• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Mesanovic RTM10 Monitor

pozz

Data Ordinator
Forum Donor
Editor
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
2,892
Likes
4,414
#21
@deni Thank you for the detailed reply.

When did you decide to start producing monitors? What convinced you to use DSP crossovers and the spinorama for measurement? Did you have particular design goals?
 

deni

Member
Manufacturer
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
14
Likes
92
Location
Detroit
#22
@deni Thank you for the detailed reply.

When did you decide to start producing monitors? What convinced you to use DSP crossovers and the spinorama for measurement? Did you have particular design goals?
I started designing the RTM10 in early 2018. The main reason being that I've heard basically every studio monitor that's out there (all price ranges) and I did not enjoy listening to any of their top end responses. Every monitor eventually became fatiguing to listen to after a few hours which is detrimental to working long hours in studio settings. I've listened to true aluminum ribbon tweeters in hifi marketed speakers and thought they sounded fantastic (also non fatiguing) and could not understand why they weren't used in pro studio monitors. Since my expertise is in ribbon mics and acoustics in general, I figured I might as well start researching and designing a ribbon tweeter that lives up to the quality our mics are known for :)

Another major design goal for the RTM10 was to get an extended/low distortion bass response out of a smaller nearfield monitor and that's a major part of why the DSP crossovers and equalization were important. I always found it interesting why other manufacturers were trying to get responses down to 20-30Hz using small, low excursion 6-7" woofers. It made no sense (laws of physics as well) if you wanted to monitor at even moderate levels. That's why I opted for a true high excursion 10" subwoofer in the RTM10 that's capable of taking tons of EQ in a small cabinet and puts out deep bass and at fairly loud levels (105dB from 31Hz upward at 1m per speaker) with minimal distortion. I also think stereo subwoofers are the way to go. The crossover point of 150Hz is also optimal as it allows the subwoofer to remain omni directional up to that point, but also removes significant stress at loud levels on the mid range (reduced excursion) and lower distortion of the overall combination.
 
Last edited:

deni

Member
Manufacturer
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
14
Likes
92
Location
Detroit
#24
Maybe I missed it, but how is the cabinet constructed? What material(s)?
The entire cabinet is made from 1" thick MDF. The tweeter/midrange, subwoofer, and amp plate are all sealed in their own chambers. The subwoofer chamber is also internally braced. There are also no wood screws used for securing the drivers. The drivers/amp plate are secured using socket head screws to internally threaded metal inserts. The cabinets are manufactured in California.
 

HooStat

Senior Member
Joined
May 11, 2020
Messages
346
Likes
253
Location
Calabasas, CA
#25
I figured I might as well start researching and designing a ribbon tweeter that lives up to the quality our mics are known for
Anything you can share about what is "different" about yours in terms of performance? I know @q3cpma doesn't think much of them (to paraphrase his post) so I am wondering if your tweeter addresses any of the issues. I don't have any experience in this area, having never heard a ribbon tweeter for more than a few minutes.
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,451
Likes
4,830
Location
NYC
#26
Desks don't reflect only the highest frequencies, which means that those early reflections will color the sound. Personally, I continue to see ribbons as marketing gimmicks with massive inherent problems like directivity depending on direction (that could be shaped more flexibly with a waveguide, if needed) and vertical beaming making them unfit for state of the art designs.
Yes, but it'll color them less. Neumann attempts to do the same thing with its own waveguide-- directivity is narrower vertically than it is horizontally.

While I'm not sold on chunkier ribbons, narrow ribbons have their place. You add a waveguide, you narrow directivity, and then it defeats much of the point of using a ribbon in the first place. IMO it's not really worth comparing with big waveguide designs when significantly different directivity patterns will fundamentally alter their spatial presentation anyway. When we're comparing speakers that are this good(flat, with directivity decently controlled, and with distortion decently reigned in), differences in tonality and distortion would, I believe, almost certainly become secondary relative to their spatial characteristics. Even more so when you factor in the potential for EQ to taste.

I started designing the RTM10 in early 2018. The main reason being that I've heard basically every studio monitor that's out there (all price ranges) and I did not enjoy listening to any of their top end responses. Every monitor eventually became fatiguing to listen to after a few hours which is detrimental to working long hours in studio settings. I've listened to true aluminum ribbon tweeters in hifi marketed speakers and thought they sounded fantastic (also non fatiguing) and could not understand why they weren't used in pro studio monitors. Since my expertise is in ribbon mics and acoustics in general, I figured I might as well start researching and designing a ribbon tweeter that lives up to the quality our mics are known for :)

Another major design goal for the RTM10 was to get an extended/low distortion bass response out of a smaller nearfield monitor and that's a major part of why the DSP crossovers and equalization were important. I always found it interesting why other manufacturers were trying to get responses down to 20-30Hz using small, low excursion 6-7" woofers. It made no sense (laws of physics as well) if you wanted to monitor at even moderate levels. That's why I opted for a true high excursion 10" subwoofer in the RTM10 that's capable of taking tons of EQ in a small cabinet and puts out deep bass and at fairly loud levels (105dB from 31Hz upward at 1m per speaker) with minimal distortion. I also think stereo subwoofers are the way to go. The crossover point of 150Hz is also optimal as it allows the subwoofer to remain omni directional up to that point, but also removes significant stress at loud levels on the mid range (reduced excursion) and lower distortion of the overall combination.
@deni Thanks for contributing here! Certainly looks like a unique design, one that appeals to me as someone who tends to gravitate towards wider horizontal directivity. I'm curious as to why you find ribbon tweeters are less fatiguing?
 

deni

Member
Manufacturer
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
14
Likes
92
Location
Detroit
#27
Anything you can share about what is "different" about yours in terms of performance? I know @q3cpma doesn't think much of them (to paraphrase his post) so I am wondering if your tweeter addresses any of the issues. I don't have any experience in this area, having never heard a ribbon tweeter for more than a few minutes.
I'm not sure what q3cpma doesn't like about them aside from his statement on vertical directivity, but regarding specifically "true" aluminum ribbon tweeters (not AMTs found in Adams, Hedds, etc.) there are several design elements our tweeter improves upon greatly. First being the matching transformer that brings up the low ribbon impedance to a 4/8 ohm impedance. We use the same amorphous nanocrystalline toroidal cores that are found in our ribbon microphones. These cores offer lower distortion and impart far less of a sonic character than a traditional bobbin core transformer that is used in almost all other ribbon tweeters. Transformers are unique to true ribbon tweeters, so it is a critical piece of the puzzle that plays a major role in their overall sound. Another key feature in our ribbon is the way in which it is cut and corrugated. Rather than using Xacto blades to cut ribbons (like most do), we use a MOPA fiber laser that allows us to cut to micron precision repeatedly and to do so with no microscopic tears that are common when using Xacto blades. Our corrugation is not a traditional "zigzag" one, but rather a unique angled approach that significantly reduces harmonic distortion (especially 3rd harmonic) at lower frequencies that allows us to maintain low distortion at the crossover point where as other ribbons would have greatly increased distortion in this area. The corrugation essentially helps increase horizontal rigidity of the ribbon. One more critical feature of our ribbon that adds to its sonic character is the use of 4 micron thick aluminum vs. the more common 9-15 micron thickness in other ribbons. Thicker ribbons tend to add a sort of "sizzle" or "pleasing crunch" compared to a 4 micron ribbon that does not display these characteristics at all. If you've ever handled aluminum this thin you'll notice the thicker it gets the more "sizzle" you can hear by simply blowing on it.

Hope that helps a bit. I can dive into great technical detail on the transformer side of things, but I'm not sure if that's something that readers would enjoy :)

Yes, but it'll color them less. Neumann attempts to do the same thing with its own waveguide-- directivity is narrower vertically than it is horizontally.

While I'm not sold on chunkier ribbons, narrow ribbons have their place. You add a waveguide, you narrow directivity, and then it defeats much of the point of using a ribbon in the first place. IMO it's not really worth comparing with big waveguide designs when significantly different directivity patterns will fundamentally alter their spatial presentation anyway. When we're comparing speakers that are this good(flat, with directivity decently controlled, and with distortion decently reigned in), differences in tonality and distortion would, I believe, almost certainly become secondary relative to their spatial characteristics. Even more so when you factor in the potential for EQ to taste.



@deni Thanks for contributing here! Certainly looks like a unique design, one that appeals to me as someone who tends to gravitate towards wider horizontal directivity. I'm curious as to why you find ribbon tweeters are less fatiguing?
I find them less fatiguing based on extensive listening of a variety of material through them, but I think a great way to explain it is by describing how ribbon microphones handle high frequencies. Ribbon mics can take TONs of top end EQ and remain completely smooth and pleasing. The way they handle transients and resolve them is very different from a dynamic or condenser microphone. This is mainly due to the mass of the diaphragm and low resonant frequency. Now apply that to a ribbon tweeter and I find that even when you playback the brightest source material they accurately depict that the mix is "bright", but resolve the high end and transients in a very smooth, accurate, and pleasing manner. A good test to do is a 10dB high shelf boost to a soft dome/metal dome tweeter and compare that to adding the same boost to a ribbon. The dome tweeter would eventually be unbearable on certain material for extended listening, but I think you'd find the ribbon quite the opposite :)

A properly designed true ribbon tweeter also is unique in the way it handles distortion at increasing levels. At levels below 90dB SPL @ 1 meter the distortion is very low (less than 0.5% or far below that). When reaching levels of 95-100dB you'll find that a true ribbon will reach its max distortion around this point and anything above that SPL the THD remains almost the same. I think this contributes to the "less fatiguing" nature of ribbons at moderately loud levels as domes usually can get pretty harsh when pushed hard.
 
Last edited:

napilopez

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,451
Likes
4,830
Location
NYC
#28
Hope that helps a bit. I can dive into great technical detail on the transformer side of things, but I'm not sure if that's something that readers would enjoy :)
Do you even know where you are? ;) Dive deep! It's this time of thing we like to see from manufacturers.

I find them less fatiguing based on extensive listening of a variety of material through them, but I think a great way to explain it is by describing how ribbon microphones handle high frequencies. Ribbon mics can take TONs of top end EQ and remain completely smooth and pleasing. The way they handle transients and resolve them is very different from a dynamic or condenser microphone. This is mainly due to the mass of the diaphragm and low resonant frequency. Now apply that to a ribbon tweeter and I find that even when you playback the brightest source material they accurately depict that the mix is "bright", but resolve the high end and transients in a very smooth, accurate, and pleasing manner. A good test to do is a 10dB high shelf boost to a soft dome/metal dome tweeter and compare that to adding the same boost to a ribbon. The dome tweeter would eventually be unbearable on certain material for extended listening, but I think you'd find the ribbon quite the opposite :)

A properly designed true ribbon tweeter also is unique in the way it handles distortion at increasing levels. At levels below 90dB SPL @ 1 meter the distortion is very low (less than 0.5% or far below that). When reaching levels of 95-100dB you'll find that a true ribbon will reach its max distortion around this point and anything above that SPL the THD remains almost the same. I think this contributes to the "less fatiguing" nature of ribbons at moderately loud levels as domes usually can get pretty harsh when pushed hard.
I appreciate the response! I'll admit I've never experienced any kind of tweeter fatigue than I can recall (other than speakers with blatantly bright frequency response), so that's never been a concern of mine. But I don't tend to listen too loud either. I believe @Dennis Murphy has said something similar about ribbons though, something about the wave launch of ribbons vs domes.

Never spent more than a few minutes listening to a ribbon either though.
 

deni

Member
Manufacturer
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
14
Likes
92
Location
Detroit
#29
Do you even know where you are? ;) Dive deep! It's this time of thing we like to see from manufacturers.



I appreciate the response! I'll admit I've never experienced any kind of tweeter fatigue than I can recall (other than speakers with blatantly bright frequency response), so that's never been a concern of mine. But I don't tend to listen too loud either. I believe @Dennis Murphy has said something similar about ribbons though, something about the wave launch of ribbons vs domes.

Never spent more than a few minutes listening to a ribbon either though.
Totally understandable. True ribbons are not as common as I wish they were! Listening levels do play a major role certainly. The differences become more apparent at louder levels for extending listening/mixing sessions.

I see in your profile you're in the NYC area. We recently set up Legendary Pro Audio as a dealer in the NYC/NJ area. They carry some great brands including Focal, D&D, and Kii. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to give you a demo if you're interested!
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
1,451
Likes
4,830
Location
NYC
#30
Totally understandable. True ribbons are not as common as I wish they were! Listening levels do play a major role certainly. The differences become more apparent at louder levels for extending listening/mixing sessions.

I see in your profile you're in the NYC area. We recently set up Legendary Pro Audio as a dealer in the NYC/NJ area. They carry some great brands including Focal, D&D, and Kii. I'm sure they'd be more than happy to give you a demo if you're interested!
Hah, they might actually literally be a short walk from me, if their location is where I think it is. Seems they've relocating or something as I can't find address information.
 
OP
J
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
29
Likes
146
Thread Starter #32
Hey ASR! Deni here from Mesanovic. This is my very first post on the forum. I'm happy to answer any questions about the RTM10 or the company in general. Thanks!
I’m so glad to see you in here!
I hope many of people will know Mesanovic.
 

Maiky76

Active Member
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
144
Likes
887
Location
French, leaving in China
#34
We have extensive measurements posted below and they'll be on our website very soon. At the moment all of our demo pairs are out for review (and we only have a few). Once we get them back I'm sure we can figure something out!



Thanks Keith!



Mesanovic is my last name. The full company name is Mesanovic Microphones, but since we've added monitors to our offerings I think just "Mesanovic" would be more fitting moving forward :)

I've been designing and manufacturing ribbon microphones for almost 10 years. Our microphones are 100% completely made in-house. The metal machining of the body/internals, transformer winding, ribboning, testing, everything in-house. We also manufacturer OEM toroidal transformers for several pro audio companies. The RTM10 features an in-house made true ribbon tweeter with our unique toroidal core matching transformer and a very unique corrugation pattern. These two elements help us achieve very low harmonic distortion for a 4 micron thick true aluminum ribbon tweeter. It's also imporant to note that a 4 micron thick ribbon sounds very different from the common 9-15 micron thick ribbons found in some of the mass produced ribbons from large transducer manufacturers. I'll also note that each pair of RTM10's is matched. The factory tolerances for all the drivers is very tight, but even then we take time to match each pair in our chamber and keep all records in case of driver failures/replacement issues so we can ensure a perfectly matched pair in case of repair.

Attached below are directivity charts, distortion, group delay, and the spinorama. All these measurements were conducted in our anechoic chamber (anechoic down to 200Hz) and merged with ground plane measurements.

You'll notice the narrowing vertical directivity at high frequencies which is common with ribbon tweeters. Being that the RTM10 is targeted at mixing/mastering studios for nearfield/midfield positioning, the narrow directivity is quite beneficial in removing reflections that are very common from mixing console/control surfaces and overhead "clouds" or the ceiling in general. For home hifi use this is also beneficial and since most listening is done in midfield/farfield at home this effect becomes drastically less noticeable at those distances (sitting vs standing).

I also threw in a picture of our anechoic chamber. It took quite some time to design and build. It's always great giving tours and having people experience zero reflections for their first time!

-Deni

View attachment 90204
View attachment 90205
View attachment 90206
View attachment 90207
View attachment 90208
View attachment 90209
I have digitized the published CEA2034 to have a closer look at the speaker.
Notes on the limits of the exercise:
  • The scores are only indicative as the resolution of the scans, although interpolated to a correct 1/20th octave step, is most probably too coarse.
  • The calculated scores are not directly comparable to the others form ASR but I would be inclined to say that the EQ benefits are correctly captured
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment.
The Spinorama data is attached for whom it may be useful, just uncompress it

Spinorama no EQ
Score: 7.77! which is amazing a very good LF performance helps a lot there I think.
with sub: 8.73
Mesanovic RTM10 Spinorama No EQ.png

Well executed design. Nothing to report really ON and LW wise.
However the PIR/ER data is not that smooth with a bump around 1500Hz (odd) and a trough around 2600Hz (Xover directivity error) and a bump again higher up before the directivity becomes really narrow. Might not be an issue with correctly treated control rooms but could be disadvantageous in a regular environment. This can be seen on the directivity maps.

I have noticed that the horizontal directivity map looks very symmetrical, given that the SW is on one side and Xovered at 350Hz. [EDIT 150Hz]
It seems to be mirrored with an offset but I might be wrong...

EQ design:
Two EQ are presented, one called LW which it targeted for flat LW not taking into account the Olive metric.
The second one starts from the first one and add the Olive metric as an optimization parameter.
The EQ APO config files (human readable) are attached.
Really minor EQ, that may not be necessary at all, shows high level of optimization.
The main change is the HF output decreased on the EQ Score typical of tweeter without waveguide.

Score EQ LW (Black): 7.79
with sub: 8.80
Score EQ Score (Blue): 7.91
with sub: 8.86

Code:
Mesanovic RTM10 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
October302020-120901

Preamp: -1 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 2635 Hz Gain 0.7 dB Q 4
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 6474 Hz Gain -0.8 dB Q 2
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 13992 Hz Gain 1 dB Q 0.7


Mesanovic RTM10 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
October302020-120955

Preamp: -1.3 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 2708 Hz Gain 0.55 dB Q 5.2
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 5529 Hz Gain -0.87 dB Q 1.36
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 20941 Hz Gain 1.32 dB Q 1
Mesanovic RTM10 EQ Design.png

The EQ LW spinorama
Mesanovic RTM10 Spinorama EQ LW.png

The EQ Score Spinorama, the PIR looks smoother but the ON a bit less so.
Mesanovic RTM10 Spinorama EQ Score.png

Zoom PIR-LW-ON with the two EQ vs No EQ, the out-of-the-box curve has attributes of both EQs depending on the range.
Mesanovic RTM10 Zoom PIR-LW-ON.png

The regression - tonal, the Score EQ tracks the the out-of-the-box curve very closely.
Mesanovic RTM10 Regression Tonal.png


Overall great effort.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
OP
J
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
29
Likes
146
Thread Starter #35
I have digitized the published CEA2034 to have a closer look at the speaker.
Notes on the limits of the exercise:
  • The scores are only indicative as the resolution of the scans, although interpolated to a correct 1/20th octave step, is most probably too coarse.
  • The calculated scores are not directly comparable to the others form ASR but I would be inclined to say that the EQ benefits are correctly captured
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment.
The Spinorama data is attached for whom it may be useful, just uncompress it

Spinorama no EQ
Score: 7.77! which is amazing a very good LF performance helps a lot there I think. View attachment 90282
Well executed design. Nothing to report really ON and LW wise.
However the PIR/ER data is not that smooth with a bump around 1500Hz (odd) and a trough around 2600Hz (Xover directivity error) and a bump again higher up before the directivity becomes really narrow. Might not be an issue with correctly treated control rooms but could be disadvantageous in a regular environment. This can be seen on the directivity maps.

I have noticed that the horizontal directivity map looks very symmetrical, given that the SW is on one side and Xovered at 350Hz.
It seems to be mirrored with an offset but I might be wrong...

EQ design:
Two EQ are presented, one called LW which it targeted for flat LW not taking into account the Olive metric.
The second one starts from the first one and add the Olive metric as an optimization parameter.
The EQ APO config files (human readable) are attached.
Really minor EQ, that may not be necessary at all, shows high level of optimization.
The main change is the HF output decreased on the EQ Score typical of tweeter without waveguide.

Score EQ LW (Black): 7.79
Score EQ Score (Blue): 7.91

Code:
Mesanovic RTM10 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
October302020-120901

Preamp: -1 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 2635 Hz Gain 0.7 dB Q 4
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 6474 Hz Gain -0.8 dB Q 2
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 13992 Hz Gain 1 dB Q 0.7


Mesanovic RTM10 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
October302020-120955

Preamp: -1.3 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 2708 Hz Gain 0.55 dB Q 5.2
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 5529 Hz Gain -0.87 dB Q 1.36
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 20941 Hz Gain 1.32 dB Q 1
View attachment 90288
The EQ LW spinorama
View attachment 90287
The EQ Score Spinorama, the PIR looks smoother but the ON a bit less so.
View attachment 90286
Zoom PIR-LW-ON with the two EQ vs No EQ, the out-of-the-box curve has attributes of both EQs depending on the range.
View attachment 90285
The regression - tonal, the Score EQ tracks the the out-of-the-box curve very closely.
View attachment 90283

Overall great effort.

Thank you for your affort! Great score really it is.
Can you show us w/sub score too?
By the way, SW crossover point is 150Hz, not 350Hz.
 

vavan

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2019
Messages
309
Likes
163
Location
Kazan, Russia
#36
The RTM10 features an in-house made true ribbon tweeter with our unique toroidal core matching transformer and a very unique corrugation pattern
wonder how your ribbon compares against viawave
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
1,856
Likes
2,525
#37
I have digitized the published CEA2034 to have a closer look at the speaker.
Notes on the limits of the exercise:
  • The scores are only indicative as the resolution of the scans, although interpolated to a correct 1/20th octave step, is most probably too coarse.
  • The calculated scores are not directly comparable to the others form ASR but I would be inclined to say that the EQ benefits are correctly captured
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment.
The Spinorama data is attached for whom it may be useful, just uncompress it

Spinorama no EQ
Score: 7.77! which is amazing a very good LF performance helps a lot there I think.
with sub: 8.73
View attachment 90282
Well executed design. Nothing to report really ON and LW wise.
However the PIR/ER data is not that smooth with a bump around 1500Hz (odd) and a trough around 2600Hz (Xover directivity error) and a bump again higher up before the directivity becomes really narrow. Might not be an issue with correctly treated control rooms but could be disadvantageous in a regular environment. This can be seen on the directivity maps.

I have noticed that the horizontal directivity map looks very symmetrical, given that the SW is on one side and Xovered at 350Hz. [EDIT 150Hz]
It seems to be mirrored with an offset but I might be wrong...

EQ design:
Two EQ are presented, one called LW which it targeted for flat LW not taking into account the Olive metric.
The second one starts from the first one and add the Olive metric as an optimization parameter.
The EQ APO config files (human readable) are attached.
Really minor EQ, that may not be necessary at all, shows high level of optimization.
The main change is the HF output decreased on the EQ Score typical of tweeter without waveguide.

Score EQ LW (Black): 7.79
with sub: 8.80
Score EQ Score (Blue): 7.91
with sub: 8.86

Code:
Mesanovic RTM10 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
October302020-120901

Preamp: -1 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 2635 Hz Gain 0.7 dB Q 4
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 6474 Hz Gain -0.8 dB Q 2
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 13992 Hz Gain 1 dB Q 0.7


Mesanovic RTM10 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
October302020-120955

Preamp: -1.3 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 2708 Hz Gain 0.55 dB Q 5.2
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 5529 Hz Gain -0.87 dB Q 1.36
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 20941 Hz Gain 1.32 dB Q 1
View attachment 90288
The EQ LW spinorama
View attachment 90287
The EQ Score Spinorama, the PIR looks smoother but the ON a bit less so.
View attachment 90286
Zoom PIR-LW-ON with the two EQ vs No EQ, the out-of-the-box curve has attributes of both EQs depending on the range.
View attachment 90285
The regression - tonal, the Score EQ tracks the the out-of-the-box curve very closely.
View attachment 90283

Overall great effort.
Wow! Those are some great measurements! Best to date, I believe. Getting close to breaking into the 9s w/sub!
 

deni

Member
Manufacturer
Joined
Oct 29, 2020
Messages
14
Likes
92
Location
Detroit
#38
I have digitized the published CEA2034 to have a closer look at the speaker.
Notes on the limits of the exercise:
  • The scores are only indicative as the resolution of the scans, although interpolated to a correct 1/20th octave step, is most probably too coarse.
  • The calculated scores are not directly comparable to the others form ASR but I would be inclined to say that the EQ benefits are correctly captured
  • The EQs are designed in the context of regular stereo use i.e. domestic environment, no warranty is provided for a near field use in a studio environment.
The Spinorama data is attached for whom it may be useful, just uncompress it

Spinorama no EQ
Score: 7.77! which is amazing a very good LF performance helps a lot there I think.
with sub: 8.73
View attachment 90282
Well executed design. Nothing to report really ON and LW wise.
However the PIR/ER data is not that smooth with a bump around 1500Hz (odd) and a trough around 2600Hz (Xover directivity error) and a bump again higher up before the directivity becomes really narrow. Might not be an issue with correctly treated control rooms but could be disadvantageous in a regular environment. This can be seen on the directivity maps.

I have noticed that the horizontal directivity map looks very symmetrical, given that the SW is on one side and Xovered at 350Hz. [EDIT 150Hz]
It seems to be mirrored with an offset but I might be wrong...

EQ design:
Two EQ are presented, one called LW which it targeted for flat LW not taking into account the Olive metric.
The second one starts from the first one and add the Olive metric as an optimization parameter.
The EQ APO config files (human readable) are attached.
Really minor EQ, that may not be necessary at all, shows high level of optimization.
The main change is the HF output decreased on the EQ Score typical of tweeter without waveguide.

Score EQ LW (Black): 7.79
with sub: 8.80
Score EQ Score (Blue): 7.91
with sub: 8.86

Code:
Mesanovic RTM10 APO EQ LW 96000Hz
October302020-120901

Preamp: -1 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 2635 Hz Gain 0.7 dB Q 4
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 6474 Hz Gain -0.8 dB Q 2
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 13992 Hz Gain 1 dB Q 0.7


Mesanovic RTM10 APO EQ Score 96000Hz
October302020-120955

Preamp: -1.3 dB

Filter 1: ON PK Fc 2708 Hz Gain 0.55 dB Q 5.2
Filter 2: ON PK Fc 5529 Hz Gain -0.87 dB Q 1.36
Filter 3: ON PK Fc 20941 Hz Gain 1.32 dB Q 1
View attachment 90288
The EQ LW spinorama
View attachment 90287
The EQ Score Spinorama, the PIR looks smoother but the ON a bit less so.
View attachment 90286
Zoom PIR-LW-ON with the two EQ vs No EQ, the out-of-the-box curve has attributes of both EQs depending on the range.
View attachment 90285
The regression - tonal, the Score EQ tracks the the out-of-the-box curve very closely.
View attachment 90283

Overall great effort.
Thanks for taking the time to do this! It's nice to get an idea of what the preference score is. Always wondered what it would be! I've attached our Spin data if anyone is interested in checking it out.

wonder how your ribbon compares against viawave
This viawave ribbons look like fantastic designs and I'm sure they perform exceptionally well. Hope I get a chance to hear them one day!
 

Attachments

dfuller

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2020
Messages
384
Likes
363
#39
Looks like barefoot's got some competition.
 
Top Bottom