Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. https://www.instagram.com/jackalotus/ you can see the driver being taken apart as well as the Playa deployment in my feed and my story and story archive for BC speakers has more
  3. Yesterday
  4. Bummer about the drive man, that sucks. got any deployment pictures from the playa?
  5. Well, I finally blew a B&C Speakers 21SW152- 4ohm in a SKRAM running a QSC - PL380. Burnt the coil up real good. In my rush to get the system running on the Playa I accidentally hit the clip limit switch OFF on the PL-380. I currently am working on a RECONE and am having trouble deciding on the glue to use. Regarding the SKRAM design after using them now for 6 months. OUTSTANDING!!!! With a quality driver like the B&C 21SW152 the Bass is as others put it, LUXURIOUS! Paired with Meyers Sound Tops, incredible!
  6. Last week
  7. Is the room drawn to scale? It looks like a small room, and unfortunately it looks like your seats will fall right in the lengthwise null. I didn't mean to say that modal/standing-wave resonances aren't important. They usually do come into play in small rooms. It's just that other considerations are also important, and that study largely ignored those things. How response affects how the bass "sounds" is anything but simple. Putting a sub in a corner without other sub(s) in opposing corners to "cancel out" the standing waves does in fact increase the coupling of the sub to the room's standing wave resonances compared to placements away from those corners. The advantage, IMO, is that such resonances can be attenuated using EQ. Placement away from walls tends to cause suck-outs that aren't easily repaired using EQ, and these response issues may be harder to discern from measurements as well. Either way, EQing a system for the best sound is much easier said than done. It's hard to say why you were not successful applying DSP to "fix" problems heard when a sub is placed in a corner. My first suggestion (1) here is to not obsess too much over what your in-room "frequency response" shows. It's not "wrong", it's just not all that consistent with what you actually hear. Instead it offers hints. Second (2), always look at measurements from multiple locations. Features that appear in several locations within the room are more likely to be audible. Spatial averaging can help somewhat with selecting for these, but rule (1) still applies. Third (3), use EQ judiciously. You're trying to EQ out problematic features, after you've identified them, not make a curve look prettier. The data you get from measuring is part of a map, not the territory. Fourth (4), listen to the result and use your ears to make the final judgment. A prettier curve is no guarantee of better sound. So for example, you might look at your measurements and notice a narrow peak at the same frequency that appears at most locations. Then you might choose a Q or bandwidth for your filter, based on the shape that appears in a spatial average. You might further select a gain that's something like half of the spatially averaged peak, listen to evaluate the result, and then iterate on the gain until the character of the resonance can no longer be heard but not so much that the sound becomes lifeless in that frequency area. Apart from the obvious resonances, you can experiment with broad shape adjustments to improve octave-to-octave balance. This might be best done by ear, unless you are correcting some aspect of the sub that you know about from outdoor measurements or something. For example, you can add a Linkwitz transform to alter a sealed sub's roll-off/Qts to different values, albeit with very substantial effects on *power* and *excursion* requirements. If you know roughly where your subs exhibit an "inductance hump", then a broad EQ dip might be helpful here. To the extent that you are able to use EQ to reduce or eliminate audible problems, you can make significant improvements to your sound, but you will likely find that other problems still linger. The consequences of those problems are varied and complicated. Your changes might lead to much improved clarity, but you might lose a lot of "slam". Or maybe you get more impact but a "colder, harder" sound. Almost every good sound system gets hand-tweaked at the end of the process, so don't hesitate to experiment, especially with broader scale EQ adjustments. I think you are confusing *gain* with *power capability*. The volume setting on your pre-amp says nothing about how much headroom you have in your amps. It's possible that your "really loud symphonies" are actually clipping and distorting on some of the bigger hits. It can be hard to tell unless you are able to A/B the difference unless you're really overloading things badly. With that said, 83 dB is very insensitive. For a "reference" home theater experience, where you are sitting ~10 feet away, you'll probably want speakers closer to 93 dB sensitive. Mind you, a lot depends on details --- are we talking 2.83V or 1W? What do the speaker's impedance and FR look like? IMO, speaker sensitivity (assuming use of subs) is most important in the 120-700ish Hz range where you're most likely to see big suckouts due to baffle and boundary problems, especially where they coincide. Either way, I don't think 83 dB will not cut it unless you plan to listen at lower volume. The other thing you need to keep in mind is that each +3 dB "costs you" twice as much power. So while 700W sounds impressive, it's only 8.5 dB higher than 100W. You could easily see that by putting the sub in a corner vs. mid-wall. Or put another way, moving the sub to gain 6 dB would be similar to *upgrading* your 700W amp to 2800W, *and* you'd have less distortion. Do you have any way to take measurements before you design the room? That would help a lot. Number 3 sounds sketchy. They are essentially IB subs if their back-ends fire into open space that is isolated from the room. However, I have no idea what your giant MDF contraptions are going to do mechanically, and you could end up losing a lot of efficiency among other serious problems that way. It's definitely best for the sub drivers to be mounted rigidly. I lean towards your option 2.,putting the subs in the corners under the bass traps. If you are sitting more toward the back of the room, then the subs will be closer to you than the front wall, so hopefully that lengthwise null with be a fair ways in front of you. The opposing corners placement will cancel out the major width-wise standing wave. Is there any reason why both (1) and (2) only involve using 2 subs? Why not use all 4? Why not do (2) and also put two subs at the front of the hall, at the midpoint and on the ceiling if need be.
  8. Good question! Originally, yes. Although first I should clarify that the shape of the spatially averaged response depends quite a bit on what measurements you include in the average. IIRC, I was flat in the MLP where there was a kind of mid-bass "power ally" effect, but had rise toward the bottom in the outer seats. I'm pretty sure I went back and made broad-shape tweaks to get the sound to "my liking". And by "flat", I only meant for the sub anyway. I totally agree that flat in-room FR will almost always sound too thin and bright. What you're doing for your room is essentially what Harman et.al. recommend these days, and seems to be pretty standard for "state-of-the-art" DIY system as well. These days, I believe Harman regards their latest target curve to be "secret sauce"---essentially proprietary. That's just bizarre to me. I mean, it's probably only subtly different from previous target curves they've recommended which are publicly known. But more importantly, a target curve is, at best, a fuzzy indication of where things should end up. The X-curve in cinema is essentially the same (e.g. +/- 3 dB tolerances, which are huge for SQ purposes, and pretty much gave the projectionist the lee-way to set the EQ to whatever sounds best for him/her, until we replaced them with robots that don't "hear" like humans do). The same system will "measure" very different, even in the same room, depending on where choose to measure. Does the average include more or fewer off-axis seats? Are the extra rows included? How close are the seats to the speakers, relative to the room size? Those things and have a huge impact on where your broad response shapes will fall, so the target curve doesn't end up being useful IMO. Another thing is that the content itself is not all roughly +/- 2 dB or something, broadly. Instead, there are huge *differences* in spectral balance, not just between programs, but between tracks and/or segment of the same program. In movies for example, a popular technique seems to be "mixing big", which among other things seems to using a huge "smile" EQ curve to up the impact of "big" on-screen events. These differences largely overwhelm target curve differences. What matters far more is that trying to fit in-room response (even with spatial averaging) to a smooth curve doesn't really lead to optimal results. It might clean up some of the most obvious modal/room resonances, but it tends to make a mess of the innate/anechoic FR of the source and may actually make transients sound worse than without the EQ processing. I don't really know, but I have often experienced more satisfying bass from speakers without EQ than with some kind of "room correction".
  9. Make sense to me actually my speakers Dynaudio C5 is designed in the way you described. Instead of using the conventional design which is the woofer in the middle of the cabinet, they had the woofer on top end of front baffle and they have one of the tightest and most accurate bass for that price. (although not much, as they are sealed and I put them away from the corner. they sound so bad when you put them in the corner) Perhaps I would put one driver on each end of the long box haha...
  10. Thanks mate, there's so much useful knowledge in your response...I need to spend more time considering every point you made. And my view is somehow similar to yours, only that the room does not allow me for such setup. Please see the attached picture. Meaning of different color: Yellow-Lights, irrelevant here. Blue-Absorption Purple-Diffusion DarkBlue-Bass Trap. the bottom of this plan is the french doors and that opens up throughout the whole wall (left wall to right wall all the way) thus subwoofers cannot be put there... After reading your response I do agree with you on the priority of bass design - room mode shouldn't be a major concern, especially when using dual or 4 subs with DSP. However throughout years of using subwoofers from big brands - SVS and Rel especially - I do find putting subs close to the corner do sound muddy and boomy and I had no luck fixing that using DSP in the past. If room modes and phase problems emerging from reflections adding onto/cancelling each other are not that important, how can we make subs sounds good in the corner? (like how they should perform on paper)I mean putting a reasonably sized merchandise subwoofer right in the corner shouldn't blur the bass on paper - but it does in reality. I'm not 100% sure what the issue is. In my case I have 4 units of Dayton UM15-22 subwoofer driver. The amp I've prepared are not subwoofer's plate amp but Hypex NC500 monoblocks. I'm using one for each subwoofer and these amps can output 700W clean power stably, for each channel. I've got really inefficient floorstanders Dynaudio C5 (sensitivity=83db) and these monoblocks drive them easily ------ only need -30db from preamp for really loud symphonies I compared with my friend's Dynaco and Krell, and they cannot get much bass out from the C5. so with the Hypex amps power isn't really an issue here. After reading your inspiring response I think there are three ways I could use the drivers in this room and they are: 1. 2 sealed subs, with one driver on each enclosure. Both subs on the floor, one located at mid-backwall, one located at mid-frontwall. But as there's a french door in front the front sub can only get so close to it (there will be a gap at least) and my impression is this is a kinda embarrassing distance from the wall, not far enough to avoid reflection issues but also not close enough to solve them in another way. 2. 2 sealed subs, with one driver on each enclosure. Both subs on the floor, located below the 2 bass traps (see the floorplan). fit snugly against both walls of the corner. 3. 4 subs mount directly onto very thick MDF - such as a 3" thick one made of 3 sheets of 1" with green glue between them. 4 MDF board mount onto the midpoint of each wall, for side walls ------ 1 meter from the floor and 1 meter from the ceiling. For backwall ------ floor. For front ------ Above french doors. Use pure amp power to push them hard enough so they work to desired SPL without enclosure.Kinda like IB subs but I don't have that much space in the wall. Which way would you recommend? Much appreciated (go back to read your response again🏋️‍♂️)
  11. What you said about the flat response is correct. If a speaker's in-room response is EQ'ed to be flat (or downward-flat) that literally means Direct Sound + all Reflection = fixed number across all frequencies, and since almost all speakers has non-linear off-axis SPL, trying to get flat in-room response like this would mean wobbly output across all frequencies. Of course this wouldn't sound good. In my layman's understanding the flat response and downward-flat in-room response thing simply means that's people's average preference, if there's a pair of speakers that performs consistently on-axis and off-axis. Statistics averages out different speakers' frequency response (both on-axis and off-axis) so what we are seeing from those study tells us something about all tested speakers as a whole, and simply applying it without careful tweaking would almost guarantee generating weird sound, for any particular pair of speakers. So if we have a pair of speaker which measures flat in an Anechoic chamber, both on-axis and off-axis, and output narrows linearly as frequency goes up - would measure flat downwards in a normal room, and sound excellent to most people. Of course no speakers are this good yet. Sounds like we're in the same situation but I guess I'm just asking in advance before going out to the workshop and start cutting MDFs 🤤
  12. I have made subs that are long like this and yes you need a lot of stuffing to combat standing waves, the higher you can push the first standing wave up in frequency the more effective the stuffing will be: Another thing to consider is your driver placement is a worst case scenario for standing wave generation (mid pipe). If you consider possible standing waves in the pipe you can have a maximum at the driver and two minima at either end at 86Hz (fundamental modes. You would be better off putting the driver at one end.
  13. I have run between one and 4 subs at home and much prefer 4 subs, they are mostly corner placement. I take a frequency response measurement at each seat of my sofa and vector average the results. After I have dialed in the sub crossover I fit the response to a target curve below 500Hz as my main speakers are close in to the corners and designed to be flat in free space so this has to be compensated for and there are some large peaks in the lower bass that need to be cut to avoid the whole thing been boomy. Works well but I wish there was a more scientific method. SME when you say flattest possible response do you mean an actually flat response? as from my understanding a constant directivity speaker in a domestic room which has a flat free space response should have a tilted downwards response in room (and will sound natural in this condition) so equalizing to flat in room will make a speaker sound overly bright.
  14. Sure! But your picture is missing a whole lot of *braces*. Other things to consider: material use is inefficient vs. a more square-like shape. And, the enclosure will develop internal standing wave resonances that are particularly low. You'll definitely want more depth of stuffing/fill at each end. Also, see my replies to your other thread about preferring corner placement for higher efficiency among other things.
  15. I also want to add that the article and sound people in general take "frequency response" measurements captured in a room way too literally. The study seeks to minimize "mean spatial variation" while ignoring the crucial question of whether that should even be the objective. My experience suggests otherwise. The first problem is that bass perception isn't merely a function of hearing through the ears. Bone conduction and mechano-reception (via nerves throughout your skin and body) likely play major roles too, and they are able to pick up signals from a wider variety of locations and via different transmission mechanisms. Second, the brain possesses highly advanced cognitive processing that is well adapted to listening in small rooms and inferring the nature of the sound source independently from the "acoustical context". Floyd Toole and Harman have provided ample evidence that, at least for mid and high frequencies, the listener is capable of "hearing through the acoustics" to a great extent in order to ascertain the original sound source, i.e. the speaker or sub. They've shown that anechoic chamber measurements, on and off axis, correlate better with blinded listener preference than an in-room measurement (taken "literally"). I believe this remains true for bass, except that as you go lower, the speaker drivers interact with more than just the cabinet. They begin to interact with nearby boundaries as well. These boundaries effectively become part of the speaker, and their influence alters the sound of the speaker, just as different cabinet and baffle shapes do. Go low enough, and the speaker/sub will even interact with the modal /standing wave resonances in the room. Nevertheless, the Harman people seem to ignore these observations and instead argue that optimizing in-room frequency response is the best course for bass, despite it being sub-optimal for mids and highs. They believe that essentially all the usual rules "go out the window" below the "Schroeder transition frequency", and that below this point, standing wave behavior dominates the room response. I disagree with them on all these counts. First, Schroeder transition frequency is a theoretical construct that assumes large rooms with diffuse reverberant fields, not small residential listening rooms. They describe this transition as typically happening around 500 Hz, probably because that's the rough point below which in-room frequency response measurements start to look a lot "messier" with peaks and dips. In reality, this is simply a consequence of lower directivity, meaning more and stronger reflections are contributing to the measured response than for higher frequencies. Second, I don't believe most rooms exhibit standing waves until much lower in frequency, and that behavior may not even predominate for subwoofer frequencies. unless you are in a room with stiff walls. Third, the presence of standing waves does not necessarily preclude the listener's ability to "hear-through" the local acoustic effects. Where standing waves are involved, a null in SPL response coincides with a peak in particle velocity level (PVL) response. It's possible that listeners may be able to perceive aspects of PVL independently from SPL, perhaps through indirect mechanisms like hair or clothing movement. And fourth, I've tried optimizing for minimum seat-to-seat variation and then flattest possible response in my own room using practically unlimited custom DSP capability. The result looked beautiful in the REW plots, but the sound quality was far from ideal. This was most evident when I auditioned one of Harman's own speakers, the (Revel Salon 2), playing (in another room) with no EQ whatsoever. Its musical bass quality blew mine out of the water. For my purposes, this essentially disproved the claim that flat in-room frequency response is ideal, and it inspired me to develop a novel and more clever approach to assess the sound of the speaker independent of the localized acoustics. My current method seems to work just as well at 25 Hz as it does at (say) 1500 Hz, and so I'm not aware of any sort of transition frequency where the rules of perception change. The only thing that changes is how *complete* anechoic/ground plane measurements are for describing sound quality, where for bass those measurements are still relevant but room effects become at least as important. Anyway, sorry I can't give simple answers, but that's the nature of the subject! I'd suggest you blame your brain, but actually if it weren't for our brains conspiring to make everything sound better than it really does, none of us would probably have this hobby.
  16. Earlier
  17. @kipman725: I'm pretty sure he's not talking about a DBA. Hi @arcsabre, I think I know what paper you are referring to. It's also covered here: https://www.audioholics.com/room-acoustics/optimum-locations-for-subwoofers-in-rectangular-rooms The study is a theoretical investigation of standing wave room resonance behavior, and the opposing mid-wall placement recommendation arises as the optimal placement for two subs (run together as one, with no differential delay in the signal going to each) that minimizes seat-to-seat variation of frequency response in the room interior I want to highlight a number of problems with taking that conclusion from the study and running with it. First, the study is theoretical and does not consider absorption and losses in the walls, floor, and ceiling. Unless you're inside a bunker, those losses are not trivial . The lack of symmetry due to different kinds of construction on different walls is one thing. If your walls aren't particularly rigid, you may not have much of a problem with standing waves anyway. That's because standing waves require multiple successive reflections to build up. Second, mid-wall placements typically have poor output efficiency and suffer more from boundary interference effects from the adjacent walls. My own experience is that these problems can be severe. Depending on your room, such interference problems may predominate over standing waves for much of the response. In general, subs are most efficient in a corner because the corner allows more pressure to build near the cone, which improves energy transfer. This efficiency boost is very important because it reduces the amount of equipment and cost required to reach a particular output goal. Also because the sound energy spreads through a smaller section of the unit sphere ("pi/8 space" vs "pi/4 space", the directivity is effectively higher, meaning you get high SPL for the same power output too. Even the paper notes that mid-wall placements tend to have poor output vs. corner placements, but they are focused on minimizing seat-to-seat variation regardless of cost or compromise. Third, the study treats the subwoofer system completely independently of the mains speakers. The trouble here is that the subs do eventually cross over with the mains, and that crossover region is quite broad even with fairly steep high order. For an 80 Hz crossover 4th order LR, it might be 60-110 Hz, which is nearly an octave, and covers frequencies that are crucial for enjoying all bass content. IMO, a good crossover with the mains is likely to be *more important* than avoiding standing waves at lower frequencies, especially if your focus is music. My suggestion if you are building two subs is to put one in each front corner of the room. This puts them relatively close to the mains, so they will be more likely to combine with the front channels at multiple room locations. These placements will also cancel out some of the standing waves along the width of the room, if that's a problem for you. It will not cancel out standing waves across the length of the room. This is most likely to be a problem for in the very middle of the room (length-wise) or a little further back, and if it's possible to move those seats even a couple feet, it might make a big difference. If you can build 4 subs, then you can put one in each corner. Though this might make integrating with the front mains channels a bit trickier---or not. A lot depends on specifics.
  18. Like this - although ultimately I'm looking at building one with sloped front baffle. More like a trapezium or triangle, viewed from left and right side. indicative only - would need to develop internal bracing , stuffing .etc in the official design
  19. Hi I am just wondering if a sealed subwoofer box with a size of, say, 30cm x 30cm x 2 meters, is going to work out? this gives us around 6.35 ft³ of box size, which is ideal for some 15" drivers to have a Qtc of around 0.7, which seems to work out on paper. I am trying to build something that stays as close to the back wall as possible without having to knock a hole on the wall. With such proximity to the wall (thinking of it as a wedge against the backwall) the phase cancellation would not occur until goes up to above 200hz. way above the crossover point. This design would allow it to stay close to the wall and have decent box size without standing out like a sore thumb in the room (and got Mrs as "excited" as you could imagine) But seem to be a weird design aside from on the paper. (Anyone seen such thing before?) Do you think it's going to work similarly to a traditional shaped subwoofer of the same internal size?(like 1.8' x 1.8' x 1.8') I suppose with a sealed box it is less concerned about the internal structure? (compared to a ported one, which may require complicated air path internally) Anyone could shed some light? Much appreciated
  20. Ah ok I thought it might be a double bass setup but was thrown off track a bit. I see a few issues: 1) double bass setup should launch a plane wave which relies on the point sources on the opposed walls been within 1/4 wavelength of each other and there to be point sources within 1/4 WL of the walls. At say a crossover 80Hz this is 1m, however real world this can probably be pushed up a bit: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/double-bass-array-dba-the-modern-bass-concept.837744/ So definitely in your configuration there is no plane wave due to the geometry. 2) Another issue I see is that your room has unequal absorption on each wall due to the french doors. Even considering this I still think it would be better to run two subs rather than one even if running them as double bass array doesn't work due the smoothing effect on room responses: https://data-bass.com/#/articles/5cb5fb285389a80004c7e58a?_k=ymaw45
  21. If someone has tried this setup and found issue I might just go for a single 21" DIY sub in the middle of the backwall like something Ricci designed...
  22. That's right and I'm just more concerned about whether this setup is going to work similarly as the "front-wall-midpoint" and "back-wall-midpoint" dual sub method which has been proven to work well. I will run test with measurement mic and REW after installation but I probably have to fix them to their position once installed (especially the ceiling one). I am able to adjust the phase and EQ afterwards but not relocate them so just wanna see if there's any obvious issue that can only be solved by moving them to a different place.
  23. I think he is planning to run a double bass array, which works best if everything is perfectly symmetric. I'm not sure how well this particular arrangement would work, but I guess it wouldn't hurt to try.
  24. Placement looks fine, the main thing is to have more subs and place them in a diverse set of locations around the room, they don't care which direction they point. Real rooms differ from the research (in your case you have a large lossy door on one wall) so its not necessarily true the best locations would have been mid wall anyway. Box volume isn't very important (as long as your using EQ) as what produces the sound is the cone moving in and out a larger box is just requiring less power to reach a given SPL when operated below Fc.
  25. Hi all, I am currently designing a DIY subwoofer for a rectangular theatre room which is to be built and fixed to the floor and against the back wall. It will be located the midpoint on the virtual floorplan view.I've done some research and Floyd Toole's paper inspired me of a symmetric dual-sub setup, with Sub1 placed at the midpoint of the front wall, and Sub2 at the midpoint of the backwall. Both are sealed.However as the front wall of my theatre room is actually french doors I can't have Sub1 built the same way as Sub2. I have to tweak the idea slightly.I am now considering to build Sub1 at the midpoint of the front wall but just below the ceiling instead of on the floor. so the 2 subs will still be symmetric but the symcenter is in the middle of the room in 3D, instead of the center of the floor.Is there going to be some issue if I have Sub 1 firing towards the audience's face but tilted downwards (like 25° or so) while Sub 2 firing towards the back of the audience but tilted upwards?I've never seen such design that's why I'm just a bit concerned. I'm aware of bass being omnidirectional and I'm not really worried about that part. Just what do you guys think about this idea in terms of any potential phase cancellation/wall reflection? I'm going to have my subs fixed to the walls and possibly the ceiling and floor.In this case I should be able to get relatively clean bass due to non-existence of reflected bass from the back wall right? I see Floyd Toole's paper in which he tested subs against the walls and some dual setup (and quad sub setups) could actually provide excellent result, contrary to the common understanding that "subs should be as far from the corner & walls as possible".The size of the sub in the picture 1 below is only indicative and I am planning to build relatively wide enclosures so the size of the boxes isn't going to be too small. the size I'm currently thinking about is h330 d270 w600 (height and depth are shown in the picture) a relatively wide shape. I can certainly go wider (not taller or deeper) but I'm slightly worried about matching the damping factor of the enclosure to the driver. Currently I yield a Qtc of 0.4688 using a 15" subwoofer driver from Lavoce (see picture 2). A lot people recommended a Qtc of 0.707. If I go wider the Qtc of this DIY sub would drop below 0.4688 and getting even lower. So I don't know if this is something that's limiting me from going any wider.Would be great if any one knowledgeable could shed some light 🐸 thanks all ba(by)ss Pic1 Pic2
  26. So who's gonna be the brave one who get's to compare the DTS DVD of The Haunting with the new Bluray? Personally, I don't think it'll measure up. The DVD used a discreet 6.1 mix created specifically for the disc by DTS, whereas the Bluray has a 5.1 soundtrack (the original theatrical release was 5.1 EX) and there's a long standing rumor that DTS really pumped up the LFE effects for it's 6.1 mix.
  27. I don’t think wanna go under 10, although,with the sealed UMs, I here things in some ULF movies that I never heard before,pretty cool.Find the LaVoce in a store in France,tlhp.I’m in Germany too,can you model the eight Saf for me please, I’m not so good with winISD.Can contact me if you want. Thanks all alot for your help!
  28. 200€ for the 184.03 is very good, it's about 240 where I usually order. 8 sealed 18" drivers with some 15mm of one way excursion will probably be enough to dig below 20Hz. Maybe not below 10Hz, but that's better handled by dedicated TR devices anyways.
  29. Hi guys! modified the cabs from ported to sealed ( approx. 6,2 cuft net internal volume) and don’t loose much on ULF, not so loud like the ported around 20Hz, but now extended until 10 and under.Will attach a measurement pic ( black is raw and green is with EQ).I realized that I will never achieve the midbass that I’m looking for with the UMs, no matter what I do and how the in room measurements look like, they are sluggish in my opinion and so I made the decision,on peniku8 and Kyle’s suggestion,to sell the UMs and buy some high efficiency drivers. Don’t know if I can afford to buy B&C,but I find the Lavoce saf184.03 for 200€ and can buy 8 of them( can accommodate another two sealed cabs behind the screen)Presume the 8 can give me the kickbass that I’m looking for and makes a drum solo sound more real life like and think that output is not a problem, but do they reach 20Hz and a little bit under in the ULF? or are there alternatives to the Lavoce until 300 per driver?
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...