That's the problem, even with big names, L-acoustic, d&b, Meyer Labs, you can't count on any honesty.
Side by side speaker tests - Lowther - Tannoy - TP1 - Worden Panasona
- Thread starter david pinnegar
- Start date
Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:
I trust Danley's specifications and Peavey's at least back when I was over product management, but that was last century.
Trust but verify. One thing I liked about large scale sound reinforcement is that it is harder to BS an auditorium full of listeners.
JR
Trust but verify. One thing I liked about large scale sound reinforcement is that it is harder to BS an auditorium full of listeners.
JR
david pinnegar
Member
I've recently taken to using one particular AKG D224 as reference as I've been looking at ribbon mics and testing other dynamics for which phantom power would be death and, using the software as I had been, the D224 matched up with the reference and didn't want the possibility of catastrophic muddle.
However, setting the measurement software to Frequency Response, attached is the graph of the D224 vs the reference mic, not as straight as I'd like.
I've tested today a Voigt horn and retested the TP1 London and in doing so tested the D224 against the reference. None of the bumps match up and I'm assuming that these may be caused
- by room reflection differences on account of the reference being omni and the D224 being cardioid
- possible phase or delay issues between the treble and bass capsules of the D224.
The tests today were repeated with the Voigt and the TP1 London at the speaker grill and at 1m.
The file AKG D224 38316 and reference was done with the Tannoy 611 which I've used as a reference speaker. Measurement variations could be caused on account of the two unit bass causing places of different interference and with the TP1 likewise with treble and bass horn.
The differences leave me somewhat at a loss but at least being consistent with this group of speaker measurements might give an idea at least about how the speakers behave.
This is neither the time of year nor weather nor light outside to be taking speakers out into a carpark or a wood, for which I apologise.
Best wishes
David P
However, setting the measurement software to Frequency Response, attached is the graph of the D224 vs the reference mic, not as straight as I'd like.
I've tested today a Voigt horn and retested the TP1 London and in doing so tested the D224 against the reference. None of the bumps match up and I'm assuming that these may be caused
- by room reflection differences on account of the reference being omni and the D224 being cardioid
- possible phase or delay issues between the treble and bass capsules of the D224.
The tests today were repeated with the Voigt and the TP1 London at the speaker grill and at 1m.
The file AKG D224 38316 and reference was done with the Tannoy 611 which I've used as a reference speaker. Measurement variations could be caused on account of the two unit bass causing places of different interference and with the TP1 likewise with treble and bass horn.
The differences leave me somewhat at a loss but at least being consistent with this group of speaker measurements might give an idea at least about how the speakers behave.
This is neither the time of year nor weather nor light outside to be taking speakers out into a carpark or a wood, for which I apologise.
Best wishes
David P
Attachments
I won't name who but a trick I heard used by a serious loudspeaker designer was to loop a test signal through a speaker measurement path multiple times. The errors would accumulate with every pass and become more pronounced. I think he started out using a music signal and how much it degraded after N passes through the loudspeaker measurement chain. This is only possible because we have high accuracy digital recording.
JR
JR
david pinnegar
Member
Whatever the niceties of measuring and presenting graphs . . . the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I've now been able to throw the Voigt horn and the Lowther Audiovector into the mix with finally the original track from the CD for direct comparison. All were recorded using the same D224 microphone for standardisation.
01:55 Lowther TP1A with PM5 02:58 Lowther TP1 London with DX2 03:57 Voigt with Audio Nirvana Standard 8 05:03 Lowther Audiovector (1963) with DX4 06:04 Tannoy Lynx 12" 07:12 Worden Panasona with Philips 9710 unit 08:10 Tannoy DU386 15" 09:09 Tannoy DU386 15" 10:03 Worden Panasona with Philips 9710 unit 11:03 Tannoy Lynx 12" 13:06 Lowther TP1A with PM5 14:08 Lowther TP1 London with DX2 15:07 Voigt with Michael Wallis bass horn extension 16:09 Lowther Audiovector with DX4 17:08 Original track for comparison
In normalising the files to the same peak volume one speaker stood out particularly for its accuracy.
Best wishes
David P
01:55 Lowther TP1A with PM5 02:58 Lowther TP1 London with DX2 03:57 Voigt with Audio Nirvana Standard 8 05:03 Lowther Audiovector (1963) with DX4 06:04 Tannoy Lynx 12" 07:12 Worden Panasona with Philips 9710 unit 08:10 Tannoy DU386 15" 09:09 Tannoy DU386 15" 10:03 Worden Panasona with Philips 9710 unit 11:03 Tannoy Lynx 12" 13:06 Lowther TP1A with PM5 14:08 Lowther TP1 London with DX2 15:07 Voigt with Michael Wallis bass horn extension 16:09 Lowther Audiovector with DX4 17:08 Original track for comparison
In normalising the files to the same peak volume one speaker stood out particularly for its accuracy.
Best wishes
David P
yes re Brand Image. I've seen copies of equipment riders for big name acts that have had a "No Peavey" condition on them !
Peavey's brand image problem was rooted in how many beginners purchased Peavey gear because it was all they could afford when first starting out. Their lack of experience reflected poorly on the gear.
JR
JR
Similar threads
