I'd definitely change HF cap to chinese red MKPThey were on sale for 140€ a few years back so I decided to hoard a pair. Subjectively I'd say I enjoy them more than some of my far more expensive, larger bookshelves from certain British and French mf's.
Fun fact: they really skimped on the crossover. Partly 1st order (and the tiniest, nastiest bipolars in the business) Now that I think of it, the resulting frequency/amplitude graph is killin' it, considering.
View attachment 142248
Preference Rating
SCORE: 3.1
SCORE w/ sub: 5.7
Not sure if you can call it a direct replacement. Here the spektor 1 costs ~38% lower and has a 4" woofer instead of the Zensor 1's 5".Spektor 1 replaced the Zensor 1, but they look cheaper, and it looks like they perform worse as well (Zensor is quite flat off axis, and like all Dali speakers, they are not designed for on axis listening).
Calling @MZKMI'm testing possibilities to add calculation of preference rating to VituixCAD, but everything is not clear for me. So few questions:
1) How do you calculate score with (ideal) sub? Do you set LFX=0 (and LFQ=0 with equation 10) or some other small constant?
2) How do you calculate SM? Patent application says that "SM is the Pearson correlation coefficient of determination (r^2)..." (such as RSQ function in Excel). Problem is that r^2 is closing to 0 if slope of Y is zero so for example SM_ON is very small (=worst possible) with flat horizontal response. That does not make sense because flat is typical target for on-axis. This causes problems with both Equation 9 and 10 including at least one SM.
Using regression line as X in SM calculation does not change anything because slope of Y is still close to zero with flat responses.
Mean squared error to linear regression works much better, but result needs some scaling e.g. 1/(1+err/2.5) to be more compatible with r^2 for tilting curves such as PIR and SP. Another cheap trick would be tilting SPL responses down at HF to get higher correlation also for on-axis.
In addition, flat on-axis target is missing in Equation 9 so optimizing crossover with preference rating could create total disaster - for example by attenuating LW at HF to get LFX down -> Y1 up.
One more comment about LFX. Patent application suggests SP for LFX and LFQ calculation which looks assumption that bass radiators are omni-directional. Not for example dipole or cardioid with DI~5 dB. Both LFX_SP and LFX_LW (and LFQ_SP and LFQ_LW) should be calculated, and smaller one selected for Y1 calculation in order to support DI >> 0 below 300 Hz.
1) For score with sub, I overwrite the actual LFX extension and give it a fixed extension which is I think between 14 & 15 Hz; I chose this as it's what I computed to give a score of 10 if all other parameters where at max (even though theoretically impossible). Some other people calculating a similar score simply use 20Hz, some have argued my method inflates the score too much; but it's never been tested (and we still don't have anything >9) so I don't really care.I'm testing possibilities to add calculation of preference rating to VituixCAD, but everything is not clear for me. So few questions:
1) How do you calculate score with (ideal) sub? Do you set LFX=0 (and LFQ=0 with equation 10) or some other small constant?
2) How do you calculate SM? Patent application says that "SM is the Pearson correlation coefficient of determination (r^2)..." (such as RSQ function in Excel). Problem is that r^2 is closing to 0 if slope of Y is zero so for example SM_ON is very small (=worst possible) with flat horizontal response. That does not make sense because flat is typical target for on-axis. This causes problems with both Equation 9 and 10 including at least one SM.
Using regression line as X in SM calculation does not change anything because slope of Y is still close to zero with flat responses.
Mean squared error to linear regression works much better, but result needs some scaling e.g. 1/(1+err/2.5) to be more compatible with r^2 for tilting curves such as PIR and SP. Another cheap trick would be tilting SPL responses down at HF to get higher correlation also for on-axis.
In addition, flat on-axis target is missing in Equation 9 so optimizing crossover with preference rating could create total disaster - for example by attenuating LW at HF to get LFX down -> Y1 up.
One more comment about LFX. Patent application suggests SP for LFX and LFQ calculation which looks assumption that bass radiators are omni-directional. Not for example dipole or cardioid with DI~5 dB. Both LFX_SP and LFX_LW (and LFQ_SP and LFQ_LW) should be calculated, and smaller one selected for Y1 calculation in order to support DI >> 0 below 300 Hz.
"ASR" does not use the preference score. Members are computing and reporting it.* Equation 9 (which ASR uses)
The index is maintained by members, and has even reviews performed by others. It is not an ASR thing. None of my reviews have any preference scores.^Table at Speaker Review and Measurement Index is able to sort records with Score and Score /w sub so ASR uses results calculated with equation 9. You better go to sleep and stop nitpicking if nothing smarter to tell us.
One more obnoxious and rude remark from you and you will be banned.
Equation 10 isn't used by any of us (as Olive found it didn't work will with the larger set), so any items that could be improved haven't been looked at too much.^Thanks MZKM! This is off-topic in Dali Spektor 1 thread, but short comments:
I already added calculation and maximizing (with Optimizer) of predicted preference rating to VituixCAD. Differences to patent application by Olive are listed in user manual. Both equations (9 and 10) visible in the patent are available for users.
* Equation 9 (which ASR uses) does not include requirement for on-axis tilt. Tilt can be almost anything so bad sound balance can produce high score if NBDs, LFX and SM_PIR are good. Negative tilt (of LW) produces higher LFX which could increase the problem with automatic iteration. Equation 9 is available for comparison to e.g. ASR, but cannot be recommended for design purposes.
* r^2 is sensitive to absolute value of slope. Certain (usually higher) slopes give higher correlation than slopes close to zero or infinite. r^2 as SM is replaced with scaled 'mean squared error to linear regression' in VituixCAD because equation 10 includes also SM_ON (and SM_SP). Equation 10 includes also AAD_ON so requirement for on-axis tilt is secured, but I prefer logical and stable variables anyway.
* NBD is calculated with "moving" smoothing of 1/2 oct with 6th order Butterworth BP slope because it's available and continuously symmetrical i.e. does not create any steps or variable weights within each band. I have not investigated how much difference this causes compared to calculation with fixed 1/2 oct bands.
* LFX and LFQ 'with sub' are set equal to But18 HP at 17.5 Hz limiting score to 10.0 with equation 9 (max with equation 10 is higher).
* Smoothing for NBD (and AAD) is 1/33 oct because VituixCAD already has internal 1/48 oct. scale. Measurements at home with time window are usually smoothed at mid-range so preference ratings are probably higher while XO simulation than for final speaker measured in large anechoic or with NFS.
* LFX calculation is able to select LW instead of SP for directive LF radiators such as dipoles and cardioids. SP alone is not universal enough for detecting -6 dB point relative to LW at mid...high.
Main/official VituixCAD thread is on HTguide where we can continue if necessary.
I've asked removing my username already twice so just do it and don't write any threats.
Yes, just keep it cool. Just remind yourself that humans are inherently limited, and accept their limitations.I've asked removing my username already twice so just do it and don't write any threats.
Not sure if you can call it a direct replacement. Here the spektor 1 costs ~38% lower and has a 4" woofer instead of the Zensor 1's 5".