Erin's Audio Corner gets a Klippel NFS!

[amirm]

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

 

[hardisj]

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

Okay. I thought maybe you were using the Visualization because there is an Export option in there (I assume for the industry standard VACS/EASE outputs).

 

[matt3421]

could you also post beamwidth graphs in future reviews?

 

[hardisj]

could you also post beamwidth graphs in future reviews?

I might. I still prefer the ones I generate but the updated Klippel software makes these things look a lot easier (and easier to change) but it isn't out of beta yet so we will see how the release syncs with my review schedule.

 

[hardisj]

Alright, folks. I re-ran the Kef R3 test this time with the updated 1.46Hz increments instead of the previous 2.93Hz.

Remember, I specifically have my y-axis the way it is so you guys can easily compare against Amir's posted data in his R3 review thread (link). Any official reviews I publish will use a 50 dB y-axis scale.

 

[richard12511]

I might. I still prefer the ones I generate but the updated Klippel software makes these things look a lot easier (and easier to change) so we will see.

I like both for different reasons.

I think your style makes more sense, logically, and it gives you a better sense of what the actual dispersion looks like.
I like the "Horizontal Beam Width" graph(one with the defined -3/-6/-9 edges) more for comparing really small dispersion differences.

 

[jtwrace]

Alright, folks. I re-ran the Kef R3 test this time with the updated 1.46Hz increments instead of the previous 2.93Hz.

Remember, I specifically have my y-axis the way it is so you guys can easily compare against Amir's posted data in his R3 review thread (link).


View attachment 113240

I think putting an "Erin's Audio Corner" watermark on your data would be helpful. If it's not too much trouble.

 

[hardisj]

I think putting an "Erin's Audio Corner" watermark on your data would be helpful. If it's not too much trouble.

I will. But this isn't "final data" and I don't want anyone making the mistake that it is part of an official review. Which is why I am keeping all this data in this particular thread instead of making it its own or posting it in Amir's thread. Most likely what you see will be it for this speaker but who knows... someone may have another nit to pick and I may have to re-run this damn thing again. LOL

But, of course, official reviews will all have my name as they currently do (or my logo; whichever is easiest depending on what I do with post-processing).

 

[hardisj]

I like both for different reasons.

I think your style makes more sense, logically, and it gives you a better sense of what the actual dispersion looks like.
I like the "Horizontal Beam Width" graph(one with the defined -3/-6/-9 edges) more for comparing really small dispersion differences.

Yea, but that space costs money. One review? Sure, no big deal. Every review going over years? Adds up. Those matlab plots I generate take up nearly 1mb each because they are so color-dense and if I change the scale or color down, it just makes them look like poo-poo. I'll just have to go with what makes sense to/for me as I go forward.

 

[richard12511]

Alright, folks. I re-ran the Kef R3 test this time with the updated 1.46Hz increments instead of the previous 2.93Hz.

Remember, I specifically have my y-axis the way it is so you guys can easily compare against Amir's posted data in his R3 review thread (link). Any official reviews I publish will use a 50 dB y-axis scale.

Awesome. Thanks for doing that. It's crazy how close y'alls R3 measurements really are. Almost looks like the same sample. Also says a lot about KEF.

 

[richard12511]

Yea, but that space costs money. One review? Sure, no big deal. Every review going over years? Adds up. Those matlab plots I generate take up nearly 1mb each because they are so color-dense and if I change the scale or color down, it just makes them look like poo-poo. I'll just have to go with what makes sense to/for me as I go forward.

I think you already do both, or maybe we're talking about different things?

 

[hardisj]

Here are a couple other graphs.

Beamwidth:

Horizontal Contour:

 

[hardisj]

I think you already do both, or maybe we're talking about different things?

I don't show the same way Amir does (which I have posted above; built in to the Klippel software). I still like my own plots for contour plots. But, like I said, the new software is going to make things a bit better so I may switch over to using Klippel's depending on how the final version turns out.

 

[richard12511]

I don't show the same way Amir does (which I have posted above; built in to the Klippel software). I still like my own plots for contour plots. But, like I said, the new software is going to make things a bit better so I may switch over to using Klippel's depending on how the final version turns out.

Gotcha. Yeah, like I said, I like them both(beamwidth and "globe view") equally, but for different reasons. Really hope your channel takes off now that you have the NFS.

One speaker I would love to see with your 360 globe view is the Magnepan LRS(or any dipole I suppose). With the standard beamwidth and polar graphs, it's hard to "visualize" actually happening there. It would be even tougher if I wasn't already familiar with how dipoles work.

 

[MZKM]

Gotcha. Yeah, like I said, I like them both(beamwidth and "globe view") equally, but for different reasons. Really hope your channel takes off now that you have the NFS.

One speaker I would love to see with your 360 globe view is the Magnepan LRS(or any dipole I suppose). With the standard beamwidth and polar graphs, it's hard to "visualize" actually happening there. It would be even tougher if I wasn't already familiar with how dipoles work.

Well, Amir measured it, so it would be if Erin wanted to make the globe plot out of curiosity.

The heat map for it is indeed not intuitive, I made a 360° plot for it (horizontal measurements), but nothing like the globe plot Erin makes:

As a monopole reference, here is the JBL A130 :

If data size and coding weren’t issues, having an interactive directivity ballon would be awesome:

 

[MZKM]

someone may have another nit to pick and I may have to re-run this damn thing again. LOL

Just for kicks, re-measure it but use the symmetrical setting to see if it you even needed to do the longer scan due to the offset port.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Well, Amir measured it, so it would be if Erin wanted to make the globe plot out of curiosity.

The heat map for it is indeed not intuitive, I made a 360° plot for it (horizontal measurements), but nothing like the globe plot Erin makes:

As a monopole reference, here is the JBL A130 :
View attachment 113253

If data size and coding weren’t issues, having an interactive directivity ballon would be awesome:

Yep given all the choices I'd like to see what you show in your post. Horizontal and vertical maybe for the upper one and the balloon plot. If you can only have one I'd vote the balloon plot, but I bet it is more data the the others.

 

[restorer-john]

Yep given all the choices I'd like to see what you show in your post.

I'm more interested in what type of ceramic figurines he's going to use for his coarse grading system.

 

[McFly]

Did you get the add-on option to measure IMD Erin?

 

[hardisj]

Did you get the add-on option to measure IMD Erin?

I've had it this whole time. Just don't use it for loudspeaker testing because I use the multi-tone distortion testing. I do use IMD for drive unit testing to show specifically what happens if someone wants to cross a drive unit too low for a speaker design. But with loudspeakers I find more usefulness in the Multitone tests.