carewser
Senior Member
Yeah -20db is crazy, it's almost like a sonic vacuum
Step functions don't provide much useful information so I don't post them anymore. For the Yamaha, let me see what I can find.today i search for yamaha HS step response to see if there can find some for yamaha HS. here is a step response from this site.seem Amir have the module only resolution is not so good. i think the important stuff is only in first 10 ms see. so a resolution 1 line 1 ms is good. question is wy newer tests have no step response. maybe @amirm can tell something to this. in this test can find step response https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/yamaha-hs5-powered-monitor-review.10967/
That's not quite the right way to think about it.Yeah -20db is crazy, it's almost like a sonic vacuum
Step functions don't provide much useful information so I don't post them anymore. For the Yamaha, let me see what I can find.
I think slower step response often bigger bass/mid have give less stereo width.
The speaker below 1 ms to reach 0 are much better in stereo width and room feeling at least for me.
[off-topic] Step response
No loudspeaker that also emits low tones has a step response that reaches zero after 1ms.
If a loudspeaker reproduces a 20Hz signal, one oscillation period alone requires 50ms.
The complete step response of an ideal loudspeaker (2-Way, LR4@1kHz) with an f3 of 30Hz looks like this:
View attachment 102864
The zero value is only reached after >40ms.
For comparison, here is a totally crappy (ideal) loudspeaker (2-Way, LR4@1kHz), which already drops out at 100 Hz in the low frequency range:
View attachment 102865
A step response that is as "short" as possible is not a measure for "much better in stereo width and room feeling". Your observations are more likely to be coincidental.
Is there a video of this tool in operation?
But I've never seen any test report that includes these remaining parts of the CTA-2034-A — neither in reviews nor from manufacturers. So much for a supposedly industry standard that no one seems to observe
Too bad neither Amir nor Erin measure the Max SPL of the speaker (I think it’s an additional costly add-on).
Did you do it for the D&D?I actually do provide a Max SPL. But per an IEC standard.
Did you do it for the D&D?
Did you ever compare the max SPL between methods?
Gotcha, was just wondering if close enough to where the 2034’s classifications could be applied.Nope. That was the only one I haven't tested for max SPL. Weather.
Didn't compare. Two totally different tests; I didn't expect them to yield the same number. I care more about the effects of compression over a long term than I do about 6ms instantaneous burst compression.
Gotcha, was just wondering if close enough to where the 2034’s classifications could be applied.
Too bad only some manufacturer‘s list the actual “power handling” (however they find that). Most just do “recommended wattage” or ”minimum wattage“ and use it as a marketing spec (somehow the bookshelf is 25W-100W and the higher sensitivity tower is 100W-250W, or some 5-digit speaker is 500W-1000W).TBH, I've considered dropping the max SPL testing. It seems hardly anyone mentions it. And TBH I can't recall the last time I actually referenced it for anything. And it takes a long time to run... on top of needing things to be quiet and I still am at odds with the outdoors for some speakers (weather, external noise). It's stressful. As silly as it sounds, it's a mental stressor because you have to have good conditions and as soon as someone comes down the road with a loud car, there goes the test. Out the window. It's frustrating as hell.
I do have the max SPL for the Kef R3. I am running it for the JBL HDI-3800 right now (literally, as I type this). But the wind here is causing me issues with >10kHz.
I'm about to try the CTA-2034 max spl test again now that I have the means to provide a room correction filter. Will see how that goes. Not holding my breath, though.