Originally Posted by Tom Danley
Bosso asks I personally don't see how multiples will smooth the FR. Post EQ will be a must. Scaling the vertical to 5dB/division shows an awfully peaky anechoic response, IMO.
As to why your measurement has dropped about 15dB of level relative to the actual measurement, making it look more like a direct radiator in efficiency, is not clear.
+15 dB of efficiency or output is a noticeable amount fwiw.
Switching to a speaker with +15 greater sensitivity is somewhat like getting 12 times more power or output for free.
It is unfortunate you weren't able to get to the GTG that Brandon held to hear the TH-50 as describing things like headroom isn't the same as hearing it.
I apologize. I had a blank graph and scaled the response to it and pasted it. My concern isn't sensitivity, but FR, so the FR magnitude was not relevant to my point.
As far as a listening session where the sub peaks in excess of 130dB while swamping the mains, I don't think it was the merits of headroom that was being commented on. I've been around pro sound since my early teens and have had my bass mic'd through some rather large stacks of bins in football stadiums, so I'm sure I might imagine the scenario maybe better than you assume.
Flattening a bump with a cut filter buys headroom back for the same reason, same for a flatter or higher sensitivity response. Thus, two points of cut EQ and a low pass filter can make the anechoic response that is your concern, very satisfying visually.
Headroom in a very narrow band (PEQ cut) isn't headroom in a general sense. It doesn't allow you to increase playback levels any more than before the narrow band cut is applied.
If the DTS-10 has available output anywhere near what's being posted, headroom isn't the issue. In room response is.
In any case, I'm sure Josh and MK and other trustworthy sources will provide feedback that's more than adequate, and I look forward to it, for sure.
If that smooth appearance is the primary concern, then choosing an acoustically simpler cabinet which gives a very smooth curve anechoically would be the way to go, on the other hand, if you place one in a room all of that is over ridden by the room and then one which can be eq'd to the desired response may be more of a concern as well might be the total acoustic power if you happen to like dynamics..
Yes, I understand the basic principal. Take my room, where there just happens to be an 8dB peak at 53Hz that comes with the placement options. Using EQ or multiples of much smaller subs to deal with that is a manageable affair, but -20dB through EQ is not preferable to me and multiples of 25 cubes isn't practical, thus my post.
One popular way to get a very low advertised corner is to use a sealed box and EQ it flat to single digits.
Here, lets say the box's natural low corner was at 80Hz and you applied +12 dB per octave slope to 10Hz. Now, the EQ'd response would be flat to 10Hz and the problem is solved right?
If one drove the speaker with 1Watt at 80Hz, you would find it took 16 Watts to reach the same SPL at 40Hz, 256 Watts at 20Hz and 4096Watts to reach the same level at 10Hz.
AS a result, you run out of amplifier and output very quickly.
Building a sealed box with a low corner of 80Hz and applying boost EQ to make it anechoic flat to single digits has ever been popular around here and I'm fairly certain that you don't think so either.
I'm not attempting to compare a DTS-10 to anything else. I was only commenting on the 2 obvious down sides as I see them; size and anechoic response. There's little denying the size issue, at least in my case, and your answer to the response issue is a LP and PEQ. I appreciate the response and I look forward to seeing how it works out in some typical rooms.