Official JTR speaker thread - Page 1165 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!



Forum Jump: 
 6982Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #34921 of 35362 Old 05-13-2016, 03:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,175
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked: 398
I don't recognise this notion of an optimal IR, it just isn't the target. Correction systems seek to optimise the FR and PR of the system as a whole within the limits of the processing available whether that is computational power or latency or whatever. In the end this really just means amplitude and timing.

Some of the more manual (semi automated really) tools make this really explicit (acourate is one, drc-fir is another, not sure how much of this audiolense let's you control/see).
3ll3d00d is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #34922 of 35362 Old 05-13-2016, 08:45 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1013 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ll3d00d View Post
I don't recognise this notion of an optimal IR, it just isn't the target. Correction systems seek to optimise the FR and PR of the system as a whole within the limits of the processing available whether that is computational power or latency or whatever. In the end this really just means amplitude and timing.

Some of the more manual (semi automated really) tools make this really explicit (acourate is one, drc-fir is another, not sure how much of this audiolense let's you control/see).
It's very possible I have misunderstood something.
Check out page 5 & 6, though.
Aren't they talking about generating a mixed phase filter for optimal IR?
Yes of course the filter itself is amplitude and timing.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...correction.pdf
rcohen is online now  
post #34923 of 35362 Old 05-14-2016, 01:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,175
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
It's very possible I have misunderstood something.
Check out page 5 & 6, though.
Aren't they talking about generating a mixed phase filter for optimal IR?
Yes of course the filter itself is amplitude and timing.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...correction.pdf
I'm probably just being a bit pedantic, sorry

I think this quote on page 6 sums it up

Quote:
In a large well designed listening room the impulse response would preferably be nearly minimum-phase
i.e. the target is the minimum phase response meaning the removal of any and all excess phase. I guess you can refer to this is an "optimal IR" but it seems more informative/precise to me to describe the target as being the minimum phase response.
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #34924 of 35362 Old 05-14-2016, 08:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1013 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ll3d00d View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
It's very possible I have misunderstood something.
Check out page 5 & 6, though.
Aren't they talking about generating a mixed phase filter for optimal IR?
Yes of course the filter itself is amplitude and timing.

http://static1.squarespace.com/stati...correction.pdf
I'm probably just being a bit pedantic, sorry

I think this quote on page 6 sums it up

Quote:
In a large well designed listening room the impulse response would preferably be nearly minimum-phase
i.e. the target is the minimum phase response meaning the removal of any and all excess phase. I guess you can refer to this is an "optimal IR" but it seems more informative/precise to me to describe the target as being the minimum phase response.
By "excess phase" do you mean pre-ringing?
Or do you also mean minimal post-ringing?

I am interested in whether Dirac simply optimizes frequency response and timing, and the improved impulse response is a happy side effect, or if the impulse response is one of the optimization targets. My impression is the latter.

Certainly, a room (unlike an FIR filter) can't be influenced by future samples.

A room does transform the sound in complex ways that can't be inverted by IIR filters. At least that's my understanding. I'm not an expert. I'm just curious about this stuff, and I just know enough to be dangerous.
RMK! likes this.

Last edited by rcohen; 05-14-2016 at 08:42 AM.
rcohen is online now  
post #34925 of 35362 Old 05-14-2016, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,175
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
By "excess phase" do you mean pre-ringing?
Or do you also mean minimal post-ringing?
excess phase is just the phase shift that is over and above the shift associated with a minimum phase response (which will always exist as all speakers are bandpass devices).

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
I am interested in whether Dirac simply optimizes frequency response and timing, and the improved impulse response is a happy side effect, or if the impulse response is one of the optimization targets. My impression is the latter.
improved timing is the target, this is visible in the IR as that sharper initial spike and you'd see it even more clearly in the step response. For example red is an uncorrected 2 way and you can see the woofer lags behind the tweeter, corrected is in green and there is now a single arrival and then the desired gradual tail off (ignoring the room induced cruft in my case).



Improving an IR is not a target in itself, the target is improved timing and that improvement is something you can then see in an IR (because the IR is a plot of the response over time)
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image_56269.jpg
Views:	485
Size:	27.5 KB
ID:	1438634  
RMK! likes this.
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #34926 of 35362 Old 05-14-2016, 12:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RMK!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 95608
Posts: 7,671
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1437 Post(s)
Liked: 1245
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
By "excess phase" do you mean pre-ringing?
Or do you also mean minimal post-ringing?

I am interested in whether Dirac simply optimizes frequency response and timing, and the improved impulse response is a happy side effect, or if the impulse response is one of the optimization targets. My impression is the latter.

Certainly, a room (unlike an FIR filter) can't be influenced by future samples.

A room does transform the sound in complex ways that can't be inverted by IIR filters. At least that's my understanding. I'm not an expert. I'm just curious about this stuff, and I just know enough to be dangerous.
No need for the disclaimer Rob. You elevate the level of discourse on a regular basis and I'm sure more than just me appreciates that fact.
carp, rcohen and countryWV like this.

Opinions are not facts.
RMK! is offline  
post #34927 of 35362 Old 05-14-2016, 06:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1013 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ll3d00d View Post
excess phase is just the phase shift that is over and above the shift associated with a minimum phase response (which will always exist as all speakers are bandpass devices).


improved timing is the target, this is visible in the IR as that sharper initial spike and you'd see it even more clearly in the step response. For example red is an uncorrected 2 way and you can see the woofer lags behind the tweeter, corrected is in green and there is now a single arrival and then the desired gradual tail off (ignoring the room induced cruft in my case).



Improving an IR is not a target in itself, the target is improved timing and that improvement is something you can then see in an IR (because the IR is a plot of the response over time)
No doubt that improving group delay will improve impulse&step response, but why stop there? Especially considering that an FIR filter can manipulate min vs linear phase and timing independently.

Why do you suppose that Dirac does a much better job of improving impulse response than Audyssey? Audyssey also claims to correct group delay.
rcohen is online now  
post #34928 of 35362 Old 05-14-2016, 06:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1013 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
No need for the disclaimer Rob. You elevate the level of discourse on a regular basis and I'm sure more than just me appreciates that fact.
That's nice to hear.
I'd hate to accidentally present myself as something I'm not.
Other than that, I'm happy to be wrong and learn something.
rcohen is online now  
post #34929 of 35362 Old 05-15-2016, 04:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,175
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
No doubt that improving group delay will improve impulse&step response, but why stop there? Especially considering that an FIR filter can manipulate min vs linear phase and timing independently.
I don't know what you mean tbh, I could be wrong but it seems like you're treating things that are one and the same as separate things.

To recap, group delay is the (negative) derivative of the phase response and the step response is the integral of the impulse response (which is particularly useful because the IR is dominated by the HF response whereas the SR lets you see the contribution of each driver over time).

If you change the phase response, e.g. by correcting for some excess phase, then all of those things (group delay, IR, SR) change as one.

i.e. the why is "improve timing (aka make the speaker behave more like the ideal speaker", the how is "change the frequency response and/or phase response", the measured result is seen in those graphs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
Why do you suppose that Dirac does a much better job of improving impulse response than Audyssey? Audyssey also claims to correct group delay.
audyssey is a minimum phase correction tool with an anaemic target curve, dirac is a mixed phase solution with a user adjustable target curve (and that has a perfectly sensible default curve).
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #34930 of 35362 Old 05-15-2016, 06:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1013 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ll3d00d View Post
I don't know what you mean tbh, I could be wrong but it seems like you're treating things that are one and the same as separate things.

To recap, group delay is the (negative) derivative of the phase response and the step response is the integral of the impulse response (which is particularly useful because the IR is dominated by the HF response whereas the SR lets you see the contribution of each driver over time).

If you change the phase response, e.g. by correcting for some excess phase, then all of those things (group delay, IR, SR) change as one.

i.e. the why is "improve timing (aka make the speaker behave more like the ideal speaker", the how is "change the frequency response and/or phase response", the measured result is seen in those graphs.


audyssey is a minimum phase correction tool with an anaemic target curve, dirac is a mixed phase solution with a user adjustable target curve (and that has a perfectly sensible default curve).
Well, compare a min phase and a linear phase band pass filter. They change the signal over time in one way. Take those same filters and time shift them. That changes the signal in another way. This difference is only visible in the time domain, not the steady state frequency response. If you were to integrate this over every frequency, you could have 3 parameters at every frequency: filter magnitude, filter phase, and filter delay. Filter phase and filter delay are different!

Beyond that, you don't have to limit the filter shape to min or linear phase, or anywhere in between. An early reflection is different from a resonance, yet both of these can corrected with different filters (except for the case of complete cancellation). This difference is important even if they create a boost at the same frequency. An FIR filter is best suited for the early reflection, but an IIR filter can approximate it. An IIR filter is best suited for the resonance, but an FIR filter can approximate it.
rcohen is online now  
post #34931 of 35362 Old 05-15-2016, 06:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,175
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
Well, compare a min phase and a linear phase band pass filter. They change the signal over time in one way. Take those same filters and time shift them. That changes the signal in another way. This difference is only visible in the time domain, not the steady state frequency response. If you were to integrate this over every frequency, you could have 3 parameters at every frequency: filter magnitude, filter phase, and filter delay. Filter phase and filter delay are different!
a frequency specific "delay" is a phase shift, applying a delay to a filter as a whole is a different thing entirely. Non frequency specific delay is still a source of excess phase mind you. I'm not sure what your point is though, I don't think I've ever said they are *the same*.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
Beyond that, you don't have to limit the filter shape to min or linear phase, or anywhere in between. An early reflection is different from a resonance, yet both of these can corrected with different filters (except for the case of complete cancellation). This difference is important even if they create a boost at the same frequency. An FIR filter is best suited for the early reflection, but an IIR filter can approximate it. An IIR filter is best suited for the resonance, but an FIR filter can approximate it.
this is unrelated to the above point, not sure if you're confusing my point about the target being a minimum phase response and the filter used to get there (which won't be minimum phase unless the input is also minimum phase).

An FIR filter can do anything an IIR filter can and more, it's not an approximation unless you're resource constrained (e.g. latency, computational bandwidth) in which case IIR is the only realistic choice (atm anyway) for low frequency correction (or do something like audyssey does which splits the filter up into different pass bands at different sample rates). If you don't have those constraints (which means you're running on a PC basically) then you can simply do more to the signal (albeit you still may choose to use IIR for correcting LF modal peaks).
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #34932 of 35362 Old 05-15-2016, 06:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1013 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ll3d00d View Post
a frequency specific "delay" is a phase shift, applying a delay to a filter as a whole is a different thing entirely.
Yes, I'm talking about the distinction between delay and phase in a filter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ll3d00d View Post
this is unrelated to the above point, not sure if you're confusing my point about the target being a minimum phase response and the filter used to get there (which won't be minimum phase unless the input is also minimum phase).

An FIR filter can do anything an IIR filter can and more, it's not an approximation unless you're resource constrained (e.g. latency, computational bandwidth) in which case IIR is the only realistic choice (atm anyway) for low frequency correction (or do something like audyssey does which splits the filter up into different pass bands at different sample rates). If you don't have those constraints (which means you're running on a PC basically) then you can simply do more to the signal (albeit you still may choose to use IIR for correcting LF modal peaks).
Agreed.
rcohen is online now  
post #34933 of 35362 Old 05-15-2016, 11:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RMK!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 95608
Posts: 7,671
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1437 Post(s)
Liked: 1245
This is an interesting discussion that I get maybe 10% of the time (Squirrel !!!).

The more I read about EQ, the less I want to get any deeper than I currently am. If a Dirac AV unit come along with savable pre-sets and can do min 11 Atmos (et al) channels then I would be inclined to try it out. In the meantime, Audyssey Pro seems more my speed. I have owned 2 of those units and found them mildly interesting. If anyone wants to part with theirs let me know ... third time's the charm.
nash23 likes this.

Opinions are not facts.
RMK! is offline  
post #34934 of 35362 Old 05-15-2016, 09:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HTPCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Citrus Heights, CA
Posts: 1,600
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 226 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
This is an interesting discussion that I get maybe 10% of the time (Squirrel !!!).

The more I read about EQ, the less I want to get any deeper than I currently am. If a Dirac AV unit come along with savable pre-sets and can do min 11 Atmos (et al) channels then I would be inclined to try it out. In the meantime, Audyssey Pro seems more my speed. I have owned 2 of those units and found them mildly interesting. If anyone wants to part with theirs let me know ... third time's the charm.
I wouldn't mind sharing mine with you and then you only need to purchase the license for the Marantz. This way you save some $ and i get an excuse to come over to listen to your great system.

HTPCat
"I have a need to feed the hole with more Audio & Video toys"

Last edited by HTPCat; 05-15-2016 at 10:39 PM.
HTPCat is offline  
post #34935 of 35362 Old 05-16-2016, 06:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RMK!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 95608
Posts: 7,671
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1437 Post(s)
Liked: 1245
Quote:
Originally Posted by HTPCat View Post
I wouldn't mind sharing mine with you and then you only need to purchase the license for the Marantz. This way you save some $ and i get an excuse to come over to listen to your great system.
That sounds like a plan . I'm sticking with Audyssey and the Marantz for the foreseeable so I might as well have the adjustment capability that Pro offers. Be good to do a comparative of our Atmos setups anyway ... right?
HTPCat likes this.

Opinions are not facts.
RMK! is offline  
post #34936 of 35362 Old 05-16-2016, 07:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
rcohen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 2,543
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1013 Post(s)
Liked: 397
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
This is an interesting discussion that I get maybe 10% of the time (Squirrel !!!).

The more I read about EQ, the less I want to get any deeper than I currently am. If a Dirac AV unit come along with savable pre-sets and can do min 11 Atmos (et al) channels then I would be inclined to try it out. In the meantime, Audyssey Pro seems more my speed. I have owned 2 of those units and found them mildly interesting. If anyone wants to part with theirs let me know ... third time's the charm.
I had Audyssey Pro (XT32) before Dirac. I thought it was an improvement over stock Audyssey, but the biggest problem I had with it was the slower iteration time. At least on my Onkyo processor, there was a bug that prevented you from getting predictable results unless you remeasure every time. It would scramble the crossovers and delay and generate filters with the wrong crossovers and delays. The work around was to remeasure every time.

I could get decent results, but it would take about 20 minutes every time I tried a different target curve, and there was no method to A/B compare. The best I could get from it in practice was to disable the notch filter and pick my favorite built-in curve. Dirac, on the other hand had about a 1 minute iteration time, with instant A/B/C/D comparisons.

It's hard to say how much of the Dirac improvements I found was due to the underlying technology and how much was due to the ability to dial in the target curve. I'd guess 75% target curve and 25% better tech.

That said, for 11 channels, you'd need 2x DDRC-88As or a complex setup that routes 16 channels into a PC along with a 16 channel Dirac license (if that's available - not sure.) Of course there's the Datasat route for crazy money. The 2xDDRC-88A still seems like the only somewhat practical option, which is nuts.

I still think most enthusiasts need more control over the response curve than you get from crossover + sub level with Audyssey. Some Audyssey processors may provide for that - just none I've owned. I'm not sure of a good, practical way to add that for 11 channels.
rcohen is online now  
post #34937 of 35362 Old 05-16-2016, 11:08 AM
Point Source
 
beastaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western NC
Posts: 11,137
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2958 Post(s)
Liked: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post
This is an interesting discussion that I get maybe 10% of the time (Squirrel !!!).

The more I read about EQ, the less I want to get any deeper than I currently am. If a Dirac AV unit come along with savable pre-sets and can do min 11 Atmos (et al) channels then I would be inclined to try it out. In the meantime, Audyssey Pro seems more my speed. I have owned 2 of those units and found them mildly interesting. If anyone wants to part with theirs let me know ... third time's the charm.
11 channels? hmmm, Target curve? hmmmm. Because of this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcohen View Post
It's hard to say how much of the Dirac improvements I found was due to the underlying technology and how much was due to the ability to dial in the target curve. I'd guess 75% target curve and 25% better tech.
Given a thought about the anthem/ARC option? target curve manipulation and 11 channels of correction, and great reviews from most that have transitioned from audyssey products. I want to try it out in the very near future....
NWCgrad and countryWV like this.
beastaudio is online now  
post #34938 of 35362 Old 05-16-2016, 11:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,175
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post
11 channels? hmmm, Target curve? hmmmm. Because of this:



Given a thought about the anthem/ARC option? target curve manipulation and 11 channels of correction, and great reviews from most that have transitioned from audyssey products. I want to try it out in the very near future....
ARC lets you change the frequency at which you stop correcting and some tweaks to bass levels. It doesn't have an actual curve editor though (and AFAIK it's actual curve is a flat line to 5kHz which may not be a good idea depending on your setup).
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #34939 of 35362 Old 05-16-2016, 12:33 PM
Point Source
 
beastaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western NC
Posts: 11,137
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2958 Post(s)
Liked: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ll3d00d View Post
ARC lets you change the frequency at which you stop correcting and some tweaks to bass levels. It doesn't have an actual curve editor though (and AFAIK it's actual curve is a flat line to 5kHz which may not be a good idea depending on your setup).
You can create a curve well enough with your EQ cutoff point and the additional control. Not like dirac, but you can get pretty close.
beastaudio is online now  
post #34940 of 35362 Old 05-16-2016, 01:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RMK!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 95608
Posts: 7,671
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1437 Post(s)
Liked: 1245
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post
11 channels? hmmm, Target curve? hmmmm. Because of this:



Given a thought about the anthem/ARC option? target curve manipulation and 11 channels of correction, and great reviews from most that have transitioned from audyssey products. I want to try it out in the very near future....
Nope, the next gen D&M and Emotiva are the only SSP's on my radar but if the Anthem unit can meet my requirements, and it's been proven reliable, it will be considered.

Opinions are not facts.
RMK! is offline  
post #34941 of 35362 Old 05-16-2016, 01:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
3ll3d00d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: London, UK
Posts: 2,175
Mentioned: 45 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1185 Post(s)
Liked: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post
You can create a curve well enough with your EQ cutoff point and the additional control. Not like dirac, but you can get pretty close.
for bass maybe but I wouldn't call it close as a whole, I guess whether it is close enough in practice just depends on the system and your preference though.
HTPCat likes this.
3ll3d00d is online now  
post #34942 of 35362 Old 05-16-2016, 02:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
N8DOGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,885
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 828 Post(s)
Liked: 889
I had a chance to check out a Anthem AV60 vs the Marantz 8802A about 2 weeks after getting my 7702.
I was really thinking about the Anthem but side by side in the same room after running the calibrations, none of us could really tell much, if any difference.... That could be a number of things of course but the lack of true dual sub outputs on the Anthem, sealed the deal for me 100%.
RMK! likes this.

Blasting brown notes for 10 years and counting!

N8DOGG is online now  
post #34943 of 35362 Old 05-16-2016, 10:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
RMK!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 95608
Posts: 7,671
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1437 Post(s)
Liked: 1245
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmedreda View Post

I am adding this to my list of demo titles. Sounds great and very dynamic on my JTR speakers (-7.5 MV). It is a little expensive because it has been out of production for sometime.
+1

I picked up a copy this week and it is a terrific demo disk.

Opinions are not facts.
RMK! is offline  
post #34944 of 35362 Old 05-16-2016, 11:38 PM
Member
 
man's's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 92
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 68 Post(s)
Liked: 22
Now i know why this jtr thread is very active..u guys discuss everything here
dwaleke likes this.
man's is offline  
post #34945 of 35362 Old 05-17-2016, 06:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Seaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 6,475
Mentioned: 31 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 422 Post(s)
Liked: 1046
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmedreda View Post

I am adding this to my list of demo titles. Sounds great and very dynamic on my JTR speakers (-7.5 MV). It is a little expensive because it has been out of production for sometime.
I caught this post in a quick scan of things and I wanted to thank you for reminding me this was put to Bluray. This was one of the early demos I remember using in the audio store Jeff & I both worked at years before Seaton Sound and JTR came to be. We had a D-VHS version of this being demonstrated on some of the early Hi-Def Vidikron and AmPro projectors. The scene where you are in the car with Mario Andretti is still one of my favorite demos with very high level engine noise in the surrounds and those fun pops as he flies through the underpasses. I quickly snagged a used version. Here's hoping its in good enough shape for a clean rip to the PC.

Mark Seaton
Seaton Sound, Inc.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood..." Daniel H. Burnham
Mark Seaton is online now  
post #34946 of 35362 Old 05-17-2016, 09:35 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RMK!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 95608
Posts: 7,671
Mentioned: 38 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1437 Post(s)
Liked: 1245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post
I caught this post in a quick scan of things and I wanted to thank you for reminding me this was put to Bluray. This was one of the early demos I remember using in the audio store Jeff & I both worked at years before Seaton Sound and JTR came to be. We had a D-VHS version of this being demonstrated on some of the early Hi-Def Vidikron and AmPro projectors. The scene where you are in the car with Mario Andretti is still one of my favorite demos with very high level engine noise in the surrounds and those fun pops as he flies through the underpasses. I quickly snagged a used version. Here's hoping its in good enough shape for a clean rip to the PC.
The bluray transfer is quite good. As for the audio, I kept it to -15 out of deference to the wife but I could tell the system really wanted to go louder.
Mark Seaton likes this.

Opinions are not facts.
RMK! is offline  
post #34947 of 35362 Old 05-17-2016, 12:44 PM
Point Source
 
beastaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western NC
Posts: 11,137
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2958 Post(s)
Liked: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3ll3d00d View Post
for bass maybe but I wouldn't call it close as a whole, I guess whether it is close enough in practice just depends on the system and your preference though.
And room as well. You can use the standard room gain to your advantage a little more with the ability to bring the EQing cutoff freq. down much lower.
beastaudio is online now  
post #34948 of 35362 Old 05-18-2016, 05:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Reefdvr27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cape May, NJ (South Jersey)
Posts: 4,281
Mentioned: 52 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1486 Post(s)
Liked: 982
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahmedreda View Post

I am adding this to my list of demo titles. Sounds great and very dynamic on my JTR speakers (-7.5 MV). It is a little expensive because it has been out of production for sometime.
Great, I have not been on here in a week and I pop in for a minute and it already cost me $40 bucks. I am going to save some money and come back next week
RMK!, NWCgrad and countryWV like this.
Reefdvr27 is offline  
post #34949 of 35362 Old 05-18-2016, 12:08 PM
AVS Special Member
 
desertdome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Elkhorn, NE
Posts: 2,993
Mentioned: 131 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 897 Post(s)
Liked: 956
Ordered 3 Noesis 212HTR's, 4 Slant 8's, and 2 Orbit Shifter LSU's for a new Omaha theater (for someone else).
HTPCat, asoofi1, countryWV and 2 others like this.

High Impact AV
- ISF Level II Video Calibrator, THX-HAA Level III Audio Designer/Calibrator
- Colorimetry Research CR-250 Spectroradiometer & CR-100 Colorimeter
- Murideo Fresco SIX-G/SIX-A Generator/Analyzer (HDMI 2.x, HDR, UHD)
- ACO Pacific and Earthworks Class 1 microphones
desertdome is online now  
post #34950 of 35362 Old 05-18-2016, 12:20 PM
Point Source
 
beastaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western NC
Posts: 11,137
Mentioned: 210 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2958 Post(s)
Liked: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdome View Post
Ordered 3 Noesis 212HTR's, 4 Slant 8's, and 2 Orbit Shifter LSU's for a new Omaha theater (for someone else).
Is that the Louisiana State University version of the Orbit Shifter? Is Mike the Tiger painted on the side or something?
carp, NWCgrad, countryWV and 1 others like this.
beastaudio is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

Tags
215RT , 228ht , captivator , Jtr , Jtr Noesis 212ht 212ht Lp , noesis



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off