This should not be the case, as this is the most unusual thing in the whole system - even if I don't understand it
So the Klippel NFS website says:
But the statements all seem to refer to a single-source. Because Klippel continues and says to measure multi-way speakers:
That again I can easily understand. Only by measuring the individual drivers individually can their "behaviour" be extrapolated for any distance and by combining the individual driver measurements the frequency response can be determined for any point in the room.
But if this is the case the measurements of a multi-way loudspeaker in 0.3m are not transferable to 1m distance by the NFS.
Can anyone with more insight into the functioning of the NFS comment on this?
At low frequencies the limiter intervenes much more. Here is a comparison of the first and second measurements, normalized to the second measurement:
View attachment 49142
Where's the contradiction? The off-axis measurements have shown characteristic smooth downwards slopes, which is equally true for power response. With that, if you take the in-room response as representative, and being generous for whatever's going on below the transition band, then whatever debate about accuracy and process we're having here is less important for those who actually want to buy these speakers. A sub is necessary in any case.But it is conflicting the known Neumann design philosophy (at least Markus Wolff keeps emphasizing it) which is: All speakers are designed to be flat on-axis anechoic, which means baffle step fully compensated, diffraction fully compensated. Which means off-axis it cannot and does not measure flat, nor does power response (as measured eg in a reverberation room).
In-room response has to be established by user EQ/DRC, of course with the intrinsic directivity pattern overlaid, the goal being to find a best compromise for the given situation.
I hope not, because in this case all the measurements made would be completely useless because of great inaccuracies due to the phase shift/measuring angle of the distant chassis.Looks like you've nailed the problem.
Okay - for the holographic separation. How are the (gated) top-octave measurements affected here? That's the biggest disparity with Take Two...Only the low frequency range in which a single driver plays would be measured accurately.
I very much doubt that the system fails to account for the differences in driver position and orientation in bookshelf/tower/point-source/array-like speakers. The Revel center channel speaker being the best representation of that.I hope not, because in this case all the measurements made would be completely useless because of great inaccuracies due to the phase shift of the distant chassis.
Only the low frequency range in which a single driver plays would be measured accurately.
Solutions to the Kirchhoff-Helmholtz integral do not need to concern themselves with isolating individual emitters. The requirement of isolating the drive units is for the concern of adjusting the summed response of the array of drivers, such as a line array.That again I can easily understand. Only by measuring the individual drivers individually can their "behaviour" be extrapolated for any distance and by combining the individual driver measurements the frequency response can be determined for any point in the room.
As to the rest of the response, unfortunately S&R's graph is also of poor resolution:
View attachment 49072
Lots of sins can be buried in low resolution graphs like that.
The convolution of the individual measurements does not avoid diffraction problems, but rather ensures that these are actually correct at the reference point.Does it make sense to "avoid diffraction problems"?
Does it make sense to measure each driver individually?
What about driver interference, does that not affect dispersion?
The 20kHz balloons (or any other frequency, for that matter) *must* have the minutely exact same shape no matter where you put the acoustical axis, the only difference is that the whole thing is tiltet a bit. If they don't, something is wrong... at least if the assumption is that the balloons shall represent far field conditions.
My educated guess is that the measurement distance is too close, and more importantly, dynamically varying depending on choosen reference axis and that produces systematic errors despite of the technique using two distances and calculating the far field from that.
It is not for nothing that there is the recommondation, for traditional style measurements, using a distance of at least ten times the largest dimension of the DUT, and preferably larger than 20 times. Otherwise you're not in the far field.
I kindly suggest @amirm to do some experimenting to establish a baseline of repeatiblity and error bounds. Measure the same speaker (this one or any other) using a set of somewhat arbitrary reference positions. Say, the upper left corner and the lower left corner, and also a different set of the two distances the far field extraction is made from. Unless the ballons (at high frequencies) perfecty match in shape (ignoring the tilt), it's not working as intended.
EDIT: This assumes a mic that has close to no directivity (way less than 1dB) at angles up to least 30degree. A condition not met by the mic currently in use, it seems.
EDIT2: I also suggest to really think about double checking the whole measurement rig in the way I've explained here.
I have always wondered how Klippel manages to convert a loudspeaker measurement in 0.3m into a correct 1.0m measurement.
As others have said, there is a problem with the measurement angles to the tweeter and woofer when measuring at a distance of 0.3m, compared to measuring at 1m.
In addition, the influence of the baffle depends on the measuring distance (has already been mentioned by others).
Therefore, measurements (in anchoic chambers) for large loudspeakers are carried out at distances of up to 4m (in exceptional cases even further) to keep the problems described above as small as possible.
The Klippel NFS must therefore convert all these influences to a distance of 1m (when measuring at a distance of 0.3m). Otherwise the measurements would be useless.
Even if measurements were not taken on the acoustic axis specified by the developer, the measurement result can later be converted to any point in space as a measuring point - if I have understood the theoretical approach to this correctly.
This can only mean that something is wrong with the second measurement - wasn't the result converted to 1m distance?
In the first measurement, the vertical measurement with -10deg has approximately the acoustic axis required by Neumann - in the diagram in red.
In cyan is the second KH 80 measurement of Amir with now correctly adjusted measuring point in 0.3m distance.
Something went completely wrong!
View attachment 49131
But why then does Klippel explicitly refer to the individual measurements for multi-way systems?Solutions to the Kirchhoff-Helmholtz integral do not need to concern themselves with isolating individual emitters. The requirement of isolating the drive units is for the concern of adjusting the summed response of the array of drivers, such as a line array.
The sound pressure output of loudspeaker systems with multiple transducers (line sources, sound bars, 3-way systems, etc.) can be determined by measuring each transducer separately using a multiplexer.
The KH80 obiously has LR4 symmmetric slopes
I would also doubt that the experts at Klippel failed. OTOH, aren't a woofer and a tweeter emitting the same frequency (at the same phase, assuming a 0deg phase offset crossover like any lin-phase XO as well as any proper min-phase Linkwitz-Riley) the same thing as two identical fullrangers doing that? Somehow the Klippel quotes that @ctrl gave seem to contradict themselves, unless I missed the proper context (I didn't check the sources).I very much doubt that the system fails to account for the differences in driver position and orientation in bookshelf/tower/point-source/array-like speakers. The Revel center channel speaker being the best representation of that.
It's just front-page explanations, advertising aimed at the technical. https://www.klippel.de/products/rd-system/modules/nfs-near-field-scanner.htmlI would also doubt that the experts at Klippel failed. OTOH, aren't a woofer and a tweeter emitting the same frequency (at the same phase, assuming a 0deg phase offset crossover like any lin-phase XO as well as any proper min-phase Linkwitz-Riley) the same thing as two identical fullrangers doing that? Somehow the Klippel quotes that @ctrl gave seem to contradict themselves, unless I missed the proper context (I didn't check the sources).
I would agree with that.All that being said, even disregarding the above fact, I'm quite confident that a single measurement made at 0.3m at the reference axis would not show this droop in the treble. So I'm puzzled.
But we have no anechoic chamber measurement for comparison to detect possible measurement errors.I very much doubt that the system fails to account for the differences in driver position and orientation in bookshelf/tower/point-source/array-like speakers. The Revel center channel speaker being the best representation of that.
This wording also includes 2-way speakers - does it?...loudspeaker systems with multiple transducers...
About the measurement distance, I thought there was a standard (1 m) but each one measures as he wishes. The logical thing, for me, is 1 meter away and at the listening point.