AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › JTR Captivator
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

JTR Captivator - Page 104

post #3091 of 4334
1/18/12 at 9:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post

Your initial reaction was:

And now, after EQ'ing just a little bit...


Are you as impressed as you thought you'd be? Do they outgun your Empires by alot? Give us some details, man!

I'm glad it's worked out for you. JTR makes solid, solid products. They ain't cheap, but nothing good is.

A couple other things to note. That Live Free or Die Hard scene is definitely well known as a demo. The whole movie is! As Archaea says, adding subs makes it the main event!

Also, I wouldn't bother with an Audyssey XT32 receiver down the line, if you're still considering one. I'm not convinced at all that the results are worth the huge price tag. I think you'd be much better off with amp + the simple external EQ of, say, a miniDSP. But, that would probably require you to get REW capabilities. Not that going there is a bad thing, by any means; it's prolly the best overall choice to make in the long run.

Short answer: yes, they definitely outgun the Empires. By a wide margin.

After the placement shifts and EQ, I can definitely feel the low end more and especially that last 1/3 octave in the 15hz tune. I do still want an XT32-equipped AVR as I'm interested in (and surely in need of) correction of the entire bandwidth.

Additionally, I'm not sure how the miniDSP works....if I recall, it is not an automated process at all. If that's true, are there algorithms included to take multi-position sweeps and create a wider sweet spot, a la Audyssey. I'm not interested in a ruler flat FR if it's only available in one seat, to the significant detriment of all others.

Next thing I need to work on is finding a quiet fan. If the scene goes from heavy bass action to quiet quickly, you'd think a Harrier was setting down in my theater room
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #3092 of 4334
1/18/12 at 10:08am
I'm glad to hear that you're seeing the kind of huge improvement you were hoping for! That's what we all like to hear, as it justifies some of the reason why we're all here!

The miniDSP has REW integration, so it can be a painless process to get your system EQ'd, but REW doesn't do multi-point sweeps (that I'm aware of). You can do them yourself by taking sweeps at multiple locations and average them, though, or adjust to try to create a flatter graph at multiple locations.

Also, I don't want to seem like a broken record on this, but I'm just not really sold on Audyssey's ability to widen the bass sweetspot through a multi-location sweep. It seems to me that figuring in reflections, room modes, phase, time domain and other things can't be adjusted through software for bass from 1 or 2 subs operating off of 1 channel of content nearly as effectively (or much at all for some of those things) like it can for speakers with 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 9 discrete content channels to adjust. Maybe I'm just not as up on the algorithms used by Audyssey as others, or as technically savvy.

If someone really believes in Audyssey MultEQ XT32's ability to widen a subwoofer sweetspot, I'd appreciate some links to technical discussion of its methods and merits. I'm woefully lacking knowledge of it and would love to explore it more, but Google searching just gives me (mostly) marketing fluff.
Reply
Reply
post #3093 of 4334
1/18/12 at 10:25am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post

If someone really believes in Audyssey MultEQ XT32's ability to widen a subwoofer sweetspot, I'd appreciate some links to technical discussion of its methods and merits. I'm woefully lacking knowledge of it and would love to explore it more, but Google searching just gives me (mostly) marketing fluff.

I am a believer and the Audyssey Thread has discussions on the technology. Generally speaking Audssey is not forthcoming with specifics about what they do and how they do it. I find this a little disconcerting but I understand their desire not to divulge their proprietary technology.

Again, it seems to work well for me (XT32) and I really don't care why ...
Reply
Reply
post #3094 of 4334
1/18/12 at 10:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

I am a believer and the Audyssey Thread has discussions on the technology. Generally speaking Audssey is not forthcoming with specifics about what they do and how they do it. I find this a little disconcerting but I understand their desire not to divulge their proprietary technology.

Again, it seems to work well for me (XT32) and I really don't care why ...

I too am a believer, although I take control of the crossovers myself and do dial in the subs hotter after Audyssey does it's thing. I can't speak for Audyssey XT32, though. I only have XT. It makes sense that XT32 would be at least incrementally better since it has a much higher resolution.
Reply
Reply
post #3095 of 4334
1/18/12 at 10:39am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike View Post

I too am a believer, although I take control of the crossovers myself and do dial in the subs hotter after Audyssey does it's thing. I can't speak for Audyssey XT32, though. I only have XT. It makes sense that XT32 would be at least incrementally better since it has a much higher resolution.

I found XT very inconsistent and feel XT32 is a much improved product (for surround sound and LFE). Like you, I change the Xovers and alter the sub levels (usually decrease).
Reply
Reply
post #3096 of 4334
1/18/12 at 10:53am
XT is very technique-sensitive.
Reply
Reply
post #3097 of 4334
1/18/12 at 12:02pm
I understand how it is definitely beneficial with regard to all the other discrete channels, but I'm just not convinced, even after reading a good portion of the Audyssey XT32 thread, that it can have many benefits to the sub channel besides its (rather erratic) EQ capabilities. I can't wrap my head around how it could widen a sub bubble/sweetspot with only one channel of content, and that's one of the primary things I'm asking as it doesn't seem to be addressed. If it can't do that, how is it significantly more beneficial than, say, manual parametric EQ, shelf filters, and L/T circuits? Especially since it seems to (reportedly) often ignore or not understand HPFs or tuning frequencies, and doesn't have any way to input those prior to its calcs?
Reply
Reply
post #3098 of 4334
1/18/12 at 12:08pm
I won't pretend to know any of the technical explanations for how Audysseyworks....but it is essentially an integrated AS-EQ1 for the subs (in addition to all of the other adjustments it makies). Same filter resolution, same algorithms.

Now plenty of people have reported (and measured) significant improvement with that unit.
Reply
Reply
post #3099 of 4334
1/18/12 at 12:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post

I understand how it is definitely beneficial with regard to all the other discrete channels, but I'm just not convinced, even after reading a good portion of the Audyssey XT32 thread, that it can have many benefits to the sub channel besides its (rather erratic) EQ capabilities. I can't wrap my head around how it could widen a sub bubble/sweetspot with only one channel of content, and that's one of the primary things I'm asking as it doesn't seem to be addressed. If it can't do that, how is it significantly more beneficial than, say, manual parametric EQ, shelf filters, and L/T circuits? Especially since it seems to (reportedly) often ignore or not understand HPFs or tuning frequencies, and doesn't have any way to input those prior to its calcs?

I can guess from our testing at the blind meet this weekend on how it works.

You notice nearly none of our average graphs were flat when taken over 12 seats with the exception of the MFW-15. However before and after the meet when I compared after Audyssey to before Audyssey it from just the main listening position Audyssey pretty much left a flat graph alone from the main listening position on Caps, the CHT subs, and on the HSU subs. (If you were only calibrating from the center two seats in the room). What that MIGHT indicate is a scenario like this. If seat 6 on the far left side has a big peak at 20hz it knocks the average frequency response down of everything at 20hz to help avoid that huge peak at 20hz on the side of the room. Thus the overall average looks a little light on the 20hz end of the spectrum overall and doesn't match what Audyssey's calibration looks like if I only run it from two positions in the center of the room. This is very overly simplified but it spells out the short of it - maybe - it's only an observers guess anywya. If you look at my first page now in the KC blind sub meet thread you can see how we had the subs DSP'ed before the meet from only the main listening position, and then you can see how audyssey calibrated them as an average across the rooom in the averaged 12 seat frequency response graph. When I preformed the follow up testing on Sunday the CHT subs started perfectly flat, and ended the Audyssey calibration pretty much untouched when Audyssey was taken from only 3 positions (betwen two chairs and then 1x in each of the two chairs). There are many variables that remain untested - but that is my take. Knock down huge peaks, bring up potential valleys when taking into consideration all seats - average it all from the seating positions taken and give precedence and set delay times and such from the main (first) seat.
Reply
Reply
post #3100 of 4334
1/18/12 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post

I can guess from our testing at the blind meet this weekend on how it works.

You notice nearly none of our average graphs were flat when taken over 12 seats with the exception of the MFW-15. However before and after the meet when I compared after Audyssey to before Audyssey it from just the main listening position Audyssey pretty much left a flat graph alone from the main listening position on Caps, the CHT subs, and on the HSU subs. (If you were only calibrating from the center two seats in the room). What that MIGHT indicate is a scenario like this. If seat 6 on the far left side has a big peak at 20hz it knocks the average frequency response down of everything at 20hz to help avoid that huge peak at 20hz on the side of the room. Thus the overall average looks a little light on the 20hz end of the spectrum overall and doesn't match what Audyssey's calibration looks like if I only run it from two positions in the center of the room. This is very overly simplified but it spells out the short of it - maybe - it's only an observers guess anywya. If you look at my first page now in the KC blind sub meet thread you can see how we had the subs DSP'ed before the meet from only the main listening position, and then you can see how audyssey calibrated them as an average across the rooom in the averaged 12 seat frequency response graph. When I preformed the follow up testing on Sunday the CHT subs started perfectly flat, and ended the Audyssey calibration pretty much untouched when Audyssey was taken from only 3 positions (betwen two chairs and then 1x in each of the two chairs). There are many variables that remain untested - but that is my take. Knock down huge peaks, bring up potential valleys when taking into consideration all seats - average it all from the seating positions taken and give precedence and set delay times and such from the main (first) seat.

Thanks for the writeup. That's essentially what I expected it to do. My concern is...what beyond that is it doing that you couldn't do by simply taking REW sweeps from each of those spots, averaging them, starting the EQ integration, then uploading to your favorite integrated EQ? It seems like very little extra work when you think about it? This is all shooting from the hip, but I'm just not seeing how it can have that much impact on one channel output from (usually only) one or two sources. I should probably just shutup.
Reply
Reply
post #3101 of 4334
1/18/12 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post

Thanks for the writeup. That's essentially what I expected it to do. My concern is...what beyond that is it doing that you couldn't do by simply taking REW sweeps from each of those spots, averaging them, starting the EQ integration, then uploading to your favorite integrated EQ? It seems like very little extra work when you think about it? This is all shooting from the hip, but I'm just not seeing how it can have that much impact on one channel output from (usually only) one or two sources. I should probably just shutup.

One of the most important things that a system like Audyssey does that conventional parametric eq cannot do is operate in the time domain as well as in the frequency domain. That means that it can be effective in dealing with delayed reflected sound apart from and separate from direct sound. Conventional eq can't do that because it can't distinguish between the two and wouldn't have enough filters even if it could. This is very often overlooked because it is not often understood. This is why many find that Audyssey helps with separation and imaging in multichannels. It helps to "clean up" the image. It also is effective in dealing with reflected sounds from a single channel such as the .1 channel.

Does that make sense?
Reply
Reply
post #3102 of 4334
1/18/12 at 1:18pm
Nube,

Have you by any chance looked at Sean Olive's (also goes by the handle Tonmeister2008) research on room correction software/solutions and preferences? One of the elements found was that it was easier to identify differences with a mono signal rather than a stereo/multi channel one.

It is pretty interesting research if you feel like perusing it.

Here

Here

and Here

Some of the postings overlap with the AES paper, but others add interesting additional sidework.

While he has a different scheme than Audyssey, it seems relevant to your question for single channel (.1) correction.
Reply
Reply
post #3103 of 4334
1/18/12 at 3:42pm
I finally got my dual Caps set up. With my single Cap I had it in the front right corner about 18 feet away. Now I have each Cap on the sidewall directly to the side of my seating position. My walls are 17 feet apart so that means that each driver is 6.5 feet away from me.

I'm getting really nice tactile and punchy feel right now with music, which is of course what I like. I'm not using the sms-1 right now, so currently no eq.

I have the Caps running way hot of course, but I still can't localize them (currently crossing over at 80hz). It's really nice but the rub is.... it feels like cheating - you know what I mean? That and it just looks better to me having the subs up front. In their current location it would look to a guest coming into the room that I have a serious problem... which of course I do.

I can't really let loose with movies until the weekend probably, I've got a lot of tinkering to do especially once I hook up the sms-1 again. I'll be interested to see how much I can beat my max db reading of 116 in this room with the previous configuration. 116 is weak sauce.

I can tell you this, I would not have scored these subs an 8 for music if they sounded like this at the meet. Non-eq'd mid bass hump rules (at least I assume that is what I'm hearing and liking right now).
Reply
Reply
post #3104 of 4334
1/18/12 at 4:18pm
I'll be setting up my Cap 1k tomorrow night. I can't wait!
Reply
Reply
post #3105 of 4334
1/18/12 at 5:07pm

http://jtrspeakers.com/home-audio/captivator/

Anyone see something different here?
Reply
Reply
post #3106 of 4334
1/18/12 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Son View Post


http://jtrspeakers.com/home-audio/captivator/

Anyone see something different here?

Is the passive Cap removed, or am I just missing it?
Reply
Reply
post #3107 of 4334
1/18/12 at 6:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowmanick View Post

Is the passive Cap removed, or am I just missing it?

It's certainly not offered on that page anymore. There is still the passive Cap Pro of course. Also keep in mind that Jeff would probably build it passive on demand.
Reply
Reply
post #3108 of 4334
1/18/12 at 6:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike View Post

It's certainly not offered on that page anymore. There is still the passive Cap Pro of course. Also keep in mind that Jeff would probably build it passive on demand.

It's says available passive, 2ohm or 8ohm......with binding posts are speakon connectors.
Reply
Reply
post #3109 of 4334
1/18/12 at 6:28pm
You're right. It's just the price that's missing.
Reply
Reply
post #3110 of 4334
1/18/12 at 6:41pm
I'm thinking the 2011 materials are almost out, and there will be new pricing for 2012. I'll ask, since I am in the market.
Reply
Reply
post #3111 of 4334
1/19/12 at 11:36am
.....hmmm

Hope I didn't push anything prematurely. I couldn't help it, I look at the Captivator daily. But, the 2012 Captivator's beans have been spilled:

· Lower tuning- Now tuned to 17.5hz (50% longer port)

· Lower Cost- 2400 watt, DSP, class D amplifier and 18mm, void free, grade BB, Baltic birch cabinet brings the Captivator's internet direct price down to $2499 (passive $1499).

· Save Money- All new lower weight cabinet makes the Captivator light enough to ship Fedex small package which saves an average of $80 in shipping cost.

http://jtrspeakers.websitetoolbox.co...ivator-5670175
Reply
Reply
post #3112 of 4334
1/19/12 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Son View Post

.....hmmm

Hope I didn't push anything prematurely. I couldn't help it, I look at the Captivator daily. But, the 2012 Captivator's beans have been spilled:

· Lower tuning- Now tuned to 17.5hz (50% longer port)

· Lower Cost- 2400 watt, DSP, class D amplifier and 18mm, void free, grade “BB”, Baltic birch cabinet brings the Captivator’s internet direct price down to $2499 (passive $1499).

· Save Money- All new lower weight cabinet makes the Captivator light enough to ship Fedex small package which saves an average of $80 in shipping cost.

http://jtrspeakers.websitetoolbox.co...ivator-5670175

Cool! I assume much of the lower price point (powered version) is due to the 2400W amp versus the original 4000W. I wonder if the longer port will do away with the need for the "plugged" tune as well. Speaking of - I have yet to try mine. Thanks for posting.
Reply
Reply
post #3113 of 4334
1/19/12 at 11:54am
This is very intriguing... I wonder the if new Captivators will have variable tuning (i.e. stuffing the port) like the older versions.
Reply
Reply
post #3114 of 4334
1/19/12 at 12:01pm
Those are very interesting changes. I would think that the 17.5hz tuning will eliminate the port plug option. I doubt that the audible difference between tuning at 17.5hz vs 15hz will be all that significant and the breathing will be much more efficient with two ports open.

The Beast continues to evolve!
Reply
Reply
post #3115 of 4334
1/19/12 at 12:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike View Post

Those are very interesting changes. I would think that the 17.5hz tuning will eliminate the port plug option. I doubt that the audible difference between tuning at 17.5hz vs 15hz will be all that significant and the breathing will be much more efficient with two ports open.

The Beast continues to evolve!

I'd say you're likely correct regarding the elimination of the plug - I was thinking the same.

He also stated there are a couple of 2011 Caps left...hmm. 4 caps and 2 XLS5000s for ridiculous output?? That would just be stupid.
Reply
Reply
post #3116 of 4334
1/19/12 at 12:24pm
I don't know what you guys with multiple Caps do with all that output. As for me with one Cap-Behringer and a PB13, I've got more-than-reference levels plus headroom in my huge room that opens to my whole house.
Reply
Reply
post #3117 of 4334
1/19/12 at 12:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike View Post

I don't know what you guys with multiple Caps do with all that output. As for me with one Cap-Behringer and a PB13, I've got more-than-reference levels plus headroom in my huge room that opens to my whole house.

I wasn't really serious in my statement above - I agree my 2 caps in a fairly large room do a bit more than an "ample" job. Honestly now that mine are properly powered, I think even one corner loaded Cap would really blast in my 8500 cu foot space. Experiment to follow - one Cap corner loaded, 8 ohm mono receiving 3500 watts from the XLS.
Reply
Reply
post #3118 of 4334
1/19/12 at 2:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorilla83 View Post

I wasn't really serious in my statement above - I agree my 2 caps in a fairly large room do a bit more than an "ample" job. Honestly now that mine are properly powered, I think even one corner loaded Cap would really blast in my 8500 cu foot space. Experiment to follow - one Cap corner loaded, 8 ohm mono receiving 3500 watts from the XLS.

Make sure you're using a HPF!!!

Also, as to the previous posts about Audyssey and whatnot, thank you for the information. I will be looking at that stuff soon, but have been really busy with the start of the new semester and didn't want you to think I was ignoring the subject.
Reply
Reply
post #3119 of 4334
1/19/12 at 3:20pm
So far , it sounds really good with music.
Reply
Reply
post #3120 of 4334
1/19/12 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hksvr4 View Post

So far , it sounds really good with music.

Cap1000 right? What is your setup and room size?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › JTR Captivator