74.14.75.63
In Reply to: RE: Will magazines ever improve their measurements in the near future? posted by riker1384 on October 31, 2009 at 09:24:06
You make some interesting points.
First, one thing I do want to point out that's not often apparent is that there is much more information *within* our existing suite of measurements that, if you're extremely knowledgeable about measurements, will be able to take from them. Take the frequency-response measurement, for example. People often use it simply to assess linearity but, in fact, if you know where and how to look, you can see resonances without having to resort to a waterfall, you can determine diffraction from resonance and so on. Hand a very skilled measurements-savvy designer a sheet with our current measurements, he'll be able to tell you more than the average audiophile or reviewer.
Other than that, there is always room for improvement and expansion. Our main concern: cost. As you point out, we use an anechoic chamber and the cost for this is not insignificant. In fact, I don't know of any magazine in the world who has access to equipment of this caliber -- partly because of logistics but often because of costs. It costs us a lot of money to do it there -- and we pay by the hour. Increase the measurements so that we double the time, we double the cost, basically.
For us, having this chamber is crucial. We could actually produce more measurements in an inferior environment, but we feel it's a matter of quality over quantity.
DS @ SoundStageNetwork.com
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2009, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ Go Green ]
[ Take5 ]