Alan Shaw, Harbeth audio: No way to predict bass response with nearfield technique

[fjhuerta]

True or false?

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/1008har/index5.html

I find this pretty interesting...

[---k---]

I read that last month. I think it is a manufacturer just complaining about the measurements of his speakers. They were HORRIBLE.


Sterophile uses the same measurement technique on with every speaker. JA often mentions how the nearfield technique causes a "slight rise" in the base. But, the results often appear to be accurate and correlated to thier listening. I've never seen other manufacturer's complain. JA's measurements are very well respected.

I think this guy is just full of crap. But, I'm sure there are lots of people who like the sound of his speaker.

[Mazeroth]

$13,000/pair for those monkey coffins? Sign me up!

[dlr]

I read that last month. I think it is a manufacturer just complaining about the measurements of his speakers. They were HORRIBLE.


Sterophile uses the same measurement technique on with every speaker. JA often mentions how the nearfield technique causes a "slight rise" in the base. But, the results often appear to be accurate and correlated to thier listening. I've never seen other manufacturer's complain. JA's measurements are very well respected.

I think this guy is just full of crap. But, I'm sure there are lots of people who like the sound of his speaker.

He does have a point, I have to agree. Given the proximity of the ports to the woofer, any close-mic measurement may be contaminated with output from the other nearby port and driver. At the low frequencies involved, the only way to confirm the quasi-anechoic method is as he says.

Dave

[Dennis H]

I dunno, he could be right. Like we were talking about in another thread, you need to apply BSC to your nearfield measurements if the splice point is very high and I don't know if JA does that. And Zaph has talked about the woofer polluting nearfield port measurements and vice versa. He recommended putting a sheet of ply or something between the two to increase the path length difference.

As for nobody complaining about JA's methods, SL complained plenty when JA did his nearfield splice thing with a dipole (I think it was a Maggie.) JA's bass measurement was clearly wrong but he didn't change it after SL's letter, just said (in effect) that's how we measure everything so too bad.

[---k---]

He does have a point, I have to agree. Given the proximity of the ports to the woofer, any close-mic measurement may be contaminated with output from the other nearby port and driver. At the low frequencies involved, the only way to confirm the quasi-anechoic method is as he says.

Dave

I see you point and agree. But, the manufacturer seemed to go way beyond that, calling the whole measurement process invalid. I accept the process it isn't perfect, but I don't think it is as bad as he is making it out to be.

[augerpro]

One thing I can say about this speaker having heard it RMAF is that the drivers seemed promising and it was voiced well, but at no time did it ever disappear. I could literally hear the baffle.

[fjhuerta]

I see you point and agree. But, the manufacturer seemed to go way beyond that, calling the whole measurement process invalid. I accept the process it isn't perfect, but I don't think it is as bad as he is making it out to be.

Actually, the only reason I still read Stereophile is John Atkinson. I don't even read what the reviewers say anymore - it's always the same stuff. I simply skip to the technical measurements.

[---k---]

Actually, the only reason I still read Stereophile is John Atkinson. I don't even read what the reviewers say anymore - it's always the same stuff. I simply skip to the technical measurements.

Me too.

[---k---]

One thing I can say about this speaker having heard it RMAF is that the drivers seemed promising and it was voiced well, but at no time did it ever disappear. I could literally hear the baffle.

Interesting.