Omg, I think I have to unblock this dude. This situations looks like it is getting entertaining.
Well, get on board before the crudesayer takes up Amir's promise of an exit sTROLL.
Omg, I think I have to unblock this dude. This situations looks like it is getting entertaining.
I'm not sure why @Audiocrusader feels it is necessary or productive to keep accusing people of having "handicapping mental walls", lacking "mental strength", and expressing how much he looks forward to boomers etc. to die and be replaced ("the only cure is new blood").
Nothing like a troll 'on a roll'.
You can get a lot of data depending on what options you pay for. My main interest though is in generating the so called "spin data" as standardized now in CEA-2034A standard. Here is a Revel F22e as measured such:
The black curve is on-axis measurement. Note how it goes down to 40 Hz or so. The typical measurement you see in magazines like stereophile consists of two measurements pieced together. On that goes from say 100 Hz and goes to 20 kHz. And another that goes from 100 Hz down. The former is measured as you could. But then it is "gated" to truncate any room reflections. Doing so eliminates the resolution of the graph in low frequencies. So another measurement is made with a microphone close to the woofer for low frequencies. Problem with this method is that there is a amplification of sound due to speaker front surface artificially amplifying the amount bass energy there really is. Here is JA's measurement of F228Be showing this issue: https://www.stereophile.com/content/revel-performa-f228be-loudspeaker-measurements
View attachment 38051
I have circled the hump which as you can tell, does NOT exist in the proper measurements Klippel performs where it eliminates the reflection mathematically. It is then able to use the same measurement distance as for high frequencies, avoiding the hump in stereophile measurements.
With respect on-axis performance then, we have the full response from a few hertz to 20+ kHz allowing us to examine whether it is flat or not. The flatter it is, the more accurate the speaker. And the more accurate, the better listener preference is.
Next is the "listening window." Here, it is better look at a difference between it, and on-axis window as expressed in orange: the "Early Reflection DI." Here, we want a smooth curve with no dips and peaks and we have that with F228 speaker, telling us this speaker performs well in room with much less messing around with acoustic products and such. Its reflections will be similar to direct sound and thus, better fused into one by the brain.
In contrast to this very useful measurement, we have a bunch of ad-hoc measurement points in stereophile:
It is not easy to characterize these dips and peaks as easily as we can with the orange line. And at any rate, there is no study correlating them to listening preference.
If I get this system, I will do a much more extensive write-up than this brief.
I find myself ignoring all the threads hijacked & derailed by @Audiocrusader ... what’ll be left to read & post?
This looks great. And the more I think about it, the more I would like to see this Klippel project come to fruition.
(apologies if the following points have already been covered in the last 10 pages of the thread, that I haven't read yet)
My suggestion is a gofundme campaign or something similar for this specific project, where the pledged money only gets released to @amirm once the required goal is met.
Concerning these spins and how to visualize it: As for me I must admit that I find this slightly confusing. Is that only because I've become accustomed to the usual graphs for certain degrees off-axis? Perhaps! What I miss though, for my home use, is two things: How wide is the dispersion horizontally and vertically? This has bearings on the ideal placement and use. A speaker with more narrow dispersion - say, the Neumann KH80 - will probably work well even tucked away in a corner. A speaker with wider dispersion - say, the Philharmonic BMR bookshelf - may be the ideal choice if it's standing far away from side walls where a narrow dispersion speaker may sound sterile (plus that wide dispersion speakers usually seem to be liked by listeners in general). I struggle to retrieve this information from the graphs I see here.
Also, I do think it's useful to separate the "early reflections" thing into both horizontal and vertical reflections - again due to placement. A bookshelf speaker with very bad vertical directivity may sound bad placed on a desk, but may sound ok standing on a stand away from boundaries. Etc.
Otherwise: Go go go!
Concerning these spins and how to visualize it: As for me I must admit that I find this slightly confusing. Is that only because I've become accustomed to the usual graphs for certain degrees off-axis? Perhaps! What I miss though, for my home use, is two things: How wide is the dispersion horizontally and vertically? This has bearings on the ideal placement and use. A speaker with more narrow dispersion - say, the Neumann KH80 - will probably work well even tucked away in a corner. A speaker with wider dispersion - say, the Philharmonic BMR bookshelf - may be the ideal choice if it's standing far away from side walls where a narrow dispersion speaker may sound sterile (plus that wide dispersion speakers usually seem to be liked by listeners in general). I struggle to retrieve this information from the graphs I see here.
Also, I do think it's useful to separate the "early reflections" thing into both horizontal and vertical reflections - again due to placement. A bookshelf speaker with very bad vertical directivity may sound bad placed on a desk, but may sound ok standing on a stand away from boundaries. Etc.
Otherwise: Go go go!
I for one, am immensely interested by this project. How is this to be done? I frankly don’t know. The impact on the person bringing this to life should not be underestimated but I repeat: The ASR Speaker project must be undertaken. My pledge remains. I’ll discuss it in PM with the King.
Seriously it is one of the most important projects in HiFi. Let’s try to crowd-think it. Crowd-encourage it.
Peace.
Assuming I buy every option, you will get both near-field and far-field measurements of entire 3-D space around the speaker. All of it can also be exported (again, through another expensive option) so that they can be further analyzed beyond the means of the program itself.I also tend to agree with you on the measurements. Would this system generate a dense field of frequency response measurements at many angles, or does it ONLY generate spinorama measurements? I am hoping it’s the former.
+1That's awesome.
Once you get used to reading them, you'll never go back. The early reflections have been shown to be the most important sound we hear after the direct sound, many of the various off-axis curves may look good or bad but may not matter as much to what influences what we hear. You can still tell how wide the dispersion is by how close to early reflections curve is to the listening window, which is also how the directivity index is calculated, so the closer to 0 that is, the wider the dispersion. The BMR Spin in Audioholics shows that well, it's the widest dispersion speaker I've seen. I agree it is handy to have a separate graph of the early reflections like Burchardt shows but with also including the overall ER curve in the main Spin, they have it omitted in theirs for some reason.
I very much appreciate the support. My original hope was that there would be a few very serious supporters which would put up say, $20K and I would then fund the rest. Alas, most of the votes for support where in $100 to $200 range meaning it would take many such people to make a dent in that.This equipment costs $70k, right?
Apologies if I'm repeating what's been said before, since I haven't yet read all the pages of this thread, but: I wonder how hard it would be to find ~70 members willing to each donate $1k to this cause (plus smaller donations from more people as well). I'd be happy to do so in the context of a crowdfunding-style campaign where I know if it succeeds, my $1k will be put to use to make this happen.
I'm probably being unrealistic though. But with different donation tiers and a broad enough crowdfunding campaign, who knows. The potential of an ASR Speaker Project just makes me very excited, especially when it would yield data like this
I very much appreciate the support. My original hope was that there would be a few very serious supporters which would put up say, $20K and I would then fund the rest. Alas, most of the votes for support where in $100 to $200 range meaning it would take many such people to make a dent in that.
The people who want to donate large amounts also talked about ownership in company, potentially wanting to set the direction of what gets tested, etc. which is not a direction I like to take. Don't need more bosses in my retirement days.
So my plan currently is to see how I can justify purchasing the unit outright myself, and then rely on goodwill of the membership to offset the cost afterward. It may not work of course and I could be in a hole for years. But it is the direction I am leaning on right now. Messages like yours give me hope that this could work.
I think it will sit there at a few thousand dollars and that would be that. I think people will donate more when they see the results.But how about the idea of having a crowdfunding campaign, as I mentioned?