Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Just got home from a screening of The Last Jedi. A favorite reviewer of mine says this is a movie of incredible 'moments' tied together by underwhelming material, and I agree. The sound mix was certainly aggressive though. It's been a while since I've heard such active use of the surround speakers. Shit was flying everywhere. The bass was very, very similar to TFA and R1 but not quite as one dimensional as the latter. I'm guessing we'll eventually see the same 30Hz bump with some content below that. A handful of effects seemed to have a little extra depth to them but they were few and far between. I will say this movie has a very high ratio of stuff that blows up real good, including a couple of near apocalyptic infernos.
  3. You know, I have a 1000 projects going through my mind that I want to do. I just build my first flat pack, which gives me a good idea of how to get into building one myself. It was not a particularly complex one, but it was a horn loaded sub though. Which mean lots of corners, which had to be airtight. Made some mistakes, but it was a good experience as I now know how to fix them Pretty confident I can build any riser I want. Have also found a seller for my pair of Chorus II (Klipsch) for a crazy sum, which gives me the budget to upgrade the active crossover of my LaScalas (to a Xilica). More importantly, it might lift up the need to go for a cheaper sub than the UM18-22 (which is a great sub for the sealed riser, but also seems immensely good in a ported enclosure. By my calculations it could be tuned to 12hz in a 1000L enclosure which is ofcourse to big, but it could still go down to 15hz in a "reasonable" 494L). That way I could build both the ported and sealed and see how I ike them, if I like both I can order another one. Or maybe another 3 Just took some measurements of my couch, and sad to say.. my main couch exists out of several different parts and doesn't really invite baffles that protrude into the couch. I could manage a 12" into the main seating place (which has a feet/leg extension thingy, not sure how to call it in English which makes it extremly dificult to fit something in), and a 15" into the "second" place. Those 2 places are the only ones that matter). I do however have found out that one of the side couches, which I could easily move into the sweet spot, could be what I need. I could stuff a box under it without having to rise it by more than 6cm. I would get a 125L enclosure, which is not very big though. It might just work.. It raises a question however: is it possible to let the sub protrude into the couch, with almost no place on each side? Like stuffing a 50cmx50cm enclosure into a 51cm x 58cm opening into my couch. The air moved by the sub would have almostnowhere to go, which kinda seems like a bad idea (although it can leave through the small 7 and 1cm cracks on the side + through the seating which is just a cushion). I'm only asking because it would be the only way to have an 18" sub build into one of my couches.
  4. Yesterday
  5. Thats a fact, after those are done I have a few weeks/months I can focus 100% on the platform. I'm having a few pairs (2 or maybe even 3) of LaScalas build, should give me that awesome midbass! Depends on how the future goes, but might even use a stack of those/ speaker. First my K-402 h If I use an inch, instead of 2, and place the woofers on top + maybe even get another couch/modify the one I have now (so I would have space between the ground/riser floor and the actual seatings) I might get away with a riser that only rises the couch by 2/3 foot(or less) when using an 18". Should be a lot more easy to place/convince the roommate off. It would also be ideal to use as a riser for a second couch when I want to convert the living into a full blown home-theatre for mass viewings.
  6. You will. Exams end eventually. Aww. Yep. Lots of surface area. Proper midbass reproduction. First-most, they are there for front/rear sub blending. Used for smoothing the response of the whole. At the time, there was no intention of a sub riser so in a way I thought they would be "nearfield" but I chose to take that road after every one else started putting their subs AT their seat. Like, 1" away. So I can't really call them nearfield these days cuz they are about 3-4ft away. The subriser is the nearfield sub.... now. It's not. Just a step up. Idk... about an inch or so behind the motor. Plenty of room around the drivers though. No. Not necessarily. You have the opportunity to actually choose your drivers. I had two on hand and made it work. My riser both fits into the room and is ideally sized.
  7. I didn't really calculate the amount of power /sub, as I read your AVS thread after posting this! But still lot of (absolute) power, maybe not relatively, but hey with a +db sensitivity you're good to go just put the finishing touches on my PA sub, so gonna be testing it tomorrow! It doesn't dig deep, but it does have a 105db sensitivity ö It's a shame my exams are getting closer and I literally don't have any time to listen to it You might not believe me, but I've read your build few times now, and Ive never noticed those 18"'ers in the front lol, they are so black! Are those all 15"ers for your LCR? So 12x 15" and 8x 18"s, in the front? I think I love you. What was the purpose of the 2 rear subs? Just extra output? Or also a kind of NF experience? How much place did you leave behind the drivers? Or, how high is the riser from the floor up to the baffle? Doesn't seem to high! I'm guessing, if I want to pull this of I'll have to take the actual in room size of the riser as a priority, and the "ideal" enclosure as a second.
  8. Actually, the whole system is quite underpowered but that's okay because I make up a lot with the very high sensitivity. Having a subbass system that is >100dB sensitive means cool running amps too. There are seven subbass enclosures in my HT room. Six identical dual-opposed sealed enclosures. Four up front, two in rear. Each approx. 8cuft each. Four up front house the eight Stereo Integrity HT18's. The two in the rear house four Sound Splinter RLp18's. Then the riser with the last two SS RLp18's. The riser is very simple. Top and bottom are just some 5/8" or 3/4" plywood. I don't remember exactly. *laughs* Not even really high end stuff either but solid. The walls are made from 2x8's cut to the length I wanted for this size. There is a single 2x4 in the middle (running between the two drivers). The extra baffle pieces were added to accommodate the depth of the RLp driver. The riser is the only enclosure I've ever built that I didn't really "design". Just thought it up in my head and then simulated to "make sure". Certainly couldn't simulate how it was going to feel. Had to build it to really know for sure.
  9. Just went through your build on the AVS forum (again). Awesome stuff man! Those dual opposed subs are the ones in the front? Are those firing away from the listening position? It seems like you have a loooooot of power (and subs). And even you need to turn your riser subs down? Damnnn. PS on an architectural note, it looks your riser is shallower than I remembered.. how much depth do you have? Or to be more precise, how much place is there free behind your sub, and the floor? I was counting in 2 inches, but could that number be reduced?
  10. Last week
  11. Right. Don't worry about it. You'll get what you get. I don't see it as a "problem" but more of an unknown, for you. Don't worry about it. I don't see how it would help out in your case at all, no. But... my riser is powered by a single Behringer Europower 4000, bridged to a 4ohm load (two 8ohm drivers in parallel). My entire front sub-bass system is power by a single Cerwin Vega CV5000 running stereo 2ohm. The two rear subs are powered by a single Behringer iNuke 4-6000, bridged to two 4ohm loads.
  12. Yeah, it's because of the discrepancy in audible vs feeling that I'm wondering what I should aim for (as feeling isnt shown in winISD ). But I'm guessing there is also a problem in the ratio between audible and tactile output (as in: that 100db of the same linear output would still not feel the same between subwoofers, which would make it problematic to just compare the output of your riser with the output of your main subs). Would it help to know what kind of power you feed into your riser vs your main subs? (to take room gain out the comparison)
  13. Didnt have any time to look up your previous comment about voltage; but I did model all the models quicky against each other (not sure how to give each curve a color atm). The one that rolls of around 100hz (I might have to recheck those specs) is the B2 Audio sub. If you look at the lower spectrum we have (db wise from top to bottom) the 18" Ultimax (400euro), the Avatar (170euro) and the Pride (130 euro). This was all done in a 100L sealed enclosure.
  14. Yes of course I did. Although I was using the Omnimic system, if that counts. Noting this, "fine tuning" my riser system had more to do with feel than how it measured audibly. Trial, error and time listening to (feeling?) actual program material is a major part of the process. It's just not very scientific sounding.
  15. Yes, that was a single driver in the correct relative volume. I'll have to read the part about voltage again but will do, and get back to you.
  16. New CEA 2010 in room Measurements.

    I have been doing most of the commercial subs in my room as well for quite a while. Mostly as a data point on the room acoustics effects I have and how distortion is lowered in the deep bass. Mic is at head position at the main seat and subs are placed in the same corner each time. Only valid for my room and that exact placement.
  17. The Bass EQ for Movies Thread

    I recently tightened down my latest system EQ config, including a complete overhaul of the surrounds that delivers stronger mid-bass and more bass overall. It's nice and punchy for music, without compromising deep bass, where it does show up. I did some testing with music mixed to mono and sent to the center and each surround to confirm that the mid-bass retained its punch on each channel. Over the last few days, I've been testing with movies. The opening bits of GOTG2+BEQ are even better than when I watched it before. The kick drum on the music tracks has life! Tonight I watched "Star Wars: TFA" again with BEQ. I tried with the full mid-bass boost in the BEQ, but backed the PEQ gains down to only +2 dB per channel and added about +0.75 dB @ and below 30 Hz . With the full +4, the mid-bass boost overpowered and killed the deep bass, but it obviously lacked punch at only +0. The extra +0.75 dB down low seemed to get things just right. There is a great balance of shaking effect and lots of chest thump. I can't guarantee these adjustments will do right for everyone else being that they are quite small. In any case, the movie was a fun ride. It was the first time my sister and her husband had heard my system since I got the new speakers and subs. They were smiling pretty big when it was over. Now we're all properly ruined before we go to see "The Last Jedi" at a cinema next weekend.
  18. It looks how I would expect with a Q around 0.7 or so. Every sealed sub essentially rolls off naturally at 12 dB/octave in the low frequency limit, without EQ (and of course, more voltage and power demanded by said EQ). Excursion always increases 12 dB/octave vs. frequency for the same SPL output. So once you go low enough, excursion basically remains the same without EQ. Of course, the roll-off will likely be much less your room. I gather that's a single driver? You were going to use 3 of them? If so, you are hopefully modeling the single driver in 1/3 the total volume. Now that you've done that, try modeling other drivers in a similar volume and similar voltage. (See my earlier posts for how to calculate the "wattage" that WinISD Pro expects from actual voltage, and visa versa.)
  19. Sub 1 (no EQ): Just ran it without EQ at RMS. Doesnt exceed Xmax, and only has a -6db drop from 30 to 20hz, and -6db between 20 and 14hz. Decent?
  20. Maybe relevant to ask, did you ever do a "side to side" comparisons of your main subs vs your riser? As in, using a dB meter to measure the difference in SPL @1m when you dialed them in/fine tuned them. I might have a big bad PA sub for the+30hz region, but I doubt I will ever use it to even 10% of its power rating. Might get away with a lot less than you as I'm probably gonna be listening at much lower levels.
  21. Some of the thumbnails noted in prior posts that do not lead to full-size PvAs will hopefully have their images available again soon. JSS
  22. The main thing that WinISD Pro and other simulation programs will tell you is the best-case max output output from the sub + amp system, at 1 meter ground plane. It's merely best-case because a driver that's pushed near its excursion limits will start to compress and deliver less output. That's not really easy to model, so it can help if the driver has actually been measured in a cabinet, like Josh Ricci does here. WinISD Pro can also help you compare different drivers and different cabinet sizes. As for how much Xmax is enough, well that ultimately depends on how much output you want and whether you'll give it enough amp power to use that excursion. And unfortunately, the ultimate output you get depends substantially on what your room is doing. There're just too many variables to give you a clear cut answer. If building a ported sub, a lower tune will allow for lower extension, of course, but at the cost of output above the tuning frequency. Lower tunes also generally require larger (and heavier) cabinets. So there are trade-offs. If you know you're going to have more than enough output and have no space or weight constraints, then definitely go lower. Some people build huge cabinets tuned as low as 12 Hz. (A few aim even lower than that.) The B&C21SW152 is a solid driver choice for a ported box. Better yet, lots of people have already built ported systems around it, so you can avoid a lot of design hassle by looking at work that others have done on here and in the AVSForum DIY section.
  23. No, the X curve is not applied to the mix by default or in any kind of automated fashion. Instead, the X-curve imparts a tonal shift that affects what the re-recording mixers hear and influences the EQ they apply on the dub-stage. The mixers are likely to boost the highs and lows to compensate for what they hear. What you really should be saying is: room A acoustics =/= room B acoustics. Size is only one of many room variables, and in fact, listening distance and speaker dispersion pattern are probably at least as important. In some ways, this gets us lost among many details be especially important here. A crucial issue is to distinguish between the effect the above variables have on *perception* from the effect these variables have on the *metric* used in the calibration process. Ideally, the calibration process would rely on a metric that is 100% consistent with perception. Power-averaged response, which is the metric used for X-curve calibration, is not very consistent with perception at all. It is, however, strongly influenced by room acoustics. I'm assuming your response is with regard to the fact that music production doesn't rely on standards? Therein lies a real irony about the cinema standards. It is a case of "no standards" being better than "bad standards". The lack of standards in music forces engineers to adhere to established precedent, which serves as an informal standard. They listen to recordings they consider to be good references and mix and master to achieve approximate parity with those references. Dr. Toole calls this "The Circle of Confusion" for good reason, but in fact, I'd argue that the situation with cinema is worse. That's because, while on the one hand, the cinema standards fail to achieve consistency between different playback systems, the engineers trust in the accuracy of their "calibrated" systems and mostly disregard precedent when making mixing decisions. They simply mix to "what sounds best" to them and assume it will sound like that on other properly calibrated systems. Now to be fair, not all cinema engineers are mixing like I describe above. Through their experience, they have surely noticed that different dub stages sound different and have learned to compensate their mixing technique accordingly with the aim of achieving better results in a wider range of venues. Furthermore, the X-curve standard was actually a decent even if imperfect 1970s-era solution to a very real problem: high frequency absorption of screens is variable, and the best calibration tools that were available at that time relied on power-averaged response analysis of pink noise signals. It's just that today, we have much more capable measurement methods and a much better understanding of perceptual issues. Along those lines, I disagree that Dr. Toole's recommendation (see the second of the two above papers) for calibrating in-room magnitude-smoothed response to a standardized sloped target is the optimal solution, but I believe it'd be a big improvement over the X curve. His recommendation would effectively free up an extra 4-6 dB of headroom per screen channel in cinema soundtracks and would probably lead to a big improvement in the bass for cinema presentations overall. (I'll refrain from giving a detailed justification for this final point unless someone wants me to.) You're right. I didn't have to expand into great deal. I'm just a big geek, you know. And I'm actually quite excited because I think I've finally mostly unraveled a lot of things about film audio that were previously confusing to me and still are confusing to many others. I stand by my statements about the X-curve standard inhibiting headroom on cinema soundtracks, but in time, this is becoming a lot less relevant for those of us who mostly care about home theater, because home mixes are becoming more and more common and are improving in quality. I would not be surprised in the least if "Dunkirk" is a clear exception to this trend. It's probably a straight-up cinema mix and a very loud one at that. Which is still fine by me because I'll re-EQ it as needed when I get a-hold of it. The X-curve is still a big problem in cinema, and I think it's hurting the industry, even if they don't realize it or won't admit it. Dr. Toole has pointed out that many cinemas are hosting music and sports events and corporate video conferences, and stuff like that in order to bring in more revenue, but because they are calibrated on X-curve, all that other audio sounds like poo. That can't be good for their bottom line, and it's the kind of thing that customer satisfaction surveys aren't likely to reveal, being that the influence of audio quality is so unconscious. FWIW, you're like one of the least "asshole" kind of people on these parts, which is why it's kind of funny the way you responded to me. Often that kind of thing pisses me off, but I don't care at this point because I know you and because it doesn't matter that much anyway. Part of my confidence regarding the X-curve is that I can clearly hear it. I'm routinely identifying cinema mixes and re-EQing them to sound better. Ahh yes, so now you think I'm blabbering in Audiophilese? "I can hear the difference man! This will totally transform your audio experience for the better." OK fine, but consider that I really suck at understanding dialog in films. Like, my ears aren't golden at all but are tarnished, maybe even rust colored, right? So when I apply re-EQ and dialog that was shouty and muddy and almost impossible to follow suddenly becomes clear and intelligible, I take note. That's what I'm talking about here. If you'd like, name some titles, hopefully at least one of which is in my library. I'll put it in and try to identify if it's a cinema track that will benefit from re-EQ, I'll play around with it and then publish some PEQs to try to see if it cleans up for you. Is it worth a try? Otherwise, come visit me here in Denver and hear for yourself.
  24. Going to keep it. Too pretty.
  25. Will do. I do know that the Xcurve is not baked into the actual mix. This EQ is part of the calibration of the system in the room itself. Not apart of the mix. "compared to how things work for music (no standards) and "home mixes.." Well... now see. That's the problem. You're conflating issues that exist across a varying multitude of different circumstances, layouts, equipment, expectations, etc. What can be applied as good methods for one market will not yield identical results in another. You're probably going to go on a long thing about inroom response and different attenuation levels and response shapes and all that stuff. Large room acoustics =/= small room acoustics. Omg... who'd of guessed. Well. You didn't have to. There are parts in what you say that are accurate and some that are wildly inaccurate. But that's okay. I'm too lazy (and at work ) to even bother correcting anything. Either way, I already look like an asshole and just don't have it in me to defend my own statements. Ya'll believe whatever you want to believe. Don't have the energy to debate against full audiophile mode. Sorry. I just enjoy movies, enjoy how they are made (even when it frustrates me) and like to replicate the cinema experience at home. *shrugs* Lol, I have outlived my usefulness on these audio boards. I'm just here to have a good time.
  26. While this is true I wouldn't use this as any kind of metric to justify anything less capable. You know.... unless you have to.
  27. Bulding the Room2 listening room

    At moderate loudness levels, capacity will not be a factor. But when you turn it up, there may be very significant differences between something that overloads and the one with headroom to spare. I don't have any cd-speakers here now, but I do have 2 systems where one has the F1 with limited hf capacity in the horn-loaded ribbons, the other has the F2 with horn-load large AMT. The AMT wins, and the difference is obvious when you have the opportunity to compare instantly - same music, same volume, very different resolution and easy in the upper octaves. Something like Jøkleba with the quite loud trumpet really brings those differences - at +6dB, the F1 struggles, while the F2 sound exactly the same regardless of volume. And there may be compression on transients long before it starts to sound really bad. I believe this affects realism. The peak transient level can be very high. I measured this once, on music, and if I remember correctly the transient level was around -6dB at high frequencies, while the rms level in the same frequency range was in the -20dB range. Radiation pattern differences are also very important. A directive horn will throw more sound energy towards the back of the room, while the typical dome will spread the sound more closer to the speaker. This causes significant differences in how the total sound appears at the listening position. In the decay plot they can look quite similar, though the horn will tend to fall off sharper in early decay, and have more late decay.
  28. FYI Nolan got a new effects mixer with TDKR: Gregg Landaker. Previously it was Lora Hirschberg. BTW, am I the only one who noticed that the graph had the peak bass between 50-60Hz? That's different..... I'm guessing this movie will 'slam' something fierce but there will be little underneath that. With every movie Nolan seems to be making his soundtracks more and more artificial in his never ending quest to be LOUDER than everything else.
  1. Load more activity
×