Chris A
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I see this kind of reaction a lot nowadays. One of the characteristics of good engineers that I found over my career was their ability to pull good information from otherwise problematic data presentations. From what I read, some comments in the referenced article were actually coincident with my own observations made over the last few years with NFS and other measurement means.
Try using a Klippel NFS on a planar panel design, or a fully horn loaded design (multiple aperture)--you'll immediately see the problems that Mr. Jones was quoted as saying. But if you put those type of loudspeakers into an anechoic chamber and back off with the microphone distance to 3m (which is the typical listening distance of floorstanding loudspeakers), the loudspeakers measure quite well and differently. They also tend to sound good subjectively at a reasonable listening distance. If you take any loudspeaker that's not fully coaxial and place your ear right next to a particular driver (like NFS is often doing), it typically doesn't sound very good, however. These are observations that I think we should be taking seriously.
Have in-room acoustic measurements generally improved the field? Certainly. But there are also poorer examples of "takeaways" that the person posting the data can't seem to resist--even if their experience doing measurements is lacking (even after taking many dozens of measurements on different loudspeaker models). Also, I find less than stellar understanding of the effects of in-room placement of loudspeakers by most "amateur reviewers". This is a real problem, and one that I read in the comments attributed to Mr. Jones.
Other comments include the subjective assessments of objective data. Once again, I have to agree with the quote provided. The problem with automated measurements is that it tends to be a "take it or leave it" proposition, and that's always a problematic situation in my experience--no matter how objective you might want the data to be. I've always learned to ask detailed questions about how the data was collected. Even for apparently automated measurement schemes, surprises always seem to jump out. I think Mr. Jones was saying that, too.
I think it's best to first find what you can agree with before trying to dismiss everything said. You're likely throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
JMTC.
Chris
Try using a Klippel NFS on a planar panel design, or a fully horn loaded design (multiple aperture)--you'll immediately see the problems that Mr. Jones was quoted as saying. But if you put those type of loudspeakers into an anechoic chamber and back off with the microphone distance to 3m (which is the typical listening distance of floorstanding loudspeakers), the loudspeakers measure quite well and differently. They also tend to sound good subjectively at a reasonable listening distance. If you take any loudspeaker that's not fully coaxial and place your ear right next to a particular driver (like NFS is often doing), it typically doesn't sound very good, however. These are observations that I think we should be taking seriously.
Have in-room acoustic measurements generally improved the field? Certainly. But there are also poorer examples of "takeaways" that the person posting the data can't seem to resist--even if their experience doing measurements is lacking (even after taking many dozens of measurements on different loudspeaker models). Also, I find less than stellar understanding of the effects of in-room placement of loudspeakers by most "amateur reviewers". This is a real problem, and one that I read in the comments attributed to Mr. Jones.
Other comments include the subjective assessments of objective data. Once again, I have to agree with the quote provided. The problem with automated measurements is that it tends to be a "take it or leave it" proposition, and that's always a problematic situation in my experience--no matter how objective you might want the data to be. I've always learned to ask detailed questions about how the data was collected. Even for apparently automated measurement schemes, surprises always seem to jump out. I think Mr. Jones was saying that, too.
I think it's best to first find what you can agree with before trying to dismiss everything said. You're likely throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
JMTC.
Chris
Last edited:
