Ooo ... what happened to that GR thread?

[boxerfan88]

Oh wow ... suddenly that thread disappeared ...

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/dannys-newest-videos-on-speaker-distortion.60533/unread

Anyways, I thought that the part#2 video 27:30-32:00 was quite insightful ... where he did measurements with 4x8 "wall" at differing distances from the speaker ... the Frequency Response charts really shows us the impact of a wall (room distortion as he calls it)... We can see peaks-dips getting larger in amplitude as the distance to the "wall" gets shorter ... and then suddenly when it gets really close to the wall, the bass response will become a big lump (no dips in the bass region but there is one higher up)...

My Neumann manual states to avoid d(wall) between 0.8m-2.0m, meaning <0.8m is workable ... kinda aligned with his measurement findings. Nice!

ps: I'm not gonna post the link to the video ... it's on YT ...

 

[staticV3]

Yeah that's weird.

@Jimbob54 I noticed that you combined some threads with the same topic and ultimately locked it since the discussion didn't really go anywhere. Do you know why it's been deleted outright?

 

[AnalogSteph]

My Neumann manual states to avoid d(wall) between 0.8m-2.0m, meaning <0.8m is workable ... kinda aligned with his measurement findings. Nice!

Genelec recommends avoiding >0.6 m (or >0.6 m for subs and >1.1 m for mains), but same basic idea there.

Very large wall distances becoming tolerable again probably stems from the large difference in relative length between direct and reflected sound paths at this point, i.e. higher attenuation on the indirect sound path means that the combing is much reduced. Basically, it's the nearfield effect.

 

[boxerfan88]

Genelec recommends avoiding >0.6 m (or >0.6 m for subs and >1.1 m for mains), but same basic idea there.

Yeap ...

Very large wall distances becoming tolerable again probably stems from the large difference in relative length between direct and reflected sound paths at this point, i.e. higher attenuation on the indirect sound path means that the combing is much reduced. Basically, it's the nearfield effect.

 

[Jimbob54]

Yeah that's weird.

@Jimbob54 I noticed that you combined some threads with the same topic and ultimately locked it since the discussion didn't really go anywhere. Do you know why it's been deleted outright?

Believe one of my colleagues deleted as that's what we have said we will do with clickbait YT links without substantial commentary from OP.

 

[norman bates]

I was the original poster.


Next time I'll try to add more substantial commentary.........

 

[Jim Taylor]

?

I started it.
I didn't realize I needed a substantial commentary to go with it.

Thought it would start a discussion.
There are numerous nuggets of information in there.
But instead it turned into a Danny bash...
I too am against $275 power cords, expensive components, and tube connectors.

However, some threw the baby out with the bathwater.

Next time I post click bait, i'll show more skin !!!

Lol

YT videos are like mushrooms. Some are OK, but some are poison. No matter how interesting and beautiful they are, it's best to leave the poisonous ones alone.

I believe the "substantial commentary from the OP" rule is fairly new, but I can't find the specific post that mentions it.

 

[norman bates]

Ug, ya got me.
Was trying to edit post, but that works too...

 

[somebodyelse]

YT videos are like mushrooms. Some are OK, but some are poison. No matter how interesting and beautiful they are, it's best to leave the poisonous ones alone.

I believe the "substantial commentary from the OP" rule is fairly new, but I can't find the specific post that mentions it.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...“external-youtube-video-link-dropping”.60027/

 

[Jimbob54]

YT videos are like mushrooms. Some are OK, but some are poison. No matter how interesting and beautiful they are, it's best to leave the poisonous ones alone.

I believe the "substantial commentary from the OP" rule is fairly new, but I can't find the specific post that mentions it.

Yup- basically we dont want people making the membership having to click the YT link to watch to find out why OP is drawing our attention to it. The very definition of clickbait.

If the post is just to get people to mock the YT content we dont want it anyway. If there is something meaningful to discuss mentioned in there- give a short summary of that point and a time stamp.

This isnt about links to music, content that is self explanatory etc but if you are linking to a 20 min YT vid about audio we need a lot more than " I found this interesting" or " he's at it again"

 

[JSmith]

AI generated summary;

In this video, Danny Ritchie from GR Research explains the importance of speaker distortion measurements and how they impact overall sound quality. He discusses different types of distortion, including harmonic and intermodulation distortion, and demonstrates how GR Research measures and analyzes these factors to improve speaker performance. Danny also emphasizes the importance of proper testing environments and equipment to obtain accurate and reliable measurements. Throughout the video, he shares insights into the process of designing and refining speakers to minimize distortion and enhance audio fidelity.

Danny's video are always about selling things... not about informing. He likes to mix information with subtle advertising for his wares. The above in bold is about selling his speakers and mods.


JSmith

 

[Wesseling Audio Lab]

Wow AI, better do your homework!

 

[JSmith]

Wow AI, better do your homework!

You mean you want me to actually watch Danny dribble on for 40 mins and then create a summary? There will be nothing new in the video and I cannot be bothered wasting the time (something that tends to become more precious as life progresses)... a perfect use for an AI YT summariser in this case. Feel free to watch it and provide further details though.


JSmith

 

[boxerfan88]

Anyways, I thought that the part#2 video 27:30-32:00 was quite insightful ... where he did measurements with 4x8 "wall" at differing distances from the speaker ... the Frequency Response charts really shows us the impact of a wall (room distortion as he calls it)... We can see peaks-dips getting larger in amplitude as the distance to the "wall" gets shorter ... and then suddenly when it gets really close to the wall, the bass response will become a big lump (no dips in the bass region but there is one higher up)...

Okay, I am gonna post screenshots. If this gets deleted then screenshots also not allowed

Now, this is the one that surprised me :-

Is the above for real?
On another setup, I do have speakers quite close to the wall ... but I never see such a huge dip at such high frequencies (1.8k / 3k) ... what gives?
Something to do with his experiment setup? or his gated measurements? or driver setup (box vs open baffle)?

Comments welcomed!

.

 

[Ktacos]

My response to Danny threads moving/deleting is who cares?

 

[MarkS]

You mean you want me to actually watch Danny dribble on for 40 mins and then create a summary?

No, he means that the AI got it totally wrong.

No one, not even a lowly LLM, should be subjected to Danny content! It's cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[RickS]

With a bit more time now to do so, did review this video. @amirm had already posted that is a wrong about half of the time. Thought Danny promised to audibly demonstrate the differences for each distortion type? Did not find this anywhere. Notably, for resonances he claims are readily audible, he relies on measurements. Seems contradictory coming from someone who makes many claims about things that can only be heard and not measured…

We know measurements can show things that are not audible. Even a simple frequency response graph can show high frequency SPLs well beyond the upper range of human hearing. Danny complains about nearfield measurements that are taken at lower levels. While somewhat true, if the lower output level reveals distortion, it does not go away when the driver is driven harder. While dismissing harmonic distortion, he neglects to distinguish between audible distortion that occurs over a wide band vs over a narrower band too.

It is also very common for a driver to have less distortion at low SPL than higher ones. Drivers are precision mechanical devices. They can have cone damage/defects, leaky surrounds, off-center or partially glued voice coils just to mention a few. Many of these may not be found via frequency response measurements and are readily found by measuring distortion. I would not want to buy speakers from someone who devalues distortion testing. If you want the best possible soundstage, you do not get it when one speaker is distorting, and the other is not. The hit or miss GR reviews may be design issues, but even when Danny does better, without distortion measures cannot be sure of the quality of what he supplies. Even a good design can be readily diminished by a lack of vigilance regarding driver quality assurance or other operational inconsistencies.

 

[Jim Taylor]

I believe that the best route is to criticize Danny's garbage but DO NOT LINK TO A WORKING VIDEO. To do so would just promote his clickbait methods, and play right into his hands.

 

[Mnyb]

You mean you want me to actually watch Danny dribble on for 40 mins and then create a summary? There will be nothing new in the video and I cannot be bothered wasting the time (something that tends to become more precious as life progresses)... a perfect use for an AI YT summariser in this case. Feel free to watch it and provide further details though.


JSmith

A perfect use for AI they can watch this for us . Can AI be subtly tweaked to also interact in comments etc ? We can trapp Danny and Paul et all in and infinite mirror hall of their own creation where they think they interact with fan's, and we can continue to have real discussions about things in audio that really matters .

 

[AnalogSteph]

Now, this is the one that surprised me :-

Is the above for real?
On another setup, I do have speakers quite close to the wall ... but I never see such a huge dip at such high frequencies (1.8k / 3k) ... what gives?

Yeah, that's odd. I don't see what short of aiming the speaker straight at the wall would do this. At 3 kHz, wavelength is only about 11.3 cm (~4.5"), so λ/4 would be a tad over 1"... yeah, I bet the speaker was facing the wall. I suppose that was the only way of achieving this kind of wall distance to begin with, short of sawing a hole in the wall. But now you know why some people will do in-wall installations.