In my case the psychology of why some people value something significantly higher than a dry technical evaluation might suggest is interesting but only to a mild extent. I was aware that many "objective" audiophiles place a higher value on measurements than an engineer would and to some extent appreciate why. But to value a set of measurements at approaching the cost of the materials for a speaker was unexpected.
In your case you need to determine the number of DIY folk prepared to spend a large sum to have their speakers measured on a "Klippel". My expectation was zero making me a poor source of information on this topic. My expectation from industry would be tiny but possibly not none if you can build a relationship with a small local speaker company that, quite sensibly, has chosen to invest only a reasonable amount in measurement equipment. I would expect there to be very little chance of attracting business from wider industry because the main point of expensive Klippel-type machines is to take measurements fast, locally and with minimal effort as part of the process of developing a speaker which you wouldn't be providing. You also won't be providing measurements that appear accurate in the sense of minimal processing which is done in large open spaces. You also (probably - I haven't looked) won't be providing measurements with a legal and marketing status companies tend to want that use third parties for measurements they can take internally themselves.
Personally I cannot even begin to see a viable case for an expensive machine to provide expensive measurements to the tiny DIY speaker market. Even if I could I wouldn't want to spend my life operating the machine, fiddling with the presentation of the results, packing and unpacking speakers, etc...
I work in an industry where decisions are based on data. And the emerging and best available data. And people are always willing to change their decision or position based on the best available data at the time. There’s no doubt there exist many “evidence free” zones, but that doesn’t mean we stop looking. On the contrary.
So yeah, acquiring good data can cost a lot more than the product or service you are making or deciding on.
@augerpro and I seriously thought it costs $20K. Between 2 fellows that’s $10K each.
When I was a kid a few computers cost as much as this. My friend’s dad, who worked at a research lab had 16MB RAM on his computer when everyone else had 1MB, and a magnetic optical read/write disc drive when we had 5.25” floppy discs. No doubt his computer costs $10K and that was in 1990.
Sure, even $10K today is not pocket change to the 99%. And augerpro and I have no desire to amortize the cost of this unit. But considering it’s rarity, we wondered whether other people want to use this instrument as much as we do?
That’s the sentiment of what we’re putting out there/proposing.
Obviously the proposition of a $90K instrument is less palatable. And has clearly turned a lot of people off.
@mainframe99 would probably camp at my house every weekend if I had one…
If augerpro and I were trying to make money; we could probably go halves on a dunk; which costs half of the Klippel NFS; and rev heads lining up to pay in excess of $1000… just to see how many horsepower/lb.ft of torque and a pretty graph that their car can do…
So yeah, acquiring good data can cost a lot more than the product or service you are making or deciding on.
@augerpro and I seriously thought it costs $20K. Between 2 fellows that’s $10K each.
When I was a kid a few computers cost as much as this. My friend’s dad, who worked at a research lab had 16MB RAM on his computer when everyone else had 1MB, and a magnetic optical read/write disc drive when we had 5.25” floppy discs. No doubt his computer costs $10K and that was in 1990.
Sure, even $10K today is not pocket change to the 99%. And augerpro and I have no desire to amortize the cost of this unit. But considering it’s rarity, we wondered whether other people want to use this instrument as much as we do?
That’s the sentiment of what we’re putting out there/proposing.
Obviously the proposition of a $90K instrument is less palatable. And has clearly turned a lot of people off.
@mainframe99 would probably camp at my house every weekend if I had one…
If augerpro and I were trying to make money; we could probably go halves on a dunk; which costs half of the Klippel NFS; and rev heads lining up to pay in excess of $1000… just to see how many horsepower/lb.ft of torque and a pretty graph that their car can do…
Last edited:
We all missed the boat not going into the software business. You look at the NFS and its hard to imagine it costing more than 20K, based on the hardware and mechanics. Its a free market and we can only hope that the price will be driven down by competitive forces. That might not happen until their patents expire. In the meantime, its more of a nice to have than a hard requirement.
To be honest I know a studio that does it and it was $500.00 for a basic Theil small parameters and the box volume. That was a long time ago. I know parts express has most of thier drivers done with Klippel testing and they have the pdf file so you can see it. I would only have it done if I needed the driver tested and measured for Client.
My take is that you don't need one if you know what you are doing. One can get very far with a good mic and a sound card.
No one listens far field in a none reflective room so that particular case is not needed as rooms differ som much anyway so that added accuracy is useless. Anything under Shröder can be estimated. Measure outside on ground or high up if needed. Most rooms are after all pretty the same compared to an anechoic chamber.
Adding a Klippel for most will not add a significant advantage in the quest for the "perfect reproduction" or if its about "good sound" it's even less necessary.
To think that one can measure the way to success is a given fail. Only a very strong architecture and implementation ideas can bring results - when you have a prototype you use measurements to verify that you reach you goals - a Klippel is not needed to perform this as it probably takes very few measurements to realise.
//
No one listens far field in a none reflective room so that particular case is not needed as rooms differ som much anyway so that added accuracy is useless. Anything under Shröder can be estimated. Measure outside on ground or high up if needed. Most rooms are after all pretty the same compared to an anechoic chamber.
Adding a Klippel for most will not add a significant advantage in the quest for the "perfect reproduction" or if its about "good sound" it's even less necessary.
To think that one can measure the way to success is a given fail. Only a very strong architecture and implementation ideas can bring results - when you have a prototype you use measurements to verify that you reach you goals - a Klippel is not needed to perform this as it probably takes very few measurements to realise.
//
How about reading first some literature and showing some effort before even merging in certain subjects you don't know much about and solely rely on uneducated subjective feelings?
Ask for some proper books and literature instead, be a little more positive and involved maybe?
Seems to be a dirty words these days.
Just yelling "proof it" is not really a proper discussion nor does it show of any intellectual knowledge and experience if you doubt certain things. Nor does it show something is untrue just because someone lack of subjective knowledge can't comprehend it. The result is a total stall in any debate or discussion and far from being constructive.
In the end it also makes you look like a total fool for every person who has been in the field for a while or had adequate education about it.
Gathering knowledge and experience takes time. A LOT of time, even more to keep up.
These days it feels like people just expect to read an article or two, watch a YT video and know everything.
Yet respond like they are better than Einstein, a little disrespectful if you ask me.
Sad it seems to becoming the norm. 🙁
If people here want to spend money well, again get a proper education in the field, get some proper courses and some good books to begin with. All is possible for a lot less than $100k
Because if the level is really thinking in lines of how certain "squiggle's sound", there is very clearly a big gap and lack in knowledge and understanding in fundamental and experimental physics.
That makes sense. Gating works fine when freq resolution can be relaxed, like above 2-3kHz.
It's a shame though, that the range covers only the top 3 or so audible octaves.
Thx for pointing me to NTK's thread...hadn't dived into it yet...
A big Yes to modest expectations !
I don't think sufficient absorption is even remotely possible though....I mean look at the size and depth of the foam wedges in anechoic chambers.
MLS or log chirp or whatever stimulus signal are all going to have the same inherent time vs frequency tradeoff, no?
Don't know what "tailing the low-end means.
Agreed for sure. One can get very far, albeit at great expense of time and effort. (which i for one, enjoy
I do, quite often.
I find listening outdoors very revealing, as I easily hear nuances that get swamped by indoor reflections.
I use measurements to continue to refine the prototype (which hopefully has a strong acoustic architecture.)
I take a prototype as far as I think it can go, then spend time listening and mulling its measurements.
Then start another, hopefully improved prototype.
So yes, I totally rely on better and better measurements as a major key to success.
I don't really understand why there is push-back against the NFS as unneeded vs our traditional home measurements.
There is certainly room for better methods and tools in the measurements we make....that's indisputable imho.
Maybe the push-back is simply cost and the logistics of getting a speaker tested ...i dunno....
They are both reasons i personally can't see NFS as viable for me, but the idea we already have all the tools we need to make equally useful/accurate measurements, makes no sense to me.
I'd probably pay >$100 for an accurate balloon measurement of some horns, especially multi-cell horns. But looking at the Klippel machine I wonder if it's not too near field? Would it be accurate for a multi-cell horn or small line array?
For pro sound, having an accurate balloon measurement is critical for the various venue simulation softwares, like EASE. You need to be able to simulate and visualize what your PA s going to do and how it will cover in venue after venue.. For the home DIY fellows, it seems a bit of a luxury, although if the price were right, I'd do it. 🙂
For pro sound, having an accurate balloon measurement is critical for the various venue simulation softwares, like EASE. You need to be able to simulate and visualize what your PA s going to do and how it will cover in venue after venue.. For the home DIY fellows, it seems a bit of a luxury, although if the price were right, I'd do it. 🙂
Rereading my earlier post, I may not have been 100% clear. I would be willing to pay $500 for Klippel NFS service one time, for the purpose of validating and, if needed, calibrating my process of merging NF and gated measurements. I would not be paying $500 every time I wanted to measure a woofer.
It is analogous to calibrating a measurement microphone. It is well worth it, but it is not something we do every time we want to make some measurements.
It is analogous to calibrating a measurement microphone. It is well worth it, but it is not something we do every time we want to make some measurements.
This review gives some idea of what happens if the field is too complex and your scan resolution too low. Their software seems to have a pretty good grasp of what's happening and the ability to warn you when the error gets "large".
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/magnepan-lrs-speaker-review.16068/
"the Klippel NFS makes a series of near-field measurements (in order to benefit from better signal to noise ratio) and then using those points, solves the partial differential equations that describe the wave propagation. Once there, we are able to predict the sound field in any point in space in the far field (where we more or less listen). The technique while wonderful, has limitations in that if the sound field becomes too complex, it requires many more measurement points and "orders of expansion." Despite using high measurement points used per above (more than 2X of any speaker I have measured), the sound field was too complex in high frequencies to get accurate readings. Klippel is able to determine the error by making additional "real" measurements that it then compares to what it has computed. The difference is expressed in dB of error. Usually the results are below -20 dB indicating 1% error in most or all of the audible band."
. . .
"the actual measured response was in red but the blue is what is computed. As you see, as the frequencies go higher, error increases but fortunately it still more or less follows the response of the speaker"
Thanks Matt. You have I’m going to study that. Had not thought about Klipple and the Magnepans, but it’s a great point. It does look like the math is doing a good job in the predictions.
Ripple looks a bit high to me lower than 1 kHz for a more typical 2-meter result.
https://www.erinsaudiocorner.com/loudspeakers/danley_sh50/
I think diffraction is over-emphasized on large designs like this; it would have been nice to have seen Erin's 2-meter ground-plane measurement for a comparison.
Believe me, if I lived in the states, I'd probably own my own NFS already, and lease out time on it for everyone. I'd even broker a freight company to work out pick up and return services. Just doesn't make sense having one down here though.
ScottG> I like your optimism, but I'd like to see a practical implementation using absorption. If you can show it works better than quasi-anechoic gated measurements, and costs, say, <$500, I'm in.
If you guys aren't privy to camera/mic meetings you could also try set up a discord chat channel
I'm not sure I understand what you see and why you think it is inaccurate, I've simulated a very similar horn without taps in an infinite baffle and it is quite diffractive all on it's own.