Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 12/07/2017 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Figures. Nolan still prefers f**king raw noise over quality.
  2. 2 points
    maxmercy is about lose his shit with the clipping in this one! http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2763785-ultimate-list-bass-movies-w-frequency-charts-136.html#post55276102
  3. 1 point
    Right. Don't worry about it. You'll get what you get. I don't see it as a "problem" but more of an unknown, for you. Don't worry about it. I don't see how it would help out in your case at all, no. But... my riser is powered by a single Behringer Europower 4000, bridged to a 4ohm load (two 8ohm drivers in parallel). My entire front sub-bass system is power by a single Cerwin Vega CV5000 running stereo 2ohm. The two rear subs are powered by a single Behringer iNuke 4-6000, bridged to two 4ohm loads.
  4. 1 point
    I recently tightened down my latest system EQ config, including a complete overhaul of the surrounds that delivers stronger mid-bass and more bass overall. It's nice and punchy for music, without compromising deep bass, where it does show up. I did some testing with music mixed to mono and sent to the center and each surround to confirm that the mid-bass retained its punch on each channel. Over the last few days, I've been testing with movies. The opening bits of GOTG2+BEQ are even better than when I watched it before. The kick drum on the music tracks has life! Tonight I watched "Star Wars: TFA" again with BEQ. I tried with the full mid-bass boost in the BEQ, but backed the PEQ gains down to only +2 dB per channel and added about +0.75 dB @ and below 30 Hz . With the full +4, the mid-bass boost overpowered and killed the deep bass, but it obviously lacked punch at only +0. The extra +0.75 dB down low seemed to get things just right. There is a great balance of shaking effect and lots of chest thump. I can't guarantee these adjustments will do right for everyone else being that they are quite small. In any case, the movie was a fun ride. It was the first time my sister and her husband had heard my system since I got the new speakers and subs. They were smiling pretty big when it was over. Now we're all properly ruined before we go to see "The Last Jedi" at a cinema next weekend.
  5. 1 point
    No, the X curve is not applied to the mix by default or in any kind of automated fashion. Instead, the X-curve imparts a tonal shift that affects what the re-recording mixers hear and influences the EQ they apply on the dub-stage. The mixers are likely to boost the highs and lows to compensate for what they hear. What you really should be saying is: room A acoustics =/= room B acoustics. Size is only one of many room variables, and in fact, listening distance and speaker dispersion pattern are probably at least as important. In some ways, this gets us lost among many details be especially important here. A crucial issue is to distinguish between the effect the above variables have on *perception* from the effect these variables have on the *metric* used in the calibration process. Ideally, the calibration process would rely on a metric that is 100% consistent with perception. Power-averaged response, which is the metric used for X-curve calibration, is not very consistent with perception at all. It is, however, strongly influenced by room acoustics. I'm assuming your response is with regard to the fact that music production doesn't rely on standards? Therein lies a real irony about the cinema standards. It is a case of "no standards" being better than "bad standards". The lack of standards in music forces engineers to adhere to established precedent, which serves as an informal standard. They listen to recordings they consider to be good references and mix and master to achieve approximate parity with those references. Dr. Toole calls this "The Circle of Confusion" for good reason, but in fact, I'd argue that the situation with cinema is worse. That's because, while on the one hand, the cinema standards fail to achieve consistency between different playback systems, the engineers trust in the accuracy of their "calibrated" systems and mostly disregard precedent when making mixing decisions. They simply mix to "what sounds best" to them and assume it will sound like that on other properly calibrated systems. Now to be fair, not all cinema engineers are mixing like I describe above. Through their experience, they have surely noticed that different dub stages sound different and have learned to compensate their mixing technique accordingly with the aim of achieving better results in a wider range of venues. Furthermore, the X-curve standard was actually a decent even if imperfect 1970s-era solution to a very real problem: high frequency absorption of screens is variable, and the best calibration tools that were available at that time relied on power-averaged response analysis of pink noise signals. It's just that today, we have much more capable measurement methods and a much better understanding of perceptual issues. Along those lines, I disagree that Dr. Toole's recommendation (see the second of the two above papers) for calibrating in-room magnitude-smoothed response to a standardized sloped target is the optimal solution, but I believe it'd be a big improvement over the X curve. His recommendation would effectively free up an extra 4-6 dB of headroom per screen channel in cinema soundtracks and would probably lead to a big improvement in the bass for cinema presentations overall. (I'll refrain from giving a detailed justification for this final point unless someone wants me to.) You're right. I didn't have to expand into great deal. I'm just a big geek, you know. And I'm actually quite excited because I think I've finally mostly unraveled a lot of things about film audio that were previously confusing to me and still are confusing to many others. I stand by my statements about the X-curve standard inhibiting headroom on cinema soundtracks, but in time, this is becoming a lot less relevant for those of us who mostly care about home theater, because home mixes are becoming more and more common and are improving in quality. I would not be surprised in the least if "Dunkirk" is a clear exception to this trend. It's probably a straight-up cinema mix and a very loud one at that. Which is still fine by me because I'll re-EQ it as needed when I get a-hold of it. The X-curve is still a big problem in cinema, and I think it's hurting the industry, even if they don't realize it or won't admit it. Dr. Toole has pointed out that many cinemas are hosting music and sports events and corporate video conferences, and stuff like that in order to bring in more revenue, but because they are calibrated on X-curve, all that other audio sounds like poo. That can't be good for their bottom line, and it's the kind of thing that customer satisfaction surveys aren't likely to reveal, being that the influence of audio quality is so unconscious. FWIW, you're like one of the least "asshole" kind of people on these parts, which is why it's kind of funny the way you responded to me. Often that kind of thing pisses me off, but I don't care at this point because I know you and because it doesn't matter that much anyway. Part of my confidence regarding the X-curve is that I can clearly hear it. I'm routinely identifying cinema mixes and re-EQing them to sound better. Ahh yes, so now you think I'm blabbering in Audiophilese? "I can hear the difference man! This will totally transform your audio experience for the better." OK fine, but consider that I really suck at understanding dialog in films. Like, my ears aren't golden at all but are tarnished, maybe even rust colored, right? So when I apply re-EQ and dialog that was shouty and muddy and almost impossible to follow suddenly becomes clear and intelligible, I take note. That's what I'm talking about here. If you'd like, name some titles, hopefully at least one of which is in my library. I'll put it in and try to identify if it's a cinema track that will benefit from re-EQ, I'll play around with it and then publish some PEQs to try to see if it cleans up for you. Is it worth a try? Otherwise, come visit me here in Denver and hear for yourself.
  6. 1 point
    While this is true I wouldn't use this as any kind of metric to justify anything less capable. You know.... unless you have to.
  7. 1 point
    I often tell people with most speakers, the speaker will get unhappy before you but with mine, you’ll get unhappy before the speakers. My speakers are JTR 212s with compression drivers/horns. I couldn’t go back to regular (non-horn) speakers now. But the CDs have to be smooth and detailed, which so far has meant higher quality compression drivers.
  8. 1 point
    You should have seen the reaction to my room at T.H.E. Show Newport in LA with my 60” TV sitting on top of a 24” subwoofer flanked by a pair of JTR 212 HT-LPs sitting on top of a pair of JBL 15” midbasses. They were going to leave because of the TV but made the disgusted faces when seeing the 24” sub. Because physics fails when a 70 lb magnet-motor moves a 24” 1.3 lb cone. Lol! Interesting story about the doc. I’ve had plenty of similar conversations and it usually doesn’t go very far if they’re “audiophiles”. And frankly I’m not that interested in fighting those ingrained beliefs. Life is too short for those with closed minds...about any subject.
  9. 1 point
  10. 1 point
    Well.... it was intense. As A/V nerds we may scoff at the thought of this Satan-bred, pure-evil stuff called "clipping" but like it or not, it did have the desired effect. It's fucking loud. It's harsh. I'd imagine it was on that beach...and in all the various marine vessels...and in the Spitfires being shot at. All his films are mixed like this. Would expect nothing different from Nolan.
  11. 1 point
    Just to continue.. But horns are actually back in fashion - among some people. Not only for home theater, but for dedicated 2-channel. Those systems are typically diy, with large horns, often front-loaded bass horns with directivity control from around 100hz and up. Some of them are now trying SEOS horns. We also have commercial horn speakers, like Avantgarde. Still, it seems like there are two sorts of people - those who like horns, and those who do not.
  12. 1 point
    I have never been a dealer or manufacturer of audio equipment, the professional side of this is new with the company Kvålsvoll Design. But I was one of the last people to convert from vinyl, I have had speakers of very different types, though all of them have been designed and built by me. In the mid-80ies I was part working in a local audio shop, so I have quite good experience with commercially available speakers too. But back then, it was not common to find 400 liter ported cabinets loaded with 15-inch woofers with high Bl, in any shop. This was also the time when the Apogees came, and that was something that actually did sound different and on some parameters quite an improvement. If you look in the designs section on my we page, there is a short note about the planar speakers I made late 80ies, with some pictures from a newspaper article. Those could never play loud, but they had some qualities that I suspect my current design never will be able to match. Trying to explain this (about the electronics) to the typical hard-core audiophile is pointless, you will never break through. For those who are not that much emotionally connected to the tech side there is hope, if you get them in to the room to listen. Most of this is actually quite simple. If you hear a difference in a dac, but this difference disappear if you do not know what you listen to, the only logical explanation is that this experienced difference is created in your brain, and has nothing to do with sound. For rational people capable of some very simple logical reasoning, this is possible to understand. But all electronics must be good enough. This does not necessarily cost much money, and as an electronics designer this is obvious to me, the parts to make an amplifier circuit does not cost a lot of money, and there are no mysterious phenomena unknown to science, that strangely only affect audio signals. The cheap amplifier in Room2 has more power, less noise, inaudible distortion - as long as you don't push the output stage beyond limits. Sound quality improve because the noise that was audible on the audiophile preamp is now gone, and there is more power available before clipping. This goes well only because the F2 speakers have decent efficiency, they are true 8 ohm - not "8 ohm dipping down to 3 ohm - and they are placed in a small room. But adding a couple of decent output stages does not need to cost so much either, like I had to in the Moderate Cinema, because the F1s kept on killing the Marantz unsufficiently dimensioned output stages. When we get into functionality, the new cheap amp kills the old on all aspects. I have already mentioned the dsp functionality for delay and crossover to the bass system. Then we have the built-in dac - no need for a separate box, and it has hdmi input for best possible connection to the computer. and then there is the calibrated master volume. No need for this on music, some will say. I say I love it, I always know how loud I have my volume turned up, on any system, because they are all calibrated to the same level. Not to mention when you want to measure something - you always know the volume is correct and repeatable. Then we have the speakers and the room. Not so easy. But solving and leaving those other issues that proved insignificant, at least leave all our time and resources and effort available to improve and solve what matters. And they say "high-end is dying".. Yes, I certainly hope so, to be replaced by good sound instead.
  13. 1 point
    Nice. It makes me recall the conversation I had last time I visited my doctor, who had heard from my wife that I was doing a lot of work in audio. Our conversation went kind of like this: Dr: "So what kind of turntable do you recommend?" Me: "I don't really listen to vinyl and haven't researched the options, so I don't really have an opinion." Dr: "Really? You only listen to digital? I have a friend who built a vinyl only system. I like it's sound. It's so sweet." Me: "There are things to like about the sound of vinyl, but it's possible to capture most of that 'sound' as part of a digital recording, too, if you prefer. The other good thing about vinyl is that music masters are often better for vinyl than for CD, not because of it's technical superiority but because the medium is harder to abuse for loudness." Dr: "Hmm. So then what kind of DAC do you prefer to use?" Me: "I have no strong opinion either way on DACs. Most DACs are made very competently and are unlikely to significantly contribute to sound quality." Dr: "Really? Hmm. Well, what kind of amps do you recommend? I use Parasound amps." Me: "Again, most electronics are perfectly fine for audio, provided that they are competently made. Most receivers of common name-brands like Sony, Yamaha, Denon, etc. are perfectly acceptable, as long as you have enough power for your speakers and listening level preferences. Your Parasound amps should work fine too." Dr: "Oh." Me: "I take a systems engineering approach to audio reproduction. That means that I am primarily motivated to improve on the weakest aspects of the overall system. The weakest aspect of any playback system, by far, is the speakers. The second weakest aspect is the listening room design. Electronic signal processing can be used to improve on both of these aspects, to some degree, so is worth considering too. Everything else is of minuscule importance." Unfortunately, the conversation didn't go much further from that point. That's a shame, because we'd finally gotten to the stuff I think is interesting and worth talking about. He never told me what kind of speakers he owned but did concede that his room was probably far from optimal. Next time I visit him, I will ask him if he was surprised by my responses and if he's given the conversation any further thought. I also hope to eventually persuade him to visit for a demo. I don't have any idea what he'll think. Maybe I should insist on blind-folding him before he sees the system. @Kvalsvoll, seeing as you have transitioned from a vendor of "hifi" wares to stuff that actually sounds good, do you have any older customers that come in and are shocked by what you've done? You've chucked a whole lot of fancy electronic equipment, and you've replaced your "hifi" speakers with ... horns! I imagine that comes as a shock to a lot of people. When I've gone to the local Rocky Mountain Audio Festival, I've been in rooms with CD horn speakers and seen people walk in, notice the speakers, and then make a disgusted face and walk out without even bothering to listen to them. Yet, I'll go into a large room with mediocre sounding but exquisitely finished speakers connected to huge racks full of electronics via cables the size of fire hoses and see numerous people standing agape. It's totally absurd. Like, there's a certain wealth level beyond which the majority of people lose any semblance of judgment.
  14. 1 point
    This is how it looks up front in Room2 now. Had the photographer visiting some days ago, to take photos of the new subwoofers, and we snapped this picture. It is interesting to notice what is in the media console - rather, what is not. There are only two things left - an amplifier, and the retired cd-player. The cd-player is connected, but never used. This is what has been removed: - Preamplifier - Exotic class-A output stage (25W, lots of heat, no global feedback yet still distortion below noise floor, exotic output devices, single stage input and voltage gain). - A NAS with separate dedicated wireless router. - SOTA CD-player can also be considered removed, as it is never used. This is a picture of todays dilemma in state-of-the-art audio. The very nice, expensive items of yesterday is rendered obsolete. The new configuration destroys the traditional old-style hifi-setup on all parameters except for two - price and looks. It is not very expensive, and it does not look very expensive and sophisticated. The sound is much better, convenience of operation is much better, it takes up a lot less space, it has functionality such as dsp in the amplifier that makes it possible to integrate the bass-system properly. The current system consist of a laptop computer connected to the local network streaming from the server or the net, a cheap amplifier with dsp, dsp amplifiers for the bass system. This system is guaranteed sonically transparent up to the terminals on the main speakers.
  15. 1 point
    I for one am firmly now under the philosophy of cutting up subwoofers into smaller ones and just using multiples. 2 single 18's vs 1 double, etc etc. or 3 12's vs one single 18 sorry, that does not help you here
×