• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Erin's Audio Corner gets a Klippel NFS!

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,763
Likes
16,237

NYfan2

Active Member
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
209
Likes
446
Location
Netherlands

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,763
Likes
16,237
The review is about the KRK RP 10-3 gen 3
I quoted the post of jhaider "Sound und Recording tested the previous model (issue 01/12, at 63; Studiomonitor Special, at 223) and it looked pretty darn good for a reasonably sized full-range active speaker at 1k USD/pair" so both of us were talking abut the previous model.
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
Which do you prefer?
1) Original
JBL 305P MkII_360_Horizontal_Polar.png





2a) Stepped 3dB
JBL 305P MkII_360_Horizontal_Polar_Stepped.png




2b) Stepped 2dB:

JBL 305P MkII_360_Horizontal_Polar_Stepped_v2.png




The "stepped 3dB" version is more in line with my other directivity graphics. Though, since it is stepped in either 2 or 3dB increments, it may not quite show the resolution needed to see all issues. That said, I think it is probably easier for most people to follow than the original version. My feelings won't be hurt either way. But I'm not taking requests. So pick one. :D


Stepped 3dB probably gets my vote. Easier to get a quick feel for the radiation pattern and visualize how it might react in a room against walls/ceiling/floor.
 
Last edited:

Matias

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
5,031
Likes
10,806
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
Stepped is easier to see the boundaries.
 

Sancus

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 30, 2018
Messages
2,923
Likes
7,616
Location
Canada
Which do you prefer?

I liked Stepped 3dB. But I will say the readability of these charts is improved in general by using more colors to depict a smaller SPL range.

The original uses some shade of red for all SPLs from 96 -> 84, whereas the Stepped charts bring in yellow at a higher value, so there are fewer values that are red-only. This makes it easier to read, regardless of the gradient type.
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
I can pretty much do whatever.

My thinking is this:
The entire goal of this graphic is to be intuitive. You need to be able to look at it and say "okay, I can envision this radiation pattern in my room and I can see clearly the "spread" of the speaker and how it might bounce off the walls where I intend to place it"

Thus, the steps.

Now, the number of steps... that's the tough part. I think the 3dB scale does a good job of it. The only concern is sometimes it may make the results look odd or the speaker like it was pointed weirdly because of rounding. For example, if the SPL is at 101.49dB it will be rounded down to 100dB. If it is 101.51dB it will be rounded up to 103dB. So, looking at the graphs will make things appear to be less symmetrical when, in fact, the DUT is lined up with multiple laser levels and about as dead-nuts accurate as one can be. :D Perfect example is this speaker.... the scale of the stepped 3dB goes up to 96dB. The scale of the stepped 2dB goes up to 94dB. I can already hear them now .... "the speaker wasn't aligned perfectly". Ugh. ;) :D
 

dfuller

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
3,340
Likes
5,064
Definitely stepped. It's tricky to read the original to me, but it is definitely higher res. But... stepped gives enough data, I think, for easy visualization. 2dB increments make more sense to me than 3dB.
 

Matias

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
5,031
Likes
10,806
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
3 dB still easier to see.
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
I went ahead and updated my previous reviews I completed with the NFS to have the new graphics. For fun, here are a couple:

Kali IN-5 vs Kef R3 (since both are coaxial designs):

Kali IN-5_360_Horizontal_Polar.png


Kef R3_360_Horizontal_Polar.png




Kali IN-5_360_Vertical_Polar.png


Kef R3_360_Vertical_Polar.png






Interesting that the kali almost looks cardioid (thanks to the front hemisphere being red with no red in the back). I believe this is simply due to the rear port (Kef) vs front port (Kali).
 

Matias

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 1, 2019
Messages
5,031
Likes
10,806
Location
São Paulo, Brazil
Yes, a lot more readable and comparable.
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
The thing I key in on these and try to pay attention to is just how controlled the directivity is. Is the directivity always within the same horizontal angle bounds? I've yet to see a speaker with that good of controlled directivity. But the DD8C does a dang good job.

In my mind, while there will never be 100% consensus on the "perfect" radiation pattern wrt narrow or wide, I believe that *this* kind of data allows us to get closer to finding speakers that truly have a constant directivity and draw better correlations with what we like. My gut tells me if we ever land on a speaker that can maintain its radiation spread within the same angle then that speaker will be the bee's knees. But until I have more time and more tests, this is just a hunch. This is exactly the kind of thing I would like to have a discussion with @Floyd Toole or @Sean Olive to discuss. I think seeing the data in this kind of format really makes it easier to see what is going on wrt directivity.


Let's take the DD8C above, which has a very good controlled directivity, and compare it to something that is just all over the place: the Klipsch Heresy IV:

Klipsch Heresy IV (NFS Data)_360_Horizontal_Polar.png



Klipsch Heresy IV (NFS Data)_360_Vertical_Polar.png
 
Last edited:
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
I made a series of videos this weekend explaining my measurements. Most of it is introductory stuff about how to read FR, on vs off-axis, SPIN data and in-room prediction. I think most here already know all this stuff. But a lot of others don't and it is crucial to understand the data. However, since compression testing is unique to my reviews I thought you all might benefit from a little explanation on how and why I chose to do this set of tests. You can find this information in the video below.

As I state in my video, I chose my methods based on some of my own logic and experiences along with what the IEC standard and other manufacturers do. It may not be the way everyone else would conduct these tests. Of course, everyone is obviously welcome to perform their own tests in any manner they want if they want to do better. ;) But this gives you insight in to my tests. :)

 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,111
Likes
8,448
Location
NYC
I made a series of videos this weekend explaining my measurements. Most of it is introductory stuff about how to read FR, on vs off-axis, SPIN data and in-room prediction. I think most here already know all this stuff. But a lot of others don't and it is crucial to understand the data. However, since compression testing is unique to my reviews I thought you all might benefit from a little explanation on how and why I chose to do this set of tests. You can find this information in the video below.

As I state in my video, I chose my methods based on some of my own logic and experiences along with what the IEC standard and other manufacturers do. It may not be the way everyone else would conduct these tests. Of course, everyone is obviously welcome to perform their own tests in any manner they want if they want to do better. ;) But this gives you insight in to my tests. :)


God bless you, I'm finally finishing up my own 'how to understand speaker measurements' article but it's not quite so in depth. This series gives me something supremely linkable for someone who wants to explore further :)
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
God bless you, I'm finally finishing up my own 'how to understand speaker measurements' article but it's not quite so in depth. This series gives me something supremely linkable for someone who wants to explore further :)

Well, I appreciate that, man. The series isn't perfect but I tried. For example, as @MZKM pointed out the error about the early reflections I forgot was wrong in the CTA-2034 spec where I had copy/pasted some stuff (I wanna smack their editor as I think we all do). But, overall, I'm happy with the content and I think - more importantly than the itty bitty details of angles - it gives newcomers a good foundation for what the data means and how it is actually useful to them. Rather than just saying "here's some data, good luck" or "here's some data, trust me, it's meaningful", I tried to provide some real world examples of how it is useful.

I hate watching myself back but I have listened to them and already nitpicking myself. As they say, we are often our own worst critics. LOL
 
Top Bottom