• 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!

ErinsAudioCorner

OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,916
Location
North Alabama
Well, if you look back to one of my earlier posts I mentioned testing GP indoors and outdoors. I’ve considered the Mic buried/speaker in the air method as well. But not sure how feasible it is to achieve polars. And I’m back at the same issue I had before with the 8.5 foot speaker stand: lugging large and heavy speakers that high in the air.

No one size fits all, unfortunately. And the cost of a 3ms gate in terms of accuracy is a big concern.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zvu

Zvu

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 1, 2020
Messages
831
Likes
1,421
Location
Serbia
True.

If i was there i'd be lugging the bastards with you, just for the fun of it - believe it or not :)
 

DDF

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
Messages
617
Likes
1,360
I looked at this last night. Admittedly, I skipped some here and there and focused on the intro, loudspeaker testing and conclusion. It looks like a promising method but the author notes the work isn't finished. Also, it seems the low-frequency resolution is still suspect. I see they used an 80hz 3rd order filter to essentially emulate the time needed to capture low(er) response but the impression I got is response in to the low-bass area wasn't replicated. I didn't see a 'final solution' that I could readily use at this moment. Maybe I missed it?

I think there should be enough in that paper to get you going but it's not an easy choice given it takes effort and experimentation to implement. Here are some additional resources describing it:
http://libinst.com/Praxis Users Manual.pdf Praxis implemented Fielder's older version, see page 65. Benjamin's method is an evolved improvement.
https://www.stereophile.com/content/time-dilation-part-2-page-3
http://musicanddesign.speakerdesign.net/Matched_Filters.html

It is a powerful method worth considering if ground plane doesn't work out for you.
 

DDF

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
Messages
617
Likes
1,360
I don't entirely agree. I have already proven that ground plane measurements are just as useful for HF as they are for LF.
I think I am actually more trusting of the flat mic measurements.

Ground plane has a couple accuracy problems that have me avoid it, given the challenges it also poses logistically:
1. the baffle "looks" to the measurement to be twice as high as it really is, causing error in the diffraction response. I ran a quick error simulation (green) on a 9"w x 16"h baffle:
1588780227559.png


Its not large enough to ignore the great resolution ground plane gives, but it should be accounted for in the measurement.

2. ground plane has an inherent high frequency limit, due to the comb filtering caused by having a microphone and speaker not flush with the ground. Example from http://www.excelsior-audio.com/Publications/AES137_PD16_Measuring_Loudspeaker_Systems_rev06a.pdf:

1588780374803.png


The angled microphone technique provides double the high frequency extension before the comb filtering error creeps into the measurement.

D'Appolito from his "Testing Loudspeakers" book estimates the high frequency error 1 dB point as
  • fmax= 25.7*10^4/(speaker height (cm) * (mic height (cm))

Using that formula, I calculated the -1 dB frequencies for different speaker driver heights off the ground
1588781654560.png


The speaker should be measured upside down, with the tweeter closest to the ground, which you're doing but this needs to be checked for each speaker depending on driver layout.

There may be an error in D'Appolito's formula though, as he referenced Gander's original ground plane AES paper ( “Ground-Plane Acoustic Measurement of Loudspeaker Systems,” J. Audio Eng. Soc. , 30, pp. 723–731). Gander later published a correction (below). I don't have Gander's paper so not exactly sure what "L" refers to (can guess).

If anyone has it, a post would be appreciated!
Ground Plane correction JAES Vol 34 No 1_2 1986 Jan_Feb Gander.JPG
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,916
Location
North Alabama
I appreciate the reply.

I actually had an email exchange with Excelsior last week regarding that ppt. They surprisingly replied... and on a Saturday! So, I am familiar with the graphic you used. I guess I am a bit back and forth on the mic flat vs angled. Mic flat doesn't introduce a reflection from the mic holder that the mic angled does. I'll test this a bit more at some point when I have a chance to redesign a wedge to elevate the mic (I am trying to avoid using the mic stand because it would be another reflective surface).

I would be interested in finding the paper you mentioned. I don't have an AES subscription so, yes, if someone here can help with that, it would be appreciated.

I also have considered the "mic in a box" method but that also presents similar issues as nearfield merging has. And even D'Appollito notes both nearfield and MIB methods have range limits that require even those two to be merged together.

It is worth noting that, if I go forward with ground plane tests, I do plan to do a 'sanity check' on tested speakers using a stand and compare those to the initial ground plane measurement to make sure the response > 1kHz matches well (aside from the limitation of windowed resolution).


In other news, I found this link where the author discusses using a table to measure the response of a bookshelf in an open field; the table providing reflection. I am half-tempted to email him and let him know that my findings show that the width of the table is not sufficient for accurate results.
https://www.prosoundweb.com/working-in-tandem-combining-near-and-far-field-measurements/3/
 

DDF

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
Messages
617
Likes
1,360
I am trying to avoid using the mic stand because it would be another reflective surface.

No problem, good conversation. I've never seen the porosity and skimming loss of a back yard quantified, that was interesting.

Can you find anything like this for your mic? https://www.bksv.com/en/products/transducers/acoustic/Acccessories/adaptors/UA-0196
Works like a champ for mine, letting me get away with a mic stand & some audio poly (speaker stuffing) wrapped around the boom
 

Juhazi

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
1,725
Likes
2,910
Location
Finland
Coud be a simple solution, to create a custom mic calibration/compensation file for GP, when setup is standardized.
cal files.jpg
 
Last edited:
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,916
Location
North Alabama
At this point I am pretty sure most who were paying attention have probably "checked out" at this point in the whole "how am I going to measure speakers" discussion but I'm going to make one final post on the topic because I had to feed my own curiosity...

To recap where my mental state is:
Driveway ground plane measurements look quite good. They make life a bit easier because there is no need to stitch. But they do come with cons (I'll cover this later). The only issue with GP in the driveway is neighborhood kids and other random things causing distractions when I am measuring. The backyard would be ideal but as I discovered in earlier tests, the grass is too absorbent and even a 2x8 foot section of plywood wasn't enough. I either need a large concrete pad or some other area of reflective surface. As a "last ditch" effort of trying to make the backyard GP measurements work, yesterday I went to Lowe's and purchased 3 large sheets of plywood. The idea was I would try them laying in the backyard as a "large, flat, reflective surface". I could have purchased more but I thought if 3 isn't sufficient to do what I need I might as well just stick with the driveway if I am going to do GP measurements.

First I had to wet the sheets down because they were bent. I learned this trick from my skatepark/ramp building days. Wet the concave side, lay it on the concave side. I let it set overnight. This morning they were all mostly flat. :)

IMG_9589.jpg





Then it was on to testing. I tried ALL sorts of configurations between measuring longways and sideways. Here's some random photos...

IMG_9590.jpg
IMG_9594.jpg
IMG_9592.jpg
IMG_9591.jpg






But, I'll spare you the results of EVERYTHING and get to the point more quickly:

First up, let's look at the data from placing the mic on a single sheet of plywood vs the "bare ground" I took a couple weeks ago vs the (windowed) ground plane measurement I conducted in my garage:
IMG_9595.jpg


bare grass.png



As you can see, there is some improvement in the high frequencies when using the single plywood sheet compared to the bare ground measurements. Notably, with the plywood the HF response no longer has a sharp dip it did in bare grass. But, the plywood measurement shows a dip between 100-300hz and compared to the garage GP mesurement the HF response is still not what it should be; down by about 2-3dB above 1kHz.



What happens when I add a small piece of OSB behind the mic (Purple) and then as another test I add a small sheet behind the microphone as well (orange)?

IMG_9596.jpg


IMG_9597.jpg


Single Sheet vs Garage & mic & speaker.png



Practically zero difference when placing the small section of OSB behind the speaker and then both the speaker and the mic.

No point wasting time doing that. But, further results will all have both these scrap OSB pieces in the measurement.

Okay, so what happens when I add a second sheet of plywood to the side (brown)?
What about adding a 3rd piece of plywood to the side, with the speaker/mic in the middle (green)?
What about shifting the speaker/mic off to one piece of plywood (purple)?

IMG_9598.jpg


IMG_9599.jpg


IMG_9600.jpg


1 vs 2 vs 3.png




Moral of this story:
Don't bother wasting money on plywood thinking if you create enough surface area you'll get accurate results. Maybe if you buy a LOT of plywood. Maybe. But then you have to take it up and put it down for test. If you want to do ground plane measurements you need a LARGE, FLAT, concrete area. I wasted $60 on this experiment but at least I know now. So, let me save you money: Don't waste your time doing what I did with the plywood. As you can see it doesn't fix the issue entirely.
(now, maybe I could 'calibrate' the measurement for this plywood but I don't trust that.
 

Attachments

  • SingleSheet vs Garage.png
    SingleSheet vs Garage.png
    28.3 KB · Views: 160

spacevector

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Dec 3, 2019
Messages
553
Likes
1,003
Location
Bayrea
I am curious now - if you used shellac or epoxy on the plywood, can it make it more 'reflective' so you don't see the loss in HF?
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,916
Location
North Alabama
Since I was in my backyard I thought ... might as well go ahead and throw the speaker back up on the platform and test there to see how the ground plane garage measurement compares to the 4pi "free space" measurement at 36 inches. After adjusting level differences (36 inch vs 2 meter/GP), you can see the two are practically identical!

IMG_9601.jpg



stand vs gp.png



And then I took another measurement from 12 inches:

IMG_9602.jpg


12 vs 36.png



The nearfield gives a bit better resolution on the lower end at the *potential sacrifice of the accuracy in the 1-2kHz region.
*This could be aiming; I wasn't being critical about being "dead on" to the tweeter in these tests; just getting close enough to see what difference the trend showed, if any.





Moral of this story:
Ground Plane measurements can, indeed, yield highly accurate results identical to their 4-pi counterpart. And it is a whole lot easier to place a speaker on the ground than it is to hoist it 8+ feet in the air.
 
Last edited:
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,916
Location
North Alabama
I am curious now - if you used shellac or epoxy on the plywood, can it make it more 'reflective' so you don't see the loss in HF?

Possibly. But there is still loss in the 100-300Hz region.

I considered buying the OSB with the radiant barrier.
I also considered buying a large sheet (4x8 foot) of the dry-erase board sold at Lowe's. But I am so incredibly broke with having spent all this money on "this vs that"... I am literally selling old, beloved video games (NES nostalgia rules!) and anything else I don't need at this point to help replenish my bank account after all of this stuff I've bought the last month.
 
Last edited:

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,915
Likes
16,748
Location
Monument, CO
Interesting and nice to know. Ages ago, last time I did any sort of speaker measurements, GP was on concrete (driveway or parking lot) and we also used pole mount for 4-pi'ish measurements. I actually used a portable antenna tower (RF guy) that cranked down to about 4'-5' so we could mount the speaker then we racked it up for measurements.

Best I recall we had the same problems with plywood. We tried multiple layers screwed together and that worked a little better but as you noted it was a PITA to set up and take down. We did have the police stop by one night when we were set up in a farm coop store's parking lot. We had permission and were careful to end before 10 pm (noise ordinances) but they were curious what the heck we were doing.
 

HammerSandwich

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
1,137
Likes
1,501
The nearfield gives a bit better resolution on the lower end at the *potential sacrifice of the accuracy in the 1-2kHz region.
Considering the largest difference lies in the crossover region, I suspect you're accurately reading lack of driver integration so close. And tight match in top octave hints that your aim's plenty consistent.
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,916
Location
North Alabama
At this point I have the following options if I want high resolution and accuracy:
If I want to avoid merging NF with FF measurements then I go with the ground plane measurements in the driveway and just deal with the heat, the neighbors and other environmental factors.

If I want to avoid the environmental factors, I can use the NF/FF merging using ground-plane measurements in my garage for farfield and for nearfield, experiment with outdoor ground plane for low frequency if I am concerned about external noise influencing the result or use the standard close-mic method. I prefer ground plane to 4-pi because I've already shown it to be as accurate and raising the speaker up to 8+ feet doesn't seem to make much sense anymore when I know I can get just as good results by using the ground plane measurement in my garage. I still want to experiment with how to build a rotating platform that doesn't corrupt the data (the same way baffle step effects a speaker design) but I may have to wait until I sell a few things before I can make another trip to the hardware store.


Now, that said, I don't have to conduct ALL my tests in the same fashion. I could conduct some outdoors but if, for example, I wanted to test a speaker when it was freezing cold outside then I would just test in the garage and navigate the merging challenges.


That's where my head is at at this moment. Let's see how long this sticks. What's the over/under for a single night? :D
 
Last edited:
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,916
Location
North Alabama
Whats causing that? Resonance of the plywood piece absorbing energy?

Possibly. I was thinking that there simply wasn't enough area to reflect the frequencies that were getting sucked up by the ground.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,722
Likes
241,597
Location
Seattle Area
At this point I am pretty sure most who were paying attention have probably "checked out" at this point in the whole "how am I going to measure speakers" discussion but I'm going to make one final post on the topic because I had to feed my own curiosity...
Well, I have been reading them with interest. But keep thinking that with the amount of work you have put in it, by now could have built your own anechoic chamber. :)

BTW, the lift I bought has been a life saver. I have lifted and taken down massive/heavy speakers with near ease.
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,916
Location
North Alabama
Well, I have been reading them with interest. But keep thinking that with the amount of work you have put in it, by now could have built your own anechoic chamber. :)

BTW, the lift I bought has been a life saver. I have lifted and taken down massive/heavy speakers with near ease.

Dude, you don't know how many times I have thought to myself "dammit, I quit" or "dammit, now I see why Klippel built a NFS". :D

Glad the lift worked out for you. I'll have to keep that in mind in case I decide to go a direction that calls for it. :)
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
44,722
Likes
241,597
Location
Seattle Area
Dude, you don't know how many times I have thought to myself "dammit, I quit" or "dammit, now I see why Klippel built a NFS". :D
Just to make you feel worse, I am sitting in the living room, watching TV, thinking about getting a shower, while the NFS is performing an over 1000 point measurement of a tower speaker. :D
 
OP
hardisj

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,916
Location
North Alabama
I even thanked my wife today for her patience. I know I've been driving her nuts, neglecting things that need to be done around the house and not spending quality time with her and my kid. But I'm hoping that once I put in all this work I'll have come up with a solid foundation and rationale for the measurement method I choose and can go back to normal life.
 
Top Bottom