Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Yesterday
  2. I think the third party hosting sites/links have expired or need to be renewed
  3. beats by Dre Executive Review

    I don't think anyone on this forum is in danger of buying some Beats headphones, but thanks for the heads up. I too would be looking at AKG, Sennheiser, JBL. I have some Denons at the moment that are quite good.
  4. Agreed. I'm very much not a fan of one curve fits all and auto generated room EQ. All you have to do is move about the room a little bit and your wonderful EQ is out the window.. We are basically agreeing on the room timing measurements. My unstated reasoning is that an accurate measurement cannot be made without a stimulus that actually excites all the room modes. In most cases this precludes the MLS types of signals. You need chirps and or discrete gated sine wave stimulus to really excite what can happen below around 200 hertz. DFT gating is also very important to be chosen correctly as you have pointed out. And the correct type of math Math on the DFT. Choose wisely or suffer the consequences
  5. Last week
  6. Yes. I think that's one way you could describe it. If we're talking about impulse response measurement specifically, then the end result should be fairly similar using different methods if they are done properly. Where differences are likely to arise is at the tail end of the impulse response where signal-to-noise ratio becomes much more important. This is probably much more important for studying acoustics than for speaker calibration. Are we talking about averaging or smoothing? And which particular methods? The raw impulse response measurement contains the "real information" yes, but for in-room measurements, the information must be extracted to be useful. I can't even really post a usable picture of my raw in-room frequency response because there aren't enough pixels to illustrate all the narrow peaks and dips that arise from late arriving energy. Practically every visualization of frequency response uses some kind of smoothing, and people almost always rely on magnitude-smoothing. Most people just enable the "smoothing" option in REW or whatever program they use and assume it's improving the visual appearance of the data. They don't understand that it's actually altering the data in a way that's not consistent with expectations. Even at 1/48th octave resolution, magnitude smoothing can omit the contribution of a lot of late arriving energy which can be seen in a continuous RTA measurement of pink noise. Smoothing methods that are likely to be more consistent with expectations include power response smoothing (magnitude squared) and complex smoothing (smoothing of magnitude and phase together, as they relate to the complex number plane). The former is completely time blind. The latter is completely time local. Magnitude smoothing is some strange hybrid between the two which makes little sense for most purposes. Yet, almost all room EQ systems I'm aware of including Harman's rely on the latter method and fitting to a target curve. The cinema X-curve standard is the clear exception, as it relies on old-fashioned pink noise RTA measurements which are equivalent to power smoothing. It's also seriously flawed because our hearing is, in fact, very sensitive to time-of-arrival. Anyway, I'm not arguing that listening with anechoic acoustics is preferred at all. I'm saying that an anechoic flat speaker is preferred, regardless of acoustics (and with limitations and caveats that apply mostly at low frequencies). This is what Harman has argued with evidence from their listening preference tests. It's just that they then leap to the conclusion that the in-room magnitude-smoothed response they obtained by measuring such a speaker in their test room is the preferred target curve for *any* speaker in *any* residential-size listening room. If that were true, it would contradict their original hypothesis. The real issue is that they don't know of another / better way to analyze in-room measurements for room EQ purposes. FWIW, I've heard a system calibrated to the Synthesis curve, and while the bass certainly benefited by the suppression of ugly room resonances, pretty much everything above 200 Hz sounded better without the room EQ. The corrected version was much too rolled off in the upper mid and high frequencies, which suppressed a substantial amount of detail. I'm also quite convinced that their curve would give inferior results compared to what I use on my system. My speakers have rather different directivity vs. frequency than theirs, and they are placed against the front wall, so this should be expected.
  7. I'm guessing that this Audyssey EQ is a sliding dynamic loudness contour. That does have application when you are listening at levels below 70 to 75db averaged. Simple comment on room measurements. They are very dependent on the stimulus made to take the measurement and the type of math applied to perform the measurement. The errors multiply rather rapidly depending on the choices made. I know of no professional who works in acoustics that looks at averaged measurements and gives them any worth. Raw measurements are where the real information lies. Lastly. I may have not posted the links to all the Sean Olive Papers and may be remembering What I was reading in the JAES papers freely available and also on the JAES website. But I know for a fact that the reference speakers were in a standardized listening room and that the panel of trained listeners preferred the sound characteristics associated with a standardized semi-reverberant room. Not an anechoic reproduction also called diffuse field EQ that was the norm for a few years back.
  8. Compensation for differences between masters can be done with Audyssey Dynamic EQ using the Reference Offset feature. However, I'm speaking of a different issue here. Even within a single song, the correction needs to be different for higher SPL vs. lower SPL parts. Audyssey Dynamic EQ actually analyzes the content and adjusts the amount of compensation in real-time. This kind of thing may be a lot more important for symphonic music and movie soundtracks, which contain large macro-dynamic swings, than for pop music that tends to be consistent in level. Obviously, this is not easy to accomplish without custom DSP capability, and even then it's not obvious what approach is best to take. By the way, I can't help but wonder if the listeners at Burning Amp might have been spoiled by your sine sweep. Sine sweeps can sound a bit harsh to my ears, even at pretty modest levels like 70 dB, particularly when they hit the 3 kHz ear resonance. Those who are unfamiliar with sine sweep measurements may have gotten a bad first impression which colored their later judgments.
  9. I have a lot of respect for Toole et.al. and Harman's work in these areas. I think their speaker research correlating anechoic measurements, on and off axis, to listener preferences was truly groundbreaking. The underlying hypothesis that motivated the aforementioned studies is that listeners effectively hear the anechoic sound of the speaker despite the room and that the room imparts qualities to the sound independent of our perception of the source. While the research they performed did not prove this hypothesis conclusively, it offers strong evidence, which has motivated the design of some of the best sounding speakers in the world. With that said, there are definite limitations and caveats to this hypothesis. Both theory and evidence suggest that it does not apply for low frequencies, below some cut-off where room effects can no longer be fully distinguished from the anechoic sound of the speaker. The researchers do acknowledge this limitation, and Harman generally recommends using room EQ of some kind below 500 Hz or so. Unfortunately, they don't offer any specific guidance with regard to what such room EQ should do, even though they offer a product to do so, one that appears to work by fitting magnitude-smoothed in-room response to a target. The fact of the matter is that in-room response from an anechoic flat speaker can vary substantially depending on speaker dispersion characteristics, listening distance, placement of speaker and seats relative to nearby boundaries, and other room acoustic effects. Even though they may have derived their in-room target curve by measuring an actual anechoic flat speaker in their test room, I'm convinced that a one-size-fits-all target will not work reliably under a wide variety of conditions. This should be obvious because the approach contradicts the original hypothesis that listeners hear the anechoic sound. There is a larger issue with magnitude-smoothed measurements in general. Almost everyone who does room measurements uses them to try to understand what's going on with sound in a room, but practically no one knows what they actually mean. Mathematically speaking, the magnitude-smoothing process has side-effects that alter the information captured in the full impulse response in unexpected ways. This is a point that's a bit too technical to elaborate in detail here, and I have a kind of TODO for myself to properly write this up and publish it. One hint is that if you compare, say, a 1/3rd octave magnitude-smoothed impulse response measurement with a 1/3rd octave band power response measurement of pink noise, they will likely have different shapes. The pink noise power response shape could be reproduced from the impulse response data, but only if the smoothing applied to the magnitude-squared response rather than merely magnitude response. To pick on some specific issues with the study featured in the first link, the target curve they are promoting appears to be based entirely on starting with a flat response and allowing listeners to make adjustments to generic treble and bass controls. The corner frequencies for these controls is fixed, and so users have very little flexibility in the adjustments they make, and the result is likely to be a long way off from what an ideal curve would be. For example, if just one aspect of the sound in the "treble" is offensive, for example the 3 kHz ear resonance, which ears may be more sensitive to for sound arriving directly from the sides, the listener is likely to adjust the "treble" down until that resonance is no longer offensive, which may involve cutting a lot more sound above that frequency that is not offensive. The same could be true for bass. If the bass control knee were a bit higher so the adjustment added a bit more upper bass, the user might push the bass a bit higher than otherwise. Frankly, I think this approach is largely a waste of time. A much better albeit still imperfect approach to take would be to have each Harman employee who is a trained-listener create their own arbitrary EQ target by ear, and then have a blind "shoot out" of different targets among all the listeners to choose which one sounds best. The process could then be repeated, iteratively, using the latest "preferred curve" as a basis that gets refined further. With that said, I have little doubt that Harman's approach to headphones and room EQ achieves better sound than other available options. There are many wrong ways to calibrate speakers and headphones. Some are a lot more wrong than others. From a business perspective, Harman only really needs to beat their competitors to be able to offer a distinguished product. From there, they can merely make incremental improvements to achieve a long-term forced obsolescence schedule, but those of us who want the best sound would probably rather not wait a few decades for a company like Harman to achieve the best that is possible. With that said, I have little doubt that Harman's approach to headphones and room EQ achieves better sound than other available options. There are many wrong ways to calibrate speakers and headphones. Some are a lot more wrong than others. From a business perspective, Harman only really needs to beat their competitors to be able to offer a distinguished product. From there, they can merely make incremental improvements to achieve a long-term forced obsolescence schedule, but those of us who want the best sound would probably rather not wait a few decades for a company like Harman to achieve the best that is possible.
  10. The writers of those articles would have a very healthy argument that you are incorrect. And so would I I often use a high quality pair of headphones as a reference when working on loudspeakers. The entire basis of the articles I cited are the relationships between the sound of an accurate pair of speakers and an accurate pair of headphones. Don't allow what you have in a headphone sway your decision. There are some headphones that have been designed with this type of carefully crafted contour. The data for this type of EQ matching loudspeakers is widely available in many reports and there is even standards that are in the works to define an accurate headphone response. They all use a well setup loudspeaker as a reference.
  11. Motional feedback

    Hi there This is Chris from Amsterdam, got here via FB Subwoofer Central and am delighted to see so much low frequency happiness together I was wondering if there are any servobass addicts around here ?
  12. I am not saying old people don't like extended treble response. I'm saying people with hearing damage don't like extended treble, and that is generally old people. That's like saying good speakers sound good, and they're generally expensive. Doesn't mean expensive speakers are good, just happens that expensive speakers generally sound good. There are lots of older people that love the sound of my speakers. Had a retired man who cranked metal music on my speakers, and cranked it LOUD, and he told me it had the best cymbal crashes he's ever heard! There is a WORLD of difference between accurate reproduction on a headphone vs on a loudspeaker. There is zero crosstalk on headphones, which dramatically changes how imaging is perceived. There is no concept of direct vs reflected sound on headphones since it is all direct sound. There is no concept of directivity on headphones either. The amount of bass is dependent on the seal and fit of the headphone. Correlations between headphones do not necessarily apply to speakers. I was lazy and posted the same thing that I posted on other forums to this forum as well. The above is "dumbed down" so it is easier to digest for the average DIY'er. For this forum I should write something a lot more technical. But basically yes, it is just Audyssey Dynamic EQ, but a better version of it. Audyssey nailed the lower range, but not so much on the upper range. I still haven't gotten it as right as I could make it, but so far it has been a lot better with this than without it. You're right that the amount of boost that needs to be applied will be dependent on the source. My intention is not to get it right for everything because that's not possible. If you optimize for one song, it might introduce problems for other songs. Therefore, the goal is to apply a general broad stroke correction so it provides a positive benefit for ALL sources.
  13. http://seanolive.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-perception-and-measurement-of.html http://read.uberflip.com/i/324330-lis-2014/22 http://seanolive.blogspot.ca/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html A lot larger pool of people than I have ever had the chance to work with agree that listener preferences are universally agreed upon regardless of age. Good sound is simply put, the right sound. Right in the sense that it accurately reproduces the sound of a live acoustic event. Caveat being that when you set up a loudspeaker system in this way many recordings are exposed for a series of poor choices. And poorer outcome in reproduced sound. One last note. There should be no difference between accurate reproduction on a loudspeaker and accurate reproduction on a headphone. That is the anchor of this series of research articles. After all you are using the same set of ears for both types of listening aren't you?
  14. You say that a V-shaped response sounds better at "normal volume", but you don't specify what constitutes "normal". That's because listening levels can vary substantially by situation and preference. However, audio engineers aim to shape the tonal balance of the soundtrack so that it sounds subjectively flat when it is played (1) on speakers that measure flat-ish in an anechoic chamber (2) placed away from walls in a moderately large residential listening room (3) at a lively but not excessive listening level. Note that in contrast to anechoic measurements, the in-room frequency response in this scenario will tend to have quite a bit of tilt down from the bottom to the top (i.e. 5-10 dB or more higher at 20 Hz vs. 20 kHz). The in-room response shape is probably much less important than the anechoic response of the speaker as configured, and the "ideal" shape will most likely be speaker and room dependent. Per Katz and others, such a listening level typically reproduces forte passages (i.e. the chorus in a typical pop or rock recording) at around 83 dBC RMS average. Obviously, the precise figure can vary a bit on the type of content with bass heavier content typically calling for higher dBC levels due to the relative lack of loudness contributed by bass. Modern practice studio practice dictates calibrating the monitors to a constant SPL using a standard pink noise source and then adjusting soundtrack levels by ear. For typical "loudness war" music masters, the appropriate master volume level will be around -14 to -17 dB, relative to cinema reference level. For older releases and anything mastered with more peak headroom, -8 to -12 dB is reasonable. Some content is purposely mastered with lots headroom that justifies even higher master volume levels. All this is fine and good if one is listening at such calibrated levels all the time, but that's rarely true in practice. Casual home listening levels (what you describe here as "normal volume") are likely to be a bit less than what was used in the studio. Listening levels at clubs and live events are often higher (e.g. 90 dBC RMS average) than was used in the studio. Adjustments to shape are warranted in either case. For low levels, boost to bass and treble is appropriate, although the ideal treble boost is usually pretty modest compared to the ideal bass boost. For higher listening levels, it's probably more important to reduce treble, which can otherwise be very uncomfortable, than to reduce bass. A potentially better solution for live performance is to do a different mix with more peak headroom and with some of the drums and bass instruments mixed hotter, which can add a lot of impact to the performance without making it excessively loud. =================== What you describe, as far as applying a V-shape boost to the response that varies with master volume is a lot like how Audyssey Dynamic EQ works, albeit without the "Dynamic" part. Varying the amount of V-shaped boost vs. master volume is definitely a lot better than applying the same boost regardless of master volume, but it's possible to do even better. The amount of boost should also vary with the content itself. See the Equal Loudness Contours. The ideal Dynamic EQ should compensate for subjective differences between the sound, at the SPL it was reproduced at the reference level (i.e., in the studio) vs. the SPL it is reproduced during playback. If you look at the curves, you can see that the relative spacing of contours changes with absolute SPL, so Audyssey DEQ continuously and "dynamically" analyzes the content and adjusts the amount of boost applied in real-time. IMO, it's the one technology of theirs that actually works pretty well, as long as you don't use it with surround speakers.
  15. nube, What happened to the graph for Exodus: Gods and Kings? I'm only seeing the thumbnail which is the actual size it's seen on the page.
  16. nube, What happened to the graph for Exodus: Gods and Kings? I'm only seeing the thumbnail which is the actual size it's seen on the page. I know this discussion is closed, but it also appears that way in the regular bass frequency thread with all of the movies in it as well.
  17. Replacement AVR / processor

    Not sure why, but playing audio from computer > UCA-202 sound card > optical input of Denon DN-700 AVP results in a small 'thump' every time there is no sound output, IE: between songs, or between videos on YouTube. There were no issues previously with the same sound card to an old Marantz. Zero thump / pop noise. Using XLR from the BD player, it is dead silent between songs, no thump or pop noise at all. If that is the case, I may have to look into a new sound card as well, something with a lot better cross-talk performance between channels. I have been looking at acquiring a Focusrite Scarlet 2i2, based on what I have read. Any other suggestions?
  18. Replacement AVR / processor

    The lighting around the knobs is too bright for my taste, and too bright to use on the front wall with a projection screen. I may have to install some O-rings on the knobs like others have done on the iNukes to limit the direct viewing of the white ! LED's.
  19. Some how I don't quite agree with that summation. True some people like little or no treble. But that is not really attributable to age. I have clients and colleagues that are long in the tooth but really appreciate an extended top end response. I do agree that your idea of a generally accepted loudspeaker response is best described as subjectively flat. Most systems that I have listened to that were dead flat were very bright on the top end. My personal work aims for a combined listening position that is down a few db beyond 10 khertz. Down about 1.5 to 2 db in the last octave.
  20. I'm long overdue for an update. I've actually lately been too busy simply enjoying these speakers or giving people demos of these! But there were actually a number of big improvements that made night and day differences to the sound quality of these. I will talk about them over a number of posts. This post will be about my discoveries in sound signature preferences.The Universal Sound Signature PreferenceI'll start with a story. I brought this to an audio enthusiasts get together a few weeks ago as a bunch of people want to hear this speaker I've built. I set the speakers up in my friend's room, but I was having strange setup problems that I've never encountered before that took some time to fix. Since there was about a dozen people waiting and eager to hear this, for the sake of time I only did a rough setup that resulted in poor placements (speakers placed right against the side wall and above ear level) and did only a rough room correction to compensate. However, once it was set up, nobody wanted to leave. This is a room where at least half the people owned 5 figure sound systems at home, many had traditional speakers, some had tubes, some had huge horn speakers, and they all sat there, continuously adding songs to the queue, and listened to the speakers for over 4 hours besides a little break here and there to talk and discuss. The fact that they listened for over 4 hours tells me that everyone truly loved the speaker. Otherwise they would have simply left after a few songs and went to talk to other people outside.Unlike the traditional thought that people have different preferences in how a speaker sounds, where some people like their speakers sounding bright, dark, warm, etc. I believe there is a universal preference (with one exception), and now I have strong anecdotal evidence that supports this. This is going to be difficult to believe, but once you hear this, I think most of you will agree. I believe the universally preferred sound signature is one that is subjectively flat. I've tried this with over 50 people at this point, and it is clear that this is an appealing sound signature regardless what their original preference is. I've had people actually tell me this is very different from what he's used to hearing, and it changed his view on what is "good sounding".What is a "subjectively flat" sound?Now this is tricky. This is not flat, like a speaker with a flat frequency response, but subjectively flat. Our ears hear differently at different volumes. At normal volumes, our ears are less sensitive to bass, and to treble, but to a lesser extent. As the volume goes up, our ear becomes increasingly sensitive to bass and treble. This means that a speaker that measures flat will sound thin at normal volumes since the subjective frequency response that our ear hears will be a "semi-circle" shape where the bass and treble is rolled off due to the lower sensitivity of bass and treble. This is why many speakers sound better at louder volumes. This is because as the volume goes up, our ear's sensitivity to bass and treble gradually increases. This means that the speaker is sounding more and more subjectively flat as the volume goes up. We like a flat sound, which is why we like the speaker played louder because it is closer to flat. The same reasoning can be applied to why bright speakers sound nice at normal volumes, but becomes annoying at high volumes. At normal volumes, the bright sound compensates for our lack of sensitivity to treble, so the top end sounds subjectively flatter than a neutral speaker. But when you turn the volume up, the ear's sensitivity to treble increases, and now the ear hears a sound with too much treble, and we don't like it because we like a flat sound.What does this mean? What we perceive as sounding "flat" varies dramatically depending on the volume. In order to achieve the universal preference of subjectively flat, we need a speaker that changes its frequency response depending on the volume it is played at. This is not possible to achieve this with any passive speaker.So for a speaker to sound subjectively flat, there must be a bass boost and treble boost. It is not a straight boost either, but a continuous slow rising response starting from low midrange (around 400Hz) and into the very deepest of bass. A similar, but a much smaller rising response is needed for treble starting around 5000Hz. Isn't that just a V shaped frequency response? You must be shaking your head in disgust! V shaped??? Blasphemy!!! However, the response I describe here is almost impossible to do on a passive speaker since the boost required on the bass would require the speaker to lose over 10dB of sensitivity, and the inductor needed to start cutting at 30Hz is just impractical. This is why most "V" shaped speakers don't sound great. They are not getting the right target curve needed to sound correct. Even if they are through the use of an external equalizer, the amount of bass boost and treble boost needs to be different depending on the volume so it always results in a flat subjective response to our ears. The equalizer provides a static change in frequency response and it doesn't changing with volume, so it'll sound bad at higher volumes and create fatigue (too much treble) and boominess (too much bass). With my speakers, after a calibration it knows exactly what the SPL is at the listening position, so it can automatically adjust the bass and treble depending on the listening volume. This is the key to get the speaker to sound subjectively flat to our ears, and if done right, it sounds downright amazing, and just sounds right. The Exception(*) What is the exception? I've found that this is not true for people with substantial hearing loss, i.e. a lot of old people. This is the group that heavily favours a very rolled off treble sound. For some reason I don't yet know, these people seem to think treble is the devil. I would think with hearing loss, you would want MORE treble to compensate for their reduced high frequency hearing. However, it seems like people with hearing loss genuinely hate treble because for some reason it greatly irritates them. I brought these to the Burning Amp, where most of the attendees are well over 50. I ran a long 20 second frequency response sweep, which meant there were 10 seconds or so where the sweep is in the treble region. I noticed several people covering their ears during the sweep, and some looked like they're in pain. I got much less positive reception there, which is understandable because most of the speakers that were presented had, in my opinion, essentially no treble. And of course, these "treble-less" speakers got huge positive receptions, which is not surprising at all if hearing high frequency causes these people to contort their facial expressions.
  21. Replacement AVR / processor

    Just inserted into the chain, and powered it on for the first time. The knobs are lit around the outside, with recessed lighting rings that make the knobs appear to float. They are bright, I haven't investigated whether or not they can be turned off yet.
  22. beats by Dre Executive Review

    The noise cancelling is fair at best. It tends to do an admirable job of blocking out low end frequencies such as jet engine rumble but I could still make out every word of a Skype chat that my wife was having across the room. On top of that, requiring the headphones to have batteries to even function is disingenuous. If your batteries die mid-flight you’re screwed. Hope you packed a set of ear buds. Now for the proverbial nail in the coffin. The first set that was sent to me had a strange problem. There’s a bit of a suction created between the ear cup and your ear. This is natural for well-fitting headphones. But every time that I’d break that suction on the left ear cup I’d hear a very loud “pop”, quite like the membrane on the driver getting pulled out of position. When this pop happened, volume level went down dramatically. If I’d push the ear cup back, the pop would happen again and the sound would return to normal. I thought that I might have just had a lemon, so I contacted the agency to provide me another set. Unfortunately this appears to be an ongoing issue because the exact same problem can be replicated by the second pair. For a $300 set of headphones it’s positively inexcusable. For my money, I’d take a set of great-sounding over-the-ear headphones any day. TheV-Moda Crossfades are one of my current favorites, but traditional options from Sennheiser, AKG and even AiAiAi will leave you very happy. If you’re going to pay $300, get a set of headphones that are worth the money. This time around, the Doctor needs to go back to class.
  23. Earlier
  24. Moving massive / unwieldy subs?

    Awesome replies, thanks chaps IIRC I bought one of these when I got the subs: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Charles-Bentley-Pneumatic-Industrial-Warehouse/dp/B01N9NW0QX/ but we couldn't get it to work - I think the lack of straps was the issue (we couldn't stabilise the boxes by hand, which is not really a surprise, d'oh!) and it also just about ripped the pneumatic tyres off it lol If I actually pump the tyres up a bit more and then order some straps, hopefully that combination will work... An automatically stair-climbing one sounds amazing, though - that is genius!
  25. Bass system integration

    Yes, timing is the key. Good idea to use lower cut-off for rear subs in a multisub system, it is not easy to achieve a very good result with sub units both up front and back.
  26. Bass system integration

    I concur that the time portion of the system response is what we must strive for correctness. Time of flight, processing delay needs to be accounted for. What I have done: in a multi-sub system, measure time of flight ( with no DSP engaged ) from each device in it's intended location to the main listening position, and compare that to the main L/C/R channels. I helped set up a system with subs that were radically different in distance, with a nearfield sub behind the MLP area. In that particular case, the closest subwoofer was set for level, and run at a bandwidth of <40 hz. Delay was set so it's time of flight was identical to the average of the main L/R speakers. The other 3 subwoofers in this large room were set so their time of flight was identical. The pair closest to the L/R were run <120hz ( main speakers were not on the level of some enthusiasts here ) The third subwoofer was run <60 hz. Subwoofers were not gain matched, the one behind the MLP was reduced considerably in level, it's 4kw amp was just idling barely with respect for the required levels. Processing added 1-1.5 msec of delay, so the main and subs required a bit of fine tuning. Once all 4 were playing 'nice' with respect to each other and the main L/R, Anthem room correction was run. Every situation is unique, and requires a customized solution. You may get better smoothing in the upper bass running all subs as full bandwidth, but may result in a softening of the attack across some of the listening positions, if there are many, due to the various complex phase relationships in different physical locations. Longer wavelengths ensure that you will have better success at integration. It's not hard to get sources within 1/4 wavelength at 20 hz, or even at 40.
  27. The Bass EQ for Movies Thread

    What did it look like on a log scale? JSS
  28. The Bass EQ for Movies Thread

    have you tried Capt America Civil War? if not, I will give it a go. The LFE channel is a straight line rolloff on a linear scale on both avg and peak from 30Hz down so I guess that's a good sign (for a track that should yield some useful content)? https://imgur.com/87rzdnR
  1. Load more activity