Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: Time for some science

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,538

    Default Time for some science

    I have seen a lot of discussion about horizontally positioned MTM centers, with many consumers pointing to off-axis lobing issues that are clearly revealed in contour plots.

    Contour plots, as generated by the Kippel NFS, are true anechoic measurements. They display each *individual* off-axis angle and indicate the amount of amplitude change using colors. They are a useful tool for a quick examination of the overall directivity of a speaker.

    The problem is that they do not represent what we hear. We do not hear individual off-axis responses. For example, at 20 degrees off-axis, we do not just hear the response at 20-degrees, we hear a weighted summation of all of the off-axis angles.

    Below is the vertical contour plot of the 340SE2, which would be the horizontal contour plot of the same speaker when positioned horizontally.


    You will note the frequency range of lobing is mostly between 800Hz to 2.8kHz. The contour plot shows this area being quite messy - to the inexperienced, it simply looks horrible.

    But how does this translate into what we are hearing? As I mentioned above, we hear a summation of all off-axis angles, we do not hear a single angle.

    Below is a comparison between the on-axis in-room response of our CMT-340SE2 center and in-room response of the same speaker with the mic at 20 degrees to the right. Microphone is at ear-level, positioned 8 ½ feet back from the center, with the center speaker positioned as most would place it. The mic was then moved over to the right by exactly 3 feet (which translates to an off-axis horizontal angle of 20 degrees)

    I could not move the mic further to the right, as it gets much too close to that sidewall, which has a far more dramatic effect on the response than lobing would ever cause.


    Blue trace is on-axis, brown trace is the 20-degree measurement. BTW, that on-axis in-room response for a center looks fantastic and does indeed closely mirror the predicted in-room response of the 340SE2 center.

    *Ignore the response below 300Hz as below this frequency, the response is dominated by room modes.

    You will note that the frequency range of the off-axis lobing was well represented in the contour plot, as the off-axis response shows a dip in that same range. That dip is ~ 3dB. When you factor in that most rooms will create +/- 10 dB peaks and dips, actual audibility of this 3dB dip is suspect.

    Is it ideal? Certainly not, however, all center speakers have major compromises and many simply can not fit a properly designed 3-way center due to the significant increase in speaker height.

    Is this anywhere near as bad as many would conclude by looking at just the contour plot? That is a firm no. We are fast approaching nearly 10,000 CMT-340 centers out there, I honestly can’t recall even a single complaint about off-axis issues.

    There have been questions thrown our way (and towards other manufacturers as well) as to why we don’t post a horizontal contour plot for the 340SE2 center. The reason is simple enough, contour plots are generally misunderstood – and, with regard to Ascend, we don’t need to.

    Why don't we need to?

    We post far more critical data as to the off-axis performance of the 340SE2 center, data that actually represents what a listener would hear in a listening environment. This data is both peer-reviewed and accepted and we spent a ton of time developing this unique measurement with some assistance from the designer of the NFS himself.

    Below is our published CMT-340SE2 center Off-Axis Estimated In-Room Response:



    Note just how closely this unique measurement mirrors the actual on- and off-axis in-room measurements I took of the 340SE2 center using REW.

    The green trace (20 degs off-axis) is 3dB down from the on-axis (black trace) in the exact same frequency range. Rather remarkable how closely they compare with one being anechoic and the other in what I would call a typical listening environment.

    This measurement is quite difficult to generate though, I do not think it even possible to do without an NFS, and even with the NFS, it is complex. However, it is a FAR MORE accurate representation of off-axis performance compared to a contour plot, as I have just proven.

    Once again, a quick look at just how accurate our predicted off-axis measurement is to actual:


    It is my hope that our off-axis EIR measurement will eventually become the standard to evaluate off-axis performance, as it is indeed a properly weighted summation of all of the off-axis angles we hear, with the listener being seated at different off-axis angles.
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2023
    Posts
    19

    Default Re: Time for some science

    EXCELLENT post. Thank you for the time put into this .

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,538

    Default Re: Time for some science

    Quote Originally Posted by rvsixer View Post
    EXCELLENT post. Thank you for the time put into this .
    My pleasure, well worth the time in showing real-world results on the accuracy of those predicted (estimated) in-room response measurements. I knew they would be close, but I honestly didn't expect them to be *that* close. It was also time for me to refresh myself a bit on REW
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    360

    Default Re: Time for some science

    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    My pleasure, well worth the time in showing real-world results on the accuracy of those predicted (estimated) in-room response measurements. I knew they would be close, but I honestly didn't expect them to be *that* close. It was also time for me to refresh myself a bit on REW
    Hi Dave, didn't you have some acoustic treatments on the right wall?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    165

    Default Re: Time for some science

    And it’s things like this why I will only buy Ascend speakers. Honesty. You know exactly what your are getting. great info!
    Last edited by diesel79; 02-08-2023 at 05:50 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,538

    Default Re: Time for some science

    Quote Originally Posted by mikesiskav View Post
    Hi Dave, didn't you have some acoustic treatments on the right wall?
    Yes, took them down to better mimic a typical room. We designed that room so that we can easily hang or remove the 4" thick acoustic foam panels.

    I did also take measurements with them up, the differences were (surprisingly) very minimal and only in the very top end. I was too lazy to put them back up, but we have a demo tomorrow and another on Friday so I have to set the demo room back up.

    Mike - I used a Surface Pro 7+ (windows 11) with REW and I was surprised at how well it worked. I have had some issues with REW on other laptops, but this combo worked really well.
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2023
    Posts
    19

    Default Re: Time for some science

    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    Yes, took them down to better mimic a typical room. We designed that room so that we can easily hang or remove the 4" thick acoustic foam panels.

    I did also take measurements with them up, the differences were (surprisingly) very minimal and only in the very top end. I was too lazy to put them back up, but we have a demo tomorrow and another on Friday so I have to set the demo room back up.
    Yes with 4" panels it's expected mostly mids/highs will be affected. Broadband absorbers (6" min. and better at 8" +) will cover bass/mid/highs.
    Space your 4" ones up to 4" off the wall creating an air gap, they will dig a little deeper (any further than this, and they start to become more reflective and less absorptive).

    Info (not foam tested here, but same results/trends would come with foam of similar gas flow resistance):
    https://jhbrandt.net/wp-content/uplo...Absorption.pdf
    https://jhbrandt.net/wp-content/uplo...ffy-vs-703.pdf

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,538

    Default Re: Time for some science

    Quote Originally Posted by rvsixer View Post
    Yes with 4" panels it's expected mostly mids/highs will be affected. Broadband absorbers (6" min. and better at 8" +) will cover bass/mid/highs.
    Space your 4" ones up to 4" off the wall creating an air gap, they will dig a little deeper (any further than this, and they start to become more reflective and less absorptive).

    Info (not foam tested here, but same results/trends would come with foam of similar gas flow resistance):
    https://jhbrandt.net/wp-content/uplo...Absorption.pdf
    https://jhbrandt.net/wp-content/uplo...ffy-vs-703.pdf
    rvsixer, not to sound condescending (that is not my intention) but we do no know a bit about about absorption. We are certainly not looking to absorb bass or even mids. Our panels were purposely built and installed by us to absorb slap echo in our demo room, as it was quite a lively room due to a very large section of glass on the opposite wall. Ultimate goal was to dramatically improve RT60, which it does, while *not* absorbing too much in the way of reflections so as to reduce actual spaciousness.

    My previous comment regarding absorption was a positive one, I expected more high frequency absorption due to the panels compared to what we measured, which I was pleased about. It means the panels are doing exactly what our goal was for them
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2023
    Posts
    19

    Default Re: Time for some science

    Quote Originally Posted by davef View Post
    rvsixer, not to sound condescending (that is not my intention) but we do no know a bit about about absorption. We are certainly not looking to absorb bass or even mids. Our panels were purposely built and installed by us to absorb slap echo in our demo room, as it was quite a lively room due to a very large section of glass on the opposite wall. Ultimate goal was to dramatically improve RT60, which it does, while *not* absorbing too much in the way of reflections so as to reduce actual spaciousness.

    My previous comment regarding absorption was a positive one, I expected more high frequency absorption due to the panels compared to what we measured, which I was pleased about. It means the panels are doing exactly what our goal was for them
    My apologies, was not my intention to imply you didn't know about absorption, decay time improvement, etc.

    I suppose I misinterpreted the 'surprisingly' minimal measurement differences you found between panels up and panels down, whereas in my own experience that would be the expected result of typical 4" foam panels. Great your customized panels/treatment met your goals.

    Again, my apologies for the misinterpretation. Sometimes too easy to do over forums. Now on to measuring my own new room and getting ideas on the treatment needed; I am expecting RT60 times WAY up there as it's all tile floors, a big window on one side, etc.
    Last edited by rvsixer; 02-12-2023 at 04:52 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,538

    Default Re: Time for some science

    Quote Originally Posted by rvsixer View Post
    Again, my apologies for the misinterpretation. Sometimes too easy to do over forums. Now on to measuring my own new room and getting ideas on the treatment needed; I am expecting RT60 times WAY up there as it's all tile floors, a big window on one side, etc.
    Yeah, our demo room was initially a disaster. Tile floors, bare walls, a huge glass wall section... We put down a large thick shag rug, it looks ridiculous but it is effective. That combined with our panels throughout the room, and bass traps in the corners have turned this room into my personal listening space when I need a break from work and need to just enjoy music. Spent 3+ hours in there yesterday with a glass of scotch and some Jeff Oster:

    https://jeffoster.com/
    .
    .
    .
    Good Sound To You!

    David Fabrikant
    www.ascendacoustics.com

Posting Permissions

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