CLIO Clinic

[Zilch]

Acquired used on a tip from Ian Mackenzie for $400: board, cables, software, mic, manual.

I need to purchase a computer for dedicated use in the "laboratory." I was thinking a laptop, but that's not a good option, apparently. The requirements seem modest; looks like any of today's cheapest desktops will do, another $500, maybe, else dedicate this old clunker to science in there.... :p

[Mr. Widget]

You seem to be missing a very important part... the signal conditioner. It is an outboard device that connects to the board that you mount inside your computer.

Widget

[Zilch]

:hmm: Not shown or mentioned in this manual.

Off to the Audiomatica website:

http://www.audiomatica.com/

An earlier 16-Bit (versus 18-Bit) version, apparently:

http://www.audiomatica.com/download/deplianthr-2000.pdf

Inquiry underway.... ;)

[Mr. Widget]

I suggest you send them the photo of your gear and confirm you have a complete system that will run their current software...

It may be that you simply have a very old version. It may be fine.


Widget

[4313B]

Ask them what card you got too. PCI or ISA.

[Zilch]

It's ISA. Newer one is PCI.

It'll run up to Version 6.5 software under Win98.

I think that means it'll have to go with the present computer.

PCI version will run newer Version 7 software under Win98 or XP.

[Mr. Widget]

Did you get a calibration file for your mic? Does that vintage software support a calibration file?

Widget

[JuniorJBL]

It's ISA. Newer one is PCI.

It'll run up to Version 6.5 software under Win98.

I think that means it'll have to get the present computer.

PCI version will run newer Version 7 software under Win98 or XP.

You will need to find an older PC as the new ones do not have ISA slots.

most PII's and some PIII's mainboards have them. ;)

[Ken Pachkowsky]

You will need to find an older PC as the new ones do not have ISA slots.

most PII's and some PIII's mainboards have them. ;)

If you want. I have a P111 650 with a gig of ram that you can have. I have almost all the parts you need to build a complete system. Would be happy to let you have them free.

Ken

[4313B]

You will need to find an older PC as the new ones do not have ISA slots.

most PII's and some PIII's mainboards have them. ;)Thanks for clarifying that. I guess I need to spell E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G O-U-T. ;)

[Zilch]

Thank you, guys. This old Compaq has several ISA slots, and should run the "Depliant" HR2000 card.

However, Audiomatica informs me:


Actually Audiomatica is promoting a very good offer to the CLIO Isa customers, a "trade" Isa to PCI, and this is the only available upgrade; the new CLIOwin 7 works starting from CLIO PCI.

Cost unknown, but I have inquired as to how to accomplish it.... :thmbsup:

I duly note that "trade" is in quotes.... :p


Did you get a calibration file for your mic? Does that vintage software support a calibration file?The mic came with a preprinted calibration chart, but no separate "file" that I find.

There is a calibration procedure in the manual, however....

[Mr. Widget]

The mic came with a preprinted calibration chart, but no separate "file" that I find.

There is a calibration procedure in the manual, however....The newer software accepts a data file and corrects for the mic. With the calibration file I have, my setup is calibrated to +/- 0.5dB... the the calibration equipment was rated at +/- 0.25dB and my Clio hardware is +/- 0.25dB.

Good enough for me.

Widget

[Zilch]

Good enough for me.I forget if you have Mic-01 or Mic-02.

01, it says, is for anechoic, and 02 for reverberant. Only difference is the length, apparently. Any insight or opinion?

Note: Toll-free number to e-speakers, the US distributor, gets an answering service forward to voice mail:

http://www.e-speakers.com/products/cliowin.html

$1370 for CLIO Standard or $599 for Clio Lite, plus $258 for a microphone.

$110 for the "Lite" mic.

YIKES!

[It's Italian, tho.... ;) ]

[Robh3606]

"$1370 for CLIO Standard or $599 for Clio Lite, plus $258 for a microphone.

YIKES!"

Hello Zilch

You said it!!! I got the Lite version with the Lite 002 Microphone. I have not installed it yet. Let you know when I power it up for a spin. Your calibration file may be on the floppy so do a contents search and see if it's there. Back it up to CD or your harddrive as soon as you can. I have bad luck with those damn things self destructing.

Rob:bouncy:

[Zilch]

Cool, Rob! That's three of us.

Post a pic of what you get with Lite, please.

Forum members with CLIO please step forward and share here. :yes:

[Mr. Widget]

I forget if you have Mic-01 or Mic-02.

01, it says, is for anechoic, and 02 for reverberant. Only difference is the length, apparently. Any insight or opinion?The only difference between mics is length. The longer one is always preferred.. the shorter one is for convenience. The difference between the Lite mic and standard mic is the case and the mic clip. I have the lite mic and had to modify a shock mount to fit the very thin mic body. I had my mic calibrated by a third party.

I met with the two principals of Audiomatica at last year's AES Convention. They assured me that the Lite mics were identical to the standard mics. Each mic comes with a voltage sensitivity rating as well... this is critical for accurate SPL measurements.

Widget

[Zilch]

Each mic comes with a voltage sensitivity rating as well... this is critical for accurate SPL measurements.Yup, it's written on the calibration card in the mic case.

This one's 19.8 mV/Pa as of 12/05/01, so this Standard system is about 4 years old, apparently.

[Zilch]

"Trade" = $520 plus shipping:

UPGRADE CLIO ISA TO CLIO PCI Euro 438.00
-PCI PC BOARD + SIGNAL CONDITIONER
-CABLES
-CLIOWIN 7

Looks like a deal.... :thmbsup:

[Mr. Widget]

"Trade" = $520 plus shipping:

UPGRADE CLIO ISA TO CLIO PCI Euro 438.00
-PCI PC BOARD + SIGNAL CONDITIONER
-CABLES
-CLIOWIN 7

Looks like a deal.... :thmbsup:Why get current? I think I'd just use the older Clio... I have done all of my measurements so far with Clio 6.5 and I like it. 7 does seem a bit nicer, but the manual and disc are sitting on my desk still.

Widget

[Zilch]

Why get current?'Cause it'll run on a new computer, mostly. I don't want to mess with an old one in the lab, if I can reasonably avoid it.

It's looking like I'll still be saving enough to cover that, $450, and be running the latest configuration on all new gear....

[Mr. Widget]

It is a very fair offer from the folks at Audiomatica, and I suppose it makes sense in the long run.

Let us know when you get the gear.


Widget

[Zilch]

E-speakers just responded. No upgrade available through distribution, only factory direct, from Italy.

Wonder how much U.S. Customs is gonna grab.... :blink:

[Ian Mackenzie]

Just make the thing go and post some screen dumps for Christ sakes..I don't wanta be in a nursing home reading this thread.;)

[Zilch]

I don't wanta be in a nursing home reading this thread.;)Heh, heh.

Thanks again, Ian.

We'll get there, I PROMISE!! :thmbsup:

[Mr. Widget]

...I don't wanta be in a nursing home reading this thread.;):rotfl:

Got a crystal ball do ya?


Widget

[Robh3606]

Just installed and calibrated Clio Lite 7.0. Was a breeze except for a Windows Instalment issue where the hardware was recognized and a driver loaded with no new hardware prompts from Windows??? So it's up and running!!!! Now I just have to try some basic measurements and see how the Microphone is and how well the Behringer Microphone I have compares with the Clio Microphone. A sugestion for someone purchasing a new system. I asked if the Microphone was calibrated which it is. What I wanted was the FR calibration curve not just the preasure calibration. If you ask make sure you are clearer than I was.

Zilch how's it going with your trade up??? You are going to love this. No more tripod shot's, loading the JPG's and seeing if they are good enough. Talk about an intuitive and well laid out interface! Get the trial version off the internet and use the that to help learn the interface and get familiar with the program. You don't have to wait to load the real deal to start using the post measurement analysis functions. Print your manual up as Widget suggested you will need it to really get familiar with the interface.

Rob:)

[4313B]

Print your manual up as Widget suggested you will need it to really get familiar with the interface.I printed mine out on a Xerox color laser a couple weeks ago using bright white paper. I'm weird that way. :p

[Zilch]

Hi, Rob!

The ISA board was mailed back to the factory in Italy early last week. They have sent me a proforma invoice, and indicate they will ship via DSL upon receipt.

May the postal gods smile upon these humble endeavors! :thmbsup:

[Robh3606]

Here are some of my first measurements. I tried it out on my 4344 clones. First thing is just how important your methodology is. I know that multidriver systems are difficult to begin with and I got to see why right away. Just a 6" difference in height give the system a different balance due to the directional characteristics of the individual drivers. All and all this is great system. Very easy to use however getting the methodology down to get repeatable measurements and useful ones will take some time. Learning how to use the analysis software will also take some time but overall it really is fun to use. Here are the first set of graphs. The first two are measured on axis with the 2122 1 meter away. The second set is at seated height on axis with the 2307 Lense/2405. You can see just how directional the 2405 is in the vertical axis. Zilch you are going to have your work cut out for you trying to compare the systems you are putting together. The methodology is key so if you have not already you might consider doing your measurements in your listenning room as opposed to your work space. If you are forced to measure there see what you can do as far as mapping the room for best places to measure and get your speaker placement set up so you measure from the same spot. I am curious to see what you think. You may want to take a known like the 4430 and use it as you baseline. I am going to try an L20T3 later to see what the differences are.

[Zilch]

Interestingly, the basic results are the same above 1 kHz for each setup. Your space must be nicely damped, as reflections aren't majorly apparent.

Windowing cleans it up below that, mostly, but 7.7ms window renders everything below 150 Hz invalid, no?

Gotta use different methodology to get useful results below that, anyway.

D'Appolito says measure on tweeter axis. It's now clear why.

Big differences in the 800 Hz region between your two test heights. I'm guessing you're crossed over somewhere near there?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Rob,

Great post.

That is exactly what I did to analyse the 4345 some time back...

When measuring in the near field (less than 2 metres), vertical height will display not only driver vertical polar angle but also crossover and driver interaction. Therefore I tend to take a series of measurements at different heights often with one driver turn on at a time then all on (others padded back) and then an overall measurement further away to interprete what is happening. One measurement tells you very little.

Unfortunately most of us don't have the luxury of a wide open space or a vacant roof top like JBL.

I've been doing Pulse and MLS measurements for a while (about 7 yrs ) at home and obtaining useful data really is an art form when attempted in the home environment.(its not always practical to relocate a 200+lb loudspeaker)

Aside from mic position I found the most intuitive measurments by management of the main room reflections which are often the floor and ceiling.

Placing pillows or bedding covers on the floor half way between the speaker and the mic is useful in contolling floor reflections. Acoustic tiles above the system suspended from a light fitting is also usful on controlling ceiling refections which might otherwise be interpreted as a peak or notch on the amplitude response.

Some accoustic tiles at the sides can also assist in removing a lot of junk in the un smoothed curves.

[Mr. Widget]

Interestingly, the basic results are the same above 1 kHz for each setup. Your space must be nicely damped, as reflections aren't majorly apparent.

Windowing cleans it up below that, mostly, but 7.7ms window renders everything below 150 Hz invalid, no?

Gotta use different methodology to get useful results below that, anyway.

D'Appolito says measure on tweeter axis. It's now clear why.

Big differences in the 800 Hz region between your two test heights. I'm guessing you're crossed over somewhere near there?Zilch,

Rob is using 1/3 octave smoothing. That removes most of the detail and some of the reflection information.

His time window is 4.5 and 4.7ms. If you read the Stereophile articles that I mentioned in an earlier post and Rob tracked down:

http://stereophile.com/features/105kh/

http://stereophile.com/features/405time/

They explain that it isn't all that simple to determine the accuracy of the lower frequencies from a time windowed measurement.

Unless Rob used a larger room than the 7' plus ceiling height of his listening room, he should be windowing closer to 3ms anyway, but that aside... I would suggest that these are accurate to about 1KHz... below that we are seeing a lot of room modes and early reflections.

Widget

[Mr. Widget]

Placing pillows or bedding covers on the floor half way between the speaker and the mic is useful in contolling floor reflections.DEQX recommends a two foot thick pile of blankets or whatever on the floor to help.

I use a double bed sized piece of egg crate foam and some sonex panels.. they have the greatest effect at higher frequencies. It is best to have all objects as far away as possible. That includes the mic. I have to move the couch 4-5 feet away from the mic as well. If there is anything near the mic that is closer to it than the speaker's first reflection, it will affect the measurement.


Some accoustic tiles at the sides can also assist in removing a lot of junk in the un smoothed curves.Yeah... they will sort of help. It is way better to have nothing near by, but if that is simply not possible absorptive panels will help somewhat.


Widget

[Ian Mackenzie]

Yeah,

Best to do it when the wife or who ever is not home.

I find 2 am in the morning a great time for measurements.:D

Ian

[Robh3606]

Here is the same seated height curve with a 3ms window and 1/12 smoothin. I have attached the JBL 4345 plot as well. Looks close above 1K with the expected comb filtering in the crossover region between the HF and UHF. See that nasty notch at 3K??? Quess what it is??? Hint is it's not stock on a real 4344 and it really surprised me.

Rob:)

[Robh3606]

Hello Ian

I have to learn how to make some close in measurements. I tried a couple off the 2122 and it was as expected very smooth overall. I definately have to work on getting the reflections down. I am measuring right over an uncovered tile floor. May as well have a mirror down there.

Rob:)

[Mr. Widget]

Hey Rob,

I still haven't loaded version 7 yet... but have you found out how we can do spatially averaged plots? It may be done by simply using the tool that you use to add separate driver measurements together.. not sure. The Stereophile measurements made by John Atkinson are typically an average of several plots in an arc about the tweeter. I think these will remove some of the comb filtering that we see but don't really seam to hear.

I have printed out the version 7 manual, but have not yet read it.

Widget

[Robh3606]

Hello Ian

It's the H94 Serpentine Lense. Take off the lense and it dissapears. I quess the 2308 and the H94 are not interchangeable. Thanks for reposting your measurements.

Rob:)

[Lakanta]

Hi Zilch,
I still have Clio 3.2. Pure DOS and ISA-Card. The Hardware/Software are mounted in a old Pentium for 0,00 U$. I used the software/Hardware for years. It is quick and practical. But.... the quality of the measurements! Poor resolution and bad interpolation/Smoothing. Repeating the measurement and you have every time a new Plot. That was one of the reasons I switch to Bruel & Kjaer.
But here a great tip:
Get the book 'Testing loudspeakers by Joseph D'appolito'! He describes how to use CLIO correct and compare it with MLSSA and analog Systems. Perhaps heavy to read but quite a excellent reference!

[Ian Mackenzie]

I am sure that us a useful reference and I think some members may it.
Do you have the ISP code?

Given the sensitivity of these measurements to the room environment I often wonder how serious should the diy/ speaker builder be about measurements taken in the home!

[Robh3606]

Hello Lakanta

"Repeating the measurement and you have every time a new Plot."

Is that within the same session or after you set-up again?? An issue I have is I have to break my set-up down and was worried about repeatabillity. When I had it set-up it seemed to give very conssistant measurements while I didn't change the set-up. As soon as I changed the set-up the measurents changed but were again consistant for that set-up. I have the book and thanks for recommending it. Any tips on the methodology you use to get consistant measurements. I figured if I mapped out specific locations in the room for both the UUT and the Microphone I was at least heading in the right direction. I can see that getting repeatable measurements with this compared to an RTA is night and day. This is much more sensitive and has much better resolution.

Hello Ian

"Given the sensitivity of these measurements to the room environment I often wonder how serious should the diy/ speaker builder be about measurements taken in the home!"

Let you know in 6 months if I think it was worth the investment or not.

Some additional reading:

http://www.stereophile.com/features/99/

http://www.stereophile.com/features/100/

http://www.stereophile.com/features/103/


Rob:)

[4313B]

I figured if I mapped out specific locations in the room for both the UUT and the Microphone I was at least heading in the right direction.

Let you know in 6 months if I think it was worth the investment or not.Exactly! :)

[Mr. Widget]

It is quick and practical. But.... the quality of the measurements! Poor resolution and bad interpolation/Smoothing. Repeating the measurement and you have every time a new Plot.I guess they have improved it or perhaps yours is defective. I am regularly happily surprised at how consistent my CLIO rig is. Occasionally it seems buggy and will give me erroneous data, but typically multiple measurements result in plots that are exactly the same... to within the resolution of my monitor.

I am not sure how others are using theirs... I have mine set to average 5 series of MLS pulses... this is fairly quick and removes most of the anomalous readings you might get from intermittent background noise.


Let you know in 6 months if I think it was worth the investment or not.I've had mine for just over a year and I couldn't be more pleased. Is it worth $700 for Lite or $1700 for the whole package??? I guess it depends on what your application is. If you are simply tuning your room that is a tough question... for me, I use it quite often as I design and redesign and redesign and redesign..... various speaker systems.


Widget

[Zilch]

I finished first reading of the D'Appolito book last week. It clearly documents the difficulties with different methodologies, and means to overcome or minimize them. The math can be intimidating, but is, for the most part, gratuitous, as I have discovered is common in much of the literature in this field. It's not a "difficult" book; there should be no problem reading and understanding what's going on there for anyone interested in the subject, though I did doze off a couple of times. :D

An exception is the chapter on FFT, which is pretty heavy without an engineering/math background. Fortunately, it's non-essential to the major subject matter.

In the frequency domain testing sections, he decries the expense and lack of resolution of analog RTA's (1998) and then simulates an "improved" one using a 1/6 octave DIY warble-tone system for many of the tests. Today's RTA's are inexpensive, FFT digital, and 1/6 octave resolution, so much of that material is directly applicable for those using a contemporary RTA such as the Behringer DEQ2496, and, though I'm not familiar with them, some of the PC software based systems as well, perhaps.

That's about the center third of the book, and anyone using an RTA seriously would do well to read up. There's much more here than MLS testing....

[Working up my automated indexing rotary table RIGHT now for polar measurements of horn/driver combinations.... :bouncy: ]

[Ian Mackenzie]

Yep,

I try and always measure from the same co ordinates..I put masking tape on the floor and leave it....

For an old "diy hacka" like me as long as I can reasonably confirm what was / is meant to be happening with a diy JBL clone system like the 4430 or a 4345 I am a happy camper. I gave up attempting to be a designer "Wannabee" when I first build and heard a JBL network made the right way..the 3134/3135 and 3145 new equivalent.

I am sure Clio is a great tool .

Has anyone ventured to plug the output data of Clio into a crossover Optimiser yet? (Leap, SoundEasy)

Ian

[Mr. Widget]

I gave up attempting to be a designer "Wannabee" when I first build and heard a JBL network made the right way..the 3134/3135 and 3145 new equivalent.That wasn't terribly long ago... don't give up, the Great Karnak says you'll be back at it.:yes:


Widget

[Lakanta]

[QUOTE=Mr. Widget]I guess they have improved it or perhaps yours is defective. I am regularly happily surprised at how consistent my CLIO rig is. Occasionally it seems buggy and will give me erroneous data, but typically multiple measurements result in plots that are exactly the same... to within the resolution of my monitor.

My CLIO is not defective. The curve I was referring is the sinusoidal Measurement. It measure a amount of discret points and get a curve by smoothing it with a algorithm. Comparing with a plot with Brüel&Kjaer stuff, the BK is definitly more what I'm hearing.
I do not use MLS, though it is very practical (A tone burst, in my opion, is bad as a method to analyse the loudspeaker. I know the mathematics and physical equivalent.)
I use RTA (In my Clio version the RTA is very slow). I own a Behringer DSP 8024, but believe me the BK 2131 is superior. (Supposably because the BK was, as new, a hundred times expensiver? (I paid 150 Euro))
Version 3.2 buggy, Yep! But I can handle it. (I own a small software company.....)

@Robh3606

The only diference between the measurements was 30 seconds later. Use the feature override to see.

[Robh3606]

Hey Widget

I decided to give a 2405 a test to see if I got something at least close to your results. The one I have seems to have a notch at 10K and rolls off a bit. Want to remeasure with a shorter/different cable to see if the rool off is due to the cable length. Once I scalled it the same it looks respectable. Yours is on top.

Rob:)

[4313B]

D.B. Wasn't lying when he said those things dropped like a rock towards 20 kHz.

[Robh3606]

Widget when you did your comparisons did you adjust levels at all?? I found when I measured them there was a couple of dB of sensitivity diferences. All could be corrected out with the pots. I adjusted measurement levels on the fly to get the curve overlap. Next graph is a pair of 2405's and an 077.

Rob:)

[Robh3606]

Hello Giskard

They sure do!!! I have some 2404's I am going to take a look at to see what diaphrams are in them. Figure if the roll off at 15K or so I have 2402 in there not 2405's. Nice tool! You can use this to see how well matched a driver set is. The 077 is the different one of the three.

Rob:)

[Mr. Widget]

Hi Rob,

I'll look this over and give you a thorough post later. Right now I am still on the clock and need to get a report written... I can only multi-task so far...

Widget

[4313B]

What directory do the MICA.CAL and MICB.CAL files go in?

[Ian Mackenzie]

Rob.

Are those the slots I sold you?

Ian

[Robh3606]

Hello Ian

The Green Line is the one of the 077 you sold me. I used the best looking one from the pair you sold me and one from the Jubal I had in the 4344's. The 2405's are the ones I got of Ebay.

Rob:)

[Zilch]

I do not use MLS, though it is very practical (A tone burst, in my opion, is bad as a method to analyse the loudspeaker. I know the mathematics and physical equivalent.)I THINK we're doin' CLIO here primarily for quasi-anechoic MLS....

[Mr. Widget]

[QUOTE=Mr. Widget]My CLIO is not defective. The curve I was referring is the sinusoidal Measurement. It measure a amount of discret points and get a curve by smoothing it with a algorithm. Comparing with a plot with Brüel&Kjaer stuff, the BK is definitly more what I'm hearing.I agree that the BK equipment is very good. My CLIO mic was calibrated using a BK mic calibrator. That said, if you are getting measurements that are significantly different between the two (differences that you can hear) I'd suggest that there is something wrong.


[QUOTE=Mr. Widget]I do not use MLS, though it is very practical (A tone burst, in my opion, is bad as a method to analyse the loudspeaker. I know the mathematics and physical equivalent.)I do not pretend to be an expert in this area... or any other when I think about it, but the several comparisons that I have seen comparing CLIO's MLS performance with MLSSA's performance is very favorable. MLSSA is the industry standard these days.

Widget

[Mr. Widget]

I decided to give a 2405 a test to see if I got something at least close to your results. The one I have seems to have a notch at 10K and rolls off a bit. Want to remeasure with a shorter/different cable to see if the rool off is due to the cable length. Once I scalled it the same it looks respectable.That 2405H response that I posted and you reposted with on and off axis response was the better response of the two units I had on hand.

When I save jpegs of my plots I have been converting the image to a 2:1 aspect ratio. This more closely resembles the working window in CLIO and other published response curves that we are used to seeing. I am not sure why CLIO and MLSSA truncate their saved plots. To get a better comparison between your measurement and mine, you would need to not only stretch the length of the plot but compress the vertical slightly so that the two plots have the same aspect ratio.

Now, CLIO version 7 is supposed to export jpegs... I am noticing that your colors look messed up. Is that from saving them or are you exporting a bitmapped image and using MS Paint to convert them?


What directory do the MICA.CAL and MICB.CAL files go in?I don't remember... as I recall the manual told me where to place the file... I think I did it during the initial calibration and set-up procedure.

Widget

[4313B]

I couldn't find a reference to where the files go in Version 7. I also looked through the 6.5 manual and couldn't find it either.

[Mr. Widget]

Send those nice Italians an e-mail... I remember running into a couple of stumbles... that may have been one of them. They were very quick to answer my questions. Sorry I can't be more helpful. It has been over a year and I simply don't recall. When you get an answer post it here though. I expect I'll need to reinstall the calibration profile when I load version 7... it is potential little hiccups like that that have prevented me from moving forward. Version 6.5 works very well and I am in the middle of two projects and don't want my system to be down.


Widget

[Robh3606]

Hey Zilch

You know those L200T3 networks you sent. They work! The red is the 2418/ 2342 combo no network. The Red is with the network. Your going to love this thing. I am going to use drivers and such where I know what to expect to get the hang of things. That way I can trouble shoot until I get the "correct" response to learn how to set things up.

Rob:)

[4313B]

I couldn't find a reference to where the files go in Version 7. I also looked through the 6.5 manual and couldn't find it either.I would have thought they would have gone in the calibration directory but no -> C:\Program Files\Audiomatica\CLIOWin 7

[Zilch]

You know those L200T3 networks you sent. They work! Heh. And that's the most rudimentary version, too!

Just call that design "done" and on to the next one. :p

Acutally, 2416H-1 sounds a bit better, if you have any of those.

Thanks again to Giskard for turning us on to that surprisingly good minimalist network. :thmbsup:

[Zilch]

Audiomatica received my ISA card.

$616.73 PayPal'd today for the updated gear w/latest software, including shipping from Italy via DHL Courier.

$1020.39 total to date.

U.S. Customs duty pending.

Thinking I'll also get a "Lite" mic to mount inside my test box for woofer testing per Small....

[Zilch]

Signal conditioner, new V4.0 PCI card, CLIOwin 7 software, beaucoup more cables.

"Lite Mic02" ordered for in-box woofer testing.

Gonna hard wire through the wall from office to "Lab," I'm thinkin'....

[Zilch]

Trivia question from Audivex: Who was Clio, and what was the TV program?

[Robh3606]

So what's up. Zilch you have that bugger up and running yet???

Rob:wave:

[Ian Mackenzie]

Yeah..like hello Man..I am twiddling my thumbs and whistling Dixie.

I reackon your figuring out how to repost 800 posts and what Clio reports:D

[JuniorJBL]

Check your PM's for a PC!!:applaud:

[Earl K]

Well , how's the Clio Club doing ?

- By now, I was hoping that we would have seen a few exposés of never before measured, JBL HiFi components.

- Or have you guys discovered so many blemishes in what you personally accept as "nice-sounding" ,that submitting to the tyranny of the "flat-line visual" is just a no-go at this time ? I'm aware that the inherent HF/UHF phase-cancellations from a design like the 4344 or 4345 is not considered to be a drawback as long as ones capacitors and electronics are up to the task . ;)

- ( See Widgets' "Frequency Response (http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9678) thread for an interesting overview of the limitations of "measured" specs.

- A few ideas ;

(a) Tweeters; How about FR/Impedance plots for the 035ti , 044ti , 046ti & the 050ti ? As well as harmonic distortion comparisons for these same tweets . ( The gold laminated titanium 050ti might just win this competition ). It would be nice to see these specs / even though these are mostly ( or rumoured soon to be ) NLA/Obsolete "Legacy Components" .

(b) Harmonic distortion comparisons between the 108H and 2118H . It would be nice to quantify the reduction in overall "objectionable" distortions ( read; odd numbered types ) that applications of aquaplas provides. I love what JBL does with aquaplas / I wouldn't mind seeing it quantified .

(c) Harmonic distortion comparisons between a 2445H and a 2450-SL ( or a stock D8R2425 versus the aquaplased 275 diaphragm in a 2426H driver .

(d) Response & distortion specs for the legendary 112H/2108H series of 8" midbasses .

:)

[Zilch]

Heya, Earl!

Well, I'm up to doin' (c); JuniorJBL has put together a computer for me to run it.

There WILL be a learning curve, tho.... :p

[Earl K]

Well, I'm up to doin' (c); JuniorJBL has put together a computer for me to run it.

There WILL be a learning curve, tho....

Excellent ! :p

I'll look forward to seeing that, ( once all those (I's) are dotted & those pesky (T's) are crossed . ) :)

[Robh3606]

Hello Earl

We can give some of that a whirl. The distortion won't be that easy though. Need a real quiet room cause if your looking around a 90Db reference level lots of what you looking for is 40-50Db down. So you have to make sure the furnace/refrigerator/washing machine and dryer are off and your levels are high enough above the noise floor to give you the dymanic range. Hear is a curves trying this out. This is a 2418 on a 2342 ran through the L200T3 crossovers Zilch sent me to try out. The Red is 2nd and Green is Third Harmonic

[JuniorJBL]

The PC was easy stuff. Now I just need to come up with CLIO or the likes so I can do this myself!:)

[Earl K]

We can give some of that a whirl. The distortion won't be that easy though. Need a real quiet room cause if your looking around a 90Db reference level lots of what you looking for is 40-50Db down.

- Thanks for the reply Rob. :)

- Two and a half decades ago ( @ 1981), when Urei was redeveloping the horn section for their 813 duplex, they were presented with a similar dilemma.
ie; How to make meaningful measurements without access to an anechoic chamber ?
-Their solution was to use 4" Sonex panels to create a portable sound chamber that they said offered close to 100 % attenuation above 1000 hz.
- The test speaker sat on a stand with 6 panels hung all around it ( the bottom panel had a hole cut into it to allow the speaker-stand acces.
- The cubical interior was large enough to accomodate a duplex in a smallish enclosure. There was enough interior space to distance the test mic. 1 meter away from the duplex.

- 4" deep Sonex is quite expensive, so is 4" Auralex ( though it's a cheaper alternative to Sonex ).
- I own a lot of 2" deep Auralex panels that I use for room treatment purposes ( my own interpretation of LEDE ) .
- Personally, I'd build with the 2" or 3" stuff , if I wanted to build an ad hoc test chamber ( specifically for HF transducers ). Even when having the ability to "time-window" the test samples, I feel there is a benefit to the enhanced isolation .

:p

[JuniorJBL]

Hey Zilch!

How goes the CLIO setup? Have you done any measurements yet?:smthsail:

[Zilch]

Hey Zilch!

How goes the CLIO setup? Have you done any measurements yet?:smthsail:

Heh. JuniorJBL sent me a computer for the "Lab," which is now up and running, folks. :thmbsup:

Mr. Widget's gonna help and shorten the learning curve here.... :D

[Keep them JBL Monitor Blue grille cloth orders comin', now.... :p ]

[Zilch]

Heh:

[Robh3606]

Hello Zilch

You can change the scale to SPL so you not reading in volts. Just set-up with your test signal to get an SPL reading. Set up the Mutimeter to read Preasure. That will give you a base SPL with you test signal. Be careful with the signal levels. Start way down and come up.

Rob:)

[Zilch]

Thanks, Rob. I switched to pressure, now.

I KNOW I'm supposed to be movin' on beyond RTA, but it's a lovely full-screen one with multi-color plots and lotsa parameters to tweak. :p

[Also, gotta re-read the FFT chapter in D'Appolito.... :snore: ]

[Robh3606]

I KNOW I'm supposed to be movin' on beyond RTA, but it's a lovely full-screen one with multi-color plots and lotsa parameters to tweak. :p

Hello Zilch

Lot's to tweek your not kidding we have 3 ways to measure and then some. It will take us a couple of months to really learn the software. First thing I did was check out the RTA against the Behringer. This one is a bit better. The Sine and MLS blow the RTA away.

Rob:)

[silne3]

:) Greetings,

I have a Clio win 6.5 and I am trying to measure the T/S parameters of my 2225H.

Unfortunately the results that I get are far off from JBL. Anybody tried to measure T/S parameters of JBL drivers?

I also ran the speaker with 10W, 25Hz signal for 8 hours (burn in). The speaker was on a table, so the back of the magnet was covered. Do you think that the voice coil was damaged from the heat generated inside the driver?

[Zilch]

I haven't tried T/S with CLIO yet, but Mr. Widget earlier demonstrated that the conditions under which the impedance measurement is taken can vary the results considerably. Certainly, if you tested as you burnt in, i.e., with the port blocked, the values are dubious.

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57034&postcount=14

Suggestion: Get Woofer Tester 2, if you don't have it, and use that for comparative testing, parameter by parameter. It also outlines the methodology in more detail. With WT2, I get results generally in the range of JBL specs. With experience, I appreciate more that these are not "hard" numbers; they vary considerably with measurement technique. Contiguous runs under the same conditions get results that differ in detail, even. It's not an exact science, as I believe anyone who has attempted it can confirm.

Regarding your burn-in, I'd guess that if the driver is still working and sounding good, at 10W you did no serious damage. Do you recall how hot the magnet was when you turned it off?

[silne3]

The second time I measured the T/S I mounted the woofer 3 feet above the floor and the readings were still far off, I think that this is because of reflections from the walls and floor.

What is the recommended mounting of the loudspeaker for measuring T/S?

The unit is working fine; I just want to know if there is a chance for heat to build up in the unit, and if this heat can damage the voice coil?

[4313B]

Post the results you are getting.

[Zilch]

It's a better mic than the Behringer (rear); even RTA's are "cleaner."

DR Pro DR210 stand with extension boom was $49 at Guitar Center.

First runs MLS with a buncha waveguides. :p

[All kinda "peaky" at 18 kHz with 1200 Hz FFBREQ....]

And 5235 FFBREQ 800 Hz (red + orange) and 1200 Hz (blue + orchid) voltage drives. :thmbsup:

[Zilch]

RTA (green), MLS (orange)

Sorry, I tried smaller, but the lines disappeared....

[silne3]

I placed the woofer on the table and raised it 1 feet.
The T/S are not the same as JBL but when I used them in WinISD the results where close to JBL.
Because their is close relation between the parameters they adjust each other.
Yellow line is Free air.
Red line is delta mass - 71 gram. The bump at 180Hz is from the mass.

I will use the 2225H as a subwoofer in a 8 cubic foot enclosure from the 1983 audio magazine.

[Zilch]

What is the recommended mounting of the loudspeaker for measuring T/S?

Mr. Widget suggests suspended, WTPro says on a rigid fixture, and another member says clamped to a bench. I test on the concrete floor sitting up on steel blocks.

I gave up on delta mass after several attempts and went to delta compliance in a known test box. I'm not about to mess with sticking mass to the cones with clay, nope. Your bump at 180 Hz suggests you may be having problems with delta mass, too.

As an aside, 2225 is the wrong driver for the '83 Kramer/Timbers subwoofer design. Consider reconing it to 2235H for that. Also, 8 cu.ft. was for the 18" 2245H driver, though the smaller B380 for 15" 2235H is also detailed near the end of the article:

http://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/reference/technical/1983-subs.htm

[Zilch]

No calibrated turntable?

Not a problem -- move the mic instead:

1) Center pivot made from heavy old mic stand base with freewheeling pulley. Barbell weight plate would hold position securely, as well.

2) Device Under Test. Pivot is beneath the support dolly, directly below acoustic center, determined by aligning time to impulse identical from all angles. Dolly allows finding it within 0.1" easily. Upper pedestal is AR4x with insulated face.

3) Tape marks the calculated measurement angles in the requisite arc, these at 15°. I could confidently obtain 5° resolution at this distance, perhaps 2° or 1°, even.

4) Triangle of nylon cord keeps the distance and mic alignment exact. There's room for several inches of insulation under it here, but I've found that doesn't much matter, as I'm windowing at floor bounce. Getting the DUT up to 1/2 ceiling height helps considerably.

5) PT-F95 w/2426H, modified AM HP filter, in 15° increments.

Beamwidth waterfalls and classic polar plots next.... :D

[Zilch]

To those producing and using plots... are you doing some sort of spatial averaging that each other understands...?No, it's primarily simple on-axis. Off-axis is done and shown separately for beamwidth and DI. We each settle upon those approaches which confer the highest personal level of comfort in the quality of the result.

To me, spatial averaging is dubious, difficult to interpret, and certainly much more difficult to accomplish and reproduce. If someone's reporting spatially averaged curves, I expect them to say so, as my assumption is not. I don't want to adjust frequency response for power response, either; the result is artificial. If something's anomalous, find it, figure it out, fix it.

With respect to curve smoothing, low resolution better reveals the big trends requiring adjustment. That's what's most audible, but I rarely show those here. At the other extreme, highest resolutions charactize more the quality of the test environment and methodology than the information of interest. It's a compromise.

Same with windowing. I think we pay attention to the scales, methods, and resolutions of what others post here, because we're familiar with the tradeoffs from our own experience.

As for "getting it right," I find the multiple driver/horn studies essential. It's important to work with a "typical" when doing filter fine tuning, then verify with multiples for confidence in the outcome. That also gives me the data to match pairs for systems, and a baseline for comparison to unknowns.

[And finds my defectives.... ;) ]

[grumpy]

Zilch,

1) thanks for diverting my H9800 hijack... it needed divertin'.

2) helps to know what we're looking at. Thanks for pointing out the CLIO clinic thread
and taking the time to respond.

-grumpy

[Mr. Widget]

To those producing and using plots... are you doing some sort of spatial averaging that each other understands...?
When I get some free time I'll try to do some spatially averaged measurements... I'd like to replicate John Atkinson's measuring techniques so that I can get a better personal understanding of how his Stereophile plots represent what I actually hear. Among other things, he always measures at 50" away from the speaker and centered on the tweeter's axis... I have found that this is not always the most revealing set up, correlating to what we hear,... especially with some of the large horn based systems that are common here, but quite rare in "Audio Land" in general.

But as Zilch mentions, taking a simple on axis measurement is far less trouble.


Widget

[Robh3606]

When I get some free time I'll try to do some spatially averaged measurements...

Yes I would like to as well. All my stuff hase been on axis and I want to take a L20T3 and do a complete 360 degree test sweep using 10 degree increments. Even then it's a daunting 36 measurements. One of these days:bouncy:

Rob:)

[Robh3606]

Hello Zilch

How big is that Lab:hmm:

I have the same issue with 7 1/2 ceilings in my basement. Go in close with the MLS and use Sine too. The advantage with Sine is it's quick and it only excites the range you decide to sweep. You sweep above your primary modes, drop something on the floor to help minimize reflections, and measure in close. You should be able to get as low as I am with these horns. Once I get below about 500Hz all hell breaks loose unless I am on top, 1/2"-1" off the driver I am measuring. How is the horn set-up?? Mine are on top of the 4344's and flush with the side. They are seeing 1/2 a baffle. Here's my basic set-up as you can see no big deal.

Rob:)

[Robh3606]

I was able to get these measurements on my 2122's going in close to the driver. The MLS is not windowed. Moved the 4344 into the middle of the room as far away as I could get it from the walls. Had the microphone about 2-6" off the dustcap.

Rob:)

[Mr. Widget]

Hey Rob,

For near field measurements you really don't need a great amount of space between the system and other objects in the room... I typically take them at 0.25" from the dustcap surface and at this location there is virtually no room or reflective information compared to the direct info. The curve you get will be slightly tilted up on the bottom...

For horns, if I am only measuring a single horn over it's entire spectrum, I typically take my measurements at 4-5 feet from the floor with 5-6 feet to the ceiling and an on axis mic distance of 1 meter. Under these conditions I can get a ~9msec. window before my first reflections. I'd guess my lower usable measurement frequency is around 300Hz.

I don't think you should measure the horns at 6", but I suppose, we could do some comparisons between 6", 12", and 1m curves and see what happens.


Here is an old plot of the Klipsch K-400 with KV-55... I wanted to get it's low end response which is supposed to be good to below 400Hz when mounted on a baffle... this measurement was taken with the horn mounted on the La Scala baffle with the mic on axis at 1m.

Widget

[Mr. Widget]

Your equipment rack seems unfortunately placed for the cleanest measurements, (maybe you could rotate your horn away from it 15º or so?) and I see another issue too. I used to take my measurements on a pedestal not unlike yours... now I place Sonex on the front surface of the pedestal... it does influence the response.

That said, what are we measuring? I mean... typically our horns will not be free floating in space, they will be on a baffle so a simulation of the actual baffle is probably the best way to get a better idea of what the final result will be... however, in Zilch's case where he is exploring for the sake of exploring, I think he should carve out some space upstairs in his house where he could get some really long time windows and use a pile of Sonex. As for the low frequency ringing in his posts on that other thread???? I am kinda curious about that. They seem strange to me.


Widget

[Zilch]

The brain freeze I'm having is that Rob seems to be suggesting windowing is unnecessary; just use sinusoidal or unwindowed MLS nearfield. Well, I'm gonna have to read the book again, apparently.

I can typically get 5+ ms in my space with thick bats of high-density (R-21, doubled) fiberglass on the floor to kill that reflection. I don't know why I was getting the ringing on 2370 horns. What I did tonight with Altec 811B looks much better, even though I didn't raise it up to the mid height of the room:

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=156257#post156257

If I'm doing critical measurements, I raise the DUT up and wheel stuff out of the room to reduce the clutter. As more projects accumulate, I'm running out of space for that even, tho.... :(

[Robh3606]

The brain freeze I'm having is that Rob seems to be suggesting windowing is unnecessary; just use sinusoidal or unwindowed MLS nearfield. Well, I'm gonna have to read the book again, apparently.


Hello Zilch

You don't have brain freeze. By me not windowing I am running the risk of my measurement being corupted by the room response. When I do window I get the same curve just less resolution. When I do a measurement set I run MLS and SINE. I use the two different measurement types to get the different information in each and to see if the set up is good. If I get almost identicle measurements I am confident they are valid for that measurement set-up. That's the key though. If I you use the same set-up and get repeatable measurements using 2 different measurement methods you have a valid set-up but the measurements are only valid for that set-up. There may be anomalies introduced into the measurement by the set-up. Attached are the impulse file and the effect of windowing on the response. The windows are at 6, 9, and 15 Miliseconds. The top curve is the raw MLS measurement with 1/12 octave smoothing. You can clearly see the resolution getting progressively more washed out below 1KHz. Almost looks like what happens when you change over from 1/12 to 1/3 smoothing. The basic curve remains but the detail and resolution get lost.

Hello Widget

That set-up may look odd but it works well for what I am using it for. I get repeatable measurements and changes are easy to see. That's what I am looking for with this set-up. That said any measurements I get are only good for that set-up. If I was using it to evaluate that actual horns low frequency performance it most definately would be baffled. I usually try to measure horns futher out as well however I will change distances to see what works and look for spectrum tilts when I get close. On the next run of diaphram measurements I will change the measuring distance to see what the effects are and post them here.


Rob:)

[Robh3606]

Bump

What's going on?? We want to try to resolve this or should I let this die??

Rob:)

[Zilch]

I'll try to resolve some of it in doing the Valencia fix testing. A bunch of drivers/configurations are on the docket here.... :thmbsup:

[Mr. Widget]

What's going on?? We want to try to resolve this or should I let this die??
I'm confused... what are we dropping or proceeding with?


...and that last plot of yours... The notes are garbled. What are you showing us?


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

To be blunt, he's a genius. Unfortunately he couldn't design an actual fully functional loudspeaker system that sounded reasonably good to save his own life.:rotfl:

In my opinion that isn't a unique situation...

As for the idea of outdoor measurements... I wish I had a quiet yard. Both Zilch and I are too near major freeways... actually the same one... I am about 1 block away from the West Coast terminus of Interstate 80 and Zilch is just about 10 miles away.


Widget

[Robh3606]

I'm confused... what are we dropping or proceeding with?


...and that last plot of yours... The notes are garbled. What are you showing us?



The discussion just kind of died. What am I showing you?? Did you read the post?? Just what the effects are with various windowing times. Just want to see if we were going to see if we could figure out what the ringing was. I have seen ringing on Sine measurements from reflections off nearby objects. Move the object it went away as an example.



Get it out on a stool in the back yard at least 3 feet off the ground and start measuring.

I don't think the neighbors will like that at 3AM. I have two major roads less that 1/4 mile away plus overhead airport traffic depending on the runways used. Outdoors sure would be nice!!

Rob:)

[Mr. Widget]

What am I showing you?? Did you read the post??I read the portion addressed to me, but must admit I didn't read the bit to Zilch. :o:


The windows are at 6, 9, and 15 Miliseconds. The top curve is the raw MLS measurement with 1/12 octave smoothing. You can clearly see the resolution getting progressively more washed out below 1KHz. Almost looks like what happens when you change over from 1/12 to 1/3 smoothing. The basic curve remains but the detail and resolution get lost.The detail and resolution don't get lost... the "detail" you are seeing is the noise caused by reflections in the room. Unfortunately looking at your impulse plot, there seems to be a heck of a lot of reflective information in your measurement.

In my much larger room I can usually see a distinct first reflection. In this measurement taken some time ago of one of the Project May tests, you can see that I was close to the floor and could only get about 3ms of clean measurement before my first reflection at ~6.5ms... the initial delay of ~3.5ms is due to the digital latency of running the signal through my DEQX unit... in a typical measurement the impulse would start much closer to time zero. The only usable windowing for this measurement would be to place the initial cursor at the beginning of my pulse (inverted polarity in this case) and the beginning of the first reflection. With a window of only 3ms, the curve will not be terribly useful below maybe 2KHz.

I have learned quite a bit about taking these measurements since this was taken... today I would set up the speaker system differently to get a much longer clean window.


Widget

[Zilch]

My impulse curves look like Mr. Widget's, but with a lot more "hash."

Speed of sound is 13.56 in/ms, so being typically 1 M back, I get ~3 ms latency (delay) before the pulse.

I can always see the floor reflection distinctly. When it appears depends upon the height of the DUT and the microphone at any given distance. I can usually knock that down to what I consider insignificance with padding on the floor. The differences in the FR curve are immediately apparent.

If I'm trying to do critical measurements, I elevate the DUT to 1/2 the room height, about 5' here. In that situation, the floor and ceiling reflections occur at approximately the same time, and that's the limit of where I can set the end of the sampling window. (I'm not enough of a junkie to pad the ceiling.) That establishes the lowest frequency for which the measurement is valid, and while a theoretical frequency is computed and displayed in the legend, it's clear from the FR curve itself that some several-times multiple of that is more indicative of actual.

I can achieve longer windowing periods (and thus resolve lower frequencies) by moving the mic further back from the DUT, since that also increases the distance (and time) for floor and ceiling bounces, but other room reflections increasingly pollute the impulse and FR result. Up to a point, those can be masked with smoothing, but so also diminishes the resolution of the FR curve result.

For more routine screening measurements, I leave the DUT closer to the floor and squelch the floor reflection as best I can with a thick pad of insulation (it can be localized from the impulse curve,) thereby lengthening the window until the arrival of the next major reflection. The impulse curve may be stored on-screen as an overlay for comparison as other changes in the room are made to minimize contamination by reflections from other sources. On occasion, my coffee cup on the bench has been a meaureable culprit.

Manipulating these variables, I can achieve useable results below 1 kHz; how much below depends upon the particular setup. Again, that's for "screening," and I have to apply a higher level of smoothing to filter out the resultant noise in the FR curve than with the better setup used for critical measuring. In neither case do I look for accurate results much below 1 kHz. If I want to see what's going on in a gross manner down there, I just click off the window, knowing the result to be inaccurate. The differences in the "accurate" area of the curve are quite apparent when that is done, so I know and appreciate the value of the quasi-anechoic MLS method.

As indicated earlier, I'm not yet as familiar with how to manipulate the gating, delay, and resolution parameters in sinusoidal measurements to achieve an optimum result. Thus far, it's been no better than unwindowed MLS, so I use it primarily for impedance and distortion measurements, not frequency response.

RTA continues to have considerable utility. There are many measurements and adjustments that are easiest and best accomplished interactively, in real time. I also use it to find the precise mic location "sweet spot" for full system response measurements with MLS, a technique I should probably document, as I have never seen it in the literature....

Note to readers: Much of this discussion relates to making accurate measurements at the lowest possible frequency below 1 kHz. Results above 2 kHz are not at issue, for the most part. I believe all of us doing this would agree we can easily and routnely achieve reliable results in the upper (shorter wavelength) region of the frequency spectrum using MLS.

[Mr. Widget]

Speed of sound is 13.56 in/ms, so being typically 1 M back, I get ~3 ms latency (delay) before the pulse.....that's right. I wasn't sure what the conditions of that measurement were... but now on reflection, I am sure that the 3ms was due to the "time of flight" between the driver and mic. I just wasn't thinking it through... and it has been months since I measured anything and two years since I took that particular measurement. :D When DEQX is in the circuit the delay is even longer... and obviously so is the time of flight when a 2m measurement is made.
I can see the floor reflection clearly. When it appears depends upon the height of the DUT and the microphone. I can usually knock that down to what I consider insignificance with padding on the floor. The differences in the FR curve are immediately apparent.That's true, but even with an 18" high stack of Sonex, I can get the higher frequencies to "clean up" nicely, but the Sonex is invisible to lower frequencies... for the lower frequencies to be accurately measured there is no substitute to increased distance between the loudspeaker and the floor or other object of first reflection.


Widget

[Robh3606]

The detail and resolution don't get lost... the "detail" you are seeing is the noise caused by reflections in the room. Unfortunately looking at your impulse plot, there seems to be a heck of a lot of reflective information in your measurement.

Hello Widget

The resolution does indeed get lost. Here are articles on measurement and the effects of widowing. JBL/Harmon went to a lot of expense to build a large anecholic chamber for this very reason. What's going on with my measurements is independant of that.

http://stereophile.com/features/105kh/

http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/AudioScience.pdf


Take a closer look at the scales. I am zoomed in a decade lower in my resolution. If I scale the plot in the same resolution as yours the "noise" goes away. The reason I did that was to find the first reflection. When you get in close at lower power measurements, under a watt, it's difficult to see them. My thoughts being that lower SPL means lower level reflections. I also did this measurement well away from everything right smack in the middle of the room to try to minimize reflections. Yes there is a higher noise level but there is always some noise in any measurement we do. Noise doesn't necesarilly translate as reflections. Have you been using CLIO for in room measurements?? If so what have you been doing??? I have been trying to figure out ways to try to extend the lower useful range without going outside. Do have any ideas along those lines???

Rob:)

[4313B]

I have been trying to figure out ways to try to extend the lower useful range without going outside. Do have any ideas along those lines???Gymnasium and a ladder. JBL uses a large room kind of like a small elementary school gymnasium.

Here are a couple of pictures of lifts in the rooms. In the second picture the lift is pointing towards an empty corner of the room.

[4313B]

I don't think the neighbors will like that at 3AM. I have two major roads less that 1/4 mile away plus overhead airport traffic depending on the runways used. Outdoors sure would be nice!!I really don't know what to say. Just do the best you can I guess.

JBL still uses this for ground plane measurements but the neighbors often complain regardless of the hour of day (loud levels to get a decent S/N). There is a system being measured to the left in this picture but we were not allowed to shoot a picture of it. I would have liked to have had a picture of the rig to show. The woman doing the measurements was in a small shack just beyond the SW corner of the picture.

[Robh3606]

Gymnasium and a ladder. JBL uses a large room kind of like a small elementary school gymnasium.

Hello Giskard

Thanks for the pictures!! Now that's a room!!! Well that's an idea. I am not portable though and I can't see getting a lap top so I am kinda stuck for now. Here's a crazy thought for you. You use an anecholic chamber so the speaker see's open space and all reflections are absorbed. I have been wondering if you can use noise to accomplish the same thing. If your reflections are very low level and get lost in the backround "noise" so you can't see them isn't that in essence the same thing?? You would need a pulse large enough so the software could discriminate it from the noise but you see where I am going with this?? Go very low level so they "get lost". I figure the lower the level of the reflections the less influence they have on the measurements. So do you think I am nut's or what???

Rob:)

[4313B]

I don't think you will be able to get a decent S/N doing that.

Try what Westlake does. Ken and Edgewound posted some pictures of their measurement rig.

Anechoic chambers are not all that fun to be in.

[Robh3606]

Thanks I will go take a look. I need to hit the books I guess. I am wondering what the consequences are with a higher S/N and what to look for. Just wondering what minimum would be still give useful measurements.

Rob:)

http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=12411&stc=1&d=1137787930

[Mr. Widget]

The resolution does indeed get lost. JBL/Harmon went to a lot of expense to build a large anecholic chamber for this very reason. Of course you are right.... but what I meant was that a properly time windowed MLS measurement always looks rather smoothed... and if it isn't smooth it means it has noise artifacts from reflections... now your very close horn measurements do indeed eliminate most of the room's effects so that is a different animal. I'll look into this some more soon...



Take a closer look... I will... but I've got to run. I need to take a series of measurements later today or early this week anyway so I'll check out what I get when I place the mic at the horn bell and then at distance.


Widget

[Ian Mackenzie]

Rob,

I think it would depend on the reverberation time of the measurement environment at the frequencies you are looking at. I mean if your room hangs for a bit at those frequenies you are going to have a hard time working out what is no matter what you do. Try a search on tube traps. There is a lot of stuff you can do to remedy the situation. It may seem crude but large absorbent bat above and below the subject under measurement makes a bit of an improvement.

I have heard of driver frames resonating and the way drivers are clamped to a baffle causing odd peaks and spikes so go figure.

If you are not confident of the setup it makes it difficult.

[Earl K]

Hello CLIO Club,

- I really like this LSPcad ( or is it PRAXIS ??? ) generated image belonging to "Too Tall" . I like it because of the included info on Acoustic Phase .

http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=24556&stc=1&d=1177261412

- Also, I noticed that Jack Bouska posted some images / though quite small / that pertain to acoustic phase . They are within his DIY thread ( highlighting his large MTM system ) with the thread being located here ! (http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=123390)

http://audioheritage.csdco.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=18222&stc=1&d=1157547082

- The above image was generated by his ETF software .

- Does CLIO also generate an Acoustic Phase readout ? ( I don't think I've ever seen one . )


Thanks < .Earl K

[Zilch]

Does CLIO also generate an Acoustic Phase readout ? ( I don't think I've ever seen one . )Yes, and it's just a button click to show it alone or superimposed, wrapped or unwrapped, as desired.... :thmbsup:

I don't post it 'cause I don't yet understand it.... :p

[Earl K]

Yes, and it's just a button click to show it alone or superimposed, wrapped or unwrapped, as desired....

Okay , Cool !

Thanks ! :)

[Zilch]

Newly introduced, a USB platform suitable for laptops, $1435.

V7.0 Standard is on sale for $1170. :thmbsup:

http://estore.websitepros.com/1736754/Categories.bok?category=CLIO

[Zilch]

In Cumulative Spectral Decay, what is the "Rise" parameter? :blink:

[Robh3606]

Hello Zilch

Rise??? Hmm don't know have to go have a look. Is it in the manual or are you seeing it on the control panel??

Do you mean Window Rise Time??


Rob:)

[Mr. Widget]

I don't have my laptop running Windows at the moment and so can't look, but I have a question... have any of you figured out a way to do CSD plots of low frequencies? Here are a pair of plots where the treated room has had specific nodes reduced. I tried messing around with CLIO a while back to see if I could measure such things and I couldn't get it to measure low frequencies. Every time I took a MLS measurement the lower frequencies were automatically filtered out.


Widget

[Robh3606]

The windowing has to do with the time of the measurement. The longer you keep the window "open" ungated the lower you can go. You can see it stating at 20-50hz. If you open up to 200msec it won't be there. Is that ARTA??

Rob:)

[Mr. Widget]

The windowing has to do with the time of the measurement. The longer you keep the window "open"...That makes sense and was my assumption, however where do you set the window? On many of my MLS plots I haven't gated them and they still clip...

I'll reboot into Windows and take a look at this again.


Widget

[Robh3606]

Here an alternate view. Do you have the window set from 20hz - 20Khz?? I just run them raw, take a look and adjust the widow so I can extract the most information. This one is gated to 100msec. You set the Window right in the Waterfall window. You hit the MLS button after you load the file and you can do whatever you want as far as setting the gates just like the MLS window.

Rob:)

[Robh3606]

Here's a screen shot of the window in CLIO

Rob:)

[Mr. Widget]

I just figured out where I was screwing up... I had assumed it was a time issue... nope. I was not adjusting the vertical sensitivity and was pegging the graphs. :o:


All is well now.

Didn't see the rise thing that Zilch was talking about?


Widget

[Robh3606]

I am assuming it's the Window Rise Time in the box below. They don't explain it all too well in the manual but they do show you examples of what before and afters look like if you change it.

Rob:)

[Zilch]

Yes, Window Rise Time, displayed as "Rise" in the legend of all of Rob's waterfall plots above.

I've played with it and it does stuff. I'd like to know what, so I can be rational about using it.... :dont-know

[Robh3606]

I've played with it and it does stuff. I'd like to know what, so I can be rational about using it.... :dont-know

Well that makes 2 of us:D They don't really explain it at all. I have been perusing through other software manuals. Nothing yet though.

Rob:)

[Mr. Widget]

Just got back on line. I'll take a look at that and report back if I figure it out.

What do you guys think about CLIO's color plots? Personally, I prefer the traditional line based plots.


Widget

[Zilch]

I certainly like the directivity ones. First time I saw those in 18-Sound spec sheets, it was, "WHOA!" Instant assessment.

Click "Curves" here:

http://www.eighteensound.com/index.aspx?mainMenu=view_product&pid=178

In CSD, it's like looking down from above on the conventional waterfall, and easier to track the frequencies. The resonances themselves are shown in better detail on the waterfall version, tho.... :yes:

[Mr. Widget]

I certainly like the directivity ones. First time I saw those in 18-Sound spec sheets, it was, "WHOA!" Instant assessment.
Not me... I've been looking at traditional polar plots for decades and they mean more to me. Well, at least the good ones where you can actually see the frequency call outs and the delineation lines.


Widget

[Robh3606]

Anyone figure out a way to average a group of curves in CLIO??

Thanks Rob:)

[Zilch]

And how to do the "stitching" of nearfield LF + MLS HF?

[Robh3606]

Hello Zilch

I have not tried it although they seem to go over it in the manaul. That's where I figured I could find curve averaging but no luck there. Have you tried it at all??

Rob:)

[Robh3606]

I just gave it a whirl. It's easy all you do is open the high frequency curve first and then go to the Processor Tool and there is a button to splice the curve. A small window opens where you select the frequency where you want to merge the curves. After you do that there is a browse button to select the file for the lower part of the curve. You select the curve and hit the Execute Process button and you are done. You can toggle it with the Process Button

Here are 2 spliced curves done at 2K

Rob:)

[Zilch]

Thanks, Rob!

I don't normally save the files, just the graphics, so I'll have to work up a test case.

Where is this in the manual, please, if you know off-hand.

Also, I don't suppose it's possible to stitch Sinusoidal NF with MLS HF, for example? :dont-know

[Robh3606]

Hello Zilch

It's in Chapter 10 page 127.

I don't think you can mix between Sin and MLS different program windows and file types.

Rob:)

[1audiohack]

With Clio can you test in the presence of noise like music or people talking?

[Mr. Widget]

With Clio can you test in the presence of noise like music or people talking?Depends on the test.

Here is the site for the new version 8... it offer even more features than my older version 7 does. I'll stick with version 7... it is pretty cool in itself.

http://www.mclink.it/com/audiomatica/clio/overview.htm


Widget

[Zilch]

Anyone figure out a way to average a group of curves in CLIO??How 'bout exporting them as data to Excel and averaging them?

Will CLIO then import, construct, and display the curve from the post-processed Excel data?

I've seen "average" curves published. Gotta be a way.... :yes:

[Mr. Widget]

Try shooting a note off to Audiomatica.

[email protected]


Widget

[Zilch]

http://www.audiomatica.it/download/audaesny2007.pdf

[Robh3606]

So how do you like the update??

Rob:)

[Zilch]

So how do you like the update?? Cool stuff.

[I've already learned my $300 worth.... ;) ]

[herki the cat]

Hello Zilch

[Quote Rob Continued]= How big is that Lab:hmm:;....... should be able to get as low as....... with these horns. Once I get below about Hz all hell breaks loose ......... the driver I am measuring...........as you can see no big deal. Rob:)

Well, Rob :), I found my way over to your earlier post, and looked at your tiny little horn which is just too small to load your driver at all in the mid bass spectrum below 500 Hz.

As amatter of fact__The 800H Altec Horn also is entirely too small for crossing over at 800HZ with a second order crossover rolling over at 12 db/octave.

Your best choice would be a JBL 2440 driver with original aluminum diaphragm using a matching JBL Radial Horn to support 300 HZ loading.

Ultimately, the new JBL state of the art Beryllium drivers are superb.

cheers... Herki the Cat