Best speaker option ~$300? 2.1 (Energy RC10 vs Arx A1b) vs 3.1 (3 x Energy Veritas V-Mini-C) vs Other? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 111 Old 04-09-2013, 04:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gtpsuper24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koeikan View Post

(and a ton of other audio shops, just wish some of them carried ID speakers

LOL then they wouldn't be ID speakers tongue.gif

But I know what your saying.
gtpsuper24 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 111 Old 04-09-2013, 11:19 PM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

The ideal standard for measuring IMD would require resolution that is orders of magnitude higher than processors can currently support. I agree that even a snapshot would be better than nothing, but it would still bring the user no closer to perceiving the sound via his ears than any other graph.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Please explain further. IMD is frequently measured in audio electronics. Why can't it be measured in speaker outputs? What do you mean by "would require resolution that is orders of magnitude higher than current processors can support?" The processors are not by any means the limiting factor.

Secondly, if a snapshot is better than nothing, as you say, then how does it not bring us any closer to perceiving the sound? You mean measurements are entirely, completely useless?

IMD, as it is heard and perceived by the ear, is not currently measurable. Period. Too many frequency combinations that are not harmonically related to the original signals. There is no equipment that can fully sample the IMD structure of a complex musical signal.....much less at various output levels (which would each require a different map or matrix of IMD components). Sinewaves, when used, give a glimpse of a small portion of the IMD result in reaction to a very narrow original signal. Music is layer-upon-layer of complex musical notes. We cannot measure that right now.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #93 of 111 Old 04-09-2013, 11:46 PM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

I think that is very eloquently stated and I agree.

I think a day will come in the future when we can measure audio in real time just as we measure video now. This will open up new worlds for consistency in live productions and also increase sound quality for virtually every live show. That will, in turn, carry over to loudspeaker design.

That will be a good day. But who knows how far off it is.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

We can measure both quite easily. You seem to be confusing the art of the production side of audio with the science of the reproduction side.


There is not nearly as much science on the reproduction side as you are asserting. Sure, modeling and measuring are vitally important components of the development process, but they cannot in and of themselves create a speaker that really dissolves reality for the listener. That requires a human being to do that. Especially when you have companies like Bowers and Wilkins (pioneers of Audio research in their own right) admitting things like this despite being on the bleeding-edge of audio research technology:

"The parts of a speaker doing the hard, mechanical work, the drivers, act on the signals distributed to them by the electrical processing part: the crossover. The thing to look for is its simplicity. Some speakers demand complex crossovers to compensate for the shortcomings in their drive units.

The better the mechanical design, the simpler the electronic design can be. We are still working to understand fully why and how certain components influence the sound of a speaker. Different manufacturers’ versions of nominally the same component significantly alter the character of the sound, the only solution is to put our trust in our ears and to choose what sounds best. We carry out exhaustive listening tests rigorously assessing the performance of each component until we find the optimum component for each position in the circuit. Fine-tuning by ear is only possible if the crossover is simple and the section of the crossover that perhaps benefits most from our policy of listen-and-learn is the part handling the signal for the tweeter. In most Bowers & Wilkins speakers, it is carried by a single, ear-chosen component that preserves the very finest detail."

The video says it all (link also contains the above quoted text):
http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Discover/Discover/Technologies/Crossover.html

They go on to say in the video that tuning by EAR is the only way to make sure that their end goals (creating an "illusion of reality") are met, especially when two quality manufacturers of components can make crossover components with IDENTICAL values that even measure the same, but that do not SOUND THE SAME.

But what does B&W know about audio anyway? wink.gif

The video essentially sums my point. You can't measure your way to a great speaker, you have to bring it home by performing final tuning according to what you hear. So says B&W.

Also, since Arx crossovers are no more complicated than required, tuning is a very effective technique with even measurable differences being observed between identically rated components (on-axis FR, off axis FR, impedance curves, etc.).

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #94 of 111 Old 04-10-2013, 01:43 AM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Now, back on track.

Koeikan, make sure and let us know how much you love your new Outlaw once you get it in. biggrin.gif

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #95 of 111 Old 04-10-2013, 01:59 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Koeikan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Will do biggrin.gif... looks like it should arrive tomorrow (faster than I expected)... it will probably be Friday before I can start playing with my new toys though.

Edit: err, tomorrow as in after I wake up later today smile.gif.
BufordTJustice likes this.
Koeikan is offline  
post #96 of 111 Old 04-10-2013, 02:22 AM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koeikan View Post

Will do biggrin.gif... looks like it should arrive tomorrow (faster than I expected)... it will probably be Friday before I can start playing with my new toys though.

Edit: err, tomorrow as in after I wake up later today smile.gif.

Fellow night-shift worker here. I know EXACTLY what you mean. Our "tomorrow" is different from the normal meaning. Haha.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #97 of 111 Old 04-10-2013, 11:56 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Koeikan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Fellow night-shift worker here. I know EXACTLY what you mean. Our "tomorrow" is different from the normal meaning. Haha.

Heh, I just have a tendency to stay up later than I should smile.gif... and my job is pretty flexible about what time I have to start. I sometimes have the same issue though, just without a good excuse smile.gif.
BufordTJustice likes this.
Koeikan is offline  
post #98 of 111 Old 04-10-2013, 04:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

IMD, as it is heard and perceived by the ear, is not currently measurable. Period. Too many frequency combinations that are not harmonically related to the original signals. There is no equipment that can fully sample the IMD structure of a complex musical signal.....much less at various output levels (which would each require a different map or matrix of IMD components). Sinewaves, when used, give a glimpse of a small portion of the IMD result in reaction to a very narrow original signal. Music is layer-upon-layer of complex musical notes. We cannot measure that right now.

Thanks for agreeing with what I said in post 62 and for restating it in a slightly different way.

But what is "IMD structure of a complex musical signal?" You lost me there.

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #99 of 111 Old 04-10-2013, 04:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
beaveav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,811
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

There is not nearly as much science on the reproduction side as you are asserting. Sure, modeling and measuring are vitally important components of the development process, but they cannot in and of themselves create a speaker that really dissolves reality for the listener. That requires a human being to do that. Especially when you have companies like Bowers and Wilkins (pioneers of Audio research in their own right) admitting things like this despite being on the bleeding-edge of audio research technology:

"The parts of a speaker doing the hard, mechanical work, the drivers, act on the signals distributed to them by the electrical processing part: the crossover. The thing to look for is its simplicity. Some speakers demand complex crossovers to compensate for the shortcomings in their drive units.

The better the mechanical design, the simpler the electronic design can be. We are still working to understand fully why and how certain components influence the sound of a speaker. Different manufacturers’ versions of nominally the same component significantly alter the character of the sound, the only solution is to put our trust in our ears and to choose what sounds best. We carry out exhaustive listening tests rigorously assessing the performance of each component until we find the optimum component for each position in the circuit. Fine-tuning by ear is only possible if the crossover is simple and the section of the crossover that perhaps benefits most from our policy of listen-and-learn is the part handling the signal for the tweeter. In most Bowers & Wilkins speakers, it is carried by a single, ear-chosen component that preserves the very finest detail."

The video says it all (link also contains the above quoted text):
http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Discover/Discover/Technologies/Crossover.html

They go on to say in the video that tuning by EAR is the only way to make sure that their end goals (creating an "illusion of reality") are met, especially when two quality manufacturers of components can make crossover components with IDENTICAL values that even measure the same, but that do not SOUND THE SAME.

But what does B&W know about audio anyway? wink.gif

The video essentially sums my point. You can't measure your way to a great speaker, you have to bring it home by performing final tuning according to what you hear. So says B&W.

Also, since Arx crossovers are no more complicated than required, tuning is a very effective technique with even measurable differences being observed between identically rated components (on-axis FR, off axis FR, impedance curves, etc.).

Considering B&W's speakers often measure quite poorly, and that they spend an inordinate amount of effort on marketing, well, you probably should have used some other company as your source....wink.gif
Billy p likes this.

For every new thing I learn, I forget two things I used to know.
beaveav is offline  
post #100 of 111 Old 04-10-2013, 04:37 PM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

IMD, as it is heard and perceived by the ear, is not currently measurable. Period. Too many frequency combinations that are not harmonically related to the original signals. There is no equipment that can fully sample the IMD structure of a complex musical signal.....much less at various output levels (which would each require a different map or matrix of IMD components). Sinewaves, when used, give a glimpse of a small portion of the IMD result in reaction to a very narrow original signal. Music is layer-upon-layer of complex musical notes. We cannot measure that right now.

Thanks for agreeing with what I said in post 62 and for restating it in a slightly different way.

But what is "IMD structure of a complex musical signal?" You lost me there.

I'm simply reiterating my statement in post #66.

You're the electrical engineer and I'm just a non-engineer, non-objective, "audiophile"...so I'll leave you to research that on your own.

Also, I didn't "restate it in a slightly different way", I drew a finer distinction.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #101 of 111 Old 04-10-2013, 04:38 PM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

There is not nearly as much science on the reproduction side as you are asserting. Sure, modeling and measuring are vitally important components of the development process, but they cannot in and of themselves create a speaker that really dissolves reality for the listener. That requires a human being to do that. Especially when you have companies like Bowers and Wilkins (pioneers of Audio research in their own right) admitting things like this despite being on the bleeding-edge of audio research technology:

"The parts of a speaker doing the hard, mechanical work, the drivers, act on the signals distributed to them by the electrical processing part: the crossover. The thing to look for is its simplicity. Some speakers demand complex crossovers to compensate for the shortcomings in their drive units.

The better the mechanical design, the simpler the electronic design can be. We are still working to understand fully why and how certain components influence the sound of a speaker. Different manufacturers’ versions of nominally the same component significantly alter the character of the sound, the only solution is to put our trust in our ears and to choose what sounds best. We carry out exhaustive listening tests rigorously assessing the performance of each component until we find the optimum component for each position in the circuit. Fine-tuning by ear is only possible if the crossover is simple and the section of the crossover that perhaps benefits most from our policy of listen-and-learn is the part handling the signal for the tweeter. In most Bowers & Wilkins speakers, it is carried by a single, ear-chosen component that preserves the very finest detail."

The video says it all (link also contains the above quoted text):
http://www.bowers-wilkins.com/Discover/Discover/Technologies/Crossover.html

They go on to say in the video that tuning by EAR is the only way to make sure that their end goals (creating an "illusion of reality") are met, especially when two quality manufacturers of components can make crossover components with IDENTICAL values that even measure the same, but that do not SOUND THE SAME.

But what does B&W know about audio anyway? wink.gif

The video essentially sums my point. You can't measure your way to a great speaker, you have to bring it home by performing final tuning according to what you hear. So says B&W.

Also, since Arx crossovers are no more complicated than required, tuning is a very effective technique with even measurable differences being observed between identically rated components (on-axis FR, off axis FR, impedance curves, etc.).

Considering B&W's speakers often measure quite poorly, and that they spend an inordinate amount of effort on marketing, well, you probably should have used some other company as your source....wink.gif

So you're saying that, even though B&W says there are things that even THEY can't measure, that apparently you can? And you apparently know more than B&W? That certainly seem to be your implication....and that B&W are two-bit hacks. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Speaker tuning decisions on B&W's part aside, that's starting to sound like snake-oil to me.

Perhaps I've been unclear; would you like to rebut any of their statements or conclusions? Or was this just an attempt to discredit a business entity who doesn't agree with you?

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #102 of 111 Old 04-10-2013, 05:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gtpsuper24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,080
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 90
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Or was this just an attempt to discredit a business entity who doesn't agree with you?

I'm getting the feeling its this ^

I guess its better to provide false or flawed measurements than none at all. Measurements are kind of important but this deal with they have to be provided or its a poor speaker is crazy. I'm sure Jon could post 100s of doctored measurements to make his stuff look great or do it to some weird made up standard and it would make everyone feel great. Even Audioholics who prided themselves on measurements got it wrong and I guess Floyd Toole tore into them them pretty good over not doing it correctly or something like that. Some magazines do them in room, some manufacturers do it, to some made up odd ball standard and smooth the hell out of it to make it look flat.

I think the point of actually listening to the speaker is totally lost on them. They would rather just debate on the internet, snap shots of static images than actual listening time. Measurements can be useful, but this bizarre obsession with sitting in a chair and looking at static images on a computer screen and know everything about a speaker is totally crazy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

We can't measure soundstage width and depth of a speaker because those are largely influenced by the room, and the positioning of the speaker within that room. The off axis freq resp curves of a speaker give a general indication of what it - taken by itself - will create, but those measurements can not capture the room's influence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beaveav View Post

If a speaker "measures well" but sounds bad, there are multiple possibilities for why that is so:
1) the measurements were flawed, done incorrectly, etc.
2) the measurements you refer to were incomplete, ie, good on axis freq resp but poor off-axis, or good freq resp but horrible THD, etc.
3) the room in which the speakers was placed and their location in said room was less than ideal
4) the listener's perception of the speakers has been unconsciously influenced by things such as their looks, or things the listener has read in magazines or online, etc.
5) the listener is accustomed to speakers that measure poorly and has learned to think that they sound good. when presented with an actual good speaker, the new/different sound "sounds bad" to that listener.

I'm sure there are countless other explanations possible....but none of them excuse a lack of measurements or the acceptance of poor measurements.

Question. How will we ever know if the measurement was done correctly? How will we know it wasn't doctored to make it look better? How do we know that the measurement provided is that of the speaker being referenced? How will we know where the measurements were taken?

How will we know if the speaker has a nice wide expansive soundstage or a narrow sweet spot? What measurements can I look for to tell me that?


Is it better to have flawed worthless measurements or none at all? Whose worst the one that cheats people into thinking the speakers are great speakers (from good measurements) or the one who doesn't provide measurements but says judging a speaker need to be done from experience, not images on the net?
gtpsuper24 is offline  
post #103 of 111 Old 04-10-2013, 06:27 PM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Chad, fathom the irony of what we are discussing.

"We have these measurements and you should be really excited about them....but these speakers won't measure anything like what you see in our graphs once they are in your room. And it gets better! Even if you look at graphs until you are blue in the face, you STILL won't know how the speakers really sound until they are in your own room and you are listening to them with your own ears! Merry Christmas!"


As Jon and I have said many times, measurements and models provide valuable, yet low-level insight about the general character of the sound of a speaker. There is simply no replacement for listening to one. I'll go out on a limb and state that people who try to convince others that the potential customer can have any true insight about the sonic character of a speaker just by looking at a graph is MUCH closer to a snake-oil salesman than the one who says "you won't truly know until you get them in your room".

Also, you can't measure your way ALL THE WAY to a great speaker design. As I stated previously, you have to bring it home (i.e. fine tune) with a trained ear. No replacement for the last step in the process. Neither I, nor Jon, are advocating skipping the first steps (modeling, measuring, etc.)...but those AREN'T THE ONLY STEPS.

Further, I am NOT saying that anybody who provides measurements for their loudspeaker models is a fraud. Not at all. Most designers do not try to assert that you don't need to listen, that just seems to be a prevalent line of thinking in online forums. Measurements are good to have, as long as people don't try to convince low-information listeners that ALL THEY NEED IS GRAPHS and data.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #104 of 111 Old 04-10-2013, 10:48 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Koeikan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 20
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Now, back on track.

Koeikan, make sure and let us know how much you love your new Outlaw once you get it in. biggrin.gif

Quick update...

The LFM-1 EX arrived today... it's even bigger than I was expecting. Referring to it as a beast is no exaggeration smile.gif. I hooked the receiver up with a pair of speakers I forgot I had (oooold JBL N24 bookshelves from HT pre-upgrade).

I got everything set up, ran Audyssey and have been enjoying the benefits so far. It's already absolutely night and day in terms of clarity and sound quality (waaaaay cleaner). It sounds great inside of my 'office' area.

For music:
- the old speakers are still very clear, but they are too fatiguing for my taste on most songs and while the mids are present, they leave a lot to be desired (no surprise there). Audyssey set x-over @ 100Hz.
- the sub sounds great, but I still need to play around with it before I'll be completely happy... but already a massive improvement.

Still need to:
- play around with the sub placement... just placed it near the wall that's open, haven't done my sub-crawl yet smile.gif.
- rerun Audyssey to get the sub closer to 0 db (audyssey set it to -12 db originally)... I think I had the gain/volume @ about 3.5 when I ran it originally, so I'll try to lower it a bit and rerun.
- play around with max extension vs max output (currently on max extension)/Audyssey

One thing I noticed is that while the bass is very present inside of the working area, it's barely noticeable outside of that immediate area (even just a few feet outside of the open wall... I'd definitely say less so than the previous Logitech sub, even accounting for that sub's... umm... 'boomy-ness')... I'm guessing that has more to do with placement than anything (and I'm sure rerunning Audyssey would help and maybe going to max output (but I'd prefer to keep it on max extension, if possible)).

I won't have any time tomorrow to mess around with it, but will definitely be playing with it more this weekend (along with continuing on the quest for new speakers). I'm glad I remembered I had the old JBL speakers though... They give me something to listen to in the interim and would make serviceable surrounds, should I go that route. Thanks.
Koeikan is offline  
post #105 of 111 Old 04-10-2013, 11:01 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,758
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked: 778
It is huge, isn't it? And I replaced my EX with two big 18' subs.

The song is kind of cheesy electronic music, but Bass I Love You has a lot of low end bass, lower than the EX can go. It can be fun to hear what it will do.

Be sure to try both the 1 port and 2 port open modes (don't forget to change the switch on the back). It does affect the frequency response of the sub. Generally, the 1 port might be better for music, but could work the other way in your room. Here you can see the response difference (chart from data-bass.com):

BufordTJustice and Koeikan like this.

Your questions are answered: Speaker FAQ
HT: Energy RC-50, RC-LCR, Veritas VS Surrounds | Dual CHT SS 18.1s | Denon AVR-888 | modified Dayton SA1000 | Antimode 8033C
Desktop: CBM-170 SE | SVS SB-1000 | Audio-GD NFB-11 | HK 3390
Headphone & Portable HE-400 | K612 Pro | HP150 | DX50 | E12
cel4145 is online now  
post #106 of 111 Old 04-11-2013, 12:03 AM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koeikan View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Now, back on track.

Koeikan, make sure and let us know how much you love your new Outlaw once you get it in. biggrin.gif

Quick update...

The LFM-1 EX arrived today... it's even bigger than I was expecting. Referring to it as a beast is no exaggeration smile.gif. I hooked the receiver up with a pair of speakers I forgot I had (oooold JBL N24 bookshelves from HT pre-upgrade).

I got everything set up, ran Audyssey and have been enjoying the benefits so far. It's already absolutely night and day in terms of clarity and sound quality (waaaaay cleaner). It sounds great inside of my 'office' area.

For music:
- the old speakers are still very clear, but they are too fatiguing for my taste on most songs and while the mids are present, they leave a lot to be desired (no surprise there). Audyssey set x-over @ 100Hz.
- the sub sounds great, but I still need to play around with it before I'll be completely happy... but already a massive improvement.

Still need to:
- play around with the sub placement... just placed it near the wall that's open, haven't done my sub-crawl yet smile.gif.
- rerun Audyssey to get the sub closer to 0 db (audyssey set it to -12 db originally)... I think I had the gain/volume @ about 3.5 when I ran it originally, so I'll try to lower it a bit and rerun.
- play around with max extension vs max output (currently on max extension)/Audyssey

One thing I noticed is that while the bass is very present inside of the working area, it's barely noticeable outside of that immediate area (even just a few feet outside of the open wall... I'd definitely say less so than the previous Logitech sub, even accounting for that sub's... umm... 'boomy-ness')... I'm guessing that has more to do with placement than anything (and I'm sure rerunning Audyssey would help and maybe going to max output (but I'd prefer to keep it on max extension, if possible)).

I won't have any time tomorrow to mess around with it, but will definitely be playing with it more this weekend (along with continuing on the quest for new speakers). I'm glad I remembered I had the old JBL speakers though... They give me something to listen to in the interim and would make serviceable surrounds, should I go that route. Thanks.

Cel gives good advice.

Also, you may need to experiment with location to determine where is best for bass response. Definitely re-run Audyssey....it isn't fair to compare one sub to another without re-running it.

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #107 of 111 Old 04-11-2013, 12:41 AM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

It is huge, isn't it? And I replaced my EX with two big 18' subs.

The song is kind of cheesy electronic music, but Bass I Love You has a lot of low end bass, lower than the EX can go. It can be fun to hear what it will do.

Be sure to try both the 1 port and 2 port open modes (don't forget to change the switch on the back). It does affect the frequency response of the sub. Generally, the 1 port might be better for music, but could work the other way in your room. Here you can see the response difference (chart from data-bass.com):


Is that the CHT dual passive setup? I bet that sounds amazing. biggrin.gif

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #108 of 111 Old 04-11-2013, 03:20 AM
Member
 
Henry Lambert's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Buford
The graph tells all if you read it.biggrin.gif
It's the LFM with one port open compared to two ports open.
Henry Lambert is offline  
post #109 of 111 Old 04-11-2013, 06:29 AM
Senior Member
 
BufordTJustice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 443
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Lambert View Post

Buford
The graph tells all if you read it.biggrin.gif
It's the LFM with one port open compared to two ports open.

Henry, i bolded his statement of dual 18" subs and asked if the picture he linked to was for subs made by Chase Home Theater. I realize the graph provided is, as stated, for the Outlaw sub.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Arcam AVR300, Panny BDT-500, Toshiba SD-9200 CD transport, Vizio XVT 55" LED/LCD (full direct-backlit w/ local dimming), Arx A5 & A3rx-c Mains, Arx A2rx-c center, HSU VTF-15h, BJC ten white w/ ultrasonically welded connectors.
BufordTJustice is offline  
post #110 of 111 Old 04-11-2013, 10:55 AM
Member
 
Henry Lambert's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Henry, i bolded his statement of dual 18" subs and asked if the picture he linked to was for subs made by Chase Home Theater. I realize the graph provided is, as stated, for the Outlaw sub.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Sorry
Looking back I can see that now. The subs do look like they are CHT.
Henry Lambert is offline  
post #111 of 111 Old 04-11-2013, 12:27 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
cel4145's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 11,758
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 246 Post(s)
Liked: 778
Quote:
Originally Posted by BufordTJustice View Post

Henry, i bolded his statement of dual 18" subs and asked if the picture he linked to was for subs made by Chase Home Theater. I realize the graph provided is, as stated, for the Outlaw sub.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Yep. They are the CHT's. Monster bass biggrin.gif
BufordTJustice likes this.

Your questions are answered: Speaker FAQ
HT: Energy RC-50, RC-LCR, Veritas VS Surrounds | Dual CHT SS 18.1s | Denon AVR-888 | modified Dayton SA1000 | Antimode 8033C
Desktop: CBM-170 SE | SVS SB-1000 | Audio-GD NFB-11 | HK 3390
Headphone & Portable HE-400 | K612 Pro | HP150 | DX50 | E12
cel4145 is online now  
Reply Speakers

User Tag List

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