'Identical' speakers sound different - am I going crazy?

What's Hot
Hoping someone can give me a reality check... I want to do some speaker & cab comparisons. The only drivers & cabs I've got two of are 2x Emi CRex & 2x Montage 1x12 cabs. So I was hoping I could accurately compare either two different drivers in identical cabs. Or two different cabs each loaded with identical speakers. So, just to check I was on solid ground, I loaded the 2x CRex into the 2x Montage 1x12 expecting them to sound identical when A/B'd. Sounds plausible, doesn't it?

But no! They sound different. One more open/forward, the other more subdued. They are both directly on the floor. I've tried swapping their positions. I've tried them close to a wall & away from the wall. And I can always identify which one's which.

Anybody else tried a similar experiment? Any else had this experience?

0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom

Comments

  • ecc83ecc83 Frets: 1589
    Yes, just for the craic I wired each of 4 speakers in a 4x12 to a 4 way rotary switch and fed it rock music.
    Each switch position gave a different 'colour' to the sound. It is extremely difficult to make consistent pulp cones.
    This especially bothers the (proper!) hi fi and monitor industries as the two speakers need to be as identical as possible to get accurate stereo imaging.

    Dave.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71957
    Not unusual, although for them to be *that* obviously different isn't especially common unless there's a radical difference in the amount of use they've had, particularly if one is new and hasn't been broken in properly yet.

    That's at least one advantage the hi-fi people have with foam/rubber edge surrounds and (relatively) stiffer cones, they don't really have a significant break-in in the same way as doped paper/cloth surrounds and 'ribbed' cones do.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBM said:
    Not unusual, although for them to be *that* obviously different isn't especially common unless there's a radical difference in the amount of use they've had, particularly if one is new and hasn't been broken in properly yet.

    Both these CRex are thoroughly broken in. I struggle to think that's the cause.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ecc83ecc83 Frets: 1589
    "That's at least one advantage the hi-fi people have with foam/rubber edge surrounds and (relatively) stiffer cones, they don't really have a significant break-in in the same way as doped paper/cloth surrounds and 'ribbed' cones do."

    Very logical IC ^ Does not stop some of the crazy bastables going on about it! I can live with the concept for guitar speakers, they have a hard life but monitors should be top spec out of the box and at least one very respected designer/reviewer agrees with me.

    I would also agree that the difference is not so obvious with just a guitar signal but almost nothing 'matches' if you use pink noise!

    Dave.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • De_BatzDe_Batz Frets: 117
    Break-in is one of those things that some folk swear by and some deny. There's an interesting Hop Pole video where he compares the sounds at new, 1 hour and 24 hours of use, and they're really not that different. I think a couple of my sets of speakers have aged a bit (Jensen P10Rs - I think they sound better now, but perhaps I'm just better at dialling the amp and adjusting my playing), but I wouldn't swear to it. 

    This idea that seems to go around that (for example) V30s suck very hard unless they've been played at 130dB for 20000 hours is - to me - voodoo. 

    Anyway, I'd expect two speakers of the same type to be different enough for me to tell that there is a difference some of the time, but a lot more of that will in any given situation be to do with where they are in the room and where I am standing than the speakers themselves. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • SassafrasSassafras Frets: 30273
    One of them might be more knackered than the other.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Thanks for all your thoughts. I remain mystified...
    - both CRex are only 3-4 years old, bought less than a year apart.
    - none of my speakers has received anything close to a thrashing
    - I'm methodical with breaking in - they get 9vac for 48hrs - & there's a minor but perceptible mellowing afterwards.

    Of course, it's impossible to do a true A/B before & after break in. Now I think on it, the difference I'm hearing now between the two is perhaps similar to the difference pre- & post- break in.

    I think I'm going to have to run with the idea that no two speakers are ever made quite identical.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ICBMICBM Frets: 71957

    Of course, it's impossible to do a true A/B before & after break in.
    It’s fairly easy really...

    Fit two ‘identical’ new speakers into matching cabs, and record them or just listen to them. There may be a difference, but you can use each as a reference for the other. Then break one in but not the other, by whatever means you want. Then listen/record them again, and you will be able to tell if/how the broken-in one has changed relative to the unused one. (And if you want to, then break in the second one and see if it follows the first.)

    This has been done, and break-in is an absolutely real and provable process. It does depend on the type of speakers, but both the result and the physical reasons for it are legitimate and not ‘confirmation bias’. It’s mostly due to the stiff, doped edge surround on guitar-type speakers softening when flexed, but the cone itself is affected a bit as well.

    Hi-fi speakers don’t use that type of construction any more, the goal is a speaker cone which moves as a single unit without any resistance, so they’ve gone to much stiffer cones with much softer surrounds, using materials which don’t change with use in the same way.

    "Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski

    "Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer Simpson

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • Thanks @ICBM I hadn't thought of starting with two NEW speakers!! I've viewed recording as an unreliable comparison because everything has to be positioned identically for each recording - especially mic position relative to the cone.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ecc83ecc83 Frets: 1589
    There was a very famous early loudspeaker experimenter, G.A.Briggs of Wharfedale fame. He advocated running a woofer on an LF signal (6.3V heater supply is handy) to 'age' the roll surround and spider thereby giving about a 10% drop in resonant frequency. He did NOT claim any other "Wonder" or "night and day" differences because of this process. As ICBM says above, hi fi cones are much thicker and stiffer (why they are up to 20dB less sensitive) than guitar speakers and it beggars belief that they will change much after even 48 hours of thrashing? And IF they did, will they continue to change?

    Furthermore if "I" spent £2K per monitor I would expect the fekking thing to be right, 'out of the box'!

    Dave.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.