Simulations are excellent for predicting what the measured response will be. You seem to be misunderstanding what the simulations are designed to do. If you don't think they are any good please explain the the correlation between my posted sets of measured vs predicted curves.
Rob🙂
Last edited:
The parameters we choose to describe the physical events of air motion are inherently arbitrary except in so far as they are tied to human experience and useful to us for that reason.
But if you persist in insisting they are engineering constructs, independent of hearing, you are welcome to do so. But you'll end up at a lot of dead ends as far as playing music at home is concerned.
But if you persist in insisting they are engineering constructs, independent of hearing, you are welcome to do so. But you'll end up at a lot of dead ends as far as playing music at home is concerned.
Well lets agree to disagree. You are talking about measurements. Of course they are engineering constructs. When you look at the measurements the software is expecting anechoic measurements. You don't want room measurements included in your measurements using a crossover simulation program like LEAP. That makes it an unnatural environment for the speakers as far as their end use is concerned.
That doesn't make the simulations or measurements invalid. It also doesn't put you in a dead end. What we are discussing is apples and oranges. Anyone who designs speakers doesn't want the in room response to corrupt the data. It doesn't belong there. The speaker room interface is a completely different issue and beyond what LEAP or any other crossover software is designed to deal with. I won't get into Enclosure shop because in there you can simulate both room placement, room volume and measurement distance.
As far as it being a dead end you really need some hands on experience to make that call. It works just fine for me and hundreds of other users. Many of them designing the real deal as far as speakers that are in the market right now.
I agree
Rob🙂
I know I would never bother building speakers or setting up any audio system without even simple measurement tools. Its pointless to worry about accuracy if we do not do the proper measurements and Im online to learn about audio science and accuracy.
Its a dead end to think anyone have a remotely accurate room without measurement tools and knowledge. I do not buy the golden ear...measurements are key to real accuracy everything else will be a compromised solution.
Listening/enjoying music has nothing to do with learning how do create a better overall setup. We can listen and enjoy music anywhere any time. That is never a question, what we want is true accuracy and we want to understand our compromises so that we may fix them at some point.
Its a dead end to think anyone have a remotely accurate room without measurement tools and knowledge. I do not buy the golden ear...measurements are key to real accuracy everything else will be a compromised solution.
Listening/enjoying music has nothing to do with learning how do create a better overall setup. We can listen and enjoy music anywhere any time. That is never a question, what we want is true accuracy and we want to understand our compromises so that we may fix them at some point.
Last edited:
Well you may not want to fix them. The real issue with measurements is understanding where you can make a compromise and what the consequences are. If you made the "right " choice there is nothing to fix. The bottom line is all speakers are a mix of compromises. There are no perfect speakers out there.
Rob🙂
Can you objectively quantify EXACTLY what 'true accuracy' is?
Please don't use the tired old definition of "reproducing the input signal exactly".
Please don't use the tired old definition of "reproducing the input signal exactly".
Accuracy has to be the ability to color the signal as little as possible.
Why do you post "Tired old"?? Whether you like it or not, it is what it is. Do you have an objective definition for accuracy?
Any coloration is moving away from accuracy (Ignoring natural room gain). Now, coloration is 100% okay because its just a choice (remember audio is 100% choice no one should care how anyone else likes something) but there should be no confusion that people are not really playing back content 100% accurate at that point.
What someone likes and what is accurate is complete different beasts. One is not better then the other either but only those who measure will know the truth. The others are just guessing and playing subjective mind games with themselves. I have better things to do then to guess but that is just me.
Last edited:
Very true! There isn't a perfect speaker because there are 100s of different applications. Along with 1000s of different objectives, priorities, etc. I do know what my hypothetical perfect speaker.
Last edited:
I thought of adding "I DON'T" to the end of my question and passed.
Evidently, you don't either, because you used a lot of words to try and describe it, but couldn't quantify it.
I agree measuring is a very good thing (tool) to help with system tweaking. However, in my old age, I've get frustrated when the term accuracy gets used over and over again. In my view, it's an impossible goal simply because a loudspeaker is a transducer and as such, transforms electrons into atmospheric pressure pulses. Maybe someday, a brilliant mathematician will come up with a formula that 'accurately describes' that transformation and as a follow up, sophisticated measurement software will be able to measure those incoming electrons and compare them to what comes out of the speaker. 😀
I did quantify it as non-colored response in any part of the chain. You can choose to disagree or ignore that fact but that does not change the truth.
You can "Believe" what you want to if it gets you through the day but measurement tools are pretty damn good and the rest is splitting hairs audiophile stuff/spin that I have zero interest in (Gotta love the "transforms electrons into atmospheric pressure pulses", Very over the top way to say electrical signal transforms to a soundwave...yeah, Im not interested in word salad spin). Current science and meaurements gets is 99.9%.....the other .1% is a fools game anyways.
You can "Believe" what you want to if it gets you through the day but measurement tools are pretty damn good and the rest is splitting hairs audiophile stuff/spin that I have zero interest in (Gotta love the "transforms electrons into atmospheric pressure pulses", Very over the top way to say electrical signal transforms to a soundwave...yeah, Im not interested in word salad spin). Current science and meaurements gets is 99.9%.....the other .1% is a fools game anyways.
Last edited:
What could be simpler than designing a pipe?
I've been reading the most detailed analysis you can imagine from the engineer's engineer, Martin J. King: "Construction and Measurement of a Simple Test Transmission Line"
In each line, the first number is calculated Hz (includes end-of-pipe correction) and the second number is measured.
1/4 Wavelength 67 94
3/4 Wavelength 200 214
5/4 Wavelength 334 343
7/4 Wavelength 467 475
9/4 Wavelength 601 598
11/4 Wavelength 734 727
Seems to me you don't earn any bragging rights for the simulation that produced those kinds of numbers. Helpful: sure. Does the model seem to nail down the factors for this trivial exercise well: doesn't impress me.
Would you fly in an airplane where the designer thought the propeller would break at 94 ft-lbs but instead it broke at 67? (That's all kookie as an example, but you get the idea.)
I've been reading the most detailed analysis you can imagine from the engineer's engineer, Martin J. King: "Construction and Measurement of a Simple Test Transmission Line"
In each line, the first number is calculated Hz (includes end-of-pipe correction) and the second number is measured.
1/4 Wavelength 67 94
3/4 Wavelength 200 214
5/4 Wavelength 334 343
7/4 Wavelength 467 475
9/4 Wavelength 601 598
11/4 Wavelength 734 727
Seems to me you don't earn any bragging rights for the simulation that produced those kinds of numbers. Helpful: sure. Does the model seem to nail down the factors for this trivial exercise well: doesn't impress me.
Would you fly in an airplane where the designer thought the propeller would break at 94 ft-lbs but instead it broke at 67? (That's all kookie as an example, but you get the idea.)
You post numbers without the full details, their could be other hidden variables involved that would cause those differences, you simply can not make those conclusions.We are not flying a plane and we are not dealing with propeller break tolerances. Just a poor example and poor usage.
Apparently Orion 3.2 is going to be present in 2010 RMAF and Burning Amp Festival.
Hope we can have impressions from the "Locals". Pano, I remember you attended last year's event and did not like the Orions. Are you going this year?
Hope we can have impressions from the "Locals". Pano, I remember you attended last year's event and did not like the Orions. Are you going this year?
doug20 -
As a pdf, I wasn't sure how to link it. Just put the title into Google; it comes up #1 for me.
It will take you maybe 90 seconds to eyeball his calculations. THEN, I'd like to hear your list of shortcomings of King's model.
As a pdf, I wasn't sure how to link it. Just put the title into Google; it comes up #1 for me.
It will take you maybe 90 seconds to eyeball his calculations. THEN, I'd like to hear your list of shortcomings of King's model.
Ben, you're on shaky ground there and not putting it in the context of the body of Martin's work. His Mathcad worksheets are VERY accurate at drawing a frequency response curve that matches the real thing when you build it. So much so that, for the $25 he charges, anyone would be foolish to try to design a TL speaker without them.
Last edited:
Not much of a quantification. You can't use a subjective term that itself is not quantified.
dave
I should clarify that that paper is the beginning of Martin's research where he gathered his first experimental data and showed that they don't match the old textbook conventional wisdom. He developed his own models later on that do match the data.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.