GRS-3 vs Neo 3

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 4608 times.

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 668
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #80 on: 11 Oct 2020, 11:37 pm »
Some more random testing since i had a little time before dinner:
Wing is 11" & near field test is 3" from center of driver.

SPL:

Green: Near+wing    Yellow: 1M no wing     Magenta: 1M with 11" wing

THD:

Green: Near+Wing    Yellow: 1M

HAL

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 4545
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #81 on: 16 Oct 2020, 12:07 am »
Well after 3 days of trying to measure outside with CLIO Pocket version 2.11, here is the best frequency response of the GRS 10" Planar I was able to measure.   The planar is mounted in the stock Super Mini Baffle with the measurement mic at 50" from the center of the planar. 

The baffle would need mods to mount the GRS planar for a better fit.  The GRS 10" planar is slightly larger than the BG NEO10.

The time gate used was ~6mS and no reflections were in that time.   The external noise and wind were a big problem with the pressure mic for the log sweep measurement, even though the time window is wide for a quasi-anechoic style measurement.





Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 668
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #82 on: 16 Oct 2020, 12:33 am »
Well after 3 days of trying to measure outside with CLIO Pocket version 2.11, here is the best frequency response of the GRS 10" Planar I was able to measure.   The planar is mounted in the stock Super Mini Baffle with the measurement mic at 50" from the center of the planar. 

The baffle would need mods to mount the GRS planar for a better fit.  The GRS 10" planar is slightly larger than the BG NEO10.

The time gate used was ~6mS and no reflections were in that time.   The external noise and wind were a big problem with the pressure mic for the log sweep measurement, even though the time window is wide for a quasi-anechoic style measurement.




I managed to do some outside tests, but im currently in Dallas, TX, away from my laptop, but your results are pretty similar to mine tho i think I saw a steeper rolloff on the bottom end since i dont have a proper winged baffle to work with.

The only way to get a curve like the product pdf is bt having the mic ~4" from the driver rather than 1M

HAL

  • Industry Contributor
  • Posts: 4545
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #83 on: 16 Oct 2020, 12:42 am »
Yes, but that does not tell you the effect of the baffle on the drivers frequency response is a room   Why you need to also do far field (quasi-anechoic) style measurements. 

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 668
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #84 on: 16 Oct 2020, 01:32 am »
Yes, but that does not tell you the effect of the baffle on the drivers frequency response is a room   Why you need to also do far field (quasi-anechoic) style measurements. 

For sure, I mostly only did the near field test as a last pass, (both indoors & out) I definitely need go construct a proper wing for my test baffle as well probably just using cheap plywood.

And I probably might also make some adjustments to my model and print a new baffle that better fits the GRS-10. Both the face & mounting areas for a cleaner fitment overall. I didnt leave enough tolerance in my design, so its fitment a little sloppy.

But its a fun learning process nonetheless! :thumb:

emailtim

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #85 on: 16 Oct 2020, 01:42 am »
...

And I probably might also make some adjustments to my model and print a new baffle that better fits the GRS-10.

...

FWIW, how long does it take to 3D print one of your typical baffles ?  I have never used a 3D printer before.

Hobbsmeerkat

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 668
Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #86 on: 16 Oct 2020, 01:50 am »
FWIW, how long does it take to 3D print one of your typical baffles ?  I have never used a 3D printer before.

The baffle I printed for the GRS-3 took about 22 hrs, and the wave guide took another 8-10hrs i believe.

The two halves for the GRS-10 took about 18 hours total but it also has a low infill rate g was printed a bit faster & thicker layer height than the standard. had I gone for standard quality, it would have taken about 28-30 hours.

emailtim

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #87 on: 17 Oct 2020, 03:44 am »
The baffle I printed for the GRS-3 took about 22 hrs, and the wave guide took another 8-10hrs i believe.

The two halves for the GRS-10 took about 18 hours total but it also has a low infill rate g was printed a bit faster & thicker layer height than the standard. had I gone for standard quality, it would have taken about 28-30 hours.

Thanks for the info.  It takes a while.

emailtim

Re: GRS-3 vs Neo 3
« Reply #88 on: 17 Oct 2020, 03:54 am »
FWIW, here is an in-room response of the GRS NEO8 "wide" flush mounted and center offset on a 12" flat baffle with a high pass XO.  The plots are with (blue) and without (green) High/Low Shelves.

With the wing version, I get 2 bumps in the middle and 1 on each end.

With the flat baffle, 1 of the bumps in the middle goes away on its own and loses some low end.

With 4 High/Low Shelves (no PEQs), I get +/- 1dB (blue) on the flat baffle.

THD looks better on the GRS NEO10 plots posted above than what I see with the NEO8.