Comparing REW, ARTA and CLIO in speaker driver and acoustic measurements

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
I am lucky to have access to a CLIO system (firewire box and CLIO 10 software). This is an expensive tool compared to REW or ARTA plus audio interface. Since high-quality audio interface is relative cheap, together with these low-cost/free software may be able to form a professional measurement system. First, I will do driver impedance and TS parameters using REW and ARTA (LIMP). Obtained results will be compare with CLIO measured data. I will then performance SPL (frequency response) measurment.

All comments are welcome.
 
A Peerless 2.5" driver is measured. Impedance obtained by REW, LIMP and CLIO are shown in one graph for comparison. 48k was used in all measurements.
 

Attachments

  • Peerless driver.JPG
    Peerless driver.JPG
    84.4 KB · Views: 1,643
  • P803985 data compare.jpg
    P803985 data compare.jpg
    52.5 KB · Views: 1,633
The Peerless (Tymphany) driver is P830985. Data sheet is available from this link http://www.tymphany.com/files/PLS-P830985 Rev1_0.pdf. The one I have showing a higher fs (149 Hz vs 117 Hz given in spec.). It is a big difference!

CLIO SPL (1W/1m) measurement of my sample is given below. The roll-off agrees with the fs measured.
 

Attachments

  • SPL.jpg
    SPL.jpg
    47.7 KB · Views: 1,462
Last edited:
An update to the last graph to include SPL simulated by Akabak.

A simple Akabak script (sealed box) is as below.

System 'S1'

Def_Driver 'Peerless'
SD=25.967cm2 |Piston
fs=149.3Hz Mms=2.17g Qms=4.45
Bl=2.58Tm Re=3.6ohm Le=31uH ExpoLe=0.618

Driver 'D1' Def='Peerless' Node=1=0=2=3

Enclosure 'E1' Node=2
Vb=877L Qb/fo=0.1 Lb=117cm

Radiator 'Rad1' Def='D1' Node=3
Sd=26.0cm2
 

Attachments

  • SPL.jpg
    SPL.jpg
    50.1 KB · Views: 649
Member
Joined 2004
Paid Member
The differences you show are well withing the usual repeatability range. The driver may need "break in" to meet the original resonance spec.

The quality of the mike calibration and the ability to bring the cal curve into the software may be more important than the software itself.

What was the acoustic environment you measured in? I have had very good results using ground plane windowed measurements to get anechoic measurements. In a large space (empty warehouse space with at least 50' to the nearest object in my case) I can get to below 20 Hz. Averaging multiple measurements helps remove noise a lot.
 
Disabled Account
Joined 2012
I notice that Le and dBSPL are the two which are most different. Why is this.... I would think these are the easiest to get right.

Next to the Z and frequency response and T/S parameters, I would be interested in distortion measurements? can you show distortion comparisons. Of course, the mic/preamp etc might be an unknown in the distortion tests.


-RM
 
Last edited:
I notice that Le and dBSPL are the two which are most different. Why is this.... I would think these are the easiest to get right.

Next to the Z and frequency response and T/S parameters, I would be interested in distortion measurements? can you show distortion comparisons. Of course, the mic/preamp etc might be an unknown in the distortion tests.


-RM

Efficiency of all calculations are nearly the same. We shouldn't see difference in predicated dBSPL's. I checked REW and LIMP about their TS parameters calculation. It seems LIMP assumes 2.83V for the dBSPL one. Since the driver is 4 Ohm, the number will be 2W/1m. It will be 3 dB more.

I just received minidsp UMIK-1 USB mic. Calibration file of the mic is available from minidsp. In contrast, I don't have an calibration for the CLIO mic. I can only do level calibration for it.
 
Why REW smoothed out the blue curve vs the red Clio curve? There was some different averaging parameter going on?

I export raw data from CLIO and REW to text files. The files are imported by VacsViewer in order to use its smoothing function. This can eliminate difference between CLIO and REW smoothing algorithms.

As shown below, we still can see CLIO data is less smooth than that of REW. Do we need to worry about such differences?

I will do distortion next.
 

Attachments

  • SPL raw cmp.jpg
    SPL raw cmp.jpg
    71.6 KB · Views: 992
  • SPL smoothing cmp.jpg
    SPL smoothing cmp.jpg
    55.1 KB · Views: 974
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.