• 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!

JBL LSR 308 in the house

OP
RayDunzl

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,201
Likes
16,983
Location
Riverview FL
I don't think I've ever played that loud at home.

An enthusiastic hand-clap at a meter registers as loudly.

upload_2017-1-6_2-35-16.png
upload_2017-1-6_2-38-51.png
 
OP
RayDunzl

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,201
Likes
16,983
Location
Riverview FL
Just for the record, my tendency is to calibrate the room levels to the levels on the CD, for general "loud enough" listening pleasure.

If a channel of CD maxes at 96dB - then two speakers, playing the two tracks, should max around 99dB for uncorrelated signals, and 102dB for correlated signals.

Since I DRC flat - it makes a nice reference to observe the raw levels of the tracks vs the combined and DRC'd levels in the room, and usually comes quite close.

An RTA peak trace of the DRC'd room sound should match the peaks on the raw source pretty well, and does... Works better with the ML than the JBL though, their traces look a little more ragged for some reason.
 
OP
RayDunzl

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,201
Likes
16,983
Location
Riverview FL
Oh, Z-weighting... well that's an unusual choice. Throwing my whole reference set out of whack!

http://www.cirrusresearch.co.uk/blog/2011/08/what-are-a-c-z-frequency-weightings/

Frequency-Weighting-Curves.jpg


Well...

For my purposes, which is not measuring "safety", and not measuring "equal loudness", and is not particularly concerned with sub-sonic frequencies, and is measuring recorded music, which has already been subjected by the tonmeister to shaping by his ears, I use Z mostly.

I'm not measuring my response, but response of the system to excitation, and assuming the excitation (when it is music) has already been "curved" by someone's prior listening and knob twiddling.

The goal of all parts of the system - player - DAC - pre - amps - speakers - microphone - is to generate "flat".

Why would I measure with a curve? Should I boost 30hz by 40dB because A-weighting is closest " to reflect the response of the human ear to noise"?

Hint: boosting 40hz by 30dB is not what I want to listen to. I've experimented with that - curve to ear sensitivity doesn't work for me.

C and Z are close enough there's no reason that I see to go with C.
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
http://www.cirrusresearch.co.uk/blog/2011/08/what-are-a-c-z-frequency-weightings/

Frequency-Weighting-Curves.jpg


Well...

For my purposes, which is not measuring "safety", and not measuring "equal loudness", and is not particularly concerned with sub-sonic frequencies, and is measuring recorded music, which has already been subjected by the tonmeister to shaping by his ears, I use Z mostly.

I'm not measuring my response, but response of the system to excitation, and assuming the excitation (when it is music) has already been "curved" by someone's prior listening and knob twiddling.

The goal of all parts of the system - player - DAC - pre - amps - speakers - microphone - is to generate "flat".

Why would I measure with a curve? Should I boost 30hz by 40dB because A-weighting is closest " to reflect the response of the human ear to noise"?

Hint: boosting 40hz by 30dB is not what I want to listen to. I've experimented with that - curve to ear sensitivity doesn't work for me.

C and Z are close enough there's no reason that I see to go with C.

Oh, I'm familiar with it, I just never use it because so few things are measured with Z-weighting that it creates extra work for me to normalize the data.

This usually comes up when I'm trying to deal with different microphones.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Not being a mic jockey, I hadn't appreciated these weighting aspects, especially in the higher frequencies - I had always assumed that that people were talking of measuring the flat response in a situation. If the measuring device is "distorting" the reading, and the reader is not aware of that no wonder confusion reigns at times ...
 
OP
RayDunzl

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,201
Likes
16,983
Location
Riverview FL
I hadn't appreciated these weighting aspects

As I understand it:

Measurement microphones are intended to to measure "flat" or unweighted... They may also include a calibration file to correct for their unavoidable un-flatness. Their output may be displayed with or without other weighting schemes applied depending upon what it feeds and the capabilities of those devices.

SPL meters have curve choices, usually A and C (at minimum). I would think that is like a "filter", applied to the otherwise flat-ish output of the attached "measurement" mic.

REW's SPL meter gives the choices of A, C, or Z (unweighted).

REW's microphone setup options "corrects" for whether or not the initial data from the measuring device is C or unweighted, to permit the use of C-weighted SPL meters as an input, and permits the use of a Calibration file for use with measurement mics so equipped.

Noise regulations are based on the weighted measurements, since it more accurately reflects the dangers of SPL at frequency for regulatory sound exposure (health and safety) purposes.

Performance microphones (for recording vocal or instruments) have curves and polar patterns based on their inherent capabilities or tuning for specific purposes.

You can roam around here - http://www.acoustic-glossary.co.uk/definitions-l.htm - for more than you need to know...
 
Last edited:

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
I always use unweighted response for audio system measurements, A weighted only when required for specific tests (e.g. OSHA or to verify manufacturer's specs), and C only because my SPL meter does not "do" flat. In audiophile fora I have always seen system measurements based upon unweighted ("Z") response. Audio components often list several specs and sometimes mix things up, e.g. unweighted frequency response and weighted SNR (to provide the best-looking numbers for marketing, natch).

C deviates substantially from Z at low and high frequency extremes. I actually use a calibrated mic, either a UMIK-1 with cal file (from CSL), or my Earthworks M30 (which has more extended response). Z has meant "flat" over the years but the EIA (I think? maybe IEEE?) defined it explicitly a while back because "unweighted" was interpreted differently by different manufacturers so mic and system roll-off was not consistent. Most handled the HF portion OK, i.e. flat to 20 kHz, but the LF corner varied (some used 20 Hz, some up to 30 or 40 Hz, and some lower -- my mic rolls off to -3 dB around 5 Hz). I believe the standard now is flat from 10 Hz to 20 kHz with +/-1 dB (not sure the flatness spec; IIRC it is tighter than +/-3 dB but not sure it is +/-1 dB).

FWIWFM - Don
 

watchnerd

Grand Contributor
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
12,449
Likes
10,408
Location
Seattle Area, USA
Performance microphones (for recording vocal or instruments) have curves and polar patterns based on their inherent capabilities or tuning for specific purposes.

This is correct. Performance microphones are definitely not flat.

You don't even need a calibrated measurement mic to detect this. It's blatantly obvious to the unaided ear. There are microphone review sites with regular shootouts that compare the same sounds recorded through different mics.
 

fas42

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
2,818
Likes
191
Location
Australia
Thanks, gentlemen ...
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,524
Likes
37,057
This is correct. Performance microphones are definitely not flat.

You don't even need a calibrated measurement mic to detect this. It's blatantly obvious to the unaided ear. There are microphone review sites with regular shootouts that compare the same sounds recorded through different mics.

You can look here at the recordinghacks mic database for specs and response graphes of nearly any recording microphone you can come across. They aren't flat in general. No matter the cost.

http://recordinghacks.com/microphones


Here is a $3800 Neumann microphone with omni capsule.

http://recordinghacks.com/microphones/Neumann/TLM67

0616.png


Now to my surprise, I took an inexpensive omni mic and created a calibration file for REW using a published graph of response like the one above. When I compared it to my recently acquired Umik1 it was a near perfect match. I would have thought the published curve too good to be true.
 
OP
RayDunzl

RayDunzl

Grand Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
13,201
Likes
16,983
Location
Riverview FL
In post #1, I showed a step response. I inverted it to make it "look" a little better.

Here's the "raw" (red) and "DRC'd" (blue) step response measured at the listening position without any "invert the signal" post-processing in REW (or in the source), just presented as a curiosity:

upload_2017-1-14_9-22-46.png
 

Name

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
89
Likes
22
Ray, I just got a pair of the JBL 308p's and measured them at listening distance (about 4' distance) and I measured with the umik-1 and I got the same hole at around 150hz that you had. (And no eq had been applied)
 

Name

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
89
Likes
22
After taking measurements I found this thread by Google searching "jbl 308p 150hz" lol
 

Name

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
89
Likes
22
I am wondering if this dip I have at 150hz is related to my room, or the position of my mic which is positioned precisely between where my ears would be when seated... I think tonight if I can make some time I would like to measure the speakers individually, up close at lower volume away from any walls to see if it is the speaker causing the dip.
 

SIY

Grand Contributor
Technical Expert
Joined
Apr 6, 2018
Messages
10,383
Likes
24,749
Location
Alfred, NY
I am wondering if this dip I have at 150hz is related to my room, or the position of my mic which is positioned precisely between where my ears would be when seated...

It may be the Roy Allison dip. His "BestPlace" software is probably still floating around the internet somewhere, so you could check to see if it models correctly to explain the 150Hz hole you have.
 

Name

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2017
Messages
89
Likes
22
Excellent reply. I just read about this on my lunch break, in a forum somewhere (though they did not mention Roy Allison). So I pulled up a calculator for the wavelength at 158hz (the middle of the dip) and it is roughly 86". A quarter wavelength = 21.5". I need to look into this more, but I am betting it has a lot to do with it. Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: SIY
Top Bottom