GRS-3 vs Neo 3

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 4524 times.

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #20 on: 23 Sep 2020, 07:36 pm »
I wish I could get the same waterfalls as clio does, but they all still look really good. I'm not 100% sure why there's the extension in the upper ranges... I'm guessing that's from the other sweeps within the test?

Scale: 20dB-80dB

Neo3 OB:


GRS3 OB:


Neo3 Deep Cup:


GRS3 Deep Cup:

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #21 on: 23 Sep 2020, 11:19 pm »
I've installed Danny's yarn mod into my Neo3, so I'll be testing that later tonight once one of my house mates is no longer asleep.
I'm genuinely curious how it will affect the results, since its mostly intended for better off-axis results.

I have most of Saturday off, which I'll use for more testing, likely near-field (~1 inch past the wave guide) & off axis, along with some different combinations of the taller plastic rods on both drivers.
I may also rerun todays current test results outdoors to help remove any in-room reflections.

emailtim

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #22 on: 23 Sep 2020, 11:33 pm »
I've installed Danny's yarn mod into my Neo3, so I'll be testing that later tonight once one of my house mates is no longer asleep.
I'm genuinely curious how it will affect the results, since its mostly intended for better off-axis results.

I have most of Saturday off, which I'll use for more testing, likely near-field (~1 inch past the wave guide) & off axis, along with some different combinations of the taller plastic rods on both drivers.
I may also rerun todays current test results outdoors to help remove any in-room reflections.

Thanks for doing this.  I am curious what is causing the ringing on both above 10KHz. 

When you measured it OB, did you have the wave-guide on it or just remove the cup off the back ?  I would assume the latter.


Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #23 on: 24 Sep 2020, 12:58 am »
Thanks for doing this.  I am curious what is causing the ringing on both above 10KHz. 

When you measured it OB, did you have the wave-guide on it or just remove the cup off the back ?  I would assume the latter.

The ringing is due the settings I had the gated window open too long. Here's the adjusted graphs, that also have the smoothing set to 1/12 to make it easier to read.

Neo3 OB:


GRS3 OB:


NEO3 Cup:


GRS3 Cup:


And yes, the waveguide was used for all tests, with only the cup removed for the OB tests.

emailtim

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #24 on: 24 Sep 2020, 01:38 am »
The ringing is due the settings I had the gated window open too long. Here's the adjusted graphs, that also have the smoothing set to 1/12 to make it easier to read.

Neo3 OB:
GRS3 OB:

NEO3 Cup:
GRS3 Cup:

And yes, the waveguide was used for all tests, with only the cup removed for the OB tests.

Thanks for the update.  Those look much better and the deltas are few.

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #25 on: 24 Sep 2020, 02:12 am »
Here's a Google Drive link for the REW .mdat file for those that wan't to look thru the files & maybe find more information than im aware of.  :thumb:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rZebamqfdhMaPuRtqK4aTUkQ5tq4haUh/view?usp=drivesdk

scararabe

  • Jr. Member
  • Posts: 16
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #26 on: 24 Sep 2020, 06:57 am »
I downloaded the file mdat, and the GRS3 distortion from 1.2 to 2 kHz appears 10 times higher that of NEO3 in OB use ...
If my analysis is correct it is a great disappointment.
« Last Edit: 24 Sep 2020, 09:08 am by scararabe »

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #27 on: 24 Sep 2020, 12:56 pm »
Yeah that 1.2-2K peak seems to persist in all tests, tho to be honest I'm not really sure how to read the graph beyond "lower is better" ?
I wouldn't call it 10x, but it might explain why mids sounded different between each model.

Here's the graphs for Total Harmonic Distortion for anyone interested:

Neo3 Cup:


GRS 3 Cup:



Neo3 OB:


GRS3 OB:


emailtim

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #28 on: 24 Sep 2020, 03:01 pm »
If you change the scale from dB to Percent, you can see the distortion at

1.8kHz ranges from [0.2% to almost 2%, @ 10X] and at
570Hz ranges from [0.13% to 4.3%, @ 30X].

Distortion appears highest for OB/without the deep cup for both the Neo3 and the GRS clone at the lowest frequencies.

The hump at 1.8kHz is the GRS clone with or without the cup.


Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #29 on: 24 Sep 2020, 03:30 pm »
Ahh okay,
I wonder what causes that distortion at those points? esp when the response actually looks pretty good for the GRS3 in the OB setup..

Danny Richie

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 13359
    • http://www.gr-research.com
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #30 on: 24 Sep 2020, 09:48 pm »
It is hard to get any meaningful distortion measurements outside of an anichoic chamber. The room noise is too high and it is hard to create a great enough differential to see the real data.

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #31 on: 24 Sep 2020, 10:39 pm »
It is hard to get any meaningful distortion measurements outside of an anichoic chamber. The room noise is too high and it is hard to create a great enough differential to see the real data.

A fair point, to be sure.

I ordered a proper mic stand and extension cord, so i can hopefully get some cleaner results on Saturday assuming it arrives early enough or it may have to wait till Wednesday since i do have work late on Saturday night  then all day Sunday. But I should at least be able to get comparable results with the modified neo3 in the next day.

Zitoun

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #32 on: 25 Sep 2020, 12:35 am »
How about the sound, did you try to run some listening session to have some qualitative measures, regarding tonality, soundstage, resolution etc ?

Does it worth trying Neo 10 ?

Danny Richie

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 13359
    • http://www.gr-research.com
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #33 on: 25 Sep 2020, 12:45 am »
A fair point, to be sure.

I ordered a proper mic stand and extension cord, so i can hopefully get some cleaner results on Saturday assuming it arrives early enough or it may have to wait till Wednesday since i do have work late on Saturday night  then all day Sunday. But I should at least be able to get comparable results with the modified neo3 in the next day.

Try pulling the trigger on a measurement with the driver not plugged in so that all you get is room noise and see what that looks like.   :D

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #34 on: 25 Sep 2020, 01:09 am »
How about the sound, did you try to run some listening session to have some qualitative measures, regarding tonality, soundstage, resolution etc ?

Does it worth trying Neo 10 ?

I don't have a setup that allows me to do any of that. Plus i don't want to risk damaging the driver by playing a full range signal into it. But I did listen to parts of a podcat thru both drivers. And both sound nice overall, and tbh the Neo3 sounds clearer, & in the upper range, if not a little shouty in the waveguide, but a little lacking in the mids? The GRS-3 has warmer mids, but a little less detail in the top end.

They both sound pretty similar with the back cup mod installed with solid mids and highs, any bass below 700hz droping off a cliff. They both sound pretty good in my opinion tho, but I also don't have a trained ear to pick out the flaws and properly describe them.

I'm still considering it. But the GRS3 measures pretty well overall, despite the issues with the THD, plus it's not a bad idea to dig a little deeper into the GRS-10 model, since it's the one most people are interested in.

Try pulling the trigger on a measurement with the driver not plugged in so that all you get is room noise and see what that looks like.   :D

Sure, I think i can do that.. esp since everyone else is still asleep..  :lol:

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #35 on: 25 Sep 2020, 01:38 am »
Okay here's the measurements for the room I tested in, same rough position, but without the driver.

Room SPL:


Room THD:


Danny Richie

  • Facilitator
  • Posts: 13359
    • http://www.gr-research.com
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #36 on: 25 Sep 2020, 01:46 am »
Your room must be a lot quieter than most. That's really good. But you are also cutting it at 500Hz. Below that is usually where a lot shows up.

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #37 on: 25 Sep 2020, 02:13 am »
Maybe? But It might be just depend on what devices are running? But I was cutting if off at 500 to prevent risk of damage to the drivers.

Here's 3 tests:

Magenta: with AC unit running outside about 10 ft away
Red: With upstairs unit defrosting
Green: No AC running, the room is near silent.

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 651
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #38 on: 25 Sep 2020, 02:46 pm »
I ordered the GRS-10, should be here by Wednesday next week. :thumb:
I'll need to design and 3D print a test baffle for it over the next few days.

Captainhemo

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #39 on: 25 Sep 2020, 06:17 pm »
Rich is currently  doing  some  tests with the GRS Neo 3 and Neo 10 in one of our tested/proven  Super Mini / Monolith baffles.   There is a bit of  size difference in the Neo3's but it sounds like they   do drop in.  The   screw positions are different on 2 of the Neo 10   mounting  screws.

Sure he'll be posting  some results  at  some point

jay