or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Official Rythmik Audio Subwoofer thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Rythmik Audio Subwoofer thread - Page 217

post #6481 of 15242
Sanjay, is accuracy to the signal different than accuracy to their intention or the real performance?
post #6482 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain- View Post

OCD much.

Resort to ad hominem attacks much.
post #6483 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwarny View Post

Sanjay, is accuracy to the signal different than accuracy to their intention or the real performance?

Certainly, but it is a different definition of "accuracy" than what I was discussing with Brian: "All of these are something we can experience in life. We can make judgement how detail and truthful the sound is." Of the three definitions of accuracy you mentioned above, this would fall closer to 'real performance' than artistic intent or source signal. Obviously, there's more than one view of what accuracy means, hence me originally asking "accurate to what?".
post #6484 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

'Accurate' in this case is based on your aural memory of those sounds (gusty sea wind, waves hitting hull of ship, splash of barrels dropped into water). But that is a very personal view of 'accurate', since we each have our own ideas of what those sounds should be like, based on our own personal memories. This is why I refer to it as preference. A more objective idea of 'accurate' is to compare the bass you're hearing to the bass that was heard on the mixing stage, since this doesn't rely on each person's aural memory as a reference.

Based on my experience with your subs, and listening to the same material on mixing stages, you're hearing more low frequency details at home compared to the commercial subwoofers in mixing stages (not to mention reproducing lower frequencies). Likewise, I routinely hear phantom imaging between my surrounds that simply isn't possible with the large arrays of surround speakers in commercial venues. So if you're hearing details that the film makers did not intended you to hear, is that still considered 'accurate'? That's not how I would use the word, but at the same time I'm not willing to give up those details in order to pursue some notion of 'accuracy'.

You are assuming the speakers in mixing room are the golden reference. They are not. You also imply that your sound system can never be better than those in studios. That is your logic, as simple as that. If they use NSM10, does that mean NSM10 is the best speaker? As a matter of fact, your sound system can be more revealing than those. If you spend enough money, you can buy better speakers. If you do that, and you hear something good they don't hear, you should praise lord that they didn't mess up, instead of imagining that you hear something you shouldn't. On the other hand if you hear something bad that they don't (assuming it is not caused by your equipments), then you know they have messed it up. A good recording has unlimited potential to let the audio equipments to advance technology wise and therefore allow us to extract more and more (meaning you hear more and more, and can stand up the test of time). Poor recording is, on the other hand, just as good as those played back from the studio in that specific room, with that specific room treatment. In other words, you need to replicate the studio which is impossible.
post #6485 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmonighetti View Post

Hi Brian. I have a few quick questions about the subtuner.

Here are my selections for my NHT Absolute Tower mains, TwoC Center, and FV15HP with 2 ports.

Step1: sealed
Step2: floor standing
Step3: 5.25 Number:3
Step4: yes
Step4.1: yes
Step5: 90hz (My right main has a dip at 80hz which must be room interaction issues and 90 seems to give me slightly better bass.)
Step6: -1
Step6.1: 12
Step6.2: HT input
Step7: LFE
Step8: No
Step8.1: 0

My questions:
  1. Steps 1-3 refer to Left and Right only correct? Obviously my center is not floor standing and has a different sized mid-range driver.
  2. Due to my room layout my speakers cannot be ideally positioned. So for step 6 what number should I use? These are my front speaker and sub distances from main listening position:

    Front Left = 13ft
    Center = 11ft
    Front Right = 12ft
    Sub = 11.5ft

  3. I have a marantz 6006 avr. Is the delay time just the distance of the speakers? If so given the measured distances above what number should I use?
Thanks - Brian.

I think -1 in step 6 is correct. Audio delay time is different. Audio delay time is the delay added to audio relative to video. Video takes longer to process. A lot of times, you notice the sound is not in sync with the video (video always lags). So use the delay time for that adjustment.
post #6486 of 15242
I'm still confused on your comments about step 6.1. In the subtuner I am supposed to enter "the distance of front speakers (in ft)" which you say is for audio delay. But any sound delay settings in my AVR are in miliseconds (0-100) for syncing audio and video.
post #6487 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmonighetti View Post

I'm still confused on your comments about step 6.1. In the subtuner I am supposed to enter "the distance of front speakers (in ft)" which you say is for audio delay. But any sound delay settings in my AVR are in miliseconds (0-100) for syncing audio and video.

You are confusing audio/video sync delay (usually listed in milliseconds) with your speaker settings used in calibration (e.g. Audessey). Brian's sub tuner is referring to the calibration settings, not audio/video sync.
post #6488 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by millerrh View Post

You are confusing audio/video sync delay (usually listed in milliseconds) with your speaker settings used in calibration (e.g. Audessey). Brian's sub tuner is referring to the calibration settings, not audio/video sync.

+1. What your receiver does with distance information is essentially delay the closest speakers so that their sound reaches your ears at the same time as the more distant speakers, as it would if you had all your speakers an equal distance from your ears. It can't make the farther speakers "speak" sooner as that would require time travel and it obviously does not physically move the more distant speakers closer. There's really only one option left to calibrate for distance . . .
post #6489 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmik View Post

You are assuming the speakers in mixing room are the golden reference. They are not. You also imply that your sound system can never be better than those in studios. That is your logic, as simple as that. If they use NSM10, does that mean NSM10 is the best speaker? As a matter of fact, your sound system can be more revealing than those. If you spend enough money, you can buy better speakers. If you do that, and you hear something good they don't hear, you should praise lord that they didn't mess up, instead of imagining that you hear something you shouldn't. On the other hand if you hear something bad that they don't (assuming it is not caused by your equipments), then you know they have messed it up. A good recording has unlimited potential to let the audio equipments to advance technology wise and therefore allow us to extract more and more (meaning you hear more and more, and can stand up the test of time). Poor recording is, on the other hand, just as good as those played back from the studio in that specific room, with that specific room treatment. In other words, you need to replicate the studio which is impossible.

^
Check.
post #6490 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmik View Post

You are assuming the speakers in mixing room are the golden reference.

Not golden, just a valid reference because that's what the film makers signed off on. Your reference to guage accuracy was your aural memory of certain sounds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmik View Post

You also imply that your sound system can never be better than those in studios.

Other way 'round: I said that my Rythmiks let me hear more bass detail (and lower frequencies) than the commercial subs in mixing studios, just as I hear imaging between speakers at home that is not possible on mixing stages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmik View Post

If you do that, and you hear something good they don't hear, you should praise lord that they didn't mess up, instead of imagining that you hear something you shouldn't. On the other hand if you hear something bad that they don't (assuming it is not caused by your equipments), then you know they have messed it up.

I'm not advocating that we limit our home systems to match the limitations of a mixing studio or commercial theatre. My only point was that, if I'm hearing more and/or different things than the film makers intended, then I can't label that as "accurate". YMMV
post #6491 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rythmik View Post

You are assuming the speakers in mixing room are the golden reference. They are not. You also imply that your sound system can never be better than those in studios. That is your logic, as simple as that. If they use NSM10, does that mean NSM10 is the best speaker? As a matter of fact, your sound system can be more revealing than those. If you spend enough money, you can buy better speakers. If you do that, and you hear something good they don't hear, you should praise lord that they didn't mess up, instead of imagining that you hear something you shouldn't. On the other hand if you hear something bad that they don't (assuming it is not caused by your equipments), then you know they have messed it up. A good recording has unlimited potential to let the audio equipments to advance technology wise and therefore allow us to extract more and more (meaning you hear more and more, and can stand up the test of time). Poor recording is, on the other hand, just as good as those played back from the studio in that specific room, with that specific room treatment. In other words, you need to replicate the studio which is impossible.


Speaker accuracy really has nothing to do with our hearing or listening environment, Brian, you know that as an engineer. It's about how a speaker can replicate the input signal. I know you don't design your subs to suite your particular hearing abilities or anyone elses. I assume that listening tests are done, though, to see how the design performs based on the design specs.

Your response to...

Originally Posted by sdurani
'Accurate' in this case is based on your aural memory of those sounds (gusty sea wind, waves hitting hull of ship, splash of barrels dropped into water). But that is a very personal view of 'accurate', since we each have our own ideas of what those sounds should be like, based on our own personal memories. This is why I refer to it as preference. A more objective idea of 'accurate' is to compare the bass you're hearing to the bass that was heard on the mixing stage, since this doesn't rely on each person's aural memory as a reference.

Based on my experience with your subs, and listening to the same material on mixing stages, you're hearing more low frequency details at home compared to the commercial subwoofers in mixing stages (not to mention reproducing lower frequencies). Likewise, I routinely hear phantom imaging between my surrounds that simply isn't possible with the large arrays of surround speakers in commercial venues. So if you're hearing details that the film makers did not intended you to hear, is that still considered 'accurate'? That's not how I would use the word, but at the same time I'm not willing to give up those details in order to pursue some notion of 'accuracy'.

...is off base in my opinion. What's this 'aural memory' thing, anyway? Lot's of leniency towards many of your posts.
post #6492 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by errivera View Post

...is off base in my opinion. What's this 'aural memory' thing, anyway? Lot's of leniency towards many of your posts.

It is ok. It is just like an Israeli engineering friend (EE majored) told me a joke that goes like "5 Jews, 10 opinions". I think that goes to a lot of different "groups" too. We all entitled to the different opinion and our opinion changes over time.
post #6493 of 15242
Do a search for "aural memory", much discussed...

Having been in the studio on both sides of the mic and done live sound plus played in various groups (small jazz through orchestra) over the decades, as well as being a design engineer, I have decided accuracy is fairly meaningless and just go for what I like to hear. (OK, joking, but with a bit of truth in it -- I'd rather listen to the music than the gear.)
post #6494 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

My only point was that, if I'm hearing more and/or different things than the film makers intended, then I can't label that as "accurate". YMMV

You mean if this studio recorded a full blown orchestra the sound would be more accurate at the studio



than this ?

post #6495 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

Do a search for "aural memory", much discussed...

Having been in the studio on both sides of the mic and done live sound plus played in various groups (small jazz through orchestra) over the decades, as well as being a design engineer, I have decided accuracy is fairly meaningless and just go for what I like to hear. (OK, joking, but with a bit of truth in it -- I'd rather listen to the music than the gear.)

I agree. It is good sound followed by solid engineering. If solid engineering yields poor sound, that is the purpose of solid engineering? It probably should be called wrong solid engineering. There are a bunch of these.
post #6496 of 15242
qguy,

First photo is a recording studio, second photo is a mastering studio. Totally different things.... Mastering is the final step on any record (EQ, compression, limiting, etc) Usually mastering studios use Hi-Fi high end speakers instead of powered monitors. Sterling Sound NY is one of the biggest mastering studios in the US. They bought from us 3 pairs of F15 three years ago to replace old Velodyne subwoofers.

http://www.rythmikaudio.com/reviews.html
post #6497 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by castaño View Post

qguy,

First photo is a recording studio, second photo is a mastering studio. Totally different things.... Mastering is the final step on any record (EQ, compression, limiting, etc) Usually mastering studios use Hi-Fi high end speakers instead of powered monitors. Sterling Sound NY is one of the biggest mastering studios in the US. They bought from us 3 pairs of F15 three years ago to replace old Velodyne subwoofers.

http://www.rythmikaudio.com/reviews.html

Quite interesting.

It's no wonder then, that this sounds so good on my system:
http://store.acousticsounds.com/d/75...id_Stereo_SACD

It's one of the top 5 titles in my collection for both SQ and performance. Now waiting for release of "Teaser and the Firecat".
post #6498 of 15242
I thought this thread was about Rythmik Subs not the pseudo science, theory, conjecture and BS on what the definition of "accurate" is.
post #6499 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by JHAz View Post

+1. What your receiver does with distance information is essentially delay the closest speakers so that their sound reaches your ears at the same time as the more distant speakers, as it would if you had all your speakers an equal distance from your ears. It can't make the farther speakers "speak" sooner as that would require time travel and it obviously does not physically move the more distant speakers closer. There's really only one option left to calibrate for distance . . .

Thanks for all your help. I realize my questions may seem elementary but I really want to get this right.

I checked my audyssey menus and it appears the parameter check that reports the distances as calculated by audyssey is what I should be using. Audyssey reports it as:

FL 13.2
FR 13.4
C 12.5
RL 9.2
RR 9.2
Sub 14


So based on this I would set step 6 to 1 since the sub is about 1 foot further away than the average of my three front speakers.

What do I put in step 6.1?? I still cannot find the delay value you have refered to so if you know where I can find this with my Marantz please offer some suggestions. Or is this delay value calculated from the information above? If it is and the front speakers are time aligned with the sub since it is the furthest speaker then I would enter 0 in this step - correct? Or should it be calculated differently?

Thanks again. By the way the FV15HP is amazing. I have quickly realized that my sub is no longer the weak link in my audio setup
post #6500 of 15242
I find all this conjecture and false equivalence examples disheartening.
One's playback system should aim for accuracy first, because it provides consistency. Afterwards if one prefers to tweak somethings to preference within a certain degree, then enjoy.

A proper studio system does its best minimize variation and to conform to a standard of accuracy. If this does not happen it will result in significant inconsistencies and variances in the final product.

An example that actually has bearing on this would be if a studio used speakers that cannot accurately and dynamically reproduce high frequencies. The engineer's response will be to compensate for the recessed highs but the final release will have excessive HFs which will sound terrible and fatiguing on any system that is even close to being accurate. That is completely different from an auditorial decision to emphasis say clapping with a boost in EQ or adding some compression to best compliment the recording.

The best engineering and mastering studios strive for flat accurate systems because it reduces unintended variances. Many have used or still use the NSM10 as a baseline to gauge how their mixes will sound in the real world. Clearly some studios do not follow good practices and engineers in both the recording studio and mastering are far too often asked to compress any semblance of dynamics but to argue that standards and accuracy are subjective and unnecessary is absurd.

Pandering to the subjective snake oil arguments of pseudo-audiophiles leaves me cold. In fact it causes me to be disinclined to follow up on purchasing and assembling another DIY kit.

The primary reason I even decided to spend my money with Rythmik was the review by Audioholics that extolled the performance and value of the FV15HP with provided verifiable measurements. Also the supposed company mantra of being accurate but more efficient also appealed to my expectations.

I do applaud that Brian is an active participant in the thread and seems to genuinely provide a solid product yet casting the virtues of accuracy as unattainable and unnecessary with goal post moving arguments does not imbue concrete objective confidence.

Best Regards
KvE
post #6501 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by errivera View Post

Lot's of leniency towards many of your posts.

You're right, and I'm guilty of it. Having spoken to Brian several times, exchanged multiple e-mails with him and bought subwoofers from his company, I have no desire to fight with him but I am interested in having a civil discussion about differing definitions of the term "accurate". If that comes across as leniency, then so be it. But I hope you understand the reason for my tone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonH50 View Post

I have decided accuracy is fairly meaningless and just go for what I like to hear.

Same here, hence my earlier comment about having bought Rythmik subs based on personal preference rather than some notion of accuracy. I may not know what a lightsaber or dinosaur sound like, nor what those sound effects sounded like during the final mix, but I do know what I like.
post #6502 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

I find all this conjecture and false equivalence examples disheartening.

The discussion is a bit out of hand.
Quote:


One's playback system should aim for accuracy first, because it provides consistency. Afterwards if one prefers to tweak somethings to preference within a certain degree, then enjoy.

This has always been my position. But Sanjay questioned what accuracy is and hence all these discussion.

Quote:


A proper studio system does its best minimize variation and to conform to a standard of accuracy. If this does not happen it will result in significant inconsistencies and variances in the final product.

Not just studio. NHT signed off their speakers by listening in two rooms: one large and one small.

Quote:



An example that actually has bearing on this would be if a studio used speakers that cannot accurately and dynamically reproduce high frequencies. The engineer's response will be to compensate for the recessed highs but the final release will have excessive HFs which will sound terrible and fatiguing on any system that is even close to being accurate. That is completely different from an auditorial decision to emphasis say clapping with a boost in EQ or adding some compression to best compliment the recording.

I already made that point in one of the earlier post that the recording result can be inverse in characteristic of the studio speakers.

Quote:


The best engineering and mastering studios strive for flat accurate systems because it reduces unintended variances. Many have used or still use the NSM10 as a baseline to gauge how their mixes will sound in the real world. Clearly some studios do not follow good practices and engineers in both the recording studio and mastering are far too often asked to compress any semblance of dynamics but to argue that standards and accuracy are subjective and unnecessary is absurd.

I think we all assume this is already done. The discussion goes beyond flat frequency response. We all know how to make it flat. The underlying assumption is it is already flat and yet it still makes a difference in terms of details. Then which one is more accurate. It is like trying to guess what a recording made 30 years ago how it sound like in studio 30 years ago.

Quote:


Pandering to the subjective snake oil arguments of pseudo-audiophiles leaves me cold. In fact it causes me to be disinclined to follow up on purchasing and assembling another DIY kit.

The primary reason I even decided to spend my money with Rythmik was the review by Audioholics that extolled the performance and value of the FV15HP with provided verifiable measurements. Also the supposed company mantra of being accurate but more efficient also appealed to my expectations.

The entire product line is based on a patent. If you read the patent, you will find it one of the most rigorous modelling of the servo. I have an advanced degree. The training I had for solving problem is always assumption -> modelling -> problem solving -> confirm results. I later also filed a patent for reducing distortion. All of them based on rigorous modelling, mathmatics and same formal problem solving procedure. I don't sell snake oil if that is what you perceive. I can only hand waving on some of the selling points because any detail explanation beyond the scope of patent is considered "trade secret". I cannot fully disclose that.

Quote:


I do applaud that Brian is an active participant in the thread and seems to genuinely provide a solid product yet casting the virtues of accuracy as unattainable and unnecessary with goal post moving arguments does not imbue concrete objective confidence.

Best Regards
KvE

If it sounded that way, that was not my intent.
post #6503 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kini62 View Post

I thought this thread was about Rythmik Subs not the pseudo science, theory, conjecture and BS on what the definition of "accurate" is.

We can all blame Sanjay for it.
post #6504 of 15242
Fair enough Brian, thank you for the reply and clarification.

My initial reaction is partly due to some prior statements that at least to my understanding fall under esoteric snake oil claims, such as upgrading various expensive wiring options to improve performance.

With that said I am very pleased with the stellar performance of my, for some around here lowly 370watt amp;}, DS1505 kit. Even more so after making a few adjustments in my settings; specifically turning off THX BGC which helped my old sub but evidently hindered my current one. Now I just need to tweak in the levels because it is a smidge fatiguing with BGC off.

On another topic, I thought it was said somewhere that there may be plans for a 1200watt amp for the F25 or was that simply speculation from another commenter. I ask because after all the praise given for the 15" 600watt it has left me wondering if perhaps I sold myself short. Yet things sound awesome right now, the possibilities tease at the Hi-Fi soul.

Best Regards
KvE
post #6505 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

You're right, and I'm guilty of it. Having spoken to Brian several times, exchanged multiple e-mails with him and bought subwoofers from his company, I have no desire to fight with him but I am interested in having a civil discussion about differing definitions of the term "accurate". If that comes across as leniency, then so be it. But I hope you understand the reason for my tone. Same here, hence my earlier comment about having bought Rythmik subs based on personal preference rather than some notion of accuracy. I may not know what a lightsaber or dinosaur sound like, nor what those sound effects sounded like during the final mix, but I do know what I like.


The wonderful thing about this forum is that everyone is civil in their posts. Okay, I've read a few that were out there but overall, the conversations are instructional and sincere.
post #6506 of 15242
oops.. I thought it was a high end home rig as it looks just like what I have at home mine is better as it has Rythmik Sub, this photo does not



Quote:
Originally Posted by castaño View Post

qguy,

First photo is a recording studio, second photo is a mastering studio. Totally different things.... Mastering is the final step on any record (EQ, compression, limiting, etc) Usually mastering studios use Hi-Fi high end speakers instead of powered monitors. Sterling Sound NY is one of the biggest mastering studios in the US. They bought from us 3 pairs of F15 three years ago to replace old Velodyne subwoofers.

http://www.rythmikaudio.com/reviews.html
post #6507 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

On another topic, I thought it was said somewhere that there may be plans for a 1200watt amp for the F25 or was that simply speculation from another commenter. I ask because after all the praise given for the 15" 600watt it has left me wondering if perhaps I sold myself short. Yet things sound awesome right now, the possibilities tease at the Hi-Fi soul.

Best Regards
KvE

I will leave that as speculation for now. I really want to expand the product line. But my supplier cannot work fast enough.

You want to go to higher power only when you feel you need to. If you can wait, there will be more options down the road. Hopefully it won't create a problem of not knowing which one to choose.
post #6508 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by bmonighetti View Post

Thanks for all your help. I realize my questions may seem elementary but I really want to get this right.

I checked my audyssey menus and it appears the parameter check that reports the distances as calculated by audyssey is what I should be using. Audyssey reports it as:

FL 13.2
FR 13.4
C 12.5
RL 9.2
RR 9.2
Sub 14


So based on this I would set step 6 to 1 since the sub is about 1 foot further away than the average of my three front speakers.

What do I put in step 6.1?? I still cannot find the delay value you have refered to so if you know where I can find this with my Marantz please offer some suggestions. Or is this delay value calculated from the information above? If it is and the front speakers are time aligned with the sub since it is the furthest speaker then I would enter 0 in this step - correct? Or should it be calculated differently?

Thanks again. By the way the FV15HP is amazing. I have quickly realized that my sub is no longer the weak link in my audio setup

Brian, Audyssey already calculated the distance and use it in the automatic setup. So I don't think you need to do anything. Subtuner2 is more for those who need to over-ride Audyssey's distance measurement or manually set distance in an AVR with no auto setup capability. If you want to verify if subtuner 2 reports similar results as Audyssey, you should enter "1" step 6.1.
post #6509 of 15242
Brian,

I noticed in using the sub tuner that there is not an FV15HP option. I just used the FV15 option for my use (two ports). Is there any adjustments I need to make to better tailor it to the FV15HP?

Thanks!

Regards,

RTROSE
post #6510 of 15242
Quote:
Originally Posted by KMFDMvsEnya View Post

My initial reaction is partly due to some prior statements that at least to my understanding fall under esoteric snake oil claims, such as upgrading various expensive wiring options to improve performance.

Now I remember I made a remark like that when a customer asked me which interconnect he should use, around the same time that DS-21 crossed it out and say interconnect makes no difference. I need to clarify my position on this. First, I have two pairs of interconnects: one is Kimber KCAG and one is Clear Audio Discovery signature. I had them for over 10 years and never felt I need to purchase another pair. They do make a subtle, but audible difference. It is not day and night difference and it is also not always good. Each seems to sacrifice some area to gain in other area. It is a good tool for tweaker. But I don't want to be one, let alone let the customer be one. But even with that, Bill Bush (when he was with NHT) did tell me that they spent time selecting good sounding budget capacitors for their crossover. So there are certain aspects of components that do make a difference. I recognize it, but I am not crazy about it. That is different from saying I advocate snake oil.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Official Rythmik Audio Subwoofer thread