Erik
Active Member
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2018
- Messages
- 137
- Likes
- 271
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17042View attachment 53251
Sorry for the OT, but where did you get this graph? I've been looking for it for some time.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=17042View attachment 53251
Sorry for the OT, but where did you get this graph? I've been looking for it for some time.
As I have shown in the pictures of Harman listening room, the speaker is placed in the center of the room and the listener likewise sits there and listens directly at the speaker on-axis. Nothing is toed in but the effect is that way.It seems like you have more information than I have. We concluded earlier that 3m is the most likely distance, but what makes you think the speakers were "toed in completely toward the listener"?
It seems like you have more information than I have. We concluded earlier that 3m is the most likely distance, but what makes you think the speakers were "toed in completely toward the listener"? What makes you think there was only a single listening seat and that the speaker being tested was always pointed towards it? It doesn't seem obvious to me that the speaker shuffler rotates to always point the speaker towards the listener - in pictures/videos of the shuffler we never see any rotation, the speaker is always pointed towards the back of the room. Maybe @amirm can clarify?
Anyway… I think if we really wanted to be rigorous about calculating scores based on the full listening window, we should not use the LW average, because, as discussed many times before, averages are misleading and can unfairly inflate the score. Instead I suspect the ideal way would be to calculate the Olive score at every angle included in the LW, and then provide the score for each angle, along with a recommendation in the lines of "best score 5.8 achieved at +10° horizontal, worst score 5.0 achieved on-axis" (which basically translates to "don't toe-in this speaker!"). That's significantly more complicated than the current calculations, but nothing that a bit of code can't crack
So it seems they accounted for the intended listening axis when provided vertically, but not horizontally, though in my experience it's much less common for manufacturers to specify horizontal positioning unless it's specifically on axis.
Yep. And I understand this is the main argument behind your insightful suggestion of using LW instead of On-Axis: the protocol of the study, where listening is always done exactly on-axis, doesn't match real world scenarios where people move around the speaker. My suggestion is, instead of calculating the score from the LW, a more accurate way to solve the problem is to calculate the score at every angle within the LW to eliminate the possibility of the speaker looking better due to averaging.
So, I've been measuring quickly with RTA full-range Pink Noise PN in rew as per the the video. Here's the result;You may also find this article about MMM interesting.
So, I've been measuring quickly with RTA full-range Pink Noise PN in rew as per the the video. Here's the result;
View attachment 53394
How does it look? SBIR I can't do anything about because the subs doesn't sound very good above 120-150 ish. I can't figure out how to calibrate the SPL level in the RTA, so ignore absolute levels.
And what about Harbeth's dip at 500Hz?
Btw, Harbeth's dip between 2700 and 5000Hz is exactly in the area where our ears are most sensitive.
Sorry, I simply can't have confidence in a scoring system that gives slight advantage to Harbeth as I cannot believe blind listening test would confirm it.
Let's try to level match 2 PIRs to get the idea how they would sound in a listening test.
View attachment 53173
That boomy bass and wide dip at 3kHz doesn't look too primising, right? And yet they have the same scoring..
What about that 2dB peak from 1.2 to 1.7kHz? Our ears are quite sensitive in that range too. It may sound like enhanced resolution with a Diana Krell recording but wait 'till you hear what it does to Heifetz's Guarneri del Gesù...
Maybe that's why the designer talks (stresses) about playing them at 'normal' volumes and listening to 'midrange resolution'.
Are you referring to Revel?
Because the it's the Revel that is producing the "unpleasant" peak.
I have also read Shaw mention that Harbeths are balanced to be played at normal volumes. And UK sitting rooms are small, so that makes sense.
I would add that in my opinion such balance suits classical music recordings very nicely.
What a noob Here ya goIt looks pretty good!
As @thewas_ said, try to adjust vertical scale grid to 5dB for better resolution.
I get alot of gain at some positions due to proximity to back wall, so there's a bigger seat to seat variation than I would like in the bass. I did adjust bass down by a couple of dB after this, but didn't remeasure. What I did, though, was sacrifice a little sweet spot graph sexyness for better MMM RTA graph. That hurt my pride a little.A little bit on the bass-heavy side, but still looking good!