DIYMobileAudio.com Car Stereo Forum banner

4" Midrange Comparison Shootout. RESULTS Thread!

48K views 197 replies 77 participants last post by  Miguel mac 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)

Attachments

#9 · (Edited)
Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More

Hmm guess I get to make the first comment, having read it all... thats what I get for waking up when I heard the email hit my box lol. Curiousity!

Very nicely done test I'd say based on the steps involved - good job ought to be the first thing said, bearing in mind the limitations inherent in any such test. I'm glad and not at all surprised to see ALMOST every result though. Although the fact that I'm not surprised sort of surprises me =) It seems like (on a brief scan) one can almost say "you get what you pay for" with a few notable exceptions.

I'm going to leave it at that and let others discuss the pass band choices and such... I'll just say that it seemed like a well reasoned decision designed to give the best possible test conditions to all drivers in the test.

Thanks much for your time in testing.

Jim/Less
 
#12 ·
Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More

just got home and read through the review quickly.

I was more impressed by the charts you provided. I really liked that.
Amazing how much the t/s parameters differed on the Hertz drivers. 28%?! Wow.
And they Dyns seemed to have the most accuracy from driver to driver.


The WT3 results from the 'optimal' box are also interesting. You'll note that some drivers (such as the Alpine F1) have a double impedance spike, which I find a bit odd. I've only seen this in a ported enclosure. Just struck me as odd.

Also, something that caught my eye was the impedance/phase plot of the Morel 3" driver. Nearly ruler flat up to 3khz, yet ranked as one of the poorest drivers. Guess it goes to show you that even nominal results on a graph are no substitue for your ears. ;)


I'll have some more time to check it out tomorrow. I'd like to populate the data into excel and see if there's a relation to the % difference and how they ranked, and also the fs of the driver in the optimal enclosure to how it ranked.
Hmmm...


Thanks again, Jerry (and crew).

- Erin


Edit: Question: You noted that you used two different sized boxes. You noted that you were shooting for a Qtc of .707. However, I didn't see in the review that you did, in fact, load or unload a box of needed size so that you would be able to get the Qtc you want. The data supports this by showing varying Qtc values for each WT3 sweep in the enclosure. This seems to be to be an inhibitor to the test. Can you explain why you placed so much emphasis on the nominal Qtc rating of .707, yet you did not desire to achieve it during the actual test? :confused:

Sorry to start flinging poo already, but I found the emphasis placed on the nominal Qtc combined with the fact that you did not achieve this value or close to it in each test ironic. Maybe Gary of Jeff would like to field this, because I know they were helping you out with the test method. I could make arguments both for and against it. I'd just like to hear the rationale why you chose not to do this.
 
#30 · (Edited)
Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More

Ok, after this has had some time to sink in, a few more things come to mind. I'm challenging myself to keep it short:

1. Blind testing! Very good - troublesome to do - hard to challenge and not so much subjective! thanks!

2. The same driver in 5 different enclosures/angles/installations can sound VASTLY different... this test (while well done) was necessarily limited and thus doesn't preclude a driver from the lower tiers performing much better in a different scenario... still a good starting point thoughl

3. This test does indeed seem to confirm a long held belief that a spec sheet won't tell you how a driver will sound (although they have their uses). Loved this:
. Guess it goes to show you that even nominal results on a graph are no substitue for your ears. ;)
4. Santana as a reference track? Always suspected he produces with ipod headphone listeners in mind. (one of the artists I've always wished would produce a couple audiophile discs - but hasn't)

5. Currently gathering the test music (any sound tracks for sale? /smirk) - hoping to hear some acoustic instruments, percussion, dense passages & dynamics, in addition to vocals.

6. I listen to music quite loud in the car. I know my Scans handle high volume with very little to no signs of stress at high outputs - suspect that is an important factor for many - possibly category for future testers?

7. I'd love to hear the new Scan Illuminator 12MU's. New tech = a REAL winner? No one here using these yet?

Thanks again.
Jim

NOTE - I sent DAT the file, figured someone else has gotten the others.
 
#13 ·
Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More

appreciate the work done folks, glad to see DIYMA is getting back to its roots to some degree

seems that the bandpass chosen would limit the potential of those drivers designed to play a wider band, just maybe

and why did you all decide not present the distortion data, and or frequency response info?

there is a lot of QUALITY subjective information, but it almost makes discussion impossible to a certain degree without presenting the FR data as a basis, to overcome say a) car vs home, wider bandpass, driver tuning, sensitivity vs power, and of course "he" heard vs "we" heard etc

very shocked at the tier 4/ and especially 5 drivers

stakes big guts though to take the time to do this work, and put it out there for consumption A+ folks


 
#20 ·
Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More

Got the results , Great test! :)
GOOD JOB !

Can I post the results on our israeli main audio forum? ( carsforum.co.il )
 
#24 ·
Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More

Ok I read over the results some more and I have a few question about the subjective listening test part.

If a driver were tonally accurate but were unable to create any real feeling or emotion to the music, they were not overly detailed, and did not produce an accurate sound stage. An increase in the high pass crossover frequency or slope would seem to help.

How does it rank lower then a driver with the following subjective comments. Is it the info in Bold above?

play with some detail but lacked richness and depth, sounding very dead and lifeless on most musical passages.

or

Detailed but dry with not much more to offer aside from great looks. These are great to show off as long as the speakers stay off.

or

sound very distorted and therefore makes it almost impossible to decipher what you are hearing. There were some high frequency detail aspects during songs, but the overall detail was poor due to the muted and muffled instrumentation.

or

the speaker created an almost hollow quality to the music, struggled to produce an accurate soundstage with instrumentation overpowering the voices at inappropriate times. The only redeeming quality with these speakers was their ability to play male and female vocals with some sense of accuracy.

or even this comment

The sound stage seemed well placed with just a fair amount of depth. Male and Female vocals sounded good with a full, pleasant quality, although a little too gruff and flat sounding on lower vocals and music. There was nothing these seemed to do bad, but nothing really great either as the music was not real lively and lacked emotion. One tester noted, “nothing really wrong, but they put me to sleep.”


ect....

The reason I ask is Tonal Accuracy is what most look for and not being overly detailed.

If it is the comments in Bold here is my take.

Sound stage in mobile audio has tons more to do with install then the driver itself. Emotion Feel is a human emotion and as I have done tests on many drives, the ones that gave me the most Emotion feel were not even the best in the test. If I missed something in your comments please point them out.:confused::blush:

Not being combative or knocking the results and anyone who knows me would tell you the same. I just would like to be a little clear on the subjective part of the test. Maybe there was something not being said, but I doubt it as seen from some of the other comments.

Also from my understanding it was supposed to be more a technical testing then a subjective one, but the ranking was done on subjective listening. The Tier is just another way of ranking or placement based on the subjective listening, Not based on technical info.

So this quote seem not to be exactly true. Still some spoon feeding and not exactly tested on there own merits.
Nothing against you MiniVanMan just using your post as you had connect with the reviewers.

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

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

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


and

x2 on this question: Can you explain why you placed so much emphasis on the nominal Qtc rating of .707, yet you did not desire to achieve it during the actual test?

But once more I still say great job and I truly thank you guy/gals for the effort it took to do this.
 
#25 ·
Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More

Nobody seemed too concerned when he revealed the reasoning behind the enclosure volumes 3 weeks ago.
http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/1013237-post287.html

There was a lot of emphasis placed on Qtc in the report. I took it to mean that if you decide to go with this speaker, then this is the enclosure size you want to shoot for to get "optimal" results.
 
#27 ·
Re: 4" Midrange Comparison Shootout - Dyn, Scan, Hat, More

Well id just like to say my horse didn't place where I would have liked but im not getting teary eyed about it. Its making me think twice. :cool: This undertaking was epic and the format in which you have presented the results is as professional as any I have seen before. I hope in the future others strive to reach the bar that you have set. Bravo!


:beerchug:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top