Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 03/20/2018 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    I vote that we let users add graphs, content, build plans, etc. 1 guy can only produce so much content. As far as social media I'll let you guys in on a secret. I've never been active on any form of social media. I don't plan to be either. From what I recall Kyle isn't either. That's why we don't have any of that for DB! Neither one of us wants to deal with it!
  2. 3 points
    Commercial cinemas, when designed, implemented, and maintained properly provide a great low frequency experience, similar to a well done live concert. The caveat is that the experience does not extend much lower than 25-30Hz. Most impact/slam is between 40-100Hz and even higher in frequency. We are freaks here that can monitor and playback the lowest frequencies, that are often taken out of a mix that is CREATED and is meant to be played on a cinema system (25-30Hz vented, high sensitivity subwoofers). While mixing stages have existed in the past that could monitor into the low teens Hz-wise, most cannot monitor below the high-20s. We sometimes are surprised by mixes that do not exclude the content below 30Hz, as those mixes are a significantly different experience in a properly equipped home theatre. Your friends may simply be used to a certain frequency and level of low frequency experience, and call that 'good'. The EQ mixing described is in the Bass EQ for movies thread on this forum. JSS
  3. 3 points
    Thanks Kyle! Actually, he jumped the gun a bit here and declared victory while the update was still running. NOW it's all done. Edit: Total count of posts updated: 169!
  4. 2 points
    Interesting thread developing on diya - http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/subwoofers/320189-inductance-cancellation-techniques.html - regarding more accurately modelling the effect of inductance (and building that into hornresp making use of data that is captured by rew or arta).
  5. 2 points
    The Incredible Hulk is still the track I compare all others to. A close second is the Star Trek reboot, War of the Worlds, and all of the 5-Star films on the first page of the thread. For lots of 20Hz and below energy, Battle:LA is hard to beat as well. JSS
  6. 2 points
    Lead times only about a week atm apparently
  7. 2 points
    ^^^ Yep Glop a bunch of pl premium in there and you'll be fine.
  8. 2 points
    Put some PL premium or a bunch of wood glue in there and screw it through the wall. Should be fine.
  9. 2 points
    Amazon has SW152-4's for $422 right now.
  10. 2 points
    Valerian and the City of 1000 Planets: Good improvement on this one, esp the Intruder scenes. Tough correction, lots more infra in C than in LRS. LFE Gain -7dB Low Shelf 17Hz, S=2.5, +3dB Low Shelf 18Hz, S=2.5, +3dB Low Shelf 19Hz, S=2.5, +3dB Low Shelf 20Hz, S=2.5, +3dB Low Shelf 34Hz, S=0.5, +0.75dB Low Shelf 36Hz, S=0.5, +0.75dB Low Shelf 38Hz, S=0.5, +0.75dB Low Shelf 40Hz, S=0.5, +0.75dB Center Gain -7dB Low Shelf 30Hz, S=2.5, +3.75dB (4 filters for total of 15dB) Low Shelf 60Hz, S=0.5, +3dB LRS Gain -7dB Low Shelf 25Hz, S= 2.5, +6dB Low Shelf 26Hz, S=2.5, +6dB Low Shelf 27Hz, S=2.5, +6dB Low Shelf 28Hz, S=2.5, +6dB Low Shelf 50Hz, S=0.5, +1dB Low Shelf 52Hz, S=0.5, +1dB Low Shelf 54Hz, S=0.5, +1dB Low Shelf 56Hz, S=0.5, +1dB Low Shelf 70Hz, S=0.5, +1dB JSS
  11. 1 point
    Agreed with @maxmercy list there. Both Dunkirk and Jedi will not be great titles to test <20hz content, imo. They will both have powerful bass but >20hz (which isn't a bad thing). I can think of a handful of "scenes" to test out for true ULF. Entering the Grid - Tron Legacy Elysium - laser templates being cycled through before cutting into Bugattipod Captain America: Winter Solider - vending machine Hurt Locker - M2 .50cal scene Lone Survivor - the whole Chinook sequence Edge of Tomorrow - opening title ULF Dredd - interrogation scene Pulse - server scene (~18hz but sustained, trip dem breakers!) and more
  12. 1 point
    I wouldn't worry. I think the torture test would be to put on a concert BD with heavy mid-bass, crank it up to "call-the-cops" level for a few songs in a row, and then immediately due a sine sweep measurement. Compare to a measurement when cold. I bet you won't see any compression at all. I've done the same sort of test with my TD12Ms, albeit with them crossed at 100 Hz but nevertheless driven hard enough by kick drum and electric bass to average several watts and repeatedly hit RMS peaks in the 50-100 W range. Right afterwards, I touch the phase plug where most of the heat is radiated from, and it's completely cold. They are rated at 500W RMS, so I shouldn't be surprised.
  13. 1 point
    The WW cab is a good data point and just about the Goldilocks size for this driver for HT. Honestly I wouldn't go any bigger for this driver for a vented cab tuned near 18-20Hz. It just doesn't need it. 10-12ft seems about perfect. Any bigger would hit the point of diminishing returns. Don't forget that you'll likely get some lift below 30Hz in room. 3 to 6dB in the 16-20Hz range is a good general guess. 20ft would be great for 2 drivers though.
  14. 1 point
    The Othorn really operates best with the 21SW152-4, but the 21DS115-4 could work. In an apartment at those relatively low levels it could probably get down to 20Hz with a bit of EQ but it really is designed as a 25Hz and up sub. Even though the SB16 is a decent sealed sub that can technically go way lower than the Othorn it is not going to have greater headroom until below 20Hz. These are completely different sub designs with much different goals. The Othorn has so much more headroom I can't see how you would possibly use even 10% of it in an apartment. It should sound great operating at such a relaxed output level though. As an alternative you could do a Skhorn or a half of one, which can go lower than the Othorn depending on vent config and would be slightly smaller. Have you thought about doing a vented subwoofer with a 18 or 21" pro style driver that is bigger than the SB16 but not quite so big or heavy as the Othorn? It should still have plenty of extra headroom for your needs and be much higher efficiency to match your mains.
  15. 1 point
    Cover as much as you can. Definitely do at least 3" thick where you can. A full 4" may be even better. Also make certain that the material is secured to the walls so that it doesn't interfere with the driver.
  16. 1 point
    Very busy last few days, and also been spending most my time on setting up the 5x LaScalas. First 3x LaScalas are setup, and although they need some tweaking DSP wise, they already sound amazing! Bracing for the first sub is done, and the filling has arrived. Some more questions about how to apply this. Do I cut up the sheets so I can apply some to every inch of the walls? Or is it OK if "most" of the walls are covered? And I assume every wall has to be covered? The sheets are 1" thick. So 3 layers? Or would 2 also work?
  17. 1 point
    Why can't these sales exist when I actually have money? lol
  18. 1 point
    You know that this project *obligates* you to play some proper Hammond organ music with the bass 20 dB hot from time-to-time after you are finished, right?
  19. 1 point
    Do you like taking polls on the DataBass Forums? Results: Yes -- 0% No -- 100% More seriously, I agree that the "social media" term is a bit of a turn-off, but I really like the idea of user submitted content.
  20. 1 point
    The plans would be mostly validated and tested and the user systems would be more about sharing what someone builds (ad hoc, DIY stuff) The photo uploading in v2 is reworked and hosted in amazon web services, it also auto caches regionally around the global so its fast. I further added a resizing tool that serves scaled images to add further optimization so its greatly improved. example old https://data-bass.com/data?page=system&id=53 new https://prod.data-bass.com/#/systems/5aa37de3cde8fe0004e2753b?_k=p1jr8v
  21. 1 point
    Thanks. I'm looking foward to getting started on it. For now the units been in its final resting place (just stripped down). My wife has already put some knick nacks on it and decorated around it. The only thing so far she wants is for us to firm up the top (which I was going to anyway). Beyond that she was a bit annoyed I apparently undersold its dimensions to her, but honestly it doesnt look out of place, and so far everyone she's asked at our house has commented that it looks just fine where it is and it looks pretty cool. So I'm on the winning side..... until I put the drivers in and then hopefully it is solid enough to not rattle a lot (she's got a lamp on top of it )
  22. 1 point
    Finn's head bumping into the thing above his hospital bed when he wakes up. JSS
  23. 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
  24. 1 point
    Star Wars: The Last Jedi (Dolby ATMOS - 7.1 channel bed measured) Level - 1 Star (104.91dB composite) Extension - 3 Stars (17Hz) Dynamics - 5 Stars (29.19dB) Execution - TBD Overall - TBD Notes - obviously mixed below theatrical reference, with a dynamic, unclipped presentation. Playback at -4 to 0dBRef for best results. Solid soundtrack. Gets even better with BEQ. JSS
  25. 1 point
    SME worked very hard yesterday and today to write a custom python script which used the invision rest API to iterate each post, find issues, and fix broken <a> tags which had the url assigned to the incorrect parent tag. Invision was unable to perform the bulk fix, so we had to create a custom solution to get it done. If anyone finds anything else wrong with links or images please let me know, but as of now, the broken thumbnails should all be fixed!
  26. 1 point
    I don't know what any of that means but..... thank you SME for the help.
  27. 1 point
    Applying a royal layer of glue to glue the front baffles together.
  28. 1 point
    Thor:Ragnarok This one improves, but it is not a night/day difference like Spider-Man above. The arena battle's improvement is significant, but there are a few high-energy infrasonic hits at unexpected times. Not the best BEQ, but definitely improved. This correction is applied to the DTS-HDMA track on the BD, not the ATMOS track on the UHD. The ATMOS track is dynamically compressed for the first hour, and is an inferior soundtrack. LFE Gain -7dB Low Shelf 15Hz, Slope of 1, +6dB Low Shelf 16Hz, Slope of 1, +6dB Low Shelf, 17Hz, Slope of 1, +6dB Low Shelf, 18Hz, Slope of 1, +2dB LCR Gain -7dB Low Shelf, 35Hz, Slope of 2.75, +5dB (3 filters for a total of 15dB) Low Shelf, 70Hz, Slope of 0.75, +3dB Surrounds Gain -7dB Low Shelf 25Hz, Slope of 1, +6dB Low Shelf, 26Hz, Slope of 1, +6dB Low Shelf, 27Hz, Slope of 1, +6dB Low Shelf, 28Hz, Slope of 1, +6dB Low Shelf, 20Hz, Slope of 0.5, +4dB JSS
  29. 1 point
    Spider-Man:Homecoming BEQ This one really improves. The correction is applied to the ATMOS track's 7.1 bed. The 5.1 track is different. Correction as follows: LFE Gain -7dB Low Shelf 15Hz, Slope of 1 (Q of 0.707), Gain +4dB - 4 filters, total gain 16dB LCRS Gain -7dB Low Shelf 15Hz, Slope of 0.5 (Q of 0.5) - 2 filters, total gain 10dB Nearly every effect that should have more infrasonic impact improves JSS
  30. 1 point
    Chapter 2: The Organ Donor I now faced a dilemma. Each Sonotube contained 2 subs. My other nearfield sub had 4 drivers. I was going to have trouble level matching my rear subs. Deciding to use 4 drivers, I now needed a new design for this back sub. But it needed to be the "right" design first time around. Putting 2 Sonotubes behind my recliner was out of the question. Building a dual opposed box presented layout problems, and resulted in very low WAF. A downward firing fake "hope chest" would be too long for the space. Dual opposed Up/Down also had no WAF. Front/Back dual opposed would likely shake my surrounds and any pictures off the wall. I could go with 2 front firing, 2 downfiring, but that meant really tall legs, which likely wouldn't work. I was stuck. I looked at any sub build I could find, hoping for inspiration. I lost myself in Infinite Baffle, Push/Pull, and all manner of unique layouts. I saw a guitar speaker with 4 front firing 10's. It was ugly as sin, but it wasn't that big. Light shone down from heaven. This was it. 4 drivers front firing, stacked in 2 rows of 2 each, butted up against the wall. It was basically a compact version of my nearfield sub. Whatever I did, it needed high WAF. I don’t have woodworking skills, and good quality wood can get pricey. So I started looking for a pretty "shell" to build my sub inside. I decided to commit a AUDIOPHILE SIN and take a vintage piece of audio equipment and convert it into a sub. With much shame, I looked at antique radios, consoles and all manner of things. Then it happened. I saw an ad for something the seller called a "Reverb" box. I had no idea what it was but it looked pretty, and had 4 10" drivers inside of it and a make/model number of Hammond PR something. Down the Google rabbit hole I went. I finally locked in on "The One". A Hammond PR-40 Tone cabinet. The Hammond PR-40 is meant to connect to a Hammond Organ. It has 2 15's and 2 12's in a 37 ½” high, 31 ½” wide, and 18” deep form factor. Its "just right". Tall enough to put stuff on, and more a rectangle than square. It also isn't much deeper than a Sonotube would have been. I scoured the web for the "right" PR-40. Finding units in Chicago, and Peoria IL, I messaged a local friend to see if he would want to buy any of the parts out of these for the shop he runs. They are tube amp powered after all, and use "ok" vintage drivers. He said he'd be willing to pay about 50 bucks for the parts if they were all there. That put both units at a very good cost, but there would be travel time and gas involved. Do-able, but would require a harder sell than I wanted to do at that time. Life got in the way, and time passed. Being a horrible person [emoji14] (see backstory), I had contacted both sellers for more pictures, so I had their email addresses, however I never actually bought either unit. Finally ready to revisit and move on a unit, I messaged my friend to see if he still would buy the parts out of them, and he surprises me. "Sorry Dan, not interested….." My heart sank. "Because I picked one up last week. You interested in the cabinet?" My breath caught in my chest, I messaged back "When can I see it?" "I'm eating a (local Mexican place). How about after?" "Done." I meet him at his storage unit, and there she is. A PRISTINE PR-40 in gorgeous walnut, the finish I needed to match our existing darker mahogany/espresso furniture. It was all still in one piece, tube amps and all. Forgive me Father for I have sinned.... For 25 bucks, I took the cabinet, and he took the internals. It came home with me yesterday. It cleaned it up very well, and I'm now starting to move onto the build I've dubbed the "ORGAN DONOR" [emoji14]. I will be posting a TON of pictures later tonight (after I go to confessional ;):D), but suffice it to say, this unit is put together REMARKABLY WELL, and it's all Modular. The top came off with 4 screws, the front grill is attached with screws, making my job cutting pieces out extremely easy. One thing I didn't know but is ICING on the cake, is that the grill fabric uses individual strands of wire in it. You cant see it, but its there. Why do I care? Well I've got 3 dogs, a cat, and 2 kids. So it should significantly help deter them from poking drivers, and the grill fabric can handle some poking without needing replaced. The "only" flaw is that the top grill fabric has a tear, however my friend has a tub of similar older grill fabric that I can use, and he thinks he's got a perfect match for the front grill fabric. Some pictures. First set of drivers. I haven’t yet taken one of all of them together. Here is the Hammon PR-20 When I first laid eyes on her. After some cleanup Some other pictures of the unit. Even the top had a driver in it. The grill came off with 4 screws and cleaned up beautiful 3/4th used throughout. Very good construction. There is a very nice offset for the drivers. Need to do some thinking here. The area I need to think about from the front. Top needs a small amount of work. Just look at that detail in the grill cloth! Here are some rough ideas of what I’m planning (subject to change and updating at all times). I'm basically building a box inside whats there. The sides, top/bottom will be out of 1/2. The front and rear will be out of 3/4. The drivers will NOT have a double baffle. I plan to cutout "most" of the existing front baffle, and use the remaining outline as a "spacer" so its kinda like I have a double baffle. This will ensure the drivers have MORE than enough breathing room. The "ONLY" thing I am thinking is how easy/possible it will be to remove the 12's if I need to get acces to them. I may space them closer together, or perhaps install the front baffle in two pieces, with the cut going horizontal down the middle. That would let me unscrew, pull it forward and rotate it back and then get to the drivers.... Any thoughts appreciated
  31. 1 point
    Way to go guys. Thanks for the help SME.
  32. 1 point
  33. 1 point
  34. 1 point
  35. 1 point
    Both Ragnarok and Justice had mediocre surround/bass mixes theatrically and that is translated perfectly to the home versions. They make Nolan mixes seem pretty damn good in comparison.
  36. 1 point
    Obviously, they remixed the track for the BD release. There are many good reasons to do remixes, but unfortunately the quality can vary a lot. As for filters, chances are that the mixers had no idea what they were cutting out. Often the systems used for these remixes aren't really up to the task. I've seen evidence that tiny near-field monitors and a single compact near-field sub, used in a huge room. Such a sub is likely to struggle to keep up even with the content above 30 Hz and at the lower monitoring levels commonly used. There are many possible reasons the filters get applied. First, many mixers assume the content below a certain point does not contribute to the mix and apply the filter as a matter of habit. Most cinema systems don't extend below 30 Hz either, so this shouldn't be a surprise. Second, mixers may be applying filters to protect their own equipment or prevent it from distorting. This is very unfortunate because I'd argue that the mixers ought to be applying such filters to their monitor output and not to the soundtrack itself. On the other hand, some mixers worry that if they can't hear what's going on "down there", then something they don't want to have on the track may slip through. I would argue that this happens anyway because of a combination of issues: poor quality monitors (which is most of them), poor quality listening space (near-field monitoring in a large room is a very poor listening environment for hearing soundtrack details), etc. Third, mixers may be applying filters in order to make the soundtrack louder. I'd argue that this is something that shouldn't happen for a home remix but probably does. While home remixes should be monitored at a lower level, consistent with changes in listening distance, room size, and other factors, they are often monitored at even lower levels than that. The assumption is that home listeners will listen even more quietly than a "room appropriate" reference level, so the mixers want to boost low level details to ensure they aren't lost. I don't really have a problem with that, but it goes very wrong when mixers start boosting the level of loud content too, in order to "increase impact" or "satisfy director's intent". The fact is, home listeners don't usually set their volume to a number but do so by ear based on loudness, so boosting loud content will only make home listeners turn down the content more, especially if they hear clipping and distortion that often gets introduced in such a process. I suspect that earlier home mixes including many BD re-releases suffered more from quality problems than more recent home mixes. Dedicated rooms designed to mimic home theaters and using better quality monitors (such as the new JBL M2/708 series) are becoming more common. However, filtering in general is still wide-spread and is more the norm than the exception, as can be seen by following this thread. We can only hope that, in time, more dedicated rooms are built and equipped with more capable sub systems. I can understand the concerns about equip a full size dub-stage with subs that extend into the single digits, but in a dedicated home theater mix room, this kind of setup should be much more practical. We'll see.
  37. 1 point
    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.
  38. 1 point
    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?
  39. 1 point
    Don't read articles like this. The information presented is plain wrong and misleading. Some statements from the article: "music rarely has extremely deep, under-50Hz bass": Wrong. Most music has essential information below 50hz, and some music has content in the sub range below 20hz. In the 2-ch article I presented spectrograms taken from various music samples, which shows there is lots of low frequency information in various types of music. " most speakers with 5-inch (127mm) or larger woofers can muster 50Hz bass": No, a 5" driver can not even reproduce 200hz properly, if a realistic sound presentation is the goal. " Achieving the perfect blend isn't always possible -- subwoofer crossover tweaking isn't an exact science": Actually the integration part is science, and a manageable set of rules solves it. But you need the equipment and the knowledge to do it properly. If the sound does not improve after adding a subwoofer/bass-system, you did not do it right.
  40. 1 point
    The article largely misses the point and is mostly audiophool drivel. The article it links to is substantially worse: https://pitchfork.com/features/oped/9667-drop-the-bass-a-case-against-subwoofers/ The question of whether a subwoofer is needed really depends on the system design. If the speakers and amps are adequate for reproducing the lowest frequencies and the room placement is not problematic, then music can be enjoyed without subs just fine. For that matter, movies can be enjoyed without subs being that most AVRs will redirect LFE to the mains, especially using beefy speakers like JTRs. But that's not what the articles are really talking about. The articles are arguing that music doesn't need reproduction of frequencies in the sub range, particularly below 50 Hz. That argument falls apart very rapidly when one considers the results of Harman's blind speaker listening tests. Bass extension has a major impact on blind listener preferences of speakers. Even though there may be very little content below 50 Hz in many sources of music, the content that's there has a substantial impact on the listening experience. This is not limited to electronic music either. That's not to ignore the fact that too much sub can harm the rest of the sound, but that's true of any frequency range. I actually agree that the mid-range is most important for rock-and-roll music, as it is for almost every other genre of music. Yet, that's no excuse to ignore the treble and the bass, which still matters for rock-and-roll and all other kinds of music. The idiocy of these kinds of articles is that they dredge up anecdotes in which the subs or low-end was obviously mis-configured and out of balance to argue that low frequencies are inherently bad and don't belong as part of the reproduction. The irony is that the kind of people pushing these arguments often use speakers that sound like garbage in the mid-range. Zu Audio? Perhaps they should just listen with the amps switched off to save them from hearing the dreadful mid-range! And therein lies the sad truth, which is that the quality of sound when using subs depends substantially on the sound quality in the rest of the spectrum, especially the 50-500 Hz range. A great many speakers have deficient output through most of that range, which is crucial for reproduction of a variety of bass instruments. To integrate subs with such speakers requires turning the subs down so much that there's not much point in using them, or else one hears a lot of boom boom boom from subs that are unbalanced relative to the higher harmonics. So by all means bring on the subs, but don't neglect the rest of the spectrum! Sadly, most speakers simply don't cut it, and that's true of almost every offering targeted at the "audiophile".
  41. 1 point
    http://www.audioxpress.com/article/test-bench-b-c-speakers-21ds115-21-inch-woofer Bench test review. The factory can provide also their own LSI Klippel results that can be compared to these ones and adding that to the tests Ricci did, I can say this is a very interesting driver at a very good price IMO.
  42. 1 point
    Opinions vary on this. Firstly are we talking a comparison between drivers or systems? If differing systems are being compared, I agree there can be audible differences even when both are loafing at very low levels. For example comparing a small sealed cab to a huge tapped horn. It would be very difficult to get the 2 to match the same response shape and timing characteristics exactly. Even just the cab shape / size / difference in radiation points could be a factor. Comparing just bass drivers would correctly be done with both in exactly the same cab, same environment, same electronics, same content, etc. I would even say that the nominal driver size should be the same. IOW 15 vs 15 or 18 vs 18 if we are getting really particular about it. If the cabs are different and the frequency response is unshaped and differs between the two, there could easily be an audible difference even at very low playback levels. But...If the only thing changed is the driver like outlined above AND the frequency response is equalized to be as close as possible, including say an octave above the low pass filter, in my estimation you would have an extremely difficult time correctly identifying which was which in a blind comparison. Provided both are operating well below what they are capable of. Notice that I said blind...Visual queue's can have real impact on what we hear and our enjoyment. All that said we are talking about bass and bass takes a lot of displacement to reproduce. People also typically push bass harder than the rest of the frequency range. Sure when you are listening to some light music in the background and the peaks are 95dB you might be using 5% of the system and all is well. Sound and SPL is logarithmic and by the time you get to peaks requiring 115-120dB at the seats the subs are going to be well into the point where the sound has started degrading whether you can hear it or not. I guess what I'm saying is subwoofers are called to operate much closer to their limits more often than not so they are often well into the point where some of these distortions are starting to add up. Bass is addicting. No one I know has 4 18's to listen to elevator folk at 80dB all the time. That's why people claim that more expensive more powerful drivers sound better. IMO they do. The cheaper driver starts to lose it earlier or in some case VERY early or perhaps never even has it to begin with and starts to degrade or change the sound. The more expensive / powerful driver is still at the loafing stage while the cheap one is hitting a wall. Adding more cheap drivers, for the extra headroom to match the single big money driver, could result in sound that's just as good or better in many cases. If you've got a ton of room and not much cash go with a ton of cost effective drivers. If you've got very little space but a fat wallet you will have to pay to get the most you can from the limited space. Some people have a good amount of space and a healthy budget, then there are the poor souls who have no space available and not much money. It's a sliding scale from both ends of the spectrum.
  43. 1 point
    Thanks Mike. I must've gave everyone reading information overload. The sims with some of those drivers listed above look quite good to my eye. Vent compression at war volume is my main concern with it. Now I just need to get one built. I'm working on that 8hz horn Scott wants but for some reason I just can't get it to work while still fitting through a doorway. I don't understand what's going on. Might have to try my new, experimental, patent pending, rotary, quadratic, bi-phase, 10th order, sub-harmonic re-accumulator cabinet to get it to work right.