamonds.
> moral is, if youve found a speaker you like, then buy it and dont worry what anyone else thinks or says. its your car, your ears, your money.
> thank you Jerry, although the pioneers were not the best in your test, to my ears i love them. clean, clear, midbass the way i love it.
> im in for the tweeter test and will volunteer my prs tweeters that are well broken in and i feel will fair well in the test.


Easy fix, just turn the volume to MAX setting before you shut off your gear. I guarantee you, when you boot it up again you will have to turn it down. Happiness-guaranteed.


----------



## ErinH

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

I just wrapped up the LSI portion of the 18sound 6nd430 testing and must say ... based on only the LSI measurements, I'm not at all _impressed_. There's a serious coil-out (forward) offset yielding very low xmax values (limited by suspension at a measly 2mm and Bl is only at 4.4mm). That, and there seems to be no inductance mitigation. In fact, this is the first time I've seen doppler distortion so relatively high; typically it rides below 5% of total distortion makeup while Cms and/or Bl are in the 20%+ range (obviously this varies with driver). This time, doppler is at 5.5mm xmax limits... typically it's about 2-3x the others. To see Le(x) and Le(i) be so high relative to the other components, I can't say I feel too confident in it being a top contender. I'm really curious to see how the FR, HD, and IMD testing go. But, alas, I'm slacking and probably won't get to that until the end of the week (if then). The joys of having my own klippel.


----------



## thehatedguy

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

I really think these particular drivers are bad out of the box...or fakes.


----------



## ErinH

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

or legit and just not all that. this is why I don't like testing used drivers. i don't like wasting my time on something that a user winds up telling me could be junk after I've spent hours on it already. 

if you seriously have doubts, these drivers are coming back your way Monday and I'm not wasting anymore time on them. which is fine by me. 
just let me know.


edit: I will say this... whoever had these before you didn't seem to care about the one I didn't test. I didn't test that one because it had all sorts of spray-foam on it; on the frame and the spider/surround/cone. I knew that one wasn't going to be a good sample. But the one I did test looks fine out of the box.


----------



## ErinH

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*



cajunner said:


> those figures don't correlate/correspond to what I would suspect to be a top _tier_ driver..



did you read the report yet?

not sure if you're doing the whole conjecture thing or correlating the debated results with the above results. I think it's the latter... but just checking.


----------



## thehatedguy

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

They weren't ever used as far as I know. I bought them new- as far as I knew they were. The foam was my fault...and I never powered them up, no way to do so.


----------



## ErinH

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

Jason, you put these in the spray-foam of death? LOL! Now I feel bad for calling you out. 


Alright, so they were new in box. In that case, I don't see any reason why the one you didn't put in to a vat of home depot spray foam shouldn't continue as a representative example. Unless you have something you're hiding (ie: you got mad at your newborn's crying one night, went in to the garage, grabbed the first speaker you saw which happened to be this one, and chucked it as far as you could shot-put style).


----------



## thehatedguy

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

No, I've admitted eariler that the foam was my fault. I had a leak in the two bags they were wrapped and taped up in when I was making my kickpanels...never intended to have left them in while drying, but got called away- then pregnant wife needed something. I was both heart broken and pissed when I saw it. Jerry's. DATS data said they matched up in terms of small signal performance.


----------



## ErinH

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

didn't catch that.

alright, moving on then. I was under the assumption you were saying the source you got them from was questionable. looks like these drivers may just exhibit a forward offset.


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

WOW, you mean my listening test back the klippel data.....again? AMAZING!!!!


----------



## thehatedguy

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

Well the seller might have been questionable...came out of ebay Israel.


----------



## ErinH

There is. In Jerry's userCP he can see how many people have viewed the file. like anyone who posts any attachment (pdf, picture, word doc, etc) here can. FWIW, Anyone else can see the number of views even if they didn't post it simply by reading the number of views next to the attachment. Be afraid. Be veeeerrryy afraid.


----------



## ErinH

thehatedguy said:


> Well the seller might have been questionable...came out of ebay Israel.


I'm going to literally strangle you. I mean that in the nicest way, of course.


----------



## ErinH

Klippel plots are linked off my own site. I don't post it on Facebook. 

You do know I'm standing outside your widow right now, right? Can you toss me some hot chocolate? It's chilly out here.

Edit: by "toss" I mean hand me some. While hot chocolate thrown on me would resolve my cold feeling, it'd make more issues.


----------



## thehatedguy

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

Seller had 100% feedback there and on audiogon...everything looked legit you know.

Well no, they were listed on ebay here but came out of Israel. I thought they were comingnout of Texas based on the zipcode. Turns out a town in Israel has the same postal code as a town in Texas.


----------



## thehatedguy

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

Luckily the audax I like so much drop in the same holes.

Or I can go to what I wanted to try for a long time- some 8 or 10" coaxes.


----------



## cvjoint

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

The Klippel results do look very disappointing. Not at all what I expected for an exceptional pro audio driver, even an average 18sound driver, or an average B&C pro audio speaker. This is poor performance on a lot of levels. 

I wouldn't be so quick to call the speaker a dud. For one I doubt it's a knock-off. Who would spend time and energy to copy a $150 speaker? It may be a low performer from a group of many 6nd430s from someone's build house, but even then it should not test too far from the average piece.

My guess is...it is what it is. 

Erin, there are tests in your toolbag to check for rub and buzz.  I doubt it's broken in any way, put it through some performance tests if you can.

Good read! Thanks.


Going through the results again, it seem like if the driver was well centered it would have 6mm BL stroke and 5mm suspension stroke. LE variation only .14 from -6mm to 6mm. With some optimization it would perform as claimed. Looking at the motor I'm convinced it's not a fake, it's too broad to be a cheap motor. 

Either way, the B&C drivers look better in every Klippel so far, but usually just a tad bit better. Compared to the 6ndl44 this is likely a lot worse even if optimized. Glad I used the B&C in my car.


----------



## thehatedguy

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

A cruise down Alibaba shows there are a few people "building" 18sound drivers.

But a 2.5mm offset when you have 5mm to begin with is, uh, bad.


----------



## cvjoint

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

oh wow, they'll copy anything nowadays.


----------



## thehatedguy

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

I'm just a bit more than disappointed right now.


----------



## CAPO

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test **RESULTS!***



req said:


> I still find it hilarious that a driver that sells for $180/pair did so well in comparison to $800/pair and higher


which one?


also i cant read the graph which set does best just in the door no enclosure?


----------



## snaimpally

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

Jerry - great job with the testing and very professionally presented writeup. I'm still shocked by the poor showing of the W18NXs. I ran those for several years and found them to be excellent drivers. Not sure what happened.

Too bad no one at Orca could lend you a pair of Focal Utopia 6s - I tried. Just as well you didn't use the pair I had lent you as it turned out that one of the woofers had a defect. Probably just as well that I asked for them back too, given how long it took to arrange the test.


----------



## Gary Mac

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

Fwiw, I now have the at in my Acura, and the 650 in my truck. Both two way, same tweeter, d3004 scan, dyn is getting more power, both in doors. The dyn is running off a p80rs, and the at is running off the stock hu. 

The dyn system was auto tuned, and the at was tuned by someone that knows what he is doing. Anyway, the midrange of the at is far superior, I have it running up to 4k. The difference is neglegable for everything else.


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

^^^As you stated yourself, could be the tuning or vehicle difference, which is why our tests remove as many variables as possible.


----------



## KP

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

Been meaning to get over here for months. First off, thank you to everyone that spent time and $$ to make this happen. I have not read each and every post but one thing I did not see and possibly over looked is mention of driver design. Anything built with a purpose used outside that purpose usually does not do well. A round track car at a drag strip and vice versa for example. In this case particulary, drivers designed for off axis use in a car tested on axis in a room. I can only speak of the AT's and Nextel's as I have used both and had some input on the desgin of the Auto version of the AT's in this test. They were designed to take adavantage of the cabin gain generated in an auto and to play up to around 4k off axis.(from a car door) So on axis in a room they would by design sound exactly as tested. For these test parameters I would suggest the home version.

History: The very first AT I owned was a well used 8ohm home version. When a recone was needed I asked AT for a 4ohm coil, extended midrange, and do not forget cabin gain. This version was born........

Keep in mind the test as performed is not the intended use of any of these drivers and they all will sound different in an automobile.


----------



## npdang

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

Something to consider is that the crossover (as well as the enclosure and baffle shape/dimensions) is a significant factor in the sound of any setup. Issues with the sound of the W18nx (or any of the other drivers) may simply be related to the filtering... baffle step compensation, addressing peaks/dips in the response (especially the +10db high q breakup in the upper end), proper phase and amplitude matching, polar response considerations, etc. This is extremely time consuming and not always practical though, especially in a large roundup like we have here.... much kudos to the tester for the attempt.


----------



## bbfoto

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*

Thanks for your post, Nguyễn! Glad to see you here.  Thanks Kirk for your post as well.

You mean there's still a glimmer of hope for my W18NX's?!?!


----------



## npdang

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*



cajunner said:


> so, what you're saying is a better test would have taken each driver's known weaknesses and addressed them, before being pitted against each other?
> 
> I think that's a relatively truthful observation and the premise of a fair listening evaluation based on the raw driver's performance is not indicative of the eventual listening experience.
> 
> Making good drivers sound great in the automotive environment is even harder to do, compared with a home listening test and yet the validity of this test is accommodated by the majority of readers without question.
> 
> then again, anything that provides basic reading materials for certain brands that performed well, is advertising in a way...


It really depends on what you're "testing" for. If the goal is to find the absolute best performance of each driver and compare them against each other... then yes each driver should be fully optimized. Otherwise, it's not really a fair test of a driver's maximum performance... rather it becomes a matter of how well the driver tested under one set of conditions that may not necessarily reflect how you intend to use the driver.


----------



## AAAAAAA

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*



npdang said:


> Something to consider is that the crossover (as well as the enclosure and baffle shape/dimensions) is a significant factor in the sound of any setup. Issues with the sound of the W18nx (or any of the other drivers) may simply be related to the filtering... baffle step compensation, addressing peaks/dips in the response (especially the +10db high q breakup in the upper end), proper phase and amplitude matching, polar response considerations, etc. This is extremely time consuming and not always practical though, especially in a large roundup like we have here.... much kudos to the tester for the attempt.


It's been literaly a year since your last post around here... welcome back?


----------



## npdang

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*



AAAAAAA said:


> It's been literaly a year since your last post around here... welcome back?


Thanks, will try to post more.


----------



## Niebur3

*Re: 6"-7" Mid-Woofer Subjective Listening Test (RESULTS PDF ATTACHED IN 1ST POST)*



npdang said:


> Something to consider is that the crossover (as well as the enclosure and baffle shape/dimensions) is a significant factor in the sound of any setup. Issues with the sound of the W18nx (or any of the other drivers) may simply be related to the filtering... baffle step compensation, addressing peaks/dips in the response (especially the +10db high q breakup in the upper end), proper phase and amplitude matching, polar response considerations, etc. This is extremely time consuming and not always practical though, especially in a large roundup like we have here.... much kudos to the tester for the attempt.


Thanks chiming in on this. I know many here, including myself, really value your opinion. 

The point of the enclosure that was used was to mimic a typical car door install. Maybe I should have ran to the junk yard and purchase some and made a mock "vehicle" of sorts. I know there are some (especially on this forum) that will go all out to mount the drivers in a way that will more optimize the woofers capability, but most end up throwing them in a door (with treatments) and calling it good. So, that's what the decision was to do.


----------

