You listen at 44" distance? That's ... unusual 🙂
2 Ears + brain ≠ 1 mic
Measuring each loudspeakers individually makes more sense (especially at frequencies above the Schroeder frequency) due to interference effects. Is the impulse response gated? Thanks for the data.
Best, Markus
MLS with a 5.06 ms window, 197.53 Hz it says; I guess so.... 😉
It's a miniature of how we do listen, actually. Double or triple the dimensions, and it might be typical, even.
It'd be cool to do it with one of those dual-mic'd head models and sum the results to see the one-toothed comb. 😀
[Has Earl posted his system verticals anywhere yet, or does he still not care? 🙄 ]
Last edited:
I don't believe you're in the far field at 44" hence the sound field will look different when measured at 2 or 3 m (6.6'/9.8').
If you measure with a dummy head, you won't be able to derive anything useful (in terms of loudspeaker performance) from the frequency response.
If you measure with a dummy head, you won't be able to derive anything useful (in terms of loudspeaker performance) from the frequency response.
Yeah, "dummy" head; that's it. 😉
The vertical nulls are goin' nowhere, no matter where or how you measure 'em, as you well know.
Did you guys ever resolve that issue?
The vertical nulls are goin' nowhere, no matter where or how you measure 'em, as you well know.
Did you guys ever resolve that issue?
Last edited:
Why not give it a try at 2m? Your space looks like you can get the necessary mic and speaker distance from boundaries.
]"It's a miniature of how we do listen, actually."
It doesn't miniaturize the vertical dimensions of the woofer and horn, which I don't believe is accounted for just by noting the angle from the mike to their geometric centroids.
IOW I agree w/Markus, you're not accounting for nearfield effects.
It doesn't miniaturize the vertical dimensions of the woofer and horn, which I don't believe is accounted for just by noting the angle from the mike to their geometric centroids.
IOW I agree w/Markus, you're not accounting for nearfield effects.
Drawing a conclusion without any data is bad but drawing a conclusion from wrong data is even worse 😉
Y'all are perfectly capable of replicating this work with variable measurement distance and reporting your findings.
Point is, let's see some system vertical polars, I mean, we've been blathering about it for what, over a year and 40 pages or so here?
Measure them Nathans; let's have it done right, then....
Point is, let's see some system vertical polars, I mean, we've been blathering about it for what, over a year and 40 pages or so here?
Bah. I'm concluding nothing.
Measure them Nathans; let's have it done right, then....
Last edited:
I simply don't have the space - you do
You don't need to - you know that others will take care of that part...
You know I did BUT I don't have the space to do far field measurements.
Last edited:
The link to your Nathan system verticals doesn't point there. Provide a good one for readers, please.
[And for me, too.... 🙂 ]
Point to what? Unfortunately that's all the data we have.
In the meantime you could clean up your space and show data that's comparable to Earl's.
In the meantime you could clean up your space and show data that's comparable to Earl's.
Your link goes to this page, not where you intended.
To the best of my knowledge, Earl has never posted system verticals, merely whinged as to how difficult they are to do.
[For now, the Zilch protocol is the benchmark.... 😀 ]
To the best of my knowledge, Earl has never posted system verticals, merely whinged as to how difficult they are to do.
[For now, the Zilch protocol is the benchmark.... 😀 ]
Last edited:
Link works fine for me. Post #1133 (on page 114):
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/123426-horn-vs-waveguide-114.html#post1859757
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/123426-horn-vs-waveguide-57.html#post1859757
Page 57 on my settings....
Page 57 on my settings....
The URLs include page numbers, which is why yours doesn't get me there.
My current page is 81.
My current page is 81.
You should discuss that with the mods. I'm more interested in discussing data like that in post #1133.
Cool.
Here it is, one only, in 5° increments to 20° both up and down about the forward axis, at 22.5° horizontal, same as your Nathans, except 4.63" further into the farfield... 😉
Here it is, one only, in 5° increments to 20° both up and down about the forward axis, at 22.5° horizontal, same as your Nathans, except 4.63" further into the farfield... 😉
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.