• 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!

Worst measuring loudspeaker?

... and still there are deviance by a dB or even two in predicted versus real in-room (which?!).

Red = In-room, 4m.

A difference of 1-2 dB is small when it comes to acoustic measurements (we’re not talking about amplifiers or DACs here), and having such a good match between an estimated in-room response based on quasi-anechoic data, and a ”real” in-room measurement shows that the science works.

I measured the in-room response in my living room, without acoustic treatment.


IMG_6560.jpeg


IMG_6561.jpeg
 
1744203969561.png
Vienna Acoustics baby grand. I still have a pair of Beethovens circa 2001 and despite the funky measurements I can't find anything I prefer for what I could get for them.
 
A difference of 1-2 dB is small when it comes to acoustic measurements ...
O/k, nice read the standard, thanks really!

I can't agree, though. I won't start an argument anyway. Maybe I'm too critical by education.
 
Red = In-room, 4m.

A difference of 1-2 dB is small when it comes to acoustic measurements (we’re not talking about amplifiers or DACs here), and having such a good match between an estimated in-room response based on quasi-anechoic data, and a ”real” in-room measurement shows that the science works.

I measured the in-room response in my living room, without acoustic treatment.


View attachment 443147

View attachment 443148
Yes, I am always surprised how well those EIR match measurements I have done at the LP above 500 Hz in different rooms, some exemplary:




Of course under extreme conditions like too large or small listening distance and/or room reflectivity that difference can get bigger, but for typical normal/decent ones for high fidelity listening they work nicely.
 
I realize it's likely not possible for these old measurements, but I would love to know what the room dimensions and speaker locations were in each case.
 
How do the ‘pro’ Amphion models measure, they have impedance and FR ( 10dB) on their site but that’s about it.
And they don’t use ‘impure’ DSP!
Keith
 
I can't believe Stereophile is still using completely outdated polar graphs. They need to update both their software and their measuring techniques.
I'm sure they will upgrade to only subjective reviews sometime soon, the measurements must be getting in the way of the florid prose.
 
Stereophile’s review of Ampion’s ‘Krypton’ not awful but I was expecting better.

Keith

"Krypton3X is Amphion’s reference project 25 years in the making. This highly innovative 3-way reference loudspeaker allows you to enjoy full range, realistic orchestral performances without owning a concert hall" - Amphion Marketing

Reference indeed
 
Last edited:
I can't believe Stereophile is still using completely outdated polar graphs. They need to update both their software and their measuring techniques.
Over 30 year old software. Actually nearer to 40 years. Simply amazes me. REW, now ARTA is open for download. ARTA is very fully featured. And REW is quite a step above MLSSA.
 
Did these big Raidho speakers, measured by stereophile, make it in here yet?

1749356556357.jpeg


https://www.stereophile.com/content/raidho-td38-loudspeaker-measurementsThey

1749356589847.jpeg


1749356629273.jpeg

Yikes!

I once had a chance to have an extended audition of the smaller Raidho C.2 speakers.
I was intrigued because at an audio show I’d heard some fairly astonishingly realistic operatic vocals coming from one of their speakers.

However, when I had a chance to spin a lot of music on the Raidho they sounded like… well exactly like the frequency balance in those graphs. Apparently it’s a house sound they go for… they’re trying to create some sort of balance that they see is re-creating a sort of mid hall perspective on acoustic instruments. Ultimately, I think it makes them a one-trick pony. Because I found the emphasis in the bass and the obvious scoop out in the presence region to be quite frustrating and too coloured. All sorts of my favourite tracks felt obnoxious in the bass region and lacking presence and dynamics in the upper mids. One of the more disappointing speakers I listened to.
 
Last edited:
Did these big Raidho speakers, measured by stereophile, make it in here yet?
Quite bad indeed. But looking at the impedance graph, I bet a single series resistor before the tweeter crossover (or a larger value resistor if there is one already) could make the speaker much more neutral in the frequency response. Because where the frequency response bump lies for the tweeter, there is an impedance response valley.
 
"... the obvious scoop out in the presence region to be quite frustrating and too coloured. All sorts of my favourite tracks felt obnoxious in the bass region and lacking presence and dynamics in the upper mids."
Just to compare semantic notes, what range is now considered "presence?"

My old Martin Mayer book "High Fidelity," published in 1958 (I keep it right next to my remnants of the Dead Sea Scrolls) "presence" was defined as being centered on 5KHz. Just now I looked on Google, and they have it at 4KHz to 6KHz ... agrees with Mayer, some 67 years later. The REW graph header agrees. My old ears find it as 4KHz to 8KHz. Anyway, the two graphs you reproduced from Stereophile, show a peak from 4KHz to 10KHz, of about 3ish dB to 4ish dB, higher than anywhere else above 3.5Hz. What range do you hear as "presence?"
 
Just to compare semantic notes, what range is now considered "presence?"

My old Martin Mayer book "High Fidelity," published in 1958 (I keep it right next to my remnants of the Dead Sea Scrolls) "presence" was defined as being centered on 5KHz. Just now I looked on Google, and they have it at 4KHz to 6KHz ... agrees with Mayer, some 67 years later. The REW graph header agrees. My old ears find it as 4KHz to 8KHz. Anyway, the two graphs you reproduced from Stereophile, show a peak from 4KHz to 10KHz, of about 3ish dB to 4ish dB, higher than anywhere else above 3.5Hz. What range do you hear as "presence?"

Sorry, but my use of the term “ presence” there wasn’t as clear as it could’ve been.
What I was thinking of is when I listened to those speakers how all sorts of instruments that lent excitement in many tracks I love - for instance in some Latin tracks - sounded subdued. The slapping of hands on bongos, the impact of timbales, handclaps etc… they lacked presence in terms of jumping out with the power and vividness I was accustomed to.
I could sense there was a scoop out in the relevant frequency range which made those instrument sound more recessed and slightly more dull. I’m thinking probably somewhere within the 1 - 5k range.

I don’t have the measurements for the smaller model I listened to. But it had a very distinct trough in the frequency response. If my memory is at all accurate, it would suggest that the frequency I response I heard was very much like that bigger Raidho shown above, but perhaps the depression extended a little higher, or started a little higher. But the general sense of such a gap was similar. As was the sense of boosted bass for a sense of impact.
 
Back
Top Bottom