spinorama.org

[Matias]

I am hitting F5 here daily waiting for Erin's AsciLab C6B data to show up. The data is in his website already, did he not send you yet @pierre ?

 

[pierre]

I am hitting F5 here daily waiting for Erin's AsciLab C6B data to show up. The data is in his website already, did he not send you yet @pierre ?

No you will have to ask him.

 

[Robert-Hifi]

Just a very small issue, but the link to the original EAC review of the MoFi SourcePoint 888 on the "Data & EQ" tab points to the index page of Erin's Audio Corner instead of the speaker review page itself.

https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/mofi_soucepoint_888/

 

[alankila]

There was a long discussion about this in 2020 see https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ce-ratings-for-loudspeakers.11091/post-476373

I am still unsure that this weighted RMS computations make sense or not. With modern measurement systems, since you have the freq/phase everywhere on a sphere around the speaker, we could do better.

Pierre

I understand what you are saying here. We could define a more refined formula that would take advantage of all the measurement points on the entire spherical radiation field, if only Erin, Amir, and other people who have access to the scanner device would publish the full data. A challenge of using higher resolution data is that this could take us out of CEA2034 compatibility, unless we summarize the data into similar results as presently, e.g. produce the horizontal and vertical spins from the full radiation field for CEA2034 purposes.

I see relatively limited value to this, though I would be happy to lift the limitation and use the raw data, provided the computation cost for it is not onerous. I think the greatest value of the full dataset might be the ability to visualize the full radiation field as a 3-dimensional picure, e.g. sphere with intensity mapped on top of it based on the phi, theta and frequency being visualized. The data is 4-dimensional, though, so it would probably have to be sliced into multiple frequency bands, and visualized for average of each band, or something like that.

 

[lolol]

The Spinorama site is currently down.

 

[pierre]

The Spinorama site is currently down.

working on my side. The dev site was down this morning (no electricity at home). Can you check again? I not working what kind of error do you get?

 

[Curvature]

I understand what you are saying here. We could define a more refined formula that would take advantage of all the measurement points on the entire spherical radiation field, if only Erin, Amir, and other people who have access to the scanner device would publish the full data. A challenge of using higher resolution data is that this could take us out of CEA2034 compatibility, unless we summarize the data into similar results as presently, e.g. produce the horizontal and vertical spins from the full radiation field for CEA2034 purposes.

I see relatively limited value to this, though I would be happy to lift the limitation and use the raw data, provided the computation cost for it is not onerous. I think the greatest value of the full dataset might be the ability to visualize the full radiation field as a 3-dimensional picure, e.g. sphere with intensity mapped on top of it based on the phi, theta and frequency being visualized. The data is 4-dimensional, though, so it would probably have to be sliced into multiple frequency bands, and visualized for average of each band, or something like that.

This is currently done in EASE GLM, although in lower resolution and only a few manufacturers produce these files, and even then not consistently. It is interesting in examples where there is a notable artefact. For example, the vertical lobing produced by the Genelec S360A.

 

[lolol]

working on my side. The dev site was down this morning (no electricity at home). Can you check again? I not working what kind of error do you get?

View attachment 457951

The error message is like "too slow to be reached" translated from my French browser.

 

[pierre]

The error message is like "too slow to be reached" translated from my French browser.

It should not happen. When you see this message, it means that it took more than 6s to load the site. It sometimes happen on 3g or poor 4g or when the server is overloaded.
Usually a reload fix it.

Bonjour de Suisse

 

[sigbergaudio]

On the ranking page there's a warning at the top with a link to the help page. Clcking on this link goes to a page not found.

Ranking table of speaker's measurements

www.spinorama.org

the link: https://www.spinorama.org/help.html

 

[Matias]

@pierre could you please upload Erin's current reviews whenever possible? Thanks!

 

[Curvature]

E50

E50 Passive Loudspeakers featuring custom made Purifi

buchardtaudio.com

Spin available in the measurements section.

 

[Blockader]

L2 | Long Throw Professional Audio Loudspeakers - L Series | L-Acoustics

Full-Range Long Throw Professional Audio Loudspeakers. Compact. Concert Sound System Equipment for Live

www.l-acoustics.com

Maybe we can try deriving the Spinorama for this speaker using the data available in its manual:

https://www.l-acoustics.com/result-documentation-center/?choice=L2#page-1 check for System Spec Sheet and User Manual.

We need to know the on-axis response too, of course. I can mail them.

 

[SlowJim]

I don't think manufacturer-provided data should be used or derived but that's just my opinion.
Echoing Matias' request above for the recent speaker data from Erin's audio corner to be added though, such as ELAC Debut 3.0 DB63.

 

[Curvature]

I don't think manufacturer-provided data should be used or derived but that's just my opinion.

Why not? It's often the only source in some cases, and @pierre is careful to note where the data comes from and its quality.

This standard was developed by representatives of manufacturers.

 

[SlowJim]

Because it's not independent, not representative of actual production samples, etc. - if the measurements aren't done in a controlled way then it's no longer "apples to apples".

 

[Curvature]

Because it's not independent, not representative of actual production samples, etc. - if the measurements aren't done in a controlled way then it's no longer "apples to apples".

That's too cynical.

Take Neumann and Genelec. They've been publishing detailed measurements of their speakers well before it became the norm.

After Amir got the Klippel, the KH80 was used as a benchmark.

We are collectively in a situation where we will never have enough information.

 

[SlowJim]

Fair enough. I'm a car guy and many manufacturers have been caught providing journalists with new cars to review which have more power and better quality control than one you would buy at a dealer. Maybe the speaker world is different.

 

[Curvature]

Fair enough. I'm a car guy and many manufacturers have been caught providing journalists with new cars to review which have more power and better quality control than one you would buy at a dealer. Maybe the speaker world is different.

That does happen. It's hard to fake measurements convincingly, though. It's easier to do that sort of thing when all the journalist is delivering is their impression.

 

[Matias]

With the reviewers having NFS it would be shooting themselves on their foot trying to fake measurements only to have the reviews later showing something completely different. They are not crazy. The ones that publish high res measurements are the ones that believe in them and designed the speakers to maximize them.

The manufacturers that do not optimize measurements usually hide them instead of forging them.