Measured Amp and Cab voicings

[tombowlus]

An anechic chamber is nice to use. I suppose that going outside and pointing the speaker skyward to performs the tests doesn’t work too well if it is always raining.

Stepped/gated in a big a$$ room works fairly well.

 

[beans-on-toast]

Even if Fdeck were talking about a standard, why wouldn't a subjective listen vs. an objective standard test be eye opening, or unexpected?

It can be. When you test something based on your senses and you like it and the measured specs don't confirm what you are expecting, it is an eye opener.

I bought an Apple computer monitor that had a crummy contrast ratio relative to any of the fancy monitor's specs that were out at the time. But the Apple screen displays looked way better. Some cabs sound fantastic but the numbers don't so look good on paper. If you make selections just based on the numbers, you are probably buying and selling a lot of cabs.

 

[agedhorse]

Imagine if they could do this for instrument cabs... well, they can, but won't

Invalid Link Removed

Sure we could, but the cost involved to generate EASE data is quite high and the value to 99% of the market is just about zero, which is why it's not done.

I have done this on some pro audio products in the past, it's quite a chore.

 

[agedhorse]

An anechic chamber is nice to use. I suppose that going outside and pointing the speaker skyward to performs the tests doesn’t work too well if it is always raining.

Outside, where you have an absorptive ground boundary (grass works surprisingly well) and free from close boundaries other than the 1/2-space ground plane is an option (one that I have at my disposal). It should be noted that when the ground plane is absorptive, the measurements you end up with look like full space measurements (sensitivity specifically)

 

[GrapeBass]

Sure we could, but the cost involved to generate EASE data is quite high and the value to 99% of the market is just about zero, which is why it's not done.

I have done this on some pro audio products in the past, it's quite a chore.

I know, we used to do this with many of our speakers... built special equipment etc. Definitely not for the hobbyist but would be a great thing to do.

 

[GrapeBass]

Outside, where you have an absorptive ground boundary (grass works surprisingly well) and free from close boundaries other than the 1/2-space ground plane is an option (one that I have at my disposal). It should be noted that when the ground plane is absorptive, the measurements you end up with look like full space measurements (sensitivity specifically)

neighbors, both domestic and commercial don't like this much ;-)

 

[agedhorse]

I know, we used to do this with many of our speakers... built special equipment etc. Definitely not for the hobbyist but would be a great thing to do.

Why would it be so great if 99% of the users have no interest. By the time labor and data gathering plus the significant cost of the software license is factored it, it could easily cost over $2500 per cabinet to generate the EASE speaker models. So, for a typical speaker line of say 5 or 6 models, $10k-$15k would be a reasonable cost. If it was really beneficial to a reasonable number of customers it might make sense, but otherwise it's just an exercise in wasting money (which every customer would end up subsidizing).

 

[BadExample]

It can be. When you test something based on your senses and you like it and the measured specs don't confirm what you are expecting, it is an eye opener.

I bought an Apple computer monitor that had a crummy contrast ratio relative to any of the fancy monitor's specs that were out at the time. But the Apple screen displays looked way better. Some cabs sound fantastic but the numbers don't so look good on paper. If you make selections just based on the numbers, you are probably buying and selling a lot of cabs.

I agree with that view. Kind of a nutshell version of how I understood fdeck.

 

[GrapeBass]

Why would it be so great if 99% of the users have no interest. By the time labor and data gathering plus the significant cost of the software license is factored it, it could easily cost over $2500 per cabinet to generate the EASE speaker models. So, for a typical speaker line of say 5 or 6 models, $10k-$15k would be a reasonable cost. If it was really beneficial to a reasonable number of customers it might make sense, but otherwise it's just an exercise in wasting money (which every customer would end up subsidizing).

True, I think that people 'generally' don't care, plus the great number of bass speaker cabinets being sold I don't believe it's close to being cost effective.

 

[paulraphael]

I think if the purpose is to just help people comparison shop, there's no need for a thorough model. You don't have to create a pile of data so your 1% of customers with engineering degrees can buy the equipment sight-unseen. You just need to give enough so that a reasonably technically literate customer can narrow down their shopping list.

Probably all the nuances of the speakers—impedance bumps and troughs, off-axis performance, odd resonances, etc.—are more than you need to get into. Just a basic frequency response curve would tell a lot and help a customer get into the right ballpark. Does the thing have a scooped midrange? Exaggerated highs? Extended deep bass response? A bump at 400hz? This stuff should be basic, but trying to figure it out from a long forum thread full of subjective descriptions can sometimes make you crazy. Between this kind of response curve and the published specs (power handling, sensitivity, size, weight) you should know if the thing is worth considering.

 

[JimChjones]

[snip]You just need to give enough so that a reasonably technically literate customer can narrow down their shopping list. [snip]
Probably all the nuances of the speakers—impedance bumps and troughs, off-axis performance, odd resonances, etc.—are more than you need to get into. .

While I agree with the premise, I'm not sure that it makes things much simpler. I think if a pro manufacturer produces a chart they're going to be held to it, so they still end up having to do the measurements in a refined test environment, in which case the problems end up much the same as they would be in creating a proper chart. The alternative is not to produce a chart, but produce descriptions based on the measurements, in which case we're back to subjective language anyway.