Originally Posted by coolrda
Should have been done but I got side-swiped by all the immersive audio threads. I'm refocused now. Here's the deal. I do have all those but soon as you mentioned the 5 & 12.5 it got me thinking that we need a complete test track suite made. I haven't had time to even check out
's new 7.1 test tracks which needs to be incorporated. Then I thought why stop at 1/3 oct when we might as well go 1/6 octave level matched -.01dbfs. Then, narrow band or wide and on and on. So, my thought is, instead of random, off the wall, throw everything in the pot, type testing, lets everyone put our heads together and come up with one awesome test suite. We need something all encompassing that thoroughly runs through a series of tests quickly. We have a good grasp of measuring FR&TR, so let's take the time so we don't waste more time later. For example, EOT served its purpose well, but it's a rising curve as frequency drops Nd there square waves, etc. We need legitimate test tracks with match levels and consistent duty cycles. We need sines and impulse. We need various sweeps as well and then a few short, well doc'd, movie demo's. Then make the files or iso available to everyone. The new scorecard with then be a major step forward. Now this scorecard will be even more valuable, during the HT design/layout stage, to troubleshoot rooms that aren't performing as expected and to test all types and classes of gear. We can hear you and MK describe the experience of vented and sealed but graphs are graphs. I know exactly the TR gain MK experienced between the two systems because I know what that gain feels like. That's my opinion. Whatcha think?
I like it, and am with you....but, we just have to keep in mind that the scorecard needs to remain simple to get more broad adoption. The ULF score was more about your systems capability, rather than what's really going on in-room. I do think the two would be fairly close (with in-room likely showing better performance). The ULF score assumes that you can optimize your room, FR, etc. to get the most out of it.
Adding the VS data is somewhat straying from the original principle as we're integrating the ULF score with actual measured results...but unfortunately, there is no other way to get this information without using VS. So ultimately, it will be a hybrid.
Having said that, Frequency Response, Speclab graph, and VibSensor would represent the pinnacle of information to really describe the experience you have in your room. That should be the norm when trying to optimize your system. The ULF card is more about showing you your systems minimum potential; FR, SL, and VS will give you the tools to optimize it all to meet and most likely exceed the ULF card.
Ultimately, I'm all for exactly what you described! Just need an easy way to pull out the 1/3 octave info to match up with the ULF card.