Talk:Loudspeaker measurement

message: This article reads waaaaaay too much like an advertisement.  In particular, MLSSA is owned by one company that stands to benefit from its use.  I don't want to slap an Advert tag on the article, but I want to caution editors to avoid pushing their solution as an industrial standard.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwbyrd (talk • contribs) 19:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Advertising

message: "color: the timbre of a musical sound; "the recording fails to capture the true color of the original music". 
I dispute the factual accuracy of the section 'Colouration analysis'.  While resonances and such do color the reproduced sound, coloration can (and does) occur through other mechanisms.  The term coloration comes from optics where white light can be 'colored' by passing it through a filter.  Similarly, white noise can be 'colored' by passing it through a filter, e.g., pink noise.  Alfred Centauri 21:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loudspeaker coloration 

message: The section "Frequency response measurement" should be rewritten in its entirety. It consists mostly of random personal thougths that not give any particular insight on the subject: E.g. Power bandwidth measurements simply yield other types of information and is only "more useful" in certain contexts (for example when the output level is critical and the response may be non-flat). The comments on the impact of Equal-loudness curves are quite misleading since the effects are most distinct at low levels when the powerhandling is in most cases not an issue. Furthermore, it is only the RELATIVE level that governs the impact (i.e. if a sound is played at higher levels than the original level the perceived low frequency output will be HIGHER and hence the relative low frequency level should be LOWERED in order to perceive sound as the same as the original). And even further, this is nothing that should conflict with the use of "frequency response"; in particular, in combination with the loudspeaker sensitivity it gives a pretty good idea of what can be expected. But it is indeed a good remark that the total picture requires that the FR is complemented with corresponding distortion information and input gain, and that unfortunately more-or-less deliberate mis-usage is common. The statement "A weakness of most quoted figures is failure to state the maximum SPL available" is a quite bizarr remark. It is already pointed out in this discussion that the headphone section is confusing. Et cetera et cetera. The author seems to mix the benefits of different parameters and try to rank them as "better" or "worse" when it instead is more a question of correct usage.
IMO this section should instead include information on the definitions of frequency response, what measurement units are possible and their relationshios, the impact of different fft resolutions, pros and cons of different ways to make measurements (free-field, diffuse field, mls vs. sine sweep et cetera), how free-field measurements of the frequency response are related to the frequency response in rooms et cetera et cetera.
Acoexp (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency response measurement 

message: The whole section is unsubstantiated and nonsensical. Let's start with the first sentence: "Using an equalizer to correct for room response is a poor solution[citation needed - citation needed indeed] (exception: digital room correction [why would digital eq be magically better? Nonsense.]), especially at low frequencies [It is only at lower frequencies that we have any hope of room correction at all (given that this is a section on room modes). At anything but, shifting your lifting position by the smallest amount would screw up any correction you may have added]" 37.2.135.245 (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That gack was placed in the article back in April 2006 when it was created. User:Lindosland put it in; he is an audio amplifier design engineer but I think the room modes section was too much shooting from the hip and not enough referring to books. Lots of older Wikipedia articles are like this; they should of course be corrected if possible. Paragraphs that are wrong or that are impossible to cite should be deleted. At any rate, loudspeaker measurement these days does not rely on correct room measurement; there are FFT analyzers that use time windowing to remove all room influences. Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimising room modes and equalisation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Loudspeaker measurement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100323144234/http://www.audio-components.co.uk/store/productdetail.asp?ProductID=4476 to http://www.audio-components.co.uk/store/productdetail.asp?ProductID=4476
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified