Hi Bill,
Thank you for looking those reports up. I normally don't read them, but I did these. I have the 1991 models.
I was at the AES meeting in Toronto when Paul Barton introduced them. I was blown away, in a large warehouse on a mezz level. One pair filled the place on a 250 watt PA amp. I forget what it was, but I was familiar with it and those amps sounded a bit rough. Anway, I was very impressed and vowed to get a pair.
I'm running mine off a modified Marantz 300DC. Stock these amps aren't that smooth on the top end (I thought they were). I just figured I hated the tweeters. After correcting the amplifier's problems everything sounds clean and open. Yeah, the bass response is impressive, the low cutoff is very low. I am preparing a Yamaha PC2002 to try. These speakers could use the additional power. I did run a Bryston 4B cubed, really nice. I can't afford one of those.
Interestingly, I tried a pair of the Gold i models, everyone commented on the midrange being "off" and maybe too forward. They were each familiar with their own speaker systems. We A-B tested (sighted) these speakers and the differences were plainly obvious.
Thank you for looking those reports up. I normally don't read them, but I did these. I have the 1991 models.
I was at the AES meeting in Toronto when Paul Barton introduced them. I was blown away, in a large warehouse on a mezz level. One pair filled the place on a 250 watt PA amp. I forget what it was, but I was familiar with it and those amps sounded a bit rough. Anway, I was very impressed and vowed to get a pair.
I'm running mine off a modified Marantz 300DC. Stock these amps aren't that smooth on the top end (I thought they were). I just figured I hated the tweeters. After correcting the amplifier's problems everything sounds clean and open. Yeah, the bass response is impressive, the low cutoff is very low. I am preparing a Yamaha PC2002 to try. These speakers could use the additional power. I did run a Bryston 4B cubed, really nice. I can't afford one of those.
Interestingly, I tried a pair of the Gold i models, everyone commented on the midrange being "off" and maybe too forward. They were each familiar with their own speaker systems. We A-B tested (sighted) these speakers and the differences were plainly obvious.
all. the smallest one was 10' x 17' x 8' . subtract a ft for foam. they all had to satisfy ITU-T P.341
OK, I will rephrase my question: what in your learned view is wrong with the standard testing and evaluation of loudspeakers on Audio Science Review?
@kgrlee: I suppose you are familiar with loudspeaker testing on ASR?
@soundbloke: what does a Wigner plot tell us that a classic Waterfall does not?
@kgrlee: I suppose you are familiar with loudspeaker testing on ASR?
@soundbloke: what does a Wigner plot tell us that a classic Waterfall does not?
I've never heard of ASR before. I'm now looking at their
How to make quasi-anechoic speaker measurements/spinoramas with REW and VituixCAD
at the moment. Don't forget I'm a real beach bum.Just finished page 1. Is the spinorama the standard testing and evaluation of loudspeakers on Audio Science Review? Doesn't seem to be a waterfall.
Is their full test & eval similar to Stereophile's?
Is it supposed to be like ANSI-CEA2024-A?
I'd like to know that too
Last edited:
kgrlee said:
Actually, in DBLTs, electrostats don't do as well as some well designed electromagnetic drivers ... and some using Unique Fibrous Material (UFM aka paper) do a LOT better than Beryllium and other fancy diaphragm materials
Bill, I had a PAFplot (our far superior waterfall version
) of ESL 63 when it first came out. I'll have to see if I still have a backup or paper copy somewhere so I can pontificate in detail 
Did you see/read the comments from Kimmo Saunisto on ASR?
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-can-you-hear-until.29269/page-4#post-1028883
Aside of the comments on the preference score itself, point 7 to 12 are pretty valid too.
The Wigner Distribution contains all the information. Other waterfall plots are filtered versions of the Wigner Distribution and therefore can be described as smearing or obscuring the information in a measurement.
For example, if we are using Cumulative Decay Spectra to spot a high Q resonance that is absolutely fine. But what is portrayed in such a display is not an accurate representation of the sound pressure at the microphone - it is a smeared version of it.
So if we are looking to ascribe what are often small subjective differences to measurements, then we would do best to ensure we are not disregarding small amounts of information that could contain what we are looking for.
We also have the further possibility to apply filters to the Wigner Distribution that vary in time or frequency to better model our hearing too - that is to add weightings that usefully filter the information. We might even end up emphasizing some information we lost completely in the CDS, for example.
"[...] Although much, much slower than a log sweep the stepped sine measurement can measure low distortion levels much more accurately than a sweep [...]"
[https://www.roomeqwizard.com/help/help_en-GB/html/graph_distortion.html]
I wasted months of my life on log sine.
Stepped sine was worth every minute.
Best regards
Bernd
[https://www.roomeqwizard.com/help/help_en-GB/html/graph_distortion.html]
I wasted months of my life on log sine.
Stepped sine was worth every minute.
Best regards
Bernd
Last edited:
I believe that the "spinorama" (not sure why, but I hate lingo like that) originated with Olive and Toole's research at Harmon (and Toole's prior research at the NRC in Canada before being recruited to Harmon) as they tried to characterize speakers/determine which parameters were preferred in blind testing. Starting in the era of the LSR monitors (LSR 6332, 6328 I think), Harmon began to engineer their speakers with these goals in mind and shared testing data in that format (attached). This approach is now seen throughout JBL's professional speakers and Revel's (part of Harmon) home speakers.
When I returned from overseas having sold all my equipment before leaving, I purchased and continue to use LSR 6332s. With 3 or 4 designs in my mind, I am trying to figure out if I can DIY better.
The Klippel apparatus used at ASR and @bikinpunk 's (Erin's Audio Corner, YT link shared above) is an (expensive) system that uses near field, non-anechoic techniques to generate the spin data and other measurements (including CSDs, distortion, etc.). Several manufactures have acquired the Klippel system and are using it in design (Magico would be a "high-end" example).
This thread goes into deep detail (including mathematics over my head) on how Klippel works:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...nderstanding-how-the-klippel-nfs-works.13139/
They love Genelec, Neumann, and Revel at ASR. An example to look at for the type of data Klippel generates might be this review of one of the beloveds.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...s/genelec-8361a-review-powered-monitor.28039/
I am not completely aware of what lead to the "preference score" other than, I presume, basing it on closeness of adherence to the desired parameters on the spins. There is actually a site compiling the spin data on many speakers:
https://www.spinorama.org
With the depth of experience (and math!) of the folks in this thread it could be interesting to see what y'all think.
Bill
actually, a much, much slower log sweep can do the same as stepped sine. The duration impacts the results more than other factors. You get the non-singular Fisher matrix and the sigma is ~1/sqrt(T)
To Bill Brown: ASR claims that there exists an audio science that does not obey physics and scientific approach but the ultimate truth is what their self-proclaimed experts declare. A note that an 8" driver in a small closed box may not have 6dB of front-to-back directivity on 20Hz gets you canceled.
On ASR, that matches my thoughts.
I looked a while ago and found some statements that were not technically correct. I stopped looking as these were from the head dude. I wish I could remember exactly, but they were not worth any further thought.
An audio science that doesn't obey physics. Sure. lol!
I looked a while ago and found some statements that were not technically correct. I stopped looking as these were from the head dude. I wish I could remember exactly, but they were not worth any further thought.
An audio science that doesn't obey physics. Sure. lol!
I don't disagree with either of you..... I check out their measurements, but don't participate. There are some smart people there, but also a lot of "gospel" is being handed down to a rabid group off followers/full believers chasing the perfect "spinorama" and "SINAD" by a leader who is, how do I say, it, quite impressed by himself? Lots of people there who think they have it all figured out and everyone else are deluded fools, and they love to point it out to those who dare to deviate even a bit from the biblical dogma.
Should have noted that the links were just shared to give examples of Klippel and not as an endorsement!
Bill
Should have noted that the links were just shared to give examples of Klippel and not as an endorsement!
Bill
I suggest it's "non-landing" is why this thread exists.So you read Kayser’s paper (from my home Uni
Bummer, can’t upload the file, it’s too big. But y’all know your way on the internet.