Jump to content

3ll3d00d

Members
  • Posts

    531
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Posts posted by 3ll3d00d

  1. I thought this was a feature of the motu interfaces? It has DC coupled analogue outputs which enables it to be used with software like http://www.motu.com/products/software/volta/path.html

     

    I am not sure if there is any particular requirement on the cables when using such devices (http://www.expert-sleepers.co.uk/siwacompatibility.html suggests there might be, nothing immediately obvious on the Motu site) or if this is something your custom software has triggered in some way.

  2. when I said the crossover was a wildcard, I meant in relation to my commentary which just talked about individual drivers and how they might combine. I just meant that adding a crossover is going to have a major impact (stating the obvious but still). On that note, it sounds like you have a well thought through plan so it will be interesting to see the execution. I take it it is an active crossover? Will be interesting to see if the crossover & physical offset of the drivers is able to maintain control in the horizontal dimension for long enough to allow a smooth transition to the horn alone.

     

    The coax figures just came from their website btw, it has some directivity plots on there which show ~80 degrees down to 500Hz. I have no idea how reliable that data is.

     

    Any idea if the TD6 is readily available? I enquired about that driver last year & he commented that it's not a regular offering (hence not on the website) but he does have the ability to make them on order. I don't think I'd be particularly confident about receiving such an order in any reasonable timeframe though.

  3. It's not obvious how this is better than a big coax.

     

    The SEOS 15 starts to lose control vertically at ~3.5kHz as the -6dB point widens from ~50 degrees at 3.5kHz to ~110 degrees at 1kHz (based on http://attitube.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/SEOS15Vert.png which comes from Bill Waslo's measurements). It has also narrowed further to ~40 degrees at 10-15kHz. Meanwhile a vertical pair of 6" woofers will be pretty much omni up to this point won't they? This basically means you're omni at ~500Hz down to 120 degrees at 1kHz, 50-60degrees at 4kHz and ~40 degrees at 16kHz

     

    Compare to something like http://www.bcspeakers.com/products/coaxial/15-0/8/15cxn76 which gives you ~80 degrees from ~500Hz to ~20kHz (probably marginally narrower at the top end, maybe 60 degrees). 

     

    Basically the coax looks like it controls directivity to a much lower frequency while also holding up a wider pattern at the top end. OTOH the upper end of the SEOS will undoubtedly be cleaner than a big coax which seem to get a bit ragged to say the least. 

     

    The other wildcard is whether you can maintain that vertical directivity once a crossover is in place, the coax should be much easier to work with in that regard.

  4. There is a spec for the radian on their site (http://www.radianaudio.com/download/5210-2/) which gives it as 4.65mm

     

    There's a some discussion & klippel measurements of the TD6H in http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum/klippel-reviews-driver-specs/115207-acoustic-elegance-td6h-8-a.htmlif you haven't seen it, you have to register to get the download.

     

    I exchanged a few PMs with bassaddict and it was definitely the dual TD he wasn't happy with, he commented on them having a "harsh gritty edge to voices" that he couldn't get rid of despite trying a variety of things to solve it (I don't know what things specifically, it was a few brief PMs). I imagine the thinking is something like ported gives decent output to ~200Hz and that's enough for surrounds/heights. 

     

    Won't turning the SEOS on its side blast a whole lot of output vertically? This doesn't seem desirable (though I don't know what your room layout is so can't be sure on that). Do you know how you intend to control directivity "horizontally" (vertical in a normal orientation) given the driver layout?

  5. I take it you have seen http://www.diysoundgroup.com/forum/index.php?topic=228.0and the corresponding thread on avs http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/1470958-td15m-seos12-bms4550-theater-progress-dual-td6m-seos12-bms4550-build-d.html . AIUI that guy was never happy with the dual TD6 for reasons he couldn't get to the bottom on.

    How far away will you be sitting?

    I have a radian 5208 waiting to be built, have done the crossover but i am v slow at woodwork :) I have a thread on avs with the details and there is some discussion on diyaudio too (link to diya at the end - http://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-diy-speakers-subs/2104738-surround-options-small-room.html ).

     

    I know the 5210 is highly rated as well, I believe beastaudio uses them so plenty of people here must have heard them given the gtg.

    If you want some particular measurement then I could probably do that at some point.

  6. transient response may be made to disappear from the FR if too much smoothing is used. I believe 1/24th octave is the absolute minimum for bass. For < 120 Hz, I usually prefer to review my measurements responses un-smoothed and a very long time window.

    i don't follow you here, what is the connection between steady state fr with effectively no gate (or smoothing) and transient response?

  7. Vibsensor is a useful tool for seeing what is going on on a particular surface under ~40Hz. I don't see this as having anything to do with transient response nor music playback. I find that that effect, since adding a NF sub, accentuates feelings of dread/tension during certain scenes and that running it too hot makes it a bit too much of a rollercoaster. If I sense the NF during music playback then that is just wrong for my preference.

     

    My preference sounds closer to bosso with respect to FR BTW, I run it with a small (~3dB) lift from 120Hz down to 40Hz (roughly) and flat from there. The NF response is broadly flat from 15-45Hz and rolls off steeply either side using 2nd order NT filters, this means the NF is really completely gone by 60-70Hz (and the filter is setup so that combines nicely with the main sub to avoid any artefacts as we move firmly into the audible range).

     

    Personally I think it was a great vfm upgrade, not essential but nice to have for sure.

  8. :(

     

    It looks like JRiver's 1.0 limitation for Q (or really S, but Q in the UI) means many of these BassEQ settings can't be properly implemented.  I had previously created all of mine in JRiver 19, before they implemented notification that values over 1.0 are ignored.  I've recently upgraded to JRiver 20, and while it imported my old BEQ filters, including ones with a Q>1, if I try to edit it, I get an error message notifying me of the problem.  

     

    One of the best features in JRiver is how easily it allowed me to implement BEQ.  This is a blow.

     

    the problem is just that you can't copy the params straight into jriver and go for it, you'd have to spend time porting the published values to something that jriver can handle. Here's an example

     

    post-1440-0-55632700-1446983755_thumb.png

     

    the red line (in acourate) is the BEQ filter for the Pacific Rim LFE channel, you can see it's basically a fairly steep shelf filter that adds 28dB by about 6Hz and starts ramping up at ~40Hz

    the green line is a LS with S=1 (Q=0.707) at 15Hz with +14dB

    brown is the result of stacking 2 greens (to give 28dB total boost)

     

    the REW trace is showing what happens when you run 1 and then 2 of those LS filters through jriver which shows that it can implement that filter

     

    IMV that's a pretty close approximation to the intended curve and a much simpler filter to enter. If you want to fine tune it to hit the original BEQ filter more closely then you would just stack up some small notch filters along the curve to push it up/down as appropriate. It's not that hard to do if you can loopback jriver into REW as you can just iterate over it until you get a result that matches the target. Obviously it's a lot easier if you have a feel for how different filter shapes will sum up but that's just practice.

     

    The only stumbling block is working out what the actual intended filter shape was. You could do this using the minidsp spreadsheet by plugging in the values and then copying out the values for dB by freq into another worksheet, summing those values up to get the final filter shape and then working out a jriver compatible filter. In fact you could do this all on paper without the loopback at all by plugging such values into a spreadsheet. I imagine this would be quite easy to do actually (albeit probably rather tedious work).

  9. How would one go about testing this to know for sure?

     

    run a sweep through a jriver zone configured appropriately and loop the output back into REW (or similar) then compare against a theoretical shelf filter. This gives you

     

    post-1440-0-24946900-1446904689_thumb.jpg

     

    these are all 50Hz +5dB low shelves for which S=1 is equivalent to Q = 1/sqrt(2) ~= 0.707 

     

    green: jriver Q=0.5

    red (hidden behind blue): jriver Q=1

    blue: acourate Q=0.707

    brown: acourate Q=1

     

    blue is almost exactly the same as red, the minor variation is because I used 0.707 rather than 1/sqrt(2) :)

     

    This proves that jriver means S when it says Q when it comes to a shelf filter. I'm not sure of a tool that lets you sum filters on paper other than acourate, I guess it would be possible to write one. 

     

    I don't know of a calculator to convert between Q and S either but easy enough to plug into excel or similar.

    • Like 1
  10. I'm just getting back to this thread (sorry for the delay, MikeDude!), and just noticed this exchange.  Can you explain?  Does this mean that all the BEQ that I've done for JRiver using the low shelf Q values in this thread are invalid?

    the jriver devs haven't commented one way or the other but my testing says they say Q on the dialog but it is implemented as S. I wouldn't say this invalidates it but it does mean the shape of the filter is not going to be exactly as intended. If you have a way to calculate and sum filters offline then it is easy enough to create a different set of filters that jriver does support and will fit the provided target more closely. I could do it though it might take me a while to get round to it.

  11. Two things happen as the load increases (impedance is lowered); 1) THD increases and 2) efficiency drops (more heat).

     

    I think a repeat with SL running would show the difference in THD. Although approximate, the relative difference might be noteworthy, IMO.

    What sort of difference in thd have you seen from going to increased loads?

     

    This sort of data (thd vs freq at different output and under different loads) seems almost completely absent from published specs so I am curious to know what sort of real world impact is.

  12. I was referring to the use of zones to output to different locations and/or devices. It is not so much me over complicating zones as zones being able to be used for some relatively complicated use cases, it can be nice to have options though.

     

    BTW apparently that dsp preset approach wasn't working properly for video anyway, fix in the next build.

  13. So are you saying that when I am done watching one of the movies with the filters, and I want to watch another movie without a filter, I have to go in and take out the filter?

    Booo.  That seems like too much work for me.  Maybe I am being to critical, but I can't see myself doing that.  You said, "however if you did it this way..."  What is the other way?  That every movie is filtered all the time?

    you have 2 choices

     

    1) manually load and unload the DSP configuration before & after watching the film

    2) set the DSP field on every film in your library

  14. Don't worry about it.  I found the section and all the filters in Jriver.  It's just looked so complex and way out of my league.  Plus, it looked like they were global settings.  I would not want that.  I would just want to set it for one movie and have the filters tied to that one movie then move on to another movie and so on.  I did not see how to make it so I could do that.  If I have to set up the filters, for each movie independently, every time I want to watch that movie.  

     

    For ex, One of the movies I have is Avatar.  Let's say I do the filters for that.  I want the filters to be permanently saved for that movie so every time I watch that movie, I wouldn't have to do the filters again.  The let's say I want to do Man of Steel.  I don't want to have to undo the filters I did for Avatar just to do Man of Steel and again, it would be great if the filters stayed with Man of Steel every time I watched it.  Does that make sense?  I don't know how to tie a specific filter to a specific movie and keep it with that movie.  Or even if that can be done.  I guess that's my point.  I hope all that made sense  :unsure:.

    It can be done. The feature to load/save DSP was introduced in MC20 and is described as

     

    NEW: DSP presets can be loaded per file by setting the DSP field (the list is from Load/Save on DSP Studio).

     

    This means you can enter it once, save it and then load it on a per film basis. Alternatively you set the value in the DSP field in your library. However if you do it this way, bear in mind that it is implemented in a slightly crap way atm, it loads it when you play it but doesn't unload it back to a default state when you stop. This means you'd have to update the DSP field on every other track with your default setup. Whether this works for you depends on your setup, I think it plays particularly badly with multiple zones for example.

  15. OK,

    This is way beyond me at this point. I will stick to whatever I get on from the disk. A man's got to know his limitations. I can say it because it's about me, but I am a dummy when it comes to this part. Some of what was posted above did not even look like English to me.

    I didn't mean to scare you off!! To enter the filters in jriver is just those pics I showed of the jriver DSP. It is literally just clicking a few buttons. Ignore the discussion of exactly what filters to enter. It is a shame jriver doesn't support a simple way to import a filter set as that would make it way easier.

     

    BTW http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=99096.0 is the current thread that collects various eq related features that people want in jriver. Feel free to post there to show support for some of those requests.

  16. The overshoot on the upper end is handled by the very low slope shelf filter after it.

     

    Had no idea JRiver couldn't support Slopes of more than 1.  Maybe a new beta release can if you ask the development team?

     

    The correction differs some, but will help.  The correction will have some lumps in it from 10-30Hz, but should be decent.

     

    Give it a try and report back.

     

    JSS

     

    ah right, yes I see what you mean

     

    post-1440-0-99631600-1444514493_thumb.jpg

     

    red is, I think, the sum of your LFE filter

    cyan is using 2 LS with Q=0.707 plus 2 peaking filters; 1 at 17Hz, Q=1.5 and gain +5 & the other 12Hz Q=1.5 and gain +1

    blue is cyan + another peaking filter at 35Hz, Q=1.5, gain -0.8
     
    I don't think I'd recommend using that 19Hz peaking filter with the jriver shelf filter, it results in a fairly prominent notch in the shelf
     
    post-1440-0-00965800-1444514857_thumb.jpg
×
×
  • Create New...