Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[doctorbug]

Hello-
Has anyone had any experience with the AX series speakers? We currently have a new design for the Renkus Heinz STX9 speakers. How does the AX stack up against the STX?

[Jerry Nuckolls]

You have to decide what your needs are.  My experience is that the RH boxes tend to array better.  Individually, the model that I would suggest is the AX because it's theoretically more consistent.  

edit: I suggest caution on looking at graphs for the scale may not dictate the information that you want to look at.

Both speakers sound extremely good upon listening to a well tuned st/x 9 series box or an AX box.  Your purpose and design may influence you a little more.  For example, if you were looking to have a single box per side, I would tend to reach for the EAW, however, if you needed multiple boxes per side, or a mono cluster, I would reach for the Renkus.

Attached is a graph of several models in each series.

1 90x40 rh
1 60x40 rh
1 60x40 eaw
1 90x60 eaw

Jerry Nuckolls
Acoustics Engineer
Image Media Solutions

[Chuck McGregor]

Jerry,

They (EAW) "....don't really measure them."

Sorry. This is and has been a completely false statement. EAW has always done measurements and made many inprovements in its measurement/specification process as technology has permitted.

"Attached is a graph of several models in each series."

I am curious. If EAW does not "really measure them", where did the data come from for your DI graphs of the AX396 and AX364?

"I on the other hand tend to question EAW's measurements..."

Then please ask about or indicate what you question. Such a blanket opinion has little substance without some credible information as to why. I'd be pleased to respond on or off the LAB.

[Tom Young]

EAW specifications have always been very reliable for me. To date I have done quite a few system designs with EAW ldspkrs (of all sizes and types) and I rely heavily on their printed specs and EASE data.

I happen to be involved in quiet a few listervs, professional trade organizatiosn and other networking vehicles and I would venture that the consulting and contracting communities at large would heartliy also disagree with Jerry's gross mis-statement.

[Jerry Nuckolls]

Let me clarify myself, I believe eaw offers a fine product and the measured data is to be trusted.  I should have used the caveat: be aware of the scale on your marketing graphs that you use because it may not highlight nuances that each speaker has.  Thank you for pointing this out...I'll correct the post above.

[Tom Young]

Care to give an example of a manufacture who does provide more detailed (or scaled) representation of what they're loudspeakers do ?

[Jerry Nuckolls]

Tom,
   I would be glad to expound on this.  I think turbosound's frequency response graphs are fine examples of fairly detailed information for a consumer.  Case in point: ftp://ftp.turbosound.com/datasheets/ta880h.pdf  These speakers are hardly what a consumer would wow over if he was comparing that to his marketing package with "consumerized" data.


On the other hand, it seems that marketing packages tend to zoom out far enough in scales that we might miss a 6db change from 1k to 1.5k on a speaker box rated +- 3db 60hz-19khz.

Eaw's own website suggests the need for careful examination of graphs.  This discussion shows the same measured data however, I think if you were a consumer you might think that the speaker on the lower right, was better than that of the one on the upper right at a different scale.  

http://www.eaw.com/APP/pdf/s3/s3_specsheet_details.pdf (page 12)

This is where I think ease, catt and even more so the new clf speaker measurement file format can give consumers a more fair method of looking at data.  

The next time I see a marketing package that a rep hands me with a graph in it, I'll be sure to scan it to give a more finite example of a good graph or a not so good graph.

I also believe that Mr. Danley posted a while back questioning how to present measured data for the consumer with his new company, to which you had wished him well.  
 http://srforums.prosoundweb.com/index.php/m/39614/5033/0///5 80/?SQ=4bd84064ab1261261bb359370384ef3b

[Tom Young]

While it appears that your interest in valid and honorable, I think you need to dig deeper in order to see that much of what we are doing and can do is flawed and we are a long way from being able to visualize what is going on and predict what will occur as far as loudspeaker behavior. EASE and other current modeling programs (with the exception of Meyer's MAPP) are all severaly restricted in what they can show by virtue of their low resolution and inabaility to employ phase data to any meaningful degree. MAPP does much higher resoltuion and employs phase data but the data collection and creation of data files are conducted in a non-verifiable manner behind closed doors. One has to be very naive to think that someone somehwere does not "proof read" what is distributed to the public or allowed to be viewed when modeling with such a program.

I need to also comment on the Turbosound graphs you supply as an exampe of superior or more useful data. Unless I am willing and determined to start completely from scratch and "design" my own settings for this system, I have no interest in the behavior of each individual driver in anyone's ldspkr system. I want and need to see the response of the entire *system* including the results of the crossovers, smoothing filters, phase compensation, etc.  But maybe that's just me. I don't really care if the graphs are higher resolution if I cannot tell how well the designed system behaves.

I don't pay a whole lot of attention these days but I suspect that EAW is pretty much in the same ballpark as the other reputable loudspeaker manufacturers as far as accuracy and vality of the data they provide. They all could be doing better (I also suspect) but the modeling programs themselves are far from perfect even with the most basic of calculations. We are a long ways off from really being able to accurately model a loudspeaker system, despite what a good number of folks otherwise claim.

When I use a loudspeaker system I expect to run into a large number of anomalies that are due mostly due to interaction between devices and from the space the system is in. I make every attempt to employ devices that behave reasonably well to begin with for the obvious reason that this minimizes the work I have cut out for me. By and large all of the top lines provide this level of quality and behavior. But everyone has a clunker or 2.

I guess I can sum up my feelings by saying I don't take any puplished data too seriously, although I certainly do use it in my research. I am also naturally suspicious of those manufacturers who appear to take a "higher than thou" stance and especially those who do not work within the framework of our professional trade/engineering organizations or feel they are somehow way above everyone else in either their methodologies or design chops. Fortunately, most of us can almost always draw our own conclusions based on how well the products actually behave when we use them.

As to your term "consumerism" I think that anyone who reads too much into published specs (which are intended to help sell products....don't forget) and who do not conduct their own evaluations deserves to be fooled.  This applies of course to any product in our free market culture.

[Chuck McGregor]

HI Jerry,

>>This discussion shows the same measured data however, I think if you were a consumer you might think that the speaker on the lower right, was better than that of the one on the upper right at a different scale.

Your punctuation can lead to different interpretations of the above. To be clear, the point of the graphs was to show how one set of data could be processed to display the four "different" results.

>> This is where I think ease, catt and even more so the new clf speaker measurement file format can give consumers a more fair method of looking at data.

Actually not. These programs only display data provided to them by the manufacturers. What is lacking is a common method for such data collection and its processing. Without these, one is left to making educated guesses, at best, about comparability.

Polars are a prime example of this. As one example, if the entire loudspeaker system is measured as a single source then that data is accurate ONLY at the measurement distance. Complex data from each source (i.e. driver) is needed to do accurate predictions at other distances.  The larger the loudspeaker(s) and/or the shorter the measurement distance, the more this is relevant. For predicting array performance, all bets are off without such data. The programs you mention have no bearing on these things.

Cheers,

[John Roberts {JR}]

chuck wrote on Wed, 18 May 2005 08:07

HI Jerry, >>This discussion shows the same measured data however, I think if you were a consumer you might think that the speaker on the lower right, was better than that of the one on the upper right at a different scale. Your punctuation can lead to different interpretations of the above. To be clear, the point of the graphs was to show how one set of data could be processed to display the four "different" results. >> This is where I think ease, catt and even more so the new clf speaker measurement file format can give consumers a more fair method of looking at data. Actually not. These programs only display data provided to them by the manufacturers. What is lacking is a common method for such data collection and its processing. Without these, one is left to making educated guesses, at best, about comparability. Polars are a prime example of this. As one example, if the entire loudspeaker system is measured as a single source then that data is accurate ONLY at the measurement distance. Complex data from each source (i.e. driver) is needed to do accurate predictions at other distances.  The larger the loudspeaker(s) and/or the shorter the measurement distance, the more this is relevant. For predicting array performance, all bets are off without such data. The programs you mention have no bearing on these things. Cheers,

Hi Chuck: Good luck with the struggle. I have always found it difficult to communicate nuances of interpreting specifications to the marketplace. It's not because they are overly technical, but because most consumers are not willing to invest in the complexity. They much prefer gross simplification. More power, flatter frequency response, lower distortion. Don't confuse me with the fine print... you must be hiding something ???    

I don't consider consumers lazy per se, their life is complex enough dealing with other humans and their need to understand a given specification is usually a one shot deal making it hard to justify burning too much gray matter on one issue.

Stay the high road. Provide clear, consistent, reliable specs. Explain to all who are willing to listen. In the long term the professionals will figure out who is the real deal and who is the fakir.

JR