BillFitzmaurice.info

BrentEvans wrote:Hey Chris,

What would you think about a function that moves the chart up or down a specified number of db? This would be interesting for comparisons, and give a rough measure for cab multiples, to be used in system matching.

+1

BrentEvans wrote:What would you think about a function that moves the chart up or down a specified number of db? This would be interesting for comparisons, and give a rough measure for cab multiples, to be used in system matching.

It is perfectly possible, however, the intention of the tool was only to display actual recorded results. The reason for this is to minimise the misuse of the tool to those who don't fully understand the data they are reading, and, the limitations that it fails to represent.

I believe that such a modification would cause more confusion than it would provide clarity, especially to the casual reader.

Chris_Allen wrote:

BrentEvans wrote:What would you think about a function that moves the chart up or down a specified number of db? This would be interesting for comparisons, and give a rough measure for cab multiples, to be used in system matching.

It is perfectly possible, however, the intention of the tool was only to display actual recorded results. The reason for this is to minimise the misuse of the tool to those who don't fully understand the data they are reading, and, the limitations that it fails to represent.

I believe that such a modification would cause more confusion than it would provide clarity, especially to the casual reader.

I too think this would be a good idea. And don't worry about the newbies; for instance, I did't even know this tool existed until after like 4 months of reading the forums. Before that, I would just trace the lines with a dry erase marker on my monitor and move the image up and down.

Chris_Allen wrote:It is perfectly possible, however, the intention of the tool was only to display actual recorded results. The reason for this is to minimise the misuse of the tool to those who don't fully understand the data they are reading, and, the limitations that it fails to represent.

I believe that such a modification would cause more confusion than it would provide clarity, especially to the casual reader.

Perfectly understandable. Such a feature would be more at home in a standalone chart generator, if you were ever to do such a thing. That might be nice though, in the form of a page which generates the SPL tag by making selections, and displays the chart on the page. The actual SPL tag could be made so that it could be copied and pasted to a post, but without the +/- modifications. This would effectively eliminate having to go to a new post to use the chart program, make posting charts easier, and still keep accurate charts on the forum.

If any of that makes sense...

jcmbowman wrote:I was a little shocked to see that I really should have built the THT instead of my beloved T36s.

Not necessarily, If you look at the charts the response below 55hz seem to be very similar between the two designs(+-1db or so), exept for below 25hz where the THT wins, but above 55hz the T36 wins. If you take into account that the charts are 2.83V, which is 8ohm for the THT and 12ohm for the T36, you can see that the T36 is the more efficient design. The THT also can't be fed as much power as the T36 (dvc15 vs 3015LF that is) which gives the T36 an additional advantage. I don't know how high the maximum sensitivity is for the two designs but if any of them has the advantage it should be the T36.

I hope that I have cured your doubts and fears fellow breathran.

Turntablist wrote:

jcmbowman wrote:I was a little shocked to see that I really should have built the THT instead of my beloved T36s.

Not necessarily, If you look at the charts the response below 55hz seem to be very similar between the two designs(+-1db or so), exept for below 25hz where the THT wins, but above 55hz the T36 wins. If you take into account that the charts are 2.83V, which is 8ohm for the THT and 12ohm for the T36, you can see that the T36 is the more efficient design. The THT also can't be fed as much power as the T36 (dvc15 vs 3015LF that is) which gives the T36 an additional advantage. I don't know how high the maximum sensitivity is for the two designs but if any of them has the advantage it should be the T36.

I hope that I have cured your doubts and fears fellow breathran.

I was being sarcastic. I was more referring to the plot which showed a corner-loaded THT vs. a freestanding T36.

jcmbowman wrote: I was being sarcastic. I was more referring to the plot which showed a corner-loaded THT vs. a freestanding T36.

Aah, I see! Well, keep pounding them T36s!

Added the DR280 with NSD's:

...and the AutoTuba...

DR200 and DR250 with the ASD1001:

What are these charts??

They were for testing the application

Shouldn't be in the list.

Chris, the AT 8 MCM does not work, graphs say file not found, e.g.:



And, completely unrelated, T18 is not listed. Would be nice if it could be added (I'd like to be able to compare it with AT and TT, for instance).

Chris, or Bruce, is the AT measured in 1/2 space, 1/4 space or with cabin gain? If that was DavyGrvy's AT, it was HL10C loaded, not MCM 8.

AntonZ wrote:Chris, the AT 8 MCM does not work, graphs say file not found

Typo, should be ATDMCM8

I'll get the T18 added.