|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
206.255.200.146
In Reply to: RE: JA has commented previously, posted by Pat D on June 20, 2015 at 16:31:23
from the review referenced in this post.
"...measuring physically large speakers with in-room quasi-anechoic techniques is in some ways a fruitless task."
Why bother if the information is known by all to be problematic and not representative in any sense of real world performance?
To provide overtly misleading and incorrect data as to how the speaker actually sounds in the real world?
Follow Ups:
What is incorrect about the data? The results of the measurements are what they are.
What is problematic about the information?
What is misleading about the information?
What on earth is real world performance as opposed to unreal world performance? I am not aware that measurements are taken in some unreal world.
As I pointed out, measurements need to be interpreted as to their significance.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
The difference will be especially pronounced with the wonky dispersion pattern of a large dipole, and the consequent reflections and cancellations. Measurements made IN a real room, in real time, from the listening position, will probably tell you more about its actual behavior than QA ever could. And of course this behavior will be different in EVERY room depending on dimensions, treatment, placement, etc.
What is incorrect about the data?
I'll let JA explain it to you:
"The usual assumption, that the measuring microphone is very much farther away than the largest dimension of the speaker being measured, is clearly wrong."
What on earth is real world performance as opposed to unreal world performance?
Do you really need someone to explain to you the differences in the way the measurements are taken and the way people actually listen to the speakers? It would seem so.
What? Are you trying to accuse the measuring instruments of dishonesty? Sorry, but the measured data is what it is. JA's remarks refer to how the measured data is to be interpreted.
Now, as to conditions of measurements, the ideal is to determine what the speaker itself does. Then, one can try to find out what tends to work best in rooms like the rooms people are likely to put speakers in, which is one of the things Dr. Floyd Toole did.
There is nothing to prevent you from measuring the response of your speakers in your listening room---oh yeah, you actually do that.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Ever mindful of David Bentley Hart's wise counsel that absolute subjective liberty is known only in hell, I'm curious as to what you would do if you were shopping for a speaker, found one that impressed you no end, was affordable, but measured poorly. Would you dismiss it out of hand due to the poor specs or make the purchase?
A Poorly measuring speaker would sound bad........
"A Poorly measuring speaker would sound bad........"
Yeah, just because E-stat comes up with some contrary to fact hypothetical situation doesn't mean it's of some practical value.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
Not following you .....
A lot of self impregnated fallacy's floating around .....
Regards
Well, this is a hypothetical scenario E-stat proposed:
"I'm curious as to what you would do if you were shopping for a speaker, found one that impressed you no end, was affordable, but measured poorly."
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
I answered , It would not impress ,well only in the short run and on special rcordings . You will always be aware of it 's short comings,...John referenced the 3.6 waterfall plot , ironically you can hear the smearing of details when listening to it , so I was not surprised when I saw the waterfall plot . It would have been interesting to compare it to a 3.7...
Regards
Edits: 06/24/15
Try again. Who was it who asked that question?
There is nothing to prevent you from measuring the response of your speakers in your listening room---oh yeah, you actually do that.
At the listening position devoid of employing any overtly wrong assumptions. The bonus is that it is relevant data. :)
I tell people in my lab that if they aren't going to believe the results of an experiment (or be able to convince me that the experiment might be convincing), there is no point in doing it. Similarly, if you feel a measurement is not going to be interpretable, one really shouldn't do it.
But JA's measurements of panel speakers can be interpreted, including those in the bass, and JA does so in the text.
-----
"A fool and his money are soon parted." --- Thomas Tusser
The poor measurement results led to a much improved 3.7 ......
!
The Mind has No Firewall~ U.S. Army War College.
He may be measuring 'real world performance', but who cares how it measures if sounds good even if it doesn't measure the same as a 'monkey coffin'?
As von Recklinghausen said:
"If it measures good and sounds bad, -- it is bad. If it sounds good and measures bad, -- you've measured the wrong thing."
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: