or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by aarons915

But this is still just modifying the response correct? So it would still have the transient response of a Q =1.21 sub in the case of the example.
Right so the real question is does transient response and group delay really matter in a subwoofer? Some say it does and others say in bass frequencies they really don't matter or that the room swamps the transient response produced by a sub.
When I have the space and the garage to do that I probably will, for now I'm hoping to get a consensus on the internets.Why though? If I can EQ the same response in a smaller cube that mimics the response of a refrigerator size box why wouldn't I do that is my question.From a lot of what I've read I'm starting to agree that frequency response and SPL levels are mostly what we should be concerned about with subs. I've heard for the linkwitz transform but I'll definitely...
So you mentioned the box size and that the lower Q has an extended low frequency response (Due to a shallower rolloff) but didn't mention transient response or group delay benefits. Are you of the opinion that transient response doesn't matter in the subwoofer frequencies?
I get that but it's kind of a separate issue altogether, I'm just saying assuming EQ can effectively make each different QTC alignment equal, will they all sound the same or do the differences in internal pressure on the driver make them sound different? Since the transient response and group delay numbers are different for each alignment, I would think there would be a difference but without building 3 different boxes with the same drivers I can't know for sure.
Resurrecting this thread because I've been curious about this as well. I understand that we can EQ the final response to be flat but what is missing is even with the same frequency response won't each alignment sound different due to the different characteristics of each QTC alignment? Transient response is supposed to be better at Qtc .5 compared to Qtc 1 for example, so even if the frequency response is EQ'd flat, won't the Qtc of .5 Sound better due to having a more...
I did with the towers I had at the time, because they were pretty capable mains so instead of all the bass coming from the single sub there was a lot more bass coming from 2 more sources (The Fronts). My real issue that I later found out after getting a mic and messing with REW is I have a massive peak at 60Hz in my room so pretty much every tower sounded bloated and boomy in my room. I now have to cut the frequency for my sub and mains about 10 decibels at 60Hz to flatten...
Sorry an 8 ohm speaker with a sensivity of 89db is not "power hungry". 1 Watt of power will drive them to reference levels at an average listening position, so unless you're trying to listen to them in a stadium I don't really see the need for 200 plus watts of power. By the way you do realize that the difference between 100 and 200 watts is 3 decibels right?
I know I'm late to this discussion but in my opinion save your money. E100's have a sensitivity of 89 db and are an 8 ohm load, most people won't need more than a few watts to get them to very loud volumes. Considering they're also an 8 ohm load and most people will use a high pass on them, any budget receiver is more than enough. People are free to believe whatever they want as far as amplification goes but if you want to research more, google the double blind studies on...
I agree about .7Q being a good compromise in regards to box size. But many times I read that ultimately the frequency response of a sub along with the SPL it's capable of are all that matters and things like "fast bass" and "tightness" are really just a flat in room response. The only detail I'm still not sure of is the behavior of the subs moving mass in these different alignments. If the sub's cone is in more control with a Q of .5 over 1 I'll try to get closer to that...
New Posts  All Forums: