Originally Posted by monomer
Congrats for you that's its so easy but unfortunately for me it wasn't. About 4 years ago I tried the BFD1124p in my system for about six months before removing it with the hopes of being able to use it with more success sometime later... two years later I sold it on eBay. I became disenchanted with it in the first month or two of struggling with it. I could flatten the in-room response to a +/-2dB in about 30-40 minutes but if you move the mic more than six inches in any direction that tolerance was gone... meaning a movement of my head by a similar amount also changed the FR heard... so that amount of flatness proved irrelavent and later determining the best filtering to employ across both seating rows in my theater was quite difficult when you include the weighting factors and reverberation times... you get one closer only to find you lose on the other. I wish I'd found it as easy as you say but sadly it just wasn't for me... and one of my degrees is in Applied Mathematics yet. The other issues I'd had were a slight hum (only heard within a foot or two of the sub) that turned out impossible for me to silence (and I threw quite a bit of money at it too) and an audible level of distortion that the BFD added. I wasn't the only one with these issues... if you search the shack for older threads you will find legions of us with these same issues. Many have gone the BFD/REW route in the past and some of us moved on due to such issues. This isn't about pitting one EQ system against the other and picking sides... this is a Rythmik thread... I was just trying to explain why my FR graph looked lumpy compared to some that lay flat as a snake. Its not that I can't produce that kind of a graph for a single position, its that its impossible to do for an area... for any EQ system. What I was trying to point out was the low reverberation times in the bass region as I believe that is the key to hearing and enjoying the satisfying articulate bass abilities from the Rythmiks. The tightness of my theater isn't so spectacular until you consider what I had to work with... its a sealed room and its in the basement so I got cement blocks for walls and a poured concrete floor... these surfaces have no give whatsoever to them and in a sealed room the bass frequencies bounce around like crazy and go on and on and on and on and... Rythmiks are amazingly tight on the high damp setting with virtually no overhang but to fully appreciate it you really need to showcase it in a very tight room as well. It will sound good enough in a 'loose' room but it really impresses in a room with low reverberation times. The point I was trying to make with those graphs was 'look how tight those Rythmiks can play'... you can't really see that in a loose room.
That's why i said for people who are technically inclined the bfd for 100 bucks maybe a good solution rather than spending 600-800 on a dedicated eq.
It is odd from what you are saying about the fr that you got a flat response and it changed drastically... here are my findings from manual bfd/rew method vs what svs did in my room.
SVS never acheieved flat response in my room i think what it does is avgs them from a derivative base of the fr curve and then uses that as the final curve.. i was somewhat able to replicate what svs did by taking 6 seperate measurements and using the peaks that were the greatest and taming them to a degree and some dips that i up'd (which svs rarely does it leaves the dip very dipped) and i was able to get a result that svs did close to i would say 85-90%. In fact in my room it was not able to do too much in time domain for me and my waterfall was worse than what it was with bfd/rew combo. I also found its timing only corrected the phase issue to some extent and it was the easiest thing that i liked about it... although i am told the new version of rew will have some provision of distance calculation that maybe able to help us with phase alignment.
Overall my point was for some svs is definitely a good piece of hardware and i would recommend to whoever doesn't want to spend time calibrating rew/bfd and manually eq-ing. I mean my living room is a mess right now with a tripod bfd sitting on the floor and i have hundreds of sweeps saved... it's turning out to be a viscous obsession.
I was not saying get svs its better or do rew/bfd its better... i think both are excellent solutions.. its almost like a DIY sub vs pre-made... i chose the pre-made because i did not want to spend time on building/assembling cabinetry and do the veneer myself and i think for me it was best solution... in the same sense the rew/bfd is probably a better solution for some than svs. I just provided my opinion on it.
Another funny thing is i had a hum from my f12... which i can defeat by using a cheater plug... but when i introduced the bfd... the hum is gone if i remove the cheater plug. I am probably going to change the cables from/to bfd to a different set and see if it makes a difference.
I did calibrate the paradigm with my system and oddly enough its phase setting is a lot different than the rythmik I am not sure why it would be so at the same time i think it may have to do with how the servo in rythmik works and makes it quicker.
After listening to both subs a/b wise it was almost very close the lower frequencies... the hulk's thumpy walking... hurt lockers 50mil they sounded very close to each other... i was hoping and anticipating i would have been able to go "oh that one is a lot better" but i found half the time i would play the scene 4-5 times to pick a vs b and it was almost 50/50 as in i picked sub 12 and then f12.
Also with sub 12 a bit more eq was required to make the sub 12 to be flat-ish... the rythmik required 3 less filters to make flat-ish... exact/same location same orientation and same spl set volume.
I am not convinced the a/b worked very well so i spent 6 hours listening to music a playlist i made with various sorts of music with bass.... then later i switched to a different sub (f12) and listened to the same music. I am reluctant to say i preferred the sound of f12 more... i maybe biased since i own the f12 but i found the f12 to be "too quick" compared to the paradigm. My friend who owns the f12 will be listening to the same two subs and a/b and i will post what he thinks.
To me personally at this point i am glad i got the f12 because for me personally it almost cost me 1/2 as much and im here nit picking between the two subs.. they are both great subs but one is slightly better than the other... they are not day and night different subs they are both quick but i found with a lot of music the bass was very well articulated with the f12. Paradigm was also but occasionally some bass notes got muddled together.
The reason i got the sub 12 in is as it was the sub i was going to buy but i changed my mind after i found rythmik's reputation here... i do need another sub for my 2ch room and i was going to get the f15 for my living room but since it is out of stock i thought i should compare the sub 12 since i have a chance and perhaps buy it.
One pro of the sub 12 is which i think everyone knows and is posted here as well is it gets a LOT louder and it has the capacity of pbk... so if you don't want to fiddle with the bfd you can buy the kit and press a few buttons and you are done. If you got f12 and a svs sub eq it i think is still cheaper than the sub 12.
My room is big and i am sitting in the worst possible location as you can see from the image up in my previous posts in this thread and f12 has no problem giving me bass... i don't turn my system up a lot so for me its perfect... the paradigm has lots of power... when i was listening to movies the spl peaked at 85db with all channels running in my listening position in the dialogue parts it was running at about 74-77db.
For music it was running approx 77-79 db. 2ch + sub only. Xover at 80hz for both and mains set to small.