Above transition area you're likely correct. Whatever distance above minimum you end up with the predicted in-room response. My speakers look the same at 60 cm, 1m and 3.5 m above a certain frequency with MMM. I don't have spins for my DIY M2, so can't really confirm that, but you look to be correct. I'll measure now and confirm my own statements!Well, no.
What I'm speculating is that precise MMM measurement would follow PIR on any listening distance. So I'm basing my EQ on in-room MMM measurement, not on the single sweep or a bunch of them, as most EQ automated systems do but instead of MMM RTA with pink noise. I am also speculating that such correction can be full range as PIR (resembled with MMM) takes into account LW/ER/SP so it is safe to do speaker EQ based on it and not only room EQ in the modal region.
Such EQ is supposed to make best of your speaker but, as it wouldn't of course affect both DI curves, you are still left with the same directivity indexes. However, as not only LW but both ER and SP are potentially smoothed this way you can expect significantly better sound .
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Revel F208 Tower Speaker Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
It was 230cm. I'm doing a couple more measurements, will post a complete mdat later.
It would be very usefull if you can also make a measurement from app 3.5m-4m.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/maqtzoe6d4bzaqy/MMM different distances.mdat?dl=0
First time trying this, does it work?
First time trying this, does it work?
The slopes differes a little bit from standard M2 anechoic measurements because I don't have enough EQ points to add the small input-peqs of the original dsp. That's mostly around the 900-1500 hz area. Close enough me thinks.
And I like MMM, much simpler and faster than any other method.
And I like MMM, much simpler and faster than any other method.
So you measured corrected response?
No, there's no speaker correction involved here. Only the original dsp settings to make the M2 flat anechoic. Otherwise it falls off by 10 dB above 5k and below 200 hz. Think of it as replacement of a passive crossover filter.
Yes empty and perfectAre those charts empty or I need another coffee to wake me up?
...but using a single normal tweeter piston the tweeter performance we see there is hard to do real world, looks it takes a low 12mm diameter piston to get half space coverage up there at 20kHz and SPL in those micro size or lower will be much too low.One can change Z-axis relative to microphone in VituixCAD and it looks like below, but while it looks okay take it with a grant of salt how spinorama plot looks other than SPL of on-axis curve, because think feature is mostly there to model a stepped baffle or so and that is much less numbers than what we use in below model, also we shall remember data is based Amir's spindata which is suposed to be at 2 meter and SPL at 1 meter as CTA2034 call for.
Yes empty and perfect
View attachment 63741
One can change Z-axis relative to microphone in VituixCAD and it looks like below, but while it looks okay take it with a grant of salt how spinorama plot looks other than SPL of on-axis curve, because think feature is mostly there to model a stepped baffle or so and that is much less numbers than what we use in below model, also we shall remember data is based Amir's spindata which is suposed to be at 2 meter and SPL at 1 meter as CTA2034 call for.
View attachment 63744
If I'm seeing right in your simulation PIR's slope indeed increases with distance. Is that correct?
That is exactly what @carlob is doing. Look at previous page where I comapred his measurements with predicted in-room response (PIR) from spinorama.
Sorry, too much stuff going on. I looked a little closer into that small smiley-curve that I measured with my speakers between 1k-5k and compared to measurements of F208 because it looked familiar from other Revel F208 measurements.
Looking closer at these measurements and @carlob 's measurement I think we can conclude that the Klippel spins of Amir is accurate. Bumps in all the right places.
Looking closer at these measurements and @carlob 's measurement I think we can conclude that the Klippel spins of Amir is accurate. Bumps in all the right places.
Well, you can't really directly compare spinorama responses to in-room measurement, except for the PIR. And that is what we are here trying to establish - how well does in-room MMM measurement correlate with PIR.
Similar threads
- Poll
