Jump to content

3ll3d00d

Members
  • Content Count

    527
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

3ll3d00d last won the day on May 2

3ll3d00d had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

106 Excellent

About 3ll3d00d

  • Rank
    Bass Overlord

Recent Profile Visitors

787 profile views
  1. Only at the low end (you lose content at low bit rates)
  2. what does the average refer to in the CEA-2010 graphs? literally the average of all drivers in the site or something else?
  3. Re the holes on the side, translate says they are "acoustically filtered", does it mean some damping material behind the holes? I looked into doing this once but the amount of trial and error (and/or lack of modelling tools) put me off. One thing I do remember though is that any such speaker tended to be pretty deep in order to get enough delay on the side output to affect directivity in a desirable way (iirc). These are v shallow speakers though by the looks of it. Are you using them for this purpose or something else?
  4. you can also measure excursion using an accelerometer and an appropriate pre amp, you can find details of the schematic in the article linked from https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/equipment-and-tools/267734-accelerometer-testing-loudspeaker-drivers.html (or that guy sometimes sells either a pre amp or just the pcb via a thread on diya)
  5. finally wrote a user guide for the app -> https://beqdesigner.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
  6. BBC4 invariably has some interesting music shows on a Friday night, this one popped up tonight - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00023xl - which I thought I'd post here given the subject matter, might be of interest (if those outside the UK can see it that is)
  7. https://github.com/3ll3d00d/beqdesigner/releases/tag/0.5.2 contains some enhancements to the built in bass management sim which means you'll get a more accurate idea of whether it is going to clip or not after filtering & also lets you more easily see the impact of BEQ on the full track (via the spectrum comparison view). If anyone has any other suggestions for how to make this more useable then feel free to raise them (otherwise it's just whatever I think makes sense based on me using it to try out BEQ for tracks).
  8. fwiw this release can show the bass managed result of a set of filtered channels in the app, updates live as you change filters and reports on headroom available - https://github.com/3ll3d00d/beqdesigner/releases/tag/0.5.0 I recommend using a decimated track if you want this to perform acceptably so that means it isn't a perfect simulation, close enough though for this purpose IMO
  9. FWIW there was an error in the convert to dB function which put a lower limit of ~ -92dB on the resulting value, the actual response is https://imgur.com/a/EiDaMN0
  10. No I am not, and have not been, missing your point. I agree that a per channel solution's should be better and is better in theory. I question whether it is practically that much better in practice on certain tracks (and whether the effort involved in creating the pre channel beq is worth it). I agree it would take a per channel comparison to get a more informed view. I commented in the first place because of an idle observation (possibly in the avs thread) that the resulting mono tracks don't look that different (presumably because it is dominated by the louder channels). I haven't done any detailed comparison myself though hence why continued discussion in general is a bit pointless I will dig out the relevant graph to illustrate later and see if it matches my initial idle observation.
  11. that is strange, I haven't noticed that on any other tracks. It looks like the analysis of the source signal has basically dropped down into the abyss. I'll have to look into that one. https://imgur.com/a/UoNlJuS re the rest of the discussion, it seems a bit pointless to discuss further in abstract terms as it hinges on one's definition of subtle vs marked and whether an effect at -x dB is one or the other.
  12. perhaps this is clearer before https://imgur.com/a/lyOBXiQ after https://imgur.com/a/n8g8KHe this is the channel levels on the track so in reality LFE would be another 10dB higher this is average but the delta between the channels is similar on the peak chart (just much harder to read) The post beq surround channel looks odd to me (i.e. it is just the filter shape) and it's at a *much* lower level than the LFE and C. Even if there are distinct effects in the surrounds that aren't in any other channel, IMV it's going to be at most a subtle difference.
  13. The surround specific bass boost requires an extremely large boost in order to bring it up to a pretty low level relative to the lfe hence, in this case, even if you have channel specific beq, I suspect you will struggle to notice it.
  14. I just found it a bit dull compared to TFA or Rogue One, storyline seemed particularly derivative of earlier films as well so that it felt like a remake at times rather than a new film. in principle I agree, in practice I'm not so sure for a track like this where the surrounds are so much lower in level and even LR is another few dB down on the C. I haven't compared but I would not be surprised if there was a pretty small audible difference between the two approaches in this case.
×
×
  • Create New...