Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/19/2017 in all areas

  1. 9 points
    Final quarter of 2017 update. JTR Speakers Captivator 212Pro results have just been posted. KRK Systems 12S2 subwoofer testing is done. Should be posted next. WW Speakers / Mark Seaton designed X21 cabinet loaded with B&C 21DS115-4 driver testing is done. Will be posted ASAP as well. This was tested with both vents open and with a vent plugged and with both the Powersoft K20 and an Inuke 3000DSP. That's 4 full measurement sets. We're killing a lot birds with one stone on this one. We have some information on the Inuke 3000DSP amp driving a real load. We have the 21DS115-4 driver itself, which a lot of people are interested in and lastly we have the X21 vented cabinet which is available off the shelf to fit a variety of pro 21's. I tell you the cab is built solid and of course Mark designed it well. It is not cheap but it certainly offers an easy button option. Next up is a set of 3 subwoofers from one of the commercial vendors. I'm not totally sure these will be public on the site since the MFG reserves the right to decide whether the results are public or private. I believe they will be though as so far their behavior appears to be well designed. And...After that...I have a couple of cabs from a pro audio company that will be on deck. Not sure these will be public yet either but I suspect so. I'm trying to get this all tested and posted by the end of the year. That's the goal. I have more DIY type driver tests sitting in the wings too.
  2. 7 points
    Update to powering the RF 19's. The 8 sealed in the HT will now be getting a pair of SP2-12000's. Each 6k module power 2 1ohm T3S1-19 drivers in series in a dual opposed sealed cab. This switch is mostly because the SP amps have less fan noise than the K20's. Also they have slightly better extension below 10Hz. The K20's are going to the band spot to power the MAUL's. Fan noise doesn't matter there. Each MAUL has 4 T3S1-19's wired in series for a 4ohm nominal load and will see a whole bridged K20. Yay headroom... Got power?
  3. 6 points
    I've got a couple of pro woofers on hand for 2018 so far. I need to do some more testing with the 21DS115-4, but I also have a JBL 2269H 18 and 2 18Sound 21's the 21NLW9601 and 21ID. I also have a couple of vented pro subs I didn't get to in 2017. Even more JTR Speakers testing is on the schedule for when spring gets here.
  4. 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!
  5. 4 points
    So after reading this thread over the past year and amazed and the technical depth and extreme attention to detail paid to the tuning of this system and going "man I really want to hear this!", I flew and went to check out this system. And boy what an amazing system to listen to! My mind was blown as I was amazed by one thing after the other. All the work put into getting the tonal balance of this speaker correct really paid off big time. The whole system just sounds really "correct", and the more I listen to it the more I'm amazed by it. I brought my Reference Mini's with me as a comparison, and there was a very obvious difference in sound quality. I thought my speakers sounded really great, but it sound noticeably "off" when compared to this system. The speakers had a fantastic amount of detail, and the transients are awesome! It felt like I'm listening to a pair of really good headphones (and few people realize how hard and impressive it is to achieve this), but I also get the enveloping sound that makes speaker listening so pleasurable. It's the best of both worlds. What's even more impressive is the bass. I don't think I've heard bass so tight and full sounding in a room, which is clearly due to the complex integration efforts of multiple subs and individual EQ's to get such flat bass over a large number of seats. The clarity and tightness is seriously impressive. Again, just like a headphone, and that is actually something I've never heard before from a subwoofer. It is straight up the best sounding bass I've heard in a room. Now when you also get the whole body physical sensation from bass, addictive is an understatement. One thing that is unforgettable and blew my mind is how great the speakers sound in the kitchen! I don't think SME has ever mentioned this, but it was indeed one of his goals. It was remarkable hearing a correct tonal balance with almost no treble roll off in a different room! I still can't believe this is achievable. It must be the combination of controlled directivity speakers and properly placed diffusers pulled this amazing magic trick of a feat. I've heard a lot of amazing home theaters, but this is the first time I heard imaging from surrounds. It was trippy to be able to pinpoint the location of the sound going across the rear stage. I really wish we watched an action movie and be able to so accurately track the position of the sound effects. This is even more impressive as I seem to clearly have less ability to hear imaging compared to other people. Speaking about imaging, the speakers reproduced phase manipulated music tracks far more accurately than anything I've heard so far. It must be the room treatments that are preserving the phase accuracy of the speakers. It was like "oh this is where it is supposed to sound!" I was also exposed to the dark secrets of the time domain in room correction. That was a revelation to me to be exposed to so much more information and tools to analyze room acoustics. Now it makes sense why and how the room is mucking up the sound. It's all in the time domain! Now I am able to correlate measurements and subjective judgment of how good (or bad) the room sounds. I have so much to dig and play around with now. Measurements really can tell you about how good something sounds if you look at the right things and how to interpret it properly. Thank you SME and his wife for being such amazingly gracious hosts. That was one hell of a weekend! Oh, and did I make it clear enough that your system sounds good?
  6. 3 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
  7. 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!
  8. 3 points
    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.
  9. 3 points
  10. 3 points
  11. 3 points
    Looks like I've got to pick this one up if nothing else but for the fun factor. Anyone want to take bets on how many of my neighbors will complain to my HOA when I listen to this movie at a decent level? Haha.
  12. 3 points
  13. 3 points
    Othorn files. OTHORN print AUTOCAD 2000.DXF OTHORN DXF scale print.pdf
  14. 2 points
    This thread is more about full-range content than bass, but it is content related, so I think it works best here. In the future, I may post this somewhere on AVSForum, but for now I want to keep it to a limited audience. As I've mentioned in the main LF Content thread, the X-curve calibration standard in cinema causes two major problems: Tonal balance that deviates substantially from neutral and from what is typical used (informally) for music production and what sounds good on a home system that is optimized for music. Inconsistent calibration between different dub-stages and cinemas. As I also noted, many UHDBR/BD/DVD releases these days have high quality home remixes that fix most of these tonal balance problems. This is true for most recent Disney releases these days (including, e.g. the new "Star Wars" and much recent Pixar and Marvel stuff). However, much legacy content as well as lesser quality home-remixes do not feature any re-EQ and retain the inverse-X-curve signature. The effect of X-curve calibration is to attenuate both high frequencies, via the -3 dB/octave slope in power response, and the low frequencies, which arises from forcing a flat power-averaged response even though virtually all speakers have a significant drop in directivity for low frequencies and what absorption is present in typical dub-stage / cinema rooms is also less effective at low frequencies. As a consequence of the altered tonal-balance, most mixes are likely altered to sound good in the dub-stage during the re-recording mix process in which highs and lows are boosted to compensate. The resulting mixes, in addition to translating unreliably between theaters, sound less than optimal when played back on a home system. The auditory symptoms are mixed. I find it easiest to hear the problems in the dialog. Sometimes only one of the excess highs or the excess lows is audible in the unaltered track because the boost dominates. For example, some cinema mixes, the dialog comes across very bright. In others, it comes across very boomy. Sometimes, the dialog seems relatively balance, in terms of high vs. low, but with the mid-range being relatively depressed, intelligibility often still suffers. Dialog is both much easier to understand and much more enjoyable to listen to when it's presented neutrally. Unfortunately, the required correction varies between track for both of the above reasons. Mixers don't necessarily attempt to defeat the X-curve alterations in any systematic way. Instead, they "turn various knobs" and listen until they are satisfied with the result. So the ideal filters to reverse their changes may vary between mixes. And because the X-curve calibration method isn't even consistent between dub-stages, EQ-adjustments that give good sound in one dub-stage may not work well in another. In fact, there's evidence that X-curve calibration doesn't even achieve consistency between the left and right vs. center screen channels vs. surround channels in the same dub-stage. The situation is a big stinking mess for sure. Nevertheless, even if the adverse effects of the X-curve standard on the mix cannot be perfectly reversed, it's possible with some rudimentary EQ to improve the sound quality of cinema mixes considerably. Now that I've finally achieved a stable, reliable audio reference in my own sound system, I've been giving attention to this problem. In this thread, I hope to document some of the candidate corrections that I've applied to improve the sound quality of various movies. I would encourage anyone with the required capabilities to give these a try and share feedback. To implement these requires the ability to apply various biquad EQ filters such as high and low shelves and Peaking EQs, ideally to the streams *before* bass-management. Though for my first pass, I'm applying the filters identically to all channels, so it should work fine to apply them after bass-management as well. One issue I imagine most people will have is that they have a limited number of free filter slots. The more filters used, the better quality correction that's possible. I will try to limit the filters to what's actually needed. Edit: I posted a candidate correction for "Wonder Woman". Sweet!
  15. 2 points
    Put some PL premium or a bunch of wood glue in there and screw it through the wall. Should be fine.
  16. 2 points
  17. 2 points
    +1 This about sums up my thoughts as well. I have heard of B2 before from the car audio guys. They mention sound quality a lot on the website but I saw no technical information that explained what was done in their speakers to engineer them for better sound quality or lower distortion or whatever. They might be awesome drivers, or they might be typical cookie cutter car audio SPL comp subs. Like most of these car audio companies, they are very short on any type of engineering specs, technical data, or explanation of design goals. There is a lot of descriptive text (claims) about them but little substance. I see a number of red flags from browsing the website. A lot of the specs are different in the manual vs the website. The power handling specs have no information of how they were derived (AES, CEA, some other proprietary testing?). Same for the Xmax specs (gap geometry, what calculation, BL simulation, Klippel, pulled out of thin air?). This is typical for this market. Some of the xmax specs are peak to peak and others seem to be 1 way? Other things that would give me pause are the lack of any mention of shorting rings in the motors. 6 and 8 layer 4" diameter and larger will have huge inductance. What that means is inductive distortion will be high and your winisd sims will not even resemble the real response behavior using these drivers. Le at 1kHz isn't even listed so it is impossible to sim them in HR with the Le effects added. Also the Cms is extremely low meaning that the suspensions are rock hard. Stiffer than any other drivers I can recall. Another thing I see is that the Qts of these drivers is on the high side meaning they are very inefficient. This is despite the huge motors, massive voice coils, etc. What do I mean by a typical SPL comp car sub? Basically it comes down to this... The drivers are designed to take a beating and withstand as much abuse as possible. That is priority #1, #2 and #3. After that they may start to consider how cool the sub looks. The marketing involves having bigger everything than the competitor...Heaviest motor possible, most neodymium, biggest coil diameter, highest power handling rating, etc. Quality=Heavy & Tough in this market. None of this has anything to do with making the sub more accurate, linear, higher efficiency, or lower distortion. I'm not trying to pick on B2. It's a car audio market issue as a whole. They may have some excellent products but without sufficient information on them from the MFG it is impossible to know without trying one out.
  18. 2 points
  19. 2 points
  20. 2 points
    Soooo.....you guys (everyone on this forum) needs to purchase Valerian right now. Here are a few screen caps from the first night I tried to watch the movie. I know what you're thinking "now Nick, you said that you 'tried to watch the movie...why did you only try'"? I spent too much time taking screen caps to finish the movie in under 2.5 hours so I had to watch the rest of it the next day. The movie is awesome IMO. I only have a 4.1 system but the use of the rear/surround channels is immense in this movie. It's really really cool the way they heavily used the surround channels. I can only imagine what this movie must sound like in an Atmos setup. Visually the colors and scenes are through the roof. Sound is nuts - PLENTY of low-end throughout the entire movie. But I digress so here are some screen caps from the other night:
  21. 2 points
    Last time I moved my box downstairs I rented a self climbing dolly from the rental place. It was like 40 bucks for the day and it did all the work you just balance. Ive used the same rig for moving gun safes around 1000lbs. Last safe I helped move we sat around laughing about how nobody was sore or hurt.
  22. 2 points
    I still have to do a headroom sanity check on the overall film, but I will. Only 4-5 films I have re-done have ended up with any >128dB effects when played back at 85dBRef (+7dB on the MV). rant/ Most films are VERY tolerant of BEQ, which has led me to believe that it is possible to have unclipped, dynamic, full-bandwidth presentations if someone takes the time to create a film soundtrack properly the first time. We unfortunately have few examples of this. So much of the problem is that most exhibitors will not playback films at Reference; too many complaints of "it's too loud". This sometimes forces mixers to mix films under reference, knowing their films will not be played back at Ref Level, esp for dialogue driven films. To get loudness under reference level, you have to compress/clip loud passages to keep dialogue loud and clear enough if you mix significantly under Ref. What happens if a film mixed under reference is played back AT reference level? LOUD/COMPRESSED/CLIPPED Hell. It can be even worse for HT 'home mixes' depending on the playback system and Ref Level it is mixed at. Was it optimized for soundbar, TV speaker,s, HTIB, or decent HT setup playback? And let us not forget about 'Director's Intent'. I'm talking to you, Chris Nolan, ever since 'The Dark Knight' (though I hold out hope for 'Dunkirk'), and you, Joseph Kosinski (who admitted to messing with 'Tron:Legacy's BD mix, and the clipped hell it was in every channel save for LFE). But I also have to thank Joseph Kosinski. Without Tron:Legacy's obvious clipping, I would have never tried to find out how to look for clipping in a soundtrack. I am just glad we get some decent mixes every now and then. Too many variables at play, and not many (if any) standards followed, with so many various powerful interests at play. /rant JSS
  23. 2 points
    Is no one going to talk about the audio in Transformers "The Last Knight" whenever Megatron is on camera? The audio has been lightly brushed on here at Data-Bass but I don't recall anyone going into detail. I SpecLab'd a few scenes last night and when Megatron lands in the salt flats the hottest spot is centered at 20 Hz. Sure it's no 7 Hz WOTW, but the sound in the movie makes it worth watching and also using for demo's. I haven't seen much talk about it so I'll go out on a limb and say that I love the proper audio in this movie.
  24. 2 points
    Ya'll crazy. This was wonderful A/V all around (saw in Dolby Cinema) and I can not wait to get it on UHD/BD to watch at home. This will probably rate well in bass too. It's time will come.
  25. 2 points
    A new addition for my space, Nathan's new 21.0LX, based on the UH21 driver.
×