Ascend Sierra-1 Klippel on-axis measurements

[JLGF1]

Would you consider these two different on-axis measurement technique deviations to be significant? Or not?

Note: The rest of the Spinorama data is posted on the Ascend site.

 

[Sancus]

Their old technique/software(forgot the name) was definitely a lot worse than the Klippel, and the much improved measurements of their post-Klippel acquisition designs show that pretty clearly as well.

 

[JLGF1]

Their old technique/software(forgot the name) was definitely a lot worse than the Klippel

Yes, the old MSSLA doesn't have Klippel accuracy. GEICO.

I guess I'm wondering how the "a lot worse" old-school plots always seemed to turn out near ruler flat?

 

[Sancus]

Yes, the old MSSLA doesn't have Klippel accuracy. GEICO.

I guess I'm wondering how the "a lot worse" old-school plots always seemed to turn out near ruler flat?

If I had to take a wild guess, the reason for the midrange being "flat" is that the resolution of the measurement there was low. So they or the software extrapolated and the extrapolation was very poor and minimized the dip far more than it should have.

I honestly couldn't guess at the high frequency deviations. Even very basic gated measurements are usually pretty good in the highs.

 

[jhaider]

Looks like an optimistic splice of nearfield and gated data in the top measurement to me. The rest of it looks like reasonable measurement and mic calibration tolerances to me.

 

[TurtlePaul]

I guess I'm wondering how the "a lot worse" old-school plots always seemed to turn out near ruler flat?

Because the speakers are tuned to it? Most speakers aren't tuned by ear and the designer has to target something.

 

[bert stoltenborg]

Their old technique/software(forgot the name) was definitely a lot worse than the Klippel, and the much improved measurements of their post-Klippel acquisition designs show that pretty clearly as well.

MLSSA is in this case just recording pressure via a microphone, like it's successors REW, EASERA, ARTA, CLIO etc . I hope for that Klippel that it does exactly the same thing .

 

[JLGF1]

Because the speakers are tuned to it? Most speakers aren't tuned by ear and the designer has to target something.

If the target was flat, the target was missed.

 

[JLGF1]

I hope for that Klippel that it does exactly the same thing

Theory and practice are the same in theory, but different in practice? Is that what you're saying?

 

[JLGF1]

Because the speakers are tuned to it? Most speakers aren't tuned by ear and the designer has to target something.

I would think the $1400/pr would target something different than the $325/pr, but maybe that's just me.

 

[bert stoltenborg]

Theory and practice are the same in theory, but different in practice? Is that what you're saying?

I mean that Klippel has functions MLSSA, or maybe even Monkey Forest don't have but the basics, like measuring the impulse response of a device under test and extracting stuff like frequency response, waterfall and name it, are not outdated and for sure will not differ between all that software.

 

[JLGF1]

extracting stuff like frequency response,

So, the FR plots should be close to the same between the lesser (older) SW and the newer more advanced SW?

 

[bert stoltenborg]

So, the FR plots should be close to the same between the lesser (older) SW and the newer more advanced SW?

They not only should be, but they are. Don't mistake MLSSA for something silly, it was a break trough and was considered the industry standard and is still used. Audiophile Magazine or whatever it is named uses it, as a bunch of other magazines and I know a leading speaker manufacturer that uses my old MLSSA board for R&D. They had some finished systems measured by a Klippel system but they immediately saw that didn't work out right. That Klippel robot is very clever but I would like to see what it can do that absolutely cannot be done with a large room and software like ARTA, REW, Monkey Forest or ..... MLSSA .

 

[JLGF1]

They not only should be, but they are.

So, you look at the two above plots and your immediate reaction is "same thing"?

I know what MLSSA is. But, for example, is it accurate below 200-300HZ? Hint: no.

 

[Sancus]

but I would like to see what it can do that absolutely cannot be done with a large room and software like ARTA, REW, Monkey Forest or ..... MLSSA .

The literal measurements you're looking at are inaccurate in the bass and midrange compared to the Klippel so not sure what kinda point you're trying to make. The Klippel has already proved that it produces much more accurate measurements in that region than REW or MLSSA.

 

[bert stoltenborg]

So, the FR plots should be close to the same between the lesser (older) SW and the newer more advanced SW?

They not only should be, but they are. Don't mistake MLSSA for something silly, it was a break trough and was considered the industry standard and is still used. Audiophile Magazine or whatever it is named uses it, as a bunch of other magazines and I know a leading speaker manufacturer that uses my ols MLSSA board for R&D. They had some finished systems measured by a Klippel system but they immediately saw that didn't work out right. That Klippel robot is very clever but I would like to see what it can do that absolutely cannot be done with a large room and software like ARTA, REW, Monkey Forest or ..... MLSSA .

So, you look at the two above plots and your immediate reaction is "same thing"?

I know what MLSSA is. But, for example, is it accurate below 200-300HZ? Hint: no.

Of course it is, you silly boy . Why wouldn't it be?

 

[bert stoltenborg]

The literal measurements you're looking at are inaccurate in the bass and midrange compared to the Klippel so not sure what kinda point you're trying to make. The Klippel has already proved that it produces much more accurate measurements in that region than REW or MLSSA.

All this software is doing nothing but record data from a microphone. It wouldn't be very scientific when Klippel differed from all the other, simple, pressure differences recording software, would it?

 

[Sancus]

All this software is doing nothing but record data from a microphone. It wouldn't be very scientific when Klippel differed from all the other, simple, pressure differences recording software, would it?

Simple pressure difference recording software doesn't produce accurate measurements of a speaker by itself, especially not in a room, so no. You should really stop posting and do some reading.

Understanding How the Klippel NFS Works

Questions regarding how the Klippel NFS works are raised in many of Amir's speaker reviews. Thomas has suggested starting a thread on this topics and here I am. I am starting this thread with a brief description of the basic principles behind the NFS. You can find much further details on the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[bert stoltenborg]

Simple pressure difference recording software doesn't produce accurate measurements of a speaker by itself, especially not in a room, so no. You should really stop posting and do some reading.

Understanding How the Klippel NFS Works

Questions regarding how the Klippel NFS works are raised in many of Amir's speaker reviews. Thomas has suggested starting a thread on this topics and here I am. I am starting this thread with a brief description of the basic principles behind the NFS. You can find much further details on the...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I'll stop posting. But maybe you should try to understand that is not the devine holy Klippel, but the way you measure that makes the difference. It doesn't make any difference whether you measure using Klippel or any other software, as long as you use the correct method. The Klippel robot definitely has it's advantages, but it's just another approach, it's in the end totally not doing anything different from what very smart engineers do for decades. My problem is that your little jihad is putting nice newbees who want to measure a speaker or a room in the assumption they have to buy a 100.000 dollar system to do it right. And that's pathetic.

 

[kemmler3D]

I know what MLSSA is. But, for example, is it accurate below 200-300HZ? Hint: no.

I think what we are seeing is a deficiency in the microphone or space and not the MLSSA software. If you feed MLSSA (or REW or anything) proper measurements it will show proper graphs. It's not inaccurate at certain frequencies, the data it was being fed was.

The Klippel uses a different measurement technique entirely so "MLSSA is worse than Klippel" is like saying "MS Word is worse than ChatGPT" - they are both text tools, but they don't do the same thing.

However, I would agree that this is a very significant disparity - 3-4dB @ 200hz is definitely an audible difference!