You’re doing a great job @amirm, don’t get distracted. I’m sure we’re (most of us) behind and supporting what you’re accomplishing.
Just keep walking the ASR path!
/Cheers
Lars
I very much agree with this.
You’re doing a great job @amirm, don’t get distracted. I’m sure we’re (most of us) behind and supporting what you’re accomplishing.
Just keep walking the ASR path!
/Cheers
Lars
Yep, the vertical -10° would do much better.use the - 10 degree vertical angle as the reference?
Whats a bit bothering is the "small comb filter effect" between 3kHz and 10kHz. Could this be some kind of reflection from the Mic/Measurering-gear?
If you want to dig in, how about asking the manufacturer what "interpolated" means on their graph? What samples were used and whether customer units are tested to comply with that spec and if not, they accept returns. Ask them what the frequency resolution is. What lab and technique was used to make those measurements.
Collectively, you all are taking what started as a fun hobby to measure speakers into a miserable back and forth over things that don't matter. You are welcome to keep going but know the costs as you do so....
Anything worth doing, is worth doing well.
You are welcome to keep going but know the costs as you do so....
I don't think so, because smoothing will not flatten the "comb filtering" (enough) and in Post#319 edechamps posted the measurement of his KH 80 without such an effect (okay, this is not really proof of the contrary) - seems to me some kind of interference by reflections or calibration issue....due to sample to sample variation? Or difference in curve smoothing?
I'm pretty sure the "complaints" are only numerous because it's the beginning, everyone is very excited and since this is an important opportunity, nobody wants a mistake that can be avoided by reading the manual to be present in all the following measurements. Besides, there's no need to rush, your readers won't get sick (that fast) without their measurement fix.I already know what it is capable of. It produced the flattest response of any speaker I have tested with this sample. That is what the manufacturer promotes, and that is what the results are. There is just no way anyone should try to focus so minutely on speaker measurements. The spin data for example sums many graphs as to get rid of such nuances.
If you all want to dig in, you are welcome but please don't involve me. I have spent more time dealing with protests on the measurements than remotely measuring speakers. It is not fun and promotes a strategy that is just wrong with it comes to evaluating speakers based on measurements.
If you want to dig in, how about asking the manufacturer what "interpolated" means on their graph? What samples were used and whether customer units are tested to comply with that spec and if not, they accept returns. Ask them what the frequency resolution is. What lab and technique was used to make those measurements.
Collectively, you all are taking what started as a fun hobby to measure speakers into a miserable back and forth over things that don't matter. You are welcome to keep going but know the costs as you do so....
Perhaps it would be a better service to the forum to move all this endless stuff in a new thread for the people interested. I have to agree with @amirm and am massively uninterested in splitting hairs or obsessing on 1dB, that doesn't add anything to the review.
Maybe a comment about such issues in a review can off-set this concern.
Well, if Amir knows the many hours of repeating the test will produce the same result, why bother? If there's compression going on, it should have been indicated in the speaker. If not, the indicator is useless, which is also beneficial for me to know. In any case, as long as we make sure to include estimated preference rating both with and without bass extension, it's all a bit nit-pickety.Maybe a repeated measurement done at reference axis recommended by manufacturer and avoiding LF compression would do a better job off-setting this concern.
12-15 measurements were performed during setting up NFS and that was certainly a great effort, but doing one more with KH80 may be a good idea to blow away any doubts and to establish a good measurement procedure.
I don't know what Klippel's software will allow, but the mathematics of near field acoustical holography (NAH, which the NFS is based on) allows for the reconstruction of the acoustic field anywhere in 3D. The NFS scanner measures in 2 concentric cylinders, process the data to compute a set of fitting function (spherical wave expansion functions) coefficients, and calculates the SPL's at the CTA-2034 spinorama coordinates based on the fitting functions and coefficients.Maybe a repeated measurement done at reference axis recommended by manufacturer and avoiding LF compression would do a better job off-setting this concern. ...
On-axis is not interesting, listening window averaging is.
It's not about the KH 80 or splitting hair, it's about using a top notch measuring gear to its full extend.I have to agree with @amirm and am massively uninterested in splitting hairs or obsessing on 1dB, that doesn't add anything to the review.
I don't know what Klippel's software will allow, but the mathematics of near field acoustical holography (NAH, which the NFS is based on) allows for the reconstruction of the acoustic field anywhere in 3D. The NFS scanner measures in 2 concentric cylinders, process the data to compute a set of fitting function (spherical wave expansion functions) coefficients, and calculates the SPL's at the CTA-2034 spinorama coordinates based on the fitting functions and coefficients.
To shift the reference axis, all that needs to be done is to recalculate the SPL's to the new set of coordinates. No new measurements should be required.
That is correct.Good point. Not so with LF compression though..
That is correct.
I see little reason to deviate from CTA-2034-A, which clearly specifies the output levels for the spinorama tests. That, IMO, should be the easiest defensible position.
It's not about the KH 80 or splitting hair, it's about using a top notch measuring gear to its full extend.
It's like using a super-computer for sum up someone's shopping.
Feel free to discuss the methodology for another 20 pages, or 200 or 2000. I am just suggesting to do it elsewhere and not in this thread. I for one am interested in the review but unfortunately couldn't care less about obsessing on the methodology details. Is the parquet in the room red oak, what's the relative humidity of @amirm ears during measurements? Did he drink red or white wine before measuring?
You can discuss it at will (in another thread please) and when you guys decide that the methodology is good enough let us know
Review is in the post #1. I didn't noticed anybody forcing to you read anything beyond that post.