I know from experience that pestering is annoying. Let's get off the man's back. and discuss measuring. Otherwise this thread will just head down an already beaten path of flaming.
I would say that until he offers proof, stick with what you know. At least that's where I'm at.
Check out these new graphs from REW after and before stuffing the ports with cotton sequentially:
Then their respect impulse responses:
Polars:
on axis together:
Dan
I would say that until he offers proof, stick with what you know. At least that's where I'm at.
Check out these new graphs from REW after and before stuffing the ports with cotton sequentially:
Then their respect impulse responses:
Polars:
on axis together:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Dan
Good point.
I don't even know how the tests function and I already assumed they did not test the most important function of reproducing many sounds at once. Any one who knows how the tests are done and what they measure should have came to the same realization we did.
Tests can tell you a lot, but only when you know what they mean and they can never tell you how something will perform in a function that is different from the test.
But with that being typed, I would always choose a driver based on some sort of distortion testing, if I had the choice.
Last edited:
Oh, I'll let it go. I just sifted through some of the earlier posts and saw this has been hashed out before. You read all sorts of stuff on the net
So do you think it's relections off the port walls or something else going on. Just seems like a bad place to put them, right next to the waveguide like that.
Rob🙂
Rob🙂
That's what I figure Rob. When I measured between the the drivers, the amplitude of the off axis ripples were small and the impulse was cleaner. So I stuffed the ports to see if they were causing the issue. It worked better than I figured it would. That's been happening a lot lately.🙂
Dan
Dan
So you measured the difference, what do you hear different. That's also important.😀
Y tu' Soongsc?😀 I guess I'd say smoother and more holographic sounding than before. I really want to cover a speaker in some open cell foam.
Wow, that Genelec doesn't even have round overs. Must be an old model I'm guessing.
Here's measurements on the Behringer 1030A:
Toward woofer:
Toward tweeter:
This was just sent to me today from a member of different forum. They don't look too bad for the price but they're a seriously similar to the cheaper Mackie monitors. No port on the front this time and one big one on the back.
I had to change the spectogram to a 20dB scale b/c the dispersion is so broad and I didn't take the time to get a cleaner impulse. None the less.
Dan
Wow, that Genelec doesn't even have round overs. Must be an old model I'm guessing.
Here's measurements on the Behringer 1030A:
Toward woofer:
Toward tweeter:
This was just sent to me today from a member of different forum. They don't look too bad for the price but they're a seriously similar to the cheaper Mackie monitors. No port on the front this time and one big one on the back.
I had to change the spectogram to a 20dB scale b/c the dispersion is so broad and I didn't take the time to get a cleaner impulse. None the less.
Dan
Dan good job with all these small changes and measurements. Its great to see them and I do like the new REW spectrogram stuff!
As for pestering someone. Someone else posted why its valid to question opinion that lacks data behind it. Its important to ask for more data when the post goes against everything we have used and been doing for many years. Just think according to his posts Toole is mediocre, WinISD/Unibox are useless, tweeters have huge phase shifts and Porting gives us HUGE delays (I could be wrong on that opinion). I guess 99% of speaker builds just suck according to his position.
I Ask about who he is, what has he done because I really want speaker build examples which would include measurements examples backing up his strong opinion. Hey if he is doing something so superior I would love to see it all.
All other speaker experts not only post opinion they show their work. I have never read an opinion from an "expert" where their real work was not shown to backup that opinion.
If he feels pestered then Im sorry but anyone with a strong opinion should be ready to be grilled. Its just how the world works.
Last edited:
Personally, I do something on the contrary. Whenever anyone posts an opinion that I have not so much knowledge of, if it seems positive, then I verify it on my own. If I find it incorrect, then I will either post a different optinion and leave it at that, or provide data proving the opinion to be wrong.
Those Genelec 1031A's were made between 1991 and 2005.... I owned some up until a couple of years ago. When Behringer brought out the 2031A I got some to compare. Unfortunately no measuring at the time, only listening. I also had the smaller Genelec 1030A's and compared them to the Behringer 2030A's.
Wish I still had them all so that I could make some measurements... comparative measurements would be very interesting since I had very strong ideas as to the similaries and differences at the time.
Wish I still had them all so that I could make some measurements... comparative measurements would be very interesting since I had very strong ideas as to the similaries and differences at the time.
Soongsc, If I could test his statements here at home I would. Since I can't, I'll stick to what I've learned and has worked so far.
I hear ya Doug.
The new REW is awesome. It's got so many more features than the old one. Funny that I'm still using the old one and then exporting my data to the new one for analysis. John just pointed out to me that I had the C-weighting clicked on those graphs. Hard to say when I did that(the macbook fritzed on my a few months ago, and I probably clicked a lot of inconsequential things trying to figure what went wrong), but it I've removed it and they are the same either way. As soon as I get speaker stands, the new REW will help me with sub placement. Right now my speakers are on my subs--perfect height BTW.
Dan
I hear ya Doug.
The new REW is awesome. It's got so many more features than the old one. Funny that I'm still using the old one and then exporting my data to the new one for analysis. John just pointed out to me that I had the C-weighting clicked on those graphs. Hard to say when I did that(the macbook fritzed on my a few months ago, and I probably clicked a lot of inconsequential things trying to figure what went wrong), but it I've removed it and they are the same either way. As soon as I get speaker stands, the new REW will help me with sub placement. Right now my speakers are on my subs--perfect height BTW.
Dan
I just read that REW now has the DCX as an option for EQing values. That must have changed a couple of months ago. I will have to re-run my room to get those values.
Again, thanks for the tests/measurements.
btw, are you going to do some "Enable" stuff. I saw your post in the enable thread.
Again, thanks for the tests/measurements.
btw, are you going to do some "Enable" stuff. I saw your post in the enable thread.
You're welcome Doug. Hopefully there's something of use in those.
I don't have any plans on enabling--unless it comes to friends and drinking (j/k). If the measurements looked more pronounced I'd have been more interested, but from what I'd seen my own simpler process is considerably more effective. That may well be just because it's more impressive to clean a dirtier house than to dust a clean one. In some ways the side by side of the CSD looks worse post enabling. Soongsc actually got some better measurements than the ones posted more recently in the Beyond Thread using toothpaste on a metal cone if I remember correctly. I went there looking for cone treatment information, but it's pretty sparse unless you are big on the subjective experience. I have more at home and even posted in this thread as far a the objective side goes.
Dan
I don't have any plans on enabling--unless it comes to friends and drinking (j/k). If the measurements looked more pronounced I'd have been more interested, but from what I'd seen my own simpler process is considerably more effective. That may well be just because it's more impressive to clean a dirtier house than to dust a clean one. In some ways the side by side of the CSD looks worse post enabling. Soongsc actually got some better measurements than the ones posted more recently in the Beyond Thread using toothpaste on a metal cone if I remember correctly. I went there looking for cone treatment information, but it's pretty sparse unless you are big on the subjective experience. I have more at home and even posted in this thread as far a the objective side goes.
Dan
I think a lot of my confusion (and maybe others) comes from the way the data is shown or how a particular model is shown. A model from the inside of the box or outside, a frequency response graph based on an acoustic model with a phase graph based on the linear motion model and on and on with various combinations of methods and models. Apologies to anyone offended.
=SUM
=SUM
- Status
- Not open for further replies.