POLL: Should Amir purchase additional software add-ons for Klippel NFS?

[sweetchaos]

On the topic of "Complaint thread about speaker measurements":

Some members expressed their opinion about measuring more data than currently shown in the speaker measurements.

The question arose whether ASR community wants Amir to purchase the following software add-ons for Klippel NFS, in order to measure more data.

(Source of photos, by Amir)

I hope I'm understanding the photos correctly, as it looks like it's a total of $7,100 EURO => $7,819 USD that Amir needs to purchase.

Please contribute your opinion, using this poll.

Also, feel free to post how much you want to commit/promise (in terms of $) towards these purchases, in the thread below.

Best!

 

[Doodski]

I'm all for a comprehensive measure of the speakers in for review. I can contribute as a Baseline Member Supporter for $25. Can't do more because I am on a fixed income and times are tight.

 

[direstraitsfan98]

Yes. I'm willing to donate as much as I can, as I said in the other thread. At this point $500. Only about 5% of the total cost, but it's still a decent chunk of my disposable income. It would be nice if others would also donate a decent chuck of their disposable income. We could get to the amount easily.

 

[pozz]

I vote no.

Enough speaker measurements down the line and we could probably fund an anechoic chamber instead.

Edit: The current suite of measurements is comprehensive enough.

 

[Doodski]

@amirm I just sent you $25.00 USD via PayPal. Please update my status. Thanks.

 

[napilopez]

I'm voting no for now. At least to start, I'd rather see the current measurements, which are the only ones we can reliably associate with preference, be the focus and refined to their best. I already feel like we can spend pages just interpreting a spinorama and some polar plots.

Granted, SPL limit testing is useful, especially for active speakers(compression *is* changing the frequency response) but it somewhat boggles my mind to pay thousands of euro for it. Of the modules listed, the third is the only one I'm personally interested, but it still seems like just doing a sweep at a couple of different levels will tell me what I need to know.

It's also worth remembering that not everyone comes into the forum from a place of expertise or speaker measuring experience. While a lot of us can look at the graphs and come up with our own conclusions mostly sans Amir's input, that's not the case for many others. So I somewhat worry about diluting Amir's spin analysis for the extra measurements. Though I suppose it's fine if those are just left as an a bonus (unless there's some remarkable or remarkably bad feature).

 

[Wombat]

I'm voting no for now. At least to start, I'd rather see the current measurements, which are the only ones we can reliably associate with preference, be the focus and refined to their best. I already feel like we can spend pages just interpreting a spinorama and some polar plots.

Granted, SPL limit testing is useful, especially for active speakers(compression *is* changing the frequency response) but it somewhat boggles my mind to pay thousands of euro for it. Of the modules listed, the third is the only one I'm personally interested, but it still seems like just doing a sweep at a couple of different levels will tell me what I need to know.

It's also worth remembering that not everyone comes into the forum from a place of expertise or speaker measuring experience. While a lot of us can look at the graphs and come up with our own conclusions mostly sans Amir's input, that's not the case for many others. So I somewhat worry about diluting Amir's spin analysis for the extra measurements. Though I suppose it's fine if those are just left as an a bonus (unless there's some remarkable or remarkably bad feature).

Simplify the results. Work toward more comprehensive tests. (My god, I hope that is not construed as negative).

 

[VMAT4]

I voted No. I'm sure Amir would like to have the added capacity those pieces of software provide. But, he has already done far more than what he "should" for the Forums, ASR. What he does with his money is his business.

 

[Wombat]

If an incomplete series of tests serves a useful purpose that is fine.

If another 10% of the basic Klippel rig cost can give a better overall test credibility then that would be good.

Money, motivation and labour resource are constraints.

 

[Cahudson42]

We are still in the very early stages of speaker performance measurement. It is likely, as experience is gained, that measurements we now think important may become less so, and ones we may not even thought of will then be seen as useful.

That is, the 'list of additional software' - contents and priority - will change.

I vote to wait, until many more speakers of different types, sizes, designs are tested. Six months at least.

 

[direstraitsfan98]

I’d hesitate to call Amir’s speaker measurements “incomplete”, as it seems rather dismissive of the time and effort he has been putting in already. I feel like the general consensus by most members is they don’t care, or they don’t wish to see such measurements at all. I’d say the former making up a vast majority, since it’s safe to assume for the some 40,000 views the speaker measurements Amir has posted, only a fraction of folks have voiced their wish to see even more comprehensive tests.

 

[Wombat]

We are still in the very early stages of speaker performance measurement. It is likely, as experience is gained, that measurements we now think important may become less so, and ones we may not even thought of will then be seen as useful.

That is, the 'list of additional software' - contents and priority - will change.

I vote to wait, until many more speakers of different types, sizes, designs are tested. Six months at least.

There is no hurry. The objectives and constraints were not made clear up-front. Thus all this to-and-froing.

 

[Wombat]

I’d hesitate to call Amir’s speaker measurements “incomplete”, as it seems rather dismissive of the time and effort he has been putting in already. I feel like the general consensus by most members is they don’t care, or they don’t wish to see such measurements at all. I’d say the former making up a vast majority, since it’s safe to assume for the some 40,000 views the speaker measurements Amir has posted, only a fraction of folks have voiced their wish to see even more comprehensive tests.

Saying the test regime is incomplete does not denigrate Amir's efforts. However there are more parameters that are considered constructive.

Yes, I mostly agree with your reply.

But, God, how do I have to couch my posts to please everyone?

 

[direstraitsfan98]

Saying the test regime is incomplete does not denigrate Amir's efforts. However there are more parameters that are considered constructive.

God, how do I have to couch my posts to please everyone? View attachment 47965

I agree with you. I’ve been pushing for THD and related measurements for speakers even before he posted his first set of measurements.

It feels like treading on egg shells when trying to discuss anything to do with Amir’s measurement process with him...

 

[miero]

Isn't there a free evaluation license for these options?

 

[Purité Audio]

Yes, just needs a small contribution from members who so far haven’t, Wombat/restorer-john, literally a case of putting your money where your mouth is.
Keith

 

[Wombat]

You are repeating yourself across threads; See post #210 and #212: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...peaker-measurements.11139/page-11#post-316820

 

[Wombat]

Yes, just needs a small contribution from members who so far haven’t, Wombat/restorer-john, literally a case of putting your money where your mouth is.
Keith

So a free evaluation license needs a small contribution ……………….. .

Name and shame reflects back on you and your bereft opinion.

 

[Matias]

Yes, I always like seeing multitones of everything, would be nice to see from speakers too.

 

[daftcombo]

Wow, they charge as much as they can.