Jump to content

SME

Members
  • Content Count

    1,645
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    99

SME last won the day on September 27

SME had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

336 Excellent

1 Follower

About SME

  • Rank
    Super Bass Overlord

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

1,718 profile views
  1. Something that might help is to put gasket tape in the areas where the metal grill makes physical contact with the wood.
  2. Thanks for the clarification! DJing is an interesting case because you're using content that was mastered but you're also essentially doing a live show. And to make it more bizarre, it's like you're working with a different band every time you switch songs.
  3. *jaw drop* At 30 cuft, those things are going to be huge though!
  4. Thanks for the clarification! And it's probably best to disregard what I said above. I don't think this is the same driver as in Funk's top-of-the-line 24s, but I may be wrong. It should still perform very well with a big enough box and enough power. Is there a power handling spec?
  5. Is your suggestion specific to live concert music presentations? I'm wondering because I believe mastered music usually has lots of tricks like that applied already. Of course, most mastered music doesn't much rely on "headroom" either. Also, my system has high headroom, and when I turn music up to high SPL, I don't usually notice mud that wasn't there before. If anything, more SPL usually helps a little bit. I reckon that mud is the cause of that audiophile trope: "those speakers really open up when played louder." Indeed! Or maybe the sound is just muddy. Likewise: "those speakers sound very good when played quietly" is probably just a nice way of saying that they are thin and become irritating at high SPL. Audiophilese.
  6. If I had some cash lying around, I would be tempted by this. The driver looks a similar to the ones I own except that this one has a lot more Mms and maybe a tiny bit less BL^/Re. High frequency efficiency is probably -3 dB lower on this one than mine, but it should be similar or greater in efficiency to mine at low frequencies and may have less distortion too. And now you're thinking of doing the 24"? Funk's 24" are monsters! I hope you can post the updated specs.
  7. There's a lot of unpack here, and I mostly agree with you but can't resist the opportunity to say more. I also want to expand on the idea of subjectivity and describe at least two distinct forms of it. First there is aesthetic subjectivity, which has everything to do with our preferences for music types, artists, etc. The creative process is all about subjectivity, and there's no general theory that will suffice to explain or predict this kind of subjectivity. On the other hand, there is the kind of subjective preference that tends to correlate amongst a universal audience. More likely than not, this has to do with the *sound quality*, which is distinct and likely possible to describe objectively, even if a complete explanation is not yet available. Then there's a third kind of subjectivity that arises when one must choose between several "flawed" options. We might all agree that a particular bass resonance and a particular treble resonance are offensive, but we might disagree strongly as to which is *more* offensive. IMHO there really isn't a wrong way. All that matters is if you like the way it sounds. I'm not necessarily talking about just bass balance or response shape with these comments BTW, I think at the end of the process, this is absolutely true, and no matter what other advice one is given from experts or "the data" or whatever, one's subjective preference should always rule. And this applies for both kinds of subjective preference described above. I might also note that in a live performance setting, the two domains of subjectivity blur together. The FOH engineer is working to optimize the sound both in terms of objective quality and in terms of aesthetic goals at the same time. We've all heard people wax poetic about the goal being to be transported to the live performance. This is an impossible fools errand IMO. The live performance from who's perspective? Front row, stage left, right, dead center? Most recordings these days are created with a totally fabricated sense of space and "venue" by the recording engineer anyway. A lot of the content is totally computer created. I *think* I know what you're trying to say, but as written I must strongly disagree. I know in the audiophile world there is a kind of obsessive pursuit of certain ideals in recordings and reproductions: realism, authenticity, and purity. And I agree that this is not what audio as an art-form is about at least 99% of the time. That's because we like making things sound better when we can, and we will almost always *embellish* things when we can. Some thousands of years ago, humans realized that acoustic spaces could be constructed for the purpose of dramatically altering and enhancing the quality of sound produced within them. Later we built elaborate concert halls for our performers. Then we had the recording revolution, and later digital technologies. No longer were we limited by concert hall acoustics but could explore sound in a wide variety of real and simulated spaces. So this only expanded the creative possibilities. And that's why I very much disagree with what you literally wrote. "Transporting the listener" to the live performance *to the sound-scape created by the artist* is ... absolutely not a fools errand! If it was, then it'd also be a fools errand for the artist to go through the trouble of deciding things like "who's perspective?" or what kind of "fabricated sense of space..." to create. That is part of the creation and contributes to the aesthetic value of the product. You could say that you want to recreate what the recording or mastering engineer heard but this will be very difficult too. Most studio control rooms are as variable as our own systems. I've been in my fair share of them and very few of them are totally flat on axis, with controlled directivity. The amount of room reverb and the room size vary a LOT too. Trying to recreate what the recording or mastering engineer heard---now *that's* a fools errand. I doubt it's possible to achieve sufficient uniformity between systems, but if it were, we wouldn't care what the recording or mastering engineer "heard" anyway. That's because what's actually important is *what the artists/engineers actually DID*. Creative actions arise from artistic intent, and the consequences of these actions are objectively "recorded" in the final soundtrack. Even though the artists/engineers might have made slightly different mixing choices, were they to monitor their work on more accurate speakers, the end result is still predominantly a product of choices made without needing to rely on guidance from the monitors. I want to add some jungle ambience to my mix. If I'm on Yamahas, I'll end up mixing end frogs. If I'm on JBLs, I'll mix in birds instead. Yeah right, that's totally absurd! Furthermore, the objective sound quality of a production is by no means limited by the sound quality the engineers heard while creating it. Not even close! Relatedly, I strongly disagree with Floyd Toole's "Circle of Confusion" analogy. There is no "Circle" because the relationship is completely asymmetric. Engineers don't EQ the inverse of their monitors. The real problem I see with less-than-ideal audio reproduction is not that the different reproductions are inconsistent but that in one way or another the reproductions all obscure and/or distort the objective truth---the ultimate product of artistic intent---that is "recorded" onto the soundtrack. The issue is not really about whether the bass sounds precisely as loud as the artist wanted it to sound and more about whether every possible tonal, timbrel, and temporal nuance of the bass instrument and the performer's command of it is conveyed to the listener. Mixing balance, quality and artistic expression is all over the map on top of that. If you personally like more bass, less treble, a mountain of mids, whatever...Do it. Yes, But! If the reproduction system is capable of ideally neutral reproduction,such that the objectively subjective aspects of sound quality are essentially perfect, then how much does "more bass", "less treble", etc. actually matter? One of the most surprising things I've experienced in my work is that as I seem to improve the finer-scale accuracy of my sound, the broad-scale frequency balance differences between content (between program as well as within the same program) become much less exaggerated and more uniform. This is very fascinating because many of us who study audio assume that what we perceive should correlate fairly closely related to the physical characteristics of the sound. However, what I'm consistently finding is that what I actually perceive has much more to do with *informational characteristics* of the sound. To my brain, a broad-scale response imbalance is essentially a nuisance to be adapted to in the process of extracting as much useful information as possible from my sensory inputs, and it seems that the less my brain has to concentrate on adapting to other issues in the reproduction, the more readily my brain "flattens" the broad differences. And to be clear, the broad differences don't vanish entirely, they just manifest a lot less dramatically. If these insights are ultimately confirmed to be true, they open up a lot of fascinating questions. Like, how does SPL play into all of this? If frequency response optimization causes relative level difference between bass and treble to matter much less to perception, then can people get satisfying bass using fairly menial sub capabilities? And what does a steeper broad-curve with more bass contribute to the sound? More physicality? How much does that aspect increase per dB? A lot of bass-heads probably habitually turn the sub up until right before they hear "too much bass", likely related to the amount of mud becoming intolerable. But what if the sound never reaches that point? What if a whole wall full of subs aren't enough to muddy the sound (at reasonable mid-high frequency listening levels) even with their headroom maxed out? Will the bass-heads be dissatisfied because they are able to clearly hear all the mids and highs no matter what they do?
  8. I'd argue the situation is a bit more complicated than described here. First, I agree that there's a lot of variation between content with regard to bass balance---much more so than for higher frequencies. I'm not sure how much correlation there is in this regard within of specific genres, but I'd certainly expect to see some correlation of content produced put out by the same mixer(s) and/or mastering engineers. Second, the subjective spectral balance depends not just on the very broad aspects of the shape, but also on finer aspects and on how these different aspects interact. Where peaks at different scales coincide, there is often enhanced emphasis. Start with the spectral characteristics of the original content, before any significant EQ is applied in the production process. The spectrum depends entirely on what the sound is. The sustained part of continuous sounds exhibit very narrow spectral characteristics. The transient sounds and attack/release of continuous sounds exhibit broader spectral characteristics. (Even this description is over-simplified) Then the mixer and/or mastering engineer applies various EQ, usually of a broader nature when boosting. Then *you* play the track at home on a system with its own characteristics (some broad, some fine), which may have been altered via your own EQ (or auto EQ) settings. The end result of all of the above can be rather hard to predict. One track might seem to have wild bass in one room or one configuration but seem feeble in another. However my experience suggests that the more neutral the playback system is, the less apparent variation there is between content. One hypothesis I have is that the brain is capable of compensating for "EQ flaws", but only to a point. The processing resources are limited. So if you can minimize EQ flaws in the production process, the resulting soundtrack will likely "translate" well to a variety of flawed playback systems. And if you can minimize EQ flaws in the playback system, you can substantially increase enjoyment of a wide variety of "flawed" content at home. Likewise, a very "dry" recording of bass is likely to sound pretty clean when played back in a typical small listening room, albeit with the listening room's acoustic signature imposed on it. A recording of bass in a room with a strong small-room acoustic signature will also sound pretty clean when played back on a system with no LF reflections or one that is tightly optimized in a way that erases or neutralizes its acoustic signature, and the recorded acoustics will be reproduced faithfully. However, the same recording will likely have poorer intelligibility when played on a more typical small-room system. Perhaps the brain struggles to parse LF sound from acoustic effects when the acoustics of multiple rooms impose on the sound. One other point of mention is that almost all mastered content is processed with harmonic enhancement plugins that I believe have a "neutralizing effect" on the overall sound and likely suppress the negative effect of any EQ flaws. They may also make those EQ flaws more audible to the engineer, making it more likely that they'll be corrected before the track is finalized. I don't know for sure as this is not my area of expertise, but they definitely have an important impact on how the end result sounds.
  9. That's a fascinating contraption. The bass appears to be directional down to very low frequencies. I wonder what happens below 10 Hz? One source says that the Ripole configuration has its effective resonance below the driver Fs, with the given example being lower by a factor of roughly 1/sqrt(2). The Ultimax specs indicate an Fs of 19.5 Hz, suggesting a Ripole resonance at 13.78 Hz, but the measurements don't show any drop below there. Hmm.
  10. With just two subs, you almost always want positive summation in the listening area. With 3 or more subs, assuming you have enough headroom to spare, it may or may not be useful to run some of the subs out of phase from the others, at least for some frequencies. For example, the double-bass array involves configuring the rear subs using delay and phase inversion to cancel out what would be the rear-wall reflection. That is definitely not positive summation---by design! My own system is configured so that the mid-bass modules behind my sofa interfere somewhat with the sound from the (main) front subs in order to diminish the "power alley" effect which causes hotter bass in the middle seat than the outer seats. I'm not really sure if it was worth it. The result may be rather hypersensitive to small changes in level, placement, and the surrounding room environment. There's also a larger question of whether pressure response is solely responsible for bass perception and if flat and/or smooth pressure response at a particular seat is the best indicator of how good the bass will sound at that seat.
  11. Is the room drawn to scale? It looks like a small room, and unfortunately it looks like your seats will fall right in the lengthwise null. I didn't mean to say that modal/standing-wave resonances aren't important. They usually do come into play in small rooms. It's just that other considerations are also important, and that study largely ignored those things. How response affects how the bass "sounds" is anything but simple. Putting a sub in a corner without other sub(s) in opposing corners to "cancel out" the standing waves does in fact increase the coupling of the sub to the room's standing wave resonances compared to placements away from those corners. The advantage, IMO, is that such resonances can be attenuated using EQ. Placement away from walls tends to cause suck-outs that aren't easily repaired using EQ, and these response issues may be harder to discern from measurements as well. Either way, EQing a system for the best sound is much easier said than done. It's hard to say why you were not successful applying DSP to "fix" problems heard when a sub is placed in a corner. My first suggestion (1) here is to not obsess too much over what your in-room "frequency response" shows. It's not "wrong", it's just not all that consistent with what you actually hear. Instead it offers hints. Second (2), always look at measurements from multiple locations. Features that appear in several locations within the room are more likely to be audible. Spatial averaging can help somewhat with selecting for these, but rule (1) still applies. Third (3), use EQ judiciously. You're trying to EQ out problematic features, after you've identified them, not make a curve look prettier. The data you get from measuring is part of a map, not the territory. Fourth (4), listen to the result and use your ears to make the final judgment. A prettier curve is no guarantee of better sound. So for example, you might look at your measurements and notice a narrow peak at the same frequency that appears at most locations. Then you might choose a Q or bandwidth for your filter, based on the shape that appears in a spatial average. You might further select a gain that's something like half of the spatially averaged peak, listen to evaluate the result, and then iterate on the gain until the character of the resonance can no longer be heard but not so much that the sound becomes lifeless in that frequency area. Apart from the obvious resonances, you can experiment with broad shape adjustments to improve octave-to-octave balance. This might be best done by ear, unless you are correcting some aspect of the sub that you know about from outdoor measurements or something. For example, you can add a Linkwitz transform to alter a sealed sub's roll-off/Qts to different values, albeit with very substantial effects on *power* and *excursion* requirements. If you know roughly where your subs exhibit an "inductance hump", then a broad EQ dip might be helpful here. To the extent that you are able to use EQ to reduce or eliminate audible problems, you can make significant improvements to your sound, but you will likely find that other problems still linger. The consequences of those problems are varied and complicated. Your changes might lead to much improved clarity, but you might lose a lot of "slam". Or maybe you get more impact but a "colder, harder" sound. Almost every good sound system gets hand-tweaked at the end of the process, so don't hesitate to experiment, especially with broader scale EQ adjustments. I think you are confusing *gain* with *power capability*. The volume setting on your pre-amp says nothing about how much headroom you have in your amps. It's possible that your "really loud symphonies" are actually clipping and distorting on some of the bigger hits. It can be hard to tell unless you are able to A/B the difference unless you're really overloading things badly. With that said, 83 dB is very insensitive. For a "reference" home theater experience, where you are sitting ~10 feet away, you'll probably want speakers closer to 93 dB sensitive. Mind you, a lot depends on details --- are we talking 2.83V or 1W? What do the speaker's impedance and FR look like? IMO, speaker sensitivity (assuming use of subs) is most important in the 120-700ish Hz range where you're most likely to see big suckouts due to baffle and boundary problems, especially where they coincide. Either way, I don't think 83 dB will not cut it unless you plan to listen at lower volume. The other thing you need to keep in mind is that each +3 dB "costs you" twice as much power. So while 700W sounds impressive, it's only 8.5 dB higher than 100W. You could easily see that by putting the sub in a corner vs. mid-wall. Or put another way, moving the sub to gain 6 dB would be similar to *upgrading* your 700W amp to 2800W, *and* you'd have less distortion. Do you have any way to take measurements before you design the room? That would help a lot. Number 3 sounds sketchy. They are essentially IB subs if their back-ends fire into open space that is isolated from the room. However, I have no idea what your giant MDF contraptions are going to do mechanically, and you could end up losing a lot of efficiency among other serious problems that way. It's definitely best for the sub drivers to be mounted rigidly. I lean towards your option 2.,putting the subs in the corners under the bass traps. If you are sitting more toward the back of the room, then the subs will be closer to you than the front wall, so hopefully that lengthwise null with be a fair ways in front of you. The opposing corners placement will cancel out the major width-wise standing wave. Is there any reason why both (1) and (2) only involve using 2 subs? Why not use all 4? Why not do (2) and also put two subs at the front of the hall, at the midpoint and on the ceiling if need be.
  12. Good question! Originally, yes. Although first I should clarify that the shape of the spatially averaged response depends quite a bit on what measurements you include in the average. IIRC, I was flat in the MLP where there was a kind of mid-bass "power ally" effect, but had rise toward the bottom in the outer seats. I'm pretty sure I went back and made broad-shape tweaks to get the sound to "my liking". And by "flat", I only meant for the sub anyway. I totally agree that flat in-room FR will almost always sound too thin and bright. What you're doing for your room is essentially what Harman et.al. recommend these days, and seems to be pretty standard for "state-of-the-art" DIY system as well. These days, I believe Harman regards their latest target curve to be "secret sauce"---essentially proprietary. That's just bizarre to me. I mean, it's probably only subtly different from previous target curves they've recommended which are publicly known. But more importantly, a target curve is, at best, a fuzzy indication of where things should end up. The X-curve in cinema is essentially the same (e.g. +/- 3 dB tolerances, which are huge for SQ purposes, and pretty much gave the projectionist the lee-way to set the EQ to whatever sounds best for him/her, until we replaced them with robots that don't "hear" like humans do). The same system will "measure" very different, even in the same room, depending on where choose to measure. Does the average include more or fewer off-axis seats? Are the extra rows included? How close are the seats to the speakers, relative to the room size? Those things and have a huge impact on where your broad response shapes will fall, so the target curve doesn't end up being useful IMO. Another thing is that the content itself is not all roughly +/- 2 dB or something, broadly. Instead, there are huge *differences* in spectral balance, not just between programs, but between tracks and/or segment of the same program. In movies for example, a popular technique seems to be "mixing big", which among other things seems to using a huge "smile" EQ curve to up the impact of "big" on-screen events. These differences largely overwhelm target curve differences. What matters far more is that trying to fit in-room response (even with spatial averaging) to a smooth curve doesn't really lead to optimal results. It might clean up some of the most obvious modal/room resonances, but it tends to make a mess of the innate/anechoic FR of the source and may actually make transients sound worse than without the EQ processing. I don't really know, but I have often experienced more satisfying bass from speakers without EQ than with some kind of "room correction".
  13. Sure! But your picture is missing a whole lot of *braces*. Other things to consider: material use is inefficient vs. a more square-like shape. And, the enclosure will develop internal standing wave resonances that are particularly low. You'll definitely want more depth of stuffing/fill at each end. Also, see my replies to your other thread about preferring corner placement for higher efficiency among other things.
  14. I also want to add that the article and sound people in general take "frequency response" measurements captured in a room way too literally. The study seeks to minimize "mean spatial variation" while ignoring the crucial question of whether that should even be the objective. My experience suggests otherwise. The first problem is that bass perception isn't merely a function of hearing through the ears. Bone conduction and mechano-reception (via nerves throughout your skin and body) likely play major roles too, and they are able to pick up signals from a wider variety of locations and via different transmission mechanisms. Second, the brain possesses highly advanced cognitive processing that is well adapted to listening in small rooms and inferring the nature of the sound source independently from the "acoustical context". Floyd Toole and Harman have provided ample evidence that, at least for mid and high frequencies, the listener is capable of "hearing through the acoustics" to a great extent in order to ascertain the original sound source, i.e. the speaker or sub. They've shown that anechoic chamber measurements, on and off axis, correlate better with blinded listener preference than an in-room measurement (taken "literally"). I believe this remains true for bass, except that as you go lower, the speaker drivers interact with more than just the cabinet. They begin to interact with nearby boundaries as well. These boundaries effectively become part of the speaker, and their influence alters the sound of the speaker, just as different cabinet and baffle shapes do. Go low enough, and the speaker/sub will even interact with the modal /standing wave resonances in the room. Nevertheless, the Harman people seem to ignore these observations and instead argue that optimizing in-room frequency response is the best course for bass, despite it being sub-optimal for mids and highs. They believe that essentially all the usual rules "go out the window" below the "Schroeder transition frequency", and that below this point, standing wave behavior dominates the room response. I disagree with them on all these counts. First, Schroeder transition frequency is a theoretical construct that assumes large rooms with diffuse reverberant fields, not small residential listening rooms. They describe this transition as typically happening around 500 Hz, probably because that's the rough point below which in-room frequency response measurements start to look a lot "messier" with peaks and dips. In reality, this is simply a consequence of lower directivity, meaning more and stronger reflections are contributing to the measured response than for higher frequencies. Second, I don't believe most rooms exhibit standing waves until much lower in frequency, and that behavior may not even predominate for subwoofer frequencies. unless you are in a room with stiff walls. Third, the presence of standing waves does not necessarily preclude the listener's ability to "hear-through" the local acoustic effects. Where standing waves are involved, a null in SPL response coincides with a peak in particle velocity level (PVL) response. It's possible that listeners may be able to perceive aspects of PVL independently from SPL, perhaps through indirect mechanisms like hair or clothing movement. And fourth, I've tried optimizing for minimum seat-to-seat variation and then flattest possible response in my own room using practically unlimited custom DSP capability. The result looked beautiful in the REW plots, but the sound quality was far from ideal. This was most evident when I auditioned one of Harman's own speakers, the (Revel Salon 2), playing (in another room) with no EQ whatsoever. Its musical bass quality blew mine out of the water. For my purposes, this essentially disproved the claim that flat in-room frequency response is ideal, and it inspired me to develop a novel and more clever approach to assess the sound of the speaker independent of the localized acoustics. My current method seems to work just as well at 25 Hz as it does at (say) 1500 Hz, and so I'm not aware of any sort of transition frequency where the rules of perception change. The only thing that changes is how *complete* anechoic/ground plane measurements are for describing sound quality, where for bass those measurements are still relevant but room effects become at least as important. Anyway, sorry I can't give simple answers, but that's the nature of the subject! I'd suggest you blame your brain, but actually if it weren't for our brains conspiring to make everything sound better than it really does, none of us would probably have this hobby.
×
×
  • Create New...