Official JTR speaker thread - Page 445 - 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: 
 7317Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #13321 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 08:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jlpowell84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 6,299
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1493 Post(s)
Liked: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

No. You have to measure the SPL with an accurate meter while running the AVR test tones. The difference between 75 dB and your measured SPL is the offset on the MV control that will give you reference level.

So if trim is a minus 12 and SPL measurement reads 82, then -7 on the MV control will give you reference.

Also, the other speakers in your system with different sensitivities, if they're not maxed out, would need to be adjusted 7 dB higher to compensate.

Ok I see that. But if a 212 maxes out Audyssey at -15 then we need the attueners or just set RLO to -10? Sorry for not quite seeing the whole picture here
jlpowell84 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #13322 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 09:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,622
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2212 Post(s)
Liked: 1510
RLO of -10 was given only as an example.

Once you understand what's going on the numbers will make sense.

When Audyssey measures the SPL at the MLP it attempts to set the AVR individual speaker gains at the MLP to 75 dB. Due to amp gains designed for relatively insensitive speakers, the AVR speaker trims will be significantly negative with highly sensitive speakers. If the required trim reduction is beyond the available range of the AVR, Audyssey simply sets the trims to full stop(typically -12 dB to -15 dB) and calls it a day. The problem is if Audyssey sets to an AVR maximum of -12 dB, then we don't know what level it really wanted to set. So that value could have been -13 dB or -18 dB, we don't know.

So lets apply that example. If we leave the trims maxed out after an Audyssey calibration and then measure the SPL of the AVR speaker test tones at the MLP we can determine where Audyssey would have set the trims. If 80 dB is measured at the MLP then Audyssey really wanted to set the AVR trim to -17, but couldn't. So we now have a number to use to either choose an attenuator or set the RLO. What we know is because the trim should be set at -17 dB, but Audyssey could only set it to -12 dB, the speaker will be 5 dB too loud when the MV control is at 0.

If you want to use RLO, then we need to decrease the MV control by -5 dB to compensate. That would give reference level volume at a MV set at -5 dB for those speakers. But if you also have less sensitive speakers in your system that were set by Audyssey correctly within the adjustment range of the AVR, then they will be 5 dB under reference with the MV at -5 dB. So those trims need to be adjusted 5 dB louder to compensate.

If you're feeding an external amp and want to use attenuators at the line level, then you just need to select an attenuator, -5 dB in this case, so the line level input is reduced 5 dB into the amp. Then, when Audyssey measures it will set the speaker trim to -12. No compensation of other speakers would be required and reference level would be at 0 on the MV control. Typically, you wouldn't want to cut it that close, so if a -10 dB attenuator were used Audyssey would set the AVR trim to -7 dB (-17 dB + 10 dB = -7 dB).

I know you're already aware of much of the info above, but not sure where the confusion lies so just trying to be complete. Hope that helps.
PeterK likes this.
Gooddoc is online now  
post #13323 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Reefdvr27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cape May, NJ (South Jersey)
Posts: 4,360
Mentioned: 54 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1542 Post(s)
Liked: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post

That's what I do, I don't use audyssey but I do have to use -10 as my 0 (reference) and that's with my LCR speaker trims at -9.5!!! Crazy how efficient these speakers are.
Yeah, my 212's are trimmed at -10.5 cannot wait to see what happens when I put them in my small theater eek.gif
Reefdvr27 is offline  
post #13324 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 10:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jlpowell84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 6,299
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1493 Post(s)
Liked: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

RLO of -10 was given only as an example.

Once you understand what's going on the numbers will make sense.

When Audyssey measures the SPL at the MLP it attempts to set the AVR individual speaker gains at the MLP to 75 dB. Due to amp gains designed for relatively insensitive speakers, the AVR speaker trims will be significantly negative with highly sensitive speakers. If the required trim reduction is beyond the available range of the AVR, Audyssey simply sets the trims to full stop(typically -12 dB to -15 dB) and calls it a day. The problem is if Audyssey sets to an AVR maximum of -12 dB, then we don't know what level it really wanted to set. So that value could have been -13 dB or -18 dB, we don't know.

So lets apply that example. If we leave the trims maxed out after an Audyssey calibration and then measure the SPL of the AVR speaker test tones at the MLP we can determine where Audyssey would have set the trims. If 80 dB is measured at the MLP then Audyssey really wanted to set the AVR trim to -17, but couldn't. So we now have a number to use to either choose an attenuator or set the RLO. What we know is because the trim should be set at -17 dB, but Audyssey could only set it to -12 dB, the speaker will be 5 dB too loud when the MV control is at 0.

If you want to use RLO, then we need to decrease the MV control by -5 dB to compensate. That would give reference level volume at a MV set at -5 dB for those speakers. But if you also have less sensitive speakers in your system that were set by Audyssey correctly within the adjustment range of the AVR, then they will be 5 dB under reference with the MV at -5 dB. So those trims need to be adjusted 5 dB louder to compensate.

If you're feeding an external amp and want to use attenuators at the line level, then you just need to select an attenuator, -5 dB in this case, so the line level input is reduced 5 dB into the amp. Then, when Audyssey measures it will set the speaker trim to -12. No compensation of other speakers would be required and reference level would be at 0 on the MV control. Typically, you wouldn't want to cut it that close, so if a -10 dB attenuator were used Audyssey would set the AVR trim to -7 dB (-17 dB + 10 dB = -7 dB).

I know you're already aware of much of the info above, but not sure where the confusion lies so just trying to be complete. Hope that helps.

I certainly appreciate your help. I understand everything you have said here. The confusion for me lies in that I listen at -15 because my room is so small. We had just went through a reference level offset discussion on another thread I can't remember. I do not use reference level offset because I came to the understanding that it will decrease the bass. Anyway some people said they use it for music but not movies. Which makes no sense for me because I jack up the bass for music but turn it down to flat or plus 3DB for movies. I kind of understand what it does but I just don't see it in use to the relation of speaker sensitivity and Audyssey trim levels. Perhaps using the attueners would be the way to go for me. I'm sure 10 to 12 dB attueners would be perfect.
jlpowell84 is offline  
post #13325 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 10:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,622
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2212 Post(s)
Liked: 1510
With a properly calibrated system the size of the room will have very little to do with loudness. That's the reason we calibrate smile.gif.

As to bass being less with RLO in the context of our conversation, it doesn't happen. Don't forget, the AVR sub trim levels also have to be adjusted louder by the same amount of the RLO. Using my prior example, the sub trims would need to be raised 5 dB. Once that is done there is absolutely no difference between attenuators at MV setting of 0 and a RLO of -5 dB as in the example. Both are identical reference levels - bass and all.

Now don't confuse the RLO we've been discussing here with the RLO discussed in the Audyssey thread where you're listening at a level BELOW reference. Remember, when the RLO "fix" has been applied as in my example, -5 dB on the MV control IS reference! If you want to listen at -15 dB below reference, the MV control would have to be at -20dB. The entire MV control scale has been shifted 5 dB.

Now, with RLO in the context of listening to soundtracks below reference you will run into the problem of the perception of less bass in relation to the treble as you get farther from reference due to the fact that the ear's sensitivity to bass decreases at a faster rate than treble as volume decreases. Audyssey has an RLO algorithm to increase the relative bass level as the volume is decreasing away from reference to compensate for this and allow below reference listening to be as balanced as reference level listening. What that -5 dB "Audyssey RLO" is doing is saying, "I listen at 5 dB below reference and I want the bass to treble balance to be the same at a MV of - 5 dB as it is at MV of 0 dB reference".

The RLO we were talking about is saying, "I want - 5 dB on the MV control to BE reference". Applying the -5 dB "Audyssey RLO" to this situation would be to say, "I listen at 5 dB below reference, or -10 dB on the MV control, and I want the bass to treble balance to be the same at a MV of -10 dB as it is at -5 dB reference"

Two different things though.
Gooddoc is online now  
post #13326 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 11:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jlpowell84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 6,299
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1493 Post(s)
Liked: 667
Also I do +3db for movies, and +6-12db for music. I have a 6db 100-30 hz house curve and PGM 2 on the dual Submersives applied which gives +3db 45hz and below. And I use dynamic EQ.

Do you think a treated room has the most effect in smaller rooms and being able to listen closer to reference? I mean I am 9ft from LR mains and there is no way in hell my wife and I could listen at reference. -15 is pretty dang loud! I did watch oblivion on a seven channel JTR system ( 8ft from mains) at -5. But that room was treated entirely and thoroughly with GIK acoustic treatments. Or is it perhaps the speakers and running into distortion creating a more perceived loudness? Pretty soon I will have the upgrade kits for my Triple 8's and the same BMS high-frequency driver used in Jeff's current speakers. Besides the 212 of course. When March rolls around I will be getting 3 to 212's for the front soundstage and move my Triple 8's to surrounds. Would you tell me what your exact prescription would be for that setup and calibration in relation to what we have been discussing? Any other info about my system that you need to know? I just want to be prepared and ready for the high sensitivity of the JTR speakers and calibrating with Audyssey. I do connect to my external amp it is the Sherborn PA 7350. I am pretty sure The fixed game is at 29 db.
jlpowell84 is offline  
post #13327 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RMK!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 95608
Posts: 7,751
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1508 Post(s)
Liked: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

With a properly calibrated system the size of the room will have very little to do with loudness. That's the reason we calibrate smile.gif.

As to bass being less with RLO in the context of our conversation, it doesn't happen. Don't forget, the AVR sub trim levels also have to be adjusted louder by the same amount of the RLO. Using my prior example, the sub trims would need to be raised 5 dB. Once that is done there is absolutely no difference between attenuators at MV setting of 0 and a RLO of -5 dB as in the example. Both are identical reference levels - bass and all.

Now don't confuse the RLO we've been discussing here with the RLO discussed in the Audyssey thread where you're listening at a level BELOW reference. Remember, when the RLO "fix" has been applied as in my example, -5 dB on the MV control IS reference! If you want to listen at -15 dB below reference, the MV control would have to be at -20dB. The entire MV control scale has been shifted 5 dB.

Now, with RLO in the context of listening to soundtracks below reference you will run into the problem of the perception of less bass in relation to the treble as you get farther from reference due to the fact that the ear's sensitivity to bass decreases at a faster rate than treble as volume decreases. Audyssey has an RLO algorithm to increase the relative bass level as the volume is decreasing away from reference to compensate for this and allow below reference listening to be as balanced as reference level listening. What that -5 dB "Audyssey RLO" is doing is saying, "I listen at 5 dB below reference and I want the bass to treble balance to be the same at a MV of - 5 dB as it is at MV of 0 dB reference".

The RLO we were talking about is saying, "I want - 5 dB on the MV control to BE reference". Applying the -5 dB "Audyssey RLO" to this situation would be to say, "I listen at 5 dB below reference, or -10 dB on the MV control, and I want the bass to treble balance to be the same at a MV of -10 dB as it is at -5 dB reference"

Two different things though.

Well done professor ... you give good explanations ... tongue.gifwink.gif

Opinions are not facts.
RMK! is offline  
post #13328 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 01:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Frohlich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 3,305
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1070 Post(s)
Liked: 956
Anybody on this thread every play around with LPCM versus Bistream from their blu ray player. I had always assumed they sound identical but that has not been my experience. I have tinkered around the last few days and LPCM seems to be more dynamic and have better definition...incuding with the bass. I thought maybe it was just an output thing where the bitstream audio might be lower DB and if I played with the volume nob it would equal things out but it doesn't seem to. Could it be with LPCM the decoding in my Oppo players is superior to the decoding with bitstream in my Marantz pre/pro? Any thoughts? Anybody have similar experiences? Is it all just the voices in my head convincing me of something that isn't really there?
Frohlich is online now  
post #13329 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 01:42 PM
Point Source
 
beastaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western NC
Posts: 11,340
Mentioned: 218 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3097 Post(s)
Liked: 2553
Certainly not those dudes in your head bro! The two units are going to decode the audio in the same fashion, but the dacs will handle it differently. Neither of the ways you are sending the signal are bad, as the Marantz and oppo both are no slouches when it comes to their processing of the signal! Use whichever you prefer more smile.gif
beastaudio is offline  
post #13330 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 05:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,622
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2212 Post(s)
Liked: 1510
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

Well done professor ... you give good explanations ... tongue.gifwink.gif

Well, thank-you for the kind words!
Gooddoc is online now  
post #13331 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 07:30 PM
AVS Special Member
 
HTPCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Citrus Heights, CA
Posts: 1,734
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 302 Post(s)
Liked: 201
Quote:
Originally Posted by JF56 View Post

Hello, this my first post to AVS. Spoke to Jeff and he suggested I post here in hopes of finding someone in the LA area who might be willing to give me a listen. This is perhaps the strangest thing I have ever done but after reading 50 pages of the jtr forum I can't help myself. Live in the coastal region (90275) and am willing to drive as far as vegas or sacramento. You guys have amazing systems! Never knew anything like this existed outside a movie theater.  Almost bought some tekton speakers because they play to 120 db but then found jtr & seaton a couple weeks ago online. Beleive I've read everything i could find on jtr. Currenlty have mid level yamaha avr, emotiva 5 x 200 amp which is probably overkill with active subs in all 5 speakers, definitive technologies st8080 L & R, 8080 center, older def tech 8040 towers in the rear,one svs pb13 ultra sub. 70/30 movie/music. Any help appreciated!

Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post


Hey JF56, a JTR demo is only a drive to Sacramento away. Of course Southwest would be cheaper and faster but it's your time/money. wink.gif

You can stop by my house just before you go to RMKs so you can get an idea of a small system (T12s LCR, DefTech ProMonitor 1000s Surrounds & 2 Seaton HP Subs and then RMKs awesome system. We are only 4 miles apart cool.gif

HTPCat
"I have a need to feed the hole with more Audio & Video toys"
HTPCat is offline  
post #13332 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 08:32 PM
AVS Special Member
 
N8DOGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,971
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Liked: 948
So Jeff sent me a pic of my new center! He said he's working on the xover and I should have it pretty soon. For those who don't know, it's uses the pro Noesis's 10" drivers and is custom made to fit under my screen.


Blasting brown notes for 10 years and counting!

N8DOGG is online now  
post #13333 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 09:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jbrown15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vancouver B.C.
Posts: 8,560
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2522 Post(s)
Liked: 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

So Jeff sent me a pic of my new center! He said he's working on the xover and I should have it pretty soon. For those who don't know, it's uses the pro Noesis's 10" drivers and is custom made to fit under my screen.


Wow, that thing looks awesome! eek.gif
jbrown15 is offline  
post #13334 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 09:39 PM
Troll
 
ufokillerz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NYC Area
Posts: 1,560
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

So Jeff sent me a pic of my new center! He said he's working on the xover and I should have it pretty soon. For those who don't know, it's uses the pro Noesis's 10" drivers and is custom made to fit under my screen.


wow that is nice! is the horn slightly smaller then the 212? or is it the same size?
ufokillerz is offline  
post #13335 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 09:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
N8DOGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,971
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Liked: 948
Same horn as the other Noesis, just 10's instead of 12's and a bit different sized cab. Jeff emaid me tonight and said " you don't wanna know how many hours I have in the xover" tongue.gif Although I kind of feel guilty, thats fades away once I realize that I've spent over 10K with another big chuck to come! LOL

Blasting brown notes for 10 years and counting!

N8DOGG is online now  
post #13336 of 35900 Old 12-05-2013, 10:28 PM
Member
 
L0nestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 19


 You guys think acoustics will be an issue in this room? LCR all 228s with a Cap 2400.

I have some Jamo's in there now and I think that the far wall is turning the room into an amphitheater.....or bullhorn....lol.


Maximum Un-Intelligence.
L0nestar is offline  
post #13337 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 05:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Frohlich's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 3,305
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1070 Post(s)
Liked: 956
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

So Jeff sent me a pic of my new center! He said he's working on the xover and I should have it pretty soon. For those who don't know, it's uses the pro Noesis's 10" drivers and is custom made to fit under my screen.


Very nice. Do you happen to know the dimensions. I need a smaller center channel then the Noesis 212 when/if I upgrade in the future and wonder if that woud fit the bill for me as well.
Frohlich is online now  
post #13338 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 05:20 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,622
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2212 Post(s)
Liked: 1510
Quote:
Originally Posted by L0nestar View Post





 You guys think acoustics will be an issue in this room? LCR all 228s with a Cap 2400.


I have some Jamo's in there now and I think that the far wall is turning the room into an amphitheater.....or bullhorn....lol.

In my experience, all rooms are acoustic problems. Yours is no exception biggrin.gif
Gooddoc is online now  
post #13339 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 06:00 AM
AVS Special Member
 
popalock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 4,933
Mentioned: 128 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1229 Post(s)
Liked: 1700
Send a message via Skype™ to popalock
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

Now, with RLO in the context of listening to soundtracks below reference you will run into the problem of the perception of less bass in relation to the treble as you get farther from reference due to the fact that the ear's sensitivity to bass decreases at a faster rate than treble as volume decreases.   Audyssey has an RLO algorithm to increase the relative bass level as the volume is decreasing away from reference to compensate for this and allow below reference listening to be as balanced as reference  level listening.  What that -5 dB "Audyssey RLO" is doing is saying, "I listen at 5 dB below reference and I want the bass to treble balance to be the same at a MV of - 5 dB as it is at MV of 0 dB reference".

 

The RLO we were talking about is saying, "I want - 5 dB on the MV control to BE reference".  Applying the -5 dB "Audyssey RLO" to this situation would be to say, "I listen at 5 dB below reference, or -10 dB on the MV control, and I want the bass to treble balance to be the same at a MV of -10 dB as it is at -5 dB reference"

 

Two different things though.

 

Interesting.  I agree with the overall point you are trying to make, but I do not agree with the part of your comment that I bolded above.  I haven't owned an AVR with Audyssey, but I've heard a lot about "Dynamic EQ" and "Reference Level Offset."  However, I never really took the time to look a little deeper until now.  Here is what I did to put Gooddoc's feedback into context.  Let's take a quick look at the equal loudness contour.

 

EqualLoudnessContour_zpse883db30.jpg

 

Keep in mind that the premise of this study is our "perception" of equal loudness.  Let's use the 70db line for reference.  According to the study, it takes 105db at 20Hz to equal the same perceived loudness of 1kHz at 70db.  That's a 35db difference!  Go down to the next line (60db) and it takes 100db (-5db) at 20Hz to equal the same loudness of 1kHz at 60db.  So a -10db reduction at 1kHz, but only a -5db at 20Hz would yield the same perception of "equal loudness."  This would imply that our ear's sensitivity decreases at a slower rate in the bass range from a perception stand point relative to the upper end of the frequency range, but since our AVR's decrease volume in a linear scale, adjusting the MV down 10db would mean we were -5db from where we would want to be at 20Hz.  Does that make sense? 

 

So my counter to the bold part of your comment above would be:

 

1.  Our ear's sensitivity to bass decreases at a slower rate than treble as the volume decreases, thus the need for DEQ/RLO to scale MV adjustment in favor of bass response.

Or

2.  Our AVR's decrease volume on a linear scale and Audyssey DEQ/RLO works by scaling MV adjustments to account for our auditory perception of the frequency range.  

 

One last point.  Since the audible perception of the human ear is skewed heavily between the 1-6kHz range (or there about), the equal loudness study would imply that running a system "flat" at 90db would mean you would be down 30db from what we would perceive as being equally loud at 20Hz.  Throw in the typical 10db LFE/Bass boost and you are still down 20db from being "audibly" equal.

 

90db at 20hz is already underwhelming, whereas 90db in the rest of the audible spectrum is easily perceived by most to be loud enough for viewing/listening purposes.  Reduce the MV by -10db and 20Hz at 80db is nothing!  However, my understanding of DEQ/RLO is that decreasing the MV by -10db would potentially mean a -8db (random guess) decrease at 20Hz, thus closing the gap or at least attempting to assist in maintaining our perception of "equal loudness."   

 

That's my $.31.
popalock is offline  
post #13340 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 06:53 AM
Point Source
 
beastaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western NC
Posts: 11,340
Mentioned: 218 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3097 Post(s)
Liked: 2553
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

 

Interesting.  I agree with the overall point you are trying to make, but I do not agree with the part of your comment that I bolded above.  I haven't owned an AVR with Audyssey, but I've heard a lot about "Dynamic EQ" and "Reference Level Offset."  However, I never really took the time to look a little deeper until now.  Here is what I did to put Gooddoc's feedback into context.  Let's take a quick look at the equal loudness contour.

 

EqualLoudnessContour_zpse883db30.jpg

 

Keep in mind that the premise of this study is our "perception" of equal loudness.  Let's use the 70db line for reference.  According to the study, it takes 105db at 20Hz to equal the same perceived loudness of 1kHz at 70db.  That's a 35db difference!  Go down to the next line (60db) and it takes 100db (-5db) at 20Hz to equal the same loudness of 1kHz at 60db.  So a -10db reduction at 1kHz, but only a -5db at 20Hz would yield the same perception of "equal loudness."  This would imply that our ear's sensitivity decreases at a slower rate in the bass range from a perception stand point relative to the upper end of the frequency range, but since our AVR's decrease volume in a linear scale, adjusting the MV down 10db would mean we were -5db from where we would want to be at 20Hz.  Does that make sense? 

 

So my counter to the bold part of your comment above would be:

 

1.  Our ear's sensitivity to bass decreases at a slower rate than treble as the volume decreases, thus the need for DEQ/RLO to scale MV adjustment in favor of bass response.

Or

2.  Our AVR's decrease volume on a linear scale and Audyssey DEQ/RLO works by scaling MV adjustments to account for our auditory perception of the frequency range.  

 

One last point.  Since the audible perception of the human ear is skewed heavily between the 1-6kHz range (or there about), the equal loudness study would imply that running a system "flat" at 90db would mean you would be down 30db from what we would perceive as being equally loud at 20Hz.  Throw in the typical 10db LFE/Bass boost and you are still down 20db from being "audibly" equal.

 

90db at 20hz is already underwhelming, whereas 90db in the rest of the audible spectrum is easily perceived by most to be loud enough for viewing/listening purposes.  Reduce the MV by -10db and 20Hz at 80db is nothing!  However, my understanding of DEQ/RLO is that decreasing the MV by -10db would potentially mean a -8db (random guess) decrease at 20Hz, thus closing the gap or at least attempting to assist in maintaining our perception of "equal loudness."   

 

That's my $.31.

More like $310.00!!! The good ole Fletcher Munson curves. I enjoy seeing those every time they are posted as so many people assume we hear on a linear scale, which is far from the truth. I know the regs around here understand the equal loudness contour but there are plenty of casual posters that haven't seen it before. Can we just nip it in the bud here and someone EQ out their system to completely mimic the FM Curve?!?! I remember seeing a link to a speaker that was voiced similar to the countour, but can't remember which one it is. Ok, maybe I will give it a shot smile.gif

Great post, Huey smile.gif
beastaudio is offline  
post #13341 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 07:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
popalock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 4,933
Mentioned: 128 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1229 Post(s)
Liked: 1700
Send a message via Skype™ to popalock
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

More like $310.00!!! The good ole Fletcher Munson curves. I enjoy seeing those every time they are posted as so many people assume we hear on a linear scale, which is far from the truth. I know the regs around here understand the equal loudness contour but there are plenty of casual posters that haven't seen it before. Can we just nip it in the bud here and someone EQ out their system to completely mimic the FM Curve?!?! I remember seeing a link to a speaker that was voiced similar to the countour, but can't remember which one it is. Ok, maybe I will give it a shot smile.gif

Great post, Huey smile.gif

I've done that and you've heard it! This look familiar? Red curve below is what we were running when you came by and we did the BHD scene...lol. IIRC I remember you enjoyed it.
AllCombinedFullSpectrum_zpsbdf721cc.jpg

What i would like to see is some sweeps with DEQ engaged to see how it effects the curve in 5db increments. Just to gauge to what degree it contours the response in relation to MV.
beastaudio likes this.
popalock is offline  
post #13342 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 07:38 AM
Point Source
 
beastaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western NC
Posts: 11,340
Mentioned: 218 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3097 Post(s)
Liked: 2553
Yessir I do remember biggrin.gif I was meaning that the top-end adjusted out as well to the FM curve! We know the ULFtard curve is fun, without a doubt!

AFA the DEQ sweeps...I can do that biggrin.gif
beastaudio is offline  
post #13343 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 07:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,037
Mentioned: 346 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2078 Post(s)
Liked: 1530
Do sound engineers know about this curve and mix their music and moves to compensate for the fact that we need a lot more db's in the bass?

(says the guy that always runs his system hot) smile.gif
carp is offline  
post #13344 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 08:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
popalock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Doha, Qatar
Posts: 4,933
Mentioned: 128 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1229 Post(s)
Liked: 1700
Send a message via Skype™ to popalock
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

Yessir I do remember biggrin.gif I was meaning that the top-end adjusted out as well to the FM curve! We know the ULFtard curve is fun, without a doubt!

AFA the DEQ sweeps...I can do that biggrin.gif

Gotcha! Yeah looking back at that curve it was pretty apparent that I neglected the topend, but that was my rough attempt following Fletcher-Munson for the fun stuff...

IMO the Fletcher-Munson research supports the notion that all humans need to go full ULF-Tard before they can pass judgement on what infrasound effectively brings to the table.

tongue.gif

Flat response? Boring and ineffective down low low. As many have already said, one can never have too much headroom down low.

Looking forward to your DEQ sweeps man!
popalock is offline  
post #13345 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 08:19 AM
Point Source
 
beastaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Western NC
Posts: 11,340
Mentioned: 218 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3097 Post(s)
Liked: 2553
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post


IMO Fletcher-Munson supports the notion that all humans need to go full ULF-Tard before they can pass judgement on what infrasound effectively brings to the table.

Dead on right there homey.
beastaudio is offline  
post #13346 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 08:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jlpowell84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 6,299
Mentioned: 68 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1493 Post(s)
Liked: 667
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

 

Interesting.  I agree with the overall point you are trying to make, but I do not agree with the part of your comment that I bolded above.  I haven't owned an AVR with Audyssey, but I've heard a lot about "Dynamic EQ" and "Reference Level Offset."  However, I never really took the time to look a little deeper until now.  Here is what I did to put Gooddoc's feedback into context.  Let's take a quick look at the equal loudness contour.

 

EqualLoudnessContour_zpse883db30.jpg

 

Keep in mind that the premise of this study is our "perception" of equal loudness.  Let's use the 70db line for reference.  According to the study, it takes 105db at 20Hz to equal the same perceived loudness of 1kHz at 70db.  That's a 35db difference!  Go down to the next line (60db) and it takes 100db (-5db) at 20Hz to equal the same loudness of 1kHz at 60db.  So a -10db reduction at 1kHz, but only a -5db at 20Hz would yield the same perception of "equal loudness."  This would imply that our ear's sensitivity decreases at a slower rate in the bass range from a perception stand point relative to the upper end of the frequency range, but since our AVR's decrease volume in a linear scale, adjusting the MV down 10db would mean we were -5db from where we would want to be at 20Hz.  Does that make sense? 

 

So my counter to the bold part of your comment above would be:

 

1.  Our ear's sensitivity to bass decreases at a slower rate than treble as the volume decreases, thus the need for DEQ/RLO to scale MV adjustment in favor of bass response.

Or

2.  Our AVR's decrease volume on a linear scale and Audyssey DEQ/RLO works by scaling MV adjustments to account for our auditory perception of the frequency range.  

 

One last point.  Since the audible perception of the human ear is skewed heavily between the 1-6kHz range (or there about), the equal loudness study would imply that running a system "flat" at 90db would mean you would be down 30db from what we would perceive as being equally loud at 20Hz.  Throw in the typical 10db LFE/Bass boost and you are still down 20db from being "audibly" equal.

 

90db at 20hz is already underwhelming, whereas 90db in the rest of the audible spectrum is easily perceived by most to be loud enough for viewing/listening purposes.  Reduce the MV by -10db and 20Hz at 80db is nothing!  However, my understanding of DEQ/RLO is that decreasing the MV by -10db would potentially mean a -8db (random guess) decrease at 20Hz, thus closing the gap or at least attempting to assist in maintaining our perception of "equal loudness."   

 

That's my $.31.

I was farting around with these settings yesterday. I run 3db hot for movies and 6-12db hot for music. I also have a low shelf filter that rises 5db from 100-30hz then flat behind. I also have PGM 2 implemented on both Submetsives which gives a 3db boost below about 45 hz. On top of all that I use Dynamic EQ. I toggled DEQ off for a moment and the bass completely disappeared. I was listening to music at -20 which is pretty dang loud sitting 9ft from mains. I have absolutely no idea how I could live without dynamic EQ! Even with my house curve and all the other things implemented there's no way I could live without it. Does your pioneer have anything that helps our perception on this loudest curve? If not I am simply curious what approach you take? I was listening to Phil Collins greatest love songs two CD set at -20 to -30 and the base was absolutely beautiful the kick drums the bass guitar very very nice. Nothing was overwhelming or dominating and all blended very very well. of course the Submersives have a part to play in that with their quality
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

I've done that and you've heard it! This look familiar? Red curve below is what we were running when you came by and we did the BHD scene...lol. IIRC I remember you enjoyed it.
AllCombinedFullSpectrum_zpsbdf721cc.jpg

What i would like to see is some sweeps with DEQ engaged to see how it effects the curve in 5db increments. Just to gauge to what degree it contours the response in relation to MV.

I could also run the sweeps with in the next week smile.gif
jlpowell84 is offline  
post #13347 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 10:05 AM
Member
 
L0nestar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Fort Worth
Posts: 125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 19

Just got an email from FedEx saying 4 boxes are scheduled for pick up from Jeff at JTR tomorrow!!! In the words of the immortal Borat: "I'm very excite!". Any ideas on how long it takes freight to go from Wisconsin to Texas in December?!?!

Now....I must decide if I should forgo the self imposed lock I have on my savings account to purchase some S8's for surround duty.......


Maximum Un-Intelligence.
L0nestar is offline  
post #13348 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 10:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
N8DOGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 6,971
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 891 Post(s)
Liked: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frohlich View Post

Very nice. Do you happen to know the dimensions. I need a smaller center channel then the Noesis 212 when/if I upgrade in the future and wonder if that would fit the bill for me as well.

Ya it's 33L x 11.5W x 12 deep. The only restriction I have is that it couldn't be over 11.5" wide for my center . I've already traded my current Q8s custom center for a pair of Pioneer HPM 150's in awesome condition. they are great sounding vintage speakers!!

Edited for spec'd right size.

Blasting brown notes for 10 years and counting!

N8DOGG is online now  
post #13349 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 10:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
RMK!'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 95608
Posts: 7,751
Mentioned: 39 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1508 Post(s)
Liked: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by N8DOGG View Post

So Jeff sent me a pic of my new center! He said he's working on the xover and I should have it pretty soon. For those who don't know, it's uses the pro Noesis's 10" drivers and is custom made to fit under my screen.


That is a very cool looking speaker but it seems like a waste when what you really need is an AT screen with the LCR's at the same height.

Just sayin ... tongue.gif

Opinions are not facts.
RMK! is offline  
post #13350 of 35900 Old 12-06-2013, 10:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gooddoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,622
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2212 Post(s)
Liked: 1510
Quote:
Originally Posted by popalock View Post

 

Interesting.  I agree with the overall point you are trying to make, but I do not agree with the part of your comment that I bolded above.  I haven't owned an AVR with Audyssey, but I've heard a lot about "Dynamic EQ" and "Reference Level Offset."  However, I never really took the time to look a little deeper until now.  Here is what I did to put Gooddoc's feedback into context.  Let's take a quick look at the equal loudness contour.

 

EqualLoudnessContour_zpse883db30.jpg

 

Keep in mind that the premise of this study is our "perception" of equal loudness.  Let's use the 70db line for reference.  According to the study, it takes 105db at 20Hz to equal the same perceived loudness of 1kHz at 70db.  That's a 35db difference!  Go down to the next line (60db) and it takes 100db (-5db) at 20Hz to equal the same loudness of 1kHz at 60db.  So a -10db reduction at 1kHz, but only a -5db at 20Hz would yield the same perception of "equal loudness."  This would imply that our ear's sensitivity decreases at a slower rate in the bass range from a perception stand point relative to the upper end of the frequency range, but since our AVR's decrease volume in a linear scale, adjusting the MV down 10db would mean we were -5db from where we would want to be at 20Hz.  Does that make sense? 

 

So my counter to the bold part of your comment above would be:

 

1.  Our ear's sensitivity to bass decreases at a slower rate than treble as the volume decreases, thus the need for DEQ/RLO to scale MV adjustment in favor of bass response.

Or

2.  Our AVR's decrease volume on a linear scale and Audyssey DEQ/RLO works by scaling MV adjustments to account for our auditory perception of the frequency range.  

 

One last point.  Since the audible perception of the human ear is skewed heavily between the 1-6kHz range (or there about), the equal loudness study would imply that running a system "flat" at 90db would mean you would be down 30db from what we would perceive as being equally loud at 20Hz.  Throw in the typical 10db LFE/Bass boost and you are still down 20db from being "audibly" equal.

 

90db at 20hz is already underwhelming, whereas 90db in the rest of the audible spectrum is easily perceived by most to be loud enough for viewing/listening purposes.  Reduce the MV by -10db and 20Hz at 80db is nothing!  However, my understanding of DEQ/RLO is that decreasing the MV by -10db would potentially mean a -8db (random guess) decrease at 20Hz, thus closing the gap or at least attempting to assist in maintaining our perception of "equal loudness."   

 

That's my $.31.

Great post. Thanks for your input as I'm certainly no expert on the topic and discussions like this usually lead to a better understanding of the topic than I had before.

I do know that Audyssey's DEQ compensation algorithm is not based off the Fletcher curves. Chris has stated that they don't really apply well to how we hear loudness in small rooms according to his research. So the algorithm is based on some other proprietary information.

Also....ah crap. I have to get back to work for a bit but I don't want to lose this so I'm posting a partially done response. biggrin.gif. I'll continue this in a bit.
Gooddoc is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Speakers

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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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