Originally Posted by amirm
None of us have said which is "THE" product to use.
I apologize, that is the impression I get from your post, but it is somewhat understandable when you make statements such as
The only work-around I know is to use Keith's CFD simulation (tier 2 model) where he tells you the levels and phase for the sub in addition to actual placement of subs. Outside of that, you can play from here 'till end of the world and you may not better the results of SFM above.
I agree, you did not state SFM is the only solution, but you strongly imply that other than using another product you sell, there is no other way to come close to SFM (even though JBL's own data would suggest otherwise, even without the aid of DSP; i.e. getting close).
You lack sufficient data to make that statement.
Regarding data, are you suggesting it was unfair for me to reference JBL's own data? As I said JBS's own data
demo for 4 subs between non-SFM and SFM when just placing subs in no measured fashion was 1.6 dB, that is not a large discrepancy. Are you willing to argue that an individual through the use of DSP would not be able to improve on sub performance without SFM by at least 1 dB as compared to no "calibration" (and better sub placement) whatsoever? If they can, the difference under these circumstances is only .6 dB, virtually meaningless.
So you are claiming that you could manually get the above system to have +-1.5 db variations?
Sorry, but that is a misrepresentation of what I stated (or I think I stated
). I wrote that an individual with the use of a tool such as a DSP could be expected to be able to improve on a non-SFM
system by at least 1 dB. In that case, the difference between SFM and DSP would be .6 dB, not very meaningful.
You have been in this argument before. You should know the facts.
Yes, and the only manner in which I misstated the facts was to the benefit of SFM; i.e. the differences between 4 subs and non SFM and with SFM were slightly smaller (I said it was .4 higher, which would serve to benefit SFM's position).
Combined, the system above went from +- 6 db of variation to +- 2.5 db. That is a huge reduction before doing any EQ!
Do you have data you can point us to with rooms that have that kind of response? Do you have measurements of your room achieving that?
Again, in JBL's own demo, the difference between 4 randomly placed subs with SFM and without SFM was 1.6 dBs. Not a large discrepancy. An improvement? Yes, but 1.6 dBs between seats from an auditory perspective is not large, especially since one accounts for the fact that the 4 subs sans SFM could also be improved though DSP.
Every technique helps to get us to where we want to be: flat response. The less you ask the EQ to do, the better off you are.
Totally agree, and also agree that KY tool can also be a wonderful help.
SFM is the only automated tool of its type
In case I have not been clear enough (sometimes I think "clarity" requires that I bow to SFM
) I agree with you and Sanjay, SFM is the only automated
tool for that purpose and it is a useful tool. However (please note this caveat does not in any way invalidate the previous statement) SFM is not the only
tool through which acceptable results can be achieved (which you sometimes recognize by implication despite the other statements to the contrary).
Thebland, I realize that using JBL's own data may not be considered objective data by some
, but I thought it was reasonable in this case. Furthermore, I acknowledge that trying to use their data and actual numbers in the course of trying to make a logical argument may be seen by some as illogical
, I apologize, I shall refrain from further comment on this matter. I hope you are not feeling to down because you were not able to catch too many Theta fish.