OK, so I’ve done a bunch of reading and now thinking about building two sonotube based subs with 10-14 cubic feet of volume. I’m looking at two because I have a two channel set up. I’m now trying to decide between a vented vs. sealed design. How would you folks describe the differences in sound between the two designs?

Vented will have more output, sealed will have higher sound quality.

Vented will have more output, sealed will have higher sound quality.
Myth alert. Alot of assumptions are boiled into those statements.


Tim

myth alert. Alot of assumptions are boiled into those statements.


Tim

+1

OK, so what "myths" and assumptions are we talking about?

It's a myth that sealed always sounds better than ported, and that ported always goes lower/louder than sealed. Many variables involved here.

Sorry, not a myth.

Vented will always have higher group delay and sloppier impulse response.

Given similar parts, driver, amp, enclosure size, the sealed is always going to have higher sound quality. You have to skew the design criteria for the vented to come out ahead, i.e use a lesser driver in the sealed, make the box too small, etc.

You cannot escape the physics of how the vent affects the subwoofer.

And the word "lower" never appeared in my statement. Vented will have more output at the tuning point, but with a steeper rolloff below that, where the sealed rolls off at a shallower rate. However that alone doesn't mean the sealed will have any usable output down there.

If this is a myth, show me a fair comparison where the vented *sounds better*, not merely louder.

When we (Jakeman, PBC, the huff, the bogg) compared the SVS PB13 ultra, Axiom ep600, Velo DD18, JL113, the SVS and Axiom were always easily identifiable as having that ported "sound". Notes lingering just a little too long, less definition, a kind of fat sound. The JL just sounded better, though never loud enough as a single. A pair or four would be excellent (though rather pricey).

After all these years you still haven't picked up much.

Flatter extension with more headroom and lower distortion will result in better audible performance than a slight decrease in impulse response in the low teens. In terms of audibility, things higher in frequency will have more of an impact than those lower in frequency. The 10 or 15-30hz range therefore becomes more significant than the <15 or <10hz range. Nothing new.

If sounding better to you means less headroom and more distortion, then disregard my post.

Sorry, not a myth.

Vented will always have higher group delay and sloppier impulse response.

Given similar parts, driver, amp, enclosure size, the sealed is always going to have higher sound quality. You have to skew the design criteria for the vented to come out ahead, i.e use a lesser driver in the sealed, make the box too small, etc.

You cannot escape the physics of how the vent affects the subwoofer.

And the word "lower" never appeared in my statement. Vented will have more output at the tuning point, but with a steeper rolloff below that, where the sealed rolls off at a shallower rate. However that alone doesn't mean the sealed will have any usable output down there.

If this is a myth, show me a fair comparison where the vented *sounds better*, not merely louder.

When we (Jakeman, PBC, the huff, the bogg) compared the SVS PB13 ultra, Axiom ep600, Velo DD18, JL113, the SVS and Axiom were always easily identifiable as having that ported "sound". Notes lingering just a little too long, less definition, a kind of fat sound. The JL just sounded better, though never loud enough as a single. A pair or four would be excellent (though rather pricey).

...Yet some of the the most expensive, highly regarded speakers and subs you can buy (like Wilson) are ported. Maybe it's because sealed woofers have more distortion and poorer dynamics than ported.

Sorry, not a myth.

Vented will always have higher group delay and sloppier impulse response.

Given similar parts, driver, amp, enclosure size, the sealed is always going to have higher sound quality. You have to skew the design criteria for the vented to come out ahead, i.e use a lesser driver in the sealed, make the box too small, etc.

You cannot escape the physics of how the vent affects the subwoofer.

And the word "lower" never appeared in my statement. Vented will have more output at the tuning point, but with a steeper rolloff below that, where the sealed rolls off at a shallower rate. However that alone doesn't mean the sealed will have any usable output down there.

If this is a myth, show me a fair comparison where the vented *sounds better*, not merely louder.

When we (Jakeman, PBC, the huff, the bogg) compared the SVS PB13 ultra, Axiom ep600, Velo DD18, JL113, the SVS and Axiom were always easily identifiable as having that ported "sound". Notes lingering just a little too long, less definition, a kind of fat sound. The JL just sounded better, though never loud enough as a single. A pair or four would be excellent (though rather pricey).


OMG

I can't believe someone has started the "fat" versus "tight" debate again.

Please show me a credible source for the statement: "Vented will always have higher group delay and sloppier impulse response."

As far as your request for a fair comparison that puts vented first, I will just refresh your memory that the ported Ed A7-900 was ranked higher on music than any sealed sub tested and higher for HT use by our old friend Craig Chase. He and his listening friends also ranked the ported Epik Conquest higher on both music and HT than the Fathom F113.

I also read the comments of the participants in the event you referenced and found the comments less than convincing.

For those looking for sealed subs, the HSU ULS-15's bought 4 at a time for $3,999 is probabably at least as good a way to go as 2 F113's.

When we (Jakeman, PBC, the huff, the bogg) compared the SVS PB13 ultra, Axiom ep600, Velo DD18, JL113, the SVS and Axiom were always easily identifiable as having that ported "sound". Notes lingering just a little too long, less definition, a kind of fat sound. The JL just sounded better, though never loud enough as a single. A pair or four would be excellent (though rather pricey).
I'm not denying what you heard, I'm just merely suggesting that there might be some other variables/factors in play than simple sealed/vented difference. I mean the setup you used wasn't the best possible (different locations for subs, not EQ'ed properly etc.). But then again, those are the reasons why people usually say that sealed sounds better. It doesn't have to be that way, though.

Sorry, not a myth.

Vented will always have higher group delay and sloppier impulse response.

Given similar parts, driver, amp, enclosure size, the sealed is always going to have higher sound quality. You have to skew the design criteria for the vented to come out ahead, i.e use a lesser driver in the sealed, make the box too small, etc.

You cannot escape the physics of how the vent affects the subwoofer.

And the word "lower" never appeared in my statement. Vented will have more output at the tuning point, but with a steeper rolloff below that, where the sealed rolls off at a shallower rate. However that alone doesn't mean the sealed will have any usable output down there.

If this is a myth, show me a fair comparison where the vented *sounds better*, not merely louder.

When we (Jakeman, PBC, the huff, the bogg) compared the SVS PB13 ultra, Axiom ep600, Velo DD18, JL113, the SVS and Axiom were always easily identifiable as having that ported "sound". Notes lingering just a little too long, less definition, a kind of fat sound. The JL just sounded better, though never loud enough as a single. A pair or four would be excellent (though rather pricey).

you got to hear one of these IN person - you WILL change your mind about vented subs!

danley dts 20: http://www.thesoundbroker.com/Danley.htm

...Yet some of the the most expensive, highly regarded speakers and subs you can buy (like Wilson) are ported. Maybe it's because sealed woofers have more distortion and poorer dynamics than ported.

And beyond the Wilson...

And then there is always the Genelec HTS6 that bested all contenders when tested along with 11 other subs by Keith Yates. Bested in both output and pristine sound quality. The Genelec HTS6 has 4 twelve inch drivers in a large ported box.

The Genelec easily held its own in sound quality with the Velodyne DD-18, Bag End, and the sealed Revel.

This is what Keith Yates had to say about the Genelec HTS6:

"By all the textbook metrics-tonal neutrality, stability of response at all playback levels, very low distortion, explosive dynamics, utter unflappability-as well as the harder-to-define but pervasive they-really-did-their-homework air that surrounds it, the Finnish flagship sets new standards for bass performance in the home theater. It wasn't much of a horse race, but then, this was the biggest horse in the race. At this level, you'll want a pro to dial in the Genelecs's in-room response with a 1/12 -or 1/24 octave analyzer and a digital parametric equalizer."

Keith Yates took 6 months to complete his testing before annointing the HTS6. Maybe he is on to something.

you got to hear one of these IN person - you WILL change your mind about vented subs!

danley dts 20: http://www.thesoundbroker.com/Danley.htm

Is the Danley DTS-20 a sealed sub? Funny, I called the company and the person who answered the phone refused to categorize the DTS-20 as sealed.

And if I drive the four-wheel-drive Infinity M35X I will almost certainly like it better than my Honda Accord.

By the way, did you listen to the Genelec HTS6 before you bought your DTS-20 from rmlowz?

Apparently, the SVS PB-13 Ultra was sufficient to replace the Danley.

I know, I know, he didn't have enough room for the DTS-20, either vertically or horizontally.

Is the Danley DTS-20 a sealed sub? Funny, I called the company and the person who answered the phone refused to categorize the DTS-20 as sealed.

And if I drive the four-wheel-drive Infinity M35X I will almost certainly like it better than my Honda Accord.

By the way, did you listen to the Genelec HTS6 before you bought your DTS-20 from rmlowz?

Apparently, the SVS PB-13 Ultra was sufficient to replace the Danley.

I know, I know, he didn't have enough room for the DTS-20, either vertically or horizontally.Spyboy, I don't think Slow was espousing the benefits of ported vs sealed, just the DTS-20. Also, to be fair, Rich switches gear as often as I change shorts. The Ultra was just the next piece through the door and I know it won't be the last.

Spyboy, I don't think Slow was espousing the benefits of ported vs sealed, just the DTS-20. Also, to be fair, Rich switches gear as often as I change shorts. The Ultra was just the next piece through the door and I know it won't be the last.
man you only change your shorts 2-3x a month??:eek:

Spyboy, I don't think Slow was espousing the benefits of ported vs sealed, just the DTS-20. Also, to be fair, Rich switches gear as often as I change shorts. The Ultra was just the next piece through the door and I know it won't be the last.


Ron, you must be in humor mode. When Slow said:

"you got to hear one of these IN person - you Will change your mind about vented subs!"

I could have sworn that he was saying that sealed subs just flat out sound better, more detailed, etc, etc. than ported subs.

As far as whether horn loaded woofers/subwoofers are sealed or ported, I don't know, however, I owned a pair of speakers that had (folded) horn loaded woofers and sounded quite good.

The question is, is a folded horn sealed or vented? Seems they are vented, but ideally vented in such a way as to try to bring the back wave around front in as delayed a fashion as possible to minimize the (out-of-phase-output) from the rear of the driver from cancelling out the output from the front of the driver. Certainly Danley and anyone who is designing things like the Growlers for JTR are excellent at designing horns.

Folded horns are so interesting. This is what Nelson Pass came up with for his own system:

http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/KleinHorn.pdf

Interesting what he did with a pair of 6 inch cones.

Since Nelson could still only get down to ~50Hz with the 6 inch cone, he had to come up with suitable woofers. The 21 inch drivers in the 7 foot tall 24 inch sonotubes did the trick.

http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/KleinHorn2.pdf

You may have to scroll to see the sonotubes.

After all these years you still haven't picked up much.

Flatter extension with more headroom and lower distortion will result in better audible performance than a slight decrease in impulse response in the low teens. In terms of audibility, things higher in frequency will have more of an impact than those lower in frequency. The 10 or 15-30hz range therefore becomes more significant than the <15 or <10hz range. Nothing new.

If sounding better to you means less headroom and more distortion, then disregard my post.

But you are talking about a single water-heater like vented sub compared to a single 20" sealed sub.

I am talking in general theory and then in multiples of the sealed sub to achieve the output/low distortion.

If anyone in Toronto ever builds something like your AV18 vented I will go listen to it and see how it sounds.

But the commercial offerings, of which the PB13 ultra is one of the better examples, don't hold up to a good, sealed sub array.

The question is, is a folded horn sealed or vented? Seems they are vented, but ideally vented in such a way as to try to bring the back wave around front in as delayed a fashion as possible to minimize the (out-of-phase-output) from the rear of the driver from canceling out the output from the front of the driver.
You partially answered your question. Since a sealed design removes (isolates) the rear of the driver from the room, then a tapped horn, which utilizes both sides of the driver, shouldn't be classified as a sealed alignment. On the other hand, a tapped horn doesn't utilize a resonator to boost any frequencies, so it should also not be classified as a vented enclosure. So the DTS-20 is neither sealed nor ported. It is a tapped horn. Just my 1.1 cents (2 cents adjusted for inflation).

man you only change your shorts 2-3x a month??:eek:Lol, I'll leave that one alone...don't want to reveal TMI.:p

But the commercial offerings, of which the PB13 ultra is one of the better examples, don't hold up to a good, sealed sub array.

You are saying that it takes several sealed subs to do a better job than one PB13 Ultra? :rolleyes: That doesn't speak highly of the sealed alignment.

You are saying that it takes several sealed subs to do a better job than one PB13 Ultra? :rolleyes: That doesn't speak highly of the sealed alignment.
Yup goes against everything he is saying. Ported vs sealed all things equal they should be about par. sealed may cost a little more??? Humm Valor is pretty cheap. The new Hsu is a fair price....what am I saying......

OK, so I’ve done a bunch of reading and now thinking about building two sonotube based subs with 10-14 cubic feet of volume. I’m looking at two because I have a two channel set up. I’m now trying to decide between a vented vs. sealed design. How would you folks describe the differences in sound between the two designs?

You may find more constructive advice over in the DIY forum:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdisplay.php?f=155


A couple thoughts though. Have you got drivers picked out? What are you using to model your sub? Once you've picked drivers you should be able to compare the models of sealed vs. ported for your particular driver(s) and see the obvious differences. Also, if it becomes an option you could always build ported then seal the ports to see if you prefer it ported or sealed. The only problem with this is the ported enclosure may be oversized to run as a sealed enclosure putting your drivers in danger... but you should be able to check on that during the modeling stage.

Oh, and to answer your question... way too many variables for us to tell you which will sound better to you in your room.

Spyboy,

Slowcar was in favor of vented subs, not sealed ones.

Yup goes against everything he is saying. Ported vs sealed all things equal they should be about par. sealed may cost a little more??? Humm Valor is pretty cheap. The new Hsu is a fair price....what am I saying......

Maybe to an illiterate douche-bag.

I really don't care if you guys like ported subs. I've been there, done that and moved on.

But you can never past the fact that a sealed sub has higher sound quality. Your only argument is that the vented has higher output/less distortion, which is exactly what I said in my first post. That is overcome by using multiple units.

What you can't overcome with more vented subs is the inferior sound quality. More of them just gets you higher SPL of the same, inferior sound quality.

Why doesn't kgveteran drill some holes in his 4 sealed subs and jam some ports in? Why don't all IB'ers add ports to gain even more output? Oh, because they've (we've) already overcome the lesser output of a sealed alignment.

Those who can't get that concept are lost.

Maybe to an illiterate douche-bag.




Why doesn't kgveteran drill some holes in his 4 sealed subs and jam some ports in? Why don't all IB'ers add ports to gain even more output? Oh, because they've (we've) already overcome the lesser output of a sealed alignment.

Those who can't get that concept are lost.

Nope you are. Sealed subs are easy to make. distortion in ported subs comes from over driving them. There's plenty of ported subs that are said to sound better than the JL for le$$. So to assume sealed is better than ported is ignorant. I'm not saying ported subs sound better either but they can depends on the sub.

Maybe to an illiterate douche-bag.

I really don't care if you guys like ported subs. I've been there, done that and moved on.

But you can never past the fact that a sealed sub has higher sound quality.

This is your own hearsay opinion which some others share and some others do not. What proof do you base your argument on? It's an opinion and nothing more. Why do you insist on it as if it were fact?


Your only argument is that the vented has higher output/less distortion, which is exactly what I said in my first post. That is overcome by using multiple units.

What you can't overcome with more vented subs is the inferior sound quality. More of them just gets you higher SPL of the same, inferior sound quality.

Why doesn't kgveteran drill some holes in his 4 sealed subs and jam some ports in? Why don't all IB'ers add ports to gain even more output? Oh, because they've (we've) already overcome the lesser output of a sealed alignment.

Those who can't get that concept are lost.

Can you explain why some of the the most expensive, highly regarded speakers and subs you can buy (like Wilson) are ported? These are cost-is-no-object speakers. They could design them anyway they want, put several sealed woofers and charge as much as they want, yet they chose ported designs. Why?

Sorry, not a myth.

Vented will always have higher group delay and sloppier impulse response.

Given similar parts, driver, amp, enclosure size, the sealed is always going to have higher sound quality. You have to skew the design criteria for the vented to come out ahead, i.e use a lesser driver in the sealed, make the box too small, etc.

You cannot escape the physics of how the vent affects the subwoofer.

And the word "lower" never appeared in my statement. Vented will have more output at the tuning point, but with a steeper rolloff below that, where the sealed rolls off at a shallower rate. However that alone doesn't mean the sealed will have any usable output down there.

If this is a myth, show me a fair comparison where the vented *sounds better*, not merely louder.

When we (Jakeman, PBC, the huff, the bogg) compared the SVS PB13 ultra, Axiom ep600, Velo DD18, JL113, the SVS and Axiom were always easily identifiable as having that ported "sound". Notes lingering just a little too long, less definition, a kind of fat sound. The JL just sounded better, though never loud enough as a single. A pair or four would be excellent (though rather pricey).

oh boy... here we go.

Jesse S, i have been around a lot of subwoofers, there is more evidence so actually enforce that ported subwoofers have better sound quality, not to mention there has been at least several statistical tests done on users (blind a/b tests) with custom subwoofers using the same drivers in both alignments, multiple driver types tested against over 60 people. As the SPL increase ported and passive radiator and horn systems dominated the sound quality tests. At lower SPL's they were statistical even. Make a strong case against sealed systems. After that test, you can bet a pretty penny that company stopped many making sealed subwoofers.

Now if you want to get into the physics, you're on a losing case again because sealed systems promote the most driver displacement and therefore risk the most linearity and evoke the most distortion given some SPL mark, epically for low end response.

finally, and this is the big joke, ported and sealed systems are pretty much identical sounded in the higher frequency areas meaning the major differences occur in the low stuff which arguably is a ported systems strong point.

i'm not going to argue that ported systems are always better, but i'll gladly sit here and dismiss any wild claims about sound quality about either. They can both sound good or bad and they both have their place. I can go into a lot of detail about why one system might be much better than the next for a particular application, but i can assure sound quality is not part of that decision.

Jesse S, i have been around a lot of subwoofers, there is more evidence so actually enforce that ported subwoofers have better sound quality, not to mention there has been at least several statistical tests done on users (blind a/b tests) with custom subwoofers using the same drivers in both alignments, multiple driver types tested against over 60 people. As the SPL increase ported and passive radiator and horn systems dominated the sound quality tests. At lower SPL's they were statistical even. Make a strong case against sealed systems. After that test, you can bet a pretty penny that company stopped many making sealed subwoofers.

Now if you want to get into the physics, you're on a losing case again because sealed systems promote the most driver displacement and therefore risk the most linearity and evoke the most distortion given some SPL mark, epically for low end response.

finally, and this is the big joke, ported and sealed systems are pretty much identical sounded in the higher frequency areas meaning the major differences occur in the low stuff which arguably is a ported systems strong point.

i'm not going to argue that ported systems are always better, but i'll gladly sit here and dismiss any wild claims about sound quality about either. They can both sound good or bad and they both have their place. I can go into a lot of detail about why one system might be much better than the next for a particular application, but i can assure sound quality is not part of that decision.

Where are these tests? I'd like to read them. Which company are you talking about that switched from sealed to ported subwoofers?

Where are these tests? I'd like to read them. Which company are you talking about that switched from sealed to ported subwoofers?

that test was very extensive and i'm sure because they did it in-house for their own conclusions that they want to keep the specifics of the results in-house. I can tell you that it was done by one of the really big audio companies. Actually when the SPL was the highest bracket, the horn loaded subwoofers won out over the rest. defiantly a correlation between distortion and SPL that seems to mean something for subjective sound quality among listeners.

Why don't all IB'ers add ports to gain even more output?
You mean like this?

This quad RL-p15 IB system was enclosed, ported, and tuned to 10hz. The resulting sound quality was preferred by the user, his family, and his friends.

Everyone has different sound quality preferences, but from a pure performance / audibility point of view, driver to driver, ported wins. Higher frequencies take precendence over lower frequencies when it comes to audibility.

You mean like this?

This quad RL-p15 IB system was enclosed, ported, and tuned to 10hz. The resulting sound quality was preferred by the user, his family, and his friends.

Everyone has different sound quality preferences, but from a pure performance / audibility point of view, driver to driver, ported wins. Higher frequencies take precendence over lower frequencies when it comes to audibility.
hmmm...didn't we already had this dicussion in great detail regarding Rodney's setup:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=13454423#post13454423

Why don't all IB'ers add ports to gain even more output?

IBs can not add ports the IB "Box" is so damn big that there is simply ZERO pressure....more or less a port in my IB array would be a hole to my attic where heat/cold air escape ;)

Everyone has different sound quality preferences, but from a pure performance / audibility point of view, driver to driver, ported wins. Higher frequencies take precendence over lower frequencies when it comes to audibility.


Purely subjective!!

Vented will have more output, sealed will have higher sound quality.

Wow, apples to apples comparison?

Yes vented designs SHOULD have more output because that is their purpose....

sealed sub having higher sound quality....simply subjective opinion...you may even be think the SPL differences at the higher frequence equates to Sound Quality.

Just because you hear something a certain way and like it does not conclude that it has a better SQ it simply means you LIKE it that is it. You have ZERO sceintific measurements to back you up so just buy what you like and move on instead of posting some blank it statement about how something sounds.

There are ported subs out there that are simply incredible sounding.

There are sealed subs out there that are simply incredible sounding.

Buy the one you like, build the ones you like and move on....Arguing about this is like aruing that Blue is a better color then Red :D

there are ported subs out there that are simply incredible sounding.

There are sealed subs out there that are simply incredible sounding.

Buy the one you like, build the ones you like and move on....arguing about this is like aruing that blue is a better color then red :d

+1

Everyone has different sound quality preferences, but from a pure performance / audibility point of view, driver to driver, ported wins. Higher frequencies take precendence over lower frequencies when it comes to audibility.


Purely subjective!!
Nothing about that is subjective. Human hearing sensitivity decreases exponentially below 100hz. Porting results in more clean output.

Nothing about that is subjective. Human hearing sensitivity decreases exponentially below 100hz. Porting results in more clean output.
and once again you talk out of your ass about a subject you have no knowledge about:

hearing sensitivity decreasing exponentially below 100hz?:rolleyes:
http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2004;volume=6;issue=23;spage=73;epage=85;aulast=Sc hust
hearing sensitivity is one of the most linear features of the human ear, specially in spacial audibility. It decreases VERY linearly in the voicing range (200hz-1khz) and below:
http://www.noiseandhealth.org/articles/2004/6/23/images/NoiseHealth_2004_6_23_73_31662_1.jpg

further more, pressure levels on the ear drum from 20-80hz have been proven to be fairly constant given sine sweeps from both bass reflex and acoustic suspension alignments. Tim Ryan's test, showing both correlated and uncorrelated noise bursts at 20, 40, 60, and 80hz, superimposed on this vector plot...notice how both bass reflex (LR) and acoustic suspension(FB) follow pretty closely.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/ssabripo/misc_stuff/zz1.jpg
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/ssabripo/misc_stuff/zz2.jpg


you are correct in that the ear's sensitivity decreases as frequency decreases below voicing (~200hz) and increases above voicing (~800hz), but they are not exponential. You are also correct that ported will produce more clean output around and octave above tuning and slightly below tuning point (if the sealed is unaided via EQ). Sadly though, you are going only by hear se.

Nothing about that is subjective. Human hearing sensitivity decreases exponentially below 100hz. Porting results in more clean output.


it its not subjective point me to the research paper on it or the scientific evidence.

You love the sound of ported subs and it shows by your constant defensive stance against sealed subs. You fight constantly for some reason to protect the ported design even though you do not have too. You can have your large Silos in your room, no one is telling you to change anything.

Others like a different sound and they are happy with it, why can you not just agree that all this SQ talk is truely subjective and that people are going to like different things?

The only two measurements that can be even debated are SPL and distortion correct? Lets leave SQ out of it because its not a quantitative measurement.

Maybe to an illiterate douche-bag.

I really don't care if you guys like ported subs. I've been there, done that and moved on.

But you can never past the fact that a sealed sub has higher sound quality. Your only argument is that the vented has higher output/less distortion, which is exactly what I said in my first post. That is overcome by using multiple units.

What you can't overcome with more vented subs is the inferior sound quality. More of them just gets you higher SPL of the same, inferior sound quality.

Why doesn't kgveteran drill some holes in his 4 sealed subs and jam some ports in? Why don't all IB'ers add ports to gain even more output? Oh, because they've (we've) already overcome the lesser output of a sealed alignment.

Those who can't get that concept are lost.

That's such an Ignorant statement hate to say that for fear of being reported but thats just plain silly. :rolleyes:


The word ignorant contains the word "Ignore" and that would imply that the person who is "Ignorant"; ignores intellegence, proper reasoning, the ability to learn and common sense. :eek: :rolleyes: :p

Ad for ported Vs. Sealed for a cylender sub ported is the way to go since the enclosure is basicly round to begin with, a port would be an extension of the cylinder without making a bigger enclosure.

The ported fans in this thread have one defense to the problem of higher group delay and poor impulse response

"more output"

Yes, in post 1 I said ported has more output. Loudness doesn't overcome the slow recovery (impulse response).

BUT IT HAS MORE OUTPUT.

Yes, I heard you vented fan-boys say that 50 times.

My IB has more output, less distortion, less group delay and a "cleaner" impulse response than any of your vented subs.

An IB is the furthest extension of a sealed sub, just as the water-heater'esque vented sub is the furthest extension of that alignment.

But you guys just can't get over this idiotic argument that vented has more output. I don't care, I can match and exceed your output without a vent and I don't have to take along all the sonic baggage of a vent.

BUT THE VENTED SUB HAS MORE OUTPUT!!!

Get over it.

Unfortunately your arguments pertaining to your IB system have nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic of this thread "Sonotube Subs Sealed vs. Vented". Many of the sonic advantages of an IB do not carry over to a sealed box in which case the pressure of the enclosure has a huge effect on the action of the driver. Much of that effect is not good. (High distortion + low efficiency + low frequency rolloff)

If you want to argue the advantages of an IB sub system, why not start a new thread about that or better yet, take it to DIY.

Unfortunately your arguments pertaining to your IB system have nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic of this thread "Sonotube Subs Sealed vs. Vented". Many of the sonic advantages of an IB do not carry over to a sealed box in which case the pressure of the enclosure has a huge effect on the action of the driver. Much of that effect is not good. (High distortion + low efficiency + low frequency rolloff)

If you want to argue the advantages of an IB sub system, why not start a new thread about that or better yet, take it to DIY.

Exactly.


Tim

The ported fans in this thread have one defense to the problem of higher group delay and poor impulse response

"more output"

Yes, in post 1 I said ported has more output. Loudness doesn't overcome the slow recovery (impulse response).

BUT IT HAS MORE OUTPUT.

Yes, I heard you vented fan-boys say that 50 times.

My IB has more output, less distortion, less group delay and a "cleaner" impulse response than any of your vented subs.

An IB is the furthest extension of a sealed sub, just as the water-heater'esque vented sub is the furthest extension of that alignment.

But you guys just can't get over this idiotic argument that vented has more output. I don't care, I can match and exceed your output without a vent and I don't have to take along all the sonic baggage of a vent.

BUT THE VENTED SUB HAS MORE OUTPUT!!!

Get over it.

Yes Jesse, Put Four of the 18 inch Avalanche drivers in a room the size of a closet, and one will get a LOT of bass.

Congratulations, Jesse. We are all SO proud of you. ;)

Penngray - You have pretty much nailed it. :)

Yes, I heard you vented fan-boys say that 50 times.

My IB has more output, less distortion, less group delay and a "cleaner" impulse response than any of your vented subs.

An IB is the furthest extension of a sealed sub, just as the water-heater'esque vented sub is the furthest extension of that alignment.

But you guys just can't get over this idiotic argument that vented has more output. I don't care, I can match and exceed your output without a vent and I don't have to take along all the sonic baggage of a vent.

BUT THE VENTED SUB HAS MORE OUTPUT!!!

Get over it.



I have an IB (4 Q18s), I have two ported 11 cuft subs (15" TC2K) , I have 1 sealed 4 cuft sub (15" TC2K) and Im building a 2nd sealed sub soon, they will look great as end tables :D

Guess what!! They all have their place and I love them all!!!

Good Lord these arguments are getting old. :(

Ported is NOT clearly superior to sealed in every way.

Sealed is NOT clearly superior to ported in every way.

IB is not superior.

Ditto for: horns, bandpass, open baffle, transmission line, PR, Bose Acoustimass etc...

Maybe to an illiterate douche-bag.

I really don't care if you guys like ported subs. I've been there, done that and moved on.



This thread has been VERY educational. We now know the definition of "illiterate douchebag" is someone who prefers ported subwoofers.

This thread has been VERY educational. We now know the definition of "illiterate douchebag" is someone who prefers ported subwoofers.

He just admitted what he was when He made that statement. :rolleyes:

An illiterate douchebag is someone who takes what you say and twists it against them to suit their opinion-

" Originally Posted by Ironmike86 View Post
Yup goes against everything he is saying. "

What I said did not contradict what I said earlier. Ironmike felt he could just overwrite my opinion with his and that somehow made what I said contradictory

"Ported vs sealed all things equal they should be about par. "

That's his opinion, not mine. But he overlays it on me and therefore "Yup goes against everything he is saying. "

So he ignored my opinion, cast his own upon me and then proclaimed that I was contradicting myself.

Hence illiterate douchebag.

The original poster wanted to know the traits of each alignment in a given enclosure. I gave my opinion. Then others twisted the argument to suit their opinion.

None of you address the issue of impulse response with a port.

Maybe you can't hear the negative effect. Doesn't mean it isn't there.

My mission in life isn't to be friends with the unwashed masses on AVS.

ssabripo, why not use the most commonly accepted studies and measurements on the subject of hearing sensitivity vs frequency?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/49/Lindos4.svg/400px-Lindos4.svg.png

Yes, sensitivity does decrease exponentially.

Others like a different sound and they are happy with it, why can you not just agree that all this SQ talk is truely subjective and that people are going to like different things?
I thought I was quite clear:
Everyone has different sound quality preferences, but from a pure performance / audibility point of view, driver to driver, ported wins. Higher frequencies take precendence over lower frequencies when it comes to audibility.
I'm not fighting for ported subs, I'm fighting for accurate statements on these boards.

The ported fans in this thread have one defense to the problem of higher group delay and poor impulse response

"more output"

Yes, in post 1 I said ported has more output. Loudness doesn't overcome the slow recovery (impulse response).

BUT IT HAS MORE OUTPUT.
More *clean output. That means more headroom with less distortion. How do you define subwoofer performance? I think a commonly accepted, non subjective answer is to look at a combination of frequency response, headroom, and non linear distortion. FR encompasses group delay / transient response. Driver for driver, properly designed sealed vs ported, the ported will naturally have a more linear FR from tuning on up, it will have greater overall output capability from just below to above tuning, and it will have less non linear distortion from just below to above tuning. These facts can't really be argued.

Now if you don't like the sound of better performance in those areas, by all means that's fine, everyone likes the sound of something different. But to generically categorize sealed as having better sound quality when it will have a naturally less linear FR, less overall output capability, and greater non linear distortion in more audible frequencies, well that seems a little silly.


Commence complaining.

ssabripo, why not use the most commonly accepted studies and measurements on the subject of hearing sensitivity vs frequency?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/49/Lindos4.svg/400px-Lindos4.svg.png

Yes, sensitivity does decrease exponentially.

so math is not your strong suit either I see. You see Steve, 2004 > 2003 FYI.

and you post one graph and ignore two full articles + more info, and that's your "proof"

good job 80! ;)


for others' benefit who may be reading this, it is good to put some more references other than your idiotic one-graph/one-liners as usual:

http://sound.eti.pg.gda.pl/SRS/psychoacoust.html
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/sound/earsens.html
http://www.baaudiology.org/Other/Reference%20levels%20for%20objective%20audiometryprinted%20_ 2_.pdf
http://www.kemt.fei.tuke.sk/Predmety/KEMT320_EA/_web/Online_Course_on_Acoustics/contours.html

in case you are too lazy to read, or you feel like doing your usual spin job, here are some more "Updated" pics than your 2003 reference:

http://www.kemt.fei.tuke.sk/Predmety/KEMT320_EA/_web/Online_Course_on_Acoustics/elc.gif
http://www.audioholics.com/education/acoustics-principles/human-hearing-amplitude-sensitivity-part-1/clip_image001.gif

looks pretty linear from 10-100hz to me, with stabilization occuring right after that, and again increasing above 4khz.

commence more nonsense one-liner/one-graph (with no references) replies




ps- I won't even touch your dumb rhetoric on "more clean output, more linear FR, less distortion" canned message you always post, but here is my question:

how would you know? how many systems have you listened to besides yours and JonW's? how many well executed IB's or multi-sealed or combination setups have you had the pleasure to listen to?????;)

that's right....NONE!http://smiliesftw.com/x/roflmao.gif

didn't Mark Seaton invite you to go to Art Sonnebon's place and take a listen? why did you chicken out? we all know Steve: you are so scared shitless that your entire paradigm, your entire foundation you have created, will come crashing down once you hear such setups. It's understandable.....if I were some insecure kid who created this online persona as some "guru" based on reading graphs and sackriding Ilkka, I too would be scared to hear some other setups, and worse yet, try something myself by simply buying some wood and playing.

Thank you folks for the enlightening discussion. I've read Steve's reasoning for LLT and understood a good part of it. I've read selected portions of Ilka's tests and know his opinion is to be valued. Someone suggested I post in the DIY section and someone else suggested I should list additional details of my set up. I think I'm sufficiently educated to do both those things and that will be my next post.
BTW - I bought the sonotubes today. Next stop - driver selection!

This is exponential.
http://www.kemt.fei.tuke.sk/Predmety/KEMT320_EA/_web/Online_Course_on_Acoustics/elc.gif

The fletcher Munson curves and ISO sensitivity curves are the most widely accepted.

how would you know?
I dunno, maybe any of the dozens of throrough GP measurements conducted by several people? I dunno, maybe common sense? I dunno, maybe by actually understanding the principles in play?

didn't Mark Seaton invite you to go to Art Sonnebon's place and take a listen?
Yes. Why the heck would I drive from St. Louis to Michigan to hang out with this crowd?

http://www.geminiangelart.com/images/kevin.jpg

You're right, I was scared shitless my foundation would come crumbling down, that's exactly it. Incredible deduction skills professor.

If Mark wants his subs "out there", just send one to Illka. It will be "outed".

Good Lord these arguments are getting old. :(

Ported is NOT clearly superior to sealed in every way.

Sealed is NOT clearly superior to ported in every way.

IB is not superior.

Ditto for: horns, bandpass, open baffle, transmission line, PR, Bose Acoustimass etc...

yep, we're going to have to start closing these topics. Sealed vs Ported ranks right up there with 911 conspiracy and voter fraud topics.... haha

An illiterate douchebag is someone who takes what you say and twists it against them to suit their opinion-

None of you address the issue of impulse response with a port.

Maybe you can't hear the negative effect. Doesn't mean it isn't there.

My mission in life isn't to be friends with the unwashed masses on AVS.

Jesse S, impulse response has nothing to do with sound quality. Take an impulse response of a line array, and you get a very long smear which is exactly why the line array has a near field from miles and miles away! You want to get really picky, lets talk about some of the most subject musical events, like an orchestra... many musicians playing the same instrument, and here is why i brought up the line area.... the impulse response of an orchestra looks horrible because the sound is NOT coming at you from one source and i'll tell you this, normally sound does not and thank god we have brains that don't get confused. so what does impulse response have to do with anything relation to distortion? Nadda! The driver damping is ultimately going to affect things in the frequency domain, treat them there and deal with them there.... all we need now is someone to bring up the "T" word and i'm gonna start busting heads.

ssabripo, and steve, you guys crack me up!

I'm not fighting for ported subs, I'm fighting for accurate statements on these boards.


Steve, you discredit every other expert out there that does not see it your way. I can only conclude that you have lost your focus on the science behind it over the past couple of years and you are simply fighting the ported sub fight because somehow you think its your idea (It always seemed that way to me!). Heck you even created a DIY thread too build another massive silo, it seems not because you enjoy it (which again is cool, its your world!) but you want to mock those that have superior room design skills, room tastes and you think we lack testosterone for thinking the look and acoustics of our rooms matter. You can mock away, I think is funny ;)

You drew your line in the sand a long time ago and you are fighting every single great idea that does not include ported subs, isn't it time to just enjoy what you have?? Also, if someone wants to create great output down low for low $$$ and not worry about looks or space then can just know that they can use designs like yours.

This is exponential.
http://www.kemt.fei.tuke.sk/Predmety/KEMT320_EA/_web/Online_Course_on_Acoustics/elc.gif[/img]
Purdue should revoke your Bachelor's of industrial technology and just give you an associates degree in Janitor technologies, because you obviously don't understand math curves, and you are full of excretion knowledge.
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/ssabripo/misc_stuff/0000llt1.jpg
from 100hz to 10hz, there is a slight curve which forms a pseudo quadratic pattern but stays fairly linear (red lines). An exponential curve would be more like the blue line.

here you go steve....this is what exponential looks like:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Expo02.svg/315px-Expo02.svg.png

wiki or google what exponential is, since you forgot...or perhaps never studied it.

The fletcher Munson curves and ISO sensitivity curves are the most widely accepted.
accepted by who? any proof? links? or perhaps it is accepted "widely" in this case because it goes with your idiotic agenda?

fletcher munson curves:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher-Munson_curves
"...The Fletcher–Munson curves are one of many sets of equal-loudness contours for the human ear..."

also, you seem not to understand how to read a simple graph. In your original graph:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/49/Lindos4.svg/400px-Lindos4.svg.png
the BLUE graph represents the Fletcher-Munson lines, which again, are fairly linear in comparison


I dunno, maybe any of the dozens of throrough GP measurements conducted by several people? I dunno, maybe common sense? I dunno, maybe by actually understanding the principles in play?
gotcha....so the answer you personally don't know...you are going by hear se (as I mentioned) ;)


Yes. Why the heck would I drive from St. Louis to Michigan to hang out with this crowd?
aww.....cute. So your insecurities not only want to insult me, but you have to insult the likes of Mark Seaton and Kieth Yates and others in that crowd who attended, and make them out to be "nerds" because you are too much of a chickenshit to go hear something different?

exactly what we all thought.


If Mark wants his subs "out there", just send one to Illka. It will be "outed".
what does your man-crush Ilkka have to do with this conversation? He does have his subs out there, and he is perfectly capable of doing measurements himself.

you do understand that Ilkka is NOT the only human on earth capable of doing some simple ass measurements :rolleyes:

http://michaelprescott.net/PruneSpringer.jpg[/IMG]
cute. When pinned, resort to jr high insults and pics to try to appear less ignorant.

But to correct you on the "perfect fit", isn't the type of crowd in that kinda show the typical low income, closed minded, no-life having midwestern individual, attention seeking and lusting, that one can usually find in a home like this?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=117023&d=1218994052

oh wait....;)

But to correct you on the "perfect fit", isn't the type of crowd in that kinda show the typical low income, closed minded, no-life having midwestern individual, attention seeking and lusting, that one can usually find in a home like this?
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=117023&d=1218994052

oh wait....;)

Sherv - Your bride must be an angel. That is the ugliest room/system I have ever seen. What were you THINKING ? :D

Sherv - Your bride must be an angel. That is the ugliest room/system I have evern seen. What were you THINKING ? :D

sherv has dismantled his silos and now has 4 sealed subs.

this pic i believe is of Steve Callas' room.

So steve, now that we have settled your lack of mathematical skills, I wanna go back to this statement of yours:
Nothing about that is subjective. Human hearing sensitivity decreases exponentially below 100hz. Porting results in more clean output.
assuming this statement was actually true, you still believe there is nothing subjective in the Low frequency domain? and this is due to "hearing sensitivity decreasing exponentially (http://forums.offtopic.com/images/smilies/kekekegay.gif)", and thus, the GP measurements is all that matters at this point?

If so, would you enlighten us on the links I provided on the previous page regarding tim Ryan's tests?

and how would you then explain some of the further results:

* Using a Standard 3-Alternative Forced Choice (3AFC) Experiment, where a series of three noise bursts, two correlated and one uncorrelated burst, presented in random order to the listener for him to choose which of the three was different, resulted in this:

% correct in an open environment (as you would outdoors during GP measurements):
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/ssabripo/misc_stuff/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz6.jpg

% correct in an closed/controlled environment ( as in a typical room):
http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/ssabripo/misc_stuff/zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz5.jpg

so how would you explain that as the frequency went down, subjects were able to tell the odd noise burst EVERY SINGLE TIME (100% correct) in a typical room? If ear sensitivity is so irrelevant, as decreased at it could be in the low frequency spectrum as you are trying to make it out to be, then why such results? shouldn't one see typical results as in the outdoors (first graph)?

commence more bullshitting...

this pic i believe is of Steve Callas' room.

Oh. That explains a lot. I humbly stand corrected, and the decor in that pic is perfect for the owner. :)

what does your man-crush Ilkka have to do with this conversation? He does have his subs out there, and he is perfectly capable of doing measurements himself.





I don't even want to now the details nor the results of that. :eek:

Yes. Why the heck would I drive from St. Louis to Michigan to hang out with this crowd?

http://www.geminiangelart.com/images/kevin.jpg


Steve,

Kevin(above) keeps showing up to meets whether we invite him or not. :rolleyes: Fortunately he usually brings good beer and his trips usually include some pretty entertaining misadventures.

Kevin's beverage contributions aside, I know, who in their right mind would want to hang with this motley crowd... :rolleyes:

http://alhull.com/art2007/artshtmeet2007158_s.jpg
http://alhull.com/art2007/artshtmeet2007175_s.jpg
http://alhull.com/art2007/artshtmeet2007160_s.jpg
http://alhull.com/art2007/artshtmeet2007010_s.jpg

And of course there was that beautiful image on a massive screen...
http://alhull.com/art2007/artshtmeet2007181_s.jpg

The numbers and measurements get a bit stale and boring without some time and other interested people to enjoy the end results. That's the purpose of the meets, and everyone's enjoyment and appreciation of the end result is the goal, not just a set of measurements.

I have at least 6 different subwoofer designs at home to swap between at the moment. All have different strengths and weaknesses, and my preference isn't always towards the greatest LF output and lowest measured THD over some specific range. I wouldn't call any of them perfect, and I have yet to encounter a subwoofer which I would call perfect. While video is a hard comparison to make as the bandwidth and dynamic range are so much less demanding than audio, I would liken the matter of subjective sonic choices as the realization that we still can't get perfectly accurate color, so we have to choose what deviation towards red, blue or green is the most comfortable to watch.

They're all wrong, but we do have some choices in what flavor of wrong we can each be happy with in accordance with our own priorities in listening and use.

you are doing it wrong Mark! ;)

I mean c'mon....why would ANYONE in their right mind want to listen to this type of equipment? :
http://alhull.com/art2007/artshtmeet2007032_s.jpg
http://alhull.com/art2007/artshtmeet2007039_s.jpg

Wow...Just wow...:eek:. Don't pull any punches there Sherv.




Hey send ME a PM next time! I'll freakin drive up and hang out with "you" people and suffer through a demonstration of some shoddy, barely tolerable system.:rolleyes:. Hell. I'll even bring my own "person" that Steve would not want to hang with:cool:.


Ooooh can we talk about air spring distortion now?

Wow...Just wow...:eek:. Don't pull any punches there Sherv.
gotta be able to take it if you gonna dish it

Hey send ME a PM next time! I'll freakin drive up and hang out with "you" people and suffer through a demonstration of some shoddy, barely tolerable system.:rolleyes:. Hell. I'll even bring my own "person" that Steve would not want to hang with:cool:.
;)

Ooooh can we talk about air spring distortion now?
what for? we all know the "truth": ported is better, ported always wins... who cares about air spring distortion in acoustic suspension alignments

Steve Callas, the self-appointed President of the Associated Sealed Subwoofers Can't Rule Against Ported Subs club.

Siegfried Linkwitz (who is definitely NOT a member:

I did not consider alternate approaches to subwoofer design as acceptable for meeting my goal of accurate sub-bass reproduction. This includes vented, passive radiator and acoustic bandpass woofers. They all rely on resonant energy storage to increase efficiency and to reduce size.


I've read Mr. President's comments so many times it has become like ripping out my nose hairs while 1,000 fingernails are scratching a chalk board during a root canal.

Resonant energy storage, Group delay, Distortion, Port compression, Immense size, Poorer transient response/Loss of the first 2 octaves, Placement constraints, Spectral decay, Spectral contamination, Port resonances, Fixed F3, Fixed F6 BW, Fixed roll off, Limited headroom above tune/Over excursion below tune...

But hey, other than those minor details, they kick butt from 15-25Hz and look like a homeless shelter.

See the attached graph for evidence that supports Steve's claims to fame...

Bosso

;)

we all know the "truth": ported is better, ported always wins...

Those girls or the sub? :p either way ported is better especially if they are top bottom and front firing all at the same time. :D (the women NOT the subs) front firing subs make good air conditioners, who needs one of those when you have a huge subwoofer that moves just as much air?

Who needs girls when you have Xbox 360 live :)

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f38/ssabripo/misc_stuff/0000llt1.jpg
Why would you start your red lines below the actual lines on the graph unless you were trying to skew things? Your poorly drawn in lines should have looked more like the attached if you were truly interested in showing the difference between what a linear increase vs exponential would look like below 100hz. I say for the third or fourth time, it is an exponential increase.

Maybe Mark can explain it to you in more detail via PM.


I'm happy for those who have never seen girls before and would be willing to drive across a couple states to meet one in person. Keep the faith alive.

Is the Danley DTS-20 a sealed sub? Funny, I called the company and the person who answered the phone refused to categorize the DTS-20 as sealed.

By the way, did you listen to the Genelec HTS6 before you bought your DTS-20 from rmlowz?

Apparently, the SVS PB-13 Ultra was sufficient to replace the Danley.

This is what Keith Yates had to say about the Genelec HTS6



Bro, did you specifically asked him how the DTS-20 fared against his other subs like the A7-900? SQ? My understanding from the PMs is that the DTS-20 is way cool, even enough to resolve differences between a XTi-2000 and the Face Audio 1200 that Slowcar has.

Anyway, since you mentioned Mr Yates, believe he has some very serious hardware from Mr Danley too.
The HTS-6 is extremely expensive too! Imagine how much your wallet needs to cough out if you need 8 of them for an outdoor theatre. :)

Spyboy,

Slowcar was in favor of vented subs, not sealed ones.

I was thinking along the same lines.... confused me initially too. :p

Anyway, happening thread, again.... :)

blah blah blah
Maybe Mark can explain it to you in more detail via PM.
I can assure you that you STILL don't understand wtf an exponential graph looks like. Perhaps you confused your 10th grade education of what y=e^x means with a quadratic equation of y=X^2.....but hey, keep spinning. We are ALL getting a good kick on your expense.

Mark did PM me....and IM me. We had a good laugh on how ignorant you truly are! ;) I'll give it to you Steve, if nothing else, you provide sound hilarity in these forums! thank you.

I'd invite you to my corner office where I directly oversee 2.7 million worth of business each month and 103 employees, but I fear us midwesterners might not be able to keep up with your fancy book learnin :o
says the kid who lives in an apartment looking like it came straight out of compton. LMAO.

2.7 million worth of business and 103 employees, eh? sure think kid....sure thing.;)




and of course, as your usual MO, you happened to skip all the other questions regarding your insinuation of ear sensitivity in low frequencies and subjective perception.

This headline just came on on Yahoo's Finance Page ...

St. Louis MacDonald's averaging $2.7 million in monthly sales with 103 employees.

[QUOTE=SteveCallas;14474038]You mean like this?

Everyone has different sound quality preferences,

I think this quote gets closer to what I think is the important issue. All speakers distort and they all distort differently. I suspect that ported designs have a set of sonic characteristics that result in a sonic signature and the same is likely true for sealed subs. The issue I'm trying to illuminate is just what are those differences?

Once we (hopefully) understand what those differences are, the buyer/builder can make a better choice.

You mean like this?

Everyone has different sound quality preferences,

I think this quote gets closer to what I think is the important issue. All speakers distort and they all distort differently. I suspect that ported designs have a set of sonic characteristics that result in a sonic signature and the same is likely true for sealed subs. The issue I'm trying to illuminate is just what are those differences?

Once we (hopefully) understand what those differences are, the buyer/builder can make a better choice.

If you have already posted this info, apologies ....

What is the rest of your system ? What is your budget ? What experiences have you had with commercially available subwoofers ?

Who needs girls when you have Xbox 360 live :)

or the panasonic thrusters. :p

Wow this thread has turned for the worse. Anyway, I have been thinking of the same thing, sealed or vented. With sonotubes it gets tricky because they are usually very big and some drivers with big enclosures that are sealed don't match well. You have to be careful. I would not just seal up my tubes because the size would be too big for 1 driver. That is why I have been thinking about adding a driver where the port is(with amp as well). I am basically waiting to find another amp to do this. When I do finally change, I will let you know.

[QUOTE=SteveCallas;14496705

I'm happy for those who have never seen girls before and would be willing to drive across a couple states to meet one in person. Keep the faith alive.
[/QUOTE]

C'mon now Steve. You are the person who started all of that by posting that pic and basically insulting everyone who did attend, by insinuating that they aren't people you would bother with associating with. I wasn't even there and I thought to myself "what a dick-headed thing to post". If I did go, it wouldn't have been to look at girls. It would've been to check out a MUCH better system than I have and meet some people that I correspond with and that have more knowledge/experience than me.

C'mon now Steve. You are the person who started all of that by posting that pic and basically insulting everyone who did attend, by insinuating that they aren't people you would bother with associating with. I wasn't even there and I thought to myself "what a dick-headed thing to post". If I did go, it wouldn't have been to look at girls. It would've been to check out a MUCH better system than I have and meet some people that I correspond with and that have more knowledge/experience than me.

Amen.

Art is cool as ice and quite the host. He went all out for this A/V party and debuted a 4XSubmersive sealed system that had just replaced a 4XSVS ported system. I would have considered myself way ahead of the game to have been invited and attend.

I have some idea what 8-15s can do and jawing about it with Seaton, face-to-face, with measurements, tweaks and demo would have been worth the price of admission in itself.

Hey, that's an 8X12" ported vs an 8X15" sealed comparo by the guy who owned both in the same dedicated room with the same source. I wonder what the horse's mouth had to say about that?

Well I ran through some more great bass tonight. The machine coming out of the ground in War of the Worlds was first up. Again tremendous performance and as I stated before the expectation that the bass would overpower and turn the dialog into some unintelligble muck never happened,in fact, everything is much more defined than ever !!!

For the first time I feel like my theater is a high performance sports car and it is just loafing down the road with power and handling ability to spare...lots !

Art

Having the power to do what I did last night was quite a feeling literally. The re-entry scene in Serenity was the single most impressive display of audio and video I've experienced and then I kept hearing great things from those in attendence. In that scene there are tons of different things going on at once. The music, turbulence parts of the ship shearing off just awesome. No question in my mind that this is simply a function of the mains and subs having the ability to extract accurately and powerfully what that soundtrack has to offer. Angela said" Oh my God everything is shaking!" This is coming from a lady who has experienced that scene 10 times before.

Bosso

Good example to bring up Bosso. Others might find it interesting that in terms of gross maximum output, there was maybe a 1-3dB difference in the 20-25Hz range from the change in subwoofers. Of course that ignores the rest of the useful 8-100Hz range, and doesn't account for differences in dynamic linearity (lack of compression) and other, less popular qualities. Yes, it did cost more, :rolleyes: but even that is tough to directly compare when I'm using an American designed and built amp (apart from the ICEpower modules) with many premium features and capabilities that is 4-10x as expensive as most others.

that's what you get for plunking money on a Dolby Lakes DSP ;)

Yes. Why the heck would I drive from St. Louis to Michigan to hang out with this crowd?

http://www.geminiangelart.com/images/kevin.jpg

Steve,

That was pretty low, even coming from you. :eek: (not that Sherv's posts have been any better).

When it comes to ear sensitivity curves, the original F-M curves from 1933 are considered inaccurate at the moment. The later work done by Robinson and Dadson in 1956 were the source for ISO 226:2003 standard, which is considered the most accurate information at the moment. In other words the original F-M curves were too flat at higher sound pressure levels.

(Red:correct, Blue:wrong)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/49/Lindos4.svg/400px-Lindos4.svg.png

When it comes to ear sensitivity curves, the original F-M curves from 1933 are considered inaccurate at the moment. The later work done by Robinson and Dadson in 1956 were the source for ISO 226:2003 standard, which is considered the most accurate information at the moment. In other words the original F-M curves were too flat at higher sound pressure levels.

(Red:correct, Blue:wrong)

ilkka, I'm always up for some learning.....do you have a source or link of what you say (regarding F-M curves not being accurate, or who is considering the R-D curves "more accurate")?

ilkka, I'm always up for some learning.....do you have a source or link of what you say (regarding F-M curves not being accurate, or who is considering the R-D curves "more accurate")?
Well even the Wikipedia article explains it, but if that is not credible enough source, there are quite a few AES papers saying the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson-Dadson_curves

ilkka, I'm always up for some learning.....do you have a source or link of what you say (regarding F-M curves not being accurate, or who is considering the R-D curves "more accurate")?


Robinson-Dadson Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson-Dadson_curves)

Equal Loudness Contour Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contours)

Well even the Wikipedia article explains it, but if that is not credible enough source, there are quite a few AES papers saying the same thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson-Dadson_curves

Robinson-Dadson Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson-Dadson_curves)

Equal Loudness Contour Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contours)

fair enough...thank you both.


my understanding was that based on equal loudness contours, and the previous links I also posted on human sensitivity (which clearly decreases in the low frequency range, rather rapidly with lower SPL, but it is not truly exponential, and more importantly, it certainly STILL does affect subjective perception in this range)

one of the graphs I posted earlier:
http://www.kemt.fei.tuke.sk/Predmety/KEMT320_EA/_web/Online_Course_on_Acoustics/contours.html

I deleted some of the previous off-topic pics, so that we can hopefully turn this back into a more HT related discussion.

That was pretty low, even coming from you
Heat of the moment.

Good example to bring up Bosso. Others might find it interesting that in terms of gross maximum output, there was maybe a 1-3dB difference in the 20-25Hz range from the change in subwoofers. Of course that ignores the rest of the useful 8-100Hz range, and doesn't account for differences in dynamic linearity (lack of compression) and other, less popular qualities. Yes, it did cost more, :rolleyes: but even that is tough to directly compare when I'm using an American designed and built amp (apart from the ICEpower modules) with many premium features and capabilities that is 4-10x as expensive as most others.

Well said. I keep forgetting about the Submersive. It's a great subwoofer from all accounts, and a great value compared to any other 2 times 15" deal out there.

You should be less shy about mentioning it more often. ;)

The attached graph has Art's center/subs FR at the LP overlain on the Submersive anechoic response. I'm curious to know if you recall how much of that 8Hz output is coaxed by EQ vs room gain?

IIRC, the 4 Submersives were in an end-to-end placement. How close were the drivers from one sub to the next? Did you experiment with that distance, or just place them once?

In any case, a belated well done. LCR/Subs were obviously a great upgrade according to Art, who is one guy whose opinion I respect, based on what he's become acclimated to.

Bosso

Sorry...graph attached.

Bosso

Steve,

That was pretty low, even coming from you. :eek: (not that Sherv's posts have been any better).

When it comes to ear sensitivity curves, the original F-M curves from 1933 are considered inaccurate at the moment. The later work done by Robinson and Dadson in 1956 were the source for ISO 226:2003 standard, which is considered the most accurate information at the moment. In other words the original F-M curves were too flat at higher sound pressure levels.

(Red:correct, Blue:wrong)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/49/Lindos4.svg/400px-Lindos4.svg.png

I hate to keep repeating myself, but it seems that the obvious escapes most everyone where these =loudness curves are concerned.

First, those curves are to 20Hz. I'm sure 1956 was a great year for playback hardware that offered a clean 20Hz at 130dB, never mind lower frequencies. :rolleyes:

If you're a live venue sound mixer, the =loudness curves have value in properly adjusting the in-house FR of the PA. If you're a sound mixer of recorded music or movie sound tracks, the =loudness curves have value in adjusting the relative levels of various events by frequency.

If you're talking instead of reproduction of recorded source in a home environment, the =loudness curves are irrelevant.

A flat in-room FR is all that's required.

Bosso

If you're talking instead of reproduction of recorded source in a home environment, the =loudness curves are irrelevant.

A flat in-room FR is all that's required.

Bosso
If that's the case, then what does Audyssey's Dynamic Loudness and Dynamic EQ do?

If that's the case, then what does Audyssey's Dynamic Loudness and Dynamic EQ do?

Apparently, Dynamic Volume acts as a sort of compressor/expander to equalize the disparity in volume between a TV program and the commercials. It also is designed to act in concert with its other enhancement programs to attempt to make a poor playback system sound less annoying.

It's said to be based on terabytes of data involving people changing the volume by remote control, blah, blah.

The words 'TVs', 'commercials', 'HTIB' should be a dead giveaway that it's a mass market approach and has little to do with a capable playback system.

Dynamic EQ is a loudness button, on-the-fly. It distorts the FR for very low volume listening. Again, this is a mass market gadget aimed at poor playback systems. It's a variation on a theme that's as old as audio.

What I'm talking about is the fact that recorded sound has the =loudness curve built in, based on an average listening level of 75-85dB. If your listening level varies from that, adjustments may be made accordingly, which Mr. Holman is attempting to do for you through software.

One most certainly does not have to boost 20Hz by 40dB when watching a movie or listening to music. I think that should be painfully obvious, but the subject just keeps popping up.

Bosso

Bosso,

I have asked this question over in the "Official Audyssey Thread":
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14513594&posted=1#post14513594

Chris Kyriakakis, (Co-Founder and Chief Technical Officer of Audyssey), often posts in that thread. He can explain better than I can how the Equal Loudness Curves play into the Audyssey algorithm.

Craig

When it comes to ear sensitivity curves, the original F-M curves from 1933 are considered inaccurate at the moment. The later work done by Robinson and Dadson in 1956 were the source for ISO 226:2003 standard, which is considered the most accurate information at the moment. In other words the original F-M curves were too flat at higher sound pressure levels.

Since this is pedant's corner, even that statement is slightly wrong. The Robinson and Dadson work in 1956 was the basis of the original ISO 226 standard. It was when this was found to be inaccurate as a result of studies conducted in the 80's that this was revised for the ISO 226:2003 standard.

See: http://www.nedo.go.jp/itd/grant-e/report/00pdf/is-01e.pdf

Dynamic EQ is a loudness button, on-the-fly. It distorts the FR for very low volume listening. Again, this is a mass market gadget aimed at poor playback systems. It's a variation on a theme that's as old as audio.

poor playback systems? I think it handles very loud stupid comercials!!

Its on the fly management actually, do you own of the new AVRs with Dynamic EQ Bosso?

poor playback systems? I think it handles very loud stupid comercials!!

Its on the fly management actually, do you own of the new AVRs with Dynamic EQ Bosso?

I don't watch TV. If I did, it certainly wouldn't be through a $25,000 system, at -30dBFS that had no better solution for commercial ads.

Just answer me this:

Does Dynamic EQ boost 20Hz by 40dB when listening level average is 85dB? What about 10Hz? 3Hz?

The ELC is what its title implies. Equal Loudness Curves. Equal loudness required to be 'heard'. Below 20Hz is subsonic. In the audible, or music range, ELC is built into the recording.

Years ago, I solicited quotes and clipped excerpts from producers:

"Your real goal is to make recordings that have as much impact and musicality as possible. A big part of your craft is to manage levels. Another part is to carefully listen to your recordings, under a wide range of conditions, including other levels. Now that you’ve taken a look at these Hearing Response curves and response difference curves, plug in that information to go along with everything else you know, to help predict and explain why your recordings sound various ways at various levels.

Then, target your mixes to work at the levels you expect your end-users to listen at."
____________________________________________________________ ___
"Once you get these levels in your ears, then you can start taking advantage of the “virtual loudness” inherent in the equal loudness contours. Instead of mixing at 100 dB SPL because “it sounds better,” try applying the ”100vs.90” response EQ curve to your 90 dB SPL mix. Now, without significantly increasing the overall level, you can add the sonic signature of the 10 dB louder level, with all of its relative desirable impact. Not bad. Nice trick, if done with care. Warning: it can be overdone!"
_______________________________________________________
"This phenomena has significance for determining optimum levels for monitoring music in studio environments. If the playback level is too high or too low an unbalanced frequency image is likely to occur particularly in the low frequency range where our perception of loudness changes significantly at various loudness levels. A suggested optimum monitoring level is 85 db.
______________________________________________________
"The most important thing, first off, is to get a Sound Pressure Level meter and determine the level(s) at which you work. Once you get that knowledge in place, the next thing to do is to stabilize your working level. For example, I use 85 dB SPL (C weighting) at the mix position with pink noise on one speaker at –14 dBFS (RMS, not peak indicating)."
_______________________________________________________
"The question of mixing levels is mostly related to how we as humans perceive sounds at different acoustic levels. If you do a search on the internet on "Equal Loudness Curves", you will find more information about this.

However to sum it up: our ears are less sensitive to low frequencies, at lower volumes. So if you mix at lower volumes, you may tend to mix with more bass. This is why many stereo systems have a "Loudness" button, which bumps the bass frequencies at low listening levels. The point where the human ear begins to be at its flattest in percieved response is between 80 to 90dB."
________________________________________________________
"Therefore, if you want music to sound louder at low listening levels, then it makes sense to boost at the extremes of the frequency range -- exactly what the Loudness switch on some hi-fi systems is designed to do. This is the reason why you so often see graphic equalisers in playback systems set up in a 'smile' curve -- with a dip in the mid-range and a little boost at the frequency extremes. However, if you're going to use this type of overall EQ, it's best to leave it to the mastering stage, and then to add only a couple of decibels at most."
_________________________________________________________
For accuracy it is necessary to reproduce sound at near realistic SPL so that the ear generates the correct timbre due to its own distortion. Loudness control or response shaping gives a poor approximation to the Fletcher-Munson curves.

So, if you listen at average levels below 85dB, you can bump the low end, but...you should bump it according to the difference between the ELC at 85dB and your average level.

You should also pull 4K down and similarly bump >10KHz.

This is the famous 'Smiley Curve'. It's used in the mix and/or mastering process. The 'loudness button' is a feature that attempted to approximate the difference during lower level listening.

Dynamic EQ is that same thing, but self-adjusting. It does not affect a subwoofers level, much less boost <20Hz by 30, 40 or more dB.

To quote Audyssey:

Poor translation of content produced on systems with wide dynamic range and reproduced on systems with limited dynamic range such as TVs, HTiBs, and home theater systems not playing at full reference volume.


Please read the page from the Audyssey Site (http://www.audyssey.com/technology/dynamicEQ.html)

Please note the FR graphs on that page. They roll off steeply at 50Hz. Also note that they vary by no more than 3-5dB when listening at -20dBFS. That's equivalent to 65dB average.

According the posted ELC graph, 65dB average level at 1KHz would require 20Hz to be boosted by 50dB to 110dB. Clearly, there is something wrong with referring to the ELC when mandating how loud a subwoofer should be able to play 10Hz.

Bosso

I don't watch TV.

Thats fine (not that I care what your system costs or that it matters what you watch on it, I put 5K system (well probably 10K in 5 rooms) in a 800K house so we each have our priorities ;) ), some of us do watch TV ( you know the Olympics, football, a thing called sports!!) and we have to deal with LOUD comercials and the dynamic volume control helps with that but I think I was getting confused because Dynamic Volume and Dynamic EQ seem to be different offerings.

Its interesting you post suggesting Audyssey stuff doesnt really do squat for the < 20Hz range. That definitely does suck......

Btw, would you mind if I cut and paste your opinion and findings into the Audyssey thread?

Its interesting you post suggesting Audyssey stuff doesnt really do squat for the < 20Hz range. That definitely does suck......

I don't know how much better MultiEQ XT is compared to the regular MultiEQ, but I can corroborate what Bosso says: On the Denon 3806, 4806, and 5308, the Audyssey effect on the LFE channel was horrid! I had to remove it immediately because not only did it NOT add any FR enhancements below 25hz, but the overall sound in the bandpass was fatal.

I've heard better results on MultiEQ XT (pro), but I personally haven't tried it...I still have a bad taste in my mouth from it.

I don't know how much better MultiEQ XT is compared to the regular MultiEQ, but I can corroborate what Bosso says: On the Denon 3806, 4806, and 5308, the Audyssey effect on the LFE channel was horrid! I had to remove it immediately because not only did it NOT add any FR enhancements below 25hz, but the overall sound in the bandpass was fatal.


I have read that many times so Im only looking at what the new Audyssey MultEQ XT stuff does.

I did not cut and past Bosso's post but I did ask the < 20Hz question in the Audyssey thread. Although I think the pro-audyssey bias will have a "positive spin" on any answer provide. Now, I do have a thread in the DIY forum about this same topic and I think some members have posted great FR plots from using the MultEQ XT (better then any other EQ solution) but that still leaves the question about the Dynamic EQ.

Please read the page from the Audyssey Site

Please note the FR graphs on that page. They roll off steeply at 50Hz. Also note that they vary by no more than 3-5dB when listening at -20dBFS. That's equivalent to 65dB average.

According the posted ELC graph, 65dB average level at 1KHz would require 20Hz to be boosted by 50dB to 110dB. Clearly, there is something wrong with referring to the ELC when mandating how loud a subwoofer should be able to play 10Hz.

Bosso

Im looking at that page and I do not read it as such. It looks like an "Example" of how EQing flatness out the response peaks. Its problably using just "Main" speakers as an example and those speakers probably only play down to 50Hz or so.

According the Audyssey, they measure well down into single digit Hz and with that in mind I suspect Dynamic EQ works across the full range too.

Btw, Im only talking about the NEW Audyssey stuff which is in only the 2006 models.

I have read that many times so Im only looking at what the new Audyssey MultEQ XT stuff does.

I did not cut and past Bosso's post but I did ask the < 20Hz question in the Audyssey thread. Although I think the pro-audyssey bias will have a "positive spin" on any answer provide. Now, I do have a thread in the DIY forum about this same topic and I think some members have posted great FR plots from using the MultEQ XT (better then any other EQ solution) but that still leaves the question about the Dynamic EQ.

I tried to use the MultEQ system on 2 different occasions after installing HT equipment. On both occasions it kept insisting that the bookshelf speakers be set to LARGE, so I over rode it and manually set up the systems.

I think it's a great system for the average buyer of small, less capable systems (just as their advertising spiel suggests is their target audience), or those who simply don't care to learn to tweak their system, but I have never paid much attention to post EQ because it almost invariably degrades a good systems performance.

Truth is, I really don't want to get into a big discussion of Audyssey. Tom Holman is a very smart guy who has done many good things for MC sound and Audyssey has its place in that story.

My comments are directed at the wrong assumptions about in-room FR of subwoofers based on the ELC. Subwoofers are meant to reproduce the encoded low frequencies of any given source as accurately as possible.

If a 15Hz fundamental is encoded at -15dBFS, then a subwoofer should faithfully reproduce that information at that level, at the LP, while listening at 0dBFS.

Same goes for every fundamental at any frequency from 3-120Hz.

This requires a flat in-room response and sufficient output capability that satisfies the venue and the format, not an 'exponential rise' in in-room FR from 120-3Hz referenced by the ELC or any other contours, as Steve suggests.

Bosso

Truth is, I really don't want to get into a big discussion of Audyssey.

No problem, I just wanted clarification since you made some comments which I wanted to understand better.

Did you see the plots in the DIY thread about the new MultEQ XT replacing all other EQs? There is lots of talk about it doing an outstanding job now if setup correctly and therefore I have interest in it if it can remove a piece of equipment from the chain.

I think it's a great system for the average buyer of small, less capable systems (just as their advertising spiel suggests is their target audience), or those who simply don't care to learn to tweak their system, but I have never paid much attention to post EQ because it almost invariably degrades a good systems performance.


I do not consider $1K AVRs as average systems considering less then 5% of the population even buys that stuff. I think you should realize that your system is an "Ultra high end" system so your point of view might be a little skewed? ;)

My audyssey set everything to large as well(my mains are large) but I changed them to small and set my own crossover and left everything else the same as the distances were spot on and levels(except lfe, turned it up 10 db's) and the bass has been much better.

I tried to use the MultEQ system on 2 different occasions after installing HT equipment. On both occasions it kept insisting that the bookshelf speakers be set to LARGE, so I over rode it and manually set up the systems.

I can understand your frustration. However, please realize that "Audyssey" doesn't "set" the speakers to "large". It measures the in-room -3 dB point of the speakers and reports them to the receiver/pre/pro. The receiver/pre/pro *manufacturer* decides what cutoff to use for large/small. If you were setting up an Onkyo receiver/pre/pro or an older Denon, it used 80 Hz as the cutoff. IOW, any speaker, bookshelf, satellite, floorstander, whatever, if it had *any* response below 80 Hz, Onkyo and Denon (and possibly some others) set them to "large". Audyssey (the company) always recommends a "small" setting, and Chris Kyriakakis recommends overriding the manufacturer's settings and setting virtually*all* speakers to "small" with an appropriate crossover. In fact, they have been fighting with the numbskulls at the receiver/pre/pro manufacturers to get them to adjust their thinking about this issue:

Unfortunately Audyssey doesn't get to decide what is Large and Small so we have to continue pounding on this until everyone understands what an antiquated idea Large and Small really is.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14515976#post14515976

I think it's a great system for the average buyer of small, less capable systems (just as their advertising spiel suggests is their target audience), or those who simply don't care to learn to tweak their system, but I have never paid much attention to post EQ because it almost invariably degrades a good systems performance.

Truth is, I really don't want to get into a big discussion of Audyssey. Tom Holman is a very smart guy who has done many good things for MC sound and Audyssey has its place in that story.

My comments are directed at the wrong assumptions about in-room FR of subwoofers based on the ELC. Subwoofers are meant to reproduce the encoded low frequencies of any given source as accurately as possible.

If a 15Hz fundamental is encoded at -15dBFS, then a subwoofer should faithfully reproduce that information at that level, at the LP, while listening at 0dBFS.

Same goes for every fundamental at any frequency from 3-120Hz.

This requires a flat in-room response and sufficient output capability that satisfies the venue and the format, not an 'exponential rise' in in-room FR from 120-3Hz referenced by the ELC or any other contours, as Steve suggests.

Bosso

Bosso, I don't want to derail the thread and get into a huge discussion of Audyssey either. However, I think you seriously underestimate Audyssey, and especially their MultEQ XT and Pro systems. Unfortunately, since you are a very influential poster on this forum, if you say "Audyssey Sucks!" many people will believe you. Therefore, I really believe it is important for you to give Audyssey a better shot before you dismiss it as "mid-fi, HTiB type stuff". It is clearly a much more sophisticated system than that. It uses frequency domain *PLUS* time domain information to EQ in both domains. It uses Finite Impulse Response, (FIR), filters instead of the standard Infinite Impulse Response, (IIR), filters ubiquitous in standard parametric EQ's. The FIR filters allow the "time domain" EQ not possible in a PEQ. In addition, it uses "fuzzy logic" to measure and EQ over a listening *area*, not just a listening "position".

As a further endorsement of it's usefulness, Kal Rubinson is a frequent poster in the Audyssey thread and seems to be a proponent of the technology.

What exactly Audyssey does with ELC's in Dynamic Volume and Dynamic EQ I can't say, (and I can't even say that I've heard either one.) However, if it does as good a job in these areas as it does with room correction, then I will be looking to adopt it very soon. This is what Chris K had to say about ELC's and Audyssey:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Q: "Do DV and DEQ use the Fletcher/Munson Curve, the Robinson-Dadson Curve, ISO Standard 226 or some other "in-house" Equal Loudness Curve to compensate for volume and FR? If it's an "in-house" curve, how did you determine the curve you use?"

A: "The curves (not curve--it is a family of curves that vary with level) is based on a combination of all of the above and modified based on extensive listening evaluations in calibrated rooms and systems.

In addition to monitoring the volume control, Dynamic EQ also estimates the perceived loudness of each channel in real time. That's because a soft passage and a loud passage need different amounts of loudness correction as the master volume is turned down and this changes moment-by-moment.

One of the key enablers was actually MultEQ. You can have the world's best curves, but if you don't have knowledge of the absolute SPL level then you don't know what curve to be on!

Finally, part of our listening panels involved professional mixers. We found that when the volume was being turned down they were turning up the surround levels. It turns out that loudness has a spatial dependence and it actually rolls off faster from the rear hemisphere. So Dynamic EQ adjusts the surround channel levels as the master volume is turned down. It uses a model that we derived from recording the actions of professional mixers."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bottom line, Bosso, I think if you were to really investigate this technology, I think you would find it is much more sophisticated and useful than your first brushes with it. Follow the complete Step-by-Step Instructions for setup and I think you'll be surprised at how good the results will be.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=14456895#post14456895

Sherv, I would encourage you to also to re-visit Audyssey. You too seem to have "blown it off" as useless. I have several friends who were initially put off by Audyssey calibrations until they followed the Audyssey setup guidelines. It's easy to misplace the test mic; (and mic position, especially the first mic position, but also the following mic positions, are *critical* to the effectiveness of the process.) Also, understanding the results of the calibration and appropriate action(s) are essential, (i.e., crossovers, distances settings, etc.)

The above referenced setup procedure will ensure that the system is utilized most effectively. If you follow the procedure carefully and are still "underwhelmed" by Audyssey, I would like to hear about it, as I'm sure would Chris K. in the "Official" thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=795421

Craig

Now back to your regularly scheduled debate about sealed vs. ported...
:)

Since this is pedant's corner, even that statement is slightly wrong. The Robinson and Dadson work in 1956 was the basis of the original ISO 226 standard. It was when this was found to be inaccurate as a result of studies conducted in the 80's that this was revised for the ISO 226:2003 standard.

See: http://www.nedo.go.jp/itd/grant-e/report/00pdf/is-01e.pdf
Thanks for the correction. I tried to open that pdf already before but I didn't have Japanese fonts... :D

Craig John. Your Audessey post above is thoughtful and informative. However, like others I too have not been impressed with the various auto-equalization programs, Audessey being one of them, preferring instead to deal with room problems with treatments, speaker placement and multiple subs.

While the claims by Audessey of fixing anomolies in space and time are well marketed, if you step back and consider the magnitude of that objective, it seems to me that the processing power in any receiver/processer is woefully insufficient for the task. I understand Audessey has a Pro version which utilizes an outboard computer so that is a step in the right direction but again only goes part way to achieving the solution. The "fuzzy logic" they employ in their processing algorythm by definition contains many simplyifying assumptions about how to make the requisite iterative calculations, assumptions which are likely not be optimal for your particular listening room. In practice a patient enthusiast taking measurments and making adjustment to filters will likely get better results than the Audessey programs, at least I did when I used equalization more extensively.

Craig John. Your Audessey post above is thoughtful and informative. However, like others I too have not been impressed with the various auto-equalization programs, Audessey being one of them, preferring instead to deal with room problems with treatments, speaker placement and multiple subs.
Audyssey doesn't attempt to replace room treatments, speaker placement and multiple subs as ways to optimize the listening experience. In fact, they encourage room treatments. From their FAQ:
Q: Does MultEQ eliminate the need for acoustic treatment?
A: No. Although MultEQ will improve sound significantly in untreated rooms, a properly treated room calibrated with MultEQ can achieve stunning results throughout the listening area.
Also, Chris K is constantly trying to help people with their speaker placement and integration of multiple subs over in the "Official" thread. He encourages proper setup *before* implementation of Audyssey calibration/EQ.

While the claims by Audessey of fixing anomolies in space and time are well marketed, if you step back and consider the magnitude of that objective, it seems to me that the processing power in any receiver/processer is woefully insufficient for the task. I understand Audessey has a Pro version which utilizes an outboard computer so that is a step in the right direction but again only goes part way to achieving the solution. The "fuzzy logic" they employ in their processing algorythm by definition contains many simplyifying assumptions about how to make the requisite iterative calculations, assumptions which are likely not be optimal for your particular listening room. In practice a patient enthusiast taking measurments and making adjustment to filters will likely get better results than the Audessey programs, at least I did when I used equalization more extensively.
All I can tell you is my personal experience. I have eliminated my SMS-1 and turned off the ARO in my JL subs. Audyssey is the only EQ I use anymore. I have extensive bass trapping and acoustic treatment in my room. My results with Audyssey on top of the room treatments and multiple subs have been exceptional. I've also heard two other systems EQ'd with Audyssey and they sound similarly exceptional. I can only encourage you to give Audyssey another shot. There are lots of people who have been disappointed with their initial Audyssey experience. It is usually due to some inappropriate Bass Management settings invoked by the device manufacturer or some inadvertent misunderstanding of how to use the calibration system. If you follow the above referenced setup guidelines, I think you'll have a better experience with Audyssey.

(Sorry for the thread hijack.)

Craig

Sherv, I would encourage you to also to re-visit Audyssey. You too seem to have "blown it off" as useless. I have several friends who were initially put off by Audyssey calibrations until they followed the Audyssey setup guidelines. It's easy to misplace the test mic; (and mic position, especially the first mic position, but also the following mic positions, are *critical* to the effectiveness of the process.) Also, understanding the results of the calibration and appropriate action(s) are essential, (i.e., crossovers, distances settings, etc.)

The above referenced setup procedure will ensure that the system is utilized most effectively. If you follow the procedure carefully and are still "underwhelmed" by Audyssey, I would like to hear about it, as I'm sure would Chris K. in the "Official" thread:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=795421


Hi craig,

thanks for the link, and yeah, I've read the setup procedure posted by gio and follow the audyssey thread closely. As I said earlier, I can't comment on Audyssey MultiEQ XT since I have not tried it personally (I didn't engage it when I auditioned the Onkyo 885, which I regret), and from the look of things it does do a better job than MultiEQ.

Having said that, on MultiEQ alone, I have followed the procedure to a T, and beyond (I'm ultra anal like that if you haven't noticed:o ), and there is absolutely nothing it does under 25hz, procedure or no procedure. If I recall correctly, there were only 3 points of equalization under 80hz, nothing happening (F or T domain) below 25hz. Additionally, the limited correction on both the F and T domain caused very teeth grinding ringing on the bandpass, and almost no response below 20hz, as if it basically HP'd it!:eek:

Would it have been a bad implementation on the older 3806, I would have said ok, but similar results on the 4806, and the newer 5308 leads me to believe this is a problem inherently in the MultiEQ algorithm.

However, having said all this, I have heard great results on the MultiEQ XT (and Pro) versions, with apparently many more filter points in the low frequency domain. I personally have not tried it, and will not comment on it till I try it, but I will give it the benefit of the doubt for now. ;)

sorry for the Audyssey tangent

Craig,

Though I appreciate your new found exuberance for Audyssey products, I'm compelled to respond to some of your remarks.

First, I think you exaggerate my influence in your own mind. Even still, what good would any influence I might have be if it was based on me posting things that aren't really my opinions?

You asked me an off topic question. I answered it.

Second, I have never said Audyssey sucks.

When you say that you've shut off your ARO and SMS-1, aren't you, by your own translation of my posts, saying "they suck"? How is it that you reason that your posts have less influence where those manufacturers are concerned than my posts regarding the Equal Loudness Contours?

Anytime someone finds a new gadget and exclaims that it has affected 'exceptional' results, I look for any posted evidence to corroborate the statement.

If you had posted graphs of the ARO, with/without, the SMS-1, with/without and the new EQ, with/without, as well as listing the hardware components of your system, we all might learn a little about why you are so impressed with the differences.

This is indeed a blatant thread jack. The OP has attempted to come into his own thread to inform us that he has purchased his sonotubes and is now looking into what drivers to purchase, but that was more than a week ago.

I would say that your opinion regarding the OP's OP is that sealed is the way to go, based on your post above that tells me you have the JL Audio subs in your system. :)

Please start a thread. If there's interest, it will run its course.

I'm interested to know if and what Deep and old has decided to build and all of the details involved. The comment was made by Steve that because of the ELC a ported subwoofer is a better choice. I disagree with that thought. It had nothing to do with Audyssey, SMS-1, ARO or any other post EQ application.

Bosso

Ported+ More SPL therfore ported is better especially with a cylendrical enclosure, because the port will make the driver think that its in a bigger enclosure.

Deep and Old,

You still out there? Sorry that your thread got derailed and hi-jacked. I see that you are kind of new around here, so you probably did not know that your title for this thread is the worst one possible for you to have picked around these parts:o. This subject has been and is debated relentlessly on these forums and is guaranteed to cause collateral damage to any semblance of a straightforward discussion, as you've already seen I'm sure. Apologies...

Perhaps we can get things back on track if you are still interested in the original purpose of this thread...

I just revisited this thread and loved it! It didn't really answer my question, but did illuminate a number of issues, which I appreciated.

I regret I didn't know this was such a heated issue or I wouldn't have brought it up. However, I started down the audiophile path almost 20 years ago and found I could easily hear differences in sound quality. I was (naively) thinking that some kind of commonly accepted language had developed to help me and people similarly situated, back better decisions relative to their own musical/movie preferences.

I think it was Corey Greenburg of Stereophile who made the comment that he suspected that if the average audiophile was honest with themselves, they would prefer a slightly loose and fat bottom end.

Finally, I'm going to start a build thread on what I decided on and how I made my decisions.