Forgot to mention: This is captured with (intermediate) port plugs!
For relative comparaison, I just re-measured: Intermediate port plugs vs without.
View attachment 66274
Were both speakers measured at the same position?
Forgot to mention: This is captured with (intermediate) port plugs!
For relative comparaison, I just re-measured: Intermediate port plugs vs without.
View attachment 66274
I don't understand. This is a measurment of one speaker, still three captures at three distances, same height, same outpout SPL, then averaged.Were both speakers measured at the same position?
I don't understand. This is a measurment of one speaker, still three captures at three distances, same height, same outpout SPL, then averaged.
I did the same process on the same speaker with, then without plug.
Yes. For measuring, both have been placed precisely on the exact same stand. Note that the R3 being deeper, it happened to be a bit closer to the rear wall.What I'm asking is if you measured R3 and 906 while they were sitting at the same position in your room?
I agree. My measurements have no intend to be absolute. I have neither proper instrumentation, nor adequate room to do that. This is an amateurish, relative comparaison that should give some idea of each signature. I found my R3's captures to look similar (on different scales) to @amirm's estimated in room response, especially from 1Khz:Btw, nearfield measurement doesn't provide reliable picture of speaker's LF response. It is good from app 900Hz upwards, but I suggest you apply some gating to eliminate reflections.
Yes. For measuring, both have been placed precisely on the exact same stand. Note that the R3 being deeper, it happened to be a bit closer to the rear wall.
I agree. My measurements have no intend to be absolute. I have neither proper instrumentation, nor adequate room to do that. This is an amateurish, relative comparaison that should give some idea of each signature. I found my R3's captures to look similar (on different scales) to @amirm's estimated in room response, especially from 1Khz:View attachment 66277
Yes. For measuring, both have been placed precisely on the exact same stand. Note that the R3 being deeper, it happened to be a bit closer to the rear wall.
I agree. My measurements have no intend to be absolute. I have neither proper instrumentation, nor adequate room to do that. This is an amateurish, relative comparaison that should give some idea of each signature.
Can't get more than 27cm for the R3. Can go up to 32 for Arias.Btw, how far are the speakers from rear wall?
Were you measuring from the listening spot?
How far from the speakers?
All on-Axis, same height (tweeter axis for R3, fall to ahead of the midbass driver ring for 906s). Average of three near-field captures: 30cm, 50cm, then 1M for both. Tried to adjust at same SPL output, but there's one dB more for the R3 at the end (88.3 vs 89.4). Smoothing 1/24, vertical scale: 40 to 100dB.
Can't get more than 27cm for the R3. Can go up 32 for Arias.
My listening position is centered, a bit short of 3M away. Speakers are 1,90M apart, with no toe-in.That seems just about right. And what is the distance to your LP?
Here we go:
Preliminary measurements (Still In-room for now).
All on-Axis, same height (tweeter axis for R3, fall to ahead of the midbass driver ring for 906s). Average of three near-field captures: 30cm, 50cm, then 1M for both. Tried to adjust at same SPL output, but there's one dB more for the R3 at the end (88.3 vs 89.4). Smoothing 1/24, vertical scale: 40 to 100dB.
View attachment 66268
View attachment 66253
At last, predicted SPL adjusted to 88dB.
View attachment 66254
Looks like I was very wrong about that... Surprsingly, at the exact same output level: (1M, -30dB on ADI-2, -12dB on REW), I got quite the opposite: 49dB SPL vs 59dB for R3.
Were you measuring from the listening spot?
How far from the speakers?
If you were measuring from the listening spot then there is a massive difference between the tilt of the Klippel predicted PIR and that of the actual in-room response.
It would be interesting to compare more PIR curves with real-world in-room measurements.
It also occurs to me that it's possible the nearfield measurements at tweeter level are under-representing the R3's bass output @VintageFlanker and @QMuse.
So I expect MMM measurements from the LP would better showcase the bass differences, despite the expected peaks and nulls.
Sure. There's some part with my measurements that do not represent my listening impressions at all: first, sensitivity, I was 100% sure that Aria was more sensitive, while R3 finally output more dB at the same volume.It also occurs to me that it's possible the nearfield measurements at tweeter level are under-representing the R3's bass output @VintageFlanker and @QMuse. 1m is already cutting it close for as tall a speaker as the R3, but the 30 and 50cm measurements will almost certainly under-represent the woofer's output below 400Hz. Combine that with the R3 having a rear port and the aria a front one, and these nearfield captures probably aren't representative of bass performance for the R3. But they should suffice for assessing performance within the UniQ's passband.
@napilopez Do you own R3s? If yes, can you post corrected response measured from LP?
Sure. There's some part with my measurements that do not represent my listening impressions at all: first, sensitivity, I was 100% sure that Aria was more sensitive, while R3 finally output more dB at the same volume.
Same regarding bass: there's almost no doubt, even from a subjective perspective, that the R3 hits harder, deeper and lower during listening.
However, what's interesting comes starting from 1Khz. Whatever the scale, measurements from either @napilopez, @amirm or me all show a similar shape in this area (except the 1Khz deep) As I already know, 906 do present a smooth falling curve from 2-3Khz, while the R3 is more linear/straight (though a bit too elevated) in this region. That is perfectly audible in my listening experience. Ultimately, I'd say the R3 is a more accurate but brighter speaker, while 906 is smoother, more friendly to listen to (from my personal POV, of course)
Yes, that is what I would expect as well. As I mentioned in one of my posts I would trust them only north of 900Hz if properly gated.
View attachment 66285
Your measurement at 2m correlates really good with PIR (which is also calculated for listening distance of 2m IIRC). I would expect his will be looking similar but with more tilt at HF.
That wide dip in 750-2500 and peak around 9Khz are easy to fix. Modal things can also be dealt with, but I think his listening position which is 1m longer than distance between the speakers will affect stereo imaging, and EQ can't help that.
I do not unfortunately, these are all based on measurements I took last june.
I actually think the difference you're hearing may have has to do with the on-axis tuning. The R3 has a pretty much flat flat slope while Focal speakers almost all have a tilt already built into their on-axis. See soundstage network:
View attachment 66289
In my home my impressions were a little different =] From my listening notes, it seems I thought the Chora 806 (which measures very similar to the Aria 906) was more neutral than the R3, which I thought was very close to neutral but had slightly recessed voices. That same recession may be why you're hearing it as a bit bright. Of course, I'm talking mainly based on memory and some notepad scribbles on my listening impressions, not even a direct comparison, so my impressions are worth little =]
PIR I believe is referenced to 3.3m-ish, as that's what was determined to be the average listening distance in the devantier paper.
Anyway, the R3 is certainly EQable. I actually did try to EQ the R3 when I had them. Equing the 1K dip basically fixed the slightly recessed mids for me. I tried EQing the treble a bit but did not like it. Unlike VintageFlanker I actually thought the R3 was a little more laid back than I liked so cutting the treble didn't help. Also keep in mind that 2m measurement is in a part of my home with basically no absorptive surfaces. From the LP there's definitely be more treble attenuation.
As a side note, that's Amir's PIR. Because of either sample or measurement difference, that pesky difference at 1K comes up again. When I calculated my own PIR, it matched my 2m measurement even more closely throughout the mids:
View attachment 66290
Perhaps it's your room that is too lively? You could try a descending slope.As I already know, 906 do present a smooth falling curve from 2-3Khz, while the R3 is more linear/straight (though a bit too elevated) in this region. That is perfectly audible in my listening experience. Ultimately, I'd say the R3 is a more accurate but brighter speaker, while 906 is smoother, more friendly to listen to (from my personal POV, of course)
It also occurs to me that it's possible the nearfield measurements at tweeter level are under-representing the R3's bass output @VintageFlanker and @QMuse. 1m is already cutting it close for as tall a speaker as the R3, but the 30 and 50cm measurements will almost certainly under-represent the woofer's output below 400Hz. Combine that with the R3 having a rear port and the aria a front one, and these nearfield captures probably aren't representative of bass performance for the R3. But they should suffice for assessing performance within the UniQ's passband.