[emmafish]

Hope to initiate this discussion for audiophiles

[FullRangeMan]

Welcome aboard Emma

[Wind Chaser]

Yes, that would be an interesting discussion. Ever notice how some manufactures broadly state the FR without mentioning how varied the response is? Or exaggerate the sensitivity, etc?

[mresseguie]

Welcome to AC, Emmafish.

I look forward to your perspective. 

Michael

[FullRangeMan]

Yes, that would be an interesting discussion. Ever notice how some manufactures broadly state the FR without mentioning how varied the response is? Or exaggerate the sensitivity, etc?

Objective Measurement is a explosive topic since most speakers manufacturers do mathematical medianization of the freq resp graph, resulting that the graph showing the public is false as its not faithful to the speaker.

By the little I know and have seen so far the only true freq resp chart showed as such is the Alpair 12P where they mention it is ''raw data'' ie the actual data of the driver, the data were not manipulated and mediated to decrease the treble and increase the bass.

[poseidonsvoice]

Objective Measurement is a explosive topic since most speakers manufacturers do mathematical medianization of the freq resp graph, resulting that the graph showing the public is false as its not faithful to the speaker.

By the little I know and have seen so far the only true freq resp chart showed as such is the Alpair 12P where they mention it is ''raw data'' ie the actual data of the driver, the data were not manipulated and mediated to decrease the treble and increase the bass.

The data you are showing above is also “false.”

Notice the vertical axis. The deviations are 20dB and the vertical range is from -50 to 110 dB!!! That is a 160 dB range all in the attempt to show a “flat” frequency response curve. This is a type of “smoothing” or “gating.”

Sorry, but I am sure this full range driver does not measure as well as one would think. And I don’t care what the manufacturer states as “raw data.” The graph you have shown is manipulated as well.

Best,
Anand.

[maty]

Better frequency measures like:

Quick KEF q100 measurements and compairsons

https://imgur.com/a/mDP5Q#qFJXa4V

Dispersion and not only the frequency graph is more important too -> Good coaxials and tweeter with logarithmic waveguide have the better dispersion graphs.

[Speedskater]

Well it's not easy to do accurate, meaningful objective loudspeaker measurements.
And it's even more difficult to do meaningful subjective loudspeaker listening tests.

The new Floyd Toole, 485 page book has several chapters on these subjects.

"Sound Reproduction" 'Third Edition'  Floyd E. Toole

[poseidonsvoice]

Well it's not easy to do accurate, meaningful objective loudspeaker measurements.
And it's even more difficult to do meaningful subjective loudspeaker listening tests.

The new Floyd Toole, 485 page book has several chapters on these subjects.

"Sound Reproduction" 'Third Edition'  Floyd E. Toole

Exactly.

There are very few I trust.

Harman/JBL
Earl Geddes

And well informed interpretations of Soundstage!, and Stereophile.

I do trust measurements below 300 Hz in room using Room EQ Wizard, with very little to no smoothing. But above 300Hz, it becomes increasingly difficult due to what Floyd (and Geddes) state. You need an anechoic chamber, outside ground plane or equivalent to make any logical interpretation.

Best,
Anand.

[Wind Chaser]

The data you are showing above is also “false.”

Notice the vertical axis. The deviations are 20dB and the vertical range is from -50 to 110 dB!!! That is a 160 dB range all in the attempt to show a “flat” frequency response curve. This is a type of “smoothing” or “gating.”

Wow! Thanks for pointing that out, I didn’t see that on my ipad’s tiny screen. 

Thank God for tweeters and crossovers!