Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Ricci's Skhorn Subwoofer & Files

    I finally DL'd this. I'll have a look at it when I get a chance. What model of subs were used?
  3. Yesterday
  4. Ricci's Skhorn Subwoofer & Files

    Ok...Finally got time to write up a post. Went back and updated the HR sim data for the Skhorn. The original sims prior to measuring the final speaker were not such a good match. Turns out my choice of placement of S3, S4 and S5 with the limited amount of sections in HR were not all they could've been. Incorporating the air volume in the driver cones rather into S2, instead of using Vtc and Atc, was a much closer match for this design. The other big improvement was moving S3 to the smallest section, directly after the drivers and incorporating the large air volume in the final corners of the horn section into S4. Sim is much closer now. Still not perfect, but probably about as good as it will get using HR. I believe I have learned another couple of tricks to make HR sims for horns more accurate by revisiting this but I'll need to verify in a couple more cases to be sure it applies to more than just this cab. Took some more time and looked at the Edge program vs measurements and sims and it lines up very well. Looky there the math works! Here is the new HR input for the Skhorn. This is the GP measurement of the Skhorn cab at 14.1 volts (normalized back to 1.41v) compared with the same measurement with the baffle effects as calculated by Edge removed from the measurement. Here is the measured response, once again using the Edge program cal file from the above graph, compared with the improved HR sim. This is a good match. This is the same graph as above but with the original HR sim from back before the cab was measured added in as the blue line. It was not a very good match.
  5. Very Interesting. While nothing here constitutes definite proof, it does seem reasonable to me that the streaming version is a cinema track mix-down; whereas, the BD version is a re-EQed dedicated home mix. As I've argued before, cinema tracks need quite a bit more low frequency oomph for good impact in an X-curve calibrated cinema. That's because X-curve calibration undoes the natural in-room bass rise exhibited by an anechoic flat speaker due to boundary gain and reverb build-up. Of course a lot of people at home also have systems with less bass output, either because they calibrate to a flat curve (e.g. Audyssey) or because their speakers lack BSC or because they have boundary interference problems. Nevertheless, it appears that recent BD releases with home mixes done at Skywalker Sound Studios have re-EQ to better match systems that perform optimally for music playback. In terms of the graphs, the streaming version looks 5-7 dB hotter through much of the sub region. However, the gap may be much smaller after compensating for loudness differences in the mids and highs. In that case, it may be more accurate to say that the BD version is hotter than the streaming version in the 15-35 Hz region. Certainly the shift of balance toward deep bass could reduce the apparent level of mid-bass, even if the SPL is similar after compensating for loudness difference in the mids and highs. There's a good chance I'll buy the BD version of this film. I may be tempted to try out the streaming version to satisfy my curiosity. I could give my opinion as to whether the streaming version sounds like it is influenced by cinema EQ, for what that's worth. That UHD Atmos tracks often sound louder than BD DTS-MA is a curiosity. Almost all DTS-MA tracks have "0" dialnorm offset, and I don't believe any format supports positive offsets. It's possible that a lot of Atmos "home" tracks are just mixed hotter than the cinema versions, from which the DTS-MA may be derived from. Unfortunately, there are still no formal standards for home mixing and apparently no consistency between studios. For example, I believe (based purely on my subjective evaluation) that Skywalker Sound Studios applies re-EQ to home mixes, whereas most other studios don't. Skywalker Sound also appears to have a dedicated mix room and to use a calibration/mix level that's comparable (in terms of room size differences) to cinemas, i.e. 80-82 dBC @ 500-2kHz. Such mixes are likely to sound quieter, in addition to benefiting from more headroom and cleaner micro-dynamics than cinema mixes. OTOH, it appears that some studios monitor home mixes with calibration as low as (or maybe even lower than) 75 dBC and may still be monitoring near-field in a large room. Such tracks are likely to sound even hotter than cinema tracks and have more potential for clipping and other problems. Also under those conditions, the need for re-EQ is likely to be much less obvious for a number of reasons: (1) tonal imbalances are much less obvious and offensive at lower levels especially excess brightness; (2) lack of boundaries reduces low frequency boundary gain that boosts the bass of flat speakers / mid-field monitors in "small" rooms; and (3) per Floyd Toole, rooms with early reflections are more revealing of tonal balance flaws in a speaker, and I'd argue that this extends to soundtracks as well. From my knowledge, near-field monitoring in a large room is probably the worst environment to monitor a home mix in. Simply monitoring the mix on the dub-stage system, albeit with a Harman-like curve instead of the stupid X-curve, is likely to offer better translation than "near-field". Somehow I need to get the industry people over to my house to listen to and compare mixes.
  6. Yes it does ill have to check it out. the streaming track is louder even though it graphs the same except the boost in the areas shown, the track is louder even in the dialog areas. the boosted area adds allot and it's insane and goes through your body when listened to compared to the BD. I am sure i am not the only one who have noticed this but in movies where the BD have a DTS-MA track but the UHD of the same movie has Atmos track even though they graph exactly the same the Atmos track is allot louder. i am sure it's in the meta data. a perfect example of this is Alien: Covenant which the Dolby Atmos track is louder by maybe 6db or so when i tried to match it with a spl meter., but it is a common thing Ive been seeing for a while.
  7. Now *that's* weird! It looks like the streaming version has hotter bass overall as well. Hotter bass and smoother bottom end roll-off. Does the disc by chance have a separate 5.1 track on it? Maybe the 5.1 track on the disc matches the streaming track. Maybe it is a mix-down from the cinema track vs. home mix for the 7.1. Apart from bass, did you notice any significant loudness differences between the 7.1 BD vs. 5.1 streaming tracks?
  8. dbv2 feature complete

    I'm scared...All that data to move over!
  9. dbv2 feature complete

    v1 is 7 years running! v2: Just fixing some bugs and coming up with a migration plan. The migration is still pretty massive but I'm happy that we have got this far! The new site is going to be a huge upgrade and I'm excited to get this launched for the community
  10. Is the streamed version a multichannel track with LFE? Or is it only 2 channels? If it's 2 channels, it's possible they omitted the LFE channel on the mix down. Going by memory, I think the LFE channel often gets more 30 Hz hump than the screen channels. This looks like yet another track with BEQ potential, but that 8 Hz peak looks intimidating, kinda like the one in TIH that overloads my sub amp. Edit: On second thought, I don't see an obvious 30 Hz hump. Though, the BD version still has a lot more output there, relative to the higher frequencies. It may still be a difference of LFE vs. no LFE.
  11. The mid bass is crazy on the streamed version. it's more noticeable than anything else when i watched both.
  12. That is a significant difference streaming vs BD. Have you listened to each for differences? JSS
  13. Thor: Ragnarok (2017) Bass Graph http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2763785-ultimate-list-bass-movies-w-frequency-charts-182.html#post55718298 STREAMING VERSION vs Blu-RAY The RED & GREEN is the Blu-Ray DTS-MA 7.1 track Trailer
  14. Last week
  15. The Bass EQ for Movies Thread

    I don't know the Nanoavr products, but checking the mindsp web pages it seems the HD can do the job. Since it is digital in-out on hdmi, it will not have any negative impact on sound quality, part from the user setting up bad eq points. But check that you can actually use it, I believe it does not process TrueHD or DTS. We usually do BEQ by applying eq on the sound track in the movie file directly, which means it can be played back just like any other movie. But this requires equipment and knowledge do do it. If your bass-system has a dsp with parametric eq, you can use this to accomplish much - if not most - of the improvements. If the system has presets, you can program one or two presets with ulf bass boost, and select the most suitable one for the movie you want to watch. A simple approach, much more user-friendly. This will work very good on movies that requires modest bass eq, such as Oblivion, The later Star-Wars.
  16. The Bass EQ for Movies Thread

    Hi everyone, I am new to this forum. Thank you for everyone who contributed to this forum it has been very helpful. I would like to take advantage of these BEQs, which nanoavr is recommended? Nanoavr DL, HD, HDA or whatever i may not know about? I currently have a 7.4.4 setup with some bass management after playing with REW. I am still a noob and these devices have very little guides on the web except via decoding some on the forums. Any help will be greatly appreciated. Thanks
  17. Looks like it's roll-ed off a bit below 30 Hz. Could benefit from BEQ maybe? I know one thing I really wished for in the Interstellar track was those bottom notes on the organ, down to 16 Hz. This track looks like it has at least some life down there, but could there be more?
  18. That's not surprising. Zimmer's style of scoring is almost all bass. Anything else is a garnish
  19. Rockford Fosgate T3 19 discussion

    Let us know if they work! Only -28 though? If calibrated to cinema reference, that's like background music.
  20. iPAL enclosure details

    Thanks for confirming what I thought.
  21. iPAL enclosure details

    Only in so far as you lose a slight amount of volume by having a solid panel between the two air spaces.
  22. Holophony

    When I first heard about it, I thought wave-field synthesis (WFS) sounded like a really cool concept. I'm a lot more skeptical now. Part of the problem is that a system of immense complexity (and expense!) appears to be required to achieve a high quality realization of WFS. Second, it's not clear that its really solving the right problem. In its ideal realization, WFS can synthesize a complete, spatially consistent (or spatially-dependent, if so desired) sound field within a listening space. This is basically the Holy Grail of audio. If an entire sound field can be reproduced in the space perfectly, then the reproduction is absolutely true and correct. In reality though, WFS cannot be realized ideally with any practical configuration of existing components. As a consequence, there will be errors in the reproduction. On paper those errors may be fairly minimal, especially compared to the gross distortions to the sound field induced by the effect of acoustic boundaries in a "normal" system involving speakers playing in a room. However, it turns out that people are very well adapted to listening to sources reproduced in rooms with complicated acoustic effects; whereas, they may not be that well adapted to listening to the errors that arise from WFS. From some reading, it would seem these errors have been minimized enough for the strengths of the technology to be fully appreciated. That is encouraging, and I'd certainly like to hear a setup some day. I'm sure it has its benefits and its applications. Though I can't help but wonder how much better the tech could be if wasn't so obsessively focused on creating a perfect / anechoic sound-field replica and instead took advantage of the acoustics of the space its in to achieve a smoother, even if less "correct" sound. Edit: I forgot to add that I'm in the early planning stages of trying to build my own arrays consisting of many independently-controlled elements, to be used as surround and/or Atmos speakers that provide far more even seat-to-seat coverage than conventional speakers could achieve. I'm not sure if the approach I plan will look like WFS or not, but I have rather different objectives in mind, so who knows?
  23. iPAL enclosure details

    Separate airspace for each driver shouldn't have any negative impact on performance?
  24. Sundown ZV4 18D2 - sealed enclosure

    PS, fun fact: apparently I bought 2 woofers which were signed by the founders of Sundown Audio (Jacob and Brian)
  25. Sundown ZV4 18D2 - sealed enclosure

    Hmm I'll look up some prices. Dont imagine using something a bit more expensive will be a big cost relatively. Ok, already thought that after your last comment about it, but wanted to be sure. I'll stuff, but I'll leave it out of winISD. Yeah, I just have a lot of wires laying around (bought like a 200m roll for my surround) so will just combine them. Will keep you posted about any developments. Till I build them and the LaScalas I'm gonna keep busy with my new Xilica (gonna actively amp my LCR) and designing and building a custom synergy horn to use as height channels.
  26. Sundown ZV4 18D2 - sealed enclosure

    Yeah, it should work OK. It may not absorb as well as some other options like rockwool or fiber glass, but those are a lot more messy to work with. You'll want to use staples or some other method to keep it in place. Another option which is more pricey is to use acoustic foam wedges with spray adhesive, like I did. This is kind of a misleading conclusion. Dense stuffing will indeed alter the relative response shape to have a lower Q, as though the enclosure has more volume. However, the response shape changes because of a loss of output near the resonance and because of an increase in output below it, which is what happens with more volume. So even though too much stuffing *looks like* an increase in volume , all you're really doing is throwing away output. You still want enough stuffing to absorb the rear wave from the woofer and control standing waves inside the enclosure though. Yep. What's important is total cross-sectional area, so basically: number_of_cables * pi * (D/4)^2, where D is the diameter and can be looked up in AWG charts via Google.
  1. Load more activity