RTA vs. Clio, et. al

[edgewound]

Here's a new discussion to get into.

I feel both the RTA and the CLIO type systems have their usefulness, along with the waterfall type FFT analyzers. You can bet that Harman/JBL has all of them. The single sweep tone type of analyzer will give an idea of where weaknesses lie in the drivers ability to reproduce single frequencies in relation to all others with a given signal amplitude. The RTA will a give snapshot of how the driver and/or system can reproduce a complex set of frequencies when the whole spectrum is exciting the drivers all at once. After all...the harmonics involved, say, in pink noise, will probably cause other peaks and nulls, cancellations and summations in the driver diaphragms due to the imperfections inherently in the applied materials....and so will the fundamental frequencies in a sweep tone. There is no perfect driver....yet. So....all these tools are very useful in tuning a speakers response to zero in on the most accurate or pleasing sound by applying electrical tweaks in the form of passive or active crossover filters and EQ. In addition, the tools can be used to find or give a certain voicing characteristic to a musical instrument speaker such as for guitar by tailoring the components: cone material, geometry, thickness; voice coil dimensions and impedance; suspension compliance; motor size and strength....to give a certain amount of desirable distortion.
Any other comments you'd like to add...please do.

Thanks...have a great weekend.

[Mr. Widget]

I feel both the RTA and the CLIO type systems have their usefulness...

I suppose you should insert MLS for Clio as Clio has RTA capabilities as well as Swept Sine, Stepped Sine, Tone Pulsed, MLS, FFT, and others as well as calculating and plotting waterfall plots, polar plots, etc., etc.

You can bet that Harman/JBL has all of them.

Yes you can. Though I don't think they use RTA for much these days.

The RTA will a give snapshot of how the driver and/or system can reproduce a complex set of frequencies when the whole spectrum is exciting the drivers all at once.

This is exactly what a MLS measurement gives you, but at better than 1/12 octave resolution. When you see a MLSSA or Clio MLS plot you are not looking at a swept sine wave, but at a burst of noise similar to white/pink noise that is then calculated and processed to show the relative output at different frequencies. When you see a Leap plot or a Clio Sinusoidal plot you are looking at a series of sinusoidal tone bursts that are then processed and provide similar info.

Widget

[Earl K]

Hi

- I use both sorts of test signals .

- Perhaps overlooked is the fact that a Behringer DSP8000 / 8024 ( I don't own a 2496 ) can act as a nice fuction generator . It'll quite handily output "Pink Noise" , "White Noise" and "Sine Waves". The Sine Wave resolution between steps is quite good .

- If I'm hunting for a bothersome tone that can't be easily identified with Pink Noise, I'll switch to the Sine Wave output and step through a batch of relevant tones ( specific to this octave of interest ) . A very cheap Radio Shack meter on a tripod will easily identify the relative peaks & valleys . This is quite handy when one wants to bypass that Pink Noise averaging of an area and zoom in on some specifics . Of course, this poor mans Sinusoidal test setup won't easily allow a postable screen capture or even a nice retreavable computer record. One does need to take notes ( usually of the paper & pen variety ) and use the ears to judge funny or "overbearing" sounds. It is quite amazing how some components react to sine waves .

- I've also trained my ears to identify excessive "ringing" within passive networks while subjecting those networks to Pink Noise . It is quite something that even Pink Noise sounds smoother when those L & C elements become electrically spaced apart .

- I guess I'm pretty oldschool with these things