RTA testing result
05-23-2004, 12:50 AM
#1
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
This is just a test to see how well the graphics are interpreted. Feel free to comment on what is considered usefull in the graphic, and what is not. I can change it easily. Before I start posting large numbers of RTA graphs, I figured I'd get people's feedback on what looks good.
This graph shows the result of playing with X.O. frequencies between the midrange and tweeter in my car. There is NO equalization or time correction, and both the midranges and tweeters are in-phase.
Enjoy,
Adam
[ May 23, 2004, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: PEI330Ci ]
This graph shows the result of playing with X.O. frequencies between the midrange and tweeter in my car. There is NO equalization or time correction, and both the midranges and tweeters are in-phase.
Enjoy,
Adam
[ May 23, 2004, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: PEI330Ci ]
05-23-2004, 01:05 AM
#2
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
Ok, I get the first comment.
You can't see the color of the lines very well. I'll make them thicker and change the colors to something brighter.
Note: The graph resolution is "only" 50 points per octave smoothed (averaged) every 1/10 octave. Normaly a graph is much more jagged in the higher frequencies without smoothing.
You can't see the color of the lines very well. I'll make them thicker and change the colors to something brighter.
Note: The graph resolution is "only" 50 points per octave smoothed (averaged) every 1/10 octave. Normaly a graph is much more jagged in the higher frequencies without smoothing.
05-23-2004, 05:52 AM
#5
That looks better PEI330ci, almost too thick (picking nits)...
You've got a good title, units and graduations on both axis, a log of two measurements.
Maybe just more info in the 'Notes', rta used, speaker + crossover models and such.
So do I interpret the data as the xover at 8k is "better" because the transition is smoother (straighter line) over that range than at 4k?
Gene
You've got a good title, units and graduations on both axis, a log of two measurements.
Maybe just more info in the 'Notes', rta used, speaker + crossover models and such.
So do I interpret the data as the xover at 8k is "better" because the transition is smoother (straighter line) over that range than at 4k?
Gene
05-23-2004, 08:07 AM
#6
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
Oh...I've got lots of curves with comments in the notes section. For this post, I wanted to draw peoples attention more to the graphics than the content, but still have some understanding of what was being displayed.
It wouldn't be a good time to explain how each one sounds, I'd need more graphs to explain what I heard. Right now I'm not going to get into that, I've got a lot more testing to do before I come to some better answers. What I plan on doing is chronicaling my journey to better sound.
As it has been mentioned elseware, RTA work just get's you in the ballpark, your ears get you to home plate.
I'll be posting some more meaningful stuff shortly.
Adam
It wouldn't be a good time to explain how each one sounds, I'd need more graphs to explain what I heard. Right now I'm not going to get into that, I've got a lot more testing to do before I come to some better answers. What I plan on doing is chronicaling my journey to better sound.
As it has been mentioned elseware, RTA work just get's you in the ballpark, your ears get you to home plate.
I'll be posting some more meaningful stuff shortly.
Adam
06-06-2004, 09:15 PM
#7
50 Watt CAFz'r
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 192
Hey PEI330Ci
The second graph is way easier to read. I think Fever is right about the line thickness, but that isn't too important. All information is still displayed clearly and the colors make it much easier to distinguish the two plots.
In your future postings are you going to have a 20-20kHz display or as shown with just the area of interest? The scaling is pretty good, the response looks worse than it actually is (was?)
Can hardly wait for more.
J
The second graph is way easier to read. I think Fever is right about the line thickness, but that isn't too important. All information is still displayed clearly and the colors make it much easier to distinguish the two plots.
In your future postings are you going to have a 20-20kHz display or as shown with just the area of interest? The scaling is pretty good, the response looks worse than it actually is (was?)
Can hardly wait for more.
J
06-06-2004, 09:47 PM
#8
1000 Watt CAFz'r
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,783
Thanks Jaxom.
Yes I can do any scale I want. I can easily zoom in on an part of the displayed graph as well. The graphs are smoothed 1/10th octave, so there is actually more info there than what is displayed. Simply put, I'm showing 10 points per octave of the 50 points per octave that I measured. It gets pretty jagged on the higher frequencies if you don't smooth it.
If anyone has ever heard the term "Dynos lie", you'll be comfortable with an RTA. They are a tool, but are only as usefull as the user's knowledge makes it.
How did it sound? Well the 8k point was easier on the ears, but the 4k point imaged better. I've been playing with EQing that peak, and it made it sound worse. Running a 5khz X.O. point with the tweeter level reduced sounds the best right now, but I really need to get myself a better X.O. like the DXE to do better tuning. Underlaping X.O. points will fix the peak....but who know's how it will sound.
As a point of reference, I run a log book describing how things sound. It kind of helps identify trends when tuning.
Adam
Yes I can do any scale I want. I can easily zoom in on an part of the displayed graph as well. The graphs are smoothed 1/10th octave, so there is actually more info there than what is displayed. Simply put, I'm showing 10 points per octave of the 50 points per octave that I measured. It gets pretty jagged on the higher frequencies if you don't smooth it.
If anyone has ever heard the term "Dynos lie", you'll be comfortable with an RTA. They are a tool, but are only as usefull as the user's knowledge makes it.
How did it sound? Well the 8k point was easier on the ears, but the 4k point imaged better. I've been playing with EQing that peak, and it made it sound worse. Running a 5khz X.O. point with the tweeter level reduced sounds the best right now, but I really need to get myself a better X.O. like the DXE to do better tuning. Underlaping X.O. points will fix the peak....but who know's how it will sound.
As a point of reference, I run a log book describing how things sound. It kind of helps identify trends when tuning.
Adam
