SDA2B SPL Measurements

heiney9

jcandy wrote: »

You guys seem awfully touchy. Its almost like a religious cult here.

You seem awfully full of yourself and seem to be on a mission to "save" us from these mediocre speakers of yester-year. So yes, we are a little touchy simply because we've encountered your type before, atleast a hundred times. I predict you'll be gone in a few weeks as your intent is not to integrate into CP, but to cause waves. I detect a little passive/aggressive impulse manifesting in your posts.

H9

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

Again, that's why I trust my ears.

You keep saying that as if it means something, but I don't trust your ears. If you are an adult male then your ears are probably relatively poor. If speakers were designed solely by ear, 10-15 year olds would be the test equipment of choice.

Measurements, together with listening, are required to design and test loudspeakers. With experience, you can begin to correlate the measurements with what you hear.

heiney9

jcandy wrote: »

You keep saying that as if it means something, but I don't trust your ears.

When did I ask you to trust MY ears? It's a reflexive statement, meaning each person should trust THEIR OWN ears. Someone who appears to be somewhat intelligent like yourself should have deduced that.

Why would I ask you or anyone else to trust my ears? Now, if you ask me for my opinion on what something sounds like to me, then you would be asking to trust my ears.

I also never said measurements shouldn't be used or that everything should be done by ear. Did you read my sig? That in a nustshell is what I believe.

H9

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

You seem awfully full of yourself and seem to be on a mission to "save" us from these mediocre speakers of yester-year. So yes, we are a little touchy simply because we've encountered your type before, atleast a hundred times. I predict you'll be gone in a few weeks as your intent is not to integrate into CP, but to cause waves. I detect a little passive/aggressive impulse manifesting in your posts.

I doubt very much I could integrate into your cult. On the other hand, I can hardly believe that these results are not interesting to some, perhaps those who are not so active in posting/attacking new members. I think I've been awfully polite, and initially people were certainly trying to be helpful, but today's responses are awfully juvenile.

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

Seriously, you've made your opinion known, it's time to move on otherwise your other motives will become quite obvious and the troll calling some are referring to will be quite obvious. Or you are trying to get 100 posts so you can list these for sale.

Agree to disagree and move along.

Are you a moderator?

heiney9

jcandy wrote: »

I doubt very much I could integrate into your cult. On the other hand, I can hardly believe that these results are not interesting to some, perhaps those who are not so active in posting/attacking new members. I think I've been awfully polite, and initially people were certainly trying to be helpful, but today's responses are awfully juvenile.

Helpful to whom? Did I miss the post where someone asked for your freq. plots? or your lecture? You do come off as someone who is lecturing whether it's intentional or not. And yes, there are some here who are juvenile.

As far as integrating into the "cult", that's why I suggested you move along. You've made your point and your opinion is now of record, what else do want from this thread? Someone to come along and say "you're absolutely right!"

Seriously what is your motive? The results aren't interesting because many don't care and professional reviews seem to contradict what your narrow tests show.

H9

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

Seriously what is your motive? The results aren't interesting because many don't care and professional reviews seem to contradict what your narrow tests show.

Which contradiction are you referring to?

heiney9

jcandy wrote: »

Which contradiction are you referring to?

I already covered that in two other posts and even provided a link. It doesn't matter. You asked why people aren't all that interested I gave you some reasons.

Anyway have fun doing whatever it is you are doing, I'm moving on.

H9

jcandy

heiney9 wrote: »

I already covered that in two other posts and even provided a link. It doesn't matter. You asked why people aren't all that interested I gave you some reasons.

Anyway have fun doing whatever it is you are doing, I'm moving on.

Bye.

FTGV

michaeljhsda2 wrote: »

The OP's drivel sounds similar to that of candylicker35 or whatever his screenname was. Coincidentally or not he has the word candy in his screen name.

Not quite,one was technically inept the other obviously has a very good grasp of loudspeaker design and IMO could be valuable contributor if given the chance.;)

Measurements, together with listening, are required to design and test loudspeakers. With experience, you can begin to correlate the measurements with what you hear.

Absolutely,measurements of loudspeakers have a much stronger correlation with how they sound than those of electronics(or fancy fuses) for that matter.

Face

heiney9 wrote: »

I'd be curious to know how much break in time the RD0194-1 tweeters have on them before taking measurements. You should measure again after about 100-150 hours since that's when they really start to come into their own.

A graph won't show that.

michaeljhsda2 wrote: »

The OP's drivel sounds similar to that of candylicker35 or whatever his screenname was. Coincidentally or not he has the word candy in his screen name.

Fred already covered this, but I agree, there's no way that flea brain could possibly have this kind of knowledge.

jcandy wrote: »

They are impressive speakers, great for their era, but with an obvious and non-negligible problem with the mid-tweeter crossover. Compare the simple SDA crossover to this, for example:

http://www.zaphaudio.com/ZD5.html

They still measure flatter than most commercial offerings, no?

Have you ever built any of Zaph's projects?

heiney9 wrote: »

Seriously what is your motive? The results aren't interesting because many don't care and professional reviews seem to contradict what your narrow tests show.

Brock, no reason to get up in arms.

I wouldn't mind seeing Polars of distortion of the SL2000.

thejck

If the OP's intention is the sell the speakers on here then the last thing he should want to do is bash them.. Otherwise someone would be able to buy them for a song seeing that how in his opinion they are nothing more than 25 year old speakers that have had their day in the sun.

heiney9

I agree this candy is far from the other candy, both in intelligence and tact. I apologize if I came off trying to attack him or defensive. I just felt his posts were getting a little preachy and then the whole "cult" comment made it seem like he was starting down the troll path. Time will tell.

H9

snow

jcandy wrote: »

I doubt very much I could integrate into your cult. On the other hand, I can hardly believe that these results are not interesting to some, perhaps those who are not so active in posting/attacking new members. I think I've been awfully polite, and initially people were certainly trying to be helpful, but today's responses are awfully juvenile.

You dont see the reasons why? Unless someone is interested in changing something/ upgrading their speakers or designing new ones all the data graphs charts figures in the world is just useless information irregardless if its accurate or not.

You appear to be attempting to impress us with all your techincal knowledge which would be great if someone asked for your help and you were able too but no one has and now you just look like a blowhard.


There must be some special school where they teach people to join new forums and begin to enlighten all of us with their wisdom because I have seen it here many times and it always ends the same couple of ways and neither are good for anyone involved or perhaps its some personality defect shared by these people?

REGARDS SNOW

jcandy

Face wrote: »

They still measure flatter than most commercial offerings, no?

Yes, I think so, though I haven't measured too many commercial speakers. I have SPL curves of my Paradigm Studio/20s, but those are really good. I could measure one of the Eosone RSF400s I have at home (they sound awful, I need to sell them). The SDA2Bs are definitely good speakers, but with some shortcomings. The 6503 driver is certainly impressive: very low fs (high Vas) for such a small driver.

Face wrote: »

Have you ever built any of Zaph's projects?

Yes, the BAMTM and ZMV5. Both are spectacular -- reference quality. The low cost of the ZMV5 makes you want to think its not a serious speaker, but in a listening get-together I had a month ago, everyone thought both were superior to the Paradigms (although the ZMV5 lacks the bass extension of the Studio/20). The odd thing about very good designs is that they all sound quite similar above 100Hz.

Face wrote: »

I wouldn't mind seeing Polars of distortion of the SL2000.

Well, I suppose I could do distortion sweeps at 0,15,30 degrees if I can find the time. I can't really generate polar plots (except in a tedious manual fashion) with my software.

FTGV

jcandy wrote: »

The low cost of the ZMV5 makes you want to think its not a serious speaker,

Agreed,I originally built the ZMV5's then later upgraded them to ZA5.2 status with the installation of Zaph's custom driver and xover tweaks.IMO hard to beat for the price.

jcandy wrote: »

Discussion of results: The results show a huge peak-dip-peak in the crossover region at 2kHz.

It would be interesting to see(hear)the results after some time spent with optimization software and measurements to try and improve the response in the transition region between the tweet and midbass.Might I be bold enough to suggest the audble differences would be greater then that percieved between two otherwise good film caps?:)

jcandy

FTGV wrote: »

Agreed,I originally built the ZMV5's then later upgraded them to ZA5.2 status with the installation of Zaph's custom driver and xover tweaks.IMO hard to beat for the price.

Excellent! What is your impression of the ZA14W08? AFAIK, it is based on, and a slight improvement over, the awesome little MCM 55-3870. My HT center channel is an MTM using the 55-3870 (see attached figure), similar to the ZA5.3c.

FTGV wrote: »

It would be interesting to see(hear)the results after some time spent with optimization software and measurements to try and improve the response in the transition region between the tweet and midbass.

Exactly. I think that would be the most useful "tweak" for the SDA2B. My worry is that the MW6503 is probably breaking up in the 2kHz region, and the RDO-194 cannot fill in enough to compensate.

FTGV wrote: »

Might I be bold enough to suggest the audble differences would be greater then that percieved between two otherwise good film caps?:)

That's probably a safe bet.

mmadden28

FTGV wrote: »

...
It would be interesting to see(hear)the results after some time spent with optimization software and measurements to try and improve the response in the transition region between the tweet and midbass.Might I be bold enough to suggest the audble differences would be greater then that percieved between two otherwise good film caps?:)

jcandy wrote: »

...
Exactly. I think that would be the most useful "tweak" for the SDA2B. My worry is that the MW6503 is probably breaking up in the 2kHz region, and the RDO-194 cannot fill in enough to compensate.

I would imagine that the old electrolyte caps in the XO are probably in need of replacement and doing so may change the response your seeing??--(regardless of what brand film caps are used). I also recall reading something about the polyswitches when old can affect the sound-perhaps even attenuate it.

Just a thought.

By the way I'm interested in the charts and graphs--I don't rely on them for anything as I'm not sure everything audible can be measured, but it would be nice to see if I'd be able to correlate an audible change to a measurable change.
I mean I may not be able to hear the difference necessarily of a flat SPL response vs. not flat with my subwoofer, but I do start with a flat SPL with my Sub EQ (Velo SMS-1) and then tune from there to what sounds good to me (in my HT). And in doing so I can start to correlate the graph to what I hear. Heck some of what I see in the SMS-1 Sub SPL response is not audible (to me) at all but can be felt.
I had planned to do my own measurements before and after my SB TL mod just to see if I could see anything myself.

inspiredsports

jcandy wrote: »

You keep saying that as if it means something, but I don't trust your ears. If you are an adult male then your ears are probably relatively poor. If speakers were designed solely by ear, 10-15 year olds would be the test equipment of choice.

Measurements, together with listening, are required to design and test loudspeakers. With experience, you can begin to correlate the measurements with what you hear.

You bring up a good point, and then interpret the answer incorrectly.

If speakers were designed solely by ear, H9 (and many others here) WOULD BE THE TEST EQUIPMENT of choice.

10-15 yer old's can't afford this type of gear.

inspiredsports

thejck wrote: »

If the OP's intention is the sell the speakers on here then the last thing he should want to do is bash them.. Otherwise someone would be able to buy them for a song seeing that how in his opinion they are nothing more than 25 year old speakers that have had their day in the sun.

That was pointed out in post #13. You can be certain he will become some kind of 2B savior over his next 50 some posts in the race to 100.

FTGV

jcandy wrote: »

Excellent! What is your impression of the ZA14W08? The biggest gain AFAIK, it is based on, and a slight improvement over, the awesome little MCM 55-3870. My HT center channel is an MTM using the 55-3870 (see attached figure), similar to the ZA5.3c.

Both are great little drivers with a very clean and detailed sounding midband.The biggest difference I found was that I'm able to get a bit more level out of the ZA14 especially with bass heavy content( even though the stated xmax is only slightly greater). My 55-3870's seemed to ran out of excursion much sooner,maybe they were out of spec?I would think it shouldn't be an issue for your CC with having duals and it's likely to be hi pass filtered.

Exactly. I think that would be the most useful "tweak" for the SDA2B. My worry is that the MW6503 is probably breaking up in the 2kHz region, and the RDO-194 cannot fill in enough to compensate.

If tweeters resonance is low enough then maybe moving the xover point lower( and increasing the slope) would help.?

That's probably a safe bet.

inspiredsports

mmadden28 wrote: »

I would imagine that the old electrolyte caps in the XO are probably in need of replacement and doing so may change the response your seeing??--(regardless of what brand film caps are used). I also recall reading something about the polyswitches when old can affect the sound-perhaps even attenuate it.

Just a thought.

By the way I'm interested in the charts and graphs--I don't rely on them for anything as I'm not sure everything audible can be measured, but it would be nice to see if I'd be able to correlate an audible change to a measurable change.
I mean I may not be able to hear the difference necessarily of a flat SPL response vs. not flat with my subwoofer, but I do start with a flat SPL with my Sub EQ (Velo SMS-1) and then tune from there to what sounds good to me (in my HT). And in doing so I can start to correlate the graph to what I hear. Heck some of what I see in the SMS-1 Sub SPL response is not audible (to me) at all but can be felt.
I had planned to do my own measurements before and after my SB TL mod just to see if I could see anything myself.

Asked (but not answered) in post #7

FTGV

mmadden28 wrote: »

I would imagine that the old electrolyte caps in the XO are probably in need of replacement and doing so may change the response your seeing?

Certainly response would change if their value had shifted to any significant degree.

heiney9

I pretty much can guess the caps and resistors as well as the poly switchs (from repeated trips having gone thru 2 sets of tweets) are probably out of spec. Polk used very inexpensive parts. Which means the measurements are are out of whack as well.

H9

inspiredsports

heiney9 wrote: »

I pretty much can guess the caps and resistors as well as the poly switchs (from repeated trips having gone thru 2 sets of tweets) are probably out of spec. Polk used very inexpensive parts. Which means the measurements are are out of whack as well.

H9

And thus my guess an SDA 2B savior will emerge, with ruler flat SPL curves, albeit with Daytons used.

Caveat Emptor.

jcandy

mmadden28 wrote: »

I would imagine that the old electrolyte caps in the XO are probably in need of replacement and doing so may change the response your seeing??--(regardless of what brand film caps are used). I also recall reading something about the polyswitches when old can affect the sound-perhaps even attenuate it.

Sure. The capacitors are certainly a worry, as discussed a few times already. I'd be surprised if the polyswitches were causing an attenuation issue since the FR is not sloping down at high-frequency. In fact, commercial speakers are often designed with some downward slope built in. These are quite flat in that sense. And, the behaviour in the crossover region is not too different than what you get when trying to stretch two drivers that don't have a large overlap region.

mmadden28 wrote: »

I had planned to do my own measurements before and after my SB TL mod just to see if I could see anything myself.

That's what I'm talking about! I recommend you do that, as I think it would be a real eye-opener.

heiney9

inspiredsports wrote: »

And thus my guess an SDA 2B savior will emerge, with ruler flat SPL curves, albeit with Daytons used .

If he does get a ruler flat then he monkeyed with the graph's, plots, etc. because SDA's even with fresh internals aren't the flattest speaker going, but certainly I haven't read any evidence of them being as deficient as he measured in the area's he measured.

If one is looking for a ruler flat response speaker they need not look at any Polk product because Polks (even LSi's) are not ultra flat sounding speakers.

H9

Face

inspiredsports wrote: »

If speakers were designed solely by ear.

That is an awful idea.

inspiredsports

heiney9 wrote: »

If he does get a ruler flat then he monkeyed with the graph's, plots, etc. because SDA's even with fresh internals aren't the flattest speaker going, but certainly I haven't read any evidence of them being as deficient as he measured in the area's he measured.

If one is looking for a ruler flat response speaker they need not look at any Polk product because Polks (even LSi's) are not ultra flat sounding speakers.

H9

Agreed.

Not to put words into his mouth, but I've personally gained a strong sense that empirical data is what he values most after reading his posts to date.

heiney9

inspiredsports wrote: »

Agreed.

Not to put words into his mouth, but I've personally gained a strong sense that empirical data is what he values most after reading his posts to date.

Of course, because he said anyone past the age of 15 has very poor hearing. I assume he's older than 15 so he is missing as much, due to his hearing, as we are. So in that regard it really doesn't matter how it measures because we have awful hearing anyway .

H9