Anechoic data set for Focal Speakers

[lovinthehd]

Just read it. I'm not a fool seeking reproductive audio perfection. I understand what Toole is saying, I would rather have enough working knowledge to know when it's time to sit down and be happy with what I have. Furthermore, I'm not interested in rearranging the furniture and acoustical panels, everything I hear something I don't agree with.

LOL seriously, if you dwell on audio these days are you really happy with what you have? What particularly is that level? Rearranging the room and working on acoustics would be likely a good starting point rather than d*ck around with hardware....

 

[rjharle]

@rjharle I've got a few things to say.

• Anechoic chamber measurements of speakers are the best way to compare the sound qualities of different speakers. This method essentially removes reflected sound from walls, floor and ceiling, and lets us see what sound qualities come directly from the speaker. Anechoic chamber measurements cannot tell us anything about how speakers might sound in our room, or any room.
  
  
• REW can be a useful tool for partially correcting the unwanted acoustic effects caused by room reflections, from walls, floor and ceiling. However, REW can also easily be misused to incorrectly alter a speaker's sound.
  
  
• REW is not a good tool to measure the frequency responses of only your speakers. It will measure the frequency responses of your speakers in combination with your room. Don't confuse the two – they are not the same.
  
  
• Finally, Google is your friend. Use it. You can find professionally done anechoic chamber measurements of your Focal speakers at SoundStage! Network Loudspeaker Measurements. They were all done by Canada's National Research Council (NRC), and are the state of the art. This facility was developed and put into use by Floyd Toole when he directed the NRC. They have already done measurements of several Focal speakers:
  Focal Aria K2 936 speakers
  Focal Aria K2 906 speakers
  
  
• Another audio forum, Audio Science Review, has done a full set of simulated anechoic measurements of the Focal 906 speakers.
  
  

  Focal Aria 906 Speaker Review

  This is a review and detailed measurements of the Focal Aria 906 Bookshelf/stand-mount speaker. It was kindly purchased by a member and drop shipped to me. I think it costs US $2000 for a pair but I see it on Amazon including Prime shipping for half that at US $999. Better yet, they have a...

  www.audiosciencereview.com

They look like they're very good speakers. Have fun reading all about them.

Thank you

 

[rjharle]

LOL seriously, if you dwell on audio these days are you really happy with what you have? What particularly is that level? Rearranging the room and working on acoustics would be likely a good starting point rather than d*ck around with hardware....

Thank you for your recommendation

 

[TLS Guy]

Since Dr. Floyd E. Toole seems to be the last word on sound reproduction, I thought I would get his book to help me with my new room/speaker setup. The first thing that I found out, for a number of reasons, Dr. Toole is not a fan of "Computerized Room Correction" he believes it has no value and doesn't solve the problem of speaker/room relationship. "Just another Corporate Gimmick"

So I'm on the path of bliss with Dr. Toole when I run into my first problem. Getting the anechoic data set for the speakers I purchase. Since they don't come with the speakers, not much information, I decided to write the company.

First Email: "I just bought some Focal speakers, and I'm trying to get the anechoic data set for loudspeaker for the Focal Aria 936 CC900, 906. I need the data, so I can set the speakers up properly. Thank you, and I await your response."
Focal Response: "Unfortunately, we do not have such data available for sharing, Please let me know if I can help with anything else."
Second email: "Without that data, how can the speakers/room be setup?"
Focal Response: "Your Room is not an anechoic chamber, therefore the data is useless, the readings are done during Transducer Design in order to make sure they attain the design spec. When placing in your room, it comes down to personal taste, and if you need that level of detail, the need for a professional reading is recommended for each different location you may place them, because once the readings are done, and the room is treated, you can never move the speakers unless you re-read the room at the new location, and re-treat (diffusers, sound traps, etc.).
Third Email: "According to Dr. Floyd E, Toole's Sound Reproduction 3rd Edition, I will need the anechoic data set for these loudspeakers. The test data you provide is nonexistent, other than specs, with the speaker. In order for me to set up the speaker/room, speaker naturality, will be needed. Thank you and I await your response.

I' waiting for a response. Do I really require the data; haven't gotten that far into the book.

I'm glad you are educating yourself from an authority such as Dr. O'Toole.

Unfortunately this area is awash in misinformation, and I regret to say some of it on these forums, and it continues.

Focal are right to a degree, but they should publish that information. I firmly believe that you should NOT purchase any speaker where full measurement data are unavailable. The problem is that there is not much you can do with an aberrant speaker. Dr. O'Toole is right about that. If you have a lousy speaker, you cat bet there will be mismatches between on and off axis response, not correctable by any form of Eq. Also there likely will be resonant issues of retained energy not amenable to Eq.

Now you can get close to anechoic measurements in your room, at least above 300 Hz. Often the information below that is not far off, especially of you have a good room. It requires special pulsed signals. I use the Omnimic system. I have been very pleased with it.

In addition there is not much you can do with your room, as these to an overwhelming degree are determined by the physical dimensions of the room. The issues are confined to the frequencies below 100 Hz for most rooms. The issue arises because at certain frequencies in the bass decade, at some frequencies these reflections will reinforce and cause a peak, and at others cancel and cause a null. Now Eq, can help reduce a peak, but trying to Eq a null is misguided and prone to overload components and increase distortion. Changing the location of subs can help here, but add to the disassociation of fundamentals and harmonics.

I have long maintained that subs should be as close as possible to the main speakers. In addition having speakers of sufficient quality they can be crossed at 40 Hz rather than 80 Hz is advantageous.

The big issue where Eq falls apart is that so much of this room issue does come from speaker problems. Reflections from the room are a very good thing. Dead rooms DO NOT sound good. Normal speech human speech from a talking human in pretty much any room will sound fine. If you know the person, they will sound the same from one room to another. So a speaker should, but most don't. The problem is the speaker and not the rooms.

This issue arises because the direct first response, has a different frequency envelope form the secondary reflections. This is why a speakers with an off axis response out to over 60 degrees that does not very closely match the first on axis response will be a poor performer. The more reverberant the room the more apparent the problem.

Having had speakers in huge variety of rooms in my years doing on location recording and monitoring from speakers, I can tell you that is true. Good speakers will not be fussy about their environment to a very large degree.

This brings me to the last point, that you can not correct for this with Eq, only make it worse. The reason being that you can not apply the frequency correction to both the axis and off axis response with an equalizer, because the two responses require different correction! This also applies to automated Eq programs.

So this is why I harp on the fact the choosing or building good accurate speakers is essential to good reproduction. If the speakers are not accurate, you are out of luck. There is nothing you can do about it.

So if your speakers are not accurate you are stuck with them. To that extent Focal are correct. Having data that would show problems with your speakers, that I have referenced, would just tell you, you should not have bought them in the first place.

 

[rjharle]

I'm glad you are educating yourself from an authority such as Dr. O'Toole.

Unfortunately this area is awash in misinformation, and I regret to say some of it on these forums, and it continues.

Focal are right to a degree, but they should publish that information. I firmly believe that you should NOT purchase any speaker where full measurement data are unavailable. The problem is that there is not much you can do with an aberrant speaker. Dr. O'Toole is right about that. If you have a lousy speaker, you cat bet there will be mismatches between on and off axis response, not correctable by any form of Eq. Also there likely will be resonant issues of retained energy not amenable to Eq.

Now you can get close to anechoic measurements in your room, at least above 300 Hz. Often the information below that is not far off, especially of you have a good room. It requires special pulsed signals. I use the Omnimic system. I have been very pleased with it.

In addition there is not much you can do with your room, as these to an overwhelming degree are determined by the physical dimensions of the room. The issues are confined to the frequencies below 100 Hz for most rooms. The issue arises because at certain frequencies in the bass decade, at some frequencies these reflections will reinforce and cause a peak, and at others cancel and cause a null. Now Eq, can help reduce a peak, but trying to Eq a null is misguided and prone to overload components and increase distortion. Changing the location of subs can help here, but add to the disassociation of fundamentals and harmonics.

I have long maintained that subs should be as close as possible to the main speakers. In addition having speakers of sufficient quality they can be crossed at 40 Hz rather than 80 Hz is advantageous.

The big issue where Eq falls apart is that so much of this room issue does come from speaker problems. Reflections from the room are a very good thing. Dead rooms DO NOT sound good. Normal speech human speech from a talking human in pretty much any room will sound fine. If you know the person, they will sound the same from one room to another. So a speaker should, but most don't. The problem is the speaker and not the rooms.

This issue arises because the direct first response, has a different frequency envelope form the secondary reflections. This is why a speakers with an off axis response out to over 60 degrees that does not very closely match the first on axis response will be a poor performer. The more reverberant the room the more apparent the problem.

Having had speakers in huge variety of rooms in my years doing on location recording and monitoring from speakers, I can tell you that is true. Good speakers will not be fussy about their environment to a very large degree.

This brings me to the last point, that you can not correct for this with Eq, only make it worse. The reason being that you can not apply the frequency correction to both the axis and off axis response with an equalizer, because the two responses require different correction! This also applies to automated Eq programs.

So this is why I harp on the fact the choosing or building good accurate speakers is essential to good reproduction. If the speakers are not accurate, you are out of luck. There is nothing you can do about it.

So if your speakers are not accurate you are stuck with them. To that extent Focal are correct. Having data that would show problems with your speakers, that I have referenced, would just tell you, you should not have bought them in the first place.

Thank you

 

[rjharle]

I'm glad you are educating yourself from an authority such as Dr. O'Toole.

Unfortunately this area is awash in misinformation, and I regret to say some of it on these forums, and it continues.

Focal are right to a degree, but they should publish that information. I firmly believe that you should NOT purchase any speaker where full measurement data are unavailable. The problem is that there is not much you can do with an aberrant speaker. Dr. O'Toole is right about that. If you have a lousy speaker, you cat bet there will be mismatches between on and off axis response, not correctable by any form of Eq. Also there likely will be resonant issues of retained energy not amenable to Eq.

Now you can get close to anechoic measurements in your room, at least above 300 Hz. Often the information below that is not far off, especially of you have a good room. It requires special pulsed signals. I use the Omnimic system. I have been very pleased with it.

In addition there is not much you can do with your room, as these to an overwhelming degree are determined by the physical dimensions of the room. The issues are confined to the frequencies below 100 Hz for most rooms. The issue arises because at certain frequencies in the bass decade, at some frequencies these reflections will reinforce and cause a peak, and at others cancel and cause a null. Now Eq, can help reduce a peak, but trying to Eq a null is misguided and prone to overload components and increase distortion. Changing the location of subs can help here, but add to the disassociation of fundamentals and harmonics.

I have long maintained that subs should be as close as possible to the main speakers. In addition having speakers of sufficient quality they can be crossed at 40 Hz rather than 80 Hz is advantageous.

The big issue where Eq falls apart is that so much of this room issue does come from speaker problems. Reflections from the room are a very good thing. Dead rooms DO NOT sound good. Normal speech human speech from a talking human in pretty much any room will sound fine. If you know the person, they will sound the same from one room to another. So a speaker should, but most don't. The problem is the speaker and not the rooms.

This issue arises because the direct first response, has a different frequency envelope form the secondary reflections. This is why a speakers with an off axis response out to over 60 degrees that does not very closely match the first on axis response will be a poor performer. The more reverberant the room the more apparent the problem.

Having had speakers in huge variety of rooms in my years doing on location recording and monitoring from speakers, I can tell you that is true. Good speakers will not be fussy about their environment to a very large degree.

This brings me to the last point, that you can not correct for this with Eq, only make it worse. The reason being that you can not apply the frequency correction to both the axis and off axis response with an equalizer, because the two responses require different correction! This also applies to automated Eq programs.

So this is why I harp on the fact the choosing or building good accurate speakers is essential to good reproduction. If the speakers are not accurate, you are out of luck. There is nothing you can do about it.

So if your speakers are not accurate you are stuck with them. To that extent Focal are correct. Having data that would show problems with your speakers, that I have referenced, would just tell you, you should not have bought them in the first place.

Just one question, just for curiosity can speakers be tested outside to get an idea of its neutrality?

 

[lovinthehd]

As to measuring speakers outside, that's how shadyJ does it, as he doesn't have an anechoic chamber to use. I don't know what you mean by neutrality particularly, tho.

 

[TLS Guy]

Just one question, just for curiosity can speakers be tested outside to get an idea of its neutrality?

Testing outside eliminates the room effect in the lower octaves. It does not help tell you if it a better speakers, as there are no reflections. How the speakers sound in your room is what counts.

Speakers that are inordinately fussy about the room they are in, or their position have red flag issues.

 

[rjharle]

Testing outside eliminates the room effect in the lower octaves. It does not help tell you if it a better speakers, as there are no reflections. How the speakers sound in your room is what counts.

Speakers that are inordinately fussy about the room they are in, or their position have red flag issues.

Thank you

 

[Sigberg Audio]

It's always interesting to see the anechoic measurements of a set of speakers, but it won't help you equalize your in-room sound. If Focal had provided the anechoic measurements, what would be your next step?

And yes, in theory you could measure the anechoic response by lugging your speakers outside, but even there it's hard to get accurate measurements across the entire frequency response, as you will see reflections from ground, potentially nearby structures, etc.

My assumption is that you would like to equalize your system for better in-room response? This can be done in the lower frequencies (below 2-500hz depending on your setup and room) by measuring in-room with REW and adjusting accordingly. Frequencies above is best left alone, and as others have said, at these frequencies you have what you have, for better or worse.

 

[Pogre]

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to understand.
Dr. Toole says I need the anarchic data to help with the room, computer software is "useless" and his book is written for the layman.

You say chuck it all and go with REW? (computer software}

Toole means applying room correction software iirc... also it's "anechoic", not "anarchic" (is that even a word?).

You seem to have some confusion over what REW is. It's not a program you "apply" to anything and is far from useless. You simply use it with a mic so you can measure your in room response. If you're concerned about neutrality I don't know how on earth you're going to get there without some way to measure your response. I would imagine the good Dr Toole would also agree...

 

[rjharle]

It's always interesting to see the anechoic measurements of a set of speakers, but it won't help you equalize your in-room sound. If Focal had provided the anechoic measurements, what would be your next step?

And yes, in theory you could measure the anechoic response by lugging your speakers outside, but even there it's hard to get accurate measurements across the entire frequency response, as you will see reflections from ground, potentially nearby structures, etc.

My assumption is that you would like to equalize your system for better in-room response? This can be done in the lower frequencies (below 2-500hz depending on your setup and room) by measuring in-room with REW and adjusting accordingly. Frequencies above is best left alone, and as others have said, at these frequencies you have what you have, for better or worse.

The question of outdoor testing was just a question I was curious about and asked TLS Guy. He answered it and I thanked him.

Since I have to use Anthem ARC for room correction my plan is to apply ARC to Modal 0 - 300 (room) and acoustical panels for the Stochastic 300 - where needed. Will be using REW and Omni.

 

[Pogre]

Not to mention room correction software is leaps and bounds ahead of what Dr Toole would have had access to when he wrote the book.

Regardless, REW is NOT room correction software (unless you want to use it for such, but you don't have to). It does however, allow you to see exactly what's going on in your room so you can make informed decisions on what to do next.

 

[rjharle]

Toole means applying room correction software iirc... also it's "anechoic", not "anarchic" (is that even a word?).

You seem to have some confusion over what REW is. It's not a program you "apply" to anything and is far from useless. You simply use it with a mic so you can measure your in room response. If you're concerned about neutrality I don't know how on earth you're going to get there without some way to measure your response. I would imagine the good Dr Toole would also agree...

also it's "anechoic", not "anarchic" (is that even a word?). - I see I'll have to be more careful with my proofreading. (watch for typos) Thank you for pointing that out

You seem to have some confusion over what REW - No confusion. Corrections are applied based on results. REW isn't "automatic room correct" which was the subject of useless. So if ARC is useless AS per DR. Toole how do I correct for Modal (room) 0-150. I have to use Anthem ARC.

 

[rjharle]

Not to mention room correction software is leaps and bounds ahead of what Dr Toole would have had access to when he wrote the book.

Regardless, REW is NOT room correction software (unless you want to use it for such, but you don't have to). It does however, allow you to see exactly what's going on in your room so you can make informed decisions on what to do next.

Not to mention room correction software is leaps and bounds ahead of what Dr Toole would have had access to when he wrote the book. - I don't think so. First Edition 2008 Second, Edition 2013, Third Edition 2018 I would think he would have mentioned something if his position on ARC had changed.

Seems we were posting at the same time.

 

[Pogre]

Corrections are applied based on results.

Correct. And you get those results by taking careful measurements with a mic and REW. Trying to achieve a linear response just by ear is nearly impossible. You can hear when something is off, but you can't necessarily pinpoint which frequencies need addressed without measurements. That's where REW comes in. I see from your following post tho we seem to be on the same page now.

As far as ARC goes, that is also room correction software isn't it? I'm not familiar with ARC. By most accounts it is one of the best programs out there, but isnt it what you're trying to avoid? There are other ways to to tweak your response by leveraging the room's acoustics in your favor using careful placement techniques, phase correcting, etc. If you read Floyd's book I know I don't have to explain that to you. He's a very strong proponent for positional eq and careful placement. I was assuming you were going to use that approach.

Seems we were posting at the same time.

Happens all the time, lol. Plus it looks like I could do a little better job reading replies and letting them sink in before responding. I might have misunderstood you at first.

 

[Pogre]

Not to mention room correction software is leaps and bounds ahead of what Dr Toole would have had access to when he wrote the book. - I don't think so. First Edition 2008 Second, Edition 2013, Third Edition 2018 I would think he would have mentioned something if his position on ARC had

I know his first book especially he had some strong opinions on ARC software, but that was quite a while ago in tech years.

I do have his third edition but have barely cracked it open. Your thread is making me feel lazy, lol.

 

[highfigh]

I find it odd that they would write "the readings are done during Transducer Design in order to make sure they attain the design spec"- how can speakers be designed to work well in random rooms if they don't know the acoustical characteristics? The whole reason for using an anechoic room (or approximating anechoic) is to find the response from the speaker without any interaction with the room. Obviously, the in-room response needs to be found, but using anechoic measurement is still helpful for determining if the driver has any issues that might make them difficult to work with in a system.

 

[Pogre]

I find it odd that they would write "the readings are done during Transducer Design in order to make sure they attain the design spec"- how can speakers be designed to work well in random rooms if they don't know the acoustical characteristics? The whole reason for using an anechoic room (or approximating anechoic) is to find the response from the speaker without any interaction with the room. Obviously, the in-room response needs to be found, but using anechoic measurement is still helpful for determining if the driver has any issues that might make them difficult to work with in a system.

Yes, knowing the anechoic response can be helpful but knowing your in room response is what matters most. Speakers like op's are from a reputable manufacturer known for making very nice, accurate speakers so I think in this case precise anechoic data isn't really necessary. I think it's safe to assume the speakers in question are going to be pretty linear and measure well.

 

[highfigh]

Toole means applying room correction software iirc... also it's "anechoic", not "anarchic" (is that even a word?).

You seem to have some confusion over what REW is. It's not a program you "apply" to anything and is far from useless. You simply use it with a mic so you can measure your in room response. If you're concerned about neutrality I don't know how on earth you're going to get there without some way to measure your response. I would imagine the good Dr Toole would also agree...

WRT 'anarchic', google 'Portland, Oregon'.

Definition of ANARCHIC

of, relating to, or advocating anarchy; likely to bring about anarchy; lacking order, regularity, or definiteness… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com