 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Re: Re. R.S. SPL meter and Clayton Oxendine posted by Clayton Oxendine on May 07, 1999 at 10:11:51:
The RS meter and test CD method is frequently recommended, in Stereophile and elsewhere, as an accurate means for determining the best placement of a pair of speakers. The point I wanted to make is that it simply isn't so, at least not without applying your correction factors. RS's own test shows that the meter has gross response aberrations. I'd never seen your correction factors before, and I think I'm fairly well read on the audiophile press both electronic and paper. Unfortunately most audiophiles struggling to place their speakers using the RS meter, following the instructions they read in Stereophile or Planet Hi Fi or in an RAHE posting, are probably unaware of the correction factors as well.A couple of years ago I did an article for "Listener" where I used both an RS meter and the magazine's Audio Control SA3050 1/3 octave RTA to measure the in - room response of a pair of Spica TC50s on stands from 400 Hz down to 63 Hz. This test was, I feel, representative of what the average audiophile would try to do with the meter. At one placement, according to the RS meter the speakers were down 20 dB at 80 Hz, while the SA3050 said they were down 6 dB. If I had believed the RS meter I might have stuck the speakers in a corner to compensate for the phantom bass suck out. The >uncorrected< RS meter is OK for relative measurements ("is this placement better than the one before?") but not for absolute measurements. You get what you pay for.
Given the magnitude of the changes that can be made by moving speakers even a few inches, effects that can be far larger than can be achieved by replacing components, I think that investing in a accurate RTA is a no-brainer for every audiophile. For example, I haven't used the DOD unit but assuming that it is reasonably accurate, its $320 price compares favorably with lots of other tweaks or components that are unlikely to make as big an improvement.
The AudioControl 3050 is a very expensive piece of equipment. AudioControl also makes a C-130 RTA for $650. Now, the DOD unit you mention lists for $395. All of these units have a lower street price.Could there be a substantial difference in the accuracy of these units, based on price? Or are convenience features the determining factor?
I set my speakers flat using a friend's C-130. What puzzled me was that each measured flat independently, but when the pink noise was generated through both speakers, the resultant sound was no longer flat. Any explanation?
I'm still fascinated by the equalization process. Although I enjoyed the utter detailed and transparent sound that resulted from setting each speaker flat, we found that many recordings, esp. those with violin passages, were very shrill and grating on our ears. I plan to try to isolate the frequencies involved to try to tame this, even if it means losing the "flat" response.
Your input would be appreciated.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
