• 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!

Spinorama! (also known as CTA/CEA 2034 but that sounds dull, apparently)

QMuse

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 20, 2020
Messages
3,124
Likes
2,785
@amirm Per the discussion in this thread and how you said the Klippel calculated the ER curves, I decided to check for myself and use the klippels own data to calculate the ER curves manually using the process described by Todd Welti above. I had noticed that the klippel-generated ER and ERDI curves looked usually a fair bit smoother than the Harman ones around the crossover, and this shows why.

Here is the M16 ER and ERDI curves as generated by Klippel (white) vs the process used by HATS(blue) mentioned by Todd Welti above:

View attachment 56561

Not too much of a difference, but you can see the notch/bumps in the blue curves are worse and match Harman's a little more closely than the klippels.
View attachment 56562

Now on the Revel F35:


View attachment 56566

A more prominent crossover issue, and once again, closer to the HATS result:View attachment 56567
The bump on the ERDI curves are now nearly identical.

While probably not something worth going back to fix, it's something to perhaps keep in mind with measurements going forward, and that I hope klippel is informed of. Once again, it could be the difference between a good and great DI curve, especially on a speaker with particularly egregious vertical problems. And it would be good for the CTA-2034A to process to actually be used as, you know, a standard:)

As an interesting contrast, while almost every speaker I've tested gets worse with the HATS process, the Harbeth actually seems to get better. It has less of a tilt in the ER and smoother directivity. The vertical and horizontal dips actually do a better job of balancing out with this interpretation.
View attachment 56563

But of course Harbeth was the one that got better. It's only purpose is to serve as a universal exception for all rules! :D
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,109
Likes
8,420
Location
NYC
But of course Harbeth was the one that got better. It's only purpose is to serve as a universal exception for all rules! :D

Haha I was thinking the same. It does seem like the focus was on balancing various nulls for a smoother in room response.
 

tuga

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
3,984
Likes
4,281
Location
Oxford, England

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,731
Likes
16,156

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,109
Likes
8,420
Location
NYC
803D3 fares very well in terms of ER- and SP-DI.

I wish that these plots include Estimated In-Room response...

A shortcut is to just look at the Early Reflections curve with a little crick in your neck. :) The estimated in-room response is almost always nearly identical to the early reflections curve in shape - it just tilts down a dB or two more. In his book Dr Toole also often used the ER as an analog for the PIR.
 

hardisj

Major Contributor
Reviewer
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
2,907
Likes
13,908
Location
North Alabama
Have you guys noticed this in the ANSI/CTA-2034-A R-2020 spec?

4.1 General Test Setup and Conditions
.
.
.

If a small loudspeaker (satellite, bookshelf, etc.) without a manufacturer-specified filter network is being tested then a two pole Butterworth 80 Hz high pass filter network shall be used.

I don't plan on implementing this, personally. But, I found it interesting.
 

edechamps

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
910
Likes
3,620
Location
London, United Kingdom
Have you guys noticed this in the ANSI/CTA-2034-A R-2020 spec?

That's… really weird, and I'm having trouble making sense of such a recommendation. I would certainly like to see an explanation on this. Looks like no-one follows that guidance and intuitively I'd think that's a good thing! Maybe add that to the pile of stuff that should be revisited/clarified in CTA-2034…
 

Juhazi

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 15, 2018
Messages
1,717
Likes
2,897
Location
Finland
These CTA ER curves are anyway just calculated sums of some x/y-axis measurements. Quite irrelevant which is "right" , but for comparisons sake we must stick to a standard way of measuring/calculating - differencies between "good" speakers are small.
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,109
Likes
8,420
Location
NYC
These CTA ER curves are anyway just calculated sums of some x/y-axis measurements. Quite irrelevant which is "right" , but for comparisons sake we must stick to a standard way of measuring/calculating - differencies between "good" speakers are small.

I definitely agree about the differences between good speakers being small, so being consistent matters when comparing across sources.

But also, aside from keeping the standard a standard, the 'wrong' method significantly masks the influence of vertical reflections on timbre and in my experience seems to be noticeably worse at predicting the in-room response because of it. Not huge, but enough to probably make an audible difference when EQing

Especially given how we tend to evaluate speakers based on small differences around these parts. In the 'proper' ER method the vertical components make up 40 percent of the final curve. Put another way, the 6 'ceiling' and 'floor' angles count for as much as the full 17 curves in the front horizontal hemisphere.

Meanwhile in the 'wrong' method, the vertical portion only accounts for 23 percent of the ER, with each direction counting for the same. The rear hemisphere also only accounts for 11 percent of the wrong method vs 20 percent in the correct one, so it would rear its head more with omnidirectional speakers and such.
 
Last edited:

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,109
Likes
8,420
Location
NYC
Thank you for this!

So, what make and model is that $1800 loudspeaker that they measured in the video at 1:03? :)

Someone in another forum mentioned they thought is was an infinity il50. Can't find specific spins for it though
 

Xyrium

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 3, 2018
Messages
574
Likes
493
Someone in another forum mentioned they thought is was an infinity il50. Can't find specific spins for it though
Wow. I believe it. That's a nice design.
 

TiFi Speakers

Member
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 15, 2024
Messages
11
Likes
2
Location
EU
On wall and flush mount speakers by standard can be measured 180 degrees, horizontal and vertical as standard defines. However, I am in trouble finding the correct averaging formula for these measurements as "Rear" is always missing. Should it just to be skipped? And for sound power just double the weights measured in front hemisphere (as then total weight will be 1, as it should be for formula)? More confusing is that some Klippel measurements (i.e. https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/bw_cwm73s2/) present Rear for flush mounted speakers. Any hints, what part of standard I have missed?
 

NTK

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Aug 11, 2019
Messages
2,656
Likes
5,819
Location
US East
On wall and flush mount speakers by standard can be measured 180 degrees, horizontal and vertical as standard defines. However, I am in trouble finding the correct averaging formula for these measurements as "Rear" is always missing. Should it just to be skipped? And for sound power just double the weights measured in front hemisphere (as then total weight will be 1, as it should be for formula)? More confusing is that some Klippel measurements (i.e. https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/bw_cwm73s2/) present Rear for flush mounted speakers. Any hints, what part of standard I have missed?
The CTA-2034 standard is, IMHO, more than a little unclear on the matter. Section 5 (Directivity Response — Standalone Loudspeakers) began by saying that in-wall/on-wall/in-ceiling/on-ceiling speakers aren't covered.
cta2034-in-wall-1.png

Section 6 (Directivity Response — In-Wall, In-Ceiling, On-Wall, On-Ceiling Loudspeakers) describe how in-wall/on-wall/in-ceiling/on-ceiling speakers are measured. However, it referenced section 5.3 for data presentation.
cta2034-in-wall-2.png

But for the 6 curves as shown in Figure 4, only the on-axis curve is sort of applicable (section 6 does not have the data post-processing subsections as in section 5 that produce the other 5 curves). And hardy anyone listens to in-wall speakers on-axis (or at least more than one in-wall speakers on-axis, or unless you have a purpose built room with angled walls). So IMO I would only present the raw measurements, and not any post-processing. There is, AFAIK, no published study that relate directivity of flush mounted speakers to listener preference. Thus the data, IMHO, is mostly of engineering interest — we have a good idea on what the ideal should be, but don't know how much we will tolerate which imperfections.
cta2034-in-wall-3.png
 

TiFi Speakers

Member
Audio Company
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 15, 2024
Messages
11
Likes
2
Location
EU
Thank you for detailed reply. Just went into detail in spinorama.org and there are many flush mounted, some measured by producers (JBL mostly). There can be seen, that they present the directivity part (this seems reasonable). And as standard defines - average of measurements. If not measured by standard guidelines, this can not be included and the averages are calculated without. This still follows the ruleset, just n is smaller. For real life some probable listening angles should be covered, not for standard, but for customers:)

Someone should tell to Klippel also, that for flush/wall mounted it is not good idea to include Rear graph...
 

napilopez

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Oct 17, 2018
Messages
2,109
Likes
8,420
Location
NYC
On wall and flush mount speakers by standard can be measured 180 degrees, horizontal and vertical as standard defines. However, I am in trouble finding the correct averaging formula for these measurements as "Rear" is always missing. Should it just to be skipped? And for sound power just double the weights measured in front hemisphere (as then total weight will be 1, as it should be for formula)? More confusing is that some Klippel measurements (i.e. https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/bw_cwm73s2/) present Rear for flush mounted speakers. Any hints, what part of standard I have missed?

I'm not sure about the exact answer to this, but one thing to keep in mind is that "rear" technically includes +/- 90 degrees. So it's possible to make an incomplete "rear" measurement from simply the 90 degree response.

Granted, the graphs on Erin's site for 90 degrees and for the "rear" curve don't fully match, but looking at the contour plot, it seems the klippel tried to capture data out a little further than 95 degrees or so. Maybe there's weird averaging going on in that respect.

Or maybe Klippel decided to handle this some other way. One possible approach

All that being said, having made a few dozen spins myself, ultimately, I don't think it's a big deal. It's a fifth of the early reflections and an even smaller portion of the PIR. What I'd do in your case is to simply take the 90 degrees measurements as the rear component, make a note of that somewhere on the measurement presentation, and call it a day.
 
Top Bottom