Erin's Audio Corner gets a Klippel NFS!

[richard12511]

Hello, you can use my comparator: it has a few bugs but usually it works pretty well: click here, scroll down if you don't see the 2 drop boxes, select your speakers (ASR, Princeton, Erins ...) and voila.

View attachment 113138

Here are Revel 208 v.s. 328. If Erins is kind enough do give the data for each reviewed speaker, I will add them to the database.

P.S.: Erins: Amazing job!

That's awesome. I could tell the F208 and F328 were really similar, but seeing it like this illustrates it well. Main difference seems to be F208 has better extension, and F328 has more wiggles(due to the higher resolution). I'm guessing Erin's R3 would score higher by the Olive metric.

 

[hardisj]

If Erins is kind enough do give the data for each reviewed speaker, I will add them to the database.

Of course! I’m just not there yet with any of this. But for my reviews I will provide the data. I’ll have to take a look at what Amir provides and try to match that so none of you guys have to change your scripts or settings.

 

[Jdunk54nl]

I'm not quite there yet reminds me of this song:

I love Hobo Johnson

 

[hardisj]

Playing around with using my iPhone with the Hyperlapse app to make a quick timelapse of the NFS in action. This is something I will do for all my video reviews to show off the NFS a bit cause it's just too cool not to show it off.

Yes, the phone isn't ideal. I will have to try to find a cheap used GoPro. And the lighting could be better. Blah blah blah... But this kind of gives you all an idea of the NFS in motion. This 30 seconds is about 5 minutes worth of measurement.

 

[HooStat]

Just curious as to whether you have any height limitations on speakers you can test. Or does the Klippel allow you to lower the base on which the speaker sits?

 

[amirm]

Just curious as to whether you have any height limitations on speakers you can test. Or does the Klippel allow you to lower the base on which the speaker sits?

No, the base is fixed. And yes, you are limited in height. I had to get the "Z-extension" for mine which allowed me -- if I remember right -- to measure a speaker that is 6 foot high. This requires a ceiling that is 12+ feet which I happened to have in one spot in my garage. Erin's system is without that so I think he is limited to 4 foot or something like that.

 

[hardisj]

No, the base is fixed. And yes, you are limited in height. I had to get the "Z-extension" for mine which allowed me -- if I remember right -- to measure a speaker that is 6 foot high. This requires a ceiling that is 12+ feet which I happened to have in one spot in my garage. Erin's system is without that so I think he is limited to 4 foot or something like that.

I think it’s actually less than that because the mic has to come down to the cone origin on the frame. I want to say it’s something like 38 inches.

However, I think I might be able to get around this a bit with the R-extension and laying the speaker on its side and change the orientation vector. Christian mentioned this. I need to ask him again to clarify if I understood him correctly. I actually have a JBL tower speaker for review and I’m not looking forward to going back to the old methods if I can’t make it work on the NFS. That’s gonna suck.

 

[sweetchaos]

@hardisj
You don't adjust the NFS to your garage... you adjust the garage to your NFS!
This calls for...a bigger garage!

 

[hardisj]

@hardisj
You don't adjust the NFS to your garage... you adjust the garage to your NFS!
This calls for...a bigger garage!

That would be the dream. Maybe when I retire. But by then speakers will all be compact and I won’t need it anymore.

 

[Jdunk54nl]

That would be the dream. Maybe when I retire. But by then speakers will all be compact and I won’t need it anymore.

By then the speakers will be implanted into us!

 

[Matias]

Playing around with using my iPhone with the Hyperlapse app to make a quick timelapse of the NFS in action. This is something I will do for all my video reviews to show off the NFS a bit cause it's just too cool not to show it off.

Yes, the phone isn't ideal. I will have to try to find a cheap used GoPro. And the lighting could be better. Blah blah blah... But this kind of gives you all an idea of the NFS in motion. This 30 seconds is about 5 minutes worth of measurement.

Looks pretty cool to me with the current video quality. Agreed it is too cool not to show at least a few seconds every video.

 

[richard12511]

The actual sweep itself takes a specific amount of time, as I mentioned above. If I go from 3Hz resolution you 1.5Hz resolution, it goes from .3 to .6 seconds.

But, yes, you are right. It doesn’t add a lot time, I suppose. I just don’t know if it’s really worth it. 3Hz resolution to 1.5Hz? I mean.... what is that in terms of octave steps? Either are certainly much finer than 1/20. Right?

And, again, what we are talking about appears to not even be a factor. Just look at the data overlay @napilopez provided above as evidence. I think that shores up the argument that the two are practically the same when smoothing is applied. The differences appear in upper midrange and treble and I have already established the mic cage is a strong factor there.

My vote would be Yes, it would be useful to do the 1.5Hz resolution, for a few reasons:

1. Looks more similar to Amir's data. I think the more similar the data looks for speakers that both of y'all measure, the more trustworthy both of your measurements become in the eyes of many.

2. Better for more complex speakers. The R3 is a pretty straightforward speaker to measure with no high Q dips or peaks. I think @napilopez did a great job showing that the difference is pretty meaningless here, but what happens with a speaker like the 705p that has a really severe yet high Q dip? Will the lower resolution hide that a bit? What about a more complex port/woofer situation like the F328Be or Salon2?

3. More future proof. My life experience so far has taught me that extra data is often a great thing to have for the purposes of futureproofing your work. "Too much" data today is a better problem to have than "too little" data 5 to 10 years from now. Who knows, 10 years from now, maybe we'll have machine learning algorithms reading this NFS data that you guys are making now, and the higher the resolution is, the more accurate the machine's predictions will be. This is definitely speculation on my part, but I'm trying to think outside the box . As an analogue, the due to the nature of film data, we can now see 4k Ultra HD bluray versions of films made in the 60s, which no one in the 60s had a 4k tv at home to appreciate.

Kinda related to 2 and 3, but higher resolution graphs for easy speakers like this now will also be more comparable to future graphs in the event that you have to increase resolution to capture a more complex speaker. Amir's already had up the resolution to higher than what he did for the R3 on at least a couple speakers to keep the error low and fully capture the bass(F328Be, LRS). Those reviews look slightly different than his other reviews because of that.

Ultimately, it's your decision, and your extra time, so do what you think is best. If you're measuring several speakers a day, I could see why 2hrs vs 4hrs could be a big deal, but if it's 1/day or 1 every other day or something, I would think there's very little to no opportunity cost; especially given that it's automated and you don't have to be there.

 

[HooStat]

I actually have a JBL tower speaker for review and I’m not looking forward to going back to the old methods if I can’t make it work on the NFS. That’s gonna suck.

At least it is nice outside.

 

[MZKM]

As an analogue, the due to the nature of film data, we can now see 4k Ultra HD bluray versions of films made in the 60s, which no one in the 60s had a 4k tv at home to appreciate.

Yep, and the same reason why Seinfeld can get an HD remaster but The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air cannot. Seinfeld was shot on film while Fresh Prince was shot on digital tape.

 

[q3cpma]

My vote would be Yes, it would be useful to do the 1.5Hz resolution, for a few reasons:

1. Looks more similar to Amir's data. I think the more similar the data looks for speakers that both of y'all measure, the more trustworthy both of your measurements become in the eyes of many.

2. Better for more complex speakers. The R3 is a pretty straightforward speaker to measure with no high Q dips or peaks. I think @napilopez did a great job showing that the difference is pretty meaningless here, but what happens with a speaker like the 705p that has a really severe yet high Q dip? Will the lower resolution hide that a bit? What about a more complex port/woofer situation like the F328Be or Salon2?

3. More future proof. My life experience so far has taught me that extra data is often a great thing to have for the purposes of futureproofing your work. "Too much" data today is a better problem to have than "too little" data 5 to 10 years from now. Who knows, 10 years from now, maybe we'll have machine learning algorithms reading this NFS data that you guys are making now, and the higher the resolution is, the more accurate the machine's predictions will be. This is definitely speculation on my part, but I'm trying to think outside the box . As an analogue, the due to the nature of film data, we can now see 4k Ultra HD bluray versions of films made in the 60s, which no one in the 60s had a 4k tv at home to appreciate.

Kinda related to 2 and 3, but higher resolution graphs for easy speakers like this now will also be more comparable to future graphs in the event that you have to increase resolution to capture a more complex speaker. Amir's already had up the resolution to higher than what he did for the R3 on at least a couple speakers to keep the error low and fully capture the bass(F328Be, LRS). Those reviews look slightly different than his other reviews because of that.

Ultimately, it's your decision, and your extra time, so do what you think is best. If you're measuring several speakers a day, I could see why 2hrs vs 4hrs could be a big deal, but if it's 1/day or 1 every other day or something, I would think there's very little to no opportunity cost; especially given that it's automated and you don't have to be there.

This. Due to the quality of Klippel's results, a speaker measured by it may never be measured again, better make it as good as possible the first time.

 

[hardisj]

Have you decided what speaker's going to be your first real review Erin?

Missed this earlier.

Probably the Dutch & Dutch 8c since I’ve had it for so dang long.

I’ve been using the Kef R3 for my test subject since Amir had tested it and I would have something to compare to. So although it’ll probably be finished testing first, I’ll likely drop the D&D review first.

 

[richard12511]

Missed this earlier.

Probably the Dutch & Dutch 8c since I’ve had it for so dang long.

I’ve been using the Kef R3 for my test subject since Amir had tested it and I would have something to compare to. So although it’ll probably be finished testing first, I’ll likely drop the D&D review first.

Super pumped to see the 8C!

 

[hardisj]

Super pumped to see the 8C!

I bet those guys will be super pumped to finally get it back! lol

 

[hardisj]

@amirm can you tell me what settings you use when you export the data? Just so I can do the same and everybody's scripts will work with my data without any changes needed. A screen shot would be perfect if you have the time. No rush... not sure when I'll be ready to publish data. But just asking before I forget.

 

[amirm]

There is nothing to it. Just right click in each 2034 graph and export as txt file. Let it pick the name.