| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Speakers testing
Arnold, could you please recommend me :
- A good, cheap calibrated microphone for speaker testing purpose ? - Software - Calibrated frequency generator to generate the signal to the speakers. Thank you for your help, Lionel |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
"Lionel" wrote in message
Arnold, could you please recommend me : - A good, cheap calibrated microphone for speaker testing purpose ? Behringer's ECM8000 is not calibrated in the formal sense, but it's flat enough for doing speakers. - Software The speaker testing module of the Audio Rightmark software is free, and easy-to-use. It's good for getting started with testing speakers: http://audio.rightmark.org/ - Calibrated frequency generator to generate the signal to the speakers. Any good power amp and a good sound card. Again something that is "good enough" to get started and readily available: Turtle Beach Santa Cruz Creative Labs Audigy You'll also need a preamp to go with the microphone. The Rolls MP13 is highly recommended by Ken Kantor who is a widely-respected speaker designer. He also recommends the ECM8000. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ewssvr13.ne w s.prodigy.com |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
Sacre bleu, Lionel.
For goodness sakes, just save yourself all this trouble, get your sorry french frog ass to a Bose store and buy a Bose LifeSyle 35 or LifeStyle 50 system and it comes with a microphone and built-in calibration tones and software to give a multitude of listeners in your room phenomenally flat, and accurate sound quality. And the Bose does all this automatically - It is smarter than you are! Why settle for second or third best when you can own the best in Bose? The Big Cheese Lionel the frog boy writes: Arnold, could you please recommend me : - A good, cheap calibrated microphone for speaker testing purpose ? - Software - Calibrated frequency generator to generate the signal to the speakers. Thank you for your help, Lionel |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
The Big Cheese wrote:
Sacre bleu, Lionel. For goodness sakes, just save yourself all this trouble, get your sorry french frog ass to a Bose store and buy a Bose LifeSyle 35 or LifeStyle 50 system and it comes with a microphone and built-in calibration tones and software to give a multitude of listeners in your room phenomenally flat, and accurate sound quality. And the Bose does all this automatically - It is smarter than you are! Why settle for second or third best when you can own the best in Bose? You can sit on Big Cheese... |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Lionel" wrote in message Arnold, could you please recommend me : - A good, cheap calibrated microphone for speaker testing purpose ? Behringer's ECM8000 is not calibrated in the formal sense, but it's flat enough for doing speakers. - Software The speaker testing module of the Audio Rightmark software is free, and easy-to-use. It's good for getting started with testing speakers: http://audio.rightmark.org/ - Calibrated frequency generator to generate the signal to the speakers. Any good power amp and a good sound card. Again something that is "good enough" to get started and readily available: Turtle Beach Santa Cruz Creative Labs Audigy You'll also need a preamp to go with the microphone. The Rolls MP13 is highly recommended by Ken Kantor who is a widely-respected speaker designer. He also recommends the ECM8000. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...ewssvr13.ne w s.prodigy.com Ok nice you understood my needs. :-) I don't need to make measurements with accuracy to a standard, I'm just looking for enough fidelity to improve a system. Thanks. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
Whassa' matter, Liney-Whiney,
Did you spend all your francs on some frog audiophool speakers like some "Grand Utopias" or something? And now you're unhappy because the sound emanating from them sounds like it's coming from the big honkin' noses common to your nationality? Sounds like your a political whiner to me. If you'd bought Bose, you could get on with your life and just enjoy the music and not have to worry about future upgrades. Say, I have an idea: Go sprinkle some of this year's Nouvelle Beaujolais on your Grand Utopia speaker cones - It's guaranteed to make them and that vinegar you call wine both better. You know, the wines coming out of Australia and New Zealand now are really enough to make you whine. The Big Cheese Lionel whines: The Big Cheese wrote: Sacre bleu, Lionel. For goodness sakes, just save yourself all this trouble, get your sorry french frog ass to a Bose store and buy a Bose LifeSyle 35 or LifeStyle 50 system and it comes with a microphone and built-in calibration tones and software to give a multitude of listeners in your room phenomenally flat, and accurate sound quality. And the Bose does all this automatically - It is smarter than you are! Why settle for second or third best when you can own the best in Bose? You can sit on Big Cheese... |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
The Big Cheese wrote:
Whassa' matter, Liney-Whiney, Did you spend all your francs on some frog audiophool speakers like some "Grand Utopias" or something? And now you're unhappy because the sound emanating from them sounds like it's coming from the big honkin' noses common to your nationality? Sounds like your a political whiner to me. If you'd bought Bose, you could get on with your life and just enjoy the music and not have to worry about future upgrades. Say, I have an idea: Go sprinkle some of this year's Nouvelle Beaujolais on your Grand Utopia speaker cones - It's guaranteed to make them and that vinegar you call wine both better. You know, the wines coming out of Australia and New Zealand now are really enough to make you whine. The Big Cheese Audio is like the wine, you always need to experiment. Purchasing Bose is like to daily drink Californian wines... LOL ! -- "Keep the bugs off your glass and the bears off your ass" Bad Plus |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
I'm glad you've finally come around and recognized the audio superiority
of Bose since the best wines in the world now come from California as the best speakers now come from Bose here in America! And as you obviously know, California wines are much better than that urine du mouton your country calls wine! The Big Cheese Lionel wrote: Audio is like the wine, you always need to experiment. Purchasing Bose is like to daily drink Californian wines... |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
The Big Cheese wrote:
I'm glad you've finally come around and recognized the audio superiority of Bose since the best wines in the world now come from California as the best speakers now come from Bose here in America! And as you obviously know, California wines are much better than that urine du mouton your country calls wine! I love you Gros Coulommier ;o) |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
Liney Whiney,
Since I am but a Gros Coulommier to you, a town in the Ile-de-France that gives its name to a supple, fragrant disc of cow's-milk cheese, slightly larger than Camembert, I am quite pleased you find me so tasty! I've always thought of myself more as a tart brie than a fragrant camembert but then everyone's taste is different. The Big Coulommier Lionel wrote: The Big Cheese wrote: I'm glad you've finally come around and recognized the audio superiority of Bose since the best wines in the world now come from California as the best speakers now come from Bose here in America! And as you obviously know, California wines are much better than that urine du mouton your country calls wine! I love you Gros Coulommier ;o) |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
Check out a decent, used GenRad 1565B on Ebay. It's a calibrated
sound level meter that works off 9V batteries and has an analyzer output. Very accurate, very easy to use, no preamp needed, and you get a SPL meter in the deal! All you need to add is a simple cable. (2.5mm to whatever you need.) -k Lionel wrote in message ... Arnold, could you please recommend me : - A good, cheap calibrated microphone for speaker testing purpose ? - Software - Calibrated frequency generator to generate the signal to the speakers. Thank you for your help, Lionel |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
Ken Kantor wrote:
Check out a decent, used GenRad 1565B on Ebay. It's a calibrated sound level meter that works off 9V batteries and has an analyzer output. Very accurate, very easy to use, no preamp needed, and you get a SPL meter in the deal! All you need to add is a simple cable. (2.5mm to whatever you need.) -k Thanks for this interesting tip. Lionel |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
Goofy said: I would like it resolved, whether I am right or wrong. Have you tried flipping a coin? |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 14:48:30 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote: Goofy said: I would like it resolved, whether I am right or wrong. Have you tried flipping a coin? Yes. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
Goofy said: I would like it resolved, whether I am right or wrong. Have you tried flipping a coin? Yes. Goodness. You need to be instructed in everything, it seems. |
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
John's dad say: "Good things come to those that wait" and "If people
wanted Middius baby there would more in phone book" |
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:38:07 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote: Goofy said: I would like it resolved, whether I am right or wrong. Have you tried flipping a coin? Yes. Goodness. You need to be instructed in everything, it seems. No, it worked. |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
Goofy said: John's dad say: "Good things come to those that wait" and "If people wanted Middius baby there would more in phone book" I've just been smashing in the skulls of the cavegeeks, and now you want me to play with you too? Sorry, I have a headache. Another time, perhaps. |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
Goofy said: I would like it resolved, whether I am right or wrong. Have you tried flipping a coin? Yes. Goodness. You need to be instructed in everything, it seems. No, it worked. Did it? Well, don't keep us in suspense. Are you on the Right side or the Wrong side? The fence is dug in pretty deeply, so be prepared to pay overtime wages if you want it moved. |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:46:14 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote: Goofy said: John's dad say: "Good things come to those that wait" and "If people wanted Middius baby there would more in phone book" I've just been smashing in the skulls of the cavegeeks, and now you want me to play with you too? Sorry, I have a headache. Another time, perhaps. Well, I have been talking to a Dick who wasn't there. I am knackered, you will note. |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:47:21 -0500, George M. Middius
wrote: Goofy said: I would like it resolved, whether I am right or wrong. Have you tried flipping a coin? Yes. Goodness. You need to be instructed in everything, it seems. No, it worked. Did it? Well, don't keep us in suspense. Are you on the Right side or the Wrong side? The fence is dug in pretty deeply, so be prepared to pay overtime wages if you want it moved. We shall see. You can call me fearless. |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
Goofy said: John's dad say: "Good things come to those that wait" and "If people wanted Middius baby there would more in phone book" I've just been smashing in the skulls of the cavegeeks, and now you want me to play with you too? Sorry, I have a headache. Another time, perhaps. Well, I have been talking to a Dick who wasn't there. If you mean the Pierced Dick, you've happened upon an occasion for joyous thanksgiving. I am knackered, you will note. Then off to the pub with you, and count yer blessings. |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
|
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 22:50:40 +0000, The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra
wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:51:36 GMT, ow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote: On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 15:46:14 -0500, George M. Middius wrote: Goofy said: John's dad say: "Good things come to those that wait" and "If people wanted Middius baby there would more in phone book" I've just been smashing in the skulls of the cavegeeks, and now you want me to play with you too? Sorry, I have a headache. Another time, perhaps. Well, I have been talking to a Dick who wasn't there. I am knackered, you will note. I think I love you, I will note. **** off and leave one alone. One has had so many babies one thinks one might burst if one loves one. |
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
Goofball_star_dot_etal reconsidered:
The Stainless Steel Boob Orchestra bared it all: I think I love you, I will note. **** off and leave one alone. One has had so many babies one thinks one might burst if one loves one. One did not mean it, bach. One loves one too. Ain't love - or whatever passes for it these days - grand? GeoSynch |
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
Another Fencepost Hits Rock
|
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
Sure, happy to comment:
1- "20 to 20K." I'm not exactly sure what the underlying question is here. Is isn't particularly difficult to reliably measure 20 Hz speaker output, especially using near-field techniques. It takes a good mic and preamp, and the ability to examine the spectrum in order to understand what is fundamental and what is harmonic distortion. Measuring very long wavelengths is in many ways easier than measuring shorter ones, provided you are not concerned with understanding room effects. 2- "Multiples." Though the question of what "efficiency" properly refers to is perpetually ellusive, there is no doubt that more radiating area increases low frequency efficiency. "...it should be mentioned again that the radiating efficiency of a direct-radiator loudspeaker can be increased at low frequencies by mounting several units side by side in a single baffle. The mutual interaction among the radiating units serves to increase the radiation resistance of each unit substantially. For example, two identical direct-radiators very near each other in an infinitely large plane baffle, and vibrating in phase, will produce four times the intensity on the principle axis as will one of them alone." Beranek, "Acoustics," 1st Ed., 1954, p259. -k ow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message ... Hi Ken, Care to comment over on rec.audio.tech on either thread "20hz to 20Khz , yea right!" or "Speaker sensitivity and fs in multiples." ? I would like it resolved, whether I am right or wrong. It is your field and Dick does not seem to want to play. Regards, David. |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 08:36:07 -0000, Rich Andrews
wrote: "...it should be mentioned again that the radiating efficiency of a direct-radiator loudspeaker can be increased at low frequencies by mounting several units side by side in a single baffle. The mutual interaction among the radiating units serves to increase the radiation resistance of each unit substantially. For example, two identical direct-radiators very near each other in an infinitely large plane baffle, and vibrating in phase, will produce four times the intensity on the principle axis as will one of them alone." Beranek, "Acoustics," 1st Ed., 1954, p259. -k I think that rule goes awry when multiple tweeters are involved in a column. I do know that the 6db rule does not apply to an array of tweeters in a column. This is interesting. What assumptions are being made above regarding the power supplied to each speaker? Specifically, when you go from one speaker to two in the above example, is the original amount of power now being divided between two speakers, or do both speakers receive power equal to what the solo speaker had? Getting 6dB of increase by doubling the number of speakers AND the power provided makes sense to me, but if the 6dB increase is coming solely from doubling the number of speakers, I confess I'm confused. Also, do the speakers have to share the same enclosure volume for the above paragraph to apply? How about the following three scenarios? 1) One speaker, being supplied 1000 Watts. 2) Two speakers in separate enclosures, each being supplied 500 Watts 3) Two speakers, sharing an enclosure that's twice the size of a single enclosure, each being supplied 500 Watts. Which of these three would produce the highest intensity? From the "Acoustics" quote above, I think it would be #3, with #1 and #2 being about equal. The reason I'm curious is that in car audio, two subwoofers in a box is a fairly common arrangement, but the boxes are usually constructed such that the two subs don't share the same enclosure volume. If there's an extra 3dB to be had just by having the subs share the same enclosure volume, I'd think more boxes would be designed this way. Scott Gardner |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
|
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
|
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
|
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
(Scott Gardner) wrote in message ...
On 7 Dec 2003 10:39:16 -0800, (Svante) wrote: 1) One speaker, being supplied 1000 Watts. That would give a level of x dB (given that it is mounted in a box of y litres). 2) Two speakers in separate enclosures, each being supplied 500 Watts The level would now be x + 3 dB, if each box is y litres. 3) Two speakers, sharing an enclosure that's twice the size of a single enclosure, each being supplied 500 Watts. The level would still be x + 3 dB, if the box is 2*y litres. Which of these three would produce the highest intensity? From the "Acoustics" quote above, I think it would be #3, with #1 and #2 being about equal. The reason I'm curious is that in car audio, two subwoofers in a box is a fairly common arrangement, but the boxes are usually constructed such that the two subs don't share the same enclosure volume. If there's an extra 3dB to be had just by having the subs share the same enclosure volume, I'd think more boxes would be designed this way. No, the gain is on the acoustic side, not inside the box. Two drivers (each receiving the same power as the single driver) would double the sound pressure, and quadruple the acoustic power. Again, read the other thread in this group, I beleive this will save you some thinking. Thanks, but I'm not really interested in being "saved" from thinking. Sounds sound... :-) I enjoy the discussion. What you explained was pretty much what I've always thought, I was just confused by the paragraph from "Acoustics" above. For one, it mentions a four-fold increase in SPL without explicitly mentioning the fact that he's doubling amplifer power as well as the number of speakers, and the part about mounting multiple speakers "side by side" in a "single baffle" makes it sound like that's a requirement to get the efficiency increase from multiple speakers. From your response to my three scenarios, it sounds like that's not the case after all. I think the baffle (could just as well have been a box) is put there just to remove the radiation from the back side of the membrane. The effect would have been similar with loudspeaker elements in free air, but it saves some thinking :-) to put them in the baffle. |
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
|
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
You are very welcome.
It's been done, but it in common use. Why not? Because external near-field techniques work well, and are much more direct and convenient. -k ow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message ... On 7 Dec 2003 00:01:45 -0800, (Ken Kantor) wrote: Quite a lot of fuss is made at times of the difficulty of measuring low frequency response, particularly in an ordinary room. Perhaps it is easy when you know how. I was wondering if the "in speaker" method Svante and I described was in common use and if not, why not? |
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
ow (Goofball_star_dot_etal) wrote in message ...
On 7 Dec 2003 00:01:45 -0800, (Ken Kantor) wrote: Quite a lot of fuss is made at times of the difficulty of measuring low frequency response, particularly in an ordinary room. Perhaps it is easy when you know how. I was wondering if the "in speaker" method Svante and I described was in common use and if not, why not? (Ken Kantor) wrote in message . com... You are very welcome. It's been done, but it in common use. Why not? Because external near-field techniques work well, and are much more direct and convenient. Having seen the difference between near-field measurements in a studio environment and the in-box method I feel I should add this: 1. The in-box method is in agreement with simulations well down to 10 Hz for the system we measure on (a butterworth bass-reflex box designed for -3dB at 35Hz). We see some extra sloping of towards low frequencies, probaly due to the microphone and the electronics. 2. SNR is great inside the box. The level easily reaches 120-140dB and room noise at low frequencies is typically reach 50-70dB. This still gives 50 dB SNR. That will NOT happen outside the box. Try to demonstrate the slope of 24 dB/octave of a bass-reflex system below the helmholtz frequency with near field measurements. Environmental noise will disturb this measurement a lot. 3. A bass-reflex box is hard to measure near-field if the port and speaker is separated by some distance. Half-way between the speaker and port is maybe not "near-field". 4. Distorsion cannot, however be measured inside the box due to the high SPL. There will be a lot of distorsion from the microphone. I would guess that the reason that the method is not widely used is the counter-intuitivity (is that proper english?!?) of the method, the need to tilt the response by 12dB/octave and the fact that the method is not well known. But it is great for LF! |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
Svante wrote:
4. Distorsion cannot, however be measured inside the box due to the high SPL. There will be a lot of distorsion from the microphone. You can not call it measurement with an unlinear microphone, so do not overload it. I would guess that the reason that the method is not widely used is the counter-intuitivity (is that proper english?!?) of the method, the need to tilt the response by 12dB/octave and the fact that the method is not well known. But it is great for LF! Ad notam. Kind regards Peter Larsen -- ************************************************** *********** * My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk * ************************************************** *********** |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
Speakers testing
"Svante" wrote in message om... 3. A bass-reflex box is hard to measure near-field if the port and speaker is separated by some distance. Half-way between the speaker and port is maybe not "near-field". Exactly how the two fields (or 3 or even 4 for a vented D'Appolito design) actually combine in the far field, is something routinely ignored by many when making near field measurements. But the error will be less when combining woofer and port outputs, compared to a dual woofer set up at slightly higher frequencies. TonyP. |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 4/5) | Car Audio | |||
| rec.audio.car FAQ (Part 2/5) | Car Audio | |||
| Main speakers with builtin subwoofer - How to configure receiver? | Audio Opinions | |||
| P/review of Jupiter Audio Europa speakers pt.1 | Audio Opinions | |||
| Remote speakers? L-pads? Totally confused! | General | |||
Linear Mode
