Hi,
merlin said:
Thorsten,
There you go exaggerating again in order to prove your point.
Nope, I did not have the Mag available, I wrote from memory.
merlin said:
It was 3.3% at 40hz/2nd and 2.2%/3rd. Oh and it was substantially better at 50hz.
You are correct, 3.3 & 2.2%, which sums with the higher order components to 4.1% THD @ 40Hz or -28db, instead of -26db.
Looking at the graphs, the 50Hz distortion at an SPL 6db less than the comparisons are around 6db less than at 40Hz or or around 2% (-34db) but as noted, at low frequencies due to excursion THD goes pretty lineary with level (check the graphs from the earlier linked NRC measurements), so 6db more SPL = 6db more THD and thus we can with a reasonable certainty predict - 28db THD (appx 4%) @ 50Hz/96db/1m for the ATC, so my notes where slightly off the mark, but within a reasonable error and my main point about comparisons with the other speakers is still born out.
merlin said:
The measurements show +/- 3db from 40hz to 20khz. The measurements were taken at 0.25m at a level equivalent to 90db at 1m.
Yes, with heavy smoothing and more to the point, instead of common narrowband deviations around a "flat" mean we find significant trends of depression and boost, which will cause a reliably audible deviation from "flat".
BTW, my own reading of the graph as "+1db/-5db" says the same thing, gives and actually wider bandwidth, but clearly illustrates my point about the non-flat response. Comnparison to the NRC measurements and those by MEG (all with minimal smoothing) is advisable for reference.
merlin said:
Horizontal off axis behavior showed the roll off to be consistant and smooth.
I would not call a tolerance field between 200Hz and 20KHz of overall 9db with a flat unattenuated response to 4KHz and then a fairly drastic attenuation of 6db over 2 octaves consistent.
If you do, well I don't know.
merlin said:
The staff writer describes these as " a very fine set of measurements" Now either he is lying, or he is referencing them against measurements taken of competing loudspeakers in the same circumstances.
I have read the ad copy, oops editorial content, too. I can only conclude (especially referenced to some of the measurements provided earlier) that the comparison standard for "fine measurements" was set at the lowest common denominator, not in comparsion to the state of the art.
As you point out, much is intent. My intent in reading the measurements was to point out that in terms of measurements at least there are more "accurate" Monitors than ATC, which makes their marketing claims which some people with more enthusiam than knowledge have proclaimed in the pages of this board as aboslute and dogmatic truth cannot stand up in reality.
If only ONE speaker could be found that would measure in ONE single aspect better than ATC my case would have to be considered proven beyond reasonable doubt, considering that ATC's measurements are far from fine when compared to the AVERAGE high performance loudspeaker of similar format and that in ALL ASPECTS, I think any case of "ATC makes the most accurate monitors money can buy" can be safely dismissed as belonging into the realm of advertising sci-fi with very little relation to reality.
Care to disagree, in that case illustrate how ATC's claims are true.
Ciao T