Page 263 of 271 FirstFirst ... 258259260261262263264265266267268 ... LastLast
Results 2,621 to 2,630 of 2707

Thread: The Tower Discussion Thread!

  1. #2621
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,558

    Default Re: The Tower Discussion Thread!

    Quote Originally Posted by RMW View Post
    Hey Dave - Any spinorama data from the Klippel coming for the Towers?

    Thanks,
    Ryan
    Yes, eventually all of our products will have published CEA-2034 data. Right now our NFS is fully dedicated to a different project. That stated, the spin data on the ribbon towers looks very similar to the spin data of the ribbon horizon.
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  2. #2622
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    69

    Default Re: The Tower Discussion Thread!

    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    Yes, eventually all of our products will have published CEA-2034 data. Right now our NFS is fully dedicated to a different project. That stated, the spin data on the ribbon towers looks very similar to the spin data of the ribbon horizon.
    Have you shared the ribbon horizon spin data here or are you referring to the ASR ribbon horizon data?

  3. #2623
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,558

    Default Re: The Tower Discussion Thread!

    Quote Originally Posted by Shazb0t View Post
    Have you shared the ribbon horizon spin data here or are you referring to the ASR ribbon horizon data?
    Was referring to ASR spin of the Horizon.
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  4. #2624
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,558

    Default Re: The Tower Discussion Thread!

    As requested, Klippel NFS spin data of our Sierra Ribbon Tower.

    These measurements show exceptional directivity, combined with very wide horizontal dispersion.

    RTCEA2034.jpg


    RTEstimated In-Room Response.jpg


    RTContour Plot.jpg
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  5. #2625
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    52

    Default Re: The Tower Discussion Thread!

    Thanks Dave, looks great! It’s also nice to sensitivity high, too.

  6. #2626
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    65

    Default Re: The Tower Discussion Thread!

    Looks excellent as expected. That's why I own them . I ever so slightly wish there was a problem, so we can get an upgrade kit lol. Thanks Dave! Love it!
    TV: LG 65C8 - Receiver: Emotiva XMC-2 (9.1.4) - Blu-ray: UB820, x800m2 - Music: Sdtrans384 - Amp: Parasound A23 & A52+, Outlaw 7075 - LCR Speakers: Ascend Towers Raal ELX & Horizon RAAL ELX - Surround: (10) BG Radia PD-6i - Sub: Rythmik F18 - Power Cable: PS AC5, PS SC, Venom v14 - Speaker Cable: Furez - Interconnects: Neotech, Mogami, Pure Silver - Probe: Display Pro & i1 Pro2 - Software: Colourspace HTL & Rpi4 - Bias - MediaLight - Remote: Harmony Elite

  7. #2627
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,558

    Default Re: The Tower Discussion Thread!

    Quote Originally Posted by RMW View Post
    Thanks Dave, looks great! It’s also nice to sensitivity high, too.
    Very welcome! Definitely not a simple task testing towers on the NFS, but I believe we now have the process and configuration down...
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  8. #2628
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: The Tower Discussion Thread!

    Comment on the estimated in-room response curve: if I draw a straight line through part of that curve, from 200 Hz to 13 kHz, I find the slope of the line is -0.75 dB per octave. That is the same as the "red line" drawn over the in-room response curve in the ASR review of the Horizon. (I also found that -0.75 dB per octave is the median value of the slope for speakers that tested well in ASR.)

    I assume that, to calculate an in-room response curve, Klippel needs to make some assumptions about the room acoustics. In other words, the curve represents a simulation of a typical room, and your room may vary from that.

  9. #2629
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,558

    Default Re: The Tower Discussion Thread!

    Quote Originally Posted by sonic icons View Post
    Comment on the estimated in-room response curve: if I draw a straight line through part of that curve, from 200 Hz to 13 kHz, I find the slope of the line is -0.75 dB per octave. That is the same as the "red line" drawn over the in-room response curve in the ASR review of the Horizon. (I also found that -0.75 dB per octave is the median value of the slope for speakers that tested well in ASR.)

    I assume that, to calculate an in-room response curve, Klippel needs to make some assumptions about the room acoustics. In other words, the curve represents a simulation of a typical room, and your room may vary from that.
    PIR (predicted/estimated in-room response) has nothing to do with Klippel or the equipment used, although the Klippel NFS will generate far more accurate results compared to any other measurement device.

    PIR is part of the CEA-2034 standard, it makes no assumptions regarding a room and that is the point. It is purely based on anechoic frequency response measurements combined with the speaker's directivity. It is an excellent way to compare differences one might expect to hear between one speaker and another when listening in a room.

    PIR is a weighted average algorithm consisting of 44% soundpower, 44% early reflections, and 12% listening window.
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  10. #2630
    Join Date
    Nov 2019
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: The Tower Discussion Thread!

    Thanks for that explanation of Predicted In-Room Response. Good to know it isn't just a Klippel thing and is defined by a written standard (CEA = Consumer Electronics Association).

    "PIR is a weighted average algorithm consisting of 44% soundpower, 44% early reflections, and 12% listening window." I'm a little surprised that the direct sound from the speakers, or "listening window", contributes only 12% to the weighted average. Is this based on research showing that the early reflections + late reflections (soundpower) dominate over the direct sound for a typical listener position in a typical room?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •