It is well known that nicely prepared pink noise would be rather "gentle" for tweeters and super-tweeters for their burn-in and Fq response (relative SLP) measurements.
As shared in my post
here, typical well-prepared flat pink noise, however, has gradual elevation of acoustic response (energy) in dB scale from high towards low frequency while typical white noise has actually flat response through 20 Hz - 20 kHz, as shown here analyzed by MusicScope 2.1.0;
View attachment 151620
I very carefully compared "cumulative pink noise averaging" and "cumulative white noise averaging" for Fq response measurements in my multichannel system as shared from
here to
here, and I found/confirmed the latter is better for Fq response measurement in actual room acoustics at the listening position.
The
"cumulative white noise averaging" for Fq response measurements is really straightforward to perform and very simple for understanding the results, since there is no "black-box" like signal manupirations (such as psychoacoustic smoothing in REW) with softwares.
Just for reference, according to the manual of REW;
"Psychoacoustic smoothing uses 1/3 octave below 100Hz, 1/6 octave above 1 kHz and varies from 1/3 octave to 1/6 octave between 100 Hz and 1 kHz. It also applies more weighting to peaks by using a cubic mean (cube root of the average of the cubed values) to produce a plot that more closely corresponds to the perceived frequency response."
I feel that "psychoacoustic smoothing" seems to give the frequency response curve that best corresponds (matches) to our auditory sensation.
On the other hand, I also would like to establish "my own routine procedure/method" of Fq response measurements which should be reliable, reproducible as well as flexibly re-analyzable, and also should be well understandable regarding the internal processing and validity.
The measurement procedure is very simple; you may just "record" the white noise sound by Adobe Audition for
ca. 1 minute using your measurement microphone at listening position, and then you would select the
ca. 50 second middle area of the recorded sound (without the starting and ending portion) for spectrum analysis. This means you are automatically averaging the white noise sound over 50 second while all the SP drivers were singing all together in full range,
i.e. 20 Hz to 20 kHz.
As shared/summarized in my post
here, throughout my careful measurements/experiments, I confirmed and validated that this primitive
"cumulative (recorded) white noise averaging method" is really powerful and reliable in terms of;
1. the method is universally applicable in the stages of digital out of crossover software (EKIO), DAC's analog out, amplifier SP out, and of course in the actual room SP sound,
2. the method is accurate, sensitive and reproducible, having little or no statistical fluctuation, because of the FFT averaging analysis on the "rich cumulative data" of the recorded sound,
3. the recorded "white noise tracks" can be re-analyzed any way, anytime, afterwards,
4. flexible mix-paste (sound mixing) can be done to virtually simulate any combination of the channels, especially in amplifiers' SP out signals before going into SP drivers,
5. if needed, the environmental "continuous room background noise" can be reduced/removed by the Adobe Audition's "noise capture - noise reduction" function,
6. if needed, suitable gain/level adjustment can be applied for "level matched comparison" of Fq response shapes between the different series of the recorded data,
7. flexible and suitable FFT size (as smoothing intensity) can be selected depending on the frequency zone of interest.