# 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More



## Niebur3

This all started with Lycan posting a technical comparison of the HAT L4's vs the Scan Speak 12M (http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...-technical-comparison-hat-l4-vs-scan-12m.html). From the direction of that thread, I am going to be conducting a Subjective listening comparison of these and many other 4" midrange drivers.

Here is a list of the drivers/members involved in the test:

Scan Speak 12M (Lycan)
HAT L4 (BidRed)
Dynaudio 430 (Niebur3) - Tester
Vifa NE123 (Niebur3) - Tester
Morel CDM54 (Remeolb) - Tester
Morel CDM88 - (Remeolb)Tester
and what ever else BidRed is sending 

We also have Bikinpunk sending testing equipment and Kizz as a Tester. If anyone else wants to be involved, let me know. I am in Omaha, NE (centrally located for anyone!).

It also looks like H-Audio will be sending some Trinity's for testing.

We have 5-6 people right now confirmed for the listening and will be doing both blind and non-blind testing (see if brand/price does cause a bias). It will be a controlled environment and I will try to do a sealed and IB as well as on/off axis. Hopefully we will be able incorporate it all.

Right now, we have a request for DLS Iridium if anyone wants to put them up against the domes in this test. This is probably going to be a pretty extensive test!


*UPDATE: 
Report is done. Please see the following link to view the report and discuss the test:*
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...range-comparison-shootout-results-thread.html


----------



## ErinH

Once all the drivers arrive and are ready to test I'll send out the WT3. 

I do suggest that you keep track of what's what when you run the tests. You can save the results as one large file and have up to 20 memory slots (like trueRTA), and if you do this, you may forget what was what, so keep a notebook handy. 
This will allow you to show all the drivers' impedance plots against each other, or a few, or one.
But, you can only see the basic t/s parameters for one driver at a time. 

Looking forward to the results.


----------



## Niebur3

Awesome...thanks Bikinpunk....I will contact you for help with the software if needed.

We just had more offered for testing (thanks Jimbno1):
Alpine F1 version of 12Ms
Pioneer PRS
Peerless Exclusives

I will probably have to close the list at this point unless I can get some donations/help with return shipping of all these drivers....I going to own stock in FedEx!


----------



## Need-sq

I know it's a bit off topic but would someone, you, or maybe Lycan be interested in testing/listening to a pair of Helix RS-208 2.5"-3" midranges? I am VERY interested in finding out a bit more both from the objective and subjective sides. I will send them to a willing (and trusted) party to fool around with. someone LMK if interested. Below is very liimited PDF of the driver specs. PM me to LMK, or email to benjamin2180 [at] gmail dot com. I like the the interest and curiosity that Lycan has brought out and just want to contribute in what ever way I am able. Thanks all. 

-Ben

View attachment RS802.pdf


----------



## fish

Niebur, I sent you a PM regarding shipping costs...


----------



## Niebur3

Need-sq said:


> I know it's a bit off topic but would someone, you, or maybe Lycan be interested in testing/listening to a pair of Helix RS-208 2.5"-3" midranges? I am VERY interested in finding out a bit more both from the objective and subjective sides. I will send them to a willing (and trusted) party to fool around with. someone LMK if interested. Below is very liimited PDF of the driver specs. PM me to LMK, or email to benjamin2180 [at] gmail dot com. I like the the interest and curiosity that Lycan has brought out and just want to contribute in what ever way I am able. Thanks all.
> 
> -Ben
> 
> View attachment 16780


I can do the subject listening against the others and some basic measurements if you want to send them...just pay return shipping!


----------



## Niebur3

fish said:


> Niebur, I sent you a PM regarding shipping costs...


Thanks Fish....I appreciate the help!


----------



## habagat

Wow! Thanks guys! Looks like a great thread in the making.


----------



## Luke352

Maybe just set up a paypal for people to donate into for return shipping costs. I know I'd be happy to chip in $10 to help with return shipping for yourself.


----------



## Niebur3

Luke352 said:


> Maybe just set up a paypal for people to donate into for return shipping costs. I know I'd be happy to chip in $10 to help with return shipping for yourself.


Here you go....if you want to donate, please send the money to [email protected] as a "gift" and I will use it for return shipping costs. Thanks for all your guys' help with this!


----------



## mark1478

very very cool. looking forward to this comparison since changing my domes is next on my list.


----------



## mSaLL150

The Dayton RS100 is a forum favorite and I'd be happy to send you mine and chip in for return shipping. They've done well in previous midrange comparisons and are priced a bit differently than most of those listed already.


----------



## Niebur3

mSaLL150 said:


> The Dayton RS100 is a forum favorite and I'd be happy to send you mine and chip in for return shipping. They've done well in previous midrange comparisons and are priced a bit differently than most of those listed already.


Send it along, and we will try it. 

Jerry Niebur
7701 Girard Cir
Omaha, NE 68122


----------



## kizz

Ill chip in for shipping!


----------



## Niebur3

kizz said:


> Ill chip in for shipping!


Awesome....Thanks!!! You can just give cash when you help with the testing .


----------



## Luke352

I just sent ya $10USD.


----------



## Niebur3

Luke352 said:


> I just sent ya $10USD.


Thanks very much.


----------



## s4turn

interesting thread!

will be subscribing to this


----------



## DynaudioNut

This is what Im talking about!!! Lets get ready to rumble!!!


----------



## matdotcom2000

I am almost tempted to send in my hl70


----------



## JDMRB1ODY

subscribed


----------



## Mooble

Wow! This is going to be some test! We learned a lot of things from the first two rounds of out subwoofer shootout. This is going to be a tough test for you guys because so much of how a mid will sound depends on how it integrates with both the midbass and the tweeter. At least with the sub we only had to worry about midbass integration. Are you planning to test the mids by themselves or in a full system? I can't wait...


----------



## dannyboyy14

this is going to be sick! im in the market for a 4" mid! too bad no TB 4" Bamboo


----------



## matdotcom2000

What day do I need to have the mids there??? I am currently thinking of getting the cdm88s to replace my hl70s so it would be nice to hear a comparison and how low can the cdm88 go vs hl70 and power handling.


----------



## Niebur3

matdotcom2000 said:


> What day do I need to have the mids there??? I am currently thinking of getting the cdm88s to replace my hl70s so it would be nice to hear a comparison and how low can the cdm88 go vs hl70 and power handling.


The 88's are definitely in and I just found out the 54 are in question and looking like they wont be in unless someone wants to send some. If you are looking to send the hl70's, I would say you have at least 1 1/2 weeks, maybe more. I will update as the drivers are coming in.


----------



## Niebur3

Mooble said:


> Wow! This is going to be some test! We learned a lot of things from the first two rounds of out subwoofer shootout. This is going to be a tough test for you guys because so much of how a mid will sound depends on how it integrates with both the midbass and the tweeter. At least with the sub we only had to worry about midbass integration. Are you planning to test the mids by themselves or in a full system? I can't wait...


This is going to be pretty challenging, you are right. They will be tested as a full system, integrating with the MD130 and MW182's. I will need to adjust the crossover points for the dome mids we are testing. I just hope they all fit in my pods.


----------



## jimbno1

The PRS, F1, and Exclusives will ship today or tomorrow.


----------



## Niebur3

jimbno1 said:


> The PRS, F1, and Exclusives will ship today or tomorrow.


Awesome, I will take pics when they arrive.


----------



## lycan

Scan 12M's will ship today 

I think it's GREAT that you guys are doing this ! 

But a STRONG word of caution, when comparing any two drivers in the SAME enclosure size : COMPREHEND THE SCIENCE !!!!

Here's what I mean: I've read _way_ too many tests where the tester put several drivers in the SAME enclosure, and compared how they sounded. Often, you'll find the classic phrases like : one of the drivers had a "tighter" bass, or a "fuller, warmer" bass, etc. And the testor thinks he did a "fair" comparison because the drivers were in the _exact same_ enclosure! What could be more "fair" than that, right? So he must be hearing the "sound" of the _different_ drivers, right?

Wrong. WAY wrong. What this type of testor doesn't realize is that each driver has it's own high-pass frequency response in it's piston range. And the SAME box will essentially apply a DIFFERENT EQ to each driver. YES ... the SAME box applies a DIFFERENT EQ curve to the different drivers. Depending on the Vas and Qts of the drivers, the SAME box may boost the bass of one driver by 1 dB, while boosting the bass of a DIFFERENT driver by 3dB (for example). It would be the EXACT same thing as comparing two IDENTICAL drivers in DIFFERENT size boxes. And it would be the EXACT same thing as comparing two IDENTICAL speaker systems, with random (and not understood by testor) electronic EQ applied to each.

Now, the good news  This can ALL be "comprehended" by a little measurement, and analysis or modeling up front. What I recommend, is one of (or both of) the following options:

1. Use the spec sheets for each driver to *capture* the Vas, Qts and Fs in free air. Then, *model* the response curves for each driver in free-air ... using math (i'm happy to provide details), or your favorite box-modeling program. Second, measure or estimate the volume of your enclosure. Then, repeat the modeling steps with the enclosure size included.

2. Use the WT3 to *measure* the Qts, and Fs of each driver in free air. REPEAT that measurement for the drivers IN the enclosure. Use math or modeling to plot the response curves.

You may wish to do this "measuring & modeling" separately & blindly from the listening tests, to see how well the listening _correlates_ with what the science says about the drivers (in their piston range). That's fine too 

But the response curves, in the enclosure-of-interest, MUST be comprehended, in order to have a meaningful & fair comparison.


----------



## ErinH

^ agreed.

Measure the drivers free air, and ALSO in the enclosure itself to tell a true story. 

The only time that one should put drivers into the same size enclosure is if the enclosure is molded or installed specifically to fit install criteria (pillar installs that you want to keep small, for example). In this case, you’re picking the driver best suited for the install rather than picking the install based on your driver.


----------



## Niebur3

lycan said:


> Scan 12M's will ship today
> 
> I think it's GREAT that you guys are doing this !
> 
> But a STRONG word of caution, when comparing any two drivers in the SAME enclosure size : COMPREHEND THE SCIENCE !!!!
> 
> Here's what I mean: I've read _way_ too many tests where the tester put several drivers in the SAME enclosure, and compared how they sounded. Often, you'll find the classic phrases like : one of the drivers had a "tighter" bass, or a "fuller, warmer" bass, etc. And the testor thinks he did a "fair" comparison because the drivers were in the _exact same_ enclosure! What could be more "fair" than that, right? So he must be hearing the "sound" of the _different_ drivers, right?
> 
> Wrong. WAY wrong. What this type of testor doesn't realize is that each driver has it's own high-pass frequency response in it's piston range. And the SAME box will essentially apply a DIFFERENT EQ to each driver. YES ... the SAME box applies a DIFFERENT EQ curve to the different drivers. Depending on the Vas and Qts of the drivers, the SAME box may boost the bass of one driver by 1 dB, while boosting the bass of a DIFFERENT driver by 3dB (for example). It would be the EXACT same thing as comparing two IDENTICAL drivers in DIFFERENT size boxes. And it would be the EXACT same thing as comparing two IDENTICAL speaker systems, with random (and not understood by testor) electronic EQ applied to each.
> 
> Now, the good news  This can ALL be "comprehended" by a little measurement, and analysis or modeling up front. What I recommend, is one of (or both of) the following options:
> 
> 1. Use the spec sheets for each driver to *capture* the Vas, Qts and Fs in free air. Then, *model* the response curves for each driver in free-air ... using math (i'm happy to provide details), or your favorite box-modeling program. Second, measure or estimate the volume of your enclosure. Then, repeat the modeling steps with the enclosure size included.
> 
> 2. Use the WT3 to *measure* the Qts, and Fs of each driver in free air. REPEAT that measurement for the drivers IN the enclosure. Use math or modeling to plot the response curves.
> 
> You may wish to do this "measuring & modeling" separately & blindly from the listening tests, to see how well the listening _correlates_ with what the science says about the drivers (in their piston range). That's fine too
> 
> But the response curves, in the enclosure-of-interest, MUST be comprehended, in order to have a meaningful & fair comparison.


PM Sent


----------



## Thunderplains

matdotcom2000 said:


> I am almost tempted to send in my hl70


SEND IT!!! This driver is #2 on my list right now..


----------



## Buzzman

As this is a "subjective" test, you will also need to take great pains to level match for EACH speaker set you use as differences in efficiency, and thus, loudness, WILL affect your subjective conclusions. Good luck with this incredible challenge you have undertaken, and start building a kevlar jacket for the shrapnel that will surely fly. I will look forward to your assessments.


----------



## lycan

Niebur3 said:


> PM Sent


Here's the deal : ALL of us need to understand how to analyze, or model, the high-pass behavior of drivers-in-enclosures. This pertains to ALL drivers, and it pertains to ALL enclosures.

You can use math, or modeling programs: LEAP, WinISD, bassbox ... plenty of it available (i'm not sure i got all the names right, but they are easily found).

UNTIL this is well understood, we are in NO position to declare what science can ... or can't ... say about how a driver "sounds". It's just that simple 

Do we all have to go through this incredibly painful undertaking  in order to put speakers in cars, and enjoy listening to them? Of course not ... but until you _do_ undertake this endeavor, you'll _never_ even begin to understand *WHY* drivers "sound" they way they do. And so you'll never be in a position to _compare_ drivers, with any technical foundation to the comparison.

Now, there's nothing fundamentally _wrong_ with comparing drivers in the _same_ enclosure. BUT ... for that comparison to be meaningful ... you need to understand that the SAME enclosure provides 1.2dB of bass boost to driver A, and 3.1 dB of bass boost to driver B (for example). Naturally, this will DIRECTLY impact how each driver "sounds", and at least one reason *WHY* they tend to sound _different_ (in their piston ranges).

And now, for a specific exercise (to illustrate the point):

Driver 1 :

Fs = 100Hz
Qts = 0.354
Vas = 3 liters

Driver 2 :

Fs = 100Hz
Qts = 0.354
Vas = 12 liters

Someone please model (or analyze) these drivers as follows :

A. Driver 1 : free air (infinite, or huge, enclosure volume)
B. Driver 2 : free air (infinite, or huge, enclosure volume)

A. Driver 1 : enclosure volume = 1 liter
B. Driver 2 : enclosure volume = 1 liter

A. Driver 1 : enclosure volume = 1 liter
B. Driver 2 : enclosure volume = 4 liters

What conclusions can be drawn, about the piston-range performance of these drivers?


----------



## matdotcom2000

LOVE the point you are making, I just LOVE IT!!!!!! Anyways I prolly will send out my drivers on next week I will PM you to get the details. (how long will I be without my babies) lol


----------



## jimbno1

Since I have NIB WT3 SW I will just send with my drivers to save shipping costs. Bikin will still have to provide the technical support since I haven't used it myself yet.


----------



## Niebur3

jimbno1 said:


> Since I have NIB WT3 SW I will just send with my drivers to save shipping costs. Bikin will still have to provide the technical support since I haven't used it myself yet.


Perfect...Thanks!


----------



## MiniVanMan

dannyboyy14 said:


> this is going to be sick! im in the market for a 4" mid! too bad no TB 4" Bamboo


Yep, too bad. 

That's why I'm rectifying that. I'm sending him a pair. Also, whoever mentioned the RS100s. I have 2 pair, and can easily send one with the other drivers and test equipment I'm sending. You can save your shipping costs.


----------



## leepersc

Out of all of the drivers listed I'm most interested in the RS100's. For me, those are the most realistic $ range for my install. I can't wait for this data!


----------



## Niebur3

I have a question for all here....would it be better if I did this test completely outside the car? I was talking some with one of the guys helping test and the thing I am worried about is controlling the placement and mounting of all the drivers (I don't think all of these are going to fit in my pods) and I don't want this to become the best midrange for a Pontiac Firebird. We can control temperature, placement, time alignment, and all sort of other aspects in a better controlled environment. There may be drawbacks to doing this, so that is why I am posting to see what you guys think. I will pull my battery and charger and still use my P9 for DAC purposes if you guys think it could make a big difference and will still be using my Tru amps. Let me know what you guys think! I want this to be a valid review/test of these drivers!


----------



## Buzzman

Niebur3 said:


> I have a question for all here....would it be better if I did this test completely outside the car? I was talking some with one of the guys helping test and the thing I am worried about is controlling the placement and mounting of all the drivers (I don't think all of these are going to fit in my pods) and I don't want this to become the best midrange for a Pontiac Firebird. We can control temperature, placement, time alignment, and all sort of other aspects in a better controlled environment. There may be drawbacks to doing this, so that is why I am posting to see what you guys think. I will pull my battery and charger and still use my P9 for DAC purposes if you guys think it could make a big difference and will still be using my Tru amps. Let me know what you guys think! I want this to be a valid review/test of these drivers!


To be clear, by this are you contemplating listening to just the midrange drivers mounted in an enclosure, playing a specified bandpass range, without any use of your tweeters, etc.?


----------



## ErinH

I think it really depends on what you're trying to do with this test.

So, what exactly are you hoping to get out of it?

I can see the case where in car testing is the only way to go, but when you're spreading the information for others who will use it for different applications, the use of the in car testing is null, imo. 

There's a LOT of factors here. IMO, you need to define your test goals. That will drive your experiment(s).


----------



## Niebur3

Buzzman said:


> To be clear, by this are you contemplating listening to just the midrange drivers mounted in an enclosure, playing a specified bandpass range, without any use of your tweeters, etc.?


I was thinking of still using my tweeters and midbass with pretty standard crossover points. If it would be better, we could do just the midrange as well in a specified bandpass range. This could be in an enclosure or mounted to a baffle, whichever would be best!


----------



## Niebur3

bikinpunk said:


> I think it really depends on what you're trying to do with this test.
> 
> So, what exactly are you hoping to get out of it?
> 
> I can see the case where in car testing is the only way to go, but when you're spreading the information for others who will use it for different applications, the use of the in car testing is null, imo.
> 
> There's a LOT of factors here. IMO, you need to define your test goals. That will drive your experiment(s).


Me, I am hoping to get nothing more than to help our DIYMA community in regards to mid range drivers. I have my drivers and not looking to change anything in my vehicle at all. I am just trying to compare these drivers to see which will perform better overall and include price so someone reading this can get some usefull information and help them make a decision for drivers for their vehicle. I would like to provide the most realvent and subjective listening test I can, knowing I won't be able to do every possible scenario or please everyone.


----------



## jimbno1

The PRS, F1, Exclusive Mids shipped along with the Woofer Tester 3.

Should be there by Friday. 

Jim


----------



## mSaLL150

MiniVanMan said:


> Yep, too bad.
> 
> That's why I'm rectifying that. I'm sending him a pair. Also, whoever mentioned the RS100s. I have 2 pair, and can easily send one with the other drivers and test equipment I'm sending. You can save your shipping costs.


Got your PM. Sounds perfect for you to send your Daytons, easier for shipping. Also mine are brand new, I would assume yours are already broken in.

Can't wait for results.


----------



## Thunderplains

Niebur3,

I am excited about this test simply due to it's application.. In following the posts by Lycan and others, I am thinking it might be a good idea once you have the driver selection in place, to setup a criteria list by which the drivers will be tested by, which will take into account the math needed to properly define the working environment.

I feel that by laying the groundwork, the end results will be fair and based on the correct values for that particular driver.

Maybe start a base criteria list here and gather the comments from the masses and make the decisions on what and how to test properly.

Might already be there, just dropping my .02..


----------



## fish

Maybe test the drivers inside the car & outside the car(atleast the ones that will fit in your pods), so we can get an idea of how much the car affects the drivers' sound.

Just a thought, might be too time consuming.


----------



## Niebur3

Thunderplains said:


> Niebur3,
> 
> I am excited about this test simply due to it's application.. In following the posts by Lycan and others, I am thinking it might be a good idea once you have the driver selection in place, to setup a criteria list by which the drivers will be tested by, which will take into account the math needed to properly define the working environment.
> 
> I feel that by laying the groundwork, the end results will be fair and based on the correct values for that particular driver.
> 
> Maybe start a base criteria list here and gather the comments from the masses and make the decisions on what and how to test properly.
> 
> Might already be there, just dropping my .02..


Are you actually suggesting I can get people on the forum to agree on something....I'm not a god or anything....lol.

Seriously, I understand where you are going and actually spend a good part of my day wrapping my brain around all of this. I will hoping to be setting and posting some pretty solid test parameters tomorrow. 

My main question right now is if I should test in the car or out of the car. Each will have advantages and disadvantages. I was afraid it would turn into the best midrange for my car, but a member pointed out the constant..all cars have dashes, windshields, and all kinds of hard/reflective surfaces, so it may not be that bid of deal. 

I have also had some say to mount in an enclosure and some say to do free air if in the car. I would like to hear some comments/opinions on this part of the parameters. 

Last thing is if I should try to integrate with my tweeters/midbass or test stand alone. 

Some comments here would be nice, although I doubt all will agree. I'm not doing a vote, but using reasoning to look for the answer and decide what I will do.


----------



## danno14

Hellof a test! Looking forward to data (and hopefully adult behavior by readers!!!)


----------



## MiniVanMan

Niebur3 said:


> Last thing is if I should try to integrate with my tweeters/midbass or test stand alone.


You already know my stance on this, but I'll state it here so others know why I'm on the "stand alone" side.

One of the main things we try to do when designing a system is timbre/tonal matching between drivers. There will be several different types of midranges that will be tested. Some will mate tonally well with the Dyn woofers and tweeters, and some others won't. My concern is that the test would naturally become a test on how well the particular midrange sounds with the Dyn speakers.

It would be EXTREMELY hard to not let that affect your judgment.

So, I say test them stand alone and let them be listened to on their own merits.


----------



## quality_sound

^^^I was going to say the exact same thing and he's absolutely correct. Testing as a system is absolutely the wrong way to do this.


----------



## Knobby Digital

Wouldn't it then be easy for the driver with the widest range to deemed the best sounding?


----------



## quality_sound

Why would you think that? Just becuase it has the most extension on both ends doesn't mean it plays there worth a crap.


----------



## Knobby Digital

True. But if you're playing bandwidth limited drivers by themselves, I could easily imagine the one with the most bandwidth being perceived as the best sounding.

Not saying that attempting to integrate all these drivers in his existing system is a better testing method, either.


----------



## JDMRB1ODY

When are you looking to test? I have a pair of CDM-54 coming in.


----------



## t3sn4f2

MiniVanMan said:


> You already know my stance on this, but I'll state it here so others know why I'm on the "stand alone" side.
> 
> One of the main things we try to do when designing a system is timbre/tonal matching between drivers. There will be several different types of midranges that will be tested. Some will mate tonally well with the Dyn woofers and tweeters, and some others won't. My concern is that the test would naturally become a test on how well the particular midrange sounds with the Dyn speakers.
> 
> It would be EXTREMELY hard to not let that affect your judgment.
> 
> So, I say test them stand alone and let them be listened to on their own merits.


x2

Also, wouldn't the baffle of each specific enclosure affect the highend of the sound as much as the enclosure size affect the low end.

Example:

Scan Speak 15W on test baffle: *500Hz-4kHz = +/-2dB*










Scan Speak 15W in enclosure: *500Hz-4Khz = +/-1dB*










Is the difference enough to worry about it affecting the results of the comparison?

If so, would the only fair way to compare the driver be to make a specific baffle for each driver that gives it the flattest response possible in it's bandpass?

Then once you compare them in their optimized enclosure, what happens to the sound when you take them out and install them in a the totally differant enclosure for the car? 

How will the sound change in my car's enclosure compared to the next car's enclosure? From my car to the next car?

I'm I wrong or would the best tonally sounding driver be the one that sounds the best in my particular car and install (clean output and personal taste aside)?


----------



## remeolb

Niebur3 said:


> My main question right now is if I should test in the car or out of the car. Each will have advantages and disadvantages. I was afraid it would turn into the best midrange for my car, but a member pointed out the constant..all cars have dashes, windshields, and all kinds of hard/reflective surfaces, so it may not be that bid of deal.


However, how a driver sounds with reflections from the dash and windshield has nothing to do with the quality of the driver. It makes more sense to remove acoustic problems caused by a car when testing drivers to ensure that the driver is being heard and not room interaction within the car's cabin. This can best be accomplished by testing the drivers outside of any car.


----------



## quality_sound

As long as the enclosure is large enough to reasonably simulate IB then it should be fine.


----------



## Niebur3

Great input so far guys.....just to be clear, if we test the driver by itself, it will still be bandpassed, so the range of the driver will not affect the results. We will be using a pretty wide range, but all the drivers will be rated as very capable in this range. Hey, if I don't have to deal with midbas/tweeter, our lives just became a little bit easier .


----------



## quality_sound

I would compare them full range to compare the extremes of their operation and then again bandpassed but without tweeters or midbasses.


----------



## fish

I agree that the mids should be tested outside the car, alone, to get all of the essential base data & detailed comparison. However, I think testing inside the car will also be important to get a "real world" response & comparison.


----------



## Niebur3

Okay...so it is looking like the consensus is stand alone testing of the midrange. I will try to test both in car and out of car (will let you guys know more one I get all the drivers in my possession).

Do you guys want them tested in a sealed enclosure in the car or free air? Same question for out if the car, in an enclosure or free air? We really need to think more about not what the speaker would preform better in, but what would 95% do in an install with these speakers. I went to the extreme and have huge pods on my dash...but I know most people probably wont install them in that fashion.

1 idea is open baffle outside the car and enclosure inside the car...what do you think about this?


----------



## ErinH

quality_sound said:


> ^^^I was going to say the exact same thing and he's absolutely correct. Testing as a system is absolutely the wrong way to do this.


x3, then.

When I saw that you were going to test different drivers with the dyns the first thing I thought of was the tonality wreckage that was to occur. 


I'd test them as mids, and solely that.

IMO these are a few things you want to do at a minimum, all outside the car:
*Free Air Tests:*

Get measurements in free-air conditions with the woofer tester 3. 
You might want to test them with the drivers laying on their side so you don’t block the vent hole. I believe this can skew your results, but can’t recall 100%. Or, you could simply test it first. Regardless, make sure you test all the drivers in the SAME conditions and position.
Test the drivers playing free air, mounted only to a simple baffle. 
Nothing too large so that you won’t skew results from driver to driver. There’s a point at which the baffle size is large enough to block back waves and it’s dependednt on bandwidth. I’ve seen it talked about specifically for open baffle subwoofers in home audio. To keep things apples to apples, build a baffle simply to mount the drivers to. Then play free air. Test the lower limits of the driver playing free air. Note breakup at lower and higher end as you move the crossover points.

*Enclosure Tests:*

With your woofer tester results, model up nominal box sizes. Do this for every driver and save the results. 
Build the largest enclosure you need to build (whatever driver requires the largest enclosure). 
Now that you have the largest enclosure size and all baffles made, you can simply get the nominal size for each subsequent driver test simply by adding a piece of wood, brick, sand, etc to the enclosure. This will allow you to quickly and easily achieve the nominal enclosure volume and continue right on with your test.
Make a separate baffle for each driver. Use t-nuts/screws for mounting so that you can swap baffles quickly without marring the mdf that the baffles are mounted to. 
Note the low end and the top end. I wouldn’t expect top end to change, but it’s possible the enclosure could cause a roll off sooner than in free-air. 
Use your woofer tester in each nominal enclosure to do an impedance sweep and spit out the new t/s parameters. This is important.
Also, if you want to, you can try the different drivers in different sized enclosures by using your bricks/scrap wood/etc. As long as your box size is not any smaller than the largest required volume, you should have plenty of elbow room to do this testing. As you do this, make sure again to use the woofer tester for impedance plots and t/s parameters.

Might want to consider taking some measurements at different angles, too. I did that with the h-audio souls. Here’s the thread:
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...soul-midrange-x2-wideband-tweeter-review.html



Make sure to take good notes. You might even want to get a dry-erase board on hand so you can write down what each test is as you’re running the woofer tester sweeps.
I suggest that when you take pictures of the group, simply use a sheet of paper and write the driver on that and put it next to the driver. It’ll save you time when you’re typing up the report. 
I recommend doing this anytime you can, for any test you may have, just so you can remember more easily later what the picture is of (ie: picture of x driver in xft^3 enclosure). Assign the tests a number so when you write up your posts and try to search through it, it’ll be easier to find. Ie: Test #4 = Scan 12m in 1ct^3 enclosure. Your heading for listening test would be: #4. Just easier overall to find, because your post(s) are going to be pretty long I have a feeling.

For in car testing, I’d go with whatever makes the most sense for you. Honestly, I’d try putting them in free-air and not worry about an enclosure. You’re going to get the general idea of what the enclosure does when you test it outside the car. Plus, we know that car’s geometry will vary, as will aiming. If you put it in the car and try to do enclosures, etc you’re talking about some SERIOUS headaches. Especially if you start trying to do on/off axis, etc. 
For simplicity, I say free-air in the car, maybe on axis and 90* off axis… no in betweens. Just to get a very general idea.

That’s all I can think of right now. Hope that helps.
Good luck!


----------



## Niebur3

bikinpunk said:


> x3, then.
> 
> When I saw that you were going to test different drivers with the dyns the first thing I thought of was the tonality wreckage that was to occur.
> 
> 
> I'd test them as mids, and solely that.
> 
> IMO these are a few things you want to do at a minimum, all outside the car:
> *Free Air Tests:*
> 
> Get measurements in free-air conditions with the woofer tester 3.
> You might want to test them with the drivers laying on their side so you don’t block the vent hole. I believe this can skew your results, but can’t recall 100%. Or, you could simply test it first. Regardless, make sure you test all the drivers in the SAME conditions and position.
> Test the drivers playing free air, mounted only to a simple baffle.
> Nothing too large so that you won’t skew results from driver to driver. There’s a point at which the baffle size is large enough to block back waves and it’s dependednt on bandwidth. I’ve seen it talked about specifically for open baffle subwoofers in home audio. To keep things apples to apples, build a baffle simply to mount the drivers to. Then play free air. Test the lower limits of the driver playing free air. Note breakup at lower and higher end as you move the crossover points.
> 
> *Enclosure Tests:*
> 
> With your woofer tester results, model up nominal box sizes. Do this for every driver and save the results.
> Build the largest enclosure you need to build (whatever driver requires the largest enclosure).
> Now that you have the largest enclosure size and all baffles made, you can simply get the nominal size for each subsequent driver test simply by adding a piece of wood, brick, sand, etc to the enclosure. This will allow you to quickly and easily achieve the nominal enclosure volume and continue right on with your test.
> Make a separate baffle for each driver. Use t-nuts/screws for mounting so that you can swap baffles quickly without marring the mdf that the baffles are mounted to.
> Note the low end and the top end. I wouldn’t expect top end to change, but it’s possible the enclosure could cause a roll off sooner than in free-air.
> Use your woofer tester in each nominal enclosure to do an impedance sweep and spit out the new t/s parameters. This is important.
> Also, if you want to, you can try the different drivers in different sized enclosures by using your bricks/scrap wood/etc. As long as your box size is not any smaller than the largest required volume, you should have plenty of elbow room to do this testing. As you do this, make sure again to use the woofer tester for impedance plots and t/s parameters.
> 
> Might want to consider taking some measurements at different angles, too. I did that with the h-audio souls. Here’s the thread:
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...soul-midrange-x2-wideband-tweeter-review.html
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure to take good notes. You might even want to get a dry-erase board on hand so you can write down what each test is as you’re running the woofer tester sweeps.
> I suggest that when you take pictures of the group, simply use a sheet of paper and write the driver on that and put it next to the driver. It’ll save you time when you’re typing up the report.
> I recommend doing this anytime you can, for any test you may have, just so you can remember more easily later what the picture is of (ie: picture of x driver in xft^3 enclosure). Assign the tests a number so when you write up your posts and try to search through it, it’ll be easier to find. Ie: Test #4 = Scan 12m in 1ct^3 enclosure. Your heading for listening test would be: #4. Just easier overall to find, because your post(s) are going to be pretty long I have a feeling.
> 
> For in car testing, I’d go with whatever makes the most sense for you. Honestly, I’d try putting them in free-air and not worry about an enclosure. You’re going to get the general idea of what the enclosure does when you test it outside the car. Plus, we know that car’s geometry will vary, as will aiming. If you put it in the car and try to do enclosures, etc you’re talking about some SERIOUS headaches. Especially if you start trying to do on/off axis, etc.
> For simplicity, I say free-air in the car, maybe on axis and off axis… no in betweens. Just to get a very general idea.
> 
> That’s all I can think of right now. Hope that helps.
> Good luck!


I have talked to several of you guys in email and on the phone the last couple of days and it seems like everything is becoming more clear on this whole process, so thanks for all your help!

What is your opinion of in car vs out of car testing? Should I do the sealed enclosure in car?


----------



## ErinH

^ check the post... I did a ninja edit. 


I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to call you last night. 
Plus, could you imagine me trying to tell you all of that? I would’ve confused both of us, and you would have thought I was raving mad! Lol!!!


----------



## quality_sound

I agree with fish, I think they should at least me measured in and out of the car. A perfect reason is the last tweeter test. The L1s didn't sound very good out of the car but in the car they really woke up. More of a "just in case" kind of thing but ya never know.


----------



## Niebur3

bikinpunk said:


> ^ check the post... I did a ninja edit.
> 
> 
> I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to call you last night.
> Plus, could you imagine me trying to tell you all of that? I would’ve confused both of us, and you would have thought I was raving mad! Lol!!!


Crazy Ninja...thanks!


----------



## Niebur3

Okay, so you guys want me to do open baffle and sealed out of car and which one inside the car, sealed or free-air?


----------



## lycan

MiniVanMan said:


> You already know my stance on this, but I'll state it here so others know why I'm on the "stand alone" side.
> 
> One of the main things we try to do when designing a system is timbre/tonal matching between drivers. There will be several different types of midranges that will be tested. Some will mate tonally well with the Dyn woofers and tweeters, and some others won't. My concern is that the test would naturally become a test on how well the particular midrange sounds with the Dyn speakers.
> 
> It would be EXTREMELY hard to not let that affect your judgment.
> 
> So, I say test them stand alone and let them be listened to on their own merits.


Not trying to be contrary, but this is honestly something I've never understood 

What does timbre/tonal matching between drivers playing _different_ frequency ranges _really_ mean? I mean, what are the underlying quantitative principles? Obviously, can't be frequency response. Is it distortion? Even that doesn't make a lot of sense, over different frequency bands.

In the objective camp, where we strive for _accuracy_ in reproduction, I just don't get what _quantitative_ characteristics of the drivers we're trying to "match" 

How do you "tonally match" drivers that are, by definition, playing separate and different "tones"? Know what I mean?

Again, not trying to be argumentative. Just looking for objective clarity.


----------



## Niebur3

JDMRB1ODY said:


> When are you looking to test? I have a pair of CDM-54 coming in.


We should have those...besides you info says you are in Japan?


----------



## ErinH

to me it's rather simple.

You may have one driver that, by design, sounds a bit ‘dry’. 
Some drivers sound more warm. Some sound more neutral, etc. I think we can all agree that different drivers often have their own sound characteristics.

The problem I see when doing these kind of tests is that, for example, you have a system that consists of drivers that have a more warm sound to them. You throw in a mid that doesn’t have that warmth and is rather a dry sound and you may not like what you hear _relative_ (this is key) to what the rest of the system sounds like.
Does this mean you might like it by itself? Possibly… There’s the chance for it to happen, for sure.

I’ve personally experienced this, so I’m speaking from my own experience. Some may be better at controlling their brain enough to say, ‘no, what I’m hearing is the contrast between drivers, not a bad sounding driver itself’. I have a hard time doing this. 

The problem with this, and this test, is that there’s one guy looking to evaluate a bunch of drivers. If he were looking to do this for himself only, and solely to find what drivers he wants to keep then it makes ABSOLUTE sense to test them with the other drivers he likes. Assuming, of course, that he’s keeping the tweeter and midbass and trying to pick a midrange. In this case I think you’d be silly not to test the midrange with the rest of your system.

But, again, for the purpose of this test, where one person is trying to give a characteristic of individual drivers, I think it’s best if you remove all other potential inhibitors. At least then you’ve narrowed everything down to one driver and have no potential for coloration from other drivers.

This is all my opinion... no special degree from me. 


Hope that helps. :/


----------



## quality_sound

Niebur3 said:


> Okay, so you guys want me to do open baffle and sealed out of car and which one inside the car, sealed or free-air?


That's hard to say. I now objectively any results will have to be taken with a grain of salt if they're all in the same enclosure and that that will make the results more heavily skewed heavily towards performance in your car. But by the same token, most people running a 3-way front stage are running pods that are built to fit, not necessarily what performs best.


----------



## ErinH

quality_sound said:


> But by the same token, most people running a 3-way front stage are running pods that are built to fit, not necessarily what performs best.


Exactly.

Which is why I suggest building the largest enclosure and using stuff to fill it in to change the enclosure size to various sizes and test at those sizes. You can get a general idea of how a driver will perform in the car, for whatever enclosure size, based on how many variations in size are used outside of the car for each driver.

So, with the above quoted, I see no reason to try to do enclosures in the car. It’s more of a PITA for you, and really doesn’t tell me anything more than an enclosure outside of the car + what we already know about cabin gain and how geometry of nearby things effect the driver (standing waves, etc). 

Plus, you can’t account for pillar or kick mount… that’s just too much work on you. 
Again, we can draw conclusions from your tests outside of the car with various sized enclosures.
One thing you can do to make this REALLY easy is to pick 3 sizes… maybe 1ft^3, 0.5ft^3, & 0.25ft^3. Then measure each driver with the woofer tester in each of these 3 configuarations. Then show the results on top of each other. We can draw a lot of conclusions from the impedance plot and t/s parameters you get from these three. And it’s much more useful to me than you testing them in the car like this. That’s solid information that will not change. Conversely, anything you do in the car is subject to change.


----------



## lycan

bikinpunk said:


> to me it's rather simple.
> 
> You may have one driver that, by design, sounds a bit ‘dry’.
> Some drivers sound more warm. Some sound more neutral, etc. I think we can all agree that different drivers often have their own sound characteristics.
> 
> The problem I see when doing these kind of tests is that, for example, you have a system that consists of drivers that have a more warm sound to them. You throw in a mid that doesn’t have that warmth and is rather a dry sound and you may not like what you hear _relative_ (this is key) to what the rest of the system sounds like.
> Does this mean you might like it by itself? Possibly… There’s the chance for it to happen, for sure.
> 
> I’ve personally experienced this, so I’m speaking from my own experience. Some may be better at controlling their brain enough to say, ‘no, what I’m hearing is the contrast between drivers, not a bad sounding driver itself’. I have a hard time doing this.
> 
> The problem with this, and this test, is that there’s one guy looking to evaluate a bunch of drivers. If he were looking to do this for himself only, and solely to find what drivers he wants to keep then it makes ABSOLUTE sense to test them with the other drivers he likes. Assuming, of course, that he’s keeping the tweeter and midbass and trying to pick a midrange. In this case I think you’d be silly not to test the midrange with the rest of your system.
> 
> But, again, for the purpose of this test, where one person is trying to give a characteristic of individual drivers, I think it’s best if you remove all other potential inhibitors. At least then you’ve narrowed everything down to one driver and have no potential for coloration from other drivers.
> 
> This is all my opinion... no special degree from me.
> 
> 
> Hope that helps. :/


doesn't work for me 

"dry" or "warm" are terms that must be related to frequency response, distortion, energy storage, etc. in order to answer my question : what are the _objective_ characteristics that we're trying to "match" ... for drivers playing _different_ frequency ranges? And when you _do_ express it in these quantitative terms, i always arrive at the same conclusion : it doesn't matter.

I can elaborate : let's say you're trying to match left & right midrange drivers. Obviously, we can strive for similar frequency response and distortion signatures here, because they are playing the _same_ frequencies. I just can't mentally extend that argument to a midrange and midbass on the same channel.

I humbly submit that "matching" drivers playing _different_ frequency ranges, according to "tonality" or "timbre", or subjective adjectives like "warm" or "dry", is one of those audio myths that has no real basis in reality 

I'm sure this won't be a popular conclusion  But before anyone jumps in with an anticipated counter-point ... yes, i understand that a saxophone has a very different timbre than a clarinet. Objectively, we can describe this by looking at the harmonic signature of each instrument. HOWEVER ... we must not confuse the Mona Lisa with the glass through which we are observing her  I'm not looking for my _reproduction_ system to magically "create" those rich harmonic overtones that define each instrument. I expect my audio system to _reproduce_ those rich harmonic textures, captured in the recording, with accuracy.


----------



## habagat

MiniVanMan said:


> You already know my stance on this, but I'll state it here so others know why I'm on the "stand alone" side.
> 
> One of the main things we try to do when designing a system is timbre/tonal matching between drivers. There will be several different types of midranges that will be tested. Some will mate tonally well with the Dyn woofers and tweeters, and some others won't. My concern is that the test would naturally become a test on how well the particular midrange sounds with the Dyn speakers.
> 
> It would be EXTREMELY hard to not let that affect your judgment.
> 
> So, I say test them stand alone and let them be listened to on their own merits.


 x4


----------



## ErinH

I understand… the sound characteristics I’m talking about are related to FR and the harmonics. I understand.
I just don’t know how one could show this without a klippel. The only way I know how to evaluate this is by subjectively testing the drivers. RTA could and will show FR, though... hmph...

If this was purely a technical test, then I’d agree 100% with you. But, given the following:
1.	Niebur’s going to do listening tests
2.	We don’t have no stinkin fancy equipment here, feller. 

I don’t see really see how to avoid any ‘mind coloration’ as I will call it, in conjunction with what I’ve said above as rationale.


----------



## lycan

bikinpunk said:


> I understand… the sound characteristics I’m talking about are related to FR and the harmonics. I understand.
> I just don’t know how one could show this without a klippel. The only way I know how to evaluate this is by subjectively testing the drivers. RTA could and will show FR, though... hmph...
> 
> If this was purely a technical test, then I’d agree 100% with you. But, given the following:
> 1.	Niebur’s going to do listening tests
> 2.	We don’t have no stinkin fancy equipment here, feller.
> 
> I don’t see really see how to avoid any ‘mind coloration’ as I will call it, in conjunction with what I’ve said above as rationale.


Klippel won't help you. It can do a great job of quantifying the large signal performance of drivers, but that won't help the cause of the illogical.

There's just no meaning behind timbre & tonal matching of drivers playing _different_ frequency ranges.

How will I match tonality (frequency response) and timbre (harmonic signature) of an 93 Hz sinewave, with a 347 Hz sinewave? You have ALL the tools imaginable at your disposal ... how will you do it?

Furthermore, i humbly submit that for those who _have_ heard "driver mismatch", what they've _really_ heard is a poorly designed crossover between the drivers 

Probably subject for another thread, but it does relate to whether or not a single-brand midbass can be used for a midrange comparison test.


----------



## ErinH

Fair enough. I see your point. 
I’ll just kindly disagree and let this thread continue on. We could keep it up, but you’ve shown your points and I’ve talked about mine. Really nothing left for either of us to say. At least not in this thread.


----------



## MiniVanMan

lycan said:


> Not trying to be contrary, but this is honestly something I've never understood
> 
> What does timbre/tonal matching between drivers playing _different_ frequency ranges _really_ mean? I mean, what are the underlying quantitative principles? Obviously, can't be frequency response. Is it distortion? Even that doesn't make a lot of sense, over different frequency bands.
> 
> In the objective camp, where we strive for _accuracy_ in reproduction, I just don't get what _quantitative_ characteristics of the drivers we're trying to "match"
> 
> How do you "tonally match" drivers that are, by definition, playing separate and different "tones"? Know what I mean?
> 
> Again, not trying to be argumentative. Just looking for objective clarity.


A well damped speaker like the Dyns are going to sound very different than say a metal coned driver with a thin metal cone. I understand what you're saying about different pass bands, but you will still have summing of the two drivers at crossover points. 

It's about avoiding confusing the senses around the top and bottom end of the the midrange pass band. Not a declaration of "you can't run a poly cone and metal cone together".


----------



## SSSnake

Jeff,

I agree to an extent... I have always maintained that pro sound drivers tend to have a certain dynamic capability that most home/car audio drivers can't match. I have struggled to quantify the reason for some time. The first answer I always get is sensitivity/efficiency but additional power should be able to compensate for those differences. The next answer, actually an outgrowth of the first, is power compression relsulting from the increased thermal management demands placed on the lower efficiency driver. This could be true but I can't find any data to prove this postulate or provide insights into the thermal demands on speakers playing at what I consider normal listening levels.

Now how does this relate to the "tonal or timbre" matching... IME - when I find a combination that doesn't sound "right" after I apply level matching, proper xover, and EQ the setups tend to be a mix of various efficiency drivers. One extreme example was an ID horn with B&C DE250 and Dynaudio MW 170s. The Dyns had a ton of power available and the freq response was smoothed throughout the passbands but I never could get that combination to sound "right". Swap the driver for the B&C 8NDL51 and things jelled quickly. 

I realize this is all subjective (I don't much care for the typical audiophile descriptors: warm, neutral, etc but I have one that I can't get away from POP). I wish I could come up with a test/measurement that would illuminate the issue but so far I haven't seen anything.


----------



## ErinH

SSSnake said:


> (I don't much care for the typical audiophile descriptors


Personally, I don’t either, but it’s the only way I can really ever try to relate what I mean when I describe a driver. The real problem is that we all have different ideas of what they mean. :/


----------



## SSSnake

> Personally, I don’t either, but it’s the only way I can really ever try to relate what I mean when I describe a driver. The real problem is that we all have different ideas of what they mean. :/


AMEN!

It is pretty true of all subjective statements. Good or bad is typically all in the eye of the beholder...


----------



## Niebur3

Okay, can I throw another thought into the mix. I just talk to another friend of mine and he suggested the following as far as enclosure goes:

Get a long PVC tube, mount the speakers to a very small front baffle that attaches to the tube and fill the tube full of fiberglass insulation, with a few inches of air left behind the driver and the insulation density increasing until it is packed at the other end of the tube - a sort of transmission line.

Would this be better than a fixed enclosure? Thoughts? (please be gentle)

Also, maybe we take the top few speakers and do in car listening with those???


----------



## ErinH

sounds like an AP enclosure to me... in a round about way.

those are tricky and need to be tuned. Going to be hard to equate that to a specific volume for others to use in their installs.


Even if this isn't a true AP enclosure, you're still going to have problems equating the amount of airspace+insulation to a specific volume. May be able to do it, but I wouldn't know where to start. 
Now, you could use the pvc tubing and cut to length to get a certain enclosure size. That makes sense. Make a baffle that will fit each length of tube. Might be easier to do this than building three different boxes.

The drivers' displacement is negligible here, imo, so I wouldn't sweat that at all.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

^^^^ very interesting Erin and SSSnake. I for one use the terms quite a bit as you guys said it is one of the ways to get your point across about a drivers sound. But warm is one a use quite a bit as it is relate to a higher level of 2nd and 3rd order distortion and are usually what forgiving drivers Sound good on about anything you through at them. Critical and Clinical are others I use quite a bite, which lean to drivers that are very detailed and not very for giving on bad recordings. Some say a overly detailed. These driver tend to have early cone brake up. The key to me hat I have found with using the Critical/Clinical drivers is your choice in amps and please don't start the all amps sound the same SH*T!!!! PLEASE!!!!! DIFFERENT DESIGN AND GOALS OF THE AMP DESIGNER TELLS US ALL AMPS DON'T SOUND THE SAME. HIGH-END OR NOT.

Here is the problem I see, is most people don't have a good reference of what a live un-amplified performance sounds live or for that matter what the recording we use are suppose to sound like according to the artist who performed it. Companies like mobile fidelity re-master music and are suppose to have a good reference of what the music is suppose to sound like and with their Audiophile test disc do there best to tell you what to listen for in each track.

Now the problem is how many people know what a real sax in the different forms is truly suppose to sound like, Yes music is subjective, but a sax is suppose to sound like a sax if the recording is at a high level. So with that said it not subjective sort of speak it just our somewhat un-educated perception of what it is suppose to sound like.

This is one reason I kind of like the EMMA CD and test CD that the master of th recording has a great idea is what in the music to listen for and can tell you what to listen for. Now at that point it is up to us to truly learn what the the instruments are suppose to sound like.

Now it no getting past being able to hear small little details in the music with a brand of drivers that you can't hear with another, also attack and the decay. Well if you do a direct replacement in the same system. To me this is what puts the gap between drivers.


Also I agree on being able to match drivers with different cone materials, I would like to think I know a little about this one as H-Audio use many different alloy in our drivers. It is truly hard to get a poly cone to blend with a metal cone drive unless the metal cone is dampen i with another material. Not saying it not possible as it is, up it is hard in the midrange to mid-bass. This is just from me testing many drivers, not only my own brand. The lower the midrange can be crossed the easier it gets to blend the opposite materials.

At that point it kind of comes down to tuning and the motor design of each driver being able to match in speed ( attach and decay). If you mid-bass is just a snail, and you midrange crossed say at 250hz has a great motor design the transition from mid-range to mid-bass will always sound off. So for me its not just cone material, its crossover points, motor design. 

Sorry for the small RANT guys. And hell I may have lost my mind, So read on and flame away. It's just MHO!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

Niebur3 said:


> Okay, can I throw another thought into the mix. I just talk to another friend of mine and he suggested the following as far as enclosure goes:
> 
> Get a long PVC tube, mount the speakers to a very small front baffle that attaches to the tube and fill the tube full of fiberglass insulation, with a few inches of air left behind the driver and the insulation density increasing until it is packed at the other end of the tube - a sort of transmission line.
> 
> Would this be better than a fixed enclosure? Thoughts? (please be gentle)
> 
> Also, maybe we take the top few speakers and do in car listening with those???


Here is what i do most of the. I have about 2 enclosure on is about 3 liters and I just fell it with wood peaces I made to get it down to .5, 1, and 2 liters. I have a few different size baffles for 2-4.5" divers. The next one is the what what give me an IB effect and it is about 3.5 cubic feet. That should be more the large enough for most drivers from 2-6.5" to give to effect of an IB mounting. It works very well, but it I fill it not working, I have to call my test truck over and mount them in there and when I really what to be political correct this truck is how I test the drivers as we will not know what it will truly do in the mobile environment until it is in the mobile environment.


----------



## ErinH

H-Audio - AKA - Here-I-Come said:


> ^^^^ very interesting Erin and SSSnake. I for one use the terms quite a bit as you guys said it is one of the ways to get your point across about a drivers sound. But warm is one a use quite a bit as it is relate to a higher level of 2nd and 3rd order distortion and are usually what forgiving drivers Sound good on about anything you through at them. Critical and Clinical are others I use quite a bite, which lean to drivers that are very detailed and not very for giving on bad recordings. Some say a overly detailed. These driver tend to have early cone brake up..


I actually agree with this. How you’ve described the sound vs. what we say it sounds like is the same way I describe what I hear. So, at least when you and I are talking we’ll be on the same page. Lol. 



H-Audio - AKA - Here-I-Come said:


> it is hard in the midrange to mid-bass. This is just from me testing many drivers, not only my own brand. The lower the midrange can be crossed the easier it gets to blend the opposite materials.



Agreed. Key here is midrange bandwidth, imo. 



Oh, BTW, I’m heading to Miami right now. Hope you have your flip flops ready for a long, romantic walk on the beach.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

bikinpunk said:


> I actually agree with this. How you’ve described the sound vs. what we say it sounds like is the same way I describe what I hear. So, at least when you and I are talking we’ll be on the same page. Lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Key here is midrange bandwidth, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, BTW, I’m heading to Miami right now. Hope you have your flip flops ready for a long, romantic walk on the beach.



Dude your so G**, But man I thought about it for a minute, because you are sexy!!:laugh:


----------



## ErinH

I LOL'd at that last part.


----------



## lycan

well it was only a matter of time until someone brought up amplifiers sonics 

Yes, i agree that damping characteristics of the drivers need to be comprehended at crossover ... no question about it. But that's where the tonality/timbre matching debate _ends_. If you think your drivers don't "match", look no farther than the crossover (including sensitivity, magnitude, phase ... and subsequently Q, and therefore damping).

As I said ... it's not even logical, much less possible, to "match" the harmonic distortion signature of midrange freqs to midbass freqs. Even if you want to equate "dry" or "warm" or "clinical" to a harmonic signature, you _still_ can't "match" them over separate, distinct frequency bands. Even the exact same brand, cone material and motor won't work that magic trick for you 

But it does bring a fitting end to my point on this sub-debate  Matching timbre of drivers _operating over different frequency bands_ is pretty much identical to matching "amplifier timbre" to "driver timbre". 'nuff said.


----------



## WLDock

jimbno1 said:


> The PRS, F1, Exclusive Mids shipped along with the Woofer Tester 3. Should be there by Friday.
> Jim


Glad to see the PRS driver in the mix. Such a nice driver and would have been a hit had they brought it over. The price would have been right when one considers the cost of Scans and the pricing of the 2010 Stage 4 drivers.


----------



## lycan

WLDock said:


> Glad to see the PRS driver in the mix. Such a nice driver and would have been a hit had they brought it over. The price would have been right when one considers the cost of Scans and the pricing of the 2010 Stage 4 drivers.


alas ... my "international intelligence community" tells me that the 4" PRS is now officially out-of-production  A moment of mourning, please, for silent reflection ...

And that new Stage 4 is _less_ than a 3" midrange  No doubt designed for tiny little dash pods. I suspect the motor is equally world-class, but there's just no getting around volume displacement, if you want lower frequency midrange reproduction at "healthy" volume levels 

oh well.


----------



## quality_sound

I too was disappointed by that.


----------



## stereojnky

lycan said:


> alas ... my "international intelligence community" tells me that the 4" PRS is now officially out-of-production  A moment of mourning, please, for silent reflection ...
> 
> oh well.


Did anybody even have a connection, or any means of getting them, anyway?

They may as well have been made from "unobtanium" as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## MiniVanMan

lycan said:


> Yes, i agree that damping characteristics of the drivers need to be comprehended at crossover ... no question about it. But that's where the tonality/timbre matching debate _ends_. If you think your drivers don't "match", look no farther than the crossover (including sensitivity, magnitude, phase ... and subsequently Q, and therefore damping).


Hence my stance, that when testing several drivers throughout a weekend, it's probably better to not have to worry about tuning around the crossover point to ensure a seamless transition between different drivers. Not saying it can't be done, just saying it'll be more headache than it's worth.


----------



## Knobby Digital

lycan said:


> There's just no meaning behind timbre & tonal matching of drivers playing _different_ frequency ranges.
> 
> How will I match tonality (frequency response) and timbre (harmonic signature) of an 93 Hz sinewave, with a 347 Hz sinewave? You have ALL the tools imaginable at your disposal ... how will you do it?
> 
> Furthermore, i humbly submit that for those who _have_ heard "driver mismatch", what they've _really_ heard is a poorly designed crossover between the drivers


Not to keep this can of worms open - I know this is a terrible place for this sub-debate.

But is it fair to think that someone might want the multiple drivers in a given system to have a similar (as possible) harmonic signature since "tones" in music are swept across the ranges of multiple drivers?


----------



## MiniVanMan

Knobby Digital said:


> Not to keep this can of worms open - I know this is a terrible place for this sub-debate.
> 
> But is it fair to think that someone might want the multiple drivers in a given system to have a similar (as possible) harmonic signature since "tones" in music are swept across the ranges of multiple drivers?


"Similar?", yes. "Identical?", no.

Identical is impossible as Lycan is pointing out. How much do you want to beat yourself up over it though? You could drive yourself nuts trying to determine what "similar" means. 

Mostly, what you want to avoid are artifacts around the crossover points. If you have a 10 db+ difference in odd order harmonics, that might be something to avoid as well.


----------



## Niebur3

I wish we had a reference speaker to use that everyone was familiar with to compare against.


----------



## Niebur3

what do u guys think of the top few speakers for in-car testing?


----------



## lycan

Knobby Digital said:


> Not to keep this can of worms open - I know this is a terrible place for this sub-debate.
> 
> But is it fair to think that someone might want the multiple drivers in a given system to have a similar (as possible) harmonic signature since "tones" in music are swept across the ranges of multiple drivers?


Nope.

Imagine a SINGLE driver. As we sweep tones across that single driver, the harmonic content (created by the imperfect driver, NOT the recording) will CHANGE. Each input tone frequency will generate a DIFFERENT harmonic signature, even in that single driver. The harmonics will be at different amplitudes, and of course different frequencies.

Now, imagine that sweep continued across TWO drivers. Which of the multitude of harmonic signatures from the first driver, would you like to "match" with the second driver? Understanding, of course, that as soon as we change the input test frequency, the frequencies at which the harmonics appear are different too  So it's next to impossible to "match" the harmonics from a midbass driver, to those from a midrange driver, if we want to compare harmonics at the same frequencies.

HOWEVER ... here's where the crossover point becomes VERY valid and apparent. You can't even begin to hope to "match" harmonic content, but you CAN match the FUNDAMENTAL tone itself. Make sure the fundamental tone ITSELF is "smooth" as you cross between the two drivers. This requires not only a match in sensitivity (in the driver by itself, or driver plus amp combo), but paying careful attention to phase at crossover.

In short : pay attention to crossover (no small feat), feel free to ignore "timbral matching" of drivers.

But wait ... "_If my midbass cone is metal, shouldn't I want my midrange to be metal too? After all, they BOTH have some sharp resonance behavior. Isn't that a good "match"_?" Answer: at what frequency will your midrange cone resonate? At what frequency will your midbass cone resonate? Are they the same, for a good "match"? What exactly have we "matched" by using metal for both cones?


----------



## Knobby Digital

Thanks lycan, MVM for explaining that in detail.


----------



## lycan

Knobby Digital said:


> Thanks lycan, MVM for explaining that in detail.


no problem.

Honestly it's been one of those things that has bugged me for years ... "matching drivers" that play over _different_ frequency ranges. And as I break it down, into objective fundamentals, i just can't find any support for it.

So ... i've concluded that the essence of the issue is really in the crossover, and all that goes into good crossover design.

I know it's controversial, but i've tried to expose some fundamental issues that argue against it.

Anyway, if somebody wants to start another thread on the topic, i'll be happy to participate (at least for a while)


----------



## Niebur3

lycan said:


> no problem.
> 
> Honestly it's been one of those things that has bugged me for years ... "matching drivers" that play over _different_ frequency ranges. And as I break it down, into objective fundamentals, i just can't find any support for it.
> 
> So ... i've concluded that the essence of the issue is really in the crossover, and all that goes into good crossover design.
> 
> I know it's controversial, but i've tried to expose some fundamental issues that argue against it.
> 
> Anyway, if somebody wants to start another thread on the topic, i'll be happy to participate (at least for a while)


You don't have an issue if I just do the midrange with a bandpass on it...right?


----------



## lycan

Niebur3 said:


> You don't have an issue if I just do the midrange with a bandpass on it...right?


If you high-pass the midrange, then there's no issue 

But, how will you pick the high-pass freq? Some drivers will be "happier" playing lower. If one can play lower, does it get higher marks?

And of course there's still the tweeter issue (i know, already covered).

I hope we can all appreciate how difficult this comparison really is. Heck, look how combative a subwoofer comparison can become! And subs never even play outside their piston range ... which means, there's never even a _quarter_, much less a _half_, wavelength to support a resonance across the cone radius! Subs are nothing but air pumps, and even comparing _these_ will tend to bring out the worst biases, preconceptions and nasty behavior between peeps.


----------



## Niebur3

lycan said:


> If you high-pass the midrange, then there's no issue
> 
> But, how will you pick the high-pass freq? Some drivers will be "happier" playing lower. If one can play lower, does it get higher marks?
> 
> And of course there's still the tweeter issue (i know, already covered).
> 
> I hope we can all appreciate how difficult this comparison really is. Heck, look how combative a subwoofer comparison can become! And subs never even play outside their piston range ... which means, there's never even a _quarter_, much less a _half_, wavelength to support a resonance across the cone radius! Subs are nothing but air pumps, and even comparing _these_ will tend to bring out the worst biases, preconceptions and nasty behavior between peeps.


I will bandpass so they play the same frequency range and remember, just because a speaker could play lower, doesn't mean it won't sound like **** doing it...lol.

Actually, it is possible to be excited about the test and scared ****less at the same time?


----------



## jimbno1

May I ask a question about the "warm" adjective to describe speakers? I have heard a lot of people describe Scans as "warm". And someone earlier alluded to second and third order harmonics associated with warm speakers. If second and third order harmonics are at lease partially responsible for warm sound, and the Scans are some of the lowest distortion drivers around (12M not withstanding) then why would Scans be warm? 

By the way I would not use PVC pipe for enclosure unless you go way bigger diameter than the drivers. I tried it with my mids and I think it affected the sound because of the lack of air space immediately around the frame. Nothing scientific to back it up but the Exclusives especially sounded kind of congested to use another popular phrase. 

Jim


----------



## Knobby Digital

lycan said:


> no problem.


I recognized the redundancy of my question as I was writing it. But as you said, it _is_ a very controversial subject, and there are still a couple things floating around in my head. I'll swish those around for a while and maybe start a thread on that subject.


----------



## Knobby Digital

jimbno1 said:


> May I ask a question about the "warm" adjective to describe speakers? I have heard a lot of people describe Scans as "warm". And someone earlier alluded to second and third order harmonics associated with warm speakers. If second and third order harmonics are at lease partially responsible for warm sound, and the Scans are some of the lowest distortion drivers around (12M not withstanding) then why would Scans be warm?


I've many times thought about that too, and is just one of the practical reasons why mystical audiophile terms don't mean ****.


----------



## lycan

jimbno1 said:


> May I ask a question about the "warm" adjective to describe speakers? I have heard a lot of people describe Scans as "warm". And someone earlier alluded to second and third order harmonics associated with warm speakers. If second and third order harmonics are at lease partially responsible for warm sound, and the Scans are some of the lowest distortion drivers around (12M not withstanding) then why would Scans be warm?
> 
> By the way I would not use PVC pipe for enclosure unless you go way bigger diameter than the drivers. I tried it with my mids and I think it affected the sound because of the lack of air space immediately around the frame. Nothing scientific to back it up but the Exclusives especially sounded kind of congested to use another popular phrase.
> 
> Jim


Now you're thinkin' 

It's probably _not_ distortion that gives them their "character", assuming that such "character" even exists. It's probably cone resonance ... or lack thereof, in the case of split-paper cones.

But it still doesn't make sense to me that midbass resonance behavior needs to ... or even _can_ ... "match" midrange resonance behavior, at _very_ different frequencies.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

Just for info when I talk about scans being warm 90% of the time I'm talking about the 12m. As I don't think the 15m/15w or 18w sounds as warm as the 12m.

Form me warm means more involving or have more of a emotional effect or even more forgiving. 

When I say Critical or clinical I'm talking about very detail driver that conveys the signal as it is or as the up stream products processed it with no added effects. For some this sound can be very fatiguing at times and is not as pleasing to some people.

Thing is I don't consider them as Audiophile terms, its just a way to convey to others what you hear in a from of words that describe the emotional or involving effect the driver has has on the music in your on opinion. Paper and ploy drivers tends to be more of the Warm sound. Pure Metal and Ceramic cones in there hard forms tend to be the Critical and clinical ones. There are always expectations. This is just my opinion and some other under stand it. I just think you may be taking the terms a little to literal.


----------



## Knobby Digital

I didn't mean to offend with that post, but I don't see the value in compressing quantifiable data into subjective terms when it comes to internet discussion.


----------



## MiniVanMan

jimbno1 said:


> May I ask a question about the "warm" adjective to describe speakers? I have heard a lot of people describe Scans as "warm". And someone earlier alluded to second and third order harmonics associated with warm speakers. If second and third order harmonics are at lease partially responsible for warm sound, and the Scans are some of the lowest distortion drivers around (12M not withstanding) then why would Scans be warm?
> 
> Jim


Different cone materials will have different damping characteristics. I always use this analogy. Hit a metal fence post with an aluminum bat, and then it with a wooden bat. The fence post will still resonate, but will be heavily damped with the wooden bat and the wood will absorb much of the energy. 

Now Lycan is more than welcome to jump all over that analogy as it is filled with flaws, but it's just to illustrate a simple point. 

Second order harmonics are very often associated with "warm". They're also associated with "muddy, congested, etc, etc". It's not necessarily the case. Third order, and all odd order harmonics have a tendency to lean toward "harsh, brittle, etc" as the terms to describe them. Again, it's not necessarily the case. 

You have to be careful in associating anything with anything, because there always seems to be an exception to any case. Does the Scan 18W have a typical paper harmonic signature? Not at all. We can have heavily damped paper, and we can have very light paper. We can have heavily damped poly, and very light poly cones.

This really needs a new thread.


----------



## MiniVanMan

Back to the bandpass aspect.

Start with a simple bandpass in the 250-5000 hz range. Then expand and contract from there till you find a sweet spot.

Again, it's more work, but as Lycan pointed out, you're dealing with very different drivers that will have very different workable passbands. 

One driver may sound fantastic playing from 200-8000 hz, but have very limited sensitivity, while another may be great from 300-5000 hz and have a higher than average sensitivity. 

That's why I suggested finding _both_ the usable output level and the usable passband for each driver.

I also cautioned, and another member mentioned this as well, about confusing extended range (passband) with better sound quality. It's VERY easy to do. That's why you need to judge sound quality within a certain passband that is consistent amongst all the drivers. It'll require an intimate understanding of the source music you'll be playing. 

After judging the sound quality within the set, standard passband that all drivers will be judged in, THEN you can test for upper and lower limits. That's pretty much the only way to be fair. 

There will be a crowd that will claim, "but driver x really opens up at x frequency". So, you really have to accommodate for both.


----------



## Scott Buwalda

I see a lot of variables here, starring us in the face. A lot. 

In my opinion, and for what its worth, build a sturdy sealed enclosure with corner and edge bracing, at ten times the Vas of the speaker with the highest Vas. Build a removable 5.5" X 5.5" baffle that flush-mounts into the enclosure so that various sized mountable areas can be accomodated without having to rebuild the enclosure each time a new speaker of 5mm mounting diameter difference is tested. Baffle shall be mechanically isolated from the enclosure using rubber strips; the only points of contact to the enclosure shall be at four screws. Heavily damp the enclosure to avoid any form of resonance. Make front panel dimmensions small with respect to the diameter of the speaker. Run a speaker wire out the back to an amplifier. Once enclosure is situated do not move it. Once seating is situated, do not move it. No processing, no filtering. Let it run. 

In this scenario, there is one variable, the speaker. The enclosure will not radically affect the speaker's physical parameters because acoustic suspension afforded by the enclosure is non existent.


----------



## Knobby Digital

That would be a silver bullet for any of the drivers _not suitable for IB_.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

Knobby Digital said:


> I didn't mean to offend with that post, but I don't see the value in compressing quantifiable data into subjective terms when it comes to internet discussion.


I agree with you on the quantifiable data and subjective terms. It was just a few us talking. So no offense take sir.


----------



## kappa546

I haven't read most of the replies very thoroughly but I did see the suggestion to use pvc pipes for enclosures... DON'T!

As much as I don't feel a generic volume-adjusted cubic enclosure is adequate for any type of testing, it's still much better than mounting a driver on the end of a cylinder (internal standing waves and external edge resonances are horrible)... especially if you take the minimum precaution of rounding out the edges of the enclosure to lessen the effects baffle step. The cylinder is one of the worst shapes to use for an enclosure, sphere being the best. 

Regardless of what enclosure you choose to use, a simple and effective precaution to take would be to use a large circle cutout using the those project display boards, rigidity isn't really a factor as long as it maintains a flat plane, with a hole exactly the size of the enclosure baffle placed somewhere off-center. In other words, from the front you would just see a large circle baffle with a driver mounted off-center, but from a side view only a flat plane and a smaller protruding enclosure can be seen. Obviously, this would only be practical for the home tests but it would go a long way towards eliminating as many variables from the drivers ACTUAL sound as possible. My $.02


----------



## invecs

lycan,

Just want to ask...should it be important to match energy storage chracteristics between midbass and midrange?


----------



## lycan

invecs said:


> lycan,
> 
> Just want to ask...should it be important to match energy storage chracteristics between midbass and midrange?


We want low energy storage from both. If the midbass is bad in this regard, should we degrade the midrange to "match" ... over a completely different frequency range? Know what i mean? Should we then look for tweets with poor CSD?

It just doesn't make sense to me. I can't defend it like a theorem, but when you break it down and look for objective, fundamental foundation .... i just can't find it.

Again, compare it to left & right midrange drivers. Makes a lot of sense to match _these_.


----------



## invecs

I'm thinking that the choice of cone material for a speaker may also have an effect on how good it's energy storage characteristics. I'm thinking for example matching a polycone midbass like Dynaudio to that of a metal cone midrange of a Seas magnesium...they sound very different. But I agree that energy storage should be low for both.


----------



## lycan

invecs said:


> I'm thinking that the choice of cone material for a speaker may also have an effect on how good it's energy storage characteristics. I'm thinking for example matching a polycone midbass like Dynaudio to that of a metal cone midrange of a Seas magnesium...they sound very different. But I agree that energy storage should be low for both.


yes but, please consider this.

The magnesium cone has HUGE resonance. And at THAT resonant frequency, you'll see poor CSD. Of course we avoid that frequency in operation. But the point is, the CSD shows that energy storage IS A FUNCTION OF FREQUENCY.

So look at a midbass driver. Maybe there's three or four frequencies that have long-ish CSD tails. At which frequencies should the midrange driver have "similarly" long CSD tails, to best "match" the midbass? See what i'm saying? The question doesn't even make sense.

Heck, for that matter, what about those midbass frequencies in the very _same_ driver ... other than those three or four that have long CSD tails ... that have NO energy storage problems? Do those frequencies not "match" the troublesome freqs of the midbass?


----------



## dbiegel

As to the testing, maybe the solution is to make an enclosure where the volume can be easily adjusted for each driver. What do you think?


----------



## kizz

Wow, this thread is really heating up. In my opinion, for a subjective "listening" test, the differences in enclosure sizes for each individual drivers may or may not be audible. 

For example, If driver A requires .10 cubic foot enclosure and driver B requires .12 cubic foot, is the difference in sound between the two going to be audible to our ears if driver A is in either enclosure? especially since we are testing all the drivers in a specific bandwith? 


I understand that we want to get perfect test results but how does this translate into car audio and real world sound when used in a vehicle?


----------



## invecs

lycan said:


> yes but, please consider this.
> 
> The magnesium cone has HUGE resonance. And at THAT resonant frequency, you'll see poor CSD. Of course we avoid that frequency in operation. But the point is, the CSD shows that energy storage IS A FUNCTION OF FREQUENCY.
> 
> So look at a midbass driver. Maybe there's three or four frequencies that have long-ish CSD tails. At which frequencies should the midrange driver have "similarly" long CSD tails, to best "match" the midbass? See what i'm saying? The question doesn't even make sense.
> 
> Heck, for that matter, what about those midbass frequencies in the very _same_ driver ... other than those three or four that have long CSD tails ... that have NO energy storage problems? Do those frequencies not "match" the troublesome freqs of the midbass?


Thanks for the reply. I now understand your point. It's easier to just frequency match and use an eq than trying to match energy storage between drivers.


----------



## MiniVanMan

kizz said:


> Wow, this thread is really heating up. In my opinion, for a subjective "listening" test, the differences in enclosure sizes for each individual drivers may or may not be audible.
> 
> For example, If driver A requires .10 cubic foot enclosure and driver B requires .12 cubic foot, is the difference in sound between the two going to be audible to our ears if driver A is in either enclosure? especially since we are testing all the drivers in a specific bandwith?
> 
> 
> I understand that we want to get perfect test results but how does this translate into car audio and real world sound when used in a vehicle?


You're talking a 20% difference in volume. How would a subwoofer handle that?


----------



## jimbno1

I read somewhere that a 15% volume difference in sealed enclosures was insignificant. 
I would expect that a 20% difference would be audible but slight. Has anyone measured it? 

I appreciate these guys testing the mids. I think it is a lot to expect them to make minute changes in enclosure volume for each individual speaker.


----------



## Niebur3

I was thinking about this more last night and I guess I was wondering how many of us use the optimum sealed enclosure size in a car anyway due to out mounting limitations of a car. Lycan had suggested to test the speakers in a baffle outside the car and then either in a sealed enclosure or free air inside the car. He thought it would be just fine to use the same size enclosure as long as we baseline the results. Right now, we are looking at the free air and sealed options inside the car and trying to decide which would be better.


----------



## lycan

Niebur3 said:


> I was thinking about this more last night and I guess I was wondering how many of us use the optimum sealed enclosure size in a car anyway due to out mounting limitations of a car. Lycan had suggested to test the speakers in a baffle outside the car and then either in a sealed enclosure or free air inside the car. He thought it would be just fine to use the same size enclosure as long as we baseline the results. Right now, we are looking at the free air and sealed options inside the car and trying to decide which would be better.


And by "baseline the results", i mean use the WT3 to test each driver in-place, in whatever enclosure it is mounted, and then model (or analyze) the frequency response of each driver.

The response could then be electronically equalized to be flat, OR at least correlated to listening test results.


----------



## Niebur3

lycan said:


> And by "baseline the results", i mean use the WT3 to test each driver in-place, in whatever enclosure it is mounted, and then model (or analyze) the frequency response of each driver.
> 
> The response could then be electronically equalized to be flat, OR at least correlated to listening test results.


Should I do an enclosure in a car, or would free air suffice? Which modeling software would work the best?


----------



## lycan

Niebur3 said:


> Should I do an enclosure in a car, or would free air suffice? Which modeling software would work the best?


For the in-car test, I think you've got to use an enclosure, unless you can be sure to isolate the back wave.

You simply can't pick a _single_ enclosure that's optimal for all midrange drivers (and in this regard, IB is simply a huge enclosure). And it's a lot to ask, that a separate enclosure gets built for each driver. You _could_ build a large enclosure, well-stuffed, and measure each driver with a WT3. Then, add physical mass inside the large enclosure (to reduce the airspace volume) for each driver until all Qtc's measure the same (the Fc's will not all be equal ... so be it, the comparison is then "fair"). But even that's quite a bit of work!

So, at the very least, the WT3 needs to be used to measure Qtc, Fc. From these, the piston-range frequency response must be computed & plotted. As far as modeling software, i'm probably not the best to ask ... i use the stone-age tools of pen & paper myself  I would think WinISD would work pretty well.


----------



## kizz

I wuld think free air in the car wuld be the way to go. Realistically that is something that everyone can do. not everybody wants to or has the ability to make pods. But everybody has the ability for an IB configuration so knowing the response of it IB and knowing that an enclosure will only improve performance can be helpfull to anyone wanting to add or replace mid range drivers in their car. Thats my opinion anyway. 

I also like lycan's idea for the enclosure testing with a baseline to test from


----------



## Niebur3

kizz said:


> I wuld think free air in the car wuld be the way to go. Realistically that is something that everyone can do. not everybody wants to or has the ability to make pods. But everybody has the ability for an IB configuration so knowing the response of it IB and knowing that an enclosure will only improve performance can be helpfull to anyone wanting to add or replace mid range drivers in their car. Thats my opinion anyway.
> 
> I also like lycan's idea for the enclosure testing with a baseline to test from


Like Lycan said though, IB and free air are different things. In IB, you isolate the back wave and with free air you don't. So we will need to do some sort of enclosure for the car unless I can think of a way to isolate the back wave.


----------



## kizz

Ur right, wrong choice of words, IB is what i was referring to. Im assuming free air wuld be easier but what would be more accurate as far as testing goes? Wouldnt we want to test so that we mimic the setup most commonly used?

As far as enclosures go i think building the correct size enclosure for each driver wuld be the most accurate. Time consuming but accurate and maybe the best solution in the long run. The enclosures could then be set inside the car for in car testing. It wuld be a simple disconnecting and reconnecting of speakrr wires.


----------



## MiniVanMan

Niebur3 said:


> Should I do an enclosure in a car, or would free air suffice? Which modeling software would work the best?


If you get me the WT3 generated T/S parameters, then I can do the modeling for you. I'm all set up here to do modeling and transfer all that data to the site.

That reminds me. In the package I'm sending, I need to send some silly putty as well. You'll need it for the Vas measurement. Little tip Dan Wiggins told me. 

Give me a call when you get the WT3. Practice on a subwoofer if you have one lying around. I'll walk you through the process.


----------



## lycan

MiniVanMan said:


> If you get me the WT3 generated T/S parameters, then I can do the modeling for you. I'm all set up here to do modeling and transfer all that data to the site.
> 
> That reminds me. In the package I'm sending, I need to send some silly putty as well. You'll need it for the Vas measurement. Little tip Dan Wiggins told me.
> 
> Give me a call when you get the WT3. Practice on a subwoofer if you have one lying around. I'll walk you through the process.


Shouldn't need to measure the Vas. Here's what I would do :

1. Measure the driver's Qts and Fs in free air. Vas won't matter here, since the enclosure volume is huge (virtually infinite). You can plot the frequency response in this step by picking some random number for Vas, and picking an enclosure volume that's 100x bigger.

2. Measure the the driver's Qtc and Fc in the enclosure of interest. The important point here is that you've captured the two parameters that will completely & uniquely define its 2nd-order high-pass response. So ... pick a random number for Vas in this step also, and pick an enclosure volume that's 100x bigger. The key here is to use the Qtc and Fc measured in the enclosure, rather than the Qts and Fs measured in free air. Then, it no longer matters what the Vas and airspace were that "generated" those values of Qtc and Fc.

Alternatively : the important parameter is *alpha*:

*alpha = Vas/(box volume)*

This tells us the factor by which Qts & Fs are multiplied, to generate Qtc & Fc:

*Qtc = Qts * sqrt(alpha + 1)
Fc = Fs * sqrt(alpha + 1)*

So the "value" of Vas is in _predicting_ what the response will be, in an enclosure of some volume. But once we _measure_ Qtc & Fc in the exact enclosure of interest, Vas is no longer necessary. All we need is at this point is Qtc & Fc to plot the 2nd order high-pass response.

Don't believe me? Try it sometime  No need for silly putty, no need to ever touch the cone ... IF IF IF you can measure Qtc & Fc in the exact enclosure of interest


----------



## MiniVanMan

lycan said:


> Shouldn't need to measure the Vas. Here's what I would do :
> 
> 1. Measure the driver's Qts and Fs in free air. Vas won't matter here, since the enclosure volume is huge (virtually infinite). You can plot the frequency response in this step by picking some random number for Vas, and picking an enclosure volume that's 100x bigger.
> 
> 2. Measure the the driver's Qtc and Fc in the enclosure of interest. The important point here is that you've captured the two parameters that will completely & uniquely define its 2nd-order high-pass response. So ... pick a random number for Vas in this step also, and pick an enclosure volume that's 100x bigger. The key here is to use the Qtc and Fc measured in the enclosure, rather than the Qts and Fs measured in free air. Then, it no longer matters what the Vas and airspace were that "generated" those values of Qtc and Fc.
> 
> Alternatively : the important parameter is *alpha*:
> 
> *alpha = Vas/(box volume)*
> 
> This tells us the factor by which Qts & Fs are multiplied, to generate Qtc & Fc:
> 
> *Qtc = Qts * sqrt(alpha + 1)
> Fc = Fs * sqrt(alpha + 1)*
> 
> So the "value" of Vas is in _predicting_ what the response will be, in an enclosure of some volume. But once we _measure_ Qtc & Fc in the exact enclosure of interest, Vas is no longer necessary. All we need is at this point is Qtc & Fc to plot the 2nd order high-pass response.
> 
> Don't believe me? Try it sometime  No need for silly putty, no need to ever touch the cone ... IF IF IF you can measure Qtc & Fc in the exact enclosure of interest


Other than having to be very careful with the cone, the measured mass method sounds A LOT easier. 

We'll let them decide which they want to use.


----------



## jimbno1

I included a scale with the WT3.


----------



## MiniVanMan

jimbno1 said:


> I included a scale with the WT3.


Ohhh, good one. I would have sent putty, but not the scale. That would have been a "dee de dee" move.

BTW, silly putty works great because it leaves zero residue when you remove it from whatever you stick it too. Very important for speaker cones.


----------



## lycan

MiniVanMan said:


> Other than having to be very careful with the cone, the measured mass method sounds A LOT easier.
> 
> We'll let them decide which they want to use.


All you need for my plan is a WT3 hooked up to the terminals _outside_ the enclosure, and _inside_ the enclosure  Done measuring! No scales, no silly putty, no touching the cone.

At that point, you have all the data you need to plug numbers into WinISD, and plot frequency response _outside_ and _inside_ 

Sounds pretty easy to me ! 

But yeah, whatever these dudes wanna do


----------



## MiniVanMan

lycan said:


> All you need for my plan is a WT3 hooked up to the terminals _outside_ the enclosure, and _inside_ the enclosure  Done measuring! No scales, no silly putty, no touching the cone.
> 
> At that point, you have all the data you need to plug numbers into WinISD, and plot frequency response _outside_ and _inside_
> 
> Sounds pretty easy to me !
> 
> But yeah, whatever these dudes wanna do


Actually, I just spoke to him on the phone, and the consensus was that one enclosure would be made for tests. Since he'll have that enclosure already, and it will be known volume, he will be able to use the "known volume" method for calculating Vas.

Niebur, ignore the Delta Mass Method and do as above since the decision has been made on utilizing an enclosure for the tests. This'll be easier as it'll require less steps.


----------



## kizz

Both methods sound like a lot of work. Niebur, what are you thinking? wouldn't it be easier and less time consuming in the long run to just build the recommended size enclosure for each driver? Ultimately it's up to you, I haven't used any of the test equipment that you are going to be using so I don't know how efficient that will be, (time and setup wise) 

I suppose if we can build one size enclosure, test all the drivers before hand and have an array of material set out and ready for each driver to change the size of the enclosure for each test and driver it could work well that way. a little more preparation but it would save on materials and physical labor.


----------



## MiniVanMan

kizz said:


> Both methods sound like a lot of work. Niebur, what are you thinking? wouldn't it be easier and less time consuming in the long run to just build the recommended size enclosure for each driver? Ultimately it's up to you, I haven't used any of the test equipment that you are going to be using so I don't know how efficient that will be, (time and setup wise)
> 
> I suppose if we can build one size enclosure, test all the drivers before hand and have an array of material set out and ready for each driver to change the size of the enclosure for each test and driver it could work well that way. a little more preparation but it would save on materials and physical labor.


I just talked to Jerry on the phone. Based on Lycan's suggestion of using just one enclosure for all the drivers, we can easily find all the information we need.

First, you measure the T/S parameters with the WT3 out of the enclosure. Then you find the Vas of the driver using the enclosure. It's really quite easy. You do you subjective listening tests at that point. 

Jerry is going to send me the T/S parameters, including Vas, and I'll do all the modeling which will entail finding optimum enclosure sizes for each driver. I'll publish the response graphs into the thread that this will all be posted in. Each driver will get a response graph that shows low end response of the standardized enclosure that you guys will be using for testing and the modeled response of the driver in an "optimum" enclosure.

That'll take a good bit of the burden off of you guys and you can just focus on the testing, and listening aspect of the tests. 

The only thing you guys need to worry about is building specific baffles for the various sized drivers. Some may work in multiples on a particular baffle, but chances are you'll need a couple of baffles.


----------



## lycan

MiniVanMan said:


> Actually, I just spoke to him on the phone, and the consensus was that one enclosure would be made for tests. Since he'll have that enclosure already, and it will be known volume, he will be able to use the "known volume" method for calculating Vas.
> 
> Niebur, ignore the Delta Mass Method and do as above since the decision has been made on utilizing an enclosure for the tests. This'll be easier as it'll require less steps.


I hear you dude, but my question remains : The parameters we ultimately need to plot frequency response are *Qtc* and *Fc* (inside the enclosure). Two choices to get there :

1. Use the WT3 to measure Qts and Fs (outside the enclosure). Also measure, or estimate, Vas. Then measure, or estimate, the enclosure volume. The merit (or value) of Vas, and knowledge of the enclosure volume, is the ability to _predict_ what the response will look like, after we put the driver in the enclosure. So from all of this, the *Qtc* and *Fc* can be _finally_ calculated.

2. Or ... use the WT3 to directly measure *Qtc* and *Fc* (in the enclosure). Done.

My point is this : If you're going to put a driver into a "given" enclosure, AND you have the ability to directly measure *Fc* and *Qtc*, you don't need Vas for anything.

Alternatively, what will you do with Vas ... after you directly _measure_ *Qtc* and *Fc* _in the enclosure_?

Blah ... too much of a tangent. Doesn't really matter, doesn't hurt to measure Vas (especially if you don't touch the cone!). You just won't need it, if you plan to hook up the WT3 after the driver is enclosed.


----------



## MiniVanMan

lycan said:


> I hear you dude, but my question remains : The parameters we ultimately need to plot frequency response are *Qtc* and *Fc* (inside the enclosure). Two choices to get there :
> 
> 1. Use the WT3 to measure Qts and Fs (outside the enclosure). Also measure, or estimate, Vas. Then measure, or estimate, the enclosure volume. The merit (or value) of Vas, and knowledge of the enclosure volume, is the ability to _predict_ what the response will look like, after we put the driver in the enclosure. So from all of this, the *Qtc* and *Fc* can be _finally_ calculated.
> 
> 2. Or ... use the WT3 to directly measure *Qtc* and *Fc* (in the enclosure). Done.
> 
> My point is this : If you're going to put a driver into a "given" enclosure, AND you have the ability to directly measure *Fc* and *Qtc*, you don't need Vas for anything.
> 
> Alternatively, what will you do with Vas ... after you directly _measure_ *Qtc* and *Fc* _in the enclosure_?
> 
> Blah ... too much of a tangent. Doesn't really matter, doesn't hurt to measure Vas (especially if you don't touch the cone!). You just won't need it, if you plan to hook up the WT3 after the driver is enclosed.


It doesn't matter to me as I can figure it out either way, but I'm looking at it from the communal viewpoint, that if somebody is going to want to model any of these drivers for their own personal use, then having a Vas value on hand will be nice.

In other words, most of the people that will be viewing the ensuing thread aren't going to want to have to "figure" this kind of stuff out. In other words, let's spoon feed 'em just a bit. Not much, but just a bit.


----------



## lycan

MiniVanMan said:


> It doesn't matter to me as I can figure it out either way, but I'm looking at it from the communal viewpoint, that if somebody is going to want to model any of these drivers for their own personal use, then having a Vas value on hand will be nice.
> 
> In other words, most of the people that will be viewing the ensuing thread aren't going to want to have to "figure" this kind of stuff out. In other words, let's spoon feed 'em just a bit. Not much, but just a bit.


NOW I AGREE !!!!!

Yes ... Vas will be useful to _others_, who want to predict what the response will be in various other enclosures, or help them design enclosures that best "suit" the piston-range performance of the driver. It will allow them to "predict" performance, without actually building all the enclosures 

I'm on board


----------



## MiniVanMan

lycan said:


> NOW I AGREE !!!!!
> 
> Yes ... Vas will be useful to _others_, who want to predict what the response will be in various other enclosures, or help them design enclosures that best "suit" the piston-range performance of the driver. It will allow them to "predict" performance, without actually building all the enclosures
> 
> I'm on board


However, if they decide to not do it, just having Qtc, and Fc will be enough for me to calculate Vas, if I have all other parameters. 

Up to them. Either way, they need to measure inside the box and outside the box. It's just another click on the WT3 to get the Vas value though.


----------



## kizz

Minivan man thanks for the help, after that explanation that will be easier, i was lost there for a second. Niebur if you want any assistance with any prep work you know where to find me!


----------



## lycan

MiniVanMan said:


> However, if they decide to not do it, just having Qtc, and Fc will be enough for me to calculate Vas, if I have all other parameters.
> 
> Up to them. Either way, they need to measure inside the box and outside the box. It's just another click on the WT3 to get the Vas value though.


Let's have a contest 

Let the testers post these _measured_ values from the WT3, and _only_ these values, FIRST :

A. Free-air Qts and Fs
B. Enclosure Qtc and Fc

And armed with nothing but my HP hand calculator, I'll tell you :

1. -3dB (or half power) point on the frequency response curve, in _both_ free-air and also mounted in the enclosure
2. The ratio of Vas divided by enclosure volume

Then, if the testers want to tell me their measured enclosure volume, I'll report the Vas (from step 2 above).

Who's game? After I'm done, the testers can disclose anything they want 

And i'm willing to take bets on my accuracy ... say, within 5%. First guy to bet that I can't do it, gets to keep the Scan 12M's ... if I fail


----------



## Niebur3

Bet against you Lycan? BTW, I thought you we letting me keep the 12m's for having to sift through this whole thread to develop test parameters....lol.

No, really, thanks to you,Minivanman, Bikinpunk (spelled correctly) and everyone else for all your help with this test. I think I have the parameters down and will post tonight (incase I missed anything) for review. I will also be posting who is providing what that way there is a record and they can be recognized for their contribution.


----------



## Niebur3

Also, I bet you can't do it....that way if you calc is on the fritz, I can keep the speakers...lol.


----------



## lycan

Niebur3 said:


> Also, I bet you can't do it....that way if you calc is on the fritz, I can keep the speakers...lol.


deal.


----------



## Niebur3

lycan said:


> deal.


I am moving to Denmark....a country with about 5.5 million people and they have scan and dyn......man. I got your Scans today Lycan....very nice little speaker. BNIB....do I need to break these in and if so, how long? My Dyns were something like 250 hours.


----------



## MiniVanMan

Niebur3 said:


> I am moving to Denmark....a country with about 5.5 million people and they have scan and dyn......man. I got your Scans today Lycan....very nice little speaker. BNIB....do I need to break these in and if so, how long? My Dyns were something like 250 hours.


On that note, something I've been meaning to mention, but keep forgetting.

You need to make a grill to cover the speakers under test, so the testers don't see what driver their listening to. Pretty easy to identify a Scan Revelator. Not saying that ANYBODY would be swayed by appearances, but...:surprised:


----------



## jimbno1

Per Fedex the PRS, F1, Exclusives, and WT3 are out for delivery Yea!


----------



## mark1478

looking forward to this..in particular the Dyn against HAT.


----------



## Niebur3

MiniVanMan said:


> On that note, something I've been meaning to mention, but keep forgetting.
> 
> You need to make a grill to cover the speakers under test, so the testers don't see what driver their listening to. Pretty easy to identify a Scan Revelator. Not saying that ANYBODY would be swayed by appearances, but...:surprised:


What my testers don't know yet is that I'm going to have my cat claw their eyes out before the test....I take double blind seriously!


----------



## kappa546

who are the testers?


----------



## MiniVanMan

kappa546 said:


> who are the testers?


From what I gather it's going to be an eclectic group of individuals with varying degrees of experience in audio, from professed home audio experts, to an enthusiastic, cough, cough, wife. 

It is Nebraska, so we can probably expect commentary in the form of "the low end is controlled and open, much like my combine during harvest season, when the fresh autumn air blows through the cab. 

Okay, that'll be my only stab at Nebraska. Gotta poke fun when the opportunity presents itself.


----------



## Niebur3

MiniVanMan said:


> From what I gather it's going to be an eclectic group of individuals with varying degrees of experience in audio, from professed home audio experts, to an enthusiastic, cough, cough, wife.
> 
> It is Nebraska, so we can probably expect commentary in the form of "the low end is controlled and open, much like my combine during harvest season, when the fresh autumn air blows through the cab.
> 
> Okay, that'll be my only stab at Nebraska. Gotta poke fun when the opportunity presents itself.


lol...afterwards we are having a hoedown. This test will be taking place in the barn, so we are hoping the cows and pigs don't bother us to much and the test vehicle is our John Deere!


----------



## ErinH

MiniVanMan said:


> Okay, that'll be my only stab at Nebraska. Gotta poke fun when the opportunity presents itself.


Dude, in case you don't remember, Becky (from Full House) was from Nebraska. 

She's smokin!


----------



## MiniVanMan

bikinpunk said:


> Dude, in case you don't remember, Becky (from Full House) was from Nebraska.
> 
> She's smokin!


It would require me to have ever watched that show. I don't think I've ever seen a single episode. 

Some things are becoming very clear now Erin.


----------



## kizz

Niebur3 said:


> lol...afterwards we are having a hoedown. This test will be taking place in the barn, so we are hoping the cows and pigs don't bother us to much and the test vehicle is our John Deere!


John Deer? whats wrong with the International? It doesn't have a cab on it so reflections are non existant!


----------



## Niebur3

We have finally come up with test parameters (thanks Lycan and Minivanman and inuput from all others)

Drivers that will be tested:
Scan Speak 12M (Lycan)
HAT L4 (Scott Buwalda)
Dynaudio 430 (Niebur3) - Tester
Vifa NE123 (Niebur3) - Tester
Morel CDM54 (Remeolb - Hopefully) - Tester
Morel CDM88 - (Remeolb - Hopefully) - Tester
Pioneer PRS (Jimbno1)
Exclusives (Jimbno1)
Alpine F#1 (Scan 12M with Alpine coating) (Jimbno1)
and what ever else BidRed & Minivanman is sending - will update when packages arrive!

Purpose:
The purpose of this test is to compare the sonic differences between various 4” mid range speakers by utilization of the test methods as outlined below.

People involved:
We (Niebur3 & Wife, Remeolb & Friend, Kizz) will be conducting a blind test of all the drivers. All listeners will be blind tested as the testers not in the listening position will be required to swap speakers for the testers that are in the listening position. We all have experience with car audio (I can go into if anyone would like me to), but none of the testers are employed by any company of the speakers represented. The testers will be asked to record on paper what they hear for comparison and later write up. 

Speaker Environment:
We will construct a sealed enclosure (as large as possible that can fit on the dash of the test vehicle) with the front baffle as small as possible. The sealed enclosure will be made from MDF. We will fabricate a simple removable front baffle that seals to the enclosure. A removable grill will be made to ensure the blind testing environment. All listening tests will be conducted while the speakers are in the sealed enclosure.

Listening Test:
We will be measuring in free air and inside the sealed enclosure all drivers via the WT3 (Woofer Tester 3). I will then be sending the results to both Minivanman and Lycan to evaluate and model. 

The electronic environment will consist of listening to only the various 4” speakers inside a specified frequency range, which is yet to be determined (roughly 250hz to 5000hz). The DEQ-P9 will be used as only a source to provide the necessary crossover points using the highest available slope (36db/octive). We will not be adding any equalization and no other speakers (i.e. tweeters, mid bass, sub woofers) will be involved in the test. We will listen to the speakers at 3 separate decibel levels, which is yet to be determined and an AudioControl RTA set for SPL will ensure the 3 listening levels are matched for each speaker.

The first part of the test will take place outside the car with fixed listening positions and placements of the speakers. The test will take place in a large 3-car garage with vaulted ceilings. We will be utilizing the electronics of the car with long speaker wire runs. We will be seated in a relatively close proximity to the drivers (no further than 6 feet away). 

The second part of the test will take place inside the car (1998 Pontiac Firebird), again with fixed listening positions and placement of the speakers. The car will have a dash mat made from felt to help with unwanted reflections and the seats will be fixed (as far back as possible) with no adjustments allowed by the testers. 

Test Music:
Each Tester will be allowed to select their own music for the listening test. We will ensure the selections cover a large range of various types of music and genres.

Audio Delivery:
All testing, inside and outside the car, will utilize the exact same audio equipment:
Amps – Tru Technology Billet B475-DS Stage 3
HU – Pioneer DEX-P9
Processor – Pioneer DEQ-P9
RCA Cables – IXOS Ixotica
Speaker Wire – IXOS Gamma

A word from the testers (written by Niebur3):
We are all trying to achieve the best possible sound in a car and we hope this test helps people of our DIY community on the selection process of mid range speakers. We have consulted with many people and spent many hours trying to compile parameters to provide the very best test possible. We understand the complications with trying to perform a test like this and the various differing of opinions about how this test should be conducted. Please keep in mind, there is no perfect way to conduct a subjective listening test and by the time the results are posted, countless volunteer hours will have been spent trying to provide the best results possible. If you choose to attack the validity of the test based on the results, it is your choice, but please hold the testers harmless from your attack.


----------



## MiniVanMan

You forgot the Tang Band W4-1320SJ, the Dayton RS100-4 (truncated), and the Aura NS4-255-4F 

They'll be in the mail Monday for quick delivery.


----------



## pork soda

Damn...nobody sent you the Hertz hl70's?


----------



## Niebur3

MiniVanMan said:


> You forgot the Tang Band W4-1320SJ, the Dayton RS100-4 (truncated), and the Aura NS4-255-4F
> 
> They'll be in the mail Monday for quick delivery.


I didn't know all you were sending...they will definitely be tested!


----------



## Niebur3

pork soda said:


> Damn...nobody sent you the Hertz hl70's?


Nope...nobody sent me any


----------



## BigRed

I'll send mine out monday


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

I will put a set of Trinity in the Mail on Monday via USPS Priority Mail if you still want to test them, but they are true 3" drivers and it seems all the others are 4 or 4.5" drivers. I have a set of Vifa 10BGS/MG10MD Also if you want to test them.


----------



## gutz

HL70 is 3" if I remember correctly 
If you put it in , I would love to see some other 3" drivers such as Fountek FR88EX and TB W3 Bamboo

Also looking forward to see how the rs100 will handle these tests

You are doing a great job here guys 
It's great to see such diy community fiesta


----------



## Niebur3

H-Audio - AKA - Here-I-Come said:


> I will put a set of Trinity in the Mail on Monday via USPS Priority Mail if you still want to test them, but they are true 3" drivers and it seems all the others are 4 or 4.5" drivers. I have a set of Vifa 10BGS/MG10MD Also if you want to test them.


Sorry, I forgot about the Trinity's . You can still send and we would be happy to test them. They will be pitted against the 4" guys, so it is up to you if you think they can handle the test range. We can pit them against the Morel's, if we get the Morel's in time. You can send the Vifa's...we have the NE123's but we can compare against the 10BGS's.


----------



## Niebur3

BigRed said:


> I'll send mine out monday


Cool...so what all are you sending me? I am keeping an excel spreadsheet with all the drivers I am expecting.

Thanks


----------



## Niebur3

gutz said:


> HL70 is 3" if I remember correctly
> If you put it in , I would love to see some other 3" drivers such as Fountek FR88EX and TB W3 Bamboo
> 
> Also looking forward to see how the rs100 will handle these tests
> 
> You are doing a great job here guys
> It's great to see such diy community fiesta


You are in luck then....here is what BigRed is sending out (I found his list)

Tangband W3 bamboo 
Fountek 3" 
Fostex FR88 
Jbl 2118's 
Focal 4" kevlar


----------



## JayinMI

I would like to see the 3's too. I'm considering picking up a set of TB Bamboos to try out since PE has them back in stock now.

Jay


----------



## kizz

Im getting excited!!!!!!!!


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

Man I could have sent a pair of the Fountek/H-Audio FR88-ex. Remember they are a cheap version of the Trinity with an all aluminum cone and cheaper parts in the motor, but still an outstanding driver.


----------



## WLDock

Niebur3 said:


> Cool...so what all are you sending me? I am keeping an excel spreadsheet with all the drivers I am expecting.Thanks


 I think you might be getting too many drivers at this point. Unless you plan to do several sessions? I would like to see the SB Acoustics 4" in there but...


----------



## lycan

If you blow-up the Pioneer PRS 4's, let me know ... i might have a spare pair around here somewhere


----------



## jimbno1

Please don't even think it. But the spare pair is interesting.


----------



## Niebur3

jimbno1 said:


> Please don't even think it. But the spare pair is interesting.


I was a little concerned and wanted to ask you about that. 15W RMS?!? I will be using my Tru 475 and don't want to damage anything....


----------



## Niebur3

kizz said:


> Im getting excited!!!!!!!!


You are excited??? I am scared! I think the number could exceed 20 pairs of drivers.....yikes!


----------



## MiniVanMan

Proper gain structure, and start low like we talked about and increase the volume accordingly. You'll be fine.


----------



## lycan

The PRS drivers are rated at 15W rms _nominal_ (whatever the hell rms power means ... certainly has no electrical meaning), and 60W rms _max music power_ (whatever the hell that means).

However, with the recommended (at least) 12dB HP @ 250Hz, the _max music power_ rating increases to 100W.

Is it clear now? 

Isn't to me. But as mini said, start power low and increase slowly ... for _all_ the drivers.


----------



## kizz

Niebur3 said:


> You are excited??? I am scared!  I think the number could exceed 20 pairs of drivers.....yikes!


haha i am excited. ya, the number of drivers you are aquiring for the test is getting rather.....large, but hey, if we are going to do it we might as well go balls to the wall right? lol:laugh:


----------



## MiniVanMan

lycan said:


> The PRS drivers are rated at 15W rms _nominal_ (whatever the hell rms power means ... certainly has no electrical meaning), and 60W rms _max music power_ (whatever the hell that means).
> 
> However, with the recommended (at least) 12dB HP @ 250Hz, the _max music power_ rating increases to 100W.
> 
> Is it clear now?
> 
> Isn't to me. But as mini said, start power low and increase slowly ... for _all_ the drivers.


I'm so glad you're back so we can fight the "RMS Power" battle together.


----------



## Niebur3

I was just scared to damage drivers....they are all so pretty!!! So, it looks like we should be okay with the band pass range we are using. The pic of all drivers is going to have to be panoramic!


----------



## MiniVanMan

Niebur3 said:


> I was just scared to damage drivers....they are all so pretty!!! So, it looks like we should be okay with the band pass range we are using. The pic of all drivers is going to have to be panoramic!


Yeah, you should be fine. You might find some of the 3" drivers sounding strained at 250 hz. That's why I said, be prepared to adjust crossover settings to find usable passbands for each driver.

Oh, and I'm throwing in a set of Dayton RS125s as well. Might as well, since I have them.


----------



## jimbno1

If you pass the PRS at 250 Hz I agree with Lycan they should be fine. If any of the speakers happen to get damaged it is not the end of the world. Things can be replaced, people not so much 

Jim


----------



## Niebur3

Oh...btw, it is my b-day tomorrow, so if anyone wants me to keep their speakers as a present, feel free to chime in....lol.


----------



## bafukie

Niebur3 said:


> Oh...btw, it is my b-day tomorrow, so if anyone wants me to keep their speakers as a present, feel free to chime in....lol.


happy bird-day


----------



## JDMRB1ODY

Wow my B-day is the 23rd.  All i can say is Morel FTW !!!


----------



## jimbno1

Happy B-Day.

Ironically I may not use any of the speakers I sent to you for testing. I am leaning towards 2-way installs at this point. 

You never know though plans change.


----------



## pork soda

Hertz hl70's sent out to you today.
Quite the driver selection


----------



## Niebur3

Hey guys....I believe we will have more than 20 sets of speakers to test! Which means I will have to continue to "beg" members that are not sending any in to help donate so I can afford to send all these back to their rightful owners. Please PM me with your "pledge" and you can either send money now or when the review is over. I really appreciate it (so does UPS, USPS, and FedEx) . 

My PayPal is [email protected].


----------



## kizz

Happy birthday! What are you now? like 49? lol, jk. I have some vifa tweets and tang band mids you can play around with for a bday gift. they would make a good home system!!!


----------



## Niebur3

kizz said:


> Happy birthday! What are you now? like 49? lol, jk. I have some vifa tweets and tang band mids you can play around with for a bday gift. they would make a good home system!!!


That is soooooo wrong. 49? You have even met me...man my wife a\has me soooooo toasted.. good wife!!!!! I am 34 today and feeling every year! Thanks Kizz


----------



## matdotcom2000

pork soda said:


> Hertz hl70's sent out to you today.
> Quite the driver selection


Which ones did you send the new ones or the older models???


----------



## kizz

LMAO! haha, im just kidding, you don't even look 34. besides, I should shut up now, Im not really that far behind.


----------



## Scott Buwalda

So, small sealed enclosures with a passband of 250 Hz - 5,000 Hz?


----------



## pork soda

matdotcom2000 said:


> Which ones did you send the new ones or the older models???


They are the newer style with the inverted cone. They are also bnib, so I'm not sure how they will behave without having been broken in.


----------



## Thunderplains

pork soda said:


> Hertz hl70's sent out to you today.
> Quite the driver selection


Good.. Looking forward to the results of this speaker..


----------



## matdotcom2000

Ok I will still send out mine. Just checking. Will be one the way next week.


----------



## Niebur3

matdotcom2000 said:


> Ok I will still send out mine. Just checking. Will be one the way next week.


I would send ASAP if you want to make sure it is included...the test may go down either this weekend or next weekend!


----------



## Niebur3

Scott Buwalda said:


> So, small sealed enclosures with a passband of 250 Hz - 5,000 Hz?


On contraire mon fraire, small front baffle, as large of enclosure as possible! I have not made them yet, so I will try to make very large as I know HAT's like livin large (actually IB).


----------



## Scott Buwalda

Play them wide open with no passband to separate the men from the boys. LOL

Scott


----------



## Niebur3

Scott Buwalda said:


> Play them wide open with no passband to separate the men from the boys. LOL
> 
> Scott


No no no, we need to control and be fair to all the players, however, we will be tweaking the passband after the initial sound test is done to see which speakers can go beyond the passband and still excel.


----------



## Scott Buwalda

^ very, very good to hear ^


----------



## Niebur3

HAT L4's arrived safe and sound! Thanks Scott!!!


----------



## matdotcom2000

You have mail


----------



## trigg007

9 pages and no review???:mean:


----------



## bafukie

has not even started yet... lol... be patient fren....


----------



## Niebur3

Yes...9 pages and no review. The drivers are arriving to me this week and we will be looking to do the test this weekend or next weekend. All this is stated in the 9 pages.


----------



## 6spdcoupe

Jerry you should have a brand new set of Profi 4s and Vanadium 4s by the end of the week. I left the passives in the box as well if you felt the need for em.


----------



## Niebur3

Thanks Don!!!! Wow this is a huge test!


----------



## 6spdcoupe

No problem bud. If ya need/want anything else lemme know.


----------



## dkh

I would be nice to see the Pioneer ODR MKii 4" mids and the DLS Scandinavian Mids in this review but they cost (pioneer) as much as half if not the rest of the mids put together !!!


----------



## sands1

If I had the ODR's Id send them in. Would be super to see where they rest in this line up of fantastically galactic midrange drivers

This is as epic as I have come to expect from this fourm. Really looking forward to the results of this. Thanks to everyone who's putting time,money,drivers,effort and critical listening into this!


----------



## Scott Buwalda

I hate to ask this, but will the speakers be run in before testing?

Scott


----------



## Niebur3

Scott Buwalda said:


> I hate to ask this, but will the speakers be run in before testing?
> 
> Scott


Many of the drivers I have are used, so if yours needs to be broken in, I can set them up for a couple of days. How long do they need?


----------



## lycan

dkh said:


> I would be nice to see the Pioneer ODR MKii 4" mids and the DLS Scandinavian Mids in this review but they cost (pioneer) as much as half if not the rest of the mids put together !!!


What are the ODR 4" mids?

The only ODR mids that i know are 3" mids  Yes ... big difference between a 3" driver and a 4" driver


----------



## Niebur3

****At this point, please do NOT send any more drivers*****

Thanks


----------



## MaxPowers

I didnt read all 9 pages so please forgive if this has already been asked--but would it be possible to do a listening test to see which you like best tweeterless, seeing as how you have a few that are said to work well like that.


----------



## Niebur3

We will not have time to incorporate that in this test...sorry!


----------



## fish

Speaking of time, I think you're gonna have to take a day or two off work to get all this finished.


----------



## Niebur3

fish said:


> Speaking of time, I think you're gonna have to take a day or two off work to get all this finished.


You mean a week or two!


----------



## kizz

Niebur3 said:


> ****At this point, please do NOT send any more drivers*****
> 
> Thanks


Aww man, i have like 5 more pair for testing lol!! Lets make it a 7 day affair. BBQ, beer, and midrange testing!


----------



## lycan

kizz said:


> Aww man, i have like 5 more pair for testing lol!! Lets make it a 7 day affair. BBQ, beer, and midrange testing!


How many brands of beer will you be comparing? Please describe the methodology.


----------



## WuNgUn

So I just bought a pair of the Vifa NE123W-04's...
Hope they test well!!


----------



## MacLeod

^^^

Have you tried them yet? Im looking at these for my new build and cant really find any reviews.


----------



## DAT

Nice can not wait for the updates


----------



## pork soda

I wouldn't be opposed to having you break-in my hl70's before testing


----------



## kizz

lycan said:


> How many brands of beer will you be comparing? Please describe the methodology.


we will be testing all domestic beer. budweiser, miller, coors, etc.... we will test with head(aproximatly 1 inch) and then without. we will test for initial taste quality, after taste, bitterness, sweetness, satisfaction, and alcohol content. 

if we have time we will test how well each compliments BBQ chicken


----------



## WuNgUn

MacLeod said:


> ^^^
> 
> Have you tried them yet? Im looking at these for my new build and cant really find any reviews.


Nope...


----------



## trigg007

kizz said:


> we will be testing all domestic beer. budweiser, miller, coors, etc.... we will test with head(aproximatly 1 inch) and then without. we will test for initial taste quality, after taste, bitterness, sweetness, satisfaction, and alcohol content.
> 
> if we have time we will test how well each compliments BBQ chicken


 
too bad ya don't have any Ying Leung


----------



## Lanson

She better go lower than an inch.

Oh... wait...


----------



## 3fish

Niebur3 said:


> Here you go....if you want to donate, please send the money to [email protected] as a "gift" and I will use it for return shipping costs. Thanks for all your guys' help with this!


$10 sent for shipping. Thanks for the good work


----------



## Niebur3

3fish said:


> $10 sent for shipping. Thanks for the good work


Thank you very much!!!


----------



## matdotcom2000

CAnt wait for the review. I missed the dead line but ahh well. back to the books.


----------



## WuNgUn

When can we expect the first reviews to come in?


----------



## Niebur3

WuNgUn said:


> When can we expect the first reviews to come in?


I still have speakers in route and the test will not start until we have all the speakers. The test should be either next weekend or the weekend after with the results then to take a little time to process. So....not for a while .


----------



## thehatedguy

If I can get them out of my Edgarhorns easily, I could send some JBL 104Hs. I don't think they'd play as low as the consumer stuff you have, but it would be interesting to see what they would do in a direct radiating application in the car.


----------



## Niebur3

No, I think we have enough already....but thanks!


----------



## mitchyz250f

I think it would be very interesting to have a Pro Audio driver in the testing mix. Especially when you consider the cost used is less than some of the consumer exotics.


----------



## fish

mitchyz250f said:


> I think it would be very interesting to have a Pro Audio driver in the testing mix. Especially when you consider the cost used is less than some of the consumer exotics.


I don't think they make PA drivers under 6.5" do they?


----------



## trigg007

patiently waiting


----------



## thehatedguy

Yes.



fish said:


> I don't think they make PA drivers under 6.5" do they?


----------



## Thunderplains

kizz said:


> we will be testing all domestic beer. budweiser, miller, coors, etc.... we will test with head(aproximatly 1 inch) and then without. we will test for initial taste quality, after taste, bitterness, sweetness, satisfaction, and alcohol content.


Evantooali ull te midrongies sooooded exactlee te dame. Tesssst comepletered.


----------



## Niebur3

Thunderplains said:


> Evantooali ull te midrongies sooooded exactlee te dame. Tesssst comepletered.


What?


----------



## remeolb

Thunderplains said:


> Evantooali ull te midrongies sooooded exactlee te dame. Tesssst comepletered.





Niebur3 said:


> What?


Eventually all the midranges sounded exactly the same. Test completed.


----------



## Niebur3

I hope to god there is a major difference after gathering all this data and once the test is done....lol.


----------



## armen818

i cant wait to see the test, cause i wana get the trinity or the CDM-54 for my 3way

good luck on the testing


----------



## Niebur3

armen818 said:


> i cant wait to see the test, cause i wana get the trinity or the CDM-54 for my 3way
> 
> good luck on the testing


Sorry to break the bad news, but we have not received the trinity for testing.


----------



## armen818

its ok,

the test you will be doing will be a BIG help for alot of people that are looking for small midranges


----------



## ErinH

Niebur3 said:


> Sorry to break the bad news, but we have not received the trinity for testing.


odd. I thought Mark was sending you guys one?

If not, I'll send one out.


----------



## Niebur3

bikinpunk said:


> odd. I thought Mark was sending you guys one?
> 
> If not, I'll send one out.


I thought so, but nada.


----------



## ErinH

shoot me a PM with your home address. I'm sending one over. You do only need one, correct? Not a pair? 

I spoke to Mark and he said he intended to send one over after he had time to break one in, but he just hasn't had time. So, I'm sending one that's had about 40-50 hours of pink noise on it. You might want to throw some more pink noise at it when you get it in until you're ready to test.

:thumbsup:


----------



## Niebur3

bikinpunk said:


> shoot me a PM with your home address. I'm sending one over. You do only need one, correct? Not a pair?
> 
> I spoke to Mark and he said he intended to send one over after he had time to break one in, but he just hasn't had time. So, I'm sending one that's had about 40-50 hours of pink noise on it. You might want to throw some more pink noise at it when you get it in until you're ready to test.
> 
> :thumbsup:


I would need a pair in order to do the test. Do you have a pair?


----------



## ErinH

Niebur3 said:


> Do you have a pair?


You callin' me out?

Let's fight!!!!!


----------



## hallsc

Niebur3 said:


> Hey guys....I believe we will have more than 20 sets of speakers to test! Which means I will have to continue to "beg" members that are not sending any in to help donate so I can afford to send all these back to their rightful owners. Please PM me with your "pledge" and you can either send money now or when the review is over. I really appreciate it (so does UPS, USPS, and FedEx) .
> 
> My PayPal is [email protected].


Sent $40 to the cause. Thanks for doing this! I haven't even finished the thread and I am excited. I am VERY jealous of your 430's, by the way; I must say I am rooting for those to do well, partially in hopes of an excuse to push me over the edge and get a pair of my own. 

Also, big ups to myself for my first post in 6 months I think...go Navy.


----------



## Niebur3

hallsc said:


> Sent $40 to the cause. Thanks for doing this! I haven't even finished the thread and I am excited. I am VERY jealous of your 430's, by the way; I must say I am rooting for those to do well, partially in hopes of an excuse to push me over the edge and get a pair of my own.
> 
> Also, big ups to myself for my first post in 6 months I think...go Navy.


Thanks...that is very generous and will help with shipping. The test is going to be this coming Saturday...I will update the test parameters tomorrow!


----------



## Niebur3

bikinpunk said:


> You callin' me out?
> 
> Let's fight!!!!!


Hell yea, I'm callin you out?....um.....okay maybe not, I'm only 6' 150lbs...um....oh wait, you are bikini punk....never mind, not scared anymore....lol


----------



## fish

Good to see everything's coming along. Have you had any setbacks?

What's the total number of drivers being tested sit at now?


----------



## Niebur3

fish said:


> Good to see everything's coming along. Have you had any setbacks?
> 
> What's the total number of drivers being tested sit at now?


We are at 15 drivers with 2 more on the way. The only setbacks so far has been ever changing testing parameters as we either see problems arise or try to make the test better. I should be posting finals parameters in the next couple of days (want to make sure they don't change again). This test should be fun and (we hope) informative as well.


----------



## ErinH

I'm mailing out the trinity's today.


----------



## pork soda

Whats up, buttercup?
You guys get all corned up last night or something?
The car audio nerd world awaits.


----------



## MacLeod

Tell me about it. Been watching this thread since it started. Those of us with no patience (or lives) are waiting.


----------



## MiniVanMan

There's a right way, a wrong way, and a bunch of gray area all in between. Be thankful, and patient as he's trying to do this in the most unbiased way possible for all our benefit. 

It takes time, and has been quite an education already for those involved in this project. This isn't just throwing some speakers on a piece of wood and playing a few songs.

So, be patient. He's taking the hard right over the easy wrong.


----------



## fish

No doubt, y'all take your time.


----------



## Niebur3

Update....the test is currently under way. It is taking much longer than expected and we will be posting results as soon as available.


----------



## kyheng

^After 11 pages, is time for the real show........


----------



## pork soda

Cool! I'm envisioning an 8 person pit crew with air ratchets and kid gloves,running around sweating like dancing mules, trying to swap mids in under 11.3 seconds as one person,calm and serene, sits blindfolded in the drivers seat listening.


----------



## Niebur3

kyheng said:


> ^After 11 pages, is time for the real show........


Okay, I have been patient with all the "hurry up" comments, but seriously, many of you on here have no clue what we are trying to accomplish. This is quite possibly the most difficult test to perform in audio. I have had many industry experts contact me via phone and other methods to express to me how we are attempting and impossible task....if I divulged the names of these experts, it would blow your mind as it did mine with the fact that they were calling me. So, basically what I am say is....BE PATIENT and quit asking (I have to tell my kids the same thing)....and don't make me turn this car around...etc, etc.


----------



## sands1

Don't let it get to you. Please Do Not Turn This Car Around! lol

I can only imagine that with folks pushing buttons and expecting you and the midrange team to be able to bend space time it must seem a daunting task. Maybe even like work BUT remember to have fun and enjoy all that candy. 

Just hit the mute button on the wound up kids in the back . How much farther speaker smurf? Not far now......


----------



## ErinH

hey, when the heck are you going to be done with this review?! 
 


PS: You did get the trinity's in, correct?


----------



## DAT

bikinpunk said:


> hey, *when the heck are you going to be done with this review?!*
> 
> 
> 
> PS: You did get the trinity's in, correct?




I agree!

We will all be shocked by the some of the results.. I don't wanna name any brands but I have tried most of the drivers and some of them didn't make my standards :laugh: 


But I'm ready for the results... it's just a few guys opinion right?


----------



## ErinH

^ for real. When I sent him letter by certified mail, he replied back via certified mail and said he'd be done by two weeks ago Thursday. I have the proof. 

THIS IS RIDICULOUS!!!!

PS: Seriously, who sends certified mail these days? 



Edit: For those who don't know, yes, I am just kidding. 
Stuff like this should take time. If he did it in one day, I'd be worried.


----------



## Niebur3

bikinpunk said:


> hey, when the heck are you going to be done with this review?!
> 
> 
> 
> PS: You did get the trinity's in, correct?


Got the trinity's...cute little guys....thanks! 

Latest update....some of the speakers sound better than others...there, that should satisfy some for now . 

Maybe I should say amps, so a 20 page debate would ensue and people would have something to do....lol.


----------



## ErinH

Niebur3 said:


> Maybe I should say amps, so a 20 page debate would ensue and people would have something to do....lol.


I was actually going to suggest you do all your testing with Class D amps. But then I realized that would make all the speakers sound cold and sterile… since all Class D amps do that.


----------



## Boostedrex

Thanks to you and your "crew" for taking this on. I'm very interested to read through your findings. And yes, TAKE YOUR TIME!! I'd much rather wait another couple of weeks for the most accurate testing possible instead of quick/inaccurate results I can have tomorrow. 

Zach


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

Niebur3 said:


> *Got the trinity's...cute little guys*....thanks!
> 
> Latest update....some of the speakers sound better than others...there, that should satisfy some for now .
> 
> Maybe I should say amps, so a 20 page debate would ensue and people would have something to do....lol.


Watch it there bud, they don't like being called cute, they are men, small men, but never the less MEN

Glad you got them.


----------



## Niebur3

Boostedrex said:


> Thanks to you and your "crew" for taking this on. I'm very interested to read through your findings. And yes, TAKE YOUR TIME!! I'd much rather wait another couple of weeks for the most accurate testing possible instead of quick/inaccurate results I can have tomorrow.
> 
> Zach


I will also let you guys know we have learned a ton already and the test parameters are ever changing as we learn the best possible way to test all of these speakers to deliver the most useful results.

We have realized just how daunting of task this is and why many have contacted us to "warn" us as well as offer tremendous support and help with the most common advice being "don't expect to succeed and back out". Well, it is not in my nature to give up, but now I do see why this advice was given.

We have a plan to conquer the "Mt. Everest" of testing. I just hope we don't need the rescue helicopter before we reach the summit.


----------



## lycan

Here's what I'm expecting ...

There will be those in the audience with "brand bias" ... brands they just "love", or brands they just "hate" ... who might be upset or disappointed with the results. Naturally, they will cry foul, and find fault with the testing procedure ... even though _everyone_ had ample time to make suggestions, and critique the test methodology weeks ago ... before the results were in


----------



## ErinH

H-Audio - AKA - Here-I-Come said:


> they are men, small men, but never the less MEN


they prefer the term 'little people'.



Niebur3 said:


> I will also let you guys know we have learned a ton already and the test parameters are ever changing as we learn the best possible way to test all of these speakers to deliver the most useful results.


out of everything, I'm most interested in seeing the wt3 results.


----------



## Niebur3

H-Audio - AKA - Here-I-Come said:


> Watch it there bud, they don't like being called cute, they are men, small men, but never the less MEN
> 
> Glad you got them.


I meant cute in a bulldog sort of way....not a chiwawa sort of way...lol.

Oh, and yeah, what Bikinpunk said....I am using class A/B because all class D amps sound terrible and will be the death of audiophile sound! (Was that harsh enough to start a long debate???).....oh, and all HU sound the same/different and all expensive equipment is automatically better/worse than less expensive...and so forth and so on....lol .


----------



## Niebur3

lycan said:


> Here's what I'm expecting ...
> 
> There will be those in the audience with "brand bias" ... brands they just "love", or brands they just "hate" ... who might be upset or disappointed with the results. Naturally, they will cry foul, and find fault with the testing procedure ... even though _everyone_ had ample time to make suggestions, and critique the test methodology weeks ago ... before the results were in


When I post the results....I will be the 1st to cry foul....lol!


----------



## Niebur3

Ok guys....there has been some major changes to the test parameters that I would like to share to make sure everyone is okay (well, I don't really care if everyone is okay, but most). We have talked with many forum members regarding these changes and I thought I would post for everyone else to comment and express any objections. 

*We have realized that this test is impossible to implement properly inside a car and frankly each car makes the speakers sound worse, just in a little different way. So, we are using the home, which would be the best testing environment we have easily accessible.

*We discussed in great length how in reality speakers would be utilized in a car. Most, if not all people, would either use an IB installation or small sealed enclosure in a vehicle. A medium to large sealed enclosure is just not feasible. With that said, using the WinISD program, all 18 speakers we have fit in either the small box or IB configuration. So, we have a large sealed box to act as an IB (.30 cu feet) for the drivers that perform well in IB and we are using a small sealed enclosure (.05 cu feet - using the mean, mode, median, and range to determine size) for the drivers that model better for small sealed.

*We are mounting the enclosures to baffles that are 3/4" thick and is 32" by 48".

*We are changing the frequency range. We originally tried the range at 250-5K with 36dB slope and changed right away to 250-6.3K with 12dB slope. Well, didn't work so good. We came to realize that if the speakers are doing what they are supposed to be doing...it will sound like ass (this realization has been confirmed in the last 2 days by several industry people). Any one speaker in your system would if it is playing only a certain passband. If anyone does not believe us, try listening to your mid range only between those frequencies. We played around and opened up the speakers to 16K and found the mid range part of the speaker to be much more pleasing even on speakers with a recommended frequency range much much lower and most importantly, we were now able to hear the speaker image, have depth, etc, etc. After again talking with many, it seems that 2nd and 3rd order harmonics are revealed. Now, this basically allows us to better tell if the speaker is doing all the "things" it is supposed to be doing (imaging, depth, width, staging, clarity etc.). We will not be looking at the extension and if the speaker can play high frequencies such as cymbals, etc., but just the midrange portion of the speaker. Tonality will be commented on, but will be a very minor factor as tonality can be corrected with an equalizer. Any speaker that does everything it should in the frequency range will still be doing what it should if you change the passband to add a tweeter. This is the only way to hear what we need to to be able to tell if the speaker is doing everything as it should and present usable results without adding other speakers (such as tweeters) into the mix. 

*Also, I believe my last count is 17 or 18 pairs. We will be using scoring sheets based on various factors. When we post the results, the write up will include lots of info on each driver, but we are going to refuse to rank them 1-17 or 18. We will instead be classifying them in groups based on our internal scoring system. I just can rank 1 speaker above another because it won/lost by 1 or 2 points. We will allow all testers to name their overall favorite based on the results and possibly which one they would purchase taking the cost factor into it. 

Please post any questions and if you do not like these new parameters and want your speakers pulled from the test...now is the time to speak up. All this learned information has taken lots of time to discover and process and we will be hoping to perform the test with these new parameters sometime within the next 2 weekends.


----------



## lycan

Niebur3 said:


> Ok guys....there has been some major changes to the test parameters that I would like to share to make sure everyone is okay (well, I don't really care if everyone is okay, but most). We have talked with many forum members regarding these changes and I thought I would post for everyone else to comment and express any objections.
> 
> *We have realized that this test is impossible to implement properly inside a car and frankly each car makes the speakers sound worse, just in a little different way. So, we are using the home, which would be the best testing environment we have easily accessible.
> 
> *We discussed in great length how in reality speakers would be utilized in a car. Most, if not all people, would either use an IB installation or small sealed enclosure in a vehicle. A medium to large sealed enclosure is just not feasible. With that said, using the WinISD program, all 18 speakers we have fit in either the small box or IB configuration. So, we have a large sealed box to act as an IB (.30 cu feet) for the drivers that perform well in IB and we are using a small sealed enclosure (.05 cu feet - using the mean, mode, median, and range to determine size) for the drivers that model better for small sealed.
> 
> *We are mounting the enclosures to baffles that are 3/4" thick and is 32" by 48".
> 
> *We are changing the frequency range. We originally tried the range at 250-5K with 36dB slope and changed right away to 250-6.3K with 12dB slope. Well, didn't work so good. We came to realize that if the speakers are doing what they are supposed to be doing...it will sound like ass (this realization has been confirmed in the last 2 days by several industry people). Any one speaker in your system would if it is playing only a certain passband. If anyone does not believe us, try listening to your mid range only between those frequencies. We played around and opened up the speakers to 16K and found the mid range part of the speaker to be much more pleasing even on speakers with a recommended frequency range much much lower and most importantly, we were now able to hear the speaker image, have depth, etc, etc. After again talking with many, it seems that 2nd and 3rd order harmonics are revealed. Now, this basically allows us to better tell if the speaker is doing all the "things" it is supposed to be doing (imaging, depth, width, staging, clarity etc.). We will not be looking at the extension and if the speaker can play high frequencies such as cymbals, etc., but just the midrange portion of the speaker. Tonality will be commented on, but will be a very minor factor as tonality can be corrected with an equalizer. Any speaker that does everything it should in the frequency range will still be doing what it should if you change the passband to add a tweeter. This is the only way to hear what we need to to be able to tell if the speaker is doing everything as it should and present usable results without adding other speakers (such as tweeters) into the mix.
> 
> *Also, I believe my last count is 17 or 18 pairs. We will be using scoring sheets based on various factors. When we post the results, the write up will include lots of info on each driver, but we are going to refuse to rank them 1-17 or 18. We will instead be classifying them in groups based on our internal scoring system. I just can rank 1 speaker above another because it won/lost by 1 or 2 points. We will allow all testers to name their overall favorite based on the results and possibly which one they would purchase taking the cost factor into it.
> 
> Please post any questions and if you do not like these new parameters and want your speakers pulled from the test...now is the time to speak up. All this learned information has taken lots of time to discover and process and we will be hoping to perform the test with these new parameters sometime within the next 2 weekends.


My first comment is that I understand why you're opening up the top limit of the frequency range. HOWEVER ... a couple points need to be mentioned.

1. The upper range of some midrange drivers _may_ show some cone resonance or breakup. Listening without a low-pass, or notch, may sound pretty bad (fatiguing, irritating, excessively exaggerated treble). And yes, these resonances will "amplify" the higher frequency distortion products of the midrange band. I've listened to Seas Excel drivers on-axis, with no low-pass or break-up control ... it ain't pretty.

2. Just for clarification ... if the midrange drivers are distorting, any filters in the path _before_ the driver won't help, or "mask" the distortion. The driver's distortion will still be radiated, even with active or passive filters ahead of the driver. You _can_ limit fundamentals, of course, that aggravate non-linearities and excite cone resonances with filtering ... but the filtering does _not_ attenuate the distortion products created by the driver.

Good luck ... this ain't no small task


----------



## Niebur3

lycan said:


> My first comment is that I understand why you're opening up the top limit of the frequency range. HOWEVER ... a couple points need to be mentioned.
> 
> 1. The upper range of some midrange drivers _may_ show some cone resonance or breakup. Listening without a low-pass, or notch, may sound pretty bad (fatiguing, irritating, excessively exaggerated treble). And yes, these resonances will "amplify" the higher frequency distortion products of the midrange band. I've listened to Seas Excel drivers on-axis, with no low-pass or break-up control ... it ain't pretty.
> 
> 2. Just for clarification ... if the midrange drivers are distorting, any filters in the path _before_ the driver won't help, or "mask" the distortion. The driver's distortion will still be radiated, even with active or passive filters ahead of the driver. You _can_ limit fundamentals, of course, that aggravate non-linearities and excite cone resonances with filtering ... but the filtering does _not_ attenuate the distortion products created by the driver.
> 
> Good luck ... this ain't no small task


We are going to try to live with the ear fatigue due to the fact that it is almost impossible to tell if the speakers are doing what they are supposed to in the limited low pass filter of 5K or even 6.3K. It is also hard to tell if they sound "bad" because they are bad or because they are actually doing what they are supposed to and in that passband they should sound bad!


----------



## matdotcom2000

Niebur3 said:


> We are going to try to live with the ear fatigue due to the fact that it is almost impossible to tell if the speakers are doing what they are supposed to in the limited low pass filter of 5K or even 6.3K. It is also hard to tell if they sound "bad" because they are bad or because they are actually doing what they are supposed to and in that passband they should sound bad!


Honestly I do listen to my speakers one set at a time when tuning. just midbass. just tweeters. and so on. At times listening does become somewhat boring but you get a real taste of the way the speaker is suppose to be played, I would not say that they sound like ass maybe add a tweeter for pleasure lol. So I do understand where you are coming from EITHER WAY I LOOK FORWARD TO A REVIEW OF WHATEVER you got.  I know you are doing the best you can with what you got, I am FOREVER patient, so no rush from me.

Soon as I dump some equipment you will have some paypal money to help with some of the cost.


----------



## sands1

Niebur3 said:


> Latest update....some of the speakers sound better than others...




I knew it! Im no brand whore but I've been running Some speakers for years now and have always known that Others speakers really suck in comparison.

The Some speakers will be a perfect match to thier new line of placebo amps. Tests which I am not at liberty to make public at this stage of development clearly show that nothing I have written on the subject matter is in anyway useful. That being said, I await the analytical test results to support this .


----------



## ErinH

Niebur3 said:


> *We discussed in great length how in reality speakers would be utilized in a car. Most, if not all people, would either use an IB installation or small sealed enclosure in a vehicle. A medium to large sealed enclosure is just not feasible. With that said, using the WinISD program, all 18 speakers we have fit in either the small box or IB configuration. So, we have a large sealed box to act as an IB (.30 cu feet) for the drivers that perform well in IB and we are using a small sealed enclosure (.05 cu feet - using the mean, mode, median, and range to determine size) for the drivers that model better for small sealed.


Agreed


bikinpunk said:


> For in car testing, I’d go with whatever makes the most sense for you. Honestly, I’d try putting them in free-air and not worry about an enclosure. You’re going to get the general idea of what the enclosure does when you test it outside the car. Plus, we know that car’s geometry will vary, as will aiming. If you put it in the car and try to do enclosures, etc you’re talking about some SERIOUS headaches. Especially if you start trying to do on/off axis, etc.
> For simplicity, I say free-air in the car, maybe on axis and 90* off axis… no in betweens. Just to get a very general idea.





Niebur3 said:


> *Also, I believe my last count is 17 or 18 pairs. We will be using scoring sheets based on various factors. When we post the results, the write up will include lots of info on each driver, but we are going to refuse to rank them 1-17 or 18. We will instead be classifying them in groups based on our internal scoring system. I just can rank 1 speaker above another because it won/lost by 1 or 2 points. We will allow all testers to name their overall favorite based on the results and possibly which one they would purchase taking the cost factor into it.


I agree again. Posting your results, to me, is a bit more pertinent than listing what you think sounds the best in order. It's just going to be too hard to pick out minute details between all drivers, considering you have 18 of them.


----------



## jimbno1

I don't really understand why extend the range past 6.3K. I think this will greatly affect the results and will shift the results towards the speakers designed to be full range versus a true midrange. Why not just pick out a tweeter use it to above 6.3K with all of the mids? That way you would still have the higher frequency clues but you wil not be asking midrange speakers to produce frequencies for which they were never intended.

To your point about it sounding like ass 250Hz to 6.3KHz, I agree. But if you do use active crossovers in a 3-way setup, which most of us will be doing, none of the so called "Clues and Ambience" will be coming from the mids. They will be coming from the tweeters. Most of us will still be crossing them 6.3K or below just like in your original plan. 

I appreciate all that you guys are doing but I just think running the mids full range is a poor comparison since it is not indicative of real world use. Listen to them in the intended range and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## ErinH

^ some people are going to try to use the 3" midranges as widebanders. I can guarantee it. Not saying I would, but I know that there will be those who will. 

Then again, I agree with your point that most won't be using that wide of bandwidth. It's a total toss up. That's why doing things like this is so tough.


----------



## OSN

Subscribed for interest in widebander applications. :surprised:


----------



## Niebur3

jimbno1 said:


> I don't really understand why extend the range past 6.3K. I think this will greatly affect the results and will shift the results towards the speakers designed to be full range versus a true midrange. Why not just pick out a tweeter use it to above 6.3K with all of the mids? That way you would still have the higher frequency clues but you wil not be asking midrange speakers to produce frequencies for which they were never intended.
> 
> To your point about it sounding like ass 250Hz to 6.3KHz, I agree. But if you do use active crossovers in a 3-way setup, which most of us will be doing, none of the so called "Clues and Ambience" will be coming from the mids. They will be coming from the tweeters. Most of us will still be crossing them 6.3K or below just like in your original plan.
> 
> I appreciate all that you guys are doing but I just think running the mids full range is a poor comparison since it is not indicative of real world use. Listen to them in the intended range and let the chips fall where they may.


I also understand and that would be the other option, I am just afraid people will cry foul adding in a Dyn tweet to the mix. We did some light listening of widbanders and true mids and the only added benefit of the widebanders was the high frequency information. The midrange frequencies sounded great on the true mids and well as the widebanders at the 16K level. This actually shocked the hell out of us and we made many calls to find out why. I guarantee from our light test, this will NOT sway the results toward the widebanders what so ever.


----------



## ryan s

If you simply post the frequency response graphs, we would be able to tell which can play high and which are true midranges, right? 

Why not pair the mids with an "average" set of mids and tweeters? The Dyns would be the ideal, although (speaking in generalities), most people who want a 3 way with Dyns would be running 3 Dyns...

Sounds like you guys have your work cut out :surprised:


----------



## Boostedrex

Keep up the heroic work guys! The community as a whole will benefit from your efforts. Thanks and thank you for the update.

Zach


----------



## DAT

Did Don "Buzzman" send any PHASS speakers? I'm too lazy right now to read the whole thread...


----------



## Buzzman

DAT said:


> Did Don "Buzzman" send any PHASS speakers? I'm too lazy right now to read the whole thread...


No, I did not. We don't have a dedicated 4" midrange yet. At my request one is in development and should be finalized by mid summer. The 4" full-range I use for my mid-range application was not, in my opinion, going to fit the parameters of this test, and I had no desire to drive around without it.


----------



## remeolb

jimbno1 said:


> I don't really understand why extend the range past 6.3K. I think this will greatly affect the results and will shift the results towards the speakers designed to be full range versus a true midrange. Why not just pick out a tweeter use it to above 6.3K with all of the mids? That way you would still have the higher frequency clues but you wil not be asking midrange speakers to produce frequencies for which they were never intended.
> 
> To your point about it sounding like ass 250Hz to 6.3KHz, I agree. But if you do use active crossovers in a 3-way setup, which most of us will be doing, none of the so called "Clues and Ambience" will be coming from the mids. They will be coming from the tweeters. Most of us will still be crossing them 6.3K or below just like in your original plan.
> 
> I appreciate all that you guys are doing but I just think running the mids full range is a poor comparison since it is not indicative of real world use. Listen to them in the intended range and let the chips fall where they may.


So far this method has in no way shifted our impressions of the speakers' sound toward the speakers that are intended to be used full range. Secondly, we are no longer listening to the speakers at high volume levels. A mid-range driver should be able to play relatively full range at low levels (maybe not well at upper and lower frequencies) without damage. Using the larger pass band simply allows us to better perceive what the speaker is and is not doing in the middle frequencies that it is intended to play. We have seriously toyed with the idea of adding a tweeter but have for the most part decided against it. We are very concerned that many people would feel our results are not valid if we were to incorporate a tweeter. This decision was not made in 5 minutes, or 5 hours for that matter. It was also not made without consulting some very respected Yodas in the field of audio.


----------



## ErinH

You guys are using an RTA to measure the listening levels, correct?
IMO, that’s one aspect that should be explored: properly level matching drivers so you can listen to the effect that these different volume levels have. 
Why are you guys testing solely at a ‘lower volume’? Any reason why you’re not going to a higher volume? I’d personally like to see thoughts on these different drivers at volume levels typical of in-car, driving, use.


----------



## Niebur3

Yes, a RTA is being used to level match the drivers.

I just talked to another Yoda (amazing...in Star Wars there was only 1) and I will be doing more testing tonight (hopefully) and may be changing the passband back down if this test works....will keep all updated!


----------



## jimbno1

May the Schwartz be with you.


----------



## Stage7

Boostedrex said:


> Keep up the heroic work guys! The community as a whole will benefit from your efforts. Thanks and thank you for the update.


x 2:coolgleamA:


----------



## ItalynStylion

Reminds me of when we did the tweeter test showdown over the summer. 

Great work man and keep it up!


----------



## pork soda

Did you pull your amps and HU to test with a power supply inside the house?Or are you using a different source/amp setup?
Keep up the great work....looking forward to results.


----------



## azngotskills

ItalynStylion said:


> Reminds me of when we did the tweeter test showdown over the summer.
> 
> Great work man and keep it up!


x2...BTW got a list of the drivers being tested?


----------



## Niebur3

pork soda said:


> Did you pull your amps and HU to test with a power supply inside the house?Or are you using a different source/amp setup?
> Keep up the great work....looking forward to results.


Yep....I very reluctantly pulled out the P9 Combo (optical was a *****). We are using a Cascade Audio power supply for the P9 Combo and Billet 475. We are using IXOS cables and speaker wire.


----------



## Niebur3

azngotskills said:


> x2...BTW got a list of the drivers being tested?


Here is a complete list of the Drivers that we are testing:

Alpine F#1 (Scan Speak)
Aura NS4
Dayton RS100
Dayton RS125
Dynaudio Esotar2 430
H-Audio Trinity
HAT L4
Hertz HL70
Morel CDM-88
Peerless Exclusives
Pioneer PRS
Rainbow Profi
Rainbow Vanadium
Scan Speak 12M
TangBand W4
Vifa NE123


----------



## jimbno1

Great I am so glad the Vifa made the list. Ever since it came out I have been looking forward to some kind of review. 

You guys have a huge task in front of you. 

Good Luck,

Jim


----------



## KLoNe

SEX-C


----------



## dBassHz

subscribed w/ post because the thread tools aren't working...


----------



## jbowers

Niebur3 said:


> Here is a complete list of the Drivers that we are testing:
> 
> Alpine F#1 (Scan Speak)
> Aura NS4
> Dayton RS100
> Dayton RS125
> Dynaudio Esotar2 430
> H-Audio Trinity
> HAT L4
> Hertz HL70
> Morel CDM-88
> Peerless Exclusives
> Pioneer PRS
> Rainbow Profi
> Rainbow Vanadium
> Scan Speak 12M
> TangBand W4
> Vifa NE123


This is going to go a long way towards narrowing down my next build - can't wait for listening impressions.


----------



## Britter

dBassHz said:


> subscribed w/ post because the thread tools aren't working...


+1, thread tools not working for me either.
-mb


----------



## dBassHz

Interested in a pair of Zaph ZA14W08 drivers to add to the mix?


----------



## Niebur3

dBassHz said:


> Interested in a pair of Zaph ZA14W08 drivers to add to the mix?


Not unless you can hand deliver tomorrow...lol. We are planning on testing Sunday (all day) and will be posting results within a week after.


----------



## Thunderplains

waiting patiently..


----------



## bkjay

I'm betting on Wed. for the results. It will be worth the wait.Being that I have a set of Clarus you no the one I'm pulling for.


----------



## DAT

bkjay said:


> I'm betting on Wed. for the results. It will be worth the wait.Being that I have a set of Clarus you no the one I'm pulling for.


Word one the street is that the Clarus speakers came in 8th.  they just edged out the Pyramid 409G's.









.


----------



## bkjay

Ouch!! lol!:laugh:


----------



## [email protected]

DAT said:


> Word one the street is that the Clarus speakers came in 8th.  they just edged out the Pyramid 409G's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .




Prob because of the whizzer cone


----------



## less

Thanks for the hard work and sheer mental torture that this must be for all involved. I'm anxious to hear your thoughts, and only wish I could be there to hear for myself. Nice selection of drivers too - and thanks to all who contributed. 

I wish I could have waited for the results before replacing my poor broken 12m, but I'm very pleased with my system now and there is no way in the world that I'd take the time to build another friggin enclosure for a new midrange anyhow lol... burned out on building! On the other hand, this will be very helpful for a lot of individuals and is an admirable undertaking.


----------



## NSTar

I have the critical mass 3.5" rs
there is no specs on these...



I haven't installed them so they are virgins, except I manage to make indentations on the cones. 


Lots of ppl put them down, so I guess no one is interested in seeing the results but me.


----------



## MiniVanMan

This **** is driving me crazy. A group of people take on a monumental, and frankly relatively impossible task, and the majority of complaining revolves around "oh I wish you would test this particular speaker as well". 

The testers are testing a VERY large sample of 3-4" midranges. If a speaker didn't make it into the test group, live with it, and stop moping.

Nothing like something like this to show how ungrateful, and unappreciative people are of other people's hard work.


----------



## DAT

MiniVanMan said:


> This **** is driving me crazy. A group of people take on a monumental, and frankly relatively impossible task, and the majority of complaining revolves around "oh I wish you would test this particular speaker as well".
> 
> The testers are testing a VERY large sample of 3-4" midranges. If a speaker didn't make it into the test group, live with it, and stop moping.
> 
> Nothing like something like this to show how ungrateful, and unappreciative people are of other people's hard work.



x2

I agree if your speaker didn't make it into the group for testing. oh well.

I had a few speakers I could have sent but never got around to asking if they needed them now I see they are not in the group.

My loss... 

We await the testing results.


----------



## ErinH

MiniVanMan said:


> This **** is driving me crazy. A group of people take on a monumental, and frankly relatively impossible task, and the majority of complaining revolves around "oh I wish you would test this particular speaker as well".
> 
> The testers are testing a VERY large sample of 3-4" midranges. If a speaker didn't make it into the test group, live with it, and stop moping.
> 
> Nothing like something like this to show how ungrateful, and unappreciative people are of other people's hard work.


which is why a lot of people gave up posting their thoughts on tests a long time ago.

announcing it = setting yourself up for BS


----------



## NSTar

NSTar said:


> I have the critical mass 3.5" rs
> there is no specs on these...
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't installed them so they are virgins, except I manage to make indentations on the cones.
> 
> 
> Lots of ppl put them down, so I guess no one is interested in seeing the results but me.



btw, it's available for testing if you want.


----------



## Thunderplains

bikinpunk said:


> announcing it = setting yourself up for BS



Truth.


----------



## azngotskills

bikinpunk said:


> which is why a lot of people gave up posting their thoughts on tests a long time ago.
> 
> announcing it = setting yourself up for BS


I totally agree, lots of criticism and negativity...


----------



## matdotcom2000

I say shut the thread down and make the f#$ers wait. I am grateful for whatever is being tested and the results. If yours did not make it in tooo bad. And saying that you are patiently waiting does not mean that you are being patient.  If you wanna test some speaker start your own, this man was very kind to do this.


----------



## hallsc

matdotcom2000 said:


> And saying that you are patiently waiting does not mean that you are being patient.


Agreed. I **** out $40 for return shipping for this cause and I am just sitting back and letting the results come in when they do. This is hard, people.


----------



## mmiller

yup, I cant wait for the results.... Hats off to all that have Contributed!!!!!


----------



## BMWTUBED

Subscribed. Thanks for all the hard work put into this test!


----------



## Niebur3

I will let you guys know all results are in and being compiled as we speak (or as I type). I will need at least 3-4 day to write everything up. The results will be very interesting, some definite surprises!


----------



## WuNgUn

Awesome!!!!
So maybe my Vifa's took the cake!?!?


----------



## captainobvious

No rush...take your time Neibur. Testing speakers, especially in volume like this is no easy task and consumes alot of ones time. I tested a bunch of wideband/fullrange drivers a little while back so I know first hand that theres alot of time and effort involved. But it also is very rewarding for other memembers of diyma. I think the tests I did helped quite a few people to find a quality pair of drivers, or at the very least experiment with widebanders in their vehicle.
Thanks for your work and contribution to the DIY community and thank you also to those who supported this effort by supplying drivers for testing and funds for shipping, etc.

I look forward to reading your thoughts on this group after you're finished up 
Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you.

-Steve


----------



## perfektj

captainobvious said:


> No rush...take your time Neibur. Testing speakers, especially in volume like this is no easy task and consumes alot of ones time. I tested a bunch of wideband/fullrange drivers a little while back so I know first hand that theres alot of time and effort involved. But it also is very rewarding for other memembers of diyma. I think the tests I did helped quite a few people to find a quality pair of drivers, or at the very least experiment with widebanders in their vehicle.
> Thanks for your work and contribution to the DIY community and thank you also to those who supported this effort by supplying drivers for testing and funds for shipping, etc.
> 
> I look forward to reading your thoughts on this group after you're finished up
> Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you.
> 
> -Steve


Amen brother, patience is a virtue.


----------



## mSaLL150

This will be a very interesting read. I do plan to step up to a 4-way system, and have heard several of the speakers on the list of those being tested. I have also had interest in some of those I haven't heard on the list, so seeing comparison results will be neat.


----------



## Niebur3

Ok, update:

The test results (20 pages worth) are being proof read and results will be available on Tues or Wed. I would like to start sending back speakers tonight and tomorrow. If anyone is willing to donate to cover return shipping charges (thanks to all that have already), please send what you can ASAP to [email protected].

Thanks again!


----------



## DAT

Niebur3 said:


> Ok, update:
> 
> The test results (20 pages worth) are being proof read and results will be available on Tues or Wed. I would like to start sending back speakers tonight and tomorrow. If anyone is willing to donate to cover return shipping charges (thanks to all that have already), please send what you can ASAP to [email protected].
> 
> Thanks again!



Yeah , I'll shoot you some cash to help return them,  although a few of them should be sprayed with gas and caught of fire or plugged in the AC outlet for how bad they sounded.

:surprised:


----------



## hallsc

Neibur,

Will you be posting the results on here, or formatted somwhere else for everyone to download (i.e, Word Document)? Might be a little tough to read 20 pages of results on here...

Also, you are not getting any more of my money!


----------



## Niebur3

I think I will be emailing to people due to the reasons you mentioned.


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

Niebur3 said:


> Ok, update:
> 
> The test results (20 pages worth) are being proof read and results will be available on Tues or Wed. I would like to start sending back speakers tonight and tomorrow. If anyone is willing to donate to cover return shipping charges (thanks to all that have already), please send what you can ASAP to [email protected].
> 
> Thanks again!


Sending you a few bux to help with shipping.


----------



## quality_sound

Jerry, 

Can you add me to the email recipient list? I already have my drivers picked but this would be a great read. The email address in my profile is fine.

Thanks!
Paul


----------



## IBcivic

sent a few bux...use that addy to e-mail me the results


----------



## Thunderplains

Same here.. EMail in profile.. Thx again for the test Niebur3..


----------



## mmiller

my email is [email protected]


----------



## beerdrnkr

splguy7 at yahoo dot com.....por favor. I'd appreciate it.


----------



## jaydub

I also sent a couple bucks to help with shipping. I'll be looking forward to reading this as well, if you could just use the address from there (madjanx).

Thank you for all your work on this.


----------



## Niebur3

Thanks for all the help with the shipping. It looks like we have had enough donated to cover all remaining return shipping costs.

Thanks for all your help!


----------



## offtime

I also want the results, plz add email offtime at gmail dot com.

Ty


----------



## fish

Niebur3 said:


> Thanks for all the help with the shipping. It looks like we have had enough donated to cover all remaining return shipping costs.
> 
> Thanks for all your help!


Oops, sorry I'm a little late getting on here tonight. I went ahead & sent you some money. Treat yourselves to a round or something.


----------



## t3sn4f2

I'll take a copy of the results as well......

email: t3sn4f2 at yahoo dot com

Thanks


----------



## xanderin

Im sure that individually emailing results is going to be far more work than creating a "4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More- Results" post and locking it...


----------



## less

20 pages... hadn't really thought of that volume but it only makes sense given the huge number of drivers! Please add me to the results list: jim.hickerson at charter.net

About to be unemployed - although several interviews scheduled =) - so can't donate atm... but do offer many thanks!

Jim


----------



## Miguel mac

Niebur3 said:


> I think I will be emailing to people due to the reasons you mentioned.


link upload? , megaupload, rapidshare? :laugh:


----------



## Niebur3

When the results are ready, I will email out the document in .pdf format. *Please send your email address to [email protected] to receive a copy.* If you have already sent your email address via PM or any other method, you do NOT need to send me the email. People that have already sent me your email do not need to do this. 

Thanks guys....tomorrow or Wed will be the date!


----------



## BMWTUBED

[email protected]
thanks for dedicating the time to do this!


----------



## perfektj

Thank you all for the hard work and time that went into this comparison. Tests like this really help out us noobs trying to go the diy route.


----------



## mmiller

well its over now but the crying......LOL!


----------



## Luke352

[email protected]

If you wouldn't mind adding me to the list of recipients.


----------



## el_chupo_

Sent you an email Jerry. Thanks very much for the hard work.


----------



## chad

Niebur3 said:


> When the results are ready, I will email out the document in .pdf format. *Please send your email address to [email protected] to receive a copy.*


you have pretty big brass balls. :laugh:


----------



## NSTar

Miguel mac said:


> link upload? , megaupload, rapidshare? :laugh:



YEP!


----------



## thsiow10

might use Dayton RS100 or Tang Band 3 inch Bamboo ..
add me to list ..

[email protected]

thanks.


----------



## Niebur3

chad said:


> you have pretty big brass balls. :laugh:


Why do you say that? I mean, of course it is true, just wondering how you knew...lol


----------



## chad

you are gonna need a new e-mail address in 6 months given how Google now swarms all over this site like hawks on roadkill


----------



## Niebur3

Damn....good point. Oh well, to late now.


----------



## chad

LOL have fun with that


----------



## ErinH

you know, I honestly don't know why you don't just post it up here for everyone to see. You know we're going to want to discuss the review, so why not post up the thread for everyone to find later.
The purpose of a review, at least in my opinion, is for others to see your thoughts. We know it's an opinion. That's fine. If you send out a mass e-mail one time it defeats the purpose of you even writing up a review. If you were doing this only for yourself you would need no review. We know you're doing this for the forum members. Why not just go ahead and make it public? 
If you have it typed up, it's as simple as a copy/paste a few times. 

Are you doing so to avoid criticism? If so, I understand. However, if your test isn't something you can stand behind, then maybe it _is_ worthy of criticism. I believe you guys did your research and did the best you could possibly due within reason. Be proud of your efforts. Don't hide behind them. 

- Erin


----------



## Niebur3

bikinpunk said:


> you know, I honestly don't know why you don't just post it up here for everyone to see. You know we're going to want to discuss the review, so why not post up the thread for everyone to find later.
> The purpose of a review, at least in my opinion, is for others to see your thoughts. We know it's an opinion. That's fine. If you send out a mass e-mail one time it defeats the purpose of you even writing up a review. If you were doing this only for yourself you would need no review. We know you're doing this for the forum members. Why not just go ahead and make it public?
> If you have it typed up, it's as simple as a copy/paste a few times.
> 
> Are you doing so to avoid criticism? If so, I understand. However, if your test isn't something you can stand behind, then maybe it _is_ worthy of criticism. I believe you guys did your research and did the best you could possibly due within reason. Be proud of your efforts. Don't hide behind them.
> 
> - Erin


No trying to hide at all, just not thinking the formatting I did will come across right in the forum. I have graphs and tables and all sorts of formatting stuff (me and my wife took advanced college level Excel and Word classes). Plus, it is 20+ pages and with that alone and the formatting, I am thinking it will look like **** it I post it. I can try to find a way to link it or something. I just dont want to have spent all that time making a real nice write up to have it go to **** doing the copy and paste thing.

With that said, I know my test it not perfect, but it was well thought out and we did try very hard.


----------



## DAT

For the record Jerry has not sent me any pdf or email on the results. I'm just guessing what the speakers ranked.

I can just say we all appreciate time you all took to do this for us.

Look forward to reading the review.


----------



## jimbno1

Thanks again for the hard work. I am checking my email  Maybe some of the moderators could help in formatting and posting the results?

If not a full posting could you at least post some tiers of drivers and maybe some short comments on each ala Zaph? 

This is kind of like the NFL draft. Waiting to see who is the Tebow (Higher than expected)
and the Clausen (dropped like a rock).


----------



## ErinH

Niebur3 said:


> No trying to hide at all, just not thinking the formatting I did will come across right in the forum. I have graphs and tables and all sorts of formatting stuff (me and my wife took advanced college level Excel and Word classes). Plus, it is 20+ pages and with that alone and the formatting, I am thinking it will look like **** it I post it. I can try to find a way to link it or something. I just dont want to have spent all that time making a real nice write up to have it go to **** doing the copy and paste thing.
> 
> With that said, I know my test it not perfect, but it was well thought out and we did try very hard.



I was wondering if this was the reason. 
In that case, I understand. Heck, it takes me an hour sometimes when I post a review just to get the formatting correct with all the VBB code and crap. Then, the time it takes to load up the pictures, etc. It just gets nasty. Especially if the review is more than a couple pages.

I’ll be glad to assist in getting it set up for proper formatting, if you’d like. Do you have a photobucket account? If so, size all the images to about 800x600 and load them up on there at once. 
I suggest making a new folder for the re-sized ones, and numbering them in the order they will appear in the report (ie: “00, 01, 02, 03”). That way they’ll be in order in the PB account and you won’t have to figure out which is which and that’s a hard task to do when you have 20+ pictures to go through, all of which look the same for the most part. 

I’m just thinking it’d be pretty nice if you could post it up on the board for everyone to review. Otherwise, you’re going to be answering e-mails for months, possibly years, to come. 

Again, if there’s any way I can help, LMK. You can send me over the word file and I’ll get the code put up. We can put “Picture 1”, “Picture 2”, etc as placeholders for the pictures, and then drop them in to the review. 
Also, if you can upload the pictures (or send them all in a zip file to me) and send the file I’ll take care of the rest. 

If you’d rather not, that’s fine.


----------



## BigRed

Niebur, much appreciated what you have tried to do here. That being said, I believe it would be the right thing to do to post them publicly. I understand it will take a long time, but everybody has been waiting for the review. No matter what your review contains, suggests, or explains, somebody is not going to like it. But not posting them is like the holder of the klippel asking for drivers publicly to be tested, and then letting everybody know on the forum that the driver that was tested will be emailed the results privately. Maybe its just me, but it seems kinda odd 

If the results are difficult for you to post, maybe you can forward the info to somebody that is savvy on getting them up publicly on the forum?

Either way, thanks for taking on a task that I knew was going to be tough.


----------



## Boostedrex

Whoever suggested that you just load the PDF onto a file share site was spot on IMHO. That way everyone can go and download it if they want. It can still be discussed on the forum without the need to spend countless hours re-formatting the document. Just my .02

Shot you an email also Jerry.

Zach


----------



## ErinH

^ that might be good, too. 

that, or find someone here with an FTP. Or, can Ant not load it up for us? 

Bad part... how we gonna quote that ish?!


----------



## Melodic Acoustic

If you like you can send the PDF to me and I will host it and you can start a new Thread with a link to the PDF. Would that work for you guys?

O and this is without knowing if the Trinity got slaughter in the comparison test.:blush:


----------



## t3sn4f2

H-Audio - AKA - Here-I-Come said:


> If you like you can send the PDF to me and I will host it and you can start a new Thread with a link to the PDF. Would that work for you guys?
> 
> O and this is without knowing if the Trinity got slaughter in the comparison test.:blush:


That would be nice since free hosting sites like rapid share usually timeout from free request overload.


----------



## jsun_g

Heck I've got personal web space from my ISP (as I'm sure many others may possibly have). If the PDF isn't over a couple megs, I would be glad to host it.


----------



## Niebur3

I have a place to host it and will provide that link AND minivanman has offered to format it for DIYMA....once it is ready. No, still not ready...not yet, maybe soon, but not yet....nope, nope nope...not yet.


----------



## t3sn4f2

Are we there yyyyyyet?


----------



## voodoosoul

Been following this post since day 1, I can't wait


----------



## dvcrogers

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! I can't wait!


----------



## nimikipod

Where is it ?????!!

there are lots of bets here in israel regarding this test verdict..

please send me an email with the results.. 

thanks


----------



## BigRed

you could always post the 1-10 results based on YOUR analysis, with the data to follow when its ready.


----------



## chad

Betting in America, betting in Israel. Damn there's some serious betting on this thread.


----------



## Stage7

This thread is giving me blue balls...


----------



## DAT

BigRed said:


> you could always post the 1-10 results based on YOUR analysis, with the data to follow when its ready.


I think Jerry was going to do tiers instead of rating 1 -10 or whatever.

Thanks again for doing this...


----------



## MiniVanMan

DAT said:


> I think Jerry was going to do tiers instead of rating 1 -10 or whatever.
> 
> Thanks again for doing this...


Yeah, this wasn't a competition. Each driver was evaluated on it's own merits and will have comments published. I haven't seen the data, and I've only had it briefly explained, but it's going to be some sort of tier placement, that is categorical. 

The initial idea was to do a "shootout" to see which was the best, and which ones performed to their price. Then as the process, and testers developed a more professional method for the testing it became apparent that there can't be a "best". That's too subjective and an extremely inaccurate way to evaluate a group of drivers that all have different strengths, weaknesses and need to be applied within a system uniquely. Which is essentially every driver.

Unfortunately, I think the individuals that like to be spoon fed will not be happy with the final data. They're going to have to read through a lot of information to find out which speaker meets their needs. There just won't be a "buy this speaker because it's the best".


----------



## Stage7

MiniVanMan said:


> Yeah, this wasn't a competition. Each driver was evaluated on it's own merits and will have comments published. I haven't seen the data, and I've only had it briefly explained, but it's going to be some sort of tier placement, that is categorical.
> 
> The initial idea was to do a "shootout" to see which was the best, and which ones performed to their price. Then as the process, and testers developed a more professional method for the testing it became apparent that there can't be a "best". That's too subjective and an extremely inaccurate way to evaluate a group of drivers that all have different strengths, weaknesses and need to be applied within a system uniquely. Which is essentially every driver.
> 
> Unfortunately, I think the individuals that like to be spoon fed will not be happy with the final data. They're going to have to read through a lot of information to find out which speaker meets their needs. There just won't be a "buy this speaker because it's the best".


Great post...and that's why I'm looking forward to the results.


----------



## ErinH

MiniVanMan said:


> I think the individuals that like to be spoon fed will not be happy with the final data. They're going to have to read through a lot of information to find out which speaker meets their needs. There just won't be a "buy this speaker because it's the best".


Good.


----------



## Boostedrex

bikinpunk said:


> Good.


Preach on brotha!! Amen!!!!!


----------



## ErinH

the best part about this?
Whenever someone asks "which midrange should I get", we can just link them to this thread and lock theirs. 

You mods are gonna have to bake Jerry and his friends a cake or something to repay them. lol.


----------



## Niebur3

I like chocolate...lol 

Up til 2am....this is almost like a new car build. Still churning away....GUARANTEED by Friday...it will be worth the wait...I hope!!!!


----------



## Boostedrex

Sorry, not a big cake baker here. And no talking about any Willy Wonka abilities on DIYMA Erin!!


----------



## DAT

Niebur3 said:


> I like chocolate...lol
> 
> Up til 2am....this is almost like a new car build. Still churning away....GUARANTEED by Friday...it will be worth the wait...I hope!!!!


I would send you some chocolate but I'm afraid it would melt before it got to you.

I guess I could ship in dry ice? 

BTW: I just took a chance and bought some Scan 12m's -- damn these speakers sound good.


----------



## MaXaZoR

> BTW: I just took a chance and bought some Scan 12m's -- damn these speakers sound good.


Can't wait for the results, but I too jumped on some 12m's so would love to read up on them some more!


----------



## estione

bikinpunk said:


> the best part about this?
> Whenever someone asks "which midrange should I get", we can just link them to this thread and lock theirs.
> 
> why???


----------



## DAT

bikinpunk said:


> the best part about this?
> Whenever someone asks "which midrange should I get", we can just link them to this thread and lock theirs.





estione said:


> why???



Because 'Punk is an undercover MOD. I totally agree with 'punk on this issue 
also.


----------



## estione

so if a " newbie " ask's what midrange?? he/she will only be shown about the one's that "Niebur3" has tested is that what you're saying??


----------



## remeolb

estione said:


> so if a " newbie " ask's what midrange?? he/she will only be shown about the one's that "Niebur3" has tested is that what you're saying??


True that. We didn't test every midrange. Jerry, If we're gonna test every midrange... I want salary and paid time off!


----------



## estione

no the point i am making is, with sooo many different spks out there you want to show just a very small handful, i thought the idea of a forum was to help/chat, debate etc,etc, not just lock there thread cos you think that there should'nt be any discussion on the topic


----------



## ErinH

because they have apparently tested 15-20 midranges. ALL of which are the same ones just about anyone from this board will recommend.

Do I agree with all those recommendations as being the only options? Nope. But, it'll save everyone the time of the headache.

Furthermore, if you are aware of others, then do a search or ask about that one specifically.

point is: Open ended "which midrange should I buy" threads should become less common. I hope they do. 

*smacks head*


----------



## MiniVanMan

estione said:


> no the point i am making is, with sooo many different spks out there you want to show just a very small handful, i thought the idea of a forum was to help/chat, debate etc,etc, not just lock there thread cos you think that there should'nt be any discussion on the topic


Discussion is fine. Though it would be much better if all parties involved did not demonstrate a dramatic lack of literacy skills (of course you excluded because your grammar, sentence structure, spelling, etc are of the highest standard ). However, discussion is not what the people that we're talking about want. They want to either argue, or be spoon fed an answer.


----------



## matdotcom2000

MiniVanMan said:


> Discussion is fine. Though it would be much better if all parties involved did not demonstrate a dramatic lack of literacy skills (of course you excluded because your grammar, sentence structure, spelling, etc are of the highest standard ). However, discussion is not what the people that we're talking about want. They want to either argue, or *be spoon fed an answer*.


This is a DIY (do it YOURSELF) site after all


----------



## quality_sound

Boostedrex said:


> Sorry, not a big cake baker here. And no talking about any Willy Wonka abilities on DIYMA Erin!!


You are a chocolate maker though.


----------



## mSaLL150

quality_sound said:


> You are a chocolate maker though.


"***********" is the correct term.


----------



## chad

mSaLL150 said:


> "***********" is the correct term.


----------



## Miguel mac

hello guys, any of you have and the analysis of the drivers? , Could send to my email [email protected]


----------



## ErinH

not out yet.


----------



## Thunderplains

Niebur3 said:


> I like chocolate...lol
> 
> Up til 2am....this is almost like a new car build. Still churning away....GUARANTEED by Friday...it will be worth the wait...I hope!!!!


TODAY IS THE DAY!!! (I have friends betting in Russia)










WOOHOO!


----------



## jimbno1

I just received my speakers and woofer tester back. The appear to have arrived in great shape. Thanks for taking great care of the speakers.

Now I am awaiting the review like everyone else.

One of the boxes had a number 6 on it. I wonder if that is some kind of sign about the ranking 

Thanks,
Jim


----------



## Ianaconi

I am waiting too.


----------



## IBcivic

jimbno1 said:


> I just received my speakers and woofer tester back. The appear to have arrived in great shape. Thanks for taking great care of the speakers.
> 
> Now I am awaiting the review like everyone else.
> 
> One of the boxes had a number 6 on it. I wonder if that is some kind of sign about the ranking
> 
> Thanks,
> Jim


TURN THE BOX AROUND....IT'S A ''9''


----------



## Niebur3

jimbno1 said:


> I just received my speakers and woofer tester back. The appear to have arrived in great shape. Thanks for taking great care of the speakers.
> 
> Now I am awaiting the review like everyone else.
> 
> One of the boxes had a number 6 on it. I wonder if that is some kind of sign about the ranking
> 
> Thanks,
> Jim


Sorry, I thought I had removed all those. That have to do with the random test number those drivers received during the test.


----------



## jimbno1

Six, nine, whatever it takes! 

You guys are probably too young for a "Mr. Mom" reference though.


----------

