When talking about flat frequency response one need to also describe near- & farfield measurement and how to analyze the result. A nearfield measurement (within 5-10 inches from the driver) should not be flat at all. Basic principle is flat from 1 kHz and up. Below 1 kHz the amplitude should be sloping at an angle to +6dB at 100 Hz and then flat out to hit -3dB around 40-50 Hz to drop to -15-20 dB at 20Hz. There is a lot of other issues to handle too, like first reflection from bass driver to floor that will create a more or less severe dip in the 100-200 Hz region. If following that basic design rules you will get a fairly straight frequency reponse in the room at the listening position that also can be confirmed with a far field measurement. But since far field measurements are almost impossible to analyze correctly the best design principle is to use near field measurement and shape the frequency response as described above. There are some more to consider, like baffle width and diffraction artefacts from cabinet edges that will change the optimum frequency reponse optimal "target" for a loudspeaker design. But it's wrong to say that a frequency response should be flat. A flat frequency reponse in nearfield measurement will have bass 6 dB lower than frequencies above 1 kHz. That's an effect of the spread pattern that are half space above 1kHz and full space below 100Hz. This effect is also called baffle step, and that needs to be compensated for to get as straight frequency response at the listening position as possible. Then we have the room gain. That's why a loudspeaker should have -3dB at approx. 40-50 Hz and not at 20 Hz that one might expect. Bigger rooms needs a lower -3dB point and smaller rooms a higher -3dB point. The slope angle in the bass room gain is 12dB/octave and then the loudspeaker should be -15 to -20dB down at 20 Hz compared to 100 Hz to get the most linear response in the room. So it's much more to learn and understand than just say it should be flat. A flat response in near field measurement will sound overly bright and bad. A flat reponse at listening position is what to be consider as the goal, but that is almost impossible to measure. A far field measurement is best used to analyze room nodes and room gain and place the speaker in a position that have as straight response as possble in the room. A far field measurement is basicaly useless above 300 Hz. When designing a loudspeaker you need to use and analyze the reponse at different distances, but near field is by far the most accurate. Just need to set up a "target" curve to hit, and that is not flat at all.
It took making one of Danny’s kits (the X-MTMs) to make me a believer of what he says. These measure “flat” but the sound quality is amazing and anything but “flat”. Things like transparency, clarity, crispness, solid bass response are all there. Close your eyes and listen. The sound stage is full in front of you with no way to tell where the speakers are. And these can be listened to for hours without fatigue. Surely the quality of the drivers, crossover, connection points, construction of the cabinet, the shape of the cabinet, etc all play into how great a speaker sounds; not just this single measurement. That is just one part of a complete package. The only “down side” to having great sounding speakers is now being able to hear the difference between a good recording and a bad recording...
One thing he doesn’t really delve into is that the crossover also impacts the directivity (and thus off-axis response) of the speaker. This has a huge impact on how the speaker sounds if the woofer or tweeter are playing beyond where they should be, the sound won’t be neutral due to directivity error since the patterns won’t match at the crossover region. There’s lots more to it than that, but it’s one reason you can squeeze a bit more out if the design has been built down to a cost. Edit: he sort of does with the "BBC Dip" deal.
@@mysock351C He delved into the crossover, the part about Iron core inductors , inexpensive polycaps, and sandcast resistors are all part of the crossover.
@@KeithKing31 I was talking about where the cross-over frequency is since getting that right is a necessity to get the speaker to have good directivity (i.e. similar on and off-axis response). As the frequency rises, the woofer narrows quite a bit, but the tweeter still has a wide radiation pattern until you get up to around 6 kHz. There are a couple of ways to do it, of course. One is to accept some "hour glassing" in the off-axis directivity by crossing over as soon as the tweeter can maintain the same output as the woofer at that region, or use a waveguide to tailor the response. Too high and there is a suckout in the lower treble region from the woofer getting too narrow in its response. Too low and the tweeter won't be able to properly take over.
Eh?!! He might not go into this in depth on this review but on upgrades he checks & measures on axis & off axis before & after his improvements with the accompanying graphs etc.
I'm in my 70's, and there is still one thing that I LOVE to do.....and that is learn something new about something that I really love. And that is listening to my music collection. And watching Danny's videos has opened my eyes up to 'NEW to me' ways of enjoying my music and what to look for. Thank you for the education Danny. I'm hoping that I never get 'too old' to learn something new about something that I have loved all of my life.
Most people can’t seem to realize that a speaker “tuned” to fix problems from some recordings will create problems in other recordings or in different kinds of music in general. The only way to have consistently good performance is to make the frequency response as flat as possible.
@@hanzen5174 That’s maybe why some reviewers report that only good recordings sound nice with certain speakers. Because maybe they are “tuned” to enhance certain aspects of the sound and that causes other style of recordings to sound awful. Just food for thought
Everyone should feel blessed that he's open to sharing his work on TH-cam. He does great work and more importantly definitely improves each speaker he touches. A true audiophile!
@@rikardekvall3433 Any DIYer can build better speakers, if you take the time and also look at the psychoacoustic side of things. It is true, that the on-axis frequency response is not even close to giving an accurate representation of all the characteristics that are important when designing a speaker. But still a flat response is what you should be aiming for if you want high fidelity.
Loudness control isn't to tailor the sound but to maintain frequency response at difference volume levels, as our ears' sensitivity to certain frequency bands change with volume. (Fletcher Munson Curve).
Yeah, one thing I’ve learned is phase correct speakers add to natural sound. Also, the backward movement of the speaker stroke can cause a slight distortion due to reflection off the speaker structure. Not trying to influence. I currently have B&W Matrix 802 D3. I like the sound and was always interested in Wilson Watt Puppies but read an article about Vandersteens. I have an aerospace engineering degree, am an sales/ application guy so technical stuff turns my gears. The article really did it for me. Then read another which was long and covered many aspects of their design. My 802’s have separate baffles for each speaker, woofer, mid, tweeter. Never knew Vandersteens pioneered this approach and explained why. Then I read about their phase corrected, never knew exactly what this meant but learned it means each speaker moves in the same direction all the time so the pressure wave in all frequencies arrive at about the same time, speakers. Since I’m aerospace I’m not best at electrical design so asked a very talented instrumentation engineer. He said you cannot simple put plus into minus pole of speaker( internally, manufacturer would do this) to correct phase. You need the crossover not to change phase but each order, ie, first order Butterworth filter or second or third ( my B&W’s have a fourth order Butterworth filter). Each degree is change in phase. I think I read that a fourth order is 180+ out of phase so my woofer is going out and my mid is going in. For my ear I couldn’t/ didn’t know hear the difference when I bought it. I suspect it was because your brain adjusts to imperfections produced from your system/ speakers that you would not hear in real life and the response of the B&W’s are flat which I think masks the issue well. I was at a hifi store with carried Vandersteens and listened to a pair of Quatro Wood CT’s. It was very interesting. When I got home a few days later I listened to my system and could hear at times a phase change, sounding like a suck out of a range of frequencies, can’t really describe it better. I then stared to learn about the graphs presented on a speaker, phase correct, Ohms graph ( important, V=IR. So low R (impedance or Ohms) means you need high I ( amps). Low R is usually in the low frequencies which is why you need a high efficient amp. These are not so low Ohms which means you don’t need high efficiency amp which is && ( I maybe foolishly bought an expensive high efficiency amp). Back to plots or graphs; plus graph which should look like a triangle where the left side is almost straight up and right side slowly decays. This shows phase correctness. Then rapping on speaker enclosure, and decay from right to left of center and up/down. From an engineering stand point and listening Vandersteens have really caught my eye. I plan on listening to buy some time soon. Story for the babble, want to share and have been really stoked by this stuff, had to share.
Hi Danny, I develop measurement systems for DIY loudspeaker builders with the claim that they are good but affordable and easy to use. And you're speaking from my soul: Measuring frequency responses, impedances, waterfall diagrams and even checking the actual physical values of electrical components for compliance with their actual value in relation to the stated value, these tools actually only serve one goal: to avoid errors . Perhaps we should replace the word "flat" with "straight" when it comes to frequency response. Seems a bit that "flat" is simply perceived negatively in many people's feelings. Great video, thanks for all your hard work - I'm always learning... PS: Of course it may be that I can't imagine the sweet tea if I don't know any sugar ;-))
Great video Danny. One thing I don’t understand is why speaker manufacturers don’t use high quality crossover components on all their speakers over a certain price (say $2000-$3000) and just pass this onto the customer or even offer it as an upgrade when purchasing the speaker. I would certainly like to know that I was getting good quality components when spending this sort of money.
@@kevintomb the 1st priority is to smooth out the frequency response. That is actually measurable. Now the question is, does it require higher quality parts to accomplish that? Then, as he stated, you can make similar response crossovers with high and low quality parts, use a switch and toggle to see if you hear a difference.
@@fcamiola how many people can afford 1.5mil violin? and how big of a difference is between this and something for a few thousand dollars? every product has it's target audience.
Just want to say thank you Danny. I have learned a lot by watching your videos. Your no-nonsense approach makes things clear and easy to understand. I have always thought that frequency response and efficiency were the only specifications that mattered and didn't know that the type of inductors and capacitors was so important. I have known a few engineers who never once mentioned this. I am not an audiophile just an enthusiastic hobbyist and you have inspired me. Thanks again.
I wanna thank you for sharing all your knowledge and experiences to us for free. I started buying a subwoofer before I even had a car, I´ve built many car audio things over the years and finally came to home cinema and hi-fi. Honestly I didn´t know what I was missing, so I´m really really thankful to learn from you, how important the parts are. So I´m still learning and trying to understand how to build my own speakers + crossovers and adapting the parts / measuring and getting a way better listening experience while learning and saving on parts. So I´m discovering my music new and it´s a real pleasure when you hear stuff, you never heard before or getting the magic of depth behind your speakers, like there are real people playing. The only thing I´m still struggling is how to improve the off-axis response even more. Keep on doing your awesome stuff, Greetings from Austria =)
I am so glad that you point out that measurements are a starting point in the design of a product, and that the sound quality is influenced by the design and quality of components and materials. The measurement freaks out there tend to be a bit over zealous of their distortion and SINAD figures and forget to listen. There's no excuse for a design to measure badly, but it's not the main criteria for listening enjoyment.
The measurements are there just for that reason, so we can listen to the loudspeaker. Its much easier for us to build electronic “ears” that listen far more accurately than actually doing that ourselves. Not only can’t we record our responses quantitatively (well not without blind testing), but our ears are quite nonlinear. The aspects of the ears response change wig amplitude and we are subjective. The auditory center does a good job of hiding this from us, but it shows if we are tasked with providing accurate data. This is all neatly circumvented by quantifying what a good speaker sounds like, and shooting for that as an objective.
Danny! You sound like you are getting the life and energy sucked out of you through all the defending you have been doing. You connect so well to the educated, intelligent folks out here, and your genuine passion and love for what you do should never come into the crosshairs of those that aren’t qualified to question you. Coming from a lifetime of engineering, diy, fix, build and repair basically anything and everything, and getting laughed at using a two-channel digital storage oscilloscope working on cars, I get it, and found it hard to shake that negative energy at times. Being retired now, I should make time to come out to Texas for a bit, visit and maybe get a chance to play or get put to work - LoL You rock!
Exactly Danny - this is why the people that say "Specs don't matter" infuriate me too. Whilst tonal character, distortion & noise levels matter too - if a piece of equipment rolls off 3db here & there & then your speakers do the same (or worse!) you're not going to hear a lot, let alone accurately! Precisely why I bought an amp with only a 0.3 -db roll off instead of the usual -3db - to at least remove that weak link. If people want to add false color to their sound they can tweak their eq afterwards but the point you make here is paramount to what all audio designers should strive for as a benchmark to quality. Well said & explained sir 🤟
I always look for speakers with a flat response. I hate muddy, shouty, tinkling highs, overly loud bass etc. I listen to a lot of classical music, lots of Telarc recordings, I don't want coloration.
Just recently found your channel. I like what you are doing. Would like to see the industry adopt a specification standard (supplied information) for middle to high end speakers that reflects data for the issues you address including the frequency response and spectral decay graphs. Can't say I have ever seen one for the speakers I have bought over the years.
Peter Comeau who is Director of Acoustics and the designer of the new Mission 770 Speakers explains in an interview on the Pursuit perfect system channel why he used an air core inductor on his new speaker despite the extra cost and weight.
Hi Danny, thank you for your education and honest sharing. Absolutely agree that audio equipment especially speakers should be designed as accurate as possible. It is sad that so many salesperson and hifi manufacturers are so eager to steal your hard earn money from your pocket by making up so many jargons and explanations without learning the basic audio science. I am here in Hong Kong and even sadder is that none of the hifi agent that I know of has an engineering degree or knowledge. And when you walk into their store and ask for some technical advice on equipment selection, they never try to understand your exact need, just asking how much you can afford.
It needs to be reviewed and stated that a decibel or dB is a unit of measuring sound and that it is LOGARITHMIC. Every 3 dB represents a doubling of the response (power, sound, loudness, etc). So when looking at response curves a 3 dB change one way or another is quite a significant change. A change of that magnitude is certainly going to have a very audible effect on the perceived output sound and as a result is likely to result in an unnatural coloration in the sound. Also a response requiring a doubling of sound will also require an increase in power from an amplification source to reproduce that amplitude accurately and if it can’t do so then the sound quality will not be produced accurately inducing additional coloration in the sound. So this is another reason for having accurate responses (I choose not to use the term “flat” because that word is often misleading, misused, and misunderstood) for the reproduction of sound.
Flatness doesn’t equate to dynamics and character. I want a frequency flat response speaker so the best of the speaker can do it’s best. No different from wheel alignment which doesn’t make every car drive the same.
high fidelity : the reproduction of an effect (such as sound) that is very faithful to the original. Frequency Response describes the range of frequencies or musical tones a component (speaker) can reproduce. If a piece of music I'm listening to has a lot of midrange frequency content and the speakers I'm listening to it on show, on the frequency response measurements, to have a large dip (-6db for example) right in that frequency range, then it stands to reason that those speakers are going to struggle recreating those frequencies. Having a nice flat curve on a speakers frequency response shows that the speaker is capable of taking analog signals and accurately reproducing all of the frequencies in that signal from the lowest to the highest. If the signal requires a response at 9k and the speaker's response can only manage 3k, then your ears are going to hear the inaccuracy. It may sound okay to the listener, but it won't be "faithful to the original".
I think this video is about flat speaker response, and people think its mean something else, it is about the output of a speaker, nothing else. A great video explaining why it is so, and i agree. Furthermore i can inject my thoughts on how we perceive sound, after a speaker has been placed in a room and acoustics has done its thing to the sound, and our own hearing taken into account because we all are different. We can hear this for our self with a tone generator which is available online from a quick search, how flat does your system sound to you from listening position is now clear to you. That is the end goal i think, from 20hz to your upper limit is a great starting point.
That was really important explanation. Most products are built to a price and parts bought in bulk to provide an entire line of products. Often the accountant is in charge of the parts bin and things are made to be “good enough”. I was looking at my pair of KEF Reference 103 speakers and wondering about what to use to service the crossover. The boards are behind the baffle and populated with the expected mid to late 1970s parts. Poly caps would be huge in terms of size on the circuit board, the inductors would be enormous. I was also warned that the capacitors feeding the tweeters would have lower impedance and create the possibility of damage. So, I upgraded the resistors and bought the best bipolar electrolytic capacitors that were in specification. Yes it sounded better, but, I would love to have a better crossover built. The crossover board can’t accommodate the parts you use and fit on the intended mounts on the baffle. I need to have the ability to build and test like you do to get my KEF Reference 103 to work with different components. I would love to see what one of your crossover circuits would achieve with the 103s.
I'm also finding with better equipment, how bad most rock music has been recorded. For example Boston, one of my favorite albums from my youth. I almost cannot listen to it. Hurts my ears after a while, very fatiguing.
@@scrappy7571 You should be able to counter that by intrudcing some warmth in the chain like tubes. If done right it should still give you all the detail minus the analytical grind.
@@LorDarkGoose I am considering tube. Running a recapped Sansui 331now, being cap coupled it's tube like. Much more enjoyable than the modern "clean" amps I've played with. Amazing what that baby Sansui does with only 12 watts.
Danny, first great video, now do a followup on human hearing frequency response, that is the source of so much confusion. We hear differently and that determines what we like or not and that is where something might measure poorly (frequency response) but someone can love them because it fills a hole in their hearing(?). Also is "ringing" the same as "decay" and if so what about attack (how fast it responds to input) and how all of that creates dynamic reproduction (which is the opposite of a "flat sounding speaker"). Keep up the great work
Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly explain this aspect of speakers. I hear You tubers saying this flat stuff all the time and it seems ridiculous. If you care for accuracy, then seek out speakers that tell the truth. There are other aspects as you detailed, basically the ring down (resonances) of poor drivers which alter the sound of a speaker and is not accurate to the producer efforts.
Brilliant and straightforward explanation. Hopefully some of the "Flat Earthers" can wrap their little heads around it. Keep up the good work Danny, cheers.
Thank you for breaking down this subject. We all gain from your explanations on this matter making things more objective than opinion. Sone people simply have more opinions about speakers than they have knowledge.
Great video thanks! Just curious are your new inductors going to be the same as the old ERSE jobs, or is it a new line all together? I felt ERSE did a pretty good job at it. But always nice to see improvements. 👍🏻🔈
Tonal characteristics of well made designs are only improved when excessive loudnesses and resonances get out of the way of the music. And I’d love to try one of these kits!
Hmmm! When did people start thinking flat response means boring speaker? I was a young child when I bought my first system, about $500 or so in the early/mid 70's...I brought it to college a few months later. I looked for flat response. All persons I met and knew that considered themselves 'audiophiles' looked for nothing but flat response on all equipment...but all of our systems sounded different. Some really good (based upon our infantile thought at the time of good sound), some really bad. I'm no where near the expert Danny is, but he is spot on (and certainly doesn't need me to say so!). Flat response defines accuracy only, it doesn't define sound quality and never has. Heck, even as children in the 70's, we knew this and knew it well, although we didn't know why at the time (but we do now!). There is so much more that defines good sound and Danny's videos do detail much of that. Good build parts are crucial in all disciplines of manufacture for a myriad of reasons. If it didn't, then a Yugo would be the equal of a BMW. I don't understand why people believe otherwise in the area of audio but knock themselves out when buying other product...that car is better than this car...that washing machine is better than this washing machine...this gizmo is better than that gizmo. Why do we say that? Well, many reasons, but not all of it is about comfort (cars) and features. Many of those reasons are the result of a perception or even actual knowledge of better engineering and better parts. Each and every one of us identify with that because each and every one of use has stated that at some point. Would you really tell me that a part that was made of quality metal is the same as an equivalent part made of plastic? After all, it does the same job but it's less expensive! Why do people believe audio is immune to this? Is it because few of us do not understand the electronic characteristics but have no issues with understanding the mechanics of mechanical objects? We all love to rationalize but can seldom if ever justify. BTW...did you know rationalization is more important than sex? Sure is...when was the last time you went a week without a rationalization? Flat speakers are not boring...they are accurate. If they are boring and flat sounding, then they were simply not well engineered, specified, or built.
I have done so many full active installs from Scanspeak, Dynaudio, Seas, Focal, Vifa and Peerless. Some drivers sound different from each other while others sometimes do. Even with same frequency response they are tonally different. Some naturally sound Darker than another and vice versa.
You can believe what you want. A flat frequency response is desirable so no frequencies are enhanced either way. If you want to jack with the equalization, that’s up to you. The quality of parts matters more than you think because their construction is what determines how they effect the output. Poor quality parts ruin sound and that’s been proven thousands of times. It’s harder to fix a speaker with a ringing problem because it can be that a stamped steel basket was used instead of a die cast metal one. These can be deadened with sound deadening material applied to the basket such that it doesn’t obstruct cone movement. Stamped steel baskets need help. It’s a lack of rigidity that causes the ringing. I digress. Still, if you want your speakers to be more accurate, send them to Danny and get the real lowdown on what’s wrong and how he can help. You won’t be sorry. Stay safe my mates!😊👍🏻😁
The common problem I see with loudspeaker companies. Is that the crossover has to be inside the enclosure. This making it a challenge to do any upgrades that do not fit on the bord. Some crossovers are massive by the time you upgrade all the parts. Also a large crossover takes up airspace in the enclosure. You have to ask yourself at what point does it start to effect the enclosures tuning frequency? So in my opinion crossovers should be mounted on the outside of the enclosure. People like to say that hes just trying to sell you something. But the thing is these upgrades really do make a difference. In many cases an audible difference. Its all about signal path.
I'm 98% sure I was part of the lengthy discussion in comments section that lead to this vid... Accurate frequency responses via objective testing should be a goal of all speaker designers and producers, and all things being equal, will sound better subjectively. That does not = speakers that measure well objectively sounds the same or is flat or "boring" sounding. It causes cognitive dissonance in some when their favorite band measure poorly, but that does not change reality.
As from my amateur experience. Frequency range being flat at a certain amplitude doesn't mean that the speaker is dynamic in its amplitude at all frequencies within its frequency range. For example if the speaker isn't dynamic enough in terms of amplitude in the mid-range it will sound flat when singers use their vocals very dynamically, and it might sound dampened/cushioned.
I don't understand how this can not make sense to anyone. If you choose to eq your music with a speaker that isn't flat, there's nothing wrong with that, but to assert that everyone should want it eq'd the same way is silly. Nobody is being forced to use the upgrade kits - those of us that like a flat(ter) response are happy customers. Why throw shade at the concept? I used the kits on a pair of bookshelves and a center channel and they all sound noticeably better. The center especially as it's easier to make out dialogue now.
Love your vids Danny. Most people don't realize or don't believe every component can change what a person hears, just like digital can be cold and tubes can be warm sonically. Then throw into that the recording quality and yowza. You nail it every time. I look forward to owning a pair of otica's one day.
It's all in the parts selection. Most people don't understand how that can be! Well, that’s why I believe you see people thinking that they can get equal performance if it measures the same as a product that is more expensive and has higher quality parts. Well, that’s not possible because parts selection is the most critical aspect of any audio product. It’s all about the parts selection, whether you’re talking about the speaker amplifier or phonograph.
I agree. I’ve just ordered the replacement parts for the crossovers in my Monitor Audio speakers in my study and, having done this to my reference speakers over a year ago, I can’t wait to fit them. To prove how slightly unhinged I’ve become, I can say the crossover parts cost more than the original whole speakers!
One of the reasons I like the JBL Studio 530's for my desk speakers is because of how they dive down after 15Khz. My ears are very sensitive to those really high highs. I see the value of having something that plays flat and uncolored, but something like that is not appropriate for playing the average audio on the internet. A lot of things are really badly recorded, and for those things, I might want to have some cheese in the signal path. Someday I would like to get 2 pairs of a speaker, have Danny upgrade 1 pair, and a/b test on badly recorded content. Then see if what I just said was stupid or not. Hmm, what speaker tho...
What you have shared is mainly your personal preference when listening to music. There are actually people who prefer to have the top end tiled up for sparkle and air in the high frequency region. Having a flat frequency responses is to have an accurate reproduction of the song being recorded. The best solution is to have a tone control preamp which you can adjust the output to your preference.
@@cpaint69 It's my preference for browsing the internet / blasting music while I do data entry and other mind numbing tasks. I do prefer something flat and accurate for actual music listening within my hobo budget.
Danny, I know some speaker designers are accounting for predicted in-room frequency response, what is your opinion on that? Like the idea that British monitors have been "voiced" for the small rooms of the average apartment. Or that certain problematic room modes can be accounted for in design? Also, is there an idea that a speaker can be designed for the average consumer who is just using an untreated living room vs an audiophile who will be more likely to treat the room?
YES artists & engineers mix on speakers that would measure flat with minimal stored energy ringing if any - as for tone it might be nice to know that Pink Floyd used Tannoys, that Michael Jackson and or Quincy Jones used JBL 100s - we are often informed in liner notes of the piano serial number of Steinway, Bechstein used by recording artists. I would ask Mr Ken Scott what speaker was used to mix Visions by Mahavishnu Orchestra?
One of the performance aspects that isn't covered here very often is harmonic distortion. Probably because it's dominated by the driver performance and it's not something that can be 'upgraded'. It's definitely something that Danny considers in the development of his own designs, but since the most popular content seems to be analysis and upgrades for customer speakers, it doesn't get talked about very much.
Flat is good. If you study Fletcher Munchson curves, one understands the human ear does not hear flat. So you can equalize that difference to make it pleasing. In addition, curves change with db. e.g. when softer ear hears lower frequencies less efficiencey, so turn the bass up... etc. But flat is what we want... thx for your good work!!
If the music has been recorded with a flat response, and is played back with a flat response, it will sound like the original instruments and singer. You hear the original with the non-flat response of your ear. You don't want anything in the recording or reproduction chain to change that. You don't want to hear a guitar or singer with ear compensation added, as that is not what the guitar sounds like live.
@@RacingAnt Sorry for irony, but I understand, that you are hearing exactly the same like 7 billion people on this planet. Exactly the same frequency in the same level, we has the same listening rooms, speakers etc. Not, you don't and nobody, so flat is just estimation, but is not accurate. Follow on and that means, that flat never ever will be the flat.
@@martinsuchocki5340 flat in the entire recording and reproduction chain can be measured and validated. If you have that perfection, then what you hear from the speakers will be those musicians, as recorded, but placed in your room between the speakers. Your room colourations will then add to the sound. Yes, your ears add their own interpretation, and everyone hears things differently, and everyone's rooms are different, but that doesn't excuse non-flat response from the speakers. That's just extra colouration that isn't needed.
@@RacingAnt Many different factors what effect on sounds, so nobody know what is correct or not so listening flat mean nothing. This is only trend and lack of knowledge. Flat for you could be boost lows and highs for me. I'll recommend look at Fletcher Munson curve and forgot of flat.
I believe that the question to a point is that trying to flatten the respons (so it will portray the original recording) will possibly add More components in the circuit that might decrease the sound quality more than the slightly poor frequency response did. Just upgrading components is another matter, in my opinion. I'm currently tweaking my latest build, a pair of 3 way fully active and even with DSP (IIR) it still gets wonky trying to flatten out the respons. I believe it was Paul at PS Audio that said something like "the whole chain up to the speaker should be aimed at being as flat as possible, but the speaker are a instrument so it might not work there". 🙂
I agree, though would point out Danny often makes a point of reducing parts count for that reason, and has rejected speakers for upgrade that have had a high parts count.
@@robh9079one of the reasons he discouraged the mod is because the speaker crossover parts count too many and it would be foolish to change them all. Upgrade parts will be alot bigger and will not fit inside the cabinet ( harbeth is an example). Another reason is that because of the upgrade the speakers will cost so much more thus its just better to buy a new better speaker. Upgraded Capacitors and Inductors are much bigger in size compared to the cheap store bought ones. If you do some reseach or just google it you will see some photos.
Hi Danny, every time I'm listening to somebody, explaining the inability to measuring the true differences between speakers or speaker-modifications, there comes a thought: Shouldn't it be possible to develop a measurement-procedure and computer analysis, which finds and visualizes the differences in sound of two recordings? Of course, these recordings should be made in the same, defined recording situation. A to B comparison, correlation, subtraction, weighting, normalization, whatever. These days, we have a huge amount of processing power available. I think, there must be a way to develop an algorithm to compare recordings and make differences visible, such as your modifications to network parts. Clarity, precision, smearing. When you can hear it, there must be a way to measure and visualize it. What do you think? Best regards, Lars from Germany.
After hearing the clarity of my GR Research Paradox 1's and the LGK's that both came with high quality parts, I've designed and upgraded numerous speakers with high quality parts by default. My most recent project was upgrading a pair vintage ADS L300Cs speakers with non-inductive resistors over sand cast, air core chokes over iron core, and polyester film caps over electrolytics. Using high end parts has transformed these 30+ year old speakers that sounded "dated and dull" to speakers that sound "open and crisp without being clinical and harsh". Danny once again is telling the God's honest truth.
It's so confusing to most of us because speakers have been designed and manufactured for so long with the intent to accurately reproduce the source material. Some even take on the distinction of being called reference monitors or studio monitors. Yet more designers than not will say that studio monitors are not good for typical playback. I never understood this. Because if you get the type of monitors that the recording engineers use, you'd be able to have faithful playback, right? Apparently not. Colored or uncolored is a word used by many in this business. And I think that's a matter of preference. Just like you say here, that you can design a crossover network that measures exactly the same but by using different components create an entirely different sonic quality. And I know this to be true and will always state that wire, parts and tweaks may or may not always improve but will always make a difference in sound. But when you go up agains guys like Ethan Winer or Gene DellaSalla, you'll get no end of controversy and pushback, both shrieking for us to avoid the snake oil. It's exhausting. So when the subjective meets the testing and comes up short yet we are told to spend $6000 for a bag of magic beans to sprinkle around, it's dubious to say the least. Ethan and Gene both emphatically state that everything is measurable. I don't agree with that at all. It's like building instruments where the materials are exacting and tediously selected to create consistency yet not all make it out of the factory because the sound is off. So there is most definitley an art to it that can't be measured. It's mysterious and. hopefully remains elusive. But if today's engineering approach is only trying to give us "perfect sound" made up of a quantized, autotuned sterilized processing, that's dreadful. Because Nature is perfect in its imperfection. It's a paradox and remains mysterious in order to make us engage and not put us to sleep.
One Danny doesn't mention about mix engineer especially for Billboard hit song. They mix in their studio monitor that can sound good on Earpod or JBL Bluetooth speaker or in car stereo. Mix engineering is not the final say. It is the master engineer make the final statement on how should should in varies media. Those engineers doesn't care how close you are listening to their systems. In facts, I never hear any of these engineer need you to get system that sound close to them. Except for one, Keith Johnson.
Did you see Erin's Audio Corner Video today about two speakers never measure the same. I guess it just depends on how many measurements you make. Thanks for your Videos you have thought me so much. Most people Love my M&K S150's even thought they have 3 Tweeters in each speaker.
There are people that live and die by measurements only and feel that if a circuit measures the same therefore it must sound the same. I can't believe they feel a ruler flat Klipsch and a ruler flat Magico with a higher quality crossover (that would measure the same) sound identical, or the same Magico with a Chinese crossover for that mater would also sound the same.
As always... Veeery instructive! Keep up the good work, Danny! I hope you ever have a chance to take a look at the Q-Acoustics Concept 40's. I would love to know what you think about them.
Many manufacturers design their speaker systems with this "dip" in the midrange, because it gives an impression of "more bass" and "sparkling treble". I prefer a speaker that has flat response. I can use bass and treble and my equalizer to tweak it if i want to.
but as he states it has nothing to do with the frequency response, what you say is potentially true of any speaker irrespective of frequency response. They are no more or less likely to sound flat.
@@chronodriver Danny does say that any speaker flattened out by optimizing the crossover sounds better. Which I agree with. The caveat is that no matter how flat a speakers response is, it can sound dull. That's due to one or more factors. I am of the camp where a flatter muffled statically measured response being questiinably better than a more dynamic less flat response. The music we listen to is not a white noise/pink noise tone. It's substantially more complex than that. You can have two sets of speakers that measure within similar bands that sound substantially different due to dynamic accuracy. That's all I am saying.
You are correct, there are people saying things like "send your speaker to Danny, and get a flat speaker", as if to say it is a bad thing. Also some mention you "tuning a speaker without a stereo pair, and proper listening tests are not possible for what you are doing". The unknowing consumer might make that make sense. I can see how statements like this would cause pause. I would like your feedback regarding these statements, to clear the air so to speak. This is not a troll dig at all, and I think this type of jargon can be damaging to a reputation, and would like your feedback regarding. I love watching your videos. They are very informative, and keep up the great footage!
I've spent thousands of hours listening and comparing parts or all types to know what the audible effect is. Start at the 8 minute mark and start listening.
Also the biggest issue with building your own speakers. Even if you get the design right. You can't express sound quality on a chart. Materials have a different sound when they resonate even though they may look exactly the same when measured. There's a reason brands like Dynaudio command the premium they do. Sure they measure well enough but it's the sound they create. I can't even count how many systems I've built myself and some of them you like and some of them you don't but anyone getting into this hobby, be prepared to spend a lot of time and a lot of money.
The word FLAT, especially when saying that a speaker has a "flat response", is NOT AT ALL saying that specific speaker sounds "bland", "lifeless", OR "boring" in ANY way, (as some people might interpret the word "flat" to suggest), but instead, when saying that a speaker is "flat", or that it has a flat response, it just means that that speaker is more/most ACCURATE, across the entire frequency range of music that it can reproduce, (of course driver size limitations and the resulting laws of physics play a role there, among other things), but so, in any case, a speaker being more accurate and having a "FLAT" response just means that it can more faithfully (i.e. accurately) reproduce the incoming music signal exactly as it is, without the speaker itself overly enhancing OR reducing any additional specific frequency resonances such as "boominess" in the bass, "brightness" in the treble, or ANY other kind of "coloration" or specific frequency emphasis/de-emphasis that was NOT in the original music signal input to that same degree or at that same level... A truly "flat" speaker is a very GOOD thing, because it will reproduce the music put into it exactly as the recording engineer or music artist intended their song/album/etc. to sound, (provided they also used good quality, accurate response recording and monitoring equipment in the studio)... Therefore, the "flatter" a speaker is, the better, because a TRULY and completely flat response speaker will be EVERY BIT as "BORING", OR ALSO EVERY BIT AS LIVELY AND EXCITING, as whatever music that is being fed into it, and THAT is EXACTLY what you IDEALLY want from a really great speaker!
The components for designing and constructing the speakers can have certain tonal characteristic, e.g. metal tweeter vs soft dome vs AMT, polycone vs papercone vs fibrecone, etc. Every person has a preference for certainin tonality. But the speakers made should measured flat frequency response as a reference point to gauge the playback recorded music performance. The line up equipments in the hifi system, each one also has it own frequency response characteristic, it will affects the overall performance. Two cents.
Flat is essential and is the base for all speakers, without flatness, it colors musical, may be sound better for low quality recordings, however, it will make good recording sound bad. A good speaker has to be flat first, then it can possibly sound good.
Frequency response can't tell many things. Tonality comes to mind. I enjoy the sound character of un treated paper mid woofers over poly or metal even though they measure flat.
Which also affect how quickly they can react to the dynamics of the source music. It's why manufacturers try metallic drivers but that speed doesn't help make a good sounding unit if the frequency response is all over the place
In my opinion the speaker should be designed with the flattest frequency curve possible. Of course the room might have issues that affect the sound, but in this case the room itself should be treated if need be. Many people find flat response dull, so manufacturers like Klipsch and B&W and many others build speakers that boost the mid bass while slightly suppressing the midrange and then boosting the treble to make the speaker sound "brighter", as well as producing "more bass". Many people love this tuning and think the sound is better, but this type of sound is fatiguing. If you have a truely "flat system, and are listening at low level you will need to boost the low end and high end slightly to get balanced sound, but to play your system at level that a live "acoustic band" level the tone controls can be switched out.
firstly, I agree wholeheartedly that a speaker response should measure "roughly" flat, within some arbitrary deviation (3,5,10? dB). That being said, I think there is a compromise when modifications to the crossover require an increase in filter order. I think of the previous "wisdom" of LR24 being touted as ideal in the past, where having that razor-sharp cutoff ensured a better chance of marrying two drivers together that might otherwise have lumpy response in the crossover range. I think the trend to limit filter order as much as possible, granted drivers of sufficiently good behavior is the optimal method. My opinion is based on the importance of arrival time for things like percussive/string instruments as well as vocals to be as close as possible. For example, with a LR24, the midrange doesn't start moving until a full 360 degrees of tweeter motion at the crossover frequency. I feel this has a detrimental effect on the clarity/imaging, or perhaps "speed" of those types of sound sources.
People don't have a flat response in their hearing. We are more sensitive to sound between 2kHz - 5kHz, so if a speaker measures flat in this range it will sound out of balance. Fletcher and Munson discovered this in 1933.
another great video full of useful information ... as a home theater installer , its difficult sometimes to convince customers that what they have been hearing from their system sounds really bad and when they listen to a system that has accurate speakers that are tuned well to a room - they think is sounds weird ....so educating customers on what a well tuned system sounds like is an important aspect of my job .... that said Im really pushing Dirac Live as a room tuning tool as it addresses many speaker and or room problems ...not just frequency response .... obviously this is preferable to redesigning all the crossovers in every speaker ...especially a system like 7.2.6
Don't let the trolls , and uninformed get you down. Audiophiles like me know exactly what you're achieving with the upgrades. I heard the difference a person made in a pair of Pioneer HPM 100's, and it was night and day. The technology for that time period was great, but wow, when you put better parts in the crossovers it was stunning. I could listen to them all day long. You could hear everything the recording studio was doing in the playback. Carry on, you're doing the right thing.
That great explanation has me thinking... When designing a crossover it seems to me it would be best to use low priced components to sort out what works well with a given project, before diving in to get the very good components. That seems to make sense don't you think?
So you want to buy twice and build two crossovers. If you want a cheap crossover just buy almost any store speaker. This is diy and we are skipping that step for good reason...its not about price point but the sound
@@brenthawkins204 Your missing the point. Use the low priced parts to get the X-over perfected (since they measure the same), then spend the big $ on the final set.
@@ajafterparty Your not loosing much time really. Just saving $ right? A cheap cap might cost $1. The final good one might cost $30 or more. Get it. You might have a money tree, but I don't.
Yep, the "Flat speakers are boring" fallacy is a common mistake lots of people make. Designers that use measuring equipment the right way will know this is bollocks. The same for people who claim there are speakers especially suited to play e.g. Metal or Jazz. Like you already said, the sound engineer / mixer of recordings is the one who determines how a recording sounds, a great speaker will replicate what the engineer intended.
Thanks Danny, I love your videos and this is no exception. But, what is that thing on your T-shirt? :-) Hammerhead shark? Space alien? No, wait! A classic car,,, a Red Barchetta under a tarp! :-) Keep up the good work!
I want a flat response but at lower volumes I turn up both ends because the speakers or my ears are not as sensitive at quiet levels. Still trying for flat response. Have listened to big name speakers that loose whole instruments due to drop outs in frequency.. interesting.. no thanks
Anyone who respects professional sound engineers, who spend many hours mixing/mastering to get the recording to sound its best, should desire flat response. I want my system to be uncolored and true to the source.
Did "you know who" respect the sound engineer/mixer of.. and justice for all..? One bandmember: "turn the bass down so you can barely hear it" I don't believe that turned out what "the artist entended" if you ask the other members of that band....
@@rob_66 Many musicians have tinnitus and the one that have new batteries in their hearing aid, might say so……. I have tinnitus and deep hard bass is hard to listen to. Distorted bass is a disaster for my ears. Accurate bass we love.
@@rikardekvall3433 would hardly call the bass "accurate" on and justice for all..🤭 🇸🇪 Jag har också tinnitus men problemet ligger vid högre frekvenser 🇸🇪
@@rob_66 ok. Jag hör inget över 15-16khz men House deep bass (min son gjorde egen house musik) var inte skönt i kroppen eller öronen, trots dubbla gipsväggar. Djup korrekt bas med min GR sealed direct servo sub är förlåtande för min kropp och öron. Musik är helande.
Well explained. I prefer the speakers that I listen to recreate the illusion of a band in a small nightclub. However, I have friends who crave chest pounding music. devoid of all nuances of a live venue. My wife says she likes speakers that have a mellow sound.
Thank you, Danny, for this. A truly boring recording would be one that has been made boring in the pre/post-production mix. That is likely very rare. The speakers are the last equipment that audio goes through before getting to our ears. It seems some equate "flat response" with dull and lifeless. I consider "flat response" to be sonically accurate. Reproducing all points equally, accurately, and clearly is what I prefer. That way, I hear as little coloration from the speakers as possible and as much of the source recording as possible. Thanks again, Danny. Cheers!👍😎
Nevermind the flat response. But most speakers and headphones have scooped mids by design. And I have the misfortune of liking indie rock and alternative. These genres are mostly heard in the mid frequencies. So neutral speakers sound so engaging to me.
@@user-xg6zz8qs3q what does Scoped mids mean to you? I know Mid’s refers to Mid Range Drivers, it also refers to mid range frequencies, in a 2 way design the woofer driver also handles mid range frequencies! A Scope used on a rifle allows you to pinpoint your 🎯 target! If the outside area of your target is 12” then the center would be at 6”. If the frequency range of a midrange driver is 300-800Hz then the scoped range or center range would be at 400Hz is this exactly what you’re referring too? Loudspeaker designers do not design crossover networks that way, with that said the exception is if the Tweeter is bright/hot they will use a filter in the signal coming from the amplifier will go through this filter to cut off frequencies above a certain frequency range to make the tweeter less bright! Most loudspeaker designers try to implement good quality drivers but not necessarily use good quality parts in the crossover network as a matter fact most of the time the parts are cheap and the crappy parts and that’s what Danny does he evaluates the parts he evaluates the frequency response and he makes a determination on how to improve the performance of the Loudspeakers drivers by using better quality parts and or will insert a filter if the Tweeter is too bright or higher or lower value features for filters to reduce the frequency range of individual drivers that have issues because their manufacturing quality are inherently flawed! Danny will also utilize a product called No Rez to reduce cabinet reflections
@@Nonsense62365 Scooped mids means a "V shape" frequency curve to me. Most headphones have that sound signature. It's a little less apparent with speakers.
Is that a cable roller coaster behind you ? Flat speakers, but you excite the signal on the roller coaster to make the speaker sound better, huh ? Now, you are unveiled ! 😉
@GR-Research Totally curious as to the correlation between your standard 4 measurements and the sound. Why do you show these measurements if they don't paint an accurate picture of what it really sounds like? Would it not be better to describe the sonic differences or use different measurements?
Even more, I am so glad that every one has a flat ears and hearing exactly the seme. And even more, every one has the same professional listernig room with sounds traps. To be honest what about EQUAL-LOUDNESS CONTOURS idea...it means, that flat is not really flat, not always the same. That means we have to believe or we should enjoy listening...?
Hey Danny , what about attenuators ? High quality stepped or even the old school toggle switch to offer a way controlling the output of mid range and tweeters -Some back in the day of 8 track used low quality pots but maybe a higher quality version could offer slight help for room placement issues and even as a buffer for certain source material.
I usually enjoy your videos - good work! Having that said, the concept of "author intended" is a misconception. Idea that studio monitors are perfectly flat is false. Same goes for the producer hearing. Please notice that professionals are often far into their 40's or even 50's. Human ear sensitivity, especially for high notes deteriorates with age. What we can say is , that having a flat speaker allows us to experience recording in a way that's response-correct. Assuming that we hear what author did while mastering is simply not true.
Unless we have the exact system in the same room as was mixed in, we will never hear the same as the intended mixed recording. Having a room and system to be as measurably flat as possible within our budget gets us closer to the intended recording. Then tweak to personal preference.
I know this is way too late to be actually part of the discussion, but what the heck...First, I agree completely with what Danny is saying. But I think the controversy about this is what any Prof in Logic 101 calls a verbal argument, in other words...an argument due to different meanings of a word, not about what the particular meaning of that word when Danny explains it. And the word(s) that some people seem to be arguing about are different meanings of "flat". A "flat" tire is a pain in the butt, even if it's round on top. A "flat" note in a musical performance is irritating and obviously wrong because it is not a pitch that fits in the sequence of pitches at that point of in the music, like if the singer wants to hit a "B flat" but he just had a third shot of vodka and out pops a word at 451 Hz. A "flat" soda is unappealing and a "flat" landscape is boring (unless it's "Home.") But a speaker that has a "flat" measured response, like Danny says, doesn't impose its own relationship of louder to softer pitches on every piece of music played through it. (I know, no speaker is or ever can be perfectly flat or perfect in any other way, and it's all a matter of degrees and trade offs among compromises according to the taste of the designer and, ultimately, the customer. Don't troll me.) While this kind of "flat" can help the original intent of the artist be more readily audible to the listener, for someone like me (and probably like most people over any length of time) who listens to a number of kinds of music, this kind of "flat" doesn't detract from one kind of music while maybe enhancing another kind of music. An extreme example: I have an old friend who is devoted to early reggae and ska music. He says that the best way to listen to that music is through an old boom box with a big, sloppy bass boost and argues that he is right because that is likely the best kind of equipment the original audience would have had, and so the artists meant and mixed their music to sound like it does through the boom box. I can't argue with that (but then he ain't Jamaican, either) Although something very different can sometimes really blow someone away and change their mind, on more familiar things most people automatically prefer what they they are used to. And while my friend likes to listen to his music on my system, he usually prefers fiddling with the tone controls to increase the bass. But I do know that everything from classic rock to Taylor Swift that is played though his boom box carries the sound profile of the boom box, whether it belongs there or not. And since I listen to not just more than one but actually more that a few kinds of music, I want the differences in playback presentation that I hear to reflect as much as possible the differences of musical presentations the artists were able to put into the recordings. Only a speaker that measures "flat" (I know, as "flat" as possible within real world limitations and commercial compromises) can do that.
Hi Danny, I think it makes a lot of sense what you say. And when you test a speaker and it is all skewed, I understand what you are doing and why it is better. It is good to remember that in most of these cases the owner of the speaker send it to you because he was not completely happy to start with. Having said that, I own a pair of vintage speakers I bought about a year ago and the reason I did is because they sounded so great back in the 80's when I was a teen, getting in to audio. And guess what, after all these years I still think they sound great. I also know what's in there. The coils are all air coil, perhaps the woofer could have a thicker gauge but it is air coil. The caps are cheesy and the resisters I don't remember. And there is a fuse in the tweeter that is holding it back (it is almost that you can hear that fuse). But the tonality is spot on for me, but also people I know. Based on this and assuming the listeners (me and friends) have some critical listening skills, can you then say that though some components are priced to a budget, at least the cross over design is not way off? I am therefore reluctant to change the values (change the quality, YES) because over all those years I have liked the tonality of these speakers. Also I am reluctant to brace them more than they are, because they may now resonate in a frequency that is less intrusive than when I brace them more. Those are I think reasonable questions speaker owners may have. PS, I would have loved to send one to you but I live in Europe and I see that a bit problematic. And thanks for the videos, it is great to get the perspective of somebody with as much knowledge and experience as you have.
If you want a flat frequency response you have to include a room into the measurement. Otherwise it is going to end up with a very uneven frequency response in a real life situation. Stored energy and poor parts quality on the other hand really is a huge improvement to get rid of
Your comment is only valid if you are building your own speaker and you can tune it according to your room condition. Do speaker manufacturers tune their frequency response to suit all their customers' room condition? So the best bet for non DIY speaker owners is to tune the frequency responses flat to suit different room condition.
@@cpaint69 The fact is you can never get a flat frequency response when you include the room unless you custom build the speaker. But there are typical ways most rooms will influence the frequency response. The bas response will be amplified by the room. The same typically goes for the upper midrange. So it's not either or. It's a grey area where you have to make compromise if you want the best possible sound in most cases
@@jwester7009 I think you are totally missing the point. Of course the best option is to design a speaker that can play flat in your listening room BUT how many people have the skill and knowledge to do that . Even for audiophiles who do not build their own speaker, they will be equally clueless. We are talking about consumers in general, where speaker with a flat responses might be the best option for them.
@@cpaint69 Well I think you are missing the point. Lets concentrate on the low frequencies. This area will always be amplified in a room. So the question is are you going to ignore that fact or are you going to do something about it when you design the speaker? Measurements are meant as guideline to help you find faults. Not as the ultimate truth
@@jwester7009 Are you telling me majority of the people have the tools, skill and knowledge to do the kind of speaking tuning as you have suggested? In fact the majority of the people will rather do room treatment and adding bass trap to tackle the problem you mentioned.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
When talking about flat frequency response one need to also describe near- & farfield measurement and how to analyze the result.
A nearfield measurement (within 5-10 inches from the driver) should not be flat at all. Basic principle is flat from 1 kHz and up. Below 1 kHz the amplitude should be sloping at an angle to +6dB at 100 Hz and then flat out to hit -3dB around 40-50 Hz to drop to -15-20 dB at 20Hz. There is a lot of other issues to handle too, like first reflection from bass driver to floor that will create a more or less severe dip in the 100-200 Hz region.
If following that basic design rules you will get a fairly straight frequency reponse in the room at the listening position that also can be confirmed with a far field measurement.
But since far field measurements are almost impossible to analyze correctly the best design principle is to use near field measurement and shape the frequency response as described above.
There are some more to consider, like baffle width and diffraction artefacts from cabinet edges that will change the optimum frequency reponse optimal "target" for a loudspeaker design.
But it's wrong to say that a frequency response should be flat. A flat frequency reponse in nearfield measurement will have bass 6 dB lower than frequencies above 1 kHz.
That's an effect of the spread pattern that are half space above 1kHz and full space below 100Hz.
This effect is also called baffle step, and that needs to be compensated for to get as straight frequency response at the listening position as possible.
Then we have the room gain.
That's why a loudspeaker should have -3dB at approx. 40-50 Hz and not at 20 Hz that one might expect. Bigger rooms needs a lower -3dB point and smaller rooms a higher -3dB point.
The slope angle in the bass room gain is 12dB/octave and then the loudspeaker should be -15 to -20dB down at 20 Hz compared to 100 Hz to get the most linear response in the room.
So it's much more to learn and understand than just say it should be flat. A flat response in near field measurement will sound overly bright and bad.
A flat reponse at listening position is what to be consider as the goal, but that is almost impossible to measure. A far field measurement is best used to analyze room nodes and room gain and place the speaker in a position that have as straight response as possble in the room. A far field measurement is basicaly useless above 300 Hz.
When designing a loudspeaker you need to use and analyze the reponse at different distances, but near field is by far the most accurate. Just need to set up a "target" curve to hit, and that is not flat at all.
It took making one of Danny’s kits (the X-MTMs) to make me a believer of what he says. These measure “flat” but the sound quality is amazing and anything but “flat”. Things like transparency, clarity, crispness, solid bass response are all there. Close your eyes and listen. The sound stage is full in front of you with no way to tell where the speakers are. And these can be listened to for hours without fatigue. Surely the quality of the drivers, crossover, connection points, construction of the cabinet, the shape of the cabinet, etc all play into how great a speaker sounds; not just this single measurement. That is just one part of a complete package. The only “down side” to having great sounding speakers is now being able to hear the difference between a good recording and a bad recording...
One thing he doesn’t really delve into is that the crossover also impacts the directivity (and thus off-axis response) of the speaker. This has a huge impact on how the speaker sounds if the woofer or tweeter are playing beyond where they should be, the sound won’t be neutral due to directivity error since the patterns won’t match at the crossover region. There’s lots more to it than that, but it’s one reason you can squeeze a bit more out if the design has been built down to a cost. Edit: he sort of does with the "BBC Dip" deal.
@@mysock351C He delved into the crossover, the part about Iron core inductors , inexpensive polycaps, and sandcast resistors are all part of the crossover.
@@KeithKing31 I was talking about where the cross-over frequency is since getting that right is a necessity to get the speaker to have good directivity (i.e. similar on and off-axis response). As the frequency rises, the woofer narrows quite a bit, but the tweeter still has a wide radiation pattern until you get up to around 6 kHz. There are a couple of ways to do it, of course. One is to accept some "hour glassing" in the off-axis directivity by crossing over as soon as the tweeter can maintain the same output as the woofer at that region, or use a waveguide to tailor the response. Too high and there is a suckout in the lower treble region from the woofer getting too narrow in its response. Too low and the tweeter won't be able to properly take over.
Eh?!! He might not go into this in depth on this review but on upgrades he checks & measures on axis & off axis before & after his improvements with the accompanying graphs etc.
@@AndyLew59 Which is fine. But it would have been instructive to cover it here as its key to unwrapping why flat can be "boring."
I'm in my 70's, and there is still one thing that I LOVE to do.....and that is learn something new about something that I really love. And that is listening to my music collection. And watching Danny's videos has opened my eyes up to 'NEW to me' ways of enjoying my music and what to look for. Thank you for the education Danny. I'm hoping that I never get 'too old' to learn something new about something that I have loved all of my life.
Most people can’t seem to realize that a speaker “tuned” to fix problems from some recordings will create problems in other recordings or in different kinds of music in general. The only way to have consistently good performance is to make the frequency response as flat as possible.
Well said
@@ChicagoRob2 but frequency response is not just one thing-- the pattern of the radiation also matters.
@@robertgreene2684 Yes, if you are not careful, the radiation will blow you off the sound stage.
high end speaker manufacturers is not too occupied with a flat freq response though. they are focused on what is good sound to their own ears
@@hanzen5174 That’s maybe why some reviewers report that only good recordings sound nice with certain speakers. Because maybe they are “tuned” to enhance certain aspects of the sound and that causes other style of recordings to sound awful. Just food for thought
Everyone should feel blessed that he's open to sharing his work on TH-cam. He does great work and more importantly definitely improves each speaker he touches. A true audiophile!
It's a commercial.
@@Gary_M it is knowledge to those who want to understand how speakers work. Next level above what most people don't understand.
@@KeithKing31 keep telling yourself that, sheep.
@@Gary_M Please, Gary, give me the same or a better version then Danny’s that are NON comercial.
@@rikardekvall3433 Any DIYer can build better speakers, if you take the time and also look at the psychoacoustic side of things. It is true, that the on-axis frequency response is not even close to giving an accurate representation of all the characteristics that are important when designing a speaker. But still a flat response is what you should be aiming for if you want high fidelity.
Bass, treble, loundness, equalizers, all allow the listener to tailor the audio spectrum to best fit their ears. Flatness is a good starting point!
agreed : )
Indeed , the starting point is ... The flat response , if your system cannot be flat where is the starting point? Is not do-able
Loudness control isn't to tailor the sound but to maintain frequency response at difference volume levels, as our ears' sensitivity to certain frequency bands change with volume. (Fletcher Munson Curve).
I like flat. I don't want to hear the speakers.
Yeah, one thing I’ve learned is phase correct speakers add to natural sound. Also, the backward movement of the speaker stroke can cause a slight distortion due to reflection off the speaker structure. Not trying to influence. I currently have B&W Matrix 802 D3. I like the sound and was always interested in Wilson Watt Puppies but read an article about Vandersteens. I have an aerospace engineering degree, am an sales/ application guy so technical stuff turns my gears. The article really did it for me. Then read another which was long and covered many aspects of their design. My 802’s have separate baffles for each speaker, woofer, mid, tweeter. Never knew Vandersteens pioneered this approach and explained why. Then I read about their phase corrected, never knew exactly what this meant but learned it means each speaker moves in the same direction all the time so the pressure wave in all frequencies arrive at about the same time, speakers. Since I’m aerospace I’m not best at electrical design so asked a very talented instrumentation engineer. He said you cannot simple put plus into minus pole of speaker( internally, manufacturer would do this) to correct phase. You need the crossover not to change phase but each order, ie, first order Butterworth filter or second or third ( my B&W’s have a fourth order Butterworth filter). Each degree is change in phase. I think I read that a fourth order is 180+ out of phase so my woofer is going out and my mid is going in. For my ear I couldn’t/ didn’t know hear the difference when I bought it. I suspect it was because your brain adjusts to imperfections produced from your system/ speakers that you would not hear in real life and the response of the B&W’s are flat which I think masks the issue well. I was at a hifi store with carried Vandersteens and listened to a pair of Quatro Wood CT’s. It was very interesting. When I got home a few days later I listened to my system and could hear at times a phase change, sounding like a suck out of a range of frequencies, can’t really describe it better.
I then stared to learn about the graphs presented on a speaker, phase correct, Ohms graph ( important, V=IR. So low R (impedance or Ohms) means you need high I ( amps). Low R is usually in the low frequencies which is why you need a high efficient amp. These are not so low Ohms which means you don’t need high efficiency amp which is && ( I maybe foolishly bought an expensive high efficiency amp). Back to plots or graphs; plus graph which should look like a triangle where the left side is almost straight up and right side slowly decays. This shows phase correctness. Then rapping on speaker enclosure, and decay from right to left of center and up/down. From an engineering stand point and listening Vandersteens have really caught my eye. I plan on listening to buy some time soon.
Story for the babble, want to share and have been really stoked by this stuff, had to share.
Hi Danny,
I develop measurement systems for DIY loudspeaker builders with the claim that they are good but affordable and easy to use. And you're speaking from my soul: Measuring frequency responses, impedances, waterfall diagrams and even checking the actual physical values of electrical components for compliance with their actual value in relation to the stated value, these tools actually only serve one goal: to avoid errors .
Perhaps we should replace the word "flat" with "straight" when it comes to frequency response. Seems a bit that "flat" is simply perceived negatively in many people's feelings.
Great video, thanks for all your hard work - I'm always learning...
PS: Of course it may be that I can't imagine the sweet tea if I don't know any sugar ;-))
Great video Danny. One thing I don’t understand is why speaker manufacturers don’t use high quality crossover components on all their speakers over a certain price (say $2000-$3000) and just pass this onto the customer or even offer it as an upgrade when purchasing the speaker. I would certainly like to know that I was getting good quality components when spending this sort of money.
Waste of money. There is no actual evidence that high priced crossover parts actually matter.
@@kevintomb cheap is as good? Does that work in any other area of engineering? Is a $150 violin as great sounding as a $1.5mil Stradivarius? Umm no.
@@kevintomb the 1st priority is to smooth out the frequency response. That is actually measurable. Now the question is, does it require higher quality parts to accomplish that? Then, as he stated, you can make similar response crossovers with high and low quality parts, use a switch and toggle to see if you hear a difference.
@@fcamiola how many people can afford 1.5mil violin? and how big of a difference is between this and something for a few thousand dollars? every product has it's target audience.
Just want to say thank you Danny. I have learned a lot by watching your videos. Your no-nonsense approach makes things clear and easy to understand. I have always thought that frequency response and efficiency were the only specifications that mattered and didn't know that the type of inductors and capacitors was so important. I have known a few engineers who never once mentioned this. I am not an audiophile just an enthusiastic hobbyist and you have inspired me. Thanks again.
I wanna thank you for sharing all your knowledge and experiences to us for free.
I started buying a subwoofer before I even had a car, I´ve built many car audio things over the years and finally came to home cinema and hi-fi.
Honestly I didn´t know what I was missing, so I´m really really thankful to learn from you, how important the parts are.
So I´m still learning and trying to understand how to build my own speakers + crossovers and adapting the parts / measuring and getting a way better listening experience while learning and saving on parts.
So I´m discovering my music new and it´s a real pleasure when you hear stuff, you never heard before or getting the magic of depth behind your speakers, like there are real people playing.
The only thing I´m still struggling is how to improve the off-axis response even more.
Keep on doing your awesome stuff, Greetings from Austria =)
I am so glad that you point out that measurements are a starting point in the design of a product, and that the sound quality is influenced by the design and quality of components and materials. The measurement freaks out there tend to be a bit over zealous of their distortion and SINAD figures and forget to listen. There's no excuse for a design to measure badly, but it's not the main criteria for listening enjoyment.
The measurements are there just for that reason, so we can listen to the loudspeaker. Its much easier for us to build electronic “ears” that listen far more accurately than actually doing that ourselves. Not only can’t we record our responses quantitatively (well not without blind testing), but our ears are quite nonlinear. The aspects of the ears response change wig amplitude and we are subjective. The auditory center does a good job of hiding this from us, but it shows if we are tasked with providing accurate data. This is all neatly circumvented by quantifying what a good speaker sounds like, and shooting for that as an objective.
Danny! You sound like you are getting the life and energy sucked out of you through all the defending you have been doing.
You connect so well to the educated, intelligent folks out here, and your genuine passion and love for what you do should never come into the crosshairs of those that aren’t qualified to question you.
Coming from a lifetime of engineering, diy, fix, build and repair basically anything and everything, and getting laughed at using a two-channel digital storage oscilloscope working on cars, I get it, and found it hard to shake that negative energy at times.
Being retired now, I should make time to come out to Texas for a bit, visit and maybe get a chance to play or get put to work - LoL
You rock!
Exactly Danny - this is why the people that say "Specs don't matter" infuriate me too. Whilst tonal character, distortion & noise levels matter too - if a piece of equipment rolls off 3db here & there & then your speakers do the same (or worse!) you're not going to hear a lot, let alone accurately! Precisely why I bought an amp with only a 0.3 -db roll off instead of the usual -3db - to at least remove that weak link. If people want to add false color to their sound they can tweak their eq afterwards but the point you make here is paramount to what all audio designers should strive for as a benchmark to quality.
Well said & explained sir 🤟
I always look for speakers with a flat response. I hate muddy, shouty, tinkling highs, overly loud bass etc.
I listen to a lot of classical music, lots of Telarc recordings, I don't want coloration.
Just recently found your channel. I like what you are doing. Would like to see the industry adopt a specification standard (supplied information) for middle to high end speakers that reflects data for the issues you address including the frequency response and spectral decay graphs. Can't say I have ever seen one for the speakers I have bought over the years.
Peter Comeau who is Director of Acoustics and the designer of the new Mission 770 Speakers explains in an interview on the Pursuit perfect system channel why he used an air core inductor on his new speaker despite the extra cost and weight.
Hi Danny, thank you for your education and honest sharing. Absolutely agree that audio equipment especially speakers should be designed as accurate as possible. It is sad that so many salesperson and hifi manufacturers are so eager to steal your hard earn money from your pocket by making up so many jargons and explanations without learning the basic audio science. I am here in Hong Kong and even sadder is that none of the hifi agent that I know of has an engineering degree or knowledge.
And when you walk into their store and ask for some technical advice on equipment selection, they never try to understand your exact need, just asking how much you can afford.
It needs to be reviewed and stated that a decibel or dB is a unit of measuring sound and that it is LOGARITHMIC. Every 3 dB represents a doubling of the response (power, sound, loudness, etc). So when looking at response curves a 3 dB change one way or another is quite a significant change. A change of that magnitude is certainly going to have a very audible effect on the perceived output sound and as a result is likely to result in an unnatural coloration in the sound. Also a response requiring a doubling of sound will also require an increase in power from an amplification source to reproduce that amplitude accurately and if it can’t do so then the sound quality will not be produced accurately inducing additional coloration in the sound. So this is another reason for having accurate responses (I choose not to use the term “flat” because that word is often misleading, misused, and misunderstood) for the reproduction of sound.
Flatness doesn’t equate to dynamics and character. I want a frequency flat response speaker so the best of the speaker can do it’s best. No different from wheel alignment which doesn’t make every car drive the same.
Good comparison.
high fidelity
: the reproduction of an effect (such as sound) that is very faithful to the original.
Frequency Response describes the range of frequencies or musical tones a component (speaker) can reproduce.
If a piece of music I'm listening to has a lot of midrange frequency content and the speakers I'm listening to it on show, on the frequency response measurements, to have a large dip (-6db for example) right in that frequency range, then it stands to reason that those speakers are going to struggle recreating those frequencies. Having a nice flat curve on a speakers frequency response shows that the speaker is capable of taking analog signals and accurately reproducing all of the frequencies in that signal from the lowest to the highest. If the signal requires a response at 9k and the speaker's response can only manage 3k, then your ears are going to hear the inaccuracy. It may sound okay to the listener, but it won't be "faithful to the original".
I think this video is about flat speaker response, and people think its mean something else, it is about the output of a speaker, nothing else.
A great video explaining why it is so, and i agree.
Furthermore i can inject my thoughts on how we perceive sound, after a speaker has been placed in a room and acoustics has done its thing to the sound, and our own hearing taken into account because we all are different.
We can hear this for our self with a tone generator which is available online from a quick search, how flat does your system sound to you from listening position is now clear to you. That is the end goal i think, from 20hz to your upper limit is a great starting point.
That was really important explanation. Most products are built to a price and parts bought in bulk to provide an entire line of products. Often the accountant is in charge of the parts bin and things are made to be “good enough”. I was looking at my pair of KEF Reference 103 speakers and wondering about what to use to service the crossover. The boards are behind the baffle and populated with the expected mid to late 1970s parts. Poly caps would be huge in terms of size on the circuit board, the inductors would be enormous. I was also warned that the capacitors feeding the tweeters would have lower impedance and create the possibility of damage. So, I upgraded the resistors and bought the best bipolar electrolytic capacitors that were in specification. Yes it sounded better, but, I would love to have a better crossover built. The crossover board can’t accommodate the parts you use and fit on the intended mounts on the baffle. I need to have the ability to build and test like you do to get my KEF Reference 103 to work with different components. I would love to see what one of your crossover circuits would achieve with the 103s.
Great info. The biggest problem with more accurate speakers is ,then you know how bad most of the C.D.s made actually are.
The better the hardware the more you will realize how poor or good the recordings are.....🙂
I'm also finding with better equipment, how bad most rock music has been recorded. For example Boston, one of my favorite albums from my youth. I almost cannot listen to it. Hurts my ears after a while, very fatiguing.
@@scrappy7571 You should be able to counter that by intrudcing some warmth in the chain like tubes. If done right it should still give you all the detail minus the analytical grind.
Very true
@@LorDarkGoose I am considering tube. Running a recapped Sansui 331now, being cap coupled it's tube like. Much more enjoyable than the modern "clean" amps I've played with. Amazing what that baby Sansui does with only 12 watts.
Danny, first great video, now do a followup on human hearing frequency response, that is the source of so much confusion. We hear differently and that determines what we like or not and that is where something might measure poorly (frequency response) but someone can love them because it fills a hole in their hearing(?). Also is "ringing" the same as "decay" and if so what about attack (how fast it responds to input) and how all of that creates dynamic reproduction (which is the opposite of a "flat sounding speaker"). Keep up the great work
Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly explain this aspect of speakers. I hear You tubers saying this flat stuff all the time and it seems ridiculous. If you care for accuracy, then seek out speakers that tell the truth. There are other aspects as you detailed, basically the ring down (resonances) of poor drivers which alter the sound of a speaker and is not accurate to the producer efforts.
Brilliant and straightforward explanation. Hopefully some of the "Flat Earthers" can wrap their little heads around it. Keep up the good work Danny, cheers.
Thank you for breaking down this subject. We all gain from your explanations on this matter making things more objective than opinion.
Sone people simply have more opinions about speakers than they have knowledge.
Great video thanks! Just curious are your new inductors going to be the same as the old ERSE jobs, or is it a new line all together? I felt ERSE did a pretty good job at it. But always nice to see improvements. 👍🏻🔈
Tonal characteristics of well made designs are only improved when excessive loudnesses and resonances get out of the way of the music. And I’d love to try one of these kits!
Hmmm! When did people start thinking flat response means boring speaker? I was a young child when I bought my first system, about $500 or so in the early/mid 70's...I brought it to college a few months later. I looked for flat response. All persons I met and knew that considered themselves 'audiophiles' looked for nothing but flat response on all equipment...but all of our systems sounded different. Some really good (based upon our infantile thought at the time of good sound), some really bad.
I'm no where near the expert Danny is, but he is spot on (and certainly doesn't need me to say so!). Flat response defines accuracy only, it doesn't define sound quality and never has. Heck, even as children in the 70's, we knew this and knew it well, although we didn't know why at the time (but we do now!). There is so much more that defines good sound and Danny's videos do detail much of that. Good build parts are crucial in all disciplines of manufacture for a myriad of reasons. If it didn't, then a Yugo would be the equal of a BMW. I don't understand why people believe otherwise in the area of audio but knock themselves out when buying other product...that car is better than this car...that washing machine is better than this washing machine...this gizmo is better than that gizmo. Why do we say that? Well, many reasons, but not all of it is about comfort (cars) and features. Many of those reasons are the result of a perception or even actual knowledge of better engineering and better parts. Each and every one of us identify with that because each and every one of use has stated that at some point. Would you really tell me that a part that was made of quality metal is the same as an equivalent part made of plastic? After all, it does the same job but it's less expensive!
Why do people believe audio is immune to this? Is it because few of us do not understand the electronic characteristics but have no issues with understanding the mechanics of mechanical objects? We all love to rationalize but can seldom if ever justify. BTW...did you know rationalization is more important than sex? Sure is...when was the last time you went a week without a rationalization?
Flat speakers are not boring...they are accurate. If they are boring and flat sounding, then they were simply not well engineered, specified, or built.
I have done so many full active installs from Scanspeak, Dynaudio, Seas, Focal, Vifa and Peerless. Some drivers sound different from each other while others sometimes do. Even with same frequency response they are tonally different. Some naturally sound Darker than another and vice versa.
Agreed, although I have had really consistent results with Vifa and Scanspeak. Morel, forget it.
You can believe what you want. A flat frequency response is desirable so no frequencies are enhanced either way. If you want to jack with the equalization, that’s up to you. The quality of parts matters more than you think because their construction is what determines how they effect the output. Poor quality parts ruin sound and that’s been proven thousands of times. It’s harder to fix a speaker with a ringing problem because it can be that a stamped steel basket was used instead of a die cast metal one. These can be deadened with sound deadening material applied to the basket such that it doesn’t obstruct cone movement. Stamped steel baskets need help. It’s a lack of rigidity that causes the ringing. I digress. Still, if you want your speakers to be more accurate, send them to Danny and get the real lowdown on what’s wrong and how he can help. You won’t be sorry. Stay safe my mates!😊👍🏻😁
The common problem I see with loudspeaker companies. Is that the crossover has to be inside the enclosure. This making it a challenge to do any upgrades that do not fit on the bord. Some crossovers are massive by the time you upgrade all the parts. Also a large crossover takes up airspace in the enclosure. You have to ask yourself at what point does it start to effect the enclosures tuning frequency? So in my opinion crossovers should be mounted on the outside of the enclosure. People like to say that hes just trying to sell you something. But the thing is these upgrades really do make a difference. In many cases an audible difference. Its all about signal path.
If you change component values, of course there will be an audible different :)
I'm 98% sure I was part of the lengthy discussion in comments section that lead to this vid... Accurate frequency responses via objective testing should be a goal of all speaker designers and producers, and all things being equal, will sound better subjectively. That does not = speakers that measure well objectively sounds the same or is flat or "boring" sounding. It causes cognitive dissonance in some when their favorite band measure poorly, but that does not change reality.
Fascinating. I learned a lot about the science of speakers. Thanks for the great content.
Woooo... did we just get an early glimpse into a coming April fool video ? I see cables lifted up from the floor via cute tiny sawhorses. Love it ! 😂
Unfortunately, no. These are a real thing. It does not contribute to his credibility.
😂😂😂
As from my amateur experience. Frequency range being flat at a certain amplitude doesn't mean that the speaker is dynamic in its amplitude at all frequencies within its frequency range. For example if the speaker isn't dynamic enough in terms of amplitude in the mid-range it will sound flat when singers use their vocals very dynamically, and it might sound dampened/cushioned.
I don't understand how this can not make sense to anyone. If you choose to eq your music with a speaker that isn't flat, there's nothing wrong with that, but to assert that everyone should want it eq'd the same way is silly. Nobody is being forced to use the upgrade kits - those of us that like a flat(ter) response are happy customers. Why throw shade at the concept? I used the kits on a pair of bookshelves and a center channel and they all sound noticeably better. The center especially as it's easier to make out dialogue now.
Love your vids Danny. Most people don't realize or don't believe every component can change what a person hears, just like digital can be cold and tubes can be warm sonically. Then throw into that the recording quality and yowza. You nail it every time. I look forward to owning a pair of otica's one day.
It's all in the parts selection. Most people don't understand how that can be! Well, that’s why I believe you see people thinking that they can get equal performance if it measures the same as a product that is more expensive and has higher quality parts. Well, that’s not possible because parts selection is the most critical aspect of any audio product. It’s all about the parts selection, whether you’re talking about the speaker amplifier or phonograph.
I agree. I’ve just ordered the replacement parts for the crossovers in my Monitor Audio speakers in my study and, having done this to my reference speakers over a year ago, I can’t wait to fit them. To prove how slightly unhinged I’ve become, I can say the crossover parts cost more than the original whole speakers!
One of the reasons I like the JBL Studio 530's for my desk speakers is because of how they dive down after 15Khz. My ears are very sensitive to those really high highs. I see the value of having something that plays flat and uncolored, but something like that is not appropriate for playing the average audio on the internet. A lot of things are really badly recorded, and for those things, I might want to have some cheese in the signal path. Someday I would like to get 2 pairs of a speaker, have Danny upgrade 1 pair, and a/b test on badly recorded content. Then see if what I just said was stupid or not. Hmm, what speaker tho...
What you have shared is mainly your personal preference when listening to music. There are actually people who prefer to have the top end tiled up for sparkle and air in the high frequency region. Having a flat frequency responses is to have an accurate reproduction of the song being recorded. The best solution is to have a tone control preamp which you can adjust the output to your preference.
@@cpaint69 It's my preference for browsing the internet / blasting music while I do data entry and other mind numbing tasks. I do prefer something flat and accurate for actual music listening within my hobo budget.
Danny, I know some speaker designers are accounting for predicted in-room frequency response, what is your opinion on that? Like the idea that British monitors have been "voiced" for the small rooms of the average apartment. Or that certain problematic room modes can be accounted for in design? Also, is there an idea that a speaker can be designed for the average consumer who is just using an untreated living room vs an audiophile who will be more likely to treat the room?
Hang in there. I have an upcoming video on this subject.
Exactly. With upgrades, speaker sounds more accurate and correct.
YES artists & engineers mix on speakers that would measure flat with minimal stored energy ringing if any - as for tone it might be nice to know that Pink Floyd used Tannoys, that Michael Jackson and or Quincy Jones used JBL 100s - we are often informed in liner notes of the piano serial number of Steinway, Bechstein used by recording artists. I would ask Mr Ken Scott what speaker was used to mix Visions by Mahavishnu Orchestra?
One of the performance aspects that isn't covered here very often is harmonic distortion. Probably because it's dominated by the driver performance and it's not something that can be 'upgraded'. It's definitely something that Danny considers in the development of his own designs, but since the most popular content seems to be analysis and upgrades for customer speakers, it doesn't get talked about very much.
I shot an early tech talk video on it: th-cam.com/video/YSWrT8Qk7Bc/w-d-xo.html
Flat is good. If you study Fletcher Munchson curves, one understands the human ear does not hear flat. So you can equalize that difference to make it pleasing. In addition, curves change with db. e.g. when softer ear hears lower frequencies less efficiencey, so turn the bass up... etc. But flat is what we want... thx for your good work!!
If the music has been recorded with a flat response, and is played back with a flat response, it will sound like the original instruments and singer. You hear the original with the non-flat response of your ear. You don't want anything in the recording or reproduction chain to change that. You don't want to hear a guitar or singer with ear compensation added, as that is not what the guitar sounds like live.
@@RacingAnt Sorry for irony, but I understand, that you are hearing exactly the same like 7 billion people on this planet. Exactly the same frequency in the same level, we has the same listening rooms, speakers etc.
Not, you don't and nobody, so flat is just estimation, but is not accurate. Follow on and that means, that flat never ever will be the flat.
@@martinsuchocki5340 flat in the entire recording and reproduction chain can be measured and validated. If you have that perfection, then what you hear from the speakers will be those musicians, as recorded, but placed in your room between the speakers. Your room colourations will then add to the sound.
Yes, your ears add their own interpretation, and everyone hears things differently, and everyone's rooms are different, but that doesn't excuse non-flat response from the speakers. That's just extra colouration that isn't needed.
@@RacingAnt Many different factors what effect on sounds, so nobody know what is correct or not so listening flat mean nothing. This is only trend and lack of knowledge. Flat for you could be boost lows and highs for me. I'll recommend look at Fletcher Munson curve and forgot of flat.
No sugar in my Tea Thank you! Danny... awesome explanation (as usual).
I believe that the question to a point is that trying to flatten the respons (so it will portray the original recording) will possibly add More components in the circuit that might decrease the sound quality more than the slightly poor frequency response did. Just upgrading components is another matter, in my opinion.
I'm currently tweaking my latest build, a pair of 3 way fully active and even with DSP (IIR) it still gets wonky trying to flatten out the respons. I believe it was Paul at PS Audio that said something like "the whole chain up to the speaker should be aimed at being as flat as possible, but the speaker are a instrument so it might not work there". 🙂
I agree, though would point out Danny often makes a point of reducing parts count for that reason, and has rejected speakers for upgrade that have had a high parts count.
@@robh9079 Yes, I'm not sure if he's adding a lot of parts, it was just in general. 🙂
@@robh9079one of the reasons he discouraged the mod is because the speaker crossover parts count too many and it would be foolish to change them all. Upgrade parts will be alot bigger and will not fit inside the cabinet ( harbeth is an example). Another reason is that because of the upgrade the speakers will cost so much more thus its just better to buy a new better speaker. Upgraded Capacitors and Inductors are much bigger in size compared to the cheap store bought ones. If you do some reseach or just google it you will see some photos.
Hi Danny, every time I'm listening to somebody, explaining the inability to measuring the true differences between speakers or speaker-modifications, there comes a thought: Shouldn't it be possible to develop a measurement-procedure and computer analysis, which finds and visualizes the differences in sound of two recordings? Of course, these recordings should be made in the same, defined recording situation. A to B comparison, correlation, subtraction, weighting, normalization, whatever. These days, we have a huge amount of processing power available. I think, there must be a way to develop an algorithm to compare recordings and make differences visible, such as your modifications to network parts. Clarity, precision, smearing. When you can hear it, there must be a way to measure and visualize it. What do you think? Best regards, Lars from Germany.
After hearing the clarity of my GR Research Paradox 1's and the LGK's that both came with high quality parts, I've designed and upgraded numerous speakers with high quality parts by default. My most recent project was upgrading a pair vintage ADS L300Cs speakers with non-inductive resistors over sand cast, air core chokes over iron core, and polyester film caps over electrolytics. Using high end parts has transformed these 30+ year old speakers that sounded "dated and dull" to speakers that sound "open and crisp without being clinical and harsh". Danny once again is telling the God's honest truth.
It's so confusing to most of us because speakers have been designed and manufactured for so long with the intent to accurately reproduce the source material. Some even take on the distinction of being called reference monitors or studio monitors. Yet more designers than not will say that studio monitors are not good for typical playback. I never understood this. Because if you get the type of monitors that the recording engineers use, you'd be able to have faithful playback, right? Apparently not. Colored or uncolored is a word used by many in this business. And I think that's a matter of preference. Just like you say here, that you can design a crossover network that measures exactly the same but by using different components create an entirely different sonic quality. And I know this to be true and will always state that wire, parts and tweaks may or may not always improve but will always make a difference in sound. But when you go up agains guys like Ethan Winer or Gene DellaSalla, you'll get no end of controversy and pushback, both shrieking for us to avoid the snake oil. It's exhausting. So when the subjective meets the testing and comes up short yet we are told to spend $6000 for a bag of magic beans to sprinkle around, it's dubious to say the least. Ethan and Gene both emphatically state that everything is measurable. I don't agree with that at all. It's like building instruments where the materials are exacting and tediously selected to create consistency yet not all make it out of the factory because the sound is off. So there is most definitley an art to it that can't be measured. It's mysterious and. hopefully remains elusive. But if today's engineering approach is only trying to give us "perfect sound" made up of a quantized, autotuned sterilized processing, that's dreadful. Because Nature is perfect in its imperfection. It's a paradox and remains mysterious in order to make us engage and not put us to sleep.
One Danny doesn't mention about mix engineer especially for Billboard hit song. They mix in their studio monitor that can sound good on Earpod or JBL Bluetooth speaker or in car stereo. Mix engineering is not the final say. It is the master engineer make the final statement on how should should in varies media. Those engineers doesn't care how close you are listening to their systems. In facts, I never hear any of these engineer need you to get system that sound close to them. Except for one, Keith Johnson.
Do you use a direct earth ground? Copper rod buried deep, etc.
If Morgan freeman sounds like a helium balloon , then there’s something wrong…😂
Did you see Erin's Audio Corner Video today about two speakers never measure the same. I guess it just depends on how many measurements you make. Thanks for your Videos you have thought me so much. Most people Love my M&K S150's even thought they have 3 Tweeters in each speaker.
There are people that live and die by measurements only and feel that if a circuit measures the same therefore it must sound the same.
I can't believe they feel a ruler flat Klipsch and a ruler flat Magico with a higher quality crossover (that would measure the same) sound identical, or the same Magico with a Chinese crossover for that mater would also sound the same.
Perhaps you can explain what the model bridges are behind you?
I'm getting asked about that a lot. I should shoot a video about that. I think I will.
As always... Veeery instructive! Keep up the good work, Danny! I hope you ever have a chance to take a look at the Q-Acoustics Concept 40's. I would love to know what you think about them.
I have heard the Concept 300's here in house, but not the larger ones.
Many manufacturers design their speaker systems with this "dip" in the midrange, because it gives an impression of "more bass" and "sparkling treble".
I prefer a speaker that has flat response. I can use bass and treble and my equalizer to tweak it if i want to.
Great comments, Danny. Thanks for sharing. Love the tinker toy cable risers ;-) Very inexpensive solution!
My only concern with some “flat” speakers is when they aren’t dynamic. Otherwise, flatter is better. It is a complete package for good sound.
but as he states it has nothing to do with the frequency response, what you say is potentially true of any speaker irrespective of frequency response. They are no more or less likely to sound flat.
@@chronodriver Danny does say that any speaker flattened out by optimizing the crossover sounds better. Which I agree with. The caveat is that no matter how flat a speakers response is, it can sound dull. That's due to one or more factors. I am of the camp where a flatter muffled statically measured response being questiinably better than a more dynamic less flat response. The music we listen to is not a white noise/pink noise tone. It's substantially more complex than that. You can have two sets of speakers that measure within similar bands that sound substantially different due to dynamic accuracy. That's all I am saying.
You are correct, there are people saying things like "send your speaker to Danny, and get a flat speaker", as if to say it is a bad thing. Also some mention you "tuning a speaker without a stereo pair, and proper listening tests are not possible for what you are doing". The unknowing consumer might make that make sense. I can see how statements like this would cause pause. I would like your feedback regarding these statements, to clear the air so to speak. This is not a troll dig at all, and I think this type of jargon can be damaging to a reputation, and would like your feedback regarding. I love watching your videos. They are very informative, and keep up the great footage!
I've spent thousands of hours listening and comparing parts or all types to know what the audible effect is. Start at the 8 minute mark and start listening.
@@dannyrichie9743 I did, and thanks for the reply.
most won't understand what you're doing but it's extremely interesting what you're bringing to the table,can it be better,I'm sure it can
Also the biggest issue with building your own speakers. Even if you get the design right. You can't express sound quality on a chart. Materials have a different sound when they resonate even though they may look exactly the same when measured. There's a reason brands like Dynaudio command the premium they do. Sure they measure well enough but it's the sound they create. I can't even count how many systems I've built myself and some of them you like and some of them you don't but anyone getting into this hobby, be prepared to spend a lot of time and a lot of money.
I like the thumbnail, nice design.
The word FLAT, especially when saying that a speaker has a "flat response", is NOT AT ALL saying that specific speaker sounds "bland", "lifeless", OR "boring" in ANY way, (as some people might interpret the word "flat" to suggest), but instead, when saying that a speaker is "flat", or that it has a flat response, it just means that that speaker is more/most ACCURATE, across the entire frequency range of music that it can reproduce, (of course driver size limitations and the resulting laws of physics play a role there, among other things), but so, in any case, a speaker being more accurate and having a "FLAT" response just means that it can more faithfully (i.e. accurately) reproduce the incoming music signal exactly as it is, without the speaker itself overly enhancing OR reducing any additional specific frequency resonances such as "boominess" in the bass, "brightness" in the treble, or ANY other kind of "coloration" or specific frequency emphasis/de-emphasis that was NOT in the original music signal input to that same degree or at that same level...
A truly "flat" speaker is a very GOOD thing, because it will reproduce the music put into it exactly as the recording engineer or music artist intended their song/album/etc. to sound, (provided they also used good quality, accurate response recording and monitoring equipment in the studio)...
Therefore, the "flatter" a speaker is, the better, because a TRULY and completely flat response speaker will be EVERY BIT as "BORING", OR ALSO EVERY BIT AS LIVELY AND EXCITING, as whatever music that is being fed into it, and THAT is EXACTLY what you IDEALLY want from a really great speaker!
The components for designing and constructing the speakers can have certain tonal characteristic, e.g. metal tweeter vs soft dome vs AMT, polycone vs papercone vs fibrecone, etc.
Every person has a preference for certainin tonality. But the speakers made should measured flat frequency response as a reference point to gauge the playback recorded music performance.
The line up equipments in the hifi system, each one also has it own
frequency response characteristic, it will affects the
overall performance.
Two cents.
Jay Iyagi left the group
Flat is essential and is the base for all speakers, without flatness, it colors musical, may be sound better for low quality recordings, however, it will make good recording sound bad. A good speaker has to be flat first, then it can possibly sound good.
Frequency response can't tell many things. Tonality comes to mind. I enjoy the sound character of un treated paper mid woofers over poly or metal even though they measure flat.
Which also affect how quickly they can react to the dynamics of the source music. It's why manufacturers try metallic drivers but that speed doesn't help make a good sounding unit if the frequency response is all over the place
In my opinion the speaker should be designed with the flattest frequency curve possible. Of course the room might have issues that affect the sound, but in this case the room itself should be treated if need be. Many people find flat response dull, so manufacturers like Klipsch and B&W and many others build speakers that boost the mid bass while slightly suppressing the midrange and then boosting the treble to make the speaker sound "brighter", as well as producing "more bass". Many people love this tuning and think the sound is better, but this type of sound is fatiguing.
If you have a truely "flat system, and are listening at low level you will need to boost the low end and high end slightly to get balanced sound, but to play your system at level that a live "acoustic band" level the tone controls can be switched out.
firstly, I agree wholeheartedly that a speaker response should measure "roughly" flat, within some arbitrary deviation (3,5,10? dB). That being said, I think there is a compromise when modifications to the crossover require an increase in filter order. I think of the previous "wisdom" of LR24 being touted as ideal in the past, where having that razor-sharp cutoff ensured a better chance of marrying two drivers together that might otherwise have lumpy response in the crossover range. I think the trend to limit filter order as much as possible, granted drivers of sufficiently good behavior is the optimal method. My opinion is based on the importance of arrival time for things like percussive/string instruments as well as vocals to be as close as possible. For example, with a LR24, the midrange doesn't start moving until a full 360 degrees of tweeter motion at the crossover frequency. I feel this has a detrimental effect on the clarity/imaging, or perhaps "speed" of those types of sound sources.
PS id love to hear your reference system, I'm a HUGE fan of line arrays/open baffle/ dipole/ ESLs and my search for audio nirvana ever continues...
People don't have a flat response in their hearing.
We are more sensitive to sound between 2kHz - 5kHz, so if a speaker measures flat in this range it will sound out of balance.
Fletcher and Munson discovered this in 1933.
I don't want any colors in my speakers, any brands you recommend? Thanks
That's right.
another great video full of useful information ... as a home theater installer , its difficult sometimes to convince customers that what they have been hearing from their system sounds really bad and when they listen to a system that has accurate speakers that are tuned well to a room - they think is sounds weird ....so educating customers on what a well tuned system sounds like is an important aspect of my job .... that said Im really pushing Dirac Live as a room tuning tool as it addresses many speaker and or room problems ...not just frequency response .... obviously this is preferable to redesigning all the crossovers in every speaker ...especially a system like 7.2.6
Don't let the trolls , and uninformed get you down. Audiophiles like me know exactly what you're achieving with the upgrades. I heard the difference a person made in a pair of Pioneer HPM 100's, and it was night and day. The technology for that time period was great, but wow, when you put better parts in the crossovers it was stunning. I could listen to them all day long. You could hear everything the recording studio was doing in the playback. Carry on, you're doing the right thing.
Great Video!!…reminds me of amp specs that equate to zilch when it comes to SQ!!
That great explanation has me thinking... When designing a crossover it seems to me it would be best to use low priced components to sort out what works well with a given project, before diving in to get the very good components. That seems to make sense don't you think?
So you want to buy twice and build two crossovers. If you want a cheap crossover just buy almost any store speaker. This is diy and we are skipping that step for good reason...its not about price point but the sound
@@brenthawkins204 Your missing the point. Use the low priced parts to get the X-over perfected (since they measure the same), then spend the big $ on the final set.
@@Silver_Surfer_1 don't really see a point to that, who's got the time?
@@ajafterparty Your not loosing much time really. Just saving $ right? A cheap cap might cost $1. The final good one might cost $30 or more. Get it.
You might have a money tree, but I don't.
Yep, the "Flat speakers are boring" fallacy is a common mistake lots of people make. Designers that use measuring equipment the right way will know this is bollocks. The same for people who claim there are speakers especially suited to play e.g. Metal or Jazz. Like you already said, the sound engineer / mixer of recordings is the one who determines how a recording sounds, a great speaker will replicate what the engineer intended.
Thanks Danny, I love your videos and this is no exception. But, what is that thing on your T-shirt? :-) Hammerhead shark? Space alien? No, wait! A classic car,,, a Red Barchetta under a tarp! :-)
Keep up the good work!
The T-shirts sports a Vans logo.
I want a flat response but at lower volumes I turn up both ends because the speakers or my ears are not as sensitive at quiet levels. Still trying for flat response. Have listened to big name speakers that loose whole instruments due to drop outs in frequency.. interesting.. no thanks
I often hear the term "ringing".Please could you explain Danny.
Anyone who respects professional sound engineers, who spend many hours mixing/mastering to get the recording to sound its best, should desire flat response. I want my system to be uncolored and true to the source.
Did "you know who" respect the sound engineer/mixer of.. and justice for all..?
One bandmember: "turn the bass down so you can barely hear it"
I don't believe that turned out what "the artist entended" if you ask the other members of that band....
@@rob_66 Flat response does not fix stupidity. lol
@@rob_66 Many musicians have tinnitus and the one that have new batteries in their hearing aid, might say so……. I have tinnitus and deep hard bass is hard to listen to. Distorted bass is a disaster for my ears. Accurate bass we love.
@@rikardekvall3433 would hardly call the bass "accurate" on and justice for all..🤭
🇸🇪 Jag har också tinnitus men problemet ligger vid högre frekvenser 🇸🇪
@@rob_66 ok. Jag hör inget över 15-16khz men House deep bass (min son gjorde egen house musik) var inte skönt i kroppen eller öronen, trots dubbla gipsväggar. Djup korrekt bas med min GR sealed direct servo sub är förlåtande för min kropp och öron. Musik är helande.
Well explained. I prefer the speakers that I listen to recreate the illusion of a band in a small nightclub. However, I have friends who crave chest pounding music. devoid of all nuances of a live venue. My wife says she likes speakers that have a mellow sound.
Thank you, Danny, for this. A truly boring recording would be one that has been made boring in the pre/post-production mix. That is likely very rare. The speakers are the last equipment that audio goes through before getting to our ears. It seems some equate "flat response" with dull and lifeless. I consider "flat response" to be sonically accurate. Reproducing all points equally, accurately, and clearly is what I prefer. That way, I hear as little coloration from the speakers as possible and as much of the source recording as possible. Thanks again, Danny. Cheers!👍😎
Nevermind the flat response. But most speakers and headphones have scooped mids by design. And I have the misfortune of liking indie rock and alternative. These genres are mostly heard in the mid frequencies. So neutral speakers sound so engaging to me.
@@user-xg6zz8qs3q what does Scoped mids mean to you?
I know Mid’s refers to Mid Range Drivers, it also refers to mid range frequencies, in a 2 way design the woofer driver also handles mid range frequencies!
A Scope used on a rifle allows you to pinpoint your 🎯 target!
If the outside area of your target is 12” then the center would be at 6”. If the frequency range of a midrange driver is 300-800Hz then the scoped range or center range would be at 400Hz is this exactly what you’re referring too?
Loudspeaker designers do not design crossover networks that way, with that said the exception is if the Tweeter is bright/hot they will use a filter in the signal coming from the amplifier will go through this filter to cut off frequencies above a certain frequency range to make the tweeter less bright!
Most loudspeaker designers try to implement good quality drivers but not necessarily use good quality parts in the crossover network as a matter fact most of the time the parts are cheap and the crappy parts and that’s what Danny does he evaluates the parts he evaluates the frequency response and he makes a determination on how to improve the performance of the Loudspeakers drivers by using better quality parts and or will insert a filter if the Tweeter is too bright or higher or lower value features for filters to reduce the frequency range of individual drivers that have issues because their manufacturing quality are inherently flawed!
Danny will also utilize a product called No Rez to reduce cabinet reflections
@@Nonsense62365 Scooped mids means a "V shape" frequency curve to me. Most headphones have that sound signature. It's a little less apparent with speakers.
Is that a cable roller coaster behind you ? Flat speakers, but you excite the signal on the roller coaster to make the speaker sound better, huh ? Now, you are unveiled ! 😉
You got. I have made cable roller coasters.
@GR-Research Totally curious as to the correlation between your standard 4 measurements and the sound. Why do you show these measurements if they don't paint an accurate picture of what it really sounds like? Would it not be better to describe the sonic differences or use different measurements?
Because they show where the problems are…
He actually explains that in the video.
I like my speakers to be flat like the Earth!! 😂
Even more, I am so glad that every one has a flat ears and hearing exactly the seme. And even more, every one has the same professional listernig room with sounds traps. To be honest what about EQUAL-LOUDNESS CONTOURS idea...it means, that flat is not really flat, not always the same. That means we have to believe or we should enjoy listening...?
As soon as I read the title, I knew exactly what you meant and you're 100% correct. Thanks for another excellent video Danny.
I would have preferred the headline „FLAT speakers are not boring.“
Hey Danny , what about attenuators ? High quality stepped or even the old school toggle switch to offer a way controlling the output of mid range and tweeters -Some back in the day of 8 track used low quality pots but maybe a higher quality version could offer slight help for room placement issues and even as a buffer for certain source material.
My 30+ yo Radian Engineering cabinets have high attenuator and mid switch.
I usually enjoy your videos - good work! Having that said, the concept of "author intended" is a misconception. Idea that studio monitors are perfectly flat is false. Same goes for the producer hearing. Please notice that professionals are often far into their 40's or even 50's. Human ear sensitivity, especially for high notes deteriorates with age. What we can say is , that having a flat speaker allows us to experience recording in a way that's response-correct. Assuming that we hear what author did while mastering is simply not true.
Unless we have the exact system in the same room as was mixed in, we will never hear the same as the intended mixed recording. Having a room and system to be as measurably flat as possible within our budget gets us closer to the intended recording. Then tweak to personal preference.
Any upgrades for Ascend Acoustics Sierra RAAL towers?
What about the Fletcher-Munson Curve? It is not flat or not?
I know this is way too late to be actually part of the discussion, but what the heck...First, I agree completely with what Danny is saying. But I think the controversy about this is what any Prof in Logic 101 calls a verbal argument, in other words...an argument due to different meanings of a word, not about what the particular meaning of that word when Danny explains it. And the word(s) that some people seem to be arguing about are different meanings of "flat". A "flat" tire is a pain in the butt, even if it's round on top. A "flat" note in a musical performance is irritating and obviously wrong because it is not a pitch that fits in the sequence of pitches at that point of in the music, like if the singer wants to hit a "B flat" but he just had a third shot of vodka and out pops a word at 451 Hz. A "flat" soda is unappealing and a "flat" landscape is boring (unless it's "Home.") But a speaker that has a "flat" measured response, like Danny says, doesn't impose its own relationship of louder to softer pitches on every piece of music played through it. (I know, no speaker is or ever can be perfectly flat or perfect in any other way, and it's all a matter of degrees and trade offs among compromises according to the taste of the designer and, ultimately, the customer. Don't troll me.) While this kind of "flat" can help the original intent of the artist be more readily audible to the listener, for someone like me (and probably like most people over any length of time) who listens to a number of kinds of music, this kind of "flat" doesn't detract from one kind of music while maybe enhancing another kind of music. An extreme example: I have an old friend who is devoted to early reggae and ska music. He says that the best way to listen to that music is through an old boom box with a big, sloppy bass boost and argues that he is right because that is likely the best kind of equipment the original audience would have had, and so the artists meant and mixed their music to sound like it does through the boom box. I can't argue with that (but then he ain't Jamaican, either) Although something very different can sometimes really blow someone away and change their mind, on more familiar things most people automatically prefer what they they are used to. And while my friend likes to listen to his music on my system, he usually prefers fiddling with the tone controls to increase the bass. But I do know that everything from classic rock to Taylor Swift that is played though his boom box carries the sound profile of the boom box, whether it belongs there or not. And since I listen to not just more than one but actually more that a few kinds of music, I want the differences in playback presentation that I hear to reflect as much as possible the differences of musical presentations the artists were able to put into the recordings. Only a speaker that measures "flat" (I know, as "flat" as possible within real world limitations and commercial compromises) can do that.
Great explanation.
Hi Danny, I think it makes a lot of sense what you say. And when you test a speaker and it is all skewed, I understand what you are doing and why it is better. It is good to remember that in most of these cases the owner of the speaker send it to you because he was not completely happy to start with.
Having said that, I own a pair of vintage speakers I bought about a year ago and the reason I did is because they sounded so great back in the 80's when I was a teen, getting in to audio. And guess what, after all these years I still think they sound great. I also know what's in there. The coils are all air coil, perhaps the woofer could have a thicker gauge but it is air coil. The caps are cheesy and the resisters I don't remember. And there is a fuse in the tweeter that is holding it back (it is almost that you can hear that fuse). But the tonality is spot on for me, but also people I know. Based on this and assuming the listeners (me and friends) have some critical listening skills, can you then say that though some components are priced to a budget, at least the cross over design is not way off? I am therefore reluctant to change the values (change the quality, YES) because over all those years I have liked the tonality of these speakers. Also I am reluctant to brace them more than they are, because they may now resonate in a frequency that is less intrusive than when I brace them more.
Those are I think reasonable questions speaker owners may have.
PS, I would have loved to send one to you but I live in Europe and I see that a bit problematic. And thanks for the videos, it is great to get the perspective of somebody with as much knowledge and experience as you have.
I thought you were talking about Maggies.....i came to check the comments.
If you want a flat frequency response you have to include a room into the measurement. Otherwise it is going to end up with a very uneven frequency response in a real life situation. Stored energy and poor parts quality on the other hand really is a huge improvement to get rid of
Your comment is only valid if you are building your own speaker and you can tune it according to your room condition. Do speaker manufacturers tune their frequency response to suit all their customers' room condition? So the best bet for non DIY speaker owners is to tune the frequency responses flat to suit different room condition.
@@cpaint69 The fact is you can never get a flat frequency response when you include the room unless you custom build the speaker. But there are typical ways most rooms will influence the frequency response. The bas response will be amplified by the room. The same typically goes for the upper midrange. So it's not either or. It's a grey area where you have to make compromise if you want the best possible sound in most cases
@@jwester7009 I think you are totally missing the point. Of course the best option is to design a speaker that can play flat in your listening room BUT how many people have the skill and knowledge to do that . Even for audiophiles who do not build their own speaker, they will be equally clueless. We are talking about consumers in general, where speaker with a flat responses might be the best option for them.
@@cpaint69 Well I think you are missing the point. Lets concentrate on the low frequencies. This area will always be amplified in a room. So the question is are you going to ignore that fact or are you going to do something about it when you design the speaker? Measurements are meant as guideline to help you find faults. Not as the ultimate truth
@@jwester7009 Are you telling me majority of the people have the tools, skill and knowledge to do the kind of speaking tuning as you have suggested? In fact the majority of the people will rather do room treatment and adding bass trap to tackle the problem you mentioned.
What if you really need Low DCR and you can’t find it with Air Core type chokes??