Bossobass Dave

Is there any reason you couldn't use the OPPO 105 player ==> HDMI OUT ==> NanoAVR HDMI IN, process the data, NanoAVR HDMI OUT ==> OPPO HDMI IN, DAC ==> ANALOG OUTS ==> SUBS & SATS AMPS?

I did. Opening the vault (where his helmet is).

I enjoyed Xmen DOFP. I ran the subs +8dB over reference, thanks to the level rating, and it worked out excellently. Capped a few scenes. As is normally the case, the big 30-60 Hz effects get the majority vote but the ULF gets the wows in my HT. So, those are the scenes I capped, except for the stadium rising, which was asked for.

Yes, well, the devil's always in the details. Most would reason that a SW channel trim at '0' is optimum, so that's where we set it to take measurements. The term "running the sub hot" also implies setting the sub trim to a positive number, not a negative number. That goes for the channels as well and master volume level, which is an unknown on many AVRs. The Oppo, for example, has a 0-100 scale on it's master volume level when using the analog outs (using the Oppo as a pre), and it's not a dB scale, so 0dBFS is arbitrary, and once you get above 95, the output goes unpredictably nuts regarding scale/voltage. It's like roll off. There is no standard and most hardware roll off is unknown, certainly not a standard published spec. In the case of the Sherbourn pre we measured at Adam's, it seemed as though the output was gated, making it impossible to do a loopback measurement because the 'gate' wouldn't open until the sweep hit 20 Hz or so. That made the result look as though there was a brick wall filter at 20 Hz. Still not sure what the hell went on there, but the point is that all hardware is different in many respects and those differences have to be gotten to the bottom of before measurements even begin. How exactly did you check the Marantz?

My guess is that the problem arises when we sum the bass into a single SW channel, although it would help if those measuring clipped waveforms mention the method used. Soundtracks are mixed with no bass management (summing). Measurements of the analog SW out using various discs yields surprising results. Summing signals from sats channels and the LFE channel can cause huge spikes in voltage and clipping in the signal chain so I imagine the same is likely in the digital realm. The SW output, after all, has finite headroom, so the summing aspect needs to be taken into consideration during production. Just a thought.

Yes, to all of the above, but... The levels are adjusted the way I mentioned above (rough calibration) and the way Nube mentioned above (offset adjustment in the spectrums display options). If the waveform graph and bar graph are irrelevant to you, you should turn the waveform and bar graphs off because the level is too low to show any detail on the waveform graph and the bar graph shows grossly incorrect data. Also, you have selected FFT options that show sacrificed spectral detail in favor of time-related detail.

Your levels are peaking at -35dB, which means your color intensity setting is way too high. Problem is, I don't see that setting adjustment on your posted pic. See the posted pic and notice at the top are options for the display. There is a setting for minimum and maximum frequencies and below that are settings for various adjustments, including the last 2 on the right that change the color intensity without having to shift your color scale. If you click the FREQ tab it will display the settings in my posted pic. Then, click the last 2 '^' 'V' icons and your color intensity will change accordingly. Then, go to your OPTIONS tab and select SPECTRUM (2) and change the RANGE to -60dB to +5dB. You should then find the right combination of intensity (noted above) and output from your source until the waveform graph (right side of the SL display) shows a better level, or waveform magnitude.

I watched CATWS and then again in 3D. I liked the movie and the sound. I just randomly picked 3 scenes and haven't had time to isolate a couple of <20 Hz blips I felt while watching as of this post. I ran the subs +5dB hot based on Nube's levels heads up. Not a lot <20 Hz, but enough to add some weight and enjoyment with the low end kicked up. Nube, can you please post the breakdown for the level star rating? I'll then do a quick compensation cal for watching the flicks for the 1st time. For example the above movie and tonight we'll screen Go-Zee-Rah with the subs calibrated flat based on your level star rating for that movie. It helps to avoid having to mess with it during playback, etc.

Yeah, photobucket is asking for money to upgrade. I mentioned this back when and asked if anyone wanted to download the files. I've all but abandoned the PB site, so someone should have at it before I delete it. It was a lot of work to create those files and upload them to PB as it was. I looked into moving them to another pic-host site but I decided it's more trouble than it's worth. I'm just too busy the past year or so. I also have all of the files saved in a SpecLab folder on my computer, and backed up on a separate hard drive if someone can lay out a simple way to transfer them. I just re-visited 9, which I haven't seen since I rented it when it was released. I'm testing a final version of my Raptor System 3 (8 x 15" with a modded 14,000 watt amp). BALLS!!!

I've slightly changed my SL settings... have to update my upload page, which I'll be doing in a complete rehaul of the entire site this summer. JPC often breaks my balls about my settings, calling the "a smeared mess". There is a single tradeoff with SL spectrograms; either you opt for resolution in the time domain (which JPC seems to prefer) or resolution in the frequency domain. You can't have both on the spectrogram. I have optimized my settings for frequency resolution because the resolution is spread out over the bandwidth allowed by your settings. That means that there will be the same number of bars of resolution from 60-120 Hz as there is from 3-6 Hz. In the most recent challenge from JPC on this subject, he chose a scene from DRIVE in which there is a low-level, staccato synth music in the soundtrack. His spectrogram graph shows the beats whereas with my settings the beats are 'smeared' in time. I bought the flick and ran the snippet and scaled and pasted it on a page with JPC's version. Note that his spectrogram does indeed show the separation of the staccato beats of the riff, but he has virtually zero frequency resolution, as each 'beat' looks as though it's a single "smeared mess" bar across the bandwidth of the music. In my spectrogram, the 'beats' are indeed 'smeared' in time, but you can count the 50-something different frequencies that comprise the music content. I obviously prefer to know what frequencies comprise the effects we enjoy. This example posed by JPC is, of course, and extreme example, but it does stress the difference in settings and why I prefer my settings. Also note that the waveform graph in my settings shows the time domain information much more clearly than JPC's. Between the spectrogram and the waveform graph, I can get the best of both worlds. Another point regarding the offset option in SL; notice that the peak-to-average graphs posted for each soundtrack have a difference of 25-30dB. Most speclab scales are set far wider than that. My settings have the scale at -60 to +5dBFS. So, with that scale, if I set the offset to '0', half the colors in the scale will never be used. There is no "hot" or "cold" with the color scale. The selection of colors, number of colors and range is infinite. I can leave the offset at '0' and change the scale range to -30 to 0dBFS and get exactly the same result as I do leaving the scale range as-is and increasing the offset. In addition to those choices, I can compress the color scale or expand it. The point of the spectrogram scale is to get as many different colors in the range as possible within the color scheme most members are used to. Why have 10 color bands if you're only going to use 4 of them? I adjust the offset so that it's above the noise floor and there is one color per 5dB, give-or-take. Again, if I set the offset to '0', that will change to around 1/2 the resolution. That's the reasoning I have for my settings; the highest possible frequency resolution and color-to-amplitude resolution. Just had some time this morning and thought I'd post this since I've had it sitting on my desktop for too long.

http://www.bossobass.com/Bossobass.com/Technical (cont).html Scroll down to "Download Speclab Now"

Man, was I thinking of you at the GTG. I'd love you and my son Paul to meet as well. Woulda been too cool to have your input and opinions there for sure! Yes, I'm always interested in your stuff. I'm your biggest fan and hit the hell outta your site. Hope you're well and looking forward to the latest.

I would like to see the Chase 1 x 18" sealed subs passive FR. I took abuse from the Chase clan for calling bullshit on CC's multiple errant versions of the response vs what I believe was/is the real FR all along. Would be nice if I could match Josh's GP FR trace to my prediction and put the issue to rest either way. I dunno what the Stereo Integrity 24 " driver will do with sine waves outdoors but I can tell anyone who's reading this that, with program source, the kind we all buy subs to reproduce, it is indeed the real deal. (Gonna need a big and very well braced box to test that one properly.) The LMS stuff, for example, measures well with sine waves and tone bursts but I've purchased some of them (LMS-U and LMS-R) to test here and have heard them in other systems and I must say that I'm less and less impressed with their actual performance in the real world. I don't know what to attribute to that phenomenon other than thinking that they require special signal chain/amplification hardware, but I hear a dramatic difference. At the GTG, granted we did not have time to close-mic vs MLP measure both systems but the single 24" spanked the snot outta a pair of LMS-U with the available amplification vs impedance, using the same signal/source.

Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter, CH 10. Over 2-1/2 minutes. It's a workout for any system:

Just some notes regarding the filter discussion: It doesn't matter that there may be peaks above and below the HPF "line" and it doesn't matter where you might place the virtual filter on the graph or whether on the peak trace or the average trace (although it's easier to see in the average trace for obvious reasons): Just remember that SL is a linear scale. As far as the assertion that LFE are "not natural sounds", please watch the soundworks "The Sound Of Man Of Steel" for one example of the sound being very real and mic'd by several guys each holding a mic on a stand while following the tonnage of concrete being mic'd. http://soundworkscollection.com/videos/the-sound-of-man-of-steel We know for a certainty that the event has content to DC. If, as was the case with this film, that content has not transfered from the event to the soundtrack... it... was... filtered. All that's left is to determine what order and at what frequency the filter (or, as Max suggests, series of additive filters) is, which will be obvious to those exercised in that art. I personally doubt that the quality of mic/pre/PS/cabling/recorder are so low as to affect a roll off that high up. I believe the filtering is done later by the designer or mixer or mastering process. That's just what the evidence and common sense tell me but it certainly is possible that the sound team of a 9 figure budget blockbuster movie, after renting the heavy equipment and operators, stopped on the way at Radio Shack to pic up a headset mic to slip into those expensive wind screens. BTW, that's a 2nd order HPF in dashed lines set at various places on Nube's graph. I believe the filter point is a few Hz lower than Nube's guess, but very close in any case.

Here's a great source for an insider look into the creation of sound for many movies we like: http://soundworkscollection.com/ Here's one of the vids and it describes the process for the Gravity ST starring the director and mixer and is well worth a watch (I particularly liked the MOS vid as well if anyone has a mind to watch that one as well): http://soundworkscollection.com/videos/gravity The point here is that this movie was specifically mixed for Dolby Atmos. I don't know what that means, exactly. Does that mean it was imperative to re-mix for cinemas that don't have Atmos and the video release? I doubt the full effect of an Atmos mix can be realized in 5 or 7.1. Thoughts on the subject are welcome because I'm completely new to the Atmos format.

I couldn't have written it better to describe my feelings during and after watching EG. Harrison Ford… whatever. Who'd he kill to get many of the roles he sucked at? The sound design has nothing unique in the low end, whereas the story/visuals begged for unique sounds (the WMD for one example). Going all the way back to AOTC with the chrome ship flyover, I've always appreciated low end sound design that is as unique as the alien and futuristic earthly contraptions it's coupled with. For me, that's what makes the 1st Transformers, WOTW, TIH and, more recently, the drones in Oblivion top rank MWB. None of that in the EG mix, IMO, and agreeing 100% with your post. Consistently great input, Abraham. Much appreciated.

Let's be clear. Whether or not you're around is irrelevant to what I post and where I post it. Really, get a grip with the I thought you weren't around thing. First, who said WOTW digital sales/rentals are doing "so well"? I certainly didn't. Second, I didn't say anything about single digits or ULF. I said: "World class sound effects/mix". I'll add the score into that as well. IOW, the audio portion. OK? Clear enough? Yes, you tend to call BS on many things you take out of context, take the wrong way, twist by adding words to the post and other aspects that you obviously know very little about. You've done the same to several other posters in the past, questioning their audio systems, etc. And, to state the obvious, the thread title, and its predecessor, @ AVS says nothing about ULF. It's the Master List Of Movies With Bass. See? No mention of ULF or Hertz of any value, let alone single digits. The ratings, after some of us moved the actual data to this forum, are derived from: 1. Level 2. Extension 3. Dynamics 4. Execution (a consensus of subjective input) So, you see, even us myopic, clueless fanatics who disconnect out satellite speakers and shut the projector off when we watch movies only have a fraction of 25% influence on the ratings. Some of the criminally myopic in the community actually still prefer to arbitrarily assign a personal star rating to their pet soundtracks, most probably based on their playback capability and frequency response, but, either way… Who the hell are you to name-call, judge and demean them??? Again, it doesn't boil down to anything regarding your mixing philosophy. My beef goes back to the first time you ranted about how 'you' )to denote you as meaning your entire industry) know all about sound monitor hardware and how 'you' have hundreds of choices from industry suppliers if you cared to install a system that extends BW. You've repeated this mantra of how AVS members have nothing near what you use, and have said so with the same demeaning tone to other members. Hundreds of choices? Name one. Seriously, don't dodge this question as you have in the past, answer it, please. Many of those industry folk have contacted many of us over the years asking us to design products for them. Several of them have hired forum members, most of whom are still employed in the sound reproduction hardware industry. Genelec told Ilkka that they had already seen all of his work in the forums when he offered a packaged version of his accumulated data at his job interview. If the industry had any clue as to how to commercially produce hardware that gets below 30 Hz, we would not have had to do it ourselves. Why might I take it personally when someone tells me they know everything about the state of the art and the sum of my knowledge in this field is less than an afterthought in comparison? Because it's bullshit. Here we are at the Data-Bass site. Josh has tested the JBL 4565-c sub. It boasts the same specs, (+/-) 1dB as Meyer Sound and all of the rest of them. (the single exception being Tom Danley, who gets props for being light years ahead of the rest of the pro sound industry) If there's a pro sound "cinema" subwoofer I'm unaware of, please let us know. Here's the published FR of the Meyer Sound flagship cinema sub overlaid with the published JBL FR (which includes post-EQ): The GREEN trace is the published MS FR. The BLUE trace is the published JBL FR with footnotes to let anyone who can read a graph know that they applied both a HPF and a LPF AND post EQ. This was to make the non-subwoofer response appear to be much different than it actually is. Josh's actual measurement of the JBL sub in red and the max burst results in dashed red show 2 important things: 1), the naked response shows that it's no more than a main speaker to those of us who have built systems that include a real HT subwoofer system and 2), as the speaker is pushed to its maximum clean CEA 2010 burst, the burst curve reveals what I knew before it was ever measured; it has no use in soundtrack playback as a subwoofer. It leaves so much on the table that filters and post EQ are not going to salvage it. So much for the industry as a viable choice to reproduce soundtrack content. OK, there's a bunch of stuff in this section and, again, it's typical of how you twist what I write. First, I'm well aware of the difference between sound design and mixing of the sound designer's work. As a live and studio musician, I designed the sound and the mixer mixed the sound. So, I lack knowledge of mixing of recorded sound because I'm aware that the mixer could change the sound I created through EQ, panning, processors, subharmonic synths and levels? Really? You're the one stuck on single digits and HPFs, not me. I'm also aware that both the mixer and the sound designer can filter the effects. We consumers have no way to know if the filtering was done by the SD or mixer, but we definitely know when it has been filtered and what filter frequency and order of filter was used. For example, watch the vid of the team who did sound design and mixing for Man Of Steel: http://soundworkscollection.com/videos/the-sound-of-man-of-steel They dropped 20 ton slabs of concrete from a crane with microphones placed near where the concrete hit the ground. I guarantee this; unless the result is filtered, either by the limitations of the mic and recording hardware or purposely after the fact via HPF, there is content to DC in the real event. This is not a debatable issue, it's a physical fact. If the finished product rolls off at 30 Hz, then the soundtrack is High Pass Filtered… period. Who the culprit is, what his/her/their reasons were, is irrelevant. It's not a personal affront. This ^^^^^^^^ is awesome. You accuse me of disparaging you while in the same breath disparaging me. Let's see, I have no chance matching expertise with the likes of JBL or whoever, I have so little knowledge of recorded sound and it's evidenced in my posts, my room is nowhere near the level of sound quality that your sound stage is, my opinion and preferences are myopic, my posts are disparaging, I could never hope to be a sound mixer like you because you get paid to do it and I never have, I am of poor character and I only care about what I care about, like countless others who aren't you. Yeah, nothing disparaging there. Really Marc, is this for real?

Sorry, Marc doesn't have a point that relates to this thread. Does anyone think WOTW would still have people buying it as BR and any subsequent formats are re-released if it didn't have world-class sound effects/mix because 99.99999999% of consumers think it's a great movie to own or that the mix is perfect for 'most cinemas'? Does anyone think that if Marc were on the team that mixed WOTW he wouldn't be in here lapping up the compliments? His system rolls off >20 Hz and he couldn't care less, in his own words, which is evident in his body of work. That's exactly the same as other folks coming into these threads who own a 25 Hz ported system telling everyone why <25 Hz doesn't matter, quoting completely invented percents of population to try to support their arrogance. I represent 100% of what's important in my HT. Anyone else, whether he be some mixer or the deaf alcoholic guy who lives next door, is irrelevant. In Marc's case, having a heads up from him as to his mix philosophy, especially the part where he could care less what I think, makes it simple to just avoid wasting time and money on his product. There's nothing else to be gained from me in his going on and on about it. I find his attitude to be generally condescending and of no value. The comment "I'm not trying to be a clone of R[andy] T[hom]" cements it for me. This is more typical of comments from people "in the industry": I've never read of anyone being so dismissive of RT. Why even bring RT up in his rant? I couldn't care less who this guy is trying to be or not trying to be a clone of. But, for the maverick oner he paints himself to be, he sure refers a lot to hundreds of people in his industry whose opinions matter to him. These are my opinions. I'm not into swallowing them to kiss some knob jockey's rear end. It doesn't matter who brings that whole "you guys are less than a trillionth of a percent, fanatics who don't care about anything but single digits, don't know what you're talking about…" BS to these threads, I'll always react the same. If you're coming at me with that tact, here's a suggestion… have some actual data and a point other than what you imagine the world's population prefers. If this conversation were taken into a thread about native rain forest tribes, 100% of the subjects of the thread would not know what a BluRay is. So what does that have to do with anything in this thread? I mention Randy Thom because in every interview I ever read with him, going back to the late 90s, he never once said he did what he thought 99.9999% of consumers would want him to do. I mention Randy Thom because his body of work and accolades speaks for itself and is so ground breaking I would probably have kept my 30 Hz tuned ported subs from the mid-90s in my HT were it not for his work and those who would not have minded being referred to as a RT clone. Riddick has pretty much been summed perfectly by Nube, with numbers to back his mini-review. Graphs are not necessary and neither is a poll.

But the numbers you're adding are peak numbers, not RMS.

I understand the theory, but show me a movie that has coherent content at 0dBFS in every channel at once. If it existed, it would be the talk of the town. There's 10 times the difference between 118dB and 128dB. BTW, I get 125.2dB for 7 channels @ 105 + 115 LFE channel, of coherent sound.

Yes, that's what my opinion is. If you squeeze the colors into the actual window when set at '0' offset, it's the same difference as using the offset and leaving the scale as-is. BTW, as you know, I mic the subs for the data to generate the SL graphs, that's why I have the +5dB on my scale. Running the subs hot and/or a peak in response that coincides with a particular effect when casually graphing or just seeing what the limits of the system are requires it. I recall MKT talking about "pegging the meter" as he runs up to +10dB hot often. In any case, FR non-linearity and less-than-calibrated system (because I move stuff in and out very often and sometimes don't have it fine-tuned calibrated, or I set the mic down in a random spot and graph while I watch the flick are the reasons I'm not overly concerned with exact waterfall calibration. Also, while you're on the subject, exactly how does SL read straight off the disc? It can't decode the formats, so how do you inject the data into SL directly? I don't see how SL reads directly off the disc.

Yeah, that's (+20dBFS) not gonna happen. Even if that would ever happen, again, you have the offset option (no one said 20dB offset was a rule). Regarding accuracy, that's what the peak hold, average and "peak at" functions are for. Even then, how accurate is your calibration? The waterfall graph is for viewing the content, not reading numbers. Losing detail for the sake of closer accuracy, especially this far into the game, makes little sense to me. I'm not interested in seeing what content is audible by conventional wisdom or some other irrelevant metric. I want to 'see' what's there, in as much detail as possible. If you prefer the 'closer to the recorded numbers' approach in a waterfall, you should adjust your scale range and colors accordingly. My point is that there's no point in having a 65dB range with 117 bars of resolution if you're only using 1/2 that or less. Of course, it's your call.

Now you're talkin' You're now using your entire color graph vs half of it. Taking a little slice and enlarging it, you see an area that seems to have next to nothing going on, or at least what's happening is very hard to discern. The offset adds in the detail that's otherwise missing. This is just a small example. The differences are everywhere in every graph.