Setting up the Nathan 10

[markus76]

Here are some frequency response diagrams. Distance of Mic was 1m, 1.66 m from floor. Measured with a swept sine signal, Window 5 ms.

Smoothing 1/3 octave, 0° - 90° in 5° steps:



Smoothing 1/24 (!) octave, 0° - 90° in 10° steps:



Best, Markus

[pjpoes]

it kind of looks like the -3db point is 200hz, is that right? Is this just the tweeter, cant be. I know the Nathan doesn't have a lot of bass on its own, but that just seems shocking. I guess the -10 is around 50hz, that is more sensible. Maybe its just the scale that looks funny. Anyway, the rest looks great, the listening axis response is smooth with the expected smooth increasing directivity.

Since I am buying the Abbey's, I'm excited to finally get them and get them assembled. It's too bad I can't start on some of the work now so I don't have as long to wait for getting them up and running. I should also have measurements of that when all is said and done. My measurement system is different, but the results should be interesting none the less.

Oh I'm an idiot, I just realized why your low end looks like it does. To give a more pseudo anechoic response, try splicing in a close mic response of the woofer, that's typically how responses are given in publications and such.

[markus76]

pjpoes, window is 5 ms so the diagram is valid from 200 Hz on or even more likely from 400 Hz on.
This is a nearfield measurement of the woofer:



Crossover point (-6 db) is around 84 Hz.

Best, Markus

[gedlee]

I suspect that Markus has a back wall in his data - right? This is exactly what I would expect in this case. Fill in the low end with some subs and you will have exactly what I seek in an in room response which is a slight rise at the low end. This depends on typical playback levelsof course as a rise at LF will sound bass heavy at high volumes, but natural at low volumes.

[markus76]

No there's no room influence in the data I've shown from around 200 - 400 Hz on. The woofer data is a nearfield measurement so there's no room influence as well.

[Salas]

Is that with FuzzMeasure Markus? Did you use a marked rotating table or just copiously did the 5deg intervals by using a protractor and turning the speaker by hand? Looks like a very steady measurement lot of curves.

[gedlee]

Originally posted by markus76
No there's no room influence in the data I've shown from around 200 - 400 Hz on. The woofer data is a nearfield measurement so there's no room influence as well.

The wide response peak in the 200-500 Hz region is not in my data, but mine is completly free field. How did you get away from the room boundaries? Not in the apartment that you showed!

Otherwise our data is pretty much identical, except that after about 45 degrees my data falls much more than your does. Again, I attributed this to room boundary effects. No so?

[sqlkev]

the in-room measured responses (near&far field) are actually very good (similar curves to my listening taste)

which software did you use Markus?

[markus76]

Salas, moved the speaker by hand...

Earl, speaker and mic were 1.66 from the floor in the middle of the room. So there's a reflection free time window of 7.6 ms. I applied an even shorter window of 5 ms that makes the data valid from 200 Hz on.

All measurements were done with FuzzMeasure.

Best, Markus

[Salas]

It must have took lot of time...but well worth the effort. Above 1kHz it looks like behaving to spec. You used FuzzMeasure on a Mac? The charts remind me of that software.

Ok..just saw your edit. Well done!