advertisement


Harbeth Monitor 40.1

I didn't get to see the Thai Eggs. Didn't realise they were so Abigails Party. They sound even more like my kind of speakers: odd looking, heavy, no longer made - a combination which tends to lead to bargain prices for the sound quality available. Shame I'm already speakered-up.
 
Paul Ranson said:
I'm pretty sure that trace doesn't tell us the whole story.
Click to expand...
Possibly not, but it does indicate a free-space design that should be positioned away from walls. It also suggests a nice fat midbass that will impress, and somewhat depressed upper mid/lower treble that will be easy on the ear.

How close am I?

James
 
James said:
Possibly not, but it does indicate a free-space design that should be positioned away from walls. It also suggests a nice fat midbass that will impress, and somewhat depressed upper mid/lower treble that will be easy on the ear.
Click to expand...

If you read the review that accompanies the measurement, there's a bit of a disagreement between Alan Shaw and John Atkinson over that measurement. Atkinson's measurement was done near-field in a small room, Shaw prefers measurements at one meter in an anechoic chamber. Anyway Atkinson acknowledges a 5dB difference at LF between his measurement and the one from the BBC chamber.
 
James said:
Possibly not, but it does indicate a free-space design that should be positioned away from walls. It also suggests a nice fat midbass that will impress, and somewhat depressed upper mid/lower treble that will be easy on the ear.
How close am I?
Click to expand...
Pretty close. The mid bass (not actually quite as fat as that - Atkinson's measurements being suspiciously similar in the LF...) only fattens up as the volume increases. This is not a lean sounding speaker even at low volume. And that's really the the point.
I'm not sure I'd take a professional speaker of this type now, what with the sophisticated, flexible and excellent sounding DSP designs on offer from the likes of Neumann, Genelec, Equator or PSI or, indeed, Markus' excellent and superb value, but non-DSP, JBLs.
 
Yank said:
Atkinson's measurement was done near-field in a small room, Shaw prefers measurements at one meter in an anechoic chamber. Anyway Atkinson acknowledges a 5dB difference at LF between his measurement and the one from the BBC chamber.
Click to expand...
Atkinson's measurement looks like what JustMLS would have produced if you measured the drivers and port separately (in the nearfield) and spliced to combine farfield gated driver measurements. The summed response is calculated by JustMLS. I suspect the midrange measurement (green plot) was stuffed up. You wouldn't ordinarily expect a driver working in this range to jump 10dB below 100Hz.

James
 
James said:
Atkinson's measurement looks like what JustMLS would have produced if you measured the drivers and port separately (in the nearfield) and spliced to combine farfield gated driver measurements.
Click to expand...
IIRC, that's what he does - in his (decidedly non-anechoic) apartment. Useful as a single "real-world" result, but not definitive.
 
The use of gated farfield and ungated nearfield measurements in an otherwise non-anechoic room produces pretty good anechoic results. The difficulty often arises in combining the nearfield measurements with farfield. It can be somewhat hit or miss, especially if one has no knowledge of the native response of the driver under test.

On the plus side, measurements above 1kHz taken at 1m or further are very accurate (presuming a calibrated microphone).

James
 
James said:
On the plus side, measurements above 1kHz taken at 1m or further are very accurate (presuming a calibrated microphone).
Click to expand...
No question about that. And those results can be very revealing, if not exactly in the audiophool sense...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top