[ooheadsoo]

Yeah, you want your marshall stack to add all sorts of distortion.  That's what makes it sound good, especially when you turn on the drive or overdrive.  It's an instrument, not high fidelity.

As I've already said, my previous comments have nothing to do with whether you prefer paper or metal.  But I guess you missed that.  I'm pointing out that your previous scenario was inappropriate.  So average joe likes paper drivers eh?  I coulda sworn average joes liked fancy shiny flashy drivers.  Probably plastic .

[dlr]

That's good, that's real good. Now you are just left to contend with the unnatural sound of a metal cone driver, but that's a subjective opinion and a different argument.

Well, no, you use it demonstrate what you profess to be the problems with other drivers and that it is not subjective, i.e. "the unnatural sound of a metal cone driver". In this post you qualify it as subjective, but not in most previous posts. Your claim is simply that the 5.5K resonance of the M-130 makes it without question superior to the other three. You're trying to have it both ways and that doesn't fly.

It would be interesting to see a debate between you and Siegfried Linkwitz on hard cones, distortion and audibility. Is it your take that his designs that use those nasty hard cones are by default going to sound worse than yours due to the use of hard cones? Or does he just not know what he's talking about?

Hey that would be great! So long as it is a face to face discussion and involved listening as well. I'd love to get to spend that kind of time with one of the brilliant minds and pioneers of our industry.

Oh, but of course. Why would anyone here expect otherwise? It makes it an unattainable possibility. So you can't handle discussions via boards? Why do you work so hard at it here, then? Please address the real questions, rather than responding to (what should be recognized as) the rhetorical one? There's no response to the hard questions. Again, do you think that his designs will by default sound worse than yours due to hard cones? Do you think he does not know what he's talking about? I think I see why you would specify face-to-face. Direct responses to direct questions leave a record that can be reviewed and evaluated.

When the M130 is driven hard (near Xmax per the above quote), what is the impact of the distortion? This is primarily a focus on the motor's non-linear distortion. What is the distortion of your drivers when driven to Xmax? We all know it is present in all drivers. You've not responded to any of these points discussed previously.

The M-130 does not use an XBL^ motor and responds to being driven hard much like any other woofer. I do however have some on order with the XBL^ motor. I have received 4 samples. Two of them were used in a prototype speaker for RAW Acoustics. While the two woofers (M-130 and M-130X) sounded very much the same, when driven hard it was clear to hear that the one with the XBL^ motor seemed to handle the higher output levels with more ease, less strain, and remained very clean. Clearly the more linear Bl does make some audible differences not hard to notice.

The M-165X is the woofer referred to in the post on the Mad forum and it does use the XBL^ motor.

So that implies that the M-130, the discussion on topic here, has a distortion characteristic that suffers more as do the others. But you're sure that it is superior to the other two in question on an overall basis. How do you know the distortion qualities of the other two? I have seen absolutely no distortion measurements on which any objective or even subjective conclusions could be based in a comparison. Your posts all say directly that the M-130 will be superior to the others when the 5.5K resonance is down 20-25db, yet you have no data for the others to make the comparison valid, only your opinion gleaned from measurements. However, you stated very clearly that this is a false premise on which to base a judgement, shown again for clarity:

The Scan Speak and Usher drivers are great drivers, but you can't just look at one aspect of something and get a full picture or draw conclusions.

So are we to accept your position as quoted above or your position here that is contradictory?

Clearly I know that low distortion is important, isn't it? Why else would I be using XBL^ motors with Copper rings with these new models?

My issue is and has been the value of, inconsistency, and credibility of distortion measurements made outside of the controlled environment of an anechoic chamber. Both near field and far field measurements have their own set of problems as measurements posted here by myself and Dan Wiggins clearly illustrate.

This puts you at odds with Linkwitz as well as John. Linkwitz did his work, both for the company with which he was previously affiliated and for his current works, without use of an anechoic chamber. Your position simply says that he's either ignorant or a fool for so doing. Don't take this personally, but I put more confidence in Linkwitz' technical expertise.

Given your own words, it's obvious that the post with a single (exceedingly incomplete) set of distortion measurements is nothing but a straw-man setup. Danny, I really expect better from you.

No, it very accurately illustrates a point, and that was the point (you'll see). People view a single measurement, like posted distortion measurements, and draw opinions without looking at any other forms of data to get a complete picture. They do it all the time.

Yes, and evidently you do occasionally as well.

[Hank]

Boy, a guy sure has to defend himself around here. I was the first to indicate driver #2 might sound better:

Woofer #1 will sound "worse", because it has more/higher peaks of odd-order harmonics above 70dB.  A lot of the over 50 dB might be heavily weighted with ambient noise.

SHEESH!

I win the Cadillac with the tail fins! 

[AK]

I don't think this thread is good for GR Research business.
imho it may turn many potential customers away ...

[Danny Richie]

Well, no, you use it demonstrate what you profess to be the problems with other drivers and that it is not subjective, i.e. "the unnatural sound of a metal cone driver". In this post you qualify it as subjective, but not in most previous posts. Your claim is simply that the 5.5K resonance of the M-130 makes it without question superior to the other three. You're trying to have it both ways and that doesn't fly.

I was referring to being superior in regards to CSD.

Oh, but of course. Why would anyone here expect otherwise? It makes it an unattainable possibility. So you can't handle discussions via boards? Why do you work so hard at it here, then? Please address the real questions, rather than responding to (what should be recognized as) the rhetorical one? There's no response to the hard questions. Again, do you think that his designs will by default sound worse than yours due to hard cones? Do you think he does not know what he's talking about? I think I see why you would specify face-to-face. Direct responses to direct questions leave a record that can be reviewed and evaluated.

My problem with forum based debates is how much of my time it takes up. I suck at typing too. I don't enjoy it, period.

On the other hand spending time with Seigfried would be a blast.

Sound worse by default? Now YOU are bringing in subjective issues. For what it is worth I have had a customer replace his Orions with one of my kits. That doesn't make it better, but HE liked it better.

And I actually think he is a brilliant guy.

So that implies that the M-130, the discussion on topic here, has a distortion characteristic that suffers more as do the others. But you're sure that it is superior to the other two in question on an overall basis.

Superior how? Do I think it will sound better? Are you asking me now for subjective impressions?

How do you know the distortion qualities of the other two? I have seen absolutely no distortion measurements on which any objective or even subjective conclusions could be based in a comparison.

I agree. Not only are the distortion measurements posted to be taken with a grain of salt (to put it lightly), but we really can't know what it will sound like by the distortion measurements.

My tube amps have really low distortion for tube amps, but not as low as a Denon receiver. However my tube amps blow away the sound quality of a Denon receiver.  

Your posts all say directly that the M-130 will be superior to the others when the 5.5K resonance is down 20-25db, yet you have no data for the others to make the comparison valid, only your opinion gleaned from measurements.

Clearly from the measurements the two other woofers show a longer decay rate in the region. Is that just my opinion?

So are we to accept your position as quoted above or your position here that is contradictory?

You're just playing semantics and it is of no value to anyone.  

This puts you at odds with Linkwitz as well as John. Linkwitz did his work, both for the company with which he was previously affiliated and for his current works, without use of an anechoic chamber.

I'm not at odds with Linkwitz. I have no beef with him at all. And so what if he didn't use a chamber for his design work. I did a ton of design work for a bunch of companies in the last two years without the use of an anechoic chamber either. And those designs won Editors choice awards, a Golden Ear award, three budget loudspeaker of the year awards, and one product of the year award.

Don't take this personally, but I put more confidence in Linkwitz' technical expertise.

None taken. He has earned his credibility.

I don't think this thread is good for GR Research business.
imho it may turn many potential customers away ...

Some may clearly see it that way, but others are telling me otherwsie too, and some are telling me with their orders. Speaking of which, I have orders to pack.

[WOR Radio]

don't think this thread is good for GR Research business.
imho it may turn many potential customers away ...

I think if anything, Dan will need help dealing with the floods of new customers due to his positive attitude.

Nothing said here will change the fact that Dan makes great sounding speakers.

[Anthony]

Wow!  Good thing I didn't have anything to do at work today.  25 pages . . .

Everything's been said, as a non GR-research customer (although still very interested in the OB line) here's my takeway:

Danny is a nice guy who doesn't shy from debate.
Even people who have beefs with him still contribute and debate in a *mostly* positive manner here.
He obviously pays attention to the details of what goes into his products.

This thread only solidified my desire to keep GR up at the top of my list when I get back into speaker building (wife needs the bathroom and backyard finished first . . . ugh, priorities).

Overall, despite some tense moments, this was one of the more positive audio discussions I have seen in a while.


Finally, Danny, do you think I should prop my speaker cables on styrofoam cups to isolate them from geomagnetic radiation?   

[laserman]

AK, why do you think this thread is not good for GR Research business?

For the most part, this thread has been very informative and opened the door for sharing information.  It has opened my eyes to spending more time reviewing how all drivers are measured.  With all the technical jargon stuff being tossed around…terms like spectral decay, neodymium magnet, compliance/stiffness of the suspension, BL (motor) non-linearity and inductance non-linearities, linear (FR/Phase) and non-linear components (distortion spectrum), Faraday rings, xmax, phase plugs, etc….so freely, how can a visitor just sit by and not want to delve into this thread.  It’s like peeling an onion back...with each peel you want to go deeper.  Most of these terms are now new words in my vocabulary, even though I still don't know how they all tie together.  "Honey, could you pass me the Faraday ring's please." 

Since I am not even up to the level of an “Average Joe,” (I only own a soldiering iron, hand tools, drill and sander…lol) Danny’s way of explaining stuff here, on his website, emails or telephone conversations, has never been construed or received as arrogant or condescending.  IOW, Danny has been very patient and tolerant fielding questions from an ignorant and naïve person such as myself.  IMHO, he not only does it because he sees me as a potential customer, but also is curious in wanting to see if his explanation of things will lead me to a better understanding of the different speaker designs and how it will match up to my listening preferences.  Danny’s speaker building involvement with those students each year helped me to understand a little more about the person behind the design curtain.

Okay now onto the contest, my wife and I looked at the graphs for drivers one and two and based on some CSI discovery (we are big fans of the original series) via Google to learn what the different harmonics mean, we choose unit ONE.  Even though there are a lot of peaks and valley’s, unit one seemed to stay the coarse longer before it sloped off.  However, as several people have already stated, listening to both drivers in a real world application would be necessary before rendering a final answer.

Peace,
L

[Vapor Audio]

Alright Danny, I'll guess which Driver will sound better 

I'd say Driver 2 will perform better, and here's why. 

- Lower (sometimes significantly) distortion in the critical areas, from 150hz - 1000hz. 

Below 100hz driver 2 may measure higher distortion levels, but who cares.  Assuming the sub 100hz measurements are accurate, which they probably aren't, even good high-end subs can be 10% distortion and still sound good.  I don't think your ear really cares to much about distortion levels below 100hz, but in the vocal and instrument ranges it certainly does!

[Danny Richie]

Okay, about the measured distortion responses that I asked you guys for comments on: See them again below.

Thank you, to all that were willing comment on it. Who was willing to respond and who was not spoke volumes! Even those that did comment on them had different impressions and this further illustrates that perceptions can vary. This will also illustrate that you can't get the whole picture from just one set of measurements.

Most here all agree that distortion measurements taken at different locations and in different manors should not be compared to one another. However many feel that measurements taken from the same system and in the same way are good for comparing to one another. Funny thing is that most of those people were afraid to make any subjective assessments on the data posted here when two woofers were measured in the same way, on the same system, and in the same room.

Dan Wiggins and I both posted data showing response variations (near field anomalies) in near field measurements that will effect any distortion measurements.

It was then stated by Mark K on page 19 that "the distortion measurements that John and I do are not done nearfield".

I mentioned in the first page of this thread issues regarding distortion measurements made in room, and how it can be effected by room noise. I also sighted information regarding this from the Clio manual. Measured distortion levels are at levels that are near or below room noise levels and separating them from room noise is not possible. Output levels can be increased so that room noise is a smaller percentage of the output signal but it cannot be removed from it. Getting closer to the woofer can also increase output levels in relation to room noise levels but again the room noise levels cannot be removed from the measurement. Then if you get too close you get an inaccurate response.

The measurements posted again below, made from 1 meter away, shows that room noise will make measurements inconsistent and that several must be taken to see a range.

We must also keep in mind that distortion levels created by a woofer at low power levels are not going to be the same as distortion levels taken at high power levels or when a woofer is driven hard.

Now lets look at the measurements made and posted below.

Here are second order harmonics:




Here are third order harmonics:




Here are 4th order harmonics:




And here are 5th order harmonics:




Woofer number one was of coarse not just the measured distortion (2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th harmonics) of the woofer itself but also of ambient room noise. The greatest level of room noise came from the only thing "on" in the room, the measuring computer. One thing to the favor of the woofer being tested though, is that it is a directional microphone and the computer was about 120 degrees to the back side of the microphone and about 1 meter away.

Woofer number one (Red, Orange, Yellow lines) was an M-130 in a standard A/V-1 box.

Woofer number two (Green, Blue, Purple lines) was actually not a woofer at all. For these measurements the woofer was disconnected and the microphone was rotated towards the measuring computer and the only thing it picked up was ambient room noise and the noise from the computer fan.

Now, can we really tell how good or bad a woofer will sound from distortion measurements taken this way? Just image the effect an air conditioning system will make if it came on during the tested of one woofer and not another.

[WOR Radio]

I love it!

[laserman]

Danny,

My wife wants to know what she won.  aa 

While we were doing this little discovery, she did ask a couple of times if in fact there were two actual drives.  I told her you did have a great sense of humor and anything was possible.  However, in reality she didn't win because there was only one driver.  She isn't happy with that part at all.  She took this way too serious!

Nice job!

L

[konut]

Danny,

My wife wants to know what she won.  aa 

  She took this way too serious!

Nice job!

L

What a shock! She's officially an audiophile now. This will offset any prize she's won. 

[dlr]

I was referring to being superior in regards to CSD.

And then extending that to say that this will then be the reason for it to sound  better perceptually due to your description of it having less ringing, as you described it. This also assumes that the designer does not care to use any sort of trap on whatever resonances are present, rather preferring to use the simple approach of rolling it off rather than fixing it directly. There can be no fair comparison amoung the three drivers as far as final sound because the crossover details are or prime importance.

Ringing shows up as distortion in tests. The amount of actual distortion cannot be gleaned from SPL nor CSD graphs, though you implied such.

Oh, but of course. Why would anyone here expect otherwise? It makes it an unattainable possibility. So you can't handle discussions via boards? Why do you work so hard at it here, then? Please address the real questions, rather than responding to (what should be recognized as) the rhetorical one? There's no response to the hard questions. Again, do you think that his designs will by default sound worse than yours due to hard cones? Do you think he does not know what he's talking about? I think I see why you would specify face-to-face. Direct responses to direct questions leave a record that can be reviewed and evaluated.

Sound worse by default? Now YOU are bringing in subjective issues.

No, I'm taking it from what you've said over the coarse of the debate. Your post originating this thread had four parts, with these two quoted below.

3) I'll comment on what really makes an audible difference and what to really look for in a driver.

You made specific references to hard coned drivers being audibly inferior due to breakup, with no qualifications whatsoever. This implies that those who would use hard coned drivers with the resonances usually found in them must, by default from your position, sound worse. Your comments cannot be taken any other way. Maybe you'd like to qualify that position or correct my interpretation of it.

For what it is worth I have had a customer replace his Orions with one of my kits. That doesn't make it better, but HE liked it better.

Speakers being subjective, this doesn't surprise me. My experience with owners has generally been that they wouldn't have anything else, but that's a preference to which each person is entitled.

So that implies that the M-130, the discussion on topic here, has a distortion characteristic that suffers more as do the others. But you're sure that it is superior to the other two in question on an overall basis.

Superior how? Do I think it will sound better? Are you asking me now for subjective impressions?

No, I'm pointing out the overall impression one would get in reading your responses in this thread. From page 6 of the thread:

When these areas can easily be pushed well down in output with a simple second order network or so, then any remaining amplitude peak goes away. It is too far down in amplitude to be heard.

However if that peak in amplitude, even though it is 20db or more down, has a longer resonance decay time then it will still be heard as a smearing effect or low level ring.

What you're saying is that the linear distortion (5.5K resonance) of the M-130 will not be audible, but the distortion from the others will, simply because they "longer resonance decay". This is making a subjective assessment without having heard them. It's unequivocal. This is another example of a contradiction. You lambast those who would make a judgement based on a single measurement such as the frequency response, then you do the same based solely on a CSD. You're trying to have it both ways.

How do you know the distortion qualities of the other two? I have seen absolutely no distortion measurements on which any objective or even subjective conclusions could be based in a comparison.

I agree. Not only are the distortion measurements posted to be taken with a grain of salt (to put it lightly), but we really can't know what it will sound like by the distortion measurements.

But you're sure that the M-130 will sound better than the other two with a crossover that simply pushes the 5.5K area down 20db or so. This is making a judgement on the other drivers without having heard them with a good crossover.

Your posts all say directly that the M-130 will be superior to the others when the 5.5K resonance is down 20-25db, yet you have no data for the others to make the comparison valid, only your opinion gleaned from measurements.

Clearly from the measurements the two other woofers show a longer decay rate in the region. Is that just my opinion?

No, but again, you based your judgement of the sound of the other two strictly on the basis of the CSD curves due to what you see as longer decay. No qualifications were made, even though a good trap can nearly linearize this region for any of the drivers that will nearly totally eliminate the linear response ringing. Let me repeat for others' edification, totally eliminate the resonance and hence eliminate the ringing. The designer must decide how far to go with the design complexity. Simple crossovers leave more of this uncorrected.

So are we to accept your position as quoted above or your position here that is contradictory?

You're just playing semantics and it is of no value to anyone.

This puts you at odds with Linkwitz as well as John. Linkwitz did his work, both for the company with which he was previously affiliated and for his current works, without use of an anechoic chamber.

I'm not at odds with Linkwitz. I have no beef with him at all. And so what if he didn't use a chamber for his design work.

It is not semantics, I'll make it more clear. Linkwitz starts his projects by examining a lot of drivers, especially for their distortion characteristics, since he's designing dipoles that have exceptional displacement demands. He does his own distortion test on the drivers. I do not believe that he uses an anechoic chamber. Your position would say that much of his up-front decision making on drivers is faulty since he uses those distortion tests (those he makes himself) as a significant part of his decisions in deciding upon the drivers to use. By your account they are totally unreliable for anything below 1KHz. Thus all of his woofer and most of his midwoofer testing is invalid, being crossed low, by default from your position. That's what I mean by being at odds.

[markC]

Danny, That's very discieving of you! I will Never order from you again! Oh, wait a minute I need some more caps.....  
A real eye opener!

[PaulHilgeman]

Danny,

This is very bizarre behavior.

I want to replicate this with my set-up, I will post my findings here if it is acceptable...  I cant imagine that you are measuring with too low of a signal, but geez, this is seriously odd.  I have done this test to see how low of levels of distortion I can measure, and even in the same room as the PC (my PC is crazy quiet), the difference between an incredibly low distortion driver and nothing is easily seen.

Let me know if I can post this here, or if I should start something in my circle and you and others can comment there.  I'll do the measurements in the next 4 days.

-Paul

[dlr]

What is the precise test you are making? Is it a swept sine only? Is it a gated measurement of some sort? Is it one that is capable of excluding any boundary reflections at all?

Here's a link to someone who I believe has a better grasp of what can and cannot be tested vis-a-vis distortion. He uses a much more discriminating measurement system.

I agree, there's not much to learn from the measurements you posted. I think that there's a lot that one could learn using the methodology presented at the link.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/mid_dist.htm

Note how and where he places the driver and the microphone in he quote below:

Distortion tests are difficult to quantify by single numbers. This will be a relative comparison of drivers. Measurements are taken with the driver un-baffled and resting on its magnet, but without restricting air flow from any pole vent. Blocking the vent increases non-linear distortion considerably. The test microphone is at the center of the cone diameter and touches the plane which would be formed, if a flat sheet of paper were placed over the front of the driver.

Your test system/methodology may require an anechoic chamber. There are systems that are not as limited.

[Danny Richie]

dlr,

Number 3, I haven't gotten to yet. I only covered number 1 and 2. I might start a new thread for number 3 and 4.

You seem more set on trying to win the debate game or something, and are no longer making any real contribution here. Do you think you'll be the king if you can win?

Your semantic games, assumptions and presumptions of what you think I imply is getting old. So much of what you just posted is so absurd that it isn't even worth replying to.

Let me make clear that those three woofers tested together that included the M-130 all tested good. They all looked fine. Resonance decay's are good on all of them. None of them pose any problems. My issue with the testing of those three woofers were comments that were made in an attempt to make the M-130 look like the dud of the group. Fake, plastic, problem, blah, blah, blah... We've been through this already.

Paul,

So long as you feel you can make a positive contribution here you are welcome to post here.

[dlr]

I have simply pointed out your statements, how and where they conflict and in what ways some are inaccurate. What you think of as semantics are my attempts to be more precise, especially when responding to questions. If you think that this is not a contribution, so be it.

You've been adamant about measurement techniques that John and Mark use, yet that same technique is used by Linkwitz. This ought to be worth taking into consideration. Had your complaints about John been simply on his attitude, that would be one thing. The problem was that you made some technical claims about his and Mark's testing methodology that were incorrect, even to the point of being sarcastic to Mark.

I never wanted to get into the comparison side of the debate, but you pressed me into it. What happened between you and John was between you and John. I now think that John was less to blame in this than I originally though. I also believe that his measurement technique, similar to that of Linkwitz, was not flawed as you were quick to claim, certainly not in the distortion measurement methodology. You had me questioning it. I'm glad I looked into it further. I learned a bit by having to a bit of on-line research to satisfy my own questions.

Some of what you have said on the technical aspect was inarguably contradictory by the evidence in the posts. I'm sorry that you take issue with that and are reluctant to accept it, but if one makes claims that can be shown to be either inaccurate or contradictory, what would you have them do?

Delete this post or all of my posts at this point if you care, I don't. Trying to be clear, precise and accurate isn't getting anywhere, anyway.

[Danny Richie]

dlr,

No way man. You are attempting to ascertain something that you think I imply.

You've been adamant about measurement techniques that John and Mark use, yet that same technique is used by Linkwitz.

No they are not. Mark clearly stated "the distortion measurements that John and I do are not done nearfield". Linkwitz states that his measurements are made at a plane that is level with the outer edge of the cone.

Linkwitz can test those drivers any way he wants. I don't care. I have tested most of those drivers myself and I wouldn't have chosen the same driver.

I now think that John was less to blame in this than I originally though.

How can he be less to blame for making demeaning comments and name calling? Less to blame for his own actions?

Some of what you have said on the technical aspect was inarguably contradictory by the evidence in the posts. I'm sorry that you take issue with that and are reluctant to accept it, but if one makes claims that can be shown to be either inaccurate or contradictory, what would you have them do?

You are so off on that and everyone can see it. You are now just looking like you are trying to make yourself feel bigger if you can just bring me down a little lower than you.

The value of your contribution is becoming less and less.