Bossobass Dave

Sorry bosso but it wouldn't be the first time for me seeing a big difference say between a TRUEHD track compared to the ac3 track of the same movie

 

I remember one that you and I had a big difference and you had gif'd both comparisons and they looked very different

 

Just as a FYI I will only graph the best audio of a Blu-ray Disc

I also rip my movies and only keep the high end audio on my rips

 

Regards

Yes, I've seen differences in a DVD vs the BluRay version and posted the graphs. Master & Commander comes to mind, but the BR came out years after the DVD.

The GOE rental was a BR so the question here is whether or not the BR rental has a different mix than the purchased BR. They shouldn't be different other than possibly the level.

Does anyone have the peak hold PVA graph of the rental BR to compare with your graph?

I haven't watched it.  Would it be good for shows Nick...ie, violence not too bad and clean language?

If you're talking about Deadpool, no way. It's as blue as R rating allows. Lots of gore and language, IMO.

Not sure if sarcastic or not

Sorry I should've explained myself better

I use jriver to downmix the 5.1 - 7.1 channels to a mono audio file per desertdome's instruction and then run the mono file through speclab.

 

I will only analyze the DTS-HD MA or the TRUEHD audio files

I never analyze lower quality audio files

 

Regards

No sarcasm, just curious because if the rental is that different from the purchase, it will be the first time it's happened in my experience. The rental, of course, has the lossless soundtrack and it certainly does not have the content shown in your PVA peak hold.

If the rental can't be counted on to have the same content bandwidth, that's a problem because having to buy the disc to see what's on the soundtrack is unacceptable.

I (fat) only use the audio that's on the BR Disc

Sorry for my ignorance, but I don't know what that means.

Can you explain the process?

I couldn't get on this site the last couple of days so, after screening Deadpool, I posted the caps in Adam's Raptor thread @ avs:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/1664809-bossobass-raptor-system-3-a-9.html

I just did a comparo animation of the mac daddy scene, mic'd full range @ the LP vs digits off the Oppo BD105 SW out with LPF @ 100 Hz. I was running the subs 3dB or so hot.

I dug the movie and will be adding it to our collection tomorrow. The sound is just about perfect. Just enough ULF to add that bit of weight but not so much that it adds too much decay to the kick of the transients. And, the transients are what make this one demo-worthy. There's a billion or so of the best low end transients in memory.

Just my opinion and a heads up. ^^^

Dave, was that a rental? I remember you doing another movie (one of the Divergent movies?) and you had way less bass but someone with the actual copy of the movie had a different mix with a lot more ULF.

 

Maybe the same thing happening?

Yes, a rental. That and the possible use by Fat of an errant correction file are the only 2 possibilities, IMO.

Point Break with Keanu Reeves??

Nope, it's new new one. Lots of nice low end scenes. Big waves, avalanche, etc. stuff.

GODS OF EGYPT

 

lots of bass, but...

 

PHIL-TURD

 

At least an 8th order HPF @ 20 Hz throughout. Here's a snip of Chapter 15, which is indistinguishable from the bass in the entire movie (white means there is NOTHING there):

 

I found the level to be low and the brick wall is an octave higher. Not sure what method Fat is using to graph the soundtrack, but my sig chain is dead flat and I'm positive I'm not missing content to 10 Hz...

...as in Point Break:

My copy of GOE was a rental. Might be the diff? Dunno, but I'm sure of the content I graphed with the disc I had here. It would have been MUCH nicer with content to 10 Hz, for sure. It was lame as I viewed it.

GODS OF EGYPT

lots of bass, but...

PHIL-TURD

At least an 8th order HPF @ 20 Hz throughout. Here's a snip of Chapter 15, which is indistinguishable from the bass in the entire movie (white means there is NOTHING there):

The reason I changed drivers comes down to the fact that I was never quite happy with the bass through the crossover with the XXX. HT rumbles and all that were fine. I listen to a lot of music and that was where I wasn't quite happy. Chalk it up to any number of factors. I didn't want to lose any displacement switching drivers though. It took 6 years or so to find a driver that did what I was looking for. I was designing the motor for something that would do what I wanted when this one came along finally. It does sound different to me when the system is pushed especially with music. Call it placebo or whatever but all of the measurements show that the 19 behaves much different and offers measurable improvements in almost every front. Those can be said to be inaudible but they are obvious in the measurements. Displacement per dollar is not the be all end all for me otherwise I'd have bought a bunch of Alpine 15 SWS's and called it good. I don't know what my system choices have to do with anyone else.

Not sure why you think any discussion of a comparison of your systems relates to what your choices have to do with anyone else. This personal crap is annoying.

I just wanted to comment on the idea that the difference is massive in every way. It isn't. I guess it isn't open for discussion, which is fine by me.

Good listening, Josh, et al.

Points noted, but there simply is no difference in group delay if FR is the same. The 2 (GD & FR) are directly related by a formula. Similarly, there is no power compression or (assuming you mean harmonic) distortion at reference level with XdB of headroom in either system.

I concede inductance-related distortion >60 Hz, but simply lowering the crossover point and using mains properly designed to mate with a XXX system is a rather simple solution.

Where it counts in a multiple-driver high displacement subwoofer system for Home Theater, <20 Hz, there is little chance the RF driver is even equal let alone a massive step up. You say diminished difference, I say zero difference, lots and lots of experience notwithstanding. And, I'm just not a subscriber to the whole "punchier slam" thing. What we hear is frequency response. When it's matched there is no GD to hear and when you have 8 x 18" subwoofer drivers with multi-KW power, there is no compression, THD or other audible differences.

In fact, as I've posted a few times, many listeners over the years perceived high 2HD as presenting a kick drum as being "tighter", etc. Massive step up for those folks?

I've got a bit of experience with all sorts of subwoofer drivers myself. You must just have better ears than I and my test listeners have.

I'm only posting an alternative voice to the constant escalation of system size, cost and playback levels for the average enthusiast, who is quickly becoming lost in this madness of >140dB playback levels and the like. I'm not saying either is "better", just pointing out that there is far more similar in these 2 systems than there is difference, unless more data to the contrary can be shown.

That's the whole point the "result" is not even close to the same, the same FR is not the end all be all and does not mean they will sound the same, especially when driven hard, there are many factors that will change the resultant "sound". The RF's are a massive step up in every possible way.

Hi Nathan,

Can you be more specific with what "driven hard" means in Ricci's room, how same FR can possibly sound different and any of the "many factors that will change the sound" that obviously aren't apparent to me?

In other threads, for example, there is howling and jeering over snake oil salesmanship claims of the benefits of using certain cables, etc., but here the terms "better in every way" and "massive step up in every possible way" are cool?

"Massive step up in every way"?

With 80-100 liters of displacement and >20KW of power there is no way to drive either system to the point of reversion to non-EQ'd response in Josh's room unless you purposely do it for no known reason.

He can theoretically raise the crossover if he wishes, although both traces show inaudible differences to 100 Hz. How hard would you have to push them to hear a massive difference?

Back when Josh was contemplating buying the XXXs he asked my opinion. I designed a sealed, DO, push/pull box of some 20 cubes net. I mentioned that 10 cubes per driver would be the minimum I would put the XXX in. There's an 8-10dB increase in sensitivity and efficiency <20 Hz with the XXX in >2X the box Josh has them in. Seems a reasonable choice to me to build better enclosures than to spend 10 grand more for drivers and claim "better in every possible way".

Josh said his goals were cost no object to see what he could do with the existing small boxes. I agree that he met those goals with happy results. But, to stretch that to "massive step up in every possible way" begs more specific data.

The end result of both is quite close.

ricci ht xxx vs t319 eq'd.jpg

Excellent information, Josh!

 

Your goal of getting the most output out of the same size enclosures was definitely met.  The RFs look better in every way for your application. 

What am I missing? $20,000.00 vs $7,500.00 for same result. I was never a fan of the huge box requirement of the XXX driver or of stuffing it into such a radically small box but that neither here nor there in the comparo. I'm not seeing the big net gain everyone else seems to readily see... The FR at the seats is the same, neither system lacks headroom and power to drive the system is a non-issue.

If you're focused on low end efficiency, the XXXs need about 5 times that box from what I recall.

There are 2 ways to flatten a naked response; 1) boost the roll off and 2) pull down the top end.

If you choose the latter, you have to bump the master, increasing noise.

The XXXs kick the snot outta the RFs. The caveat is that they require a huge box and a lower crossover point.

What size box is the XXX in?

The Mrs & I screened Everest tonight. Lots of rumble throughout, but next to nothing <30 Hz. When the largest rock formation on planet earth lets loose a few mega tons of glacial ice and rock, I guess there's no ULF to experience.

I just hope I never get to find out. Climb this, you complete maniacs who pay a small fortune to climb Everest "because it's there".

Great story and film. Frenetic and emotional. ULF would have cemented it's place in history. Bummer.

The Hobbit is a movie no one cared or cares about that may have become of interest if the low end was exceptional.

By contrast, the first Avengers movie from marvel was a much anticipated, multi-B$ blockbuster that should have had low end equal to HULK.

I'm sure Shreds' point was focused on the bandwidth of the LFE content and not subjective perceptions thereof. Unless someone posts FR and SL mic'd vs digits data of his system at his seat, subjective opinion is pretty much useless information in the context of this form.

As the weight of evidence tells many of us, a PVA that shows a huge peak at 30 Hz and a steep roll off below that is a soundtrack mixed for Max's soundbar.

Thanks for the digits caps, Paul. I just made an animation of the MAV liftoff mic'd vs the digits version. We LOVED the movie, glaring plot holes and all. This scene at reference with the subs bumped +5dB made the experience truly awesome. It was exactly like being in the MAV with Watney.

The animation is a slow fade from the mic'd version to the digits version. Notice the dip in response at the mic between 60-70 Hz and what I'm missing <4 Hz from digits to seats. I can't imagine what having that strong 2-4 Hz content would add to the experience in my HT, but getting everything to 4 Hz was stunning, PQ, visual FX and audio.

Super 8

Sound is the worst of any Sci-Fi movie ever.

 

Lone Survivor

DTS-HD MA 5.1

 

-This and 21:06 are the only notable scenes with ULF and the levels at 6.5Hz are far too high compared

to the rest of the soundtrack.

 

That lone survivor scene is awesome in my room and a demo scene for me.

Yeah, and all you need is an SVS PB-13 Ultra because that 6.5 content is exaggerated by +20dB in SpecLab. Awesome.

We watched it. Pick it up, it was a hoot. Everyone gave thumbs up.

OK, it looks like this forum has been totally abandoned. I wish Nube would check in just so that I know he's OK.

Yes, the mystery of the untamed audio beast... the subwoofer bandwidth.

Everyone wants the simple answer so that they can claim to have solved the mystery without the expense and the leg work.

No, it isn't the sealed system.

Regarding frequency response, I'm a musician first. As a bass player, I imagine a bass where each fret of each of the 4 strings has a different loudness. Into the trash can it would go. It's imperative that the dynamics come from the player and the overall level comes from the mixer. The frequency response of the instrument must be flat, meaning no hot spots and no dead spots.

It's also equally important (to accuracy) that the in-room response be flat as well. In those respects, FR is everything.

Regarding the tactile feel, you can attribute much of my system;s shake to the dual-opposed, up/down fining stacks in each corner. I can engage the 18 Hz HPF of the SEQSS and still feel the tactile response at the seats from 20 Hz through cross. That has little to do with being on a wood framed floor system, and that's a huge disparity in playback response.

Brandon's rig is set up similar to mine in the front stage and, IMO, his system has plenty of tactile effect without the in-your-spine HST-18s. IMO, he not only doesn't need the nearfield 18s, they were actually a bit annoying to me, especially during music only playback, where they crossed the line between musical tones and completely non-musical  massage tones.

Cool graphs Bosso. Yep I've got about 12-15dB of gain by 10Hz. 6-8Hz is the sweet zone. Tons of gain there. I find that bump interesting as it has shown up in numerous room measurements I've seen from different rooms. I already had all the displacement I needed previously and the flatness of the natural room response below 40Hz is awesome. My problems have always been related to the hand off region between the subs and mains and the kick drum area. Believe it or not I ran out of headroom in that area quicker than I'd like. I was having to cut the middle bandwidth of the XXX's by a lot to flatten the response which put a lot of power into them in the 60-100Hz range with music. 43Hz peak is the placement of the seating position. Not willing to do anything there.

I agree with the philosophy and the down side of the XXXs.

Well, you'll have mid bass like a volcano. That might make it difficult to run hot. Of course, you said at the GTG that you (like myself) prefer a much more balanced presentation than we heard at the GTG and at many demos by other members who seem to prefer the low end to run hot by 15dB or more.

Looks like you'll just have to invite us over for a listening session.