AVS Forum banner

1541 - 1560 of 5675 Posts

·
Member
Joined
·
844 Posts
From the deviation graphs it looks to be able to play loud, so I'm guessing it's a 3- or 4-way speaker and the bumps in the frequency response reflect the ranges of each driver. The dispersion looks quite even except maybe 500-1khz. I bet this speaker would sound good if equalized to be flat on axis.
It is unfortunate that Soundstage did not, or could not, afford the full set of NRCC data, including sound power and/or DI. That would have added significant value to the interpretation of the data. Nobody consulted me, the creator of the measurement system :rolleyes: The power compression data are quite misleading, as I have commented on previously - and I created that too, a very long time ago :frown:

You are right that EQ based on the anechoic data would improve this speaker.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,738 Posts
Sorry guys, the comments took me off-guard, and I was having a rough day. Not an excuse, I realize, but I'll endeavor to stay out of this thread.

One quick comment on EQ and crossovers: IME (not comparable to that of the experts on this thread) EQ alone may not be effective in dealing with driver overlap issues. I have found phase adjustments are often needed to get a smooth blend among drivers and even then dealing with different driver dispersion (radiation) effects makes it hard to get a good blend if it's not right to begin with. Among conventional speakers, Revel excels at this, and is one reason they won out to me coming from planars. Too many really highly-regarded conventional speakers have issues through the crossover region that detract from the sound (to me) and are fairly challenging to fix. Modern room correction systems do a pretty good job but doing it yourself means some decent measurements and knowledge of how to implement (usually DSP) correction filters to compensate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Milt99

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,784 Posts
It is unfortunate that Soundstage did not, or could not, afford the full set of NRCC data, including sound power and/or DI. That would have added significant value to the interpretation of the data. Nobody consulted me, the creator of the measurement system :rolleyes: The power compression data are quite misleading, as I have commented on previously - and I created that too, a very long time ago :frown:



You are right that EQ based on the anechoic data would improve this speaker.
Since most of us don't has access to an anechoic chamber, I wanted to ask the experts, if the following will work.

Take the speaker outside (large field or even an open backyard), set a mic close to it and measure on axis frequency response for the speaker. Use this to equalize the speaker above the transition frequency and then use that equalization indoors. We can run room equalization again for correction below the transition frequency.

While this will not fix cross over related issues, it will help with minimum phase areas.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,360 Posts
I would like to say thank you DR. Toole .


Thanks for the insights and even life stories...….and of course the work.



I am sure many are thankful for you posting in this thread...….but, thank you is soo dry and does not seem to convey the appreciation well enough soo...…..



Its more like OMFG, Toole is posting info......thank you thank you, this is outstanding, epic....unbelievable...WOW OMG.....this is soo GREAT! I am soo lucky, you have to check this out.....SSSSh, the DR is talking, I do not want to miss a word of this.....happy happy, joy joy ...woooohooo !!!!!




I think that better represents having you post here and sharing whatever you choose to.:D

Thank you.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
844 Posts
I would like to say thank you DR. Toole .


Thanks for the insights and even life stories...….and of course the work.



I am sure many are thankful for you posting in this thread...….but, thank you is soo dry and does not seem to convey the appreciation well enough soo...…..



Its more like OMFG, Toole is posting info......thank you thank you, this is outstanding, epic....unbelievable...WOW OMG.....this is soo GREAT! I am soo lucky, you have to check this out.....SSSSh, the DR is talking, I do not want to miss a word of this.....happy happy, joy joy ...woooohooo !!!!!




I think that better represents having you post here and sharing whatever you choose to.:D

Thank you.
Wooohooo back to you!!! Otherwise, I'm speechless . . . . thank you . . .

Floyd:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts
Dr. Toole, forgive me if this has already been asked and answered (I have been following this thread as closely as I can for all the valuable information your have shared), but are you willing and able to share with us a list of speakers that were the best performers with the spinorama?
 

·
Member
Joined
·
844 Posts
Dr. Toole, forgive me if this has already been asked and answered (I have been following this thread as closely as I can for all the valuable information your have shared), but are you willing and able to share with us a list of speakers that were the best performers with the spinorama?
I have the idea that your question lingers in the minds of most people on this thread. I did not start the thread, and it is disappointing to us all that more spinorama data has not been revealed - so far. I have been retired since 2007, and although not completely detached from Harman I am not in a position of responsibility any longer. I really cannot provide that information, but even though it is obviously self serving, you can look at the spins in my book for some evidence.

As I point out in the attachment to my post #220 , what is needed is more useful information from manufacturers and reviewers. Manufacturers have not been very responsive, and reviewers mostly lack the resources to make the necessary measurements. Soundstage.com does have a collection of data from my old NRCC facility, and although it is incomplete and not in spinorama format, it is at least accurate and usefully revealing. I have seen some useful data from European sources, but I have no links.

Sorry . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,912 Posts
It is unfortunate that Soundstage did not, or could not, afford the full set of NRCC data, including sound power and/or DI. That would have added significant value to the interpretation of the data. Nobody consulted me, the creator of the measurement system :rolleyes: The power compression data are quite misleading, as I have commented on previously - and I created that too, a very long time ago :frown:

You are right that EQ based on the anechoic data would improve this speaker.
One thing I noticed when comparing the few Revel measurements on soundstage and the Harman spins is that the 45 degree off axis curve very closely matches the soundpower in the spinorama, it's not perfect but if we have no other option it's not bad.

On the topic of EQ based on anechoic data, I think it would be really nice if the manufacturers could give customers the exact parametric filters to make the speaker even better. I wouldn't want to go overboard with EQ but most speakers have a couple areas that I'm sure the designers would like to smooth out but it's just not feasible or possible, many enthusiasts have the ability to EQ, though, so I think it would be a nice (and free) option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,717 Posts
It is unfortunate that Soundstage did not, or could not, afford the full set of NRCC data, including sound power and/or DI. That would have added significant value to the interpretation of the data. Nobody consulted me, the creator of the measurement system :rolleyes: The power compression data are quite misleading, as I have commented on previously - and I created that too, a very long time ago :frown:

You are right that EQ based on the anechoic data would improve this speaker.
@neutralguy also

The data was from the Energy RC-70 floorstanding model.
I liked the speaker OK but always felt it was missing something.

Thanks for the interpretation.

Chris
 

·
Member
Joined
·
844 Posts
@neutralguy also

The data was from the Energy RC-70 floorstanding model.
I liked the speaker OK but always felt it was missing something.

Thanks for the interpretation.

Chris
Energy was one of the Canadian brands that used the NRCC facilities in their early days. I show measurements on the Energy Pro 22 in Figure 18.4(d). It was a superbly neutral speaker, but could not play all that loud. I see on the current website that they claim an intimate involvement with my research - not true; they were one of several loudspeaker brands, not all Canadian, renting the facility - anechoic chamber, measuring gear and listening room - for product development.

Ownership of the brand has migrated over the years, and now I see that it is associated with Klipsch, along with another NRCC-assisted brand, Mirage. Business is business. I have no idea who is designing the speakers these days, or what their performance targets are.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
Knowingly.... Now that is another matter. ,
Lmao!

It's all good! As I stated before, I don't mean any disrespect towards Floyd Toole. I appreciate all the knowledge he is sharing with us. Those of us who question anything posted seem to get vilified. I'm still trying to come to grips with the attachment in post #220 . The good speaker is dated 2011. The bad speaker is dated 1999. Should those 2 speakers even be compared or used as an example of what we should choose to buy or not buy?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,738 Posts
TONS of information!

I was cool until the different world statement. For those of you who don't know, A Different World was a spinoff from The Cosby Show starring Lisa Bonet (Zoe Kravitz mother). Marisa Tomei, who got an Oscar for My Cousin Vinny, was a cast member too. BTW, Bill Cosby deserves to be in jail for what he did to those women.
Just caught this. I never really watched the Cosby Show, didn't watch TV for a while after college in the mid 80's, and I think that's when it appeared? I certainly had no idea there was ever a show called "A Different World". My context is from my grandmother and that was one of her favorite sayings (usually "Kids these days, they live in a different world!") She also was fond of saying "those longing for the good old days didn't have to live through them".

In any event allow me to apologize, but I had absolutely no idea the context in which you placed those words, just as you had no idea of my context.

I'd say something about "small world" but then that @^#%$ Disney song would be in my head for the next year or so...
 

·
Member
Joined
·
844 Posts
Lmao!

It's all good! As I stated before, I don't mean any disrespect towards Floyd Toole. I appreciate all the knowledge he is sharing with us. Those of us who question anything posted seem to get vilified. I'm still trying to come to grips with the attachment in post #220 . The good speaker is dated 2011. The bad speaker is dated 1999. Should those 2 speakers even be compared or used as an example of what we should choose to buy or not buy?
Ignore the dates. Look at the curves. Some things don't change - there are still examples of good and bad in the marketplace. When the curves are smooth and linear things are likely to sound good.

The point of the figure is that curves are useful: (a) if you believe in them and (b) if you can find them on any products you might be interested in. It can be done. It is just not being done enough.

I now remember why I chose those curves to compare - it was to illustrate that huge differences in quality exist at the same prices. Price is a very poor correlate of sound quality, as is shown in figure 3.19, if you have my book.

No disrespect taken.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
Lol! It's cool man. We are all here trying to learn something new.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
Ignore the dates. Look at the curves. Some things don't change - there are still examples of good and bad in the marketplace. When the curves are smooth and linear things are likely to sound good.

The point of the figure is that curves are useful: (a) if you believe in them and (b) if you can find them on any products you might be interested in. We can do it. It is just not being done enough.
For me, ignoring the dates is hard to overlook. I would expect a 1999 speaker to have a worse curve than a 2011 speaker. That attachment would look more scientific if both curves contained speakers from the same year.

So are you saying that if I were to walk into a store, I should not buy a speaker if the manufacturer does not provide a graphed frequency response even though those speakers sound good to me? Bose is excluded since they provide a dedicated room for their speakers and can't be compared to their competitors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,289 Posts
I haven't received advice like that since my impetuous, bar-hoping days as a young GI in the Army.
The curves are not the issue. Basic audio knowledge is a flat response is better than a bumpy response. If a car magazine, or anything outside of audio, compared a 2019 graph to a 2007 graph, what would you think???
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,435 Posts
The curves are not the issue. Basic audio knowledge is a flat response is better than a bumpy response. If a car magazine, or anything outside of audio, compared a 2019 graph to a 2007 graph, what would you think???
You missed the entire joke - well done. **hint** It had nothing to do with speakers.

But to your question, I would have no problem looking a torque/horsepower graph from any year. The year doesn't matter because torque/horsepower dyno graphs are basically the same since their inception.
 

·
Member
Joined
·
844 Posts
For me, ignoring the dates is hard to overlook. I would expect a 1999 speaker to have a worse curve than a 2011 speaker. That attachment would look more scientific if both curves contained speakers from the same year.

So are you saying that if I were to walk into a store, I should not buy a speaker if the manufacturer does not provide a graphed frequency response even though those speakers sound good to me? Bose is excluded since they provide a dedicated room for their speakers and can't be compared to their competitors.
If you decide to take the trouble to go through this thread from the beginning, ignoring some obvious trolling, you will get a better understanding of the value of measurements and the pitfalls of believing your ears in a store, or any unfamiliar environment. If you decide that there is value in scientific research on the topic of audio, my 500 page book has most of it, from worldwide sources.

As for the different vintages of the example speakers, I have been doing this for 50 years and there were speakers from decades ago that I would pit against some current, highly reviewed products. Chapter 18 shows examples from my 50 years of examining loudspeakers. Vintage is not a reliable clue to potential sound quality. The best products sound subjectively remarkably similar when the measurements look similar. The absence of useful and trustworthy measurements in the marketplace is the problem.

When you say:"That attachment would look more scientific if both curves contained speakers from the same year." it is clear that you haven't read the book - it is the last figure in the book - and you are not up to date on the science. Sorry.

So, yes, I am saying that without trustworthy measurements to provide guidance, using only your ears in typical consumer listening situations is rolling the dice. Good luck!
 
1541 - 1560 of 5675 Posts
Top