Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by 3ll3d00d


    6 hours ago, m_ms said:

    I'm convinced that sheer headroom is one of the core parameters where "sound quality" from a sub (and main speakers) goes, and that having loads of this is determining in supplying the ease and relaxed presentation that I've grown so fond of.

    headroom is always good of course but, as far as I can see, you are not talking about challenging listening levels ("occasional bursts to 110dB"). This may be worth bearing in mind as you decide on what to build.

    re the HPF, I assume you're talking about a passive high pass filter. Of course such filters are expensive and/or impractical so the question is why use a passive filter?

  2. 7 hours ago, lilmike said:

    Thanks for the heads-up.

    Sadly, it looks like the WT2 data does not have the complex inductance parameters in a format Hornresp can use. 

    I've sent them an email to see what  (if anything) can be done.

    you can import the measurement into REW and let it calculate them for you.

    This is probably a nice thing to add to all the driver measurements from data-bass.

  3. actually it's probably more like 16mm or so clearance so a bit tighter than I thought, I guess I'll just have to buy one and give it a try to see what happens

    I did start looking into 12" woofers (in order to find a shallower one) though anyway

    the B&C 12NW76 (http://www.bcspeakers.com/en/products/lf-driver/12-0/8/12nw76) seemed somewhat on paper (shorting ring, seems like similar motor strength) albeit models with much more midrange(which I won't be using). I'm never quite sure whether to use xvar or xmax from the b&c specs though.

    the BMS 12N804 (http://www.bmsspeakers.com/index.php?id=12n804_overview) was another one that looked promising

    a comparison from hornresp models with EQ applied to use up the 200W on offer while keeping within xmax (vs the 15n840)


    anyone with any views on any of these? (or any of the other 12" drivers for that matter)

  4. I've put together the cabinet for this (pretty simple sealed box) and run into a possible issue due to my depth constraint, if I stick to that constraint then I'm only going to have a shade under an inch (~23mm) clearance behind the pole vent. I estimate the diameter of that vent is ~60mm. I will not be running this really hard, well under rated power, so I have a feeling I can get away with this with no real negative impact (even if it's not ideal). 

    Any views?

  5. Thanks for the suggested drivers. I'll have to discount them both though as I'm not prepared to spend time in the queue with AE on this occasion & the JBL looks like it will only work in the ported enclosure as well as being somewhat more expensive (in Europe) than any of the other options. Is there something about the JBL that makes it stand out from the BMS?

  6. On 05/02/2018 at 5:22 AM, SME said:

    By "mids", do you mean the mids attached to the horn or the mids below the horn?  

    sorry brain fail, you said mid and I replied talking about woofers. There is some discussion of an additional mid in the thread, conclusion is that there isn't a benefit and it is likely to make the HF response more ragged. He does put two on the 3d printed version but AIUI that is really to do the mechanics of printing it in 2 parts.

  7. FWIW he recommends running a 4 mid version like a 3.5 way (by rolling off the top woofers) to minimise any negative impact on the vertical pattern. I have 2 problems with a full size synergy, one is size and the other is making the cuts to make the thing. I reckon it would be doable with my track saw though but probably one for the future. He does have a 3d printed version available that does mount the woofers on the horn itself, see http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/307434-3d-printing-1-2-waveguide.html for details. 

  8. 3 hours ago, SME said:

    Out of curiosity, will these be replacing one of your AE TD10s?  Or do you planning on turning the front speakers into 4-ways?  What made you decide you wanted more bass output above 100 Hz than you have?

    FWIW I am currently using a pair of TD12Ms for W/M though. The thought is to turn the fronts into 4 ways however it's not to add another driver beneath what I currently have, it's for a different speaker entirely.

    I've wanted to try a synergy style horn for a while and there is a design out there which uses a SEOS15 for this purpose (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/292379-syns.html). I happen to have a bunch of SEOS15s in the house  so I thought I'd give it a whirl. This design is limited by the <200Hz region though as it uses a pair of 6s and I don't think it will be enough for me. I sketched out a 4 driver version (which will have pretty much as much capability my existing setup) but that box seems a little unwieldy.

    The other option is to go 4 way (but not a 4 way passive, go active between the woofer and the horn) which then made me think why not go big enough to spread the LFE around to mitigate room issues.

    Plan is to build one to try it out, if it works then build some more (as the first one will be donated to a local community choir for their rehearsals which is also one driver behind the desire to use something capable of running in a smaller sealed box as well as a larger ported box).

  9. I'm looking for a woofer suitable for use in the ~40-250Hz range and that is comfortable in a relatively small enclosure and ideally could be used in either ~40L sealed or ~75L ported. Intended use is HT as the bottom end of the LCR but which will also receive that portion of the LFE (i.e. want to be able to try spreading the LFE down to this point across the LCR). Not too concerned about cost really.

    Drivers I've modelled so far include

    FaitalPro 15XL1400 - 15XL1400 by FaitalPRO
    Beyma 15p80Nd - LOW & MID FREQUENCY 15P80Nd | Beyma
    18sound 15nlw9401 - 15NLW9401
    BMS 15n840 - Overview

    Current favourite is the BMS. Any other suggestions or personal experience of such drivers appreciated.


  10. On 15/01/2018 at 11:55 PM, SME said:

    And for me and my "good" system, I still struggle with a lot of dialog.  On paper, my hearing is very good, but my ears are anything but golden when it comes to discerning what people are saying.  Something I've noticed is that I often don't notice when I fail to hear dialog.  It's like that with other sounds too.  If it's unintelligible, I simply fail to become conscious of it.  Even if I am conscious of it, I'm having to exert a lot more effort to comprehend it.  The experience is not as natural.  It's similar to how having to read subtitles diverts ones attention from what's happening on screen.  (Though I still usually watch foreign films subbed because the dubbed voice actors are usually so terrible.)

    Do you find this in other systems or just your own system? 

  11. 2 hours ago, SME said:

    As a slight alternative to the approach you took, you may want to try doing a +/- 30 degree (listening window) spatial average of the anechoic measurements EQing that to be flat instead.  It's hard for me to tell by looking at your plots how much the high frequency response shape varies with angle.  With my SEOS-15, I see up to 1 dB of variation in the response shapes, up to 10 kHz or so.  (The variation is a bit higher above 10 kHz.)  Perhaps the SEOS-10 is better behaved in that respect.

    I preferred the sound from flattening the listening window average response instead of the on-axis response.  I also noticed that Harman appears to calibrate their active speakers for a flat listening window response instead of flat on-axis response.

    One crucial detail I neglected to mention or take into account here is that I generally avoid evaluating in-room response without taking averages of measurements in multiple locations.

    In the case of the 500-900 Hz response, if you took measurements across a +/- 30 degree listening window and weighted them for relative distance before averaging, you might see more  slope there after all.  I just took a look at my own crop of measurements and noticed that in areas of changing directivity, both on-axis and MLP measurements stay somewhat flatter than the listening window average measurements.

    As for the bass in the 125-250 Hz range, your ears are definitely the final arbiter on any calibration decision.  It's possible that the bloat you are hearing is caused by just one bad resonance.  Such resonances can be difficult or impossible to see in a measurement at a single location because they are hard to distinguish from peaks and dips caused by interference.  However, if you take measurements in multiple locations and spatially average them, problematic resonances are more likely to stand out.  If you can suppress the bad resonance, you may be able to boost the output in that frequency range a lot more without causing bloat.  If it is a room problem, then the screen wall may not fix the problem but it probably can't hurt.

    Thanks for the comments, it's interesting to hear how other people approach this.

    IIRC the correction was based on an average of 0-45 degrees (though looking at the data again, I might be misremembering that...). I'm still not entirely happy with the 100-400Hz range yet but haven't had the time (or inclination) to properly revisit it. My current setup is really quite time consuming to work through the various filters and somewhat prone to manual error so I've left it as good enough for a while now. I would like to work out a better strategy for that mid bass area at some point though.

    FWIW I posted some more graphs in http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/2188265-attempting-3way-seos10.html#post55396722 which show the directivity & power response (with 0 and 15 degree reference angles) of that quasi anechoic data with the correction filter applied. The main thing that stands out to me from this data is that a 1-1.5dB hump develops from 1.5-4.5kHz as you move from 0-30 degrees so perhaps the filter should give a bit more weight to taking that down. 



  12. 11 hours ago, SME said:

    First of all, the pseudo-anechoic measurements show a substantial dip of around -1.5 dB between 5 and 10 kHz.  Even though 1.5 dB doesn't sound like much, such a dip over a full octave will have a pretty big audible impact.  I'm not surprised that you reported that the re-EQ sounded more veiled and distant than you would prefer.  Have you considered EQing to try to lift that dip a bit?  If not, you may want to try using a bit less attenuation on the second HF shelf with my re-EQ.

    yes that's what I meant by "an anechoic correction", i.e. the magnitude response correction switches to one based on those quasi anechoic measurements of the speaker. Here's a pic to illustrate


    red is the on axis response, green is the filter based on that response and blue is the result of applying that filter

    11 hours ago, SME said:

    Second of all, if the speakers were producing flat direct sound in the room, I'd expect to see a slight downward slope in the in-room response over the 500-1500 Hz range, where the horizontal pattern width changes.  However, you indicated that your in-room target is roughly flat from 125-900 Hz.  I can't say what the precise slope should be, but as a rough guess it'd probably be somewhere between -1 to -2 dB/octave.  I would also expect to see a slight in-room response dip around the crossover point at 1200 Hz where the power response reaches a minimum, and maybe something very slight at 300 Hz.  Overall, my guess is that the speakers sound a bit thin without that slope, and any upper-frequency issues in the soundtracks you listen to may be more audible and irritating than on an "average" system.

    I don't find that, it sounds quite neutral and well balanced to me. tbh generally speaking I don't find upper frequencies to be an issue with this setup, the system sounds quite smooth to me. My old (commercial) speakers certainly needed shelving down in the same room to avoid harshness and fatigue but these don't at all. 


    11 hours ago, SME said:

    Lastly, you may want to try a bit more bass in the 125-250 Hz range, at least for music.  My current bass boost shelf is centered around 150 Hz, which is based on my use of the Revel Salon 2 as a model reference.  This sounds very good in the bass with the vast majority of my music and delivers much better punch and chest slam than a boost at the lower frequencies.  However, the trade-off is that many movies and some TV soundtracks will have more bass bloat than if the shelf is lower.

    I find that sort of curve comes out a bit too fat in my room for both music and films. My room does have produce some bloat over time in that range though atm so that may be the root cause of that one. If so that may change if/when I build my screen wall later in the year.

    11 hours ago, SME said:

    While it may not have been your intention, your system response appears to provide more of a compromise between for music and for cinema tracks (lacking re-EQ)

    It's certainly true that I no longer run different filters for music and films as I find the same setup works well for both. Good job really as I I definitely don't have the time (or inclination/knowledge) to attempt to re-eq tracks myself!  

  13. I wouldn't watch the whole film again, don't mind trying some specific scenes though.

    >> Did you implement the JRiver coefficients that you posted here (what I'm calling "v1")?  Or did you calculate new JRiver coefficients, based the updated "v2" config I posted afterwards?

    the v1 ones

    >> What playback level (approximately) did you use to evaluate?


    >> How are your speakers calibrated?  Do you use Acourate?  And if so, what kind of target curve do you use for the high frequencies?  Or did you use outdoor / anechoic polar response measurements?

    current target rises ~5dB from 125Hz down to 25Hz and is basically flat above that, the correction switches at about 900Hz to an anechoic only correction (based on measurements taken outdoor from 0-60 degrees). The speaker itself is maybe 1dB down from 1-16kHz on axis, graphs in http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/2188265-attempting-3way-seos10.html#post54724444


  14. I gave the correction a try on a few scenes, bit of a mixed bag tbh. Effects noticed included;

    Voices in some scenes were more natural  (less full/warm) though were also less obviously the focus of the scene.

    Some scenes took on a certain hollowness/metallic tang which was similar to a sound ISTR from one particular EQ which went wrong and was doing something excessive around 1kHz. 

    Some scenes, which involved more ambient noise, were less engaging as if the track had receded into the distance.

    I tried ~4-5 scenes (a couple from the island stage, a couple from the later ww1 bit) and a few had fairly inconsequential differences, the 2 that stood out more were the scene in the castle when he tries to chat to the chemist (ambient voices as he walks up to her were receded, their voices were less pronounced but more natural) and the scene when the young diana is asking her mum to let her train and her mum is going on about moulding her out of clay (metallic tang).

    I'm afraid I couldn't trial this over a prolonged slice of film because I thought the film itself was borderline terrible which was a surprise given the reviews. I thought it had a bizarrely disjointed storyline that felt like they mashed 3 different films together and was at least 30mins too long. The love story angle was pretty sad too given the main character & the seriousness with which they played the film given the storyline was rather odd. 

  • Create New...