• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Spinorama! (also known as CTA/CEA 2034 but that sounds dull, apparently)

OP
Dave Zan

Dave Zan

Active Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
169
Likes
490
Location
Canberra, Australia
...Another thing that I'm not clear about CTA-2034-A that is unclear in the text: Aspect ratios.
... Either it should be 100:1 = 50dB or 10:1 = 25dB...

I don't think the text is unclear, it's just that it's clearly inconsistent with what they actually show.
This is what I had in mind in post #1 when I wrote
The standard has a few more issues with data presentation but I may hold that until I see if any one is actually interested.
Not much interest, no one seemed to like (or "like") the critique, so I let it drop.
So no, you're not crazy, it's just a poorly edited standard.
That's part of the reason why I think the "180, +-90" is a mistake.
I am pleased that we are now close to accord.

Best wishes
David
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,146
Likes
8,711
Location
NYC
I don't think the text is unclear, it's just that it's clearly inconsistent with what they actually show.
This is what I had in mind in post #1 when I wrote

Not much interest, no one seemed to like (or "like") the critique, so I let it drop.
So no, you're not crazy, it's just a poorly edited standard.
That's part of the reason why I think the "180, +-90" is a mistake.
I am pleased that we are now close to accord.

Best wishes
David

Thanks for bringing these issues up! I hope CTA-2035 CTA-2034B clarifies some of them.
 
Last edited:
OP
Dave Zan

Dave Zan

Active Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
169
Likes
490
Location
Canberra, Australia
Hopefully the new revision planned for this summer will be better proof read.
https://standards.cta.tech/apps/group_public/project/details.php?project_id=540

I am still keen to obtain a copy and surprised that I can't find any obvious contact for public comment.
What does it mean in the link?
Public Review:
45


...I hope CTA-2035 clarifies some of them.
Small point but I think it will be CTA 2034-B rather than 2035.

Best wishes
David
 
Last edited:

NTK

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
2,708
Likes
5,973
Location
US East
Small point but I think it will be CTA 2034-B rather than 2035.
I am still keen to obtain a copy and surprised that I can't find any obvious contact for public comment.

Best wishes
David
Unfortunately, I don't think it is open to public. To participate in their standards program, you'll have to pay a yearly fee. To vote, you'll probably need to attend their meetings too.
https://standards.cta.tech/kwspub/join/
https://www.eventbrite.com/e/cta-st...ption-for-non-cta-members-tickets-56936819560
 
OP
Dave Zan

Dave Zan

Active Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
169
Likes
490
Location
Canberra, Australia
... you'll have to pay a yearly fee. To vote, you'll probably need to attend...

Yes, I saw the fee, and I don't expect to vote.
But I am surprised there is not some form of input from users of the standard, we do find mistakes.
Especially since there's the weird Public Review field.

Best wishes
David
 

NTK

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
2,708
Likes
5,973
Location
US East
Yes, I saw the fee, and I don't expect to vote.
But I am surprised there is not some form of input from users of the standard, we do find mistakes.
Especially since there's the weird Public Review field.

Best wishes
David
Yes. Very confusing. But if you are interested enough, may be you can send them an email. They do say at the bottom of the working group project page -- Send Comments To: [email protected]
 

bobbooo

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
1,479
Likes
2,079
Some of you might have already seen this, but I came across a whole list of clearly defined standards by the AES for audio electronics and acoustics measurements, experiments etc. on their site: http://www.aes.org/publications/standards/

As Sean Olive's AES profile says he's on the Standards Committee for Loudspeaker Modeling and Measurement, I think we can safely assume he used these standards when taking the measurements of speakers his preference formula is based on, and so following these same AES standards would produce measurements and so predicted preference scores from his formula that correlate most highly with actual preference. Here's that particular standards document: http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/aessc/20200129/aes-05id-1997-s2019-i.pdf. Maybe these standards could be used in conjunction with / to clarify parts of the CEA 2034 that seem ambiguous or lacking.

I'm not an AES member, but if anyone who is wants to have a read of it, it may contain some useful information. These documents also might come in handy:
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/aessc/20200129/aes02-2012-i.pdf
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/aessc/20200129/aes56-2008-r2019-i.pdf
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/aessc/20200129/aes-01id-2012-r2017-i.pdf
(The last one probably isn't relevant as it seems to be about plane-wave tubes, but does mention mic placement in the contents so might have some useful nuggets of info.)
 

mitchco

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Audio Company
Joined
May 24, 2016
Messages
643
Likes
2,408
[email protected] Leslie King is the project admin for the CTA projects we are interested in. Please reach out to her for more details. I contacted her a while back about joining, but I have been too busy. She sent me this:
As for participating in the work group developing version B of CTA-2034, our standards process is open, and one doesn’t have to be a CTA member to participate in our standards efforts. However, there is a fee to participate as a non-member – learn more here.
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,146
Likes
8,711
Location
NYC
Some more fuel to the fire:

Was looking through some of the klippel documentation again and took a second glance at this.

Snag_6c0d5fc4.png


Once again, we only only see three rear angles used for the early reflections calculation. 180 degrees and +/- 90.

It seems no one knows the truth of the early reflections curve. The mystery continueso_O
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,595
Likes
239,574
Location
Seattle Area
I had seen that graph and meant to contact Klippel but forgot. I just sent them an email. Should get an answer next week. Good news is that they would have the contacts to get this clarified. Will keep you all posted as to what I hear.
 

LeftCoastTim

Senior Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Apr 15, 2019
Messages
375
Likes
757
Some more fuel to the fire:

Was looking through some of the klippel documentation ....

I'm very intrigued by their description of IEC 62777. Does that mean Klippel can measure laptops, small personal speakers (like say JBL Flip) and such? That would be awesome to see for some of the tiny speakers out here (like for JBL 104).
 
OP
Dave Zan

Dave Zan

Active Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2019
Messages
169
Likes
490
Location
Canberra, Australia
Some more fuel to the fire:
... early reflections calculation. 180 degrees and +/- 90.

Well spotted, and perfectly likely that Klippel only uses the 3 points, the standard can be read that way.
I'm still not convinced that this is what the standard intended to mean.
It just doesn't make sense to me acoustically.
So it's wonderful if Klippel actually have contacts to confirm the standard's interpretation (as opposed to what Klippel have actually done).
Either we will fix a misinterpretation or I will have to rethink my ideas.
Thanks to Amir for his help.

Best wishes
David
 
Last edited:

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,146
Likes
8,711
Location
NYC
Well spotted, and perfectly likely that Klippel only uses the 3 points, the standard can be read that way.
I'm still not convinced that this is what the standard intended to mean.
It just doesn't make sense to me acoustically.
So it's wonderful if Klippel actually have contacts to confirm the standard's interpretation (as opposed to what Klippel have actually done).
Either we will fix a misinterpretation or I will have to rethink my ideas.
Thanks to Amir for his help.

Best wishes
David

I've also reached out to my contacts at Harman PR to ask a Harman engineer, and pointed them to this thread, so we'll hopefully find out sooner or later.:)
 
Last edited:

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,146
Likes
8,711
Location
NYC
Well, I still haven't heard back from anyone, but was reading an unrelated part of Toole's book again, and saw some indirect further fuel for the fire. Toole seems to understand the Early Reflections curve to only include a single curve from the rear hemisphere, the 180 degree one (+/- 90 exists in both hemispheres, of course).

"If the loudspeaker under test is a horizontally symmetrical forward-firing design the early-reflections calculation involves only 18 measurements to embrace the floor, ceiling, one side wall, rear and front wall reflection estimates. Asymmetrical designs require both side walls and both left and right front -wall data points, bringing the sum to 26 measurements. All but one of these (the 180 ° measurement) are in the front hemisphere."

(Page 132 of the third edition)

So, this once again points to the only rear data being included in the ER curve being the +/-90 and 180 degree curves, not an average ranging from 90 to 180 in 180 degree increments.

Also note that the above quote also seems to include a typo. A horizontally symmetrical speaker should only need 17 measurements, not 18: 0, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, and 180 horizontal, and -20, -30, -40, +40, +50, +60 vertical.

Since Toole seems to think the ER curve is calculated with just three rear curves, that's what I'm going with unless told otherwise. Still doesn't clarify if the measurement is an average of averages or a simple average of all the measurements though.
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,146
Likes
8,711
Location
NYC
Klippel confirmed they also use three measurements.

Welp, I guess that settles it for now - thanks for checking! Regardless of what the purpose in the original devantier paper was, it seems this is what is being used in all the graphs we see. Small differences anyway, but good to know for consistency's sake.

Did klippel by any give any indication as to whether they do a simple average of all the listed measurements or an average of five averages? The latter weighs vertical measurements a bit more heavily.
 

twelti

Member
Technical Expert
Joined
Jan 25, 2020
Messages
14
Likes
80
Sorry Guys, I haven't been keeping up! I don't have time to read through all of the above, can someone summarize any still unresolved issues? I'll try to clarify if I can. I also have a HATS file that does the Spin calculation, so I can look at that to get another reference.
 
Top Bottom