Erin's Audio Corner gets a Klippel NFS!

[TimVG]

You are correct.

Still, it’s within +/-1dB without calibration. That’s pretty damn good.

Oh yeah, no doubt. Btw, been meaning to ask. In case (after measurements) it turns out alignment or reference axis was slightly off, wouldn't it be possible through the software to reposition it for means of presentation?

 

[pozz]

For the NFS, which measures in cylinders, measurements must be taken outside of the green cylinder as shown. When Erin said that his first scan was taken 28 cm (measurement cylinder radius?), I wonder if in this case the bottom port is outside the interior zone (The 708P is 44.1 cm tall). If it is the case, and if my understanding of the math is correct, some of the bass output from the bottom port may have been excluded by the math, causing the lower measured bass extension.

I also wonder if this is also the reason of the poor bass extension in Amir's Revel F328Be measurement. The F328Be has 2 rear ports, and the lower port is pretty far from the expansion center, causing the interior zone to be pretty large, and would require much larger measurement distances.

Does Klippel provide specific guidelines on mic distance vs. speaker size? (If I understood the description right.)

 

[NTK]

I don't know. What I said only applies when you use sound field separation. It is a 19000€ option for the NFS. So I suppose not every customer has it.

[Edit] If Erin has the time and energy, I'd like to propose an experiment. Repeat the 28 cm test, but change the expansion center to the center of the woofer. Run a test just for the bass frequencies. It shouldn't need too many points. I think one or two hundred points will be enough.

 

[amirm]

If you want, I can forward you the CAD drawing. I mentioned to Klippel that I was going to have a machine shop to make me an adapter plate for large speakers and they sent the drawing to me. Just PM me if you want and I'll email it to you.

I got a CAD drawing but was wrong! It must have been for their older generation. I bought aluminum plates to make my own but then realized wood/MDF is better anyway.

 

[amirm]

Does Klippel provide specific guidelines on mic distance vs. speaker size? (If I understood the description right.)

No they don't.

 

[pozz]

No they don't.

Strange oversight.

 

[hardisj]

I updated my MATLAB scripts to work with the new Klippel data. Here's some for the Kef R3.

 

[Absolute]

While pretty I can't make out where -3 and -6 dB etc are.

 

[amirm]

Erin, are you putting Klippel (R) marks on graph you created in another program? If so, I don't think that is proper. They could complain and at any rate, the reason to use that logo is to show authenticity and repeatability of their data. I routinely use such logos in other people's graphs to figure out what tools they used to generate them. Going this way confuses everything.

 

[hardisj]

Erin, are you putting Klippel (R) marks on graph you created in another program? If so, I don't think that is proper. They could complain and at any rate, the reason to use that logo is to show authenticity and repeatability of their data. I routinely use such logos in other people's graphs to figure out what tools they used to generate them. Going this way confuses everything.

That was actually what they requested me to do before I got the NFS. But I intended to remove them anyway because now that I have the NFS, I didn't want anyone to get confused and think it comes from the NFS.

 

[hardisj]

While pretty I can't make out where -3 and -6 dB etc are.

There were a bajillion complaints about every way I did this before. Discussed sporadically over about 6 months in this thread. I have 3 or 4 different scripts written to provide everything under the sun. Ultimately, most people preferred this so that's why you see what you see.

 

[hardisj]

FWIW, once the new Klippel software drops I likely won't be creating any additional plots other than my globe plot and the EPDR plot.

 

[Absolute]

There were a bajillion complaints about every way I did this before. Discussed sporadically over about 6 months in this thread. I have 3 or 4 different scripts written to provide everything under the sun. Ultimately, most people preferred this so that's why you see what you see.

Well, what can I say? Democracy usually gives us stupid compromises. I can't read that graph and neither can anybody else

 

[Sancus]

While pretty I can't make out where -3 and -6 dB etc are.

Yeah, I know this isn't what Erin wants to hear because people constantly bikeshed over these graphs, but most of the major sources for contour maps I've seen have primary color breakpoints at -3 or -6dB multiples. For example, Amir's do it at -6dB, sound and recording uses -3dB, Princeton lab uses -3dB, Neumann & Genelec both do it at -3dB.

When the first primary color goes further than -6dB I find it really difficult to compare to any of the other sources. And it looks like the above are red until -15dB which makes all dispersion look much wider than any other source I've seen.

 

[hardisj]

I wouldn't care, except this is a cyclical thing. Every few months I get a new batch of complaints. Yadda yadda yadda.



So, here are your options. Either I can use the Klippel provided graphics or my own. Definitely not all.
The Klippel graphics are smaller in file size which works for my website. Therefore, if you guys want those, great.

I'd prefer to use ONE SINGLE GRAPHIC because the more I have to deal with the more of a pain it is.

Keep in mind that contour is absolute SPL (not normalized) where beam width is normalized.

personally, I'm leaning toward beamwidth only. I don't care which one (mine or Klippel). The bonus about mine is that it has a -3dB point where the Klippel beamwidth is only in 6dB steps. My script also throws the speaker name on there which means less chance of me forgetting to label the title, has more frequency labels on the x-axis, and has a finer y-axis.


KLIPPEL produced:

Contour:

Beamwidth:

Erin produced:

Contour:

Beamwidth:

 

[Jdunk54nl]

Smaller file size wins for me (if I were you and have to pay for space, screw what others want unless they are paying too). So use klippel

It also can then be established that if something is wrong, it isn't in your software (not that I think it remotely is). Otherwise I suppose someone could say it was something you programmed in matlab that caused that.

 

[TimVG]

I wouldn't care, except this is a cyclical thing. Every few months I get a new batch of complaints. Yadda yadda yadda.



So, here are your options. Either I can use the Klippel provided graphics or my own. Definitely not all.
The Klippel graphics are smaller in file size which works for my website. Therefore, if you guys want those, great.

I'd prefer to use ONE SINGLE GRAPHIC because the more I have to deal with the more of a pain it is.

personally, I'm leaning toward beamwidth only. I don't care which one (mine or Klippel). Probably Klippel just to have the name on there. But whatever.



KLIPPEL produced:

Contour:
View attachment 114232

Beamwidth:
View attachment 114231




Erin produced:

Contour:

View attachment 114239

Beamwidth:


View attachment 114238

I don't really care about the presentation, I've no trouble reading any of those.. But.. that is one controlled beam right there.

 

[hardisj]

Smaller file size wins for me if I were you. So use klippel

It also can then be established that if something is wrong, it isn't in your software (not that I think it remotely is). Otherwise I suppose someone could say it was something you programmed in matlab that caused that.

Check the edit. I have a few "pros" for mine, which I'll reiterate again here.
The bonus about mine is that it has a -3dB point where the Klippel beamwidth is only in 6dB steps. My script also throws the speaker name on there which means less chance of me forgetting to label the title, has more frequency labels on the x-axis, and has a finer y-axis.

I did make these points to Klippel about the updated software so some might be addressed. But that isn't currently available and I'm about to start publishing data soon.

 

[Sancus]

personally, I'm leaning toward beamwidth only. I don't care which one (mine or Klippel). The bonus about mine is that it has a -3dB point where the Klippel beamwidth is only in 6dB steps. My script also throws the speaker name on there which means less chance of me forgetting to label the title, has more frequency labels on the x-axis, and has a finer y-axis.

I think beamwidth only would be totally fine. It is definitely the easiest to read for the big picture issues. And the globe plots already have plenty of color gradient prettiness for people who want that

And yes I think your beamwidth version is the better one.

 

[Jdunk54nl]

Check the edit. I have a few "pros" for mine, which I'll reiterate again here.
The bonus about mine is that it has a -3dB point where the Klippel beamwidth is only in 6dB steps. My script also throws the speaker name on there which means less chance of me forgetting to label the title, has more frequency labels on the x-axis, and has a finer y-axis.

I did make these points to Klippel about the updated software so some might be addressed. But that isn't currently available and I'm about to start publishing data soon.

I like the beamwidth more than the contours for sure, it just seems easier to read and I don't care about 3db or 6db differences. Sure 3db would be nice, but not at the expense of larger files.