• 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.

NHT Pro M-00 Powered Monitor Review

q3cpma

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
548
Likes
552
Location
France
Group delay is calculated as 1st derivation of phase response and can't possibly help you to identify resonances.
I wasn't talking about resonances, just group delay by itself. I mean that it is the only time domain value we can't easily see by using our eyes and the naked FR (audibility matters put aside).
 

Jazmanaut

New Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
2
Likes
0
I really would like to see phaseplot and impulse response, because they show quite well, how well drivers are time alligned, and other neat thingys.
And seeing harmonic distortions would not hurt either.

Oh and thank you, for your amazing job!
 

Jazmanaut

New Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2020
Messages
2
Likes
0
Oh and if those were popular in the studio, it might be that when they put them over the console bridge, it gained some beef from it to that upper bass dip.
 

HammerSandwich

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 22, 2018
Messages
578
Likes
614
It's really hard to buy a horrible speaker anymore. Not like it was when I first became interested in the hobby
Maybe true at JBL/Vanatoo levels, but it's still quite easy if you're willing to spend a lot. At least, that's how I read Stereophile's measurements of expensive speakers...

When I was trying to figure out how to make my own early reflections and sound power curve, I thought I would have to include phase data but according to CTA-2034-A...
Ignoring phase makes sense to me. A reflection's phase will change if the speaker-boundary distance varies. The only way to standardize would be to use given room dimensions AND fixed speaker positions.

It is the drivers which have a minimum phase, not the loudspeakers taken as the whole, because of the crossovers.
And diffraction-type issues.
 

napilopez

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
561
Likes
1,406
Maybe true at JBL/Vanatoo levels, but it's still quite easy if you're willing to spend a lot. At least, that's how I read Stereophile's measurements of expensive speakers...


Ignoring phase makes sense to me. A reflection's phase will change if the speaker-boundary distance varies. The only way to standardize would be to use given room dimensions AND fixed speaker positions.


And diffraction-type issues.
Yep, I spent a long time trying to make the ER curve work with phase and it always just dipped far too much in the treble so that just about confirmed it.
 

amirm

Founder/Admin
Staff Member
CFO (Chief Fun Officer)
Joined
Feb 13, 2016
Messages
24,301
Likes
46,450
Location
Seattle Area
What does Klippel recommend here?
I have not found anything outside of driver tests. There, they have sophisticated laser scanners and such that fully model the driver. But not the whole speaker. I am trying to keep my chips for critical things in contacting them. Don't want to wear out my welcome too quickly. :)
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2018
Messages
32
Likes
21
This is surprising to me!

My Super One 2.1s are probably the best sounding cheap speakers i've ever owned - by a long shot...for stereo and home theater.
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
2,735
Location
Zg, Cro
I wasn't talking about resonances, just group delay by itself. I mean that it is the only time domain value we can't easily see by using our eyes and the naked FR (audibility matters put aside).
And why would you like to see group delay measurement? It is not part of the CEA-2034 because it has not been related to audiblity issues with listening tests. Do you know something those scientists are not aware of?
 

restorer-john

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
3,718
Likes
7,274
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
It is not part of the CEA-2034 because it has not been related to audiblity issues with listening tests. Do you know something those scientists are not aware of?
So independent "scientists" proposed and established the CEA-2034 guidelines did they? Seriously, I'm asking.

It was an industry body, with vested interests, the Consumer Electronics Association, now the CTA?
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
2,735
Location
Zg, Cro
So independent "scientists" proposed and established the CEA-2034 guidelines did they? Seriously, I'm asking.

It was an industry body, with vested interests, the Consumer Electronics Association, now the CTA?
The point here was it has been well established through multiple listening tests by Toole, Olive and others that time domain parameters do not influence how we perceive music thus asking Amir to measure GD, which is not part of standard Klippel measurement as it is based on CEA-2034, is pretty much meaningless.
 

restorer-john

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
3,718
Likes
7,274
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
The point here was it has been well established through multiple listening tests by Toole, Olive and others that time domain parameters do not influence how we perceive music thus asking Amir to measure GD, which is not part of standard Klippel measurement as it is based on CEA-2034, is pretty much meaningless.
Right. OK.

So when people proposed multi-tone IMD measurements vs single or dual tone measurements, some people said it was meaningless.

Who cares what Klippel put in their standard measurements? It is but ONE (expensive and awesome) device and does not measure every parameter important to loudspeaker characteristics. Perhaps when Amir combines the AP, the Klippel and a bunch of standalone tests, we might be able to get a better understanding of how a loudspeaker will perform in a typical usage scenario. Right now, it is a work in progress.

It's early days and there's lots to learn. :)
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
2,735
Location
Zg, Cro
Right. OK.

So when people proposed multi-tone IMD measurements vs single or dual tone measurements, some people said it was meaningless.

Who cares what Klippel put in their standard measurements? It is but ONE (expensive and awesome) device and does not measure every parameter important to loudspeaker characteristics. Perhaps when Amir combines the AP, the Klippel and a bunch of standalone tests, we might be able to get a better understanding of how a loudspeaker will perform in a typical usage scenario. Right now, it is a work in progress.

It's early days and there's lots to learn. :)
There is a huge ammount of AES papers claiming that phase/GD don't play a role with SQ and not a single one that confirms it does. IMHO that makes measuring GD as usefull as measuring how thick the paint on the front panel of the speaker is.
 

restorer-john

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
3,718
Likes
7,274
Location
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
There is a huge ammount of AES papers claiming that phase/GD don't play a role with SQ and not a single one that confirms it does.
Would you buy a D/A converter today with significant group delay or inter-channel phase differences, particularly errors that change with frequency? We all did that with CD players in the early 80s, ones that used a time shared D/A converter. Should we have known better? Perhaps.

IMHO that makes measuring GD as usefull as measuring how thick the paint on the front panel of the speaker is.
So, how much more useful is measuring THD % to three decimal points before zero, or four? I look at 0.00042% and think, am I kidding myself? Yes, I am.
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
2,735
Location
Zg, Cro
Would you buy a D/A converter today with significant group delay or inter-channel phase differences, particularly errors that change with frequency? We all did that with CD players in the early 80s, ones that used a time shared D/A converter. Should we have known better? Perhaps.
Not really a good analogy - if speaker drivers have GD related issues that would be an audible problem, but it has been proven by listening tests they don't. So why measure it?

So, how much more useful is measuring THD % to three decimal points before zero, or four? I look at 0.00042% and think, am I kidding myself? Yes, I am.
From the audibility perspective it is absolutely a waste of time. But it does come handy if you want to evaluate engineering quality of the device.
 

q3cpma

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
548
Likes
552
Location
France
There is a huge ammount of AES papers claiming that phase/GD don't play a role with SQ and not a single one that confirms it does. IMHO that makes measuring GD as usefull as measuring how thick the paint on the front panel of the speaker is.
I doubt it's that definitive if there are still papers coming about it. But I said audibility matters aside because I didn't read those papers, since I'm not an AES member; which is also why I asked if anybody read the recent Genelec paper about it (https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=19404) and could give a summary.
Especially since the abstract says: "Our results suggest that when the group delay in the frequency range from 300 Hz to 1 kHz is below 1.0 ms, it is inaudible.", which is not reached by any speaker I know of (for example, the 8351B still has 3ms of group delay at 300Hz).
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
2,735
Location
Zg, Cro
I doubt it's that definitive if there are still papers coming about it. But I said audibility matters aside because I didn't read those papers, since I'm not an AES member; which is also why I asked if anybody read the recent Genelec paper about it (https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?elib=19404) and could give a summary.
Especially since the abstract says: "Our results suggest that when the group delay in the frequency range from 300 Hz to 1 kHz is below 1.0 ms, it is inaudible.", which is not reached by any speaker I know of (for example, the 8351B still has 3ms of group delay at 300Hz).
Ok, here is GD graph of Performa3 F208, taken from 3m, gated at 20ms with FDW of 15 cycles. Tell me, what do you make of it?

Capture.JPG
 

q3cpma

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
548
Likes
552
Location
France
Ok, here is GD graph of Performa3 F208, taken from 3m, gated at 20ms with FDW of 15 cycles. Tell me, what do you make of it?

View attachment 45985
That measuring group delay in non anechoic conditions is useless. What are you even trying to prove, anyway?
Anyway, that Genelec paper gave an interesting conclusion and I don't see how you can say "problem solved, group delay never matters" that fast.
 

Krunok

Major Contributor
Joined
Mar 25, 2018
Messages
4,600
Likes
2,735
Location
Zg, Cro
That measuring group delay in non anechoic conditions is useless.
It's a gated measurement, so "quasi anechoic". If you want me to apply different gating just say which one.

What are you even trying to prove, anyway?
That you were asking for a GD measurement but you have no idea what to make of it.

Btw, you are listening in the room, not in anechoic chamber and you don't seem to realise that reflections will spoil any nice looking GD graph made in anechoic chamber as they spoil the FR.

Sure, if you carefully EQ phase at your LP you will get nicer curve, but here is how uncorrected GD of Revel Performa3 F208 looks in a room.
So, once again, tell me what do you make of it?

Capture.JPG
 
Last edited:

q3cpma

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
548
Likes
552
Location
France
It's a gated measurement, so "quasi anechoic". If you want me to apply different gating just say which one.


That you were asking for a GD measurement but you have no idea what to make of it.
Doesn't look like any anechoic GD graph I've ever seen, which always look like f(x)=1/x. Where did I ask for it? I only said "So only group delay could matter in this case" ("this case" being CSD not being that useful) with emphasis on could. You still didn't answer the fact that you boldly said that any quantity of group delay is completely inaudible while I linked to a paper pretending the opposite.

Mate, do you have an axe to grind, or what? I'm just wondering if some measurements could help make those reports more exhaustive, nothing else.
 
Top Bottom