You cant fool me, thats photoshop!
-
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!
WTF is happening?! What Hi-Fi? is now publishing measurements?
- Thread starter VintageFlanker
- Start date
You cant fool me, thats photoshop!
You cant fool me, thats photoshop!
What now - are you saying you liked japanese lady more?
I hadn't taken notice of it until it was mentioned here. Maybe that's because there really is no such thing. It is clearly just what Australian Hifi calls their measurement rig, not some big science lab with government accreditation as the moniker was no doubt intended to give the impression of. To be clear, I am not saying their results are poor (I haven't looked at them closely), only that pretending to be something you're not is silly and pretentious.
I was going to point you to their DragonFly measurements which used to be accessible on avhub.com.au (since you've measured that on CA Forum) but all links redirect to WhatHiFi. So there goes that idea.
Are their results fundamentally different from mine?
LOL i can't remember, that's why I googled it to try to point you to it.
I only remember they did measure it years ago - I can't remember the specific results though.
GelbeMusik
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 19, 2020
- Messages
- 445
- Likes
- 290
Oh keh, no result yet. It is 22dB down, adding amplitudes of 0dB and -22dB:
A = 20 * log10( 1 + 10 ^ ( - 22 / 20 ) ) = + 0,67 dB
But only if these contribution are same phase, which You would not expect from a resonant coupling and of course not in every direction.
It is fun to discuss audio. But times a reality check is in order. You told me in anothet thread I shall read "the book": First I did already, but what do You think I might gain from the literature? What is Your imagination, when You ask me to read the book? I hope we are on the same page regarding this issue.
Do you apply that practise period to homeopaths as a measure of competence?
Sticking to a relevant example, I don't care who Archimago is - whether he is a she or a collective.
I enjoy Archimago's objective analysis in things related to audio... I'm not alone in this regard....
Which part of "Archimago doesn't pretend to be a science lab" do you not comprehend?
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2019
- Messages
- 11,111
- Likes
- 14,774
Least "at ease" Linkedin/ company intranet picture ever. Also, looks like he is about to play the spoons.
You've imagined and run with this idea that Steve Holding is pretending to be a science lab?
Any objective data?
And speaking of comprehension, who cares who or what 'Steve Holding' is....
This obsession is hilarious.
A few things:
- The name Newport Test Labs sure sounds like something serious.
- A Google search for the name turns up no website, business listing, or contact info.
- The name is only ever mentioned in Australian Hi-Fi magazine.
- http://newporttestlabs.com/ redirects to What Hi-Fi.
If they presented the measurements the same way Stereophile do theirs — as in-house tests performed by an employee — I'd have no complaints.
Found this review of JBL's L100 (was considering buying it to review until I came to my senses) where Newport Labs tested it.
https://7review.com/jbl-l100-classic-review/
I was particularly interested in their methodology in showing the full band measured response:
I bolded the portion above which I thought was odd. I've seen reviewers provide averaged in-room response of the speaker's full-bandwidth. I've seen countless people splice nearfield with gated farfield. But this is the first time I've seen someone take the average far-field response up to a point and then splice it with a gated HF response. I assume they're taking the average for low-to-midrange because getting anechoic data down low is really, really hard; and nearfield isn't entirely accurate either. But they also still provide nearfield measurements of the woofer and port. It's just a bit odd.
https://7review.com/jbl-l100-classic-review/
I was particularly interested in their methodology in showing the full band measured response:
Graph 1. Frequency response. Trace below 1.2kHz is the averaged result of nine individual frequency sweeps measured at three metres, with the central grid point on-axis with the tweeter using pink noise test stimulus with capture unsmoothed. This has been manually spliced (at1.2kHz) to the gated high-frequency response, an expanded view of which is shown in Graph 2.
I bolded the portion above which I thought was odd. I've seen reviewers provide averaged in-room response of the speaker's full-bandwidth. I've seen countless people splice nearfield with gated farfield. But this is the first time I've seen someone take the average far-field response up to a point and then splice it with a gated HF response. I assume they're taking the average for low-to-midrange because getting anechoic data down low is really, really hard; and nearfield isn't entirely accurate either. But they also still provide nearfield measurements of the woofer and port. It's just a bit odd.
Newport Labs do the measurements for Australian Hi Fi magazine. It seems that the magazine outsources measurements just like High Fidelity, Audio and Stereo Review did back in the day.
interestingly, all the test reports used to be available on nextmedia.com.au, but no longer. iI’d speculate the magazine was spun off by the Nextmedia group and bought by What HiFi.
Similar threads
