Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/19/2018 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Bolserst is a long time contributing member over at DIYAudio forums. He has developed this spreadsheet that will take an impedance measurement and calculate the complex inductance of a driver. David McBean the author of HornResponse has added the capability to simulate using this data into HR. This is a much more accurate way to simulate and design speakers and subs. In short if you are designing bass systems using modern, high power, long throw drivers and you are not accounting for complex inductance in your modeling; The models are probably not representative of what you would be building. Previously you would need to purchase costly software in order to derive and simulate using these parameters, or figure out a way to roll your own way. The spreadsheet imports a text file of an impedance measurement and calculates the complex inductance specs. Additionally if you have an added mass or Vas (Known air volume) impedance measurement you can also import it and the spreadsheet will calculate all driver parameters needed for modeling. A driver file can then be exported for use in HR. Semi-Le_Calc_V2.zip
  2. 2 points
    latest builds have a split screen before/after beq spectrogram view as well as a way to check the headroom in the waveform pre/post BEQ which you may find useful (and colourful!)
  3. 1 point
    Doing a proper bass-eq takes time and effort, and as you do more of them you start to notice that experience is nice to have. Yes, you need to listen, and since a movie is quite long, with lots of scenes and sound effects, this will be a time-consuming process if you want to be sure you get the best possible result within constraints given by you skills and the soundtrack you have. But we only watch the movie once - usually. Kind of like how GOT (a person living in Norway) put it about skiing - the conditions really does not matter when climbing and skiing a mountain, because you only ski it once. It is what it is, that one time. If it was perfect, well, good, but if it was icy and crusty, or the bass in the movie was less than perfect in some scenes, that is what we had. But we do not have to re-live it over and over again. This also means there is a limit to how much effort you want to put into fixing someone else's mistakes on a movie. So I usually end up picking a couple scenes, and do beq on lcr+lfe.
  4. 1 point
    Again I disagree, and I think you're missing something key here. For any effect that is mixed exclusively to the surround channels and that contains sub bass , the difference between an independent-channels BEQ and all-channels BEQ is whether or not it's filtered at 60-80 Hz. The all-channels BEQ does boost the low end of the surround channels, but nowhere enough to keep it from rolling off rapidly below 60-80 Hz. I don't think we disagree over whether "filtered at 60-80 Hz" is subtle or not. To repeat myself, the only real open question is how much of the bass within the sounds mixed to the surround channels was copied to the LFE channel. To answer that question requires comparing the tracks side-by-side to see what the mixers did. To repeat what I wrote above, the total shelf gain recommended by @maxmercy for TLJ was +48 dB and not +60 dB. The +60 dB for GotG which also recovers meaningful content. Either way, any attenuation of say 60 dB by a filter should not be enough to force the relevant content into the quantization noise floor unless the tracks are getting down-sampled to less than 24-bits (i.e. 16-bits, -96 dBFS quantization noise floor) somewhere between where the attenuating filters were applied in production and where the BEQ filters are applied on playback. I believe DTS HD and Dolby TrueHD are always 24-bit. The rest of the production chain was almost certainly using at least 24-bit precision (probably 32-bit or 64-bit float in the DAWs). Realize that 24-bit has a quantization noise floor of -144 dBFS. It's actually quite impressive that I can get away with the +60 dB boost for GotG being that the signal inputs to my processor are analog (unbalanced actually). The ULF noise floor of my unbalanced analog connections must be in the neighborhood of -100 dBFS. This is incorrect because it is outdated, on two accounts. The situation changed with immersive formats. First, as I explained in my above posts, Atmos for cinemas (and probably other immersive formats) introduced support for bass management to be used for surround and overhead channels with dedicated "surround subwoofers", preferably located at the sides or rear of the room. The Dolby specs *require* every screen, surround, and overhead channel to extend to 40 Hz, using bass management as necessary to meet this goal. I don't know how many dub stages use 40 Hz vs. 30 Hz subs for surrounds, being that the front channels are still run without subs (usually extending to 40 Hz on their own). Second, cinema Atmos is not compatible with the home Atmos. This means that *all* Atmos BD and UHD releases are dedicated home mixes or masters. This work is done in small rooms that mimic home theaters, and I expect all of them use bass management for the overheads and surrounds (and probably fronts too). The Atmos home format (or rather the equipment that implements it) does not support separate surround subs, so bass managed bass all goes to the one SUB channel, which will almost certainly extend to 30 Hz or below. Also keep in mind that sound design is a separate step from the mixing. Most sound design is being done in small room studios where capabilities (for better or worse) are very different from the dub stage. Some sound designers might even work using sealed subs and small enough rooms to get significant ULF. But even if they can't hear the ULF on the track, it's not fair to say that it wasn't part of the sound design. Whether the ULF was part of a recorded or synthesized effect, it originated as part of the design process. The only question is whether the designers/mixers/directors are able to hear what they've done.
  5. 1 point
    Nice!! SW152 is the best choice except IPal. I worked with PD2151 in some different alignments. Huge efficiency, even higher that the IPal drivers. Low MMS and very high BL. They can take a lot of voltage I low order alignments , they are very well suited to 4th order bandpass. They are conservatively rated at 1000 ( in comparison to other well respected brands) but they can really take 400 watts thermal dissipation, but they cannot dissipate that much heat as one IPal driver and the excursion is limited. Very linear, better than most in craftsmanship,
  6. 1 point
    FWIW, I liked TLJ as a film a lot more after the second watch. It's definitely flawed, but what SW film isn't? Yes! Because the channel architecture includes the LFE channel for extra bass headroom, any film mixer that wants to use LFE in the mix must effectively use some kind of bass management when creating it. Microphones and synthesizers don't tend to spit out separate LFE tracks, and I doubt the sound designers deliver content with separate LFE either. Even if they did, it wouldn't allow optimal budgeting of headroom in the mix, so basically it comes down to the mixer to figure out how to distribute the sub bass between the different channels of the mix. I'm sure many different strategies are employed including the wacky filtering schemes seen in TLJ and many other movies. I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the bass that appears to have been filtered from the surrounds was simply re-routed to LFE instead. This is probably why almost every one of the BEQs developed by @maxmercy uses quite different filters on each channel, and why I believe this approach is usually necessary for good BEQ sound quality. Even then, it's probably not possible to fix everything. The bass management on the production side may be applying very different filters to sound that is redirected from each mains channel to LFE. For example with TLJ, it's possible that the 40-60 Hz part of the LFE channel contains a lot more bass that goes with sounds in the surround channels than screen channels, but below 40 Hz, it's a more even mix of screens and surrounds. So any adjustments made to LFE could have different effects on the surrounds vs. the mains. Lastly, we need to remind ourselves that bass management on playback systems has a lot of problems too. Probably very few systems out there have neutral sounding bass for sounds on all 7.1+ channels of a soundtrack because of sub crossover phase issues. The more savvy home theater people know to optimize sub delay for best sub crossover response, which makes a *huge* difference, but this is only possible on one channel (i.e. the center channel for movie optimization) or some weighted sum (i.e. left+right for music optimization). How many people here or anywhere have good response in the sub XO region on their surround and overhead channels? Yes, those channels do get used for bass, and they get used a lot more now because immersive formats for the cinema specify bass management for the surrounds. I personally have the capability to optimize bass management completely and separately for each mains channel and for LFE, which is itself optimized to blend best with simultaneous content in the center channel. IMO, this should be a minimum requirement for a "high performance" home theate, but it's not possible to do this with any standard home theater processors I know of (without spending 6 figures $ at least). I doubt very many "Atmos at home" production systems have that capability, which means they aren't hearing the bass right on their own soundtracks. (Sadly, I wouldn't be surprised if many of these don't even have the sub distance optimized for best center channel response.) At least Atmos in the cinema specifies that surround and overhead channels be bass managed to separate "surround subs" located closer to the back of the room, which probably helps a lot, but Atmos for home is still essentially a 7.1+ format.
  7. 1 point
    While within their limits, amps are essentially voltage control devices, so the loads in parallel won't interact via an electrical path. There may still be mechanical interactions from shared air space or external proximity/boundary/acoustic loading effects but from an electrical standpoint, the two drivers don't "see" each other. In a series configuration however, it is possible for power to be transferred between the drivers unless they're exactly the same. Any electrical or mechanical differences between the two drivers may cause energy to flow between the two, which can complicate their behavior compared to systems with all drivers in parallel. It's also possible that this interaction could couple with another interaction (say acoustic or mechanical interaction due to proximity or shared air space) in a way that leads to a feedback loop that causes unstable behavior. In reality, the differences involved are probably too small for this to be a problem most of the time. However, I believe there are always opportunities for exceptions. Some manufacturers may be more consistent than others with regard to parameters that matter. Loading drivers into a tuned enclosure (especially one with higher pressures like a horn) could amplify certain problems. Running the drivers harder where non-linearity becomes a big factor is probably likely to accentuate such problems too. But this is all really just theoretical speculation. I have no idea if any of these effects are really strong enough to cause serious problems.
  8. 1 point
    So I watched "Black Panther" finally. I played the BD 7.1 at "-1" (!), and my Denon did not indicate any dialnorm compensation was applied. I have to agree that this soundtrack has serious deficiencies caused by excessive and/or mis-configured dynamics processing. It was bad. It seemed worse than the dynamics of old analog TV. Not only were macro-dynamics largely eliminated but the compressor attack seemed to act immediately and aggressively on transiently loud sounds such as gun shots. IMO, the consequences were wide and substantially degrading to the viewing experience. The experience was passive and uninvolving. The on-screen action and actors seemed trivial and insignificant. It wasn't just special effects that were harm but also the score, dialog, ambiance, etc. The scoring involving live acoustic instruments (vs. the pop / hip-hop style music) sounded completely unnatural and irritating to listen to because of the pumping effects. In one scene, dialog alternated between a few key characters and a large crowd, both of which were rendered equally loud but of course this made the crowd sound very whimpy, and the aggressive compression really muddied their voices together. It really broke the immersion. The acting seemed quite forced throughout the movie, but I could also tell that the dialog completely lacked the dynamics which may play a big part in conveying passion and emotion. The weird thing is that even if this aggressive compression was done on purpose, perhaps to optimize for hand-held devices in high noise environments, the level of the track was extremely low. I basically had to turn things up to cinema reference level to get sound that still wasn't that loud. That's a huge amount of gain as far as hand-helds go. On most if not all such devices, this track would be difficult to hear even with the volume at max. Oddly enough though, it had some decent bass in a few places, particularly in some of the quieter scenes where there wasn't as much mid/high frequency content to compete against. The tonal balance was actually quite nice, and I experienced a surprising amount of ULF with rather strong tactile effect. A lot of ULF just makes the windows rattle and maybe shakes the floor a bit, but this was felt quite strongly in the chest area. I believe the presence of higher harmonic frequencies with good balance all the way up essential for this sensation. The ULF itself makes the least contribution to the sensation but helps fill it out and make it more real and present. It's just too bad that the good bass was totally missing from a lot of transient effects. Anyway, I have a hard time believing that the problems with this soundtrack were intentional. It's certainly possible that people misjudged the quality of the track because they were too tired or something. Or maybe people were just rushed. Maybe mistakes were made that were to difficult to correct. Still, this is bad enough that I think it'd be reasonable to ask for a correction and recall. I didn't buy this film, and have no interest in doing so after what I experienced. Still, I hope this isn't an example of Disney's future. I thought some of the Pixar films like "Coco", "Inside Out", and "Finding Dory" were fine as far as dynamics were concerned. They might have been pulled back a bit compared to typical cinema tracks, but I kind of expect that with kids movies. And anyway they still were *way more dynamic* than "Black Panther". Edit: Just to clarify with my opinions regard to discussion in some of the recent posts: I thought "Black Panther" and "The Last Jedi" were kind of at opposite ends of sound quality and performance. TLJ had very nice dynamics, it just needs high master volume to get things nice and loud. BP is about the same average loudness as TLJ was (7.1 at least) but had practically no dynamics at all, for which there's no real cure. BP really looks like a QC error as does the Thor:Ragnorok Atmos track which apparent has severe compression but only for the first half. I hope it's just these two, but I guess I'll find out how Avengers 3 is.
  9. 1 point
    This is not really a secrete. We are converting all the data over, but please check out our new site. Its a got a lot of visual upgrades and a much better compare feature. https://prod.data-bass.com/ The URL will changed do data-bass.com once we finish the conversion. Josh has done so much hard work, we are really grateful for his efforts. If anyone has a passion for this sorta stuff. I'm would be interested reverberating any help we can get with the data conversion. Please ping me if you are interested.
  10. 1 point
    @3ll3d00d, I do follow and appreciate the excellent work you have done on the beqdesigner. Especially since it is obvious now that the best we can hope for is movie sound that responds well to bass-eq, there will never be a situation where you can assume the sound is perfect from the provider. I also follow, or at least make an attempt to see what is going on in the soundbar-forum thread.
  11. 1 point
    Paul if you keep this up you might as well start adding to the Data-Bass. I can get you a login and password you know...You seem to have better access to the high end pro speakers than I do. I feel like this stuff is going to get lost in here and is getting a bit off topic. I can move it out to another thread... Why the switch of amps for the RCF test? I assume this is outdoor GP testing? Are you using the bursts inside of REW?
  12. 1 point
    Apologies for taking so long to give a review. I *finally* watched this tonight! I just kept putting it off because I've been working so hard on new/improved treble optimization. I'm still not done and was thinking I'd save it for when I'm "done", but my wife got tired me of putting it off. I'm glad I listened to her. I think this is my new favorite soundtrack, and the BEQ takes it to 110%. I watched it (BD/Atmos soundtrack) at around "-5" on the MV. (I forgot to check to see if there was any dialnorm modification to that, so it might have been less). My system is configured with a pretty generous house curve (up to 10-12 dB "hot"). Pretty much all of the bass sounded full bandwidth, and the frequency balance was excellent. At no point did the low stuff overwhelm the mid-bass nor any of the rest of the spectrum. The sound effects were very cohesive from top to bottom, and the tactile sensations were detailed, articulate and at times brutal. There were multiple jaw-drop "jump out of my seat" moments where things just went BOOM spectacularly. The surround work in this mix was a big part of experience as well. What can I say? This this a superb demo piece: for my bass capability, my overall sound capability, for BEQ as a technique, for superb sound design, etc. It is state-of-the-art. A big thanks to @maxmercy for taking the time to do this!
  13. 1 point
    Star Wars: The Last Jedi Pre/Post: Significant improvement, all the effects that should have more infrasonics gain some, especially effects that are close to the viewer/camera. Lots of infrasonic noise in the track, so the highpasses are necessary to avoid a DC offset to the track, since we boost those infrasonics so much. The track with the below changes played back at +4dBRef (equivalent reference level) has a Dynamics score of 31.26dB, and no effect is greater than 121dB, no extended effect greater than 114dB. Capable systems will like this correction. Do not apply this correction on top of a 'house curve'. At most, a smooth 10dB rise from 20kHz to 20Hz is all that is needed. Correction was applied to the 7.1 channel bed of the ATMOS track, the DTS track is similar, but I did not test this correction on it. LFE: Gain -4dB Low Shelf 14Hz, Slope 1, +5dB Low Shelf 15Hz, Slope 1, +5dB Low Shelf 16Hz, Slope 1, +5dB Low Shelf 17Hz, Slope 1, +5dB PEQ 20Hz BW 1 octave, +3dB PEQ 65Hz BW 0.75 octave, +1.25dB Highpass 6dB/octave 3Hz LCR: Gain -4dB Low Shelf 20Hz Slope 1, +6dB (3 filters for 18dB total) Highpass 6dB/octave 3Hz Surrounds: Gain -4dB Low Shelf 40Hz Slope 1, +6dB (6 filters for 36dB total) Low Shelf 45Hz Slope 0.5, +6dB (2 filters for 12dB total) Highpass 6dB/octave 10Hz JSS
  14. 1 point
    Sound mixers aren't mail room clerks.. if you subscribe to the notion that 50% of the film experience is sound, you can understand that directors might not have the expertise to do the actual mixing, but are integral in helping develop the overall soundscape of a given track. A colleague of mine has a good analogy... our job, as mixers, is to get the ball to the 10 yard line.. the director helps us get it into the end zone... sometimes they fumble... While people like CN and others might not produce tracks you like, they are still the ones overly responsible for the overall aesthetic of the film.. to say, or think, that overseeing a mix is micromanagement shows a lack of understanding of how films are truly made, IMO. The mixing stage, with a good director, is handled just like a live set when doing principal photography.. it's not just some technicians spinning knobs.... Of course I think of it as an art form, and judging by the vast differences in styles between directors, sound editors and mixers, sometimes it's more apparent that some artists are more talented than others... but in the end it's all subjective. But to suggest that we should be left alone to our own devices as mixers would leave to homogeneous, sound alike mixes that... IMO that would be really boring. Just my .02.
×