Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 28

Thread: Testing room/speaker acoustics

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,107

    Default Testing room/speaker acoustics

    I have invested many hours this weekend measuring various speakers in my 4 x 4m (approx.) listening room/study at home. I could not believe the results. I tried various (budget) microphones (such as the ECM8000) and finally used my master reference B&K 4133. I still didn't believe the results.

    After about ten hours (wasted) I eventually discovered five factors that may be of interest to anyone who is contemplating measuring room acoustics and/or planning to use Digital Room Correction ...

    1. The selection of measuing microphone is absolutely critical. I have measured three of these cheap uncalibrated mics. As (bad) luck would have it, the one I had at home - my No.3 ECM8000 - is up by a couple of dB's relative to my calibrated B&K reference 4133 at around 10kHz, and down by a couple at 20kHz, whereas my No. 1 ECM8000 (at work) has a slow roll-off starting at 10kHz. That's pretty good for budget microphones but do remember that unless you have a known calibrated mic to compare against you really are up a gum tree.

    2. Don't assume (as I did) that CoolEdit/Adobe Audition generates pink noise with an absolutely flat spectrum. It doesn't. So any CD burned from this will exhibit the HF droop or whatever which will corrupt the accuracy of the room measurements.

    3. Don't assume (as I did) that PC sound cards (and especially laptop sound cards) are flat with frequency: they are not.

    4. Don't assume (as I did) that external USB sound cards are flat. Some are much flatter than others as I found out. Use 48kHz not 44.1kHz sampling rate.

    5. Don't assume (as I did) that the CD player has a flat frequency response. Ditto the amplifier.

    Taken altogether, the errors were far more than acceptable: an over-read of about 2dB at 10kHz followed by an under-read of -6dB at 20kHz and various problems below 200Hz. Insignificant in the course of normal music but completely unacceptable for reference measurements.

    Recommendation: check the spectral content of the pink noise (loopback test, output to input) before you start. Use a known, calibrated mic. Yes, expensive.

    Most of all, if your ears tell you it sounds OK but your test equipments doesn't, refuse to believe your test equipment and find out why before proceeding, however long that takes.
    Last edited by A.S.; 09-05-2006 at 12:11 PM.
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,107

    Default Follow up: measuring mic problems ...

    Quote Originally Posted by A.S.
    ...used my master reference B&K 4133.
    Follow up:

    Unfortunately, there is a new twist. After yet more testing using a small speaker (with an obviously realistic size/bass output) it seems that my 4133 capsule (shown below) has developed an internal random noise problem (the capsule now generates spurious noise within itself) at low frequencies which is giving a overestimation of the speaker's actual bass output. The test equipment can not distinuish between the acoustic output of the speaker and that of the rumble generated in the microphone capsule. I experienced something similar about 15 years ago.

    To be absolutely sure about frequency response I have just ordered two brand new 4191 new-generation reference microphone capsules (that screws onto the B&K preamp) now from B&K Denmark (cost about USD2500) with a fresh calibration certificates. We have to be 100% certain in matters of frequency response. http://www.bksv.com/3032.asp

    So typical of engineering problems - layer upon layer of variables. But if you have an internal frame of reference ("I don't care what the test equipment says: I believe that it sounds OK/bad - let's find out why") you eventually get to the truth.

    P.S. Danish Pro Audio (DPA) and B&K are not the same company although they are both Danish. B&K exclusively sell the calibrated reference (measurement) microphones but they do not sell studio mics: DPA do, but they don't sell reference mics. As to which of these companies now actually manufactures the capsules I do not know except to say that B&K designed and manufactured the reference mics for decades.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by A.S.; 09-05-2006 at 11:13 PM.
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    146

    Default Re: Testing room/speaker acoustics

    Alan,

    Using a Radio Shack SPL meter (along with Rives Audio correction factors) and a Stereophile test CD with warble tones a 1/3 octave from 200 Hz down to 20 Hz, I found that my SHL5's, in the configuration in which I had them set, had a 8 to 9 db dip in one speaker only at 100 cycles (even though they looked to be symetrically set up in the room). They were close to flat in the other frequencies (with, of course, the expected drop off below 40 Hz). By moving the speakers around to various locations in the room, I was able to eliminate that dip, at the cost of a bit more roll-off in the bass (they're now farther away from any walls) and some peaks of about 6 to 7 db in the area between 200 and 100 Hz in one speaker. From this experience I conclude that speaker placement is not a simple thing, but is exceedingly important (I would not attempt it again without measurement). Finally, my question: how close to flat frequency response is it practical to strive for? I do have an equalizer in my system, so can bring down peaks (I understand that boosting dips is NOT a route to take).

    Thanks,
    Ned

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,107

    Default Re: Testing room/speaker acoustics

    Quote Originally Posted by Ned Mast
    ... how close to flat frequency response is it practical to strive for? I do have an equalizer in my system, so can bring down peaks (I understand that boosting dips is NOT a route to take).Ned
    Well, I think what you have demonstrated is the reality of real loudspeakers in real rooms and the miraculous ability of the human ear to hear through all those peaks and troughs.

    In my experience, a truly flat anechoic-like response below, say, 500Hz is neither possible nor, surprisingly, is it of paramount importance. I don't (personally) think that spot tones (even with warbles) will really give you a useful view of the room's acoustics - a 1/3 octave spectrum trace on-screen would be much more intuitive. There are several simple, possibly even free octave analyser plug-ins for your soundcard that will be much more useful to you and will, by they way they work, smooth out those 'hot' frequencies into a much more meaningful trend line. I wouldn't use anything else. {If you want to see the process in action, become a tester for the streamed a/v from my very own listening room - see the thread in Misc. - you'll see how I do it, live}.

    Having worked through just this exercise recently, I can pass on with confidence my findings: the 100Hz region contrasted to the 3kHz region should be weighted about 1:20 for its cricical importance to perceived audio quality: I have astonished myself (again!) just how ultra critical that crossover band is where the tiniest fractions of a dB make the difference between sweet and clean or agressive and fatiguing - despite what the octave analyser or simulator may say is a perfect frequency response. Not to my tired old ears it's not!

    PS: An afterthought, as I sit here listening to Steely Dan (I've been a big fan for 30 years) rather too loud (?) .... if the speakers are doing their job properly then no matter how loud well-recorded human voice is replayed, it should still sound sweet.
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    146

    Default Re: Testing room/speaker acoustics

    Thank you for your response, Alan. I shan't be overly concerned, then - the SHL5's sound wonderful with a bit of equalization, but then they sounded wonderful before the eq!

    Ned

  6. #6
    Douglas G A Murray Guest

    Default Re: Testing room/speaker acoustics

    Quote Originally Posted by A.S.

    5. Don't assume (as I did) that the CD player has a flat frequency response. Ditto the amplifier.

    [/I]
    Hi Alan

    Alan, I was aware of the mike issue. But CD and amplifiers (solid state) these days not flat within reference mike accuracy??!!

    Please elaborate.

    Many thanx

    Doug

  7. #7
    Douglas G A Murray Guest

    Default Re: Testing room/speaker acoustics

    Ned, here is what I posted on the REG audioforum regarding the radio Shack meter and measuring:

    (See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/regsau...m/message/7043 for the graphs.)

    Room = 5.0 m long * 3.9 m wide * 2.5m high

    SHL5?s symmetrically placed firing down the long dimension of the room. Distances from middle of front baffle of speaker to the walls : side = 103 cm; back = 89 cm.

    There is a 1.5m wide archway at the back of the room behind the listening position, which is 90 cm from the plane of the back wall. The archway leads to a space extending approx 9 m further back and 3.5 m wide ? the dining and kitchen area.

    The speaker are slightly toed in, angled to point at the centre of the archway. This is not 90 deg. classical stereo positioning, but one which is designed to minimise high freq. reflections, direct sound getting lost in the dining area and kitchen beyond the arch.

    The top graph is the in-room response I measured (both channels active) using Stereophile Editor?s Choice CD with warble tones and Radio Shack SPL meter. The room is fairly acoustically dead.

    The bottom graph is the near field measurement (one channel only active) at one meter away from the bottom tweeter. Here I made sure that all 1st reflection points were well padded except for the ceiling.

    (here are the relative measurements if you cannot see the graph ? 1 kHz was set to ~ 70 dB.) I used the correction factors at the Rives website.

    I am still experimenting but I have yet to find a speaker & seating position that gives me a good upper bass (120 ? 200Hz) and lower mid-bass (60 ? 80 Hz). I seem to get suck-out at one or the other. I have chosen at the moment to have a 5 dB suck out at (60 ? 80 Hz) and elevated upper bass rather than 12 dB suck out in the 120 ? 200Hz region. I managed the latter in spite of taking precautions in order to avoid Allison effect.


    Comments:

    1. Room bass extension is great down to < 30Hz

    2. Hopefully I can find a position where 60-200 Hz is elevated in the bass ready for EQ. To date I have not found a position without at least 5 dB troughs.

    3. I had heard about the dip around the SHL5 crossover. I did not expect that it would be as deep as this!

    4. I did not expect to see that degree of extra energy at about 6 ? 8kHz. See the near field up by ~6 dB! Surely this spells disaster when combined with the hearsay that older mikes had a peak in this region. And I have a large number of recordings of the late 60?s and 70?s. Decca, EMI, Deutch-Grammophone.

    5. What really caught my attention is the big roll-off > 10kHz.



    Number 5 got me thinking. Radio Shack say that the SPL meter response is C-weighted. C-weighting is rolled off at the bottom AND above 10 kHz. Yet the correction factors universally applied imply that the Radio Shack is fairly flat above 10 kHz ? nothing like the C-weighting. Frankly, I do not believe the near-field measurements above corrected as per the Rives figures above 10 kHz.


    Rives also imply on their site that the Radio Shacks are pretty consistent and that they have verified the correction curve.

    So, what is going on here?


    Further the Spec on the Radio Shack is accuracy of +/- 2dB (at loud and 1 kHz ? what about other frequencies).


    I am suspicious of the correction factors? validity and frankly a good deal sceptical of all ?ordinary? Radio Shack based home attempts at EQ, except for correcting the wildest of tonal imbalances.


    And then I saw this posted by Alan Shaw: mikes, CD players and amps (CD player and amps, mark you) all conspiring together to confound and render ordinary home EQ efforts futile!!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,107

    Default The pitfalls of testing room/speaker acoustics

    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas G A Murray
    The top graph is the in-room response I measured (both channels active) using Stereophile Editor?s Choice CD with warble tones and Radio Shack SPL meter. ... 5. What really caught my attention is the big roll-off > 10kHz. Number 5 got me thinking. Radio Shack say that the SPL meter response is C-weighted. C-weighting is rolled off at the bottom AND above 10 kHz
    Couple of comments here (and I can't actually see the graphs so I am working from your text) ...

    A. You must *never* drive both speakers at the same time when you make speaker/room measurements (this is implied in what you say). Your microphone will sum both constructively and destructively the sound waves from the two speakers and this wil definitely effect the frequency response measurement to the point that they will be useless.

    B. The microphone should not have any weighting at all. It should be calibrated to a known standard and with an up to date certificate. If the 'C' weighting can not be turned off (to what B&K call 'linear') then best foget the whole exercise and put the meter in the bin. It would be absolutely useless for the purposes of accurate measurement. (I looked up the C curve: it's roughly -12dB at 20kHz). Any room correction system based on a C weighted room acoustic measurement would definitely have to be aware of that otherwise the result would be that the room correction system would be presented with under-read of the room for which it would attempt a (needless) massive boost the speaker's output at the top end - the result would sound horrible. I guess - only a guess - that the claimed C weighting masks a rather poor capsule and/or electronics. As for the ballistics of the meter etc. etc. ..... error on top of error.

    C. Please don't ever use warble tone: I feel very strongly about this. I only use (1/3, 1/6, 1/12 or even 1/24th) octave filtered pink noise and I can not imagine any professional speaker designer using anything else - certainly not warble tones: Extremely difficult to interpret and present the room as a frightening acoustic mess (which it is). Remember: our ears can hear through almost all and every defect in the room.

    Pink noise has been the standard method for room measurement for as long as I can remember and is a noise spectrum which mimics that of music averaged over many minutes. Prove it yourself: using a computer based FFT spectrum analyser, hook this up to a CD player and average an entire classical music CD. Compare that spectrum with averaged pink noise which is therefore an appropriate stimulus for testing speakers in rooms and it gives you a trend line which you can usefully interpret to guide you as to adjusting speaker position etc..

    For room acoustic work, it is absolutely necessary to average the pink noise, typically over 5 seconds or so (easily done in the spectum analyser software): just watching the display jumping around isn't going to give you a very useful picture.

    All the above highlights the danger of using non-professional gear and why we are obliged on your behalf, to invest in Bruel & Kjaer measurement equipment regardless of cost. B&K is the Rolls Royce of audio measurement confidence. (B&K is not Danish Sound Technology, although there is some connection between them).
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    20

    Default Re: Testing room/speaker acoustics

    Alan ,

    Since you mentioned Steely Dan (and I confess that though I owned AJA on vinyl, I never replaced it on CD), how much "bite" should the brass have?

    This is an area (and I've used Van Morrison 's "Jackie Wilson Said" as a test) where most speakers don't sound not right. Actually to my ears, not enough "bite", at least not enough in the right manner.

    As far as a truly off-the-wall suggestion, if you like Steely Dan, check out the recent EMI remasters of the Donovan albums from the Sunshine Superman/Mellow Yellow years- jazz, as well and folk and pop influences, recorded in a beauitully simple, closely miked chamber muisc like style.

    (I know you're thinking that Donovan was a naive hippie as compared to the intelliegently caustic/cynical Steely Dan, but I don't think they ever wrote a song with the edge of "Season of the Witch".)

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,107

    Default Brass instruments - very difficult to reproduce ....

    Quote Originally Posted by s.a.b.
    Since you mentioned Steely Dan (and I confess that though I owned AJA on vinyl, I never replaced it on CD), how much "bite" should the brass have?

    This is an area (and I've used Van Morrison 's "Jackie Wilson Said" as a test) where most speakers don't sound not right. Actually to my ears, not enough "bite", at least not enough in the right manner.
    Now this really is an interesting point and one which I've mulled over for many years.

    First of all, the way a brass instrument projects sound is quite unlike others in the orchestra. You can think of a brass instrument as generating a penetrating searchlight beam akin to that of a lighthouse on a foggy night. The other instruments are more ominidirectional.

    Not only does the brass section have unique directionality, but the waveforms they produces are more like an electronic tone (say, a square wave) than a sine wave. Taken together, brass is, I agree, an extremely difficult instrument to both record and reproduce. If you look at the spectral content of a brass waveform it is quite distinctive and has a rich, complex harmonic structure with a lot of energy in those harmonics which require their soundwave to be generated simultaneously by the bass/mid driver and the tweeter - right through the crossver region and at a high level. This is where the difficulties for the designer really lie: relative to the fundamental, the harmonics are so strong that any mis-integration is audible and in a poor speaker tends to tear the instrument into two audible parts: the lower part (from the bass unit) and the higher frequencies (from the tweeter), neither fully blended.

    I don't think it is really possible to perfectly reproduce brass on any system - but you can get close. A further complication is that the shape of the 'bell' or mouth of a brass instrument is conceptually the same as that of a woofer's cone - and that means that one mouth is trying to speak for another mouth. See the problem? It's the same issue as a speaker at home (a box) playing in your room (another box) reproducing the sound of the studio or hall (both boxes) in which a cello (a highly resonant box) is playing ... you have a box in a box in a box reproducting a box, each picking up a little bit of character along the way.

    I can 'spice up' brass reproduction on a speaker system (by tuning the crossover) so that doubtless you'd love the way brass sounds - a nice 'bite', plenty of incisiveness - but the problem is that when we then play those other less directional instruments (and voice) with softer harmonics you'd recoil in horror. In fact, my eldest son was recently visiting at the same time I was experimenting with a crossover design, and Steely Dan was playing at the time. I demonstrated how I could peak-up the brass until it was really vivid, and we both agreed (I a little suspiciously, since I've been down this road many times) that the overall effect was exciting. "That's it Dad: stop fiddling - you've cracked it ..." were his famous last words. Of course, he leaves, I play different (orchestral, vocal, lounge jazz) music and over a period of days reverse the circuit design back to where it was. Don't ever design by committee! Trust your own judgement!

    Further thought: brass, more than perhaps any other instrument, highlights the unique clarity of the Harbeth RADIAL cone. Try brass on polypropylene for example, and brass' biting edge is suppressed to one extent or another. On Kevlar, it tends to sound the opposite: forced and cup-like. Remember what I said: each step in the reproduction chain is polluted to one degree or another by the characteristics of that part, and that character can not be removed later.

    You can not chemically remove the taste of peat from whisky; it is bound up into the fabric of the final experience.
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  11. #11
    Douglas G A Murray Guest

    Default Re: The pitfalls of testing room/speaker acoustics

    Quote Originally Posted by A.S.
    Couple of comments here (and I can't actually see the graphs so I am working from your text) ...

    A. You must *never* drive both speakers at the same time when you make speaker/room measurements (this is implied in what you say). Your microphone will sum both constructively and destructively the sound waves from the two speakers and this wil definitely effect the frequency response measurement to the point that they will be useless.

    B. The microphone should not have any weighting at all.... If the 'C' weighting can not be turned off (to what B&K call 'linear') then best foget the whole exercise and put the meter in the bin.

    C. Please don't ever use warble tone:
    My thoughts arising from the quote:

    1. Surely the point of in-room measurement is to investigate, not how one speaker behaves, but how 2 speakers sound at a particular point in the room? (see point A quoted)
    Do you wish to respond to this, Alan?


    2. AS's recommendation to NEVER use warble tones makes theoretical sense to me and I can say that my recent experience is supports this - wild variation of Radio Shack response from position to position as little as 30 cm apart while my ears were telling me that there was not that much change in the sound of either pink noise or music. In the light of this, the prevalent dissemination of warble tones from folk like JA of Stereophile bedazes me.

    3. It seems that AS does not endorse the use of the Radio Shack meter. I had come to this conclusion myself (see my 1st post on this) for anything but the craziest sound imbalance. Note that I did use the "official" Rives Radio Shack meter correction factors, but I am suspicious of these too.

    6. Maybe AS's point A explains, at least partially why I have not yet found a position where there is not a deep trough 60 - 80 Hz.

    7. Maybe many of the MEASURED peaks and troughs owing to 2 speakers giving rise to constructive and destructive interference (AS'as point A) are not musically significant for the following reason: Interference occurs at a point in space, approximated by the mike's aperture, whereas your ears (certainly mine!) are not located at the same point in space. Thus the interference pattern with 2 speakers as source will be totally different at the mike diaphragm compared to 2 ears separated by a head. I would guess that one would need to mimic human hearing with some sort of synthesis of 2 pickups.

    Alan, as always I would apreciate your comments as you see appropiate. Also, I was interested to read that you do not assume CD and amplifiers (solid state) flatness. I had thought that this was the least of worries these days. Would you care to elaborate?

    Regards

    Doug

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,107

    Default Re: The pitfalls of testing room/speaker acoustics

    Quote Originally Posted by Douglas G A Murray
    Surely the point of in-room measurement is to investigate, not how one speaker behaves, but how 2 speakers sound at a particular point in the room? (see point A quoted)
    Do you wish to respond to this, Alan?

    ... as always I would apreciate your comments as you see appropiate. Also, I was interested to read that you do not assume CD and amplifiers (solid state) flatness.
    Yes it may be counter-intuitive to measure only one speaker at a time but as humans we have two ears and the ability to discrimInate direction (etc.). But the single measurement microphone can't: it just reports the sum total of the energy it receives, from the two speakers playing together.

    Consider this: where the path length from speaker A is different to that from speaker B to the mic, if they are exactly half a wavelength different, as far as the mic is concerned that is total cancellation = a deep (infinitely deep?) notch. So, although the speakers are flat in themselves at that frequency, in that precise place in the room with the mic at that exact point as far as you the tester is made aware by the meter, there is a drop in energy.

    As for amps: whether it's a design issue or not I don't know, but one I checked recently was -6dB at 20kHz - not that I think that would necessarily be audible. Let's not forget that amps run hot and hence do age. It's interesting though that an old, never-serviced Quad 303 that I have on my room measurement test trolley is as flat as a pancake even after all these years.
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Bad Münder, Germany
    Posts
    63

    Default Re: Testing room/speaker acoustics

    I found a handheld SPL meter called Acoustilyzer from NTI. It seams to be a good solution to have a rough idea of room acoustics and speaker position. I wonder if anyone used it / owns it. Here is a link.

    http://www.nti-audio.com/Home/Produc...S/Default.aspx

    Together with the MiniSPL microphone it seems to be a good starting point for an acceptable price.

    What do you think?

  14. #14
    al2002 Guest

    Default Re: Follow up: measuring mic problems ...

    Have you considered the ACO Pacific capsules? They are cheaper - at least here in the US - than the B&Ks and are fully compatible. Mine is 8 years old and has been trouble free - touch wood - to date.

    Also, Liberty Instruments sells Panasonic Electret based mikes for under $ 150. The come with an individual calibration file that can be imported into LAUDm Praxis and so on. DIYers can buy the capsules only with a calibration disc for much less.


    Quote Originally Posted by A.S.
    Follow up:

    Unfortunately, there is a new twist. After yet more testing using a small speaker (with an obviously realistic size/bass output) it seems that my 4133 capsule (shown below) has developed an internal random noise problem (the capsule now generates spurious noise within itself) at low frequencies which is giving a overestimation of the speaker's actual bass output. The test equipment can not distinuish between the acoustic output of the speaker and that of the rumble generated in the microphone capsule. I experienced something similar about 15 years ago.

    To be absolutely sure about frequency response I have just ordered two brand new 4191 new-generation reference microphone capsules (that screws onto the B&K preamp) now from B&K Denmark (cost about USD2500) with a fresh calibration certificates. We have to be 100% certain in matters of frequency response. http://www.bksv.com/3032.asp

    So typical of engineering problems - layer upon layer of variables. But if you have an internal frame of reference ("I don't care what the test equipment says: I believe that it sounds OK/bad - let's find out why") you eventually get to the truth.

    P.S. Danish Pro Audio (DPA) and B&K are not the same company although they are both Danish. B&K exclusively sell the calibrated reference (measurement) microphones but they do not sell studio mics: DPA do, but they don't sell reference mics. As to which of these companies now actually manufactures the capsules I do not know except to say that B&K designed and manufactured the reference mics for decades.

  15. #15
    al2002 Guest

    Default Re: Testing room/speaker acoustics

    I have the NTI Minilyzer - same size as the Acoustilyzer, but intended for electrical measurements - and Minirator. The display on the Minilyzer is too small to be useful for accurate redout of graphical information You really need to have the USB interface installed and upload the data to a PC to use this to its full advantage.

    Alas, the Acoustilyzer + Minirator combo is not cheap. For similar money I would suggest you get a fully featured PC based test system like Praxis.

    Quote Originally Posted by T.W.
    I found a handheld SPL meter called Acoustilyzer from NTI. It seams to be a good solution to have a rough idea of room acoustics and speaker position. I wonder if anyone used it / owns it. Here is a link.

    http://www.nti-audio.com/Home/Produc...S/Default.aspx

    Together with the MiniSPL microphone it seems to be a good starting point for an acceptable price.

    What do you think?

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,107

    Default Re: Testing room/speaker acoustics

    It's a difficult choice between a hand-held instrument which has limited capabilities but a short learning curve and the excellent PC-based PRAXIS system which is so much more capable but has a steeper learning curve. (We use the former Liberty Audio Suite which is DOS based and a delight to use).

    Praxis link here.

    You may be interested in our User Group thread on room acoustics: http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?t=257
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  17. #17
    al2002 Guest

    Default Re: Testing room/speaker acoustics

    Good point. If you can afford only one, PRAXIS is the way to go.

    Quote Originally Posted by A.S.
    It's a difficult choice between a hand-held instrument which has limited capabilities but a short learning curve and the excellent PC-based PRAXIS system which is so much more capable but has a steeper learning curve. (We use the former Liberty Audio Suite which is DOS based and a delight to use).

    Praxis link here.

    You may be interested in our User Group thread on room acoustics: http://www.harbeth.co.uk/usergroup/showthread.php?t=257

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,107

    Default Re: Testing room/speaker acoustics

    Do you use PRAXIS? I have corresponded with Bill Waslo (and Tony Seaford) over the years and find Bill to be hugely approachable and pragmatic. Other test equipment suppliers have a tendency to be defensive and disinterested - even disingenuous. Bill/Tony's positive attitude alone makes the purchase of PRAXIS a zero-risk investment and I endorse your recommendation.
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

  19. #19
    al2002 Guest

    Default Re: Testing room/speaker acoustics

    Quote Originally Posted by A.S.
    Do you use PRAXIS? I have corresponded with Bill Waslo (and Tony Seaford) over the years and find Bill to be hugely approachable and pragmatic. Other test equipment suppliers have a tendency to be defensive and disinterested - even disingenuous. Bill/Tony's positive attitude alone makes the purchase of PRAXIS a zero-risk investment and I endorse your recommendation.
    I use Praxis as an amateur. It has a very full feature set and is quite useful.

    Agree with you 100% regarding the Company. Bill and Carol are both very helpful and provide first-class customer service.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    South of England, UK
    Posts
    4,107

    Default PRAXIS audio test system

    From www.libinst.com

    There doesn't seem to be a current active forum for this system, which I have just purchased to complete the M40.1 development. It is complex, but extremely flexible and capable.

    Are there any PRAXIS users out there?
    Alan A. Shaw
    Designer, owner
    Harbeth Audio UK

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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