In Reply to: Re: Measurements/Subjective Reviews posted by theaudiohobby on May 29, 2004 at 17:00:55:
> The actual measurements gave a totally different picture of the
> performance of the speakers in question. Now if measurements are
> not reasonably correct then they are of no value at all.
Agreed. In the past when I have compared my quasi-anechoic
measurements with those taken at the NRC, there has been good
agreement, other than the "2pi" bosts in the bass in mine, which I do
explain in the reviews. I will check the NRC Contour graphs.
> what is the value of published 1/3-octave analyser measurement for
> digital systems, I fail to see why JA persists in using this method
> when the industry relies on FFT analyser measurements.
As I have explained both in the mqgzine and on the Asylum, I use this
technique to allow comparisons of current products with earlier ones.
For the purpopses of the tests for which I perform 1/3-octave
analysis, the resultant graph serves its purpose, I feel. And please
note that I also use FFT-derived spectra.
> all 1/3-octave analyser measurements are dismissed outright because
> of their dubious value...
With respect, this is way too simplistic a view. For example, if you
look at my use of 1/3-octave in-room speaker spectra, these give an
excellent correlation between what is measured and the loudspeaker's
perceived tonal balance.
1/3-octave spectral measurements have a role to play, I feel, as long
as it is not assumed that they tell the whole stroy about a component.
John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Measurements/Subjective Reviews - John Atkinson 07:05:26 05/31/04 (2)
- Dynaudio? Did you mean Confidence? - John Atkinson 08:48:27 05/31/04 (1)
- Oops - John Atkinson 08:50:58 05/31/04 (0)