Dave from Virtins wrote me back yesterday :
Yes, it ( Holmimpulse) should be compatible with our hardware.
What is important to me, is to have a ready to go package, and easy to use, with the capability to make accurate measurements. If the VT RTA-168A and software should not work well for my needs for one reason or the other, its not a big deal. My acoustic engeneer told me yesterday he has use for it.
The calibrated mic is an important point: an ECM8000 or any affordable measurement mic is useless if you don't have its calibration file (and the one given by parts express with their dayton mic is totally wrong).
Get your mic from cross spectrum :
Cross·Spectrum - Calibrated Dayton Audio EMM-6 Microphones for Sale
70$ and you get a tool that you can actually use and rely on.
EDIT: the calibration file that appear on this page for the emm-6 looks to be the one given by parts express with the dayton mic... :
http://www.virtins.com/VTRTA168.shtml
Last edited:
Since the main issues with the system are not above 10kHz. at least initial tests should be useful... If the ECM8000 had 6db variations, I think it was defective/out of spec. I would have returned it to the mfr... Most of these "calibrated mics" are actually just electret elements in a nice package...fwiw.
_-_-bear
_-_-bear
Since it's exactly the opposite for me, and I learned HOLM first, I think you're right.
(I like both softwares very much)
I have the Dayton mic and they provided a sheet of paper with the calibration printed on it. Its not of much use, but the printed response is very flat except a little blip at 7 kHz. I measured a commercial 2-way speaker using this mic, whose measurements were printed elsewhere and it came pretty close. So, I'm convinced that this is a good buy. YMMV, of course. At least it looks well built.
Holm is very good for doing crossover work. But ARTA can also do CSD, step, burst decay, directivity sonograms, room RT and much more. Both are invaluable though.
Holm is very good for doing crossover work. But ARTA can also do CSD, step, burst decay, directivity sonograms, room RT and much more. Both are invaluable though.
Last edited:
Unfortunately as I said earlier you can throw this calibration sheet in the trash: it is totally inaccurate.
I got an EMM6 mic through cross-spectrum, and when I compare the original calibration sheet to the one provided by cross-spectrum (and also available on a CD) they do not tell the same story at all... (and my different measurements confirmed that cross-spectrum calibration is much more accurate than dayton's one (which was showing a strangely flat curve, to good to be true...))
??
Ready to go package was presented to you. You still do not understand what MLS is . What you did buy is a analog measurement Mls is based on math the computer can calculate the result. You can also use math filter to get a more accurate result.
You do not dare to ask what MLS is, I will tell you.
The MLS technique triggers on the test signal. With the measurement window you can choose how long you want to measure, this gives the opportunity to discriminate the refections of the room. So you see the first response, not the one with interference of the room like with analog measurement with pink-noise.
Last edited:
I doubt you would be able to match the Linear x setup with what you have suggested...
What is the end goal?
First, for DIY I can't imagine that the functional difference would really matter between ARTA and LX500. If this is for a pro or factory use, that is another matter.
Second, the LX500 is not released and I have no idea when it will be released, so it is essentially vaporware.
Third, if the need is for a system of the LX500 caliber, then CLIO 10 is probably the next best alternative.
Another option is Praxis. It will run you about 1/2 the cost of CLIO.
Both CLIO and Praxis give you absolute SPL as would the LX500.
However, As Earl Geddes has commented before, relative SPL is far more important that absolute. Earl uses HolmImpulse and exports his off-axis responses to a program he wrote to view polar and sonogram charts.
I have successfully exported Holm files to LEAP5 for polar display.
While I am a gadgeteer, I really feel that 75% - 80% of the important features for testing is the wetware programming between the ears of the tester, not fancy hardware.
I own CLIOWin 7, HolmImpulse, Fuzzmeasure, and a free copy of ARTA. If I could do this all over I think I would probably go with ARTA. I already have M-Audio Mobile Pre USB and a Calibrated ECM8000 mic.
Last edited:
with the frequency plots on hand, it is of course much easyer to shape the crossover. That is what i did today. The 3 main changes were :
crossing S2 at 1,8khz second order, and adding a Lpad
crossing Coral H104 at 9khz, first order.
The following measurement was made 1m from the speaker, without bass and sub connected :
afterwards i made direct listening comparisons between the S2/H104, and
the TPL 150.The differences are:
The acentuation and nasality in the midrange of S2 is gone. It sounds now more natural.
directivity : the Beyma has ( of course ) much broader dispersion, but the difference can be clearly heard, thats worth to be named.
clarity : the Beyma has much more clarity and detail in the higher register. It also sounds a little " colder ".
shout : there is still a littlebit " shout ", or " in your face ", that can be observed with S2, and still somehow a littlebit " compressed " sounding. But also warmer, maibe even softer.
Overall conclusion : i still like the Beyma's better, and that will be probably be even more, with the waveguide in place.
The S2's and H104 will probably not remain much more time in my system.
crossing S2 at 1,8khz second order, and adding a Lpad
crossing Coral H104 at 9khz, first order.
The following measurement was made 1m from the speaker, without bass and sub connected :
afterwards i made direct listening comparisons between the S2/H104, and
the TPL 150.The differences are:
The acentuation and nasality in the midrange of S2 is gone. It sounds now more natural.
directivity : the Beyma has ( of course ) much broader dispersion, but the difference can be clearly heard, thats worth to be named.
clarity : the Beyma has much more clarity and detail in the higher register. It also sounds a little " colder ".
shout : there is still a littlebit " shout ", or " in your face ", that can be observed with S2, and still somehow a littlebit " compressed " sounding. But also warmer, maibe even softer.
Overall conclusion : i still like the Beyma's better, and that will be probably be even more, with the waveguide in place.
The S2's and H104 will probably not remain much more time in my system.
Last edited:
I've used older Linear X measurement systems (very nice!) and you will get more than close enough.. Arta is quite good in its own right, the quality of the hardware you use it with will be the biggest determinant IMHO..(A very good calibrated mic being one possible splurge, but that said I also use the ECM8000 mic)
I never suggested the LX500 and i have never compared the accuracy of ARTA vs the rest so i cannot comment, my only comment was bettering linear-x old or new vs the ones previously listed...
Who is Earl Geddes....?
I found the LMS/Leap combo very difficult to beat , what are you using to analyze ARTA after export...?
I never suggested the LX500 and i have never compared the accuracy of ARTA vs the rest so i cannot comment, my only comment was bettering linear-x old or new vs the ones previously listed...
Who is Earl Geddes....?
I found the LMS/Leap combo very difficult to beat , what are you using to analyze ARTA after export...?
I bought a used CLIOWin 7 because I could not find an LMS system, but after doing more homework I felt that ARTA was a better value.
The problem with CLIO (besides the price) is that to use it on a laptop requires a USB interface and that takes away the absolute measurement capacity. Thus, it is about the same as ARTA.
I use LEAP5 for the box and crossover design.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.