Ah ok, the difference is better visible with your graphs as they are larger. Obviously @BYRTT did less than perfect job EQ-ing the JBL.
Btw, where can I find CEA2034 data file for JBL?
-
Welcome to ASR. 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!
Vanatoo Transparent Zero Speaker Review
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
Ah ok, the difference is better visible with your graphs as they are larger. Obviously @BYRTT did less than perfect job EQ-ing the JBL.
Btw, where can I find CEA2034 data file for JBL?
It’s somewhere in the review thread for it (the first one done).Ah ok, the difference is better visible with your graphs as they are larger. Obviously @BYRTT did less than perfect job EQ-ing the JBL.
Btw, where can I find CEA2034 data file for JBL?
Ah ok, the difference is better visible with your graphs as they are larger. Obviously @BYRTT did less than perfect job EQ-ing the JBL.
Btw, where can I find CEA2034 data file for JBL?
Uuuh i'm terrible sorry for that JBL correction where i had by accident used another spindata set that had some none official Klippel microphone calibrations incorporated
the right correction filter for official JBL review is attached below 
Uuuh i'm terrible sorry for that JBL correction where i had by accident used another spindata set that had some none official Klippel microphone calibrations incorporated
I knew you could do better so I was suspecting there was a mistake once @MZKM cleared his part.
EQ Vanatoo:I knew you could do better so I was suspecting there was a mistake once @MZKM cleared his part.
EQ SCORE: 7.3
EQ SCORE w/sub: 9.2
Again, this is simulated.
Last edited:
In my experience with EQ pretty much all speakers respond well to such mild filters so I don't have doubts that actual response would be very similar to this.
Pretty close to a perfect score of 9.5 considering the mediocre directivity and the fact that the on-axis response is off target by 1 dB from 4 kHz and up.
Ooops that spinorama is not for 305P but T0 so please edit that post, but admit my initial mistake is probably the culprit that can up chance for more mistakes
thanks doing all the work for T0 and 305P, EQ improved their scores pretty much and nice to know the numbers and feel your model works.
Last edited:
Ooops that spinorama is not for 305P but T0 so please edit that post, but admit my initial mistake is probably the culprit that can up chance for more mistakes
LOL - you must be in love M8.
It is interesting that the scores are so high (though theoretical). The Genelec 8341 is essentially EQ'd since it has a DSP cross-over and presumably they do some EQ as part of the final implementation. I wonder whether the simulated algorithm applied to the 305P would change the Genelec score.
It also begs the question of what the point of expensive passive speakers is when you can get near perfection (in theory) with a decent speaker and DSP/EQ. And even why bother with a passive cross-over when you can just do it all in one step.
Obviously things like loudness, looks, and preferences for different kinds of sound are still important. And note that I am not arguing against passive, non-DSP speakers. This thread is just making it more and more clear (to me) that DSP/EQ is extremely powerful.
It also begs the question of what the point of expensive passive speakers is when you can get near perfection (in theory) with a decent speaker and DSP/EQ. And even why bother with a passive cross-over when you can just do it all in one step.
Obviously things like loudness, looks, and preferences for different kinds of sound are still important. And note that I am not arguing against passive, non-DSP speakers. This thread is just making it more and more clear (to me) that DSP/EQ is extremely powerful.
Her acoustic upper part is close to be some perfect pornoLOL - you must be in love M8.
...You are right - such beauty cannot be denied!
You would need to EQ and then remeasure a real speaker to see how much of a real improvement you get. Which would definitely be a cool experiment.
But I think that would produce significantly different results than these simulations. There's really no reason to believe that Genelec doesn't perform this same type of work(just as an example -- I'm sure many companies do), over and over, using the real speaker as the test bed. There is just no way they're leaving a significant amount of performance on the table because they didn't think to change their EQ.
Well @amirm can remeasure the same speaker after EQ. That would test EQ true effectivity leaving only the inter-sample variations to question.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #96
I don't have an ability to remeasure with Klippel and EQ. If you mean in-room, a lot of these differences get lost in room measurements so much harder to verify there.
So what is the latest EQ/convolution you want me to try with this speaker? And 305P MK II? Can't keep track of the back and forth.
I agree with you. I was kind of asking for the opposite. If we assume that Genelec gets the EQ implemented about as well as it can be done, then applying the simulated effects of EQ to the 8341 and re-scoring would give us an estimate of the bias in these simulated EQ measures.
There would be nothing stopping you from doing this with a speaker that has built-in PEQ like a Genelec SAM monitor, though, right? I believe you can configure the PEQ arbitrarily(see pg63 of the manual) and it's saved into the monitor, so no need for any external hardware or jerry-rigging.
Perhaps something to try with the next speaker that has this feature, whether Genelec or something else.
OP
- Thread Starter
- #100
Other than pulling my hair out while trying to configure them, no.
Really, EQ is a linear change so unless we are dealing with compression and such, its effect should be similar to simulation.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll