Complaint thread about speaker measurements

[PierreV]

dont know if model is really valid but think result looks okay..

Don't care if model is valid as long as we get pretty pictures!
Wonderful dynamic visualization. Thank you.

 

[tuga]

Spinorama graph pattern is standardized as a 2 meter distance and below animation is ask CAD software set Z-axis to minus 200/400/600/800/1000mm relative to Amir's 2 meter spindata for KH 80 monitor, dont know if model is really valid but think result looks okay..

View attachment 101928

In relation above animation and KH 80 is nearfield monitor the ideal smooth on axis make sense, as farfield monitor say 2 meters and up it looks make sense tune for ideal power response over on axis..

View attachment 101940

Heart rate looks stable, I think he's gonna make it.

 

[JIW]

Regarding the relevance of controlled directivity for near field listening, the same movement close to the speaker changes the angle of the path of the direct sound relative the acoustic axis much more than when far away. While reducing the listening distance shrinks the space where tonality - and consequently imaging - are consistent, good horizontal directivity not only increases the width but also the depth of it, while good vertical directivity increases its height.

Further, in the near field, the strongest reflections may well be from the floor and ceiling or a desk or some other flat horizontal surface. For a 1 m listening distance, for 0.75-1.5 m to floor or ceiling, the reflected sound is emitted around 55-70 degrees above or below the acoustic axis, while being attenuated 5-10 dB and being delayed between 2-6 ms. For a desk where the surface is 0.5 m below the acoustic axis, for 0.5-1.5 m listening distance, the angle is around 35-75 degrees, while the attenuation is only 2-7 dB and the delay between 0.6-4 ms. The spectrum of those reflections likely matters a fair bit.

Professional audio companies such as Genelec and Neumann mention a consistent and wide - and therefore also deep - listening area and controlled reflections from near vertical objects (such as consoles) and the ceiling as one of the primary benefits of the controlled directivity of their speakers.

Thus, speakers that do well on the spinorama will also likely sound good at closer listening distances - if not better.

 

[Ilkka Rissanen]

Perhaps I'm imagining it, but I thought having seen the W371(?) in some capacity along with the S360 as well. I don't see why it wouldn't work.

@Ilkka Rissanen can the W371 be used with the S360 model?

Thank you for your question. We consider the W371 as a member of the Ones family and therefore we have not considered to support other high performance monitors, such as the S360, for the time being. We will carefully keep following up the requests we receive from our customers and if we see there is such a need in the future, we will consider the other main monitors to be supported by the W371.

 

[Matias]

@amirm, could you please start measuring hiss for all active speakers, like this maybe?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-lp-6-review-studio-monitor.17978/post-654580

This is very important as a high hiss can be a deal breaker.
Thanks.

 

[ROOSKIE]

So, if one can EQ different speakers to make them sound more or less equivalent (at the listening position and only there!), isn't that the equivalent of modifying the on axis response (and all the other directions' responses as well) by the same EQ weighting factor?
If we were to measure the DSP+speaker system with Klippel's apparatus, the software -not knowing any better- would measure an on-axis response very different (and not flat at all) than just the speaker's own response alone.
Yet, combined with the speaker's directivity characteristics and the room they are in, that non flat on axis response is part of a DSP+speakers system that, at the end of the day, sounds 'right' at the listening position we measured and EQed for.
So, this to me is proof that a flat on axis response is not always necessary to achieve a good balance in sound.
.

We have seen examples here where the deviations in on axis response were "flattened" out/Compensated for in the PIR due the interactions with the predicted room bounce/reflections.
I think this is understood as a possibility and thus non-flat on axis anechoic sometimes works out, sometime flat actually doesn't due to the same effects .

I will say that the PIR never quite matches to a "T", what I have measured in my actual room. There is a very meaningful deviation. I always expect to measure in my room and can no longer value the opinions of those who are not doing this.

I basically trust the Kipple testing and the theories presented here enough to start with speakers that have performed well here. Doing this I have learned a lot and have excellent sound.
That said, with speakers, nothing measured here is a fact, rather "good directions for how to get where I am going". There are surely other ways of course and most importantly nothing trumps what I actually measure and hear in my room.

People that have read this are probably familiar with the concept that (using a certain gating that correlates to how human perceive sound) whatever actual measurement we start with, we can always EQ the speakers so that, at the intended listening position, the psychoacoustically processed measured response can be matched to a certain target response. The acoustic end results will be very similar (within reasonable expectations, of course) starting from very different types of speakers, that measure quite differently initially, once the psychoacoustic responses are made to match the same target response.
So, if one can EQ different speakers to make them sound more or less equivalent (at the listening position and only there!), isn't that the equivalent of modifying the on axis response (and all the other directions' responses as well) by the same EQ weighting factor?
If we were to measure the DSP+speaker system with Klippel's apparatus, the software -not knowing any better- would measure an on-axis response very different (and not flat at all) than just the speaker's own response alone.
Yet, combined with the speaker's directivity characteristics and the room they are in, that non flat on axis response is part of a DSP+speakers system that, at the end of the day, sounds 'right' at the listening position we measured and EQed for.
So, this to me is proof that a flat on axis response is not always necessary to achieve a good balance in sound.
.

I can say this. I started working with DIY pro drivers and huge waveguides, to learn/explore a bit I purchased a pair of Monoprice SR10 passive PA speakers with 10"woofers and 1" compression driver - $120 A PAIR. The cheapest I could find with decent reviews.
Pre in room PEQ= NOPE, muddy and muddy and muddy and with very elevated lower mids/upper midbass and very peaky in the 200-1.5k range.
Post in room PEQ = Wow subjectively & nearly match other PEQ'd speakers even ones with very good directivity.

I matched the in room listening window response (MMM) closely to both my EQ'd JBL 530 and JBL A130's, using the help of stereo bass woofers and my general target curve. (a slight variation of the Harman downward slope)
These 3 speaker pairs all have very equal perceived sound quality at this point. All sound excellent.(All three speaker sets do have distinct qualitative differences. They do sound slightly/meaningfully different from one another - sighted at least)
With PEQ and some careful measurements and close attention to measured distortion levels and subwoofer integration this is a very accurate system. Can it be beaten? YES I am sure it can & simultaneously these two black hunks of plastic sound pretty amazing, with very low Harmonic distortion due to using some very decent(surprisingly so) PA drivers built to handle SPL.

In addition to my anecdotal notes above, speakers have been tested here that did not have flat on axis responses but seemed to respond very favorably to PEQ (sans the flat anechoic, generally with such PEQ'd speakers directivity has been noted to be good such as the Revel M55XC)