Looking at the speaker and behaviour my hunch is that some loose screw or part inside of the speaker was resonating.
I gave it a fine. It needs work, but considering the price I won't whine about its rudimentary crossover network and thusly lack of compensation for driver behavior, if only they had more consistent construction, the sample we're seeing here clearly had misaligned screw holes, the cabinet/assembly process should be reworked such that less misalignment occurs, and what does occur don't end up with screws breaching out of their holes...
I just posted the same thing on page 8:
www.audiosciencereview.com
Poor crimping on the tweeter connections. The insulation is not crimped at all.
This is oddly satisfying to look atExample of a good crimp:
I don't want to reiterate my argument. We anyway agree in saying that not all that looks Scan is actually Scan. We might agree that the looks of Scan isn't necessary for a good speaker, as there are other technologies with different looks available, which in some criteria superseed Scan in performance.
I am not shure if it is the looks alone. It is pure speculation since there are many potential good and bad parts of the driver which all add up. We only get the measurement of the final results in a box which adds another layer of complexity. I completely agree that the final results doesn't look that good as a scan speak revelator should look like.
Only as a side note regarding knock off stuff: https://www.soundimports.eu/en/peerless-by-tymphany-tc9fd18-08.html
Thanks for the answer. may you link some measurments? Not gonna lie, I am a big fan of Scan Speak, I hear you that it may be mainly about the motor, but I find "mediocre at best" a bit strong but I am not a speaker designer. My speakers are based around the Classic serie 18W/8542-10 which is only very slightly more affordable than revelator, if we can use that word for such expensive drivers, now, I do hear all kind of critics that this big dust cap is wrong, ok but then why does it sound so damn great. And the beauty of speakers... As opposed to electronics, is that the differences are very audible... I do feel that when you've reach this level of performance at designing drivers, you may not have to be perfect at everything but you probably don't design just based on "Let's make our woofers recognisable", I feel like design decision must be coming from some testing, maybe some different measurments than the typical specification metrics, and it may have it's compromises and benifits. But without going trough the design as a whole I sometime find it a bit reaching, even when someone have experience designing drivers to go and say they should have done this or that instead. So it comes down to ok, so why those revelator and illuminators have some visible patterns and not their .lower end. line just because? Or why did they chose paper, or this other material or why these serround are like this or that. In the end, it's the whole thing that's great no? A product is more than the sum of it's part. You could have the best surround, the best material for woofer, the best motor, and still make crap drivers if they don't work well together.
We might not be professionals about acoustics; we might not be industry insiders about speaker measurements and the NFS system; it might even be that we aren't that well-versed as enthusiasts in audio, so we turned to professionals for answers.
audiosciencereview.com
audiosciencereview.com
扣1送地狱火
Honestly, amirm and 鬼斧神工119 are all my respect audio popular science writer, but sometimes he is really a little paranoid. hope that he can seriously reply to the evaluation. But it seems that he doesn't plan to do.
Not an entirely new response here. Amir is more than accommodating in working with the OEM to rectify any tests or test methods that the OEM feels were accomplished in a different manner or take part in a constructive conversation to resolve issues related to the results. Absent this effort on the OEM’s part, not much he can do to change or improve the result’s/conclusions. Just saying that he does not agree with them is far from a scientific actionable argument.
In China, some people who blindly follow the trend will send "one deduction for hell" everywhere. So some people like to use this to refer to those who have no opinions and say what others say. In China's hifi circle, there is such a small group of people who will only repeat some words of the sound maker, attack others everywhere, and call it "science", but they do not really understand these "science", so I use this sentence to refer to these people. The member I replied to knows Chinese, and I am trying to communicate with him using this slang
Well, I'll apologize for him, we're acquaintances in another community (with a vastly different atmosphere and convention for communication). He's still learning the ropes of ASR and its rules w.r.t. posting and communicating, and this is a case where habit from that other community leaked through, we're working on reducing these occurrences.
