or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › 2011 Kansas City Subwoofer Meet Results
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

2011 Kansas City Subwoofer Meet Results - Page 12

post #331 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

I understand, but those are very expensive subs. Well over $2000 each.

I paid $3200 (shipped, no tax) for quad Empires.

you could have gotten 7 Legends

or 32 of these

http://www.amazon.com/Polk-Audio-10-...dp/B0002KVQBA/
post #332 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Well, that what he is saying. Every amp in the testing thread never hit there specs so Mastermaybe is saying maybe the 4000 watt figure would not be 4000 watts. If it did use 4000 watts during the GTG then I would think it would be hitting much higher spl's. Maybe in a null? I did not see it at 20hz so it should have hit around 120 db's during WOTW but it did not. Was the meter set correctly? Maybe the battery was going bad?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Thanks mk, that's pretty much it. I was gonna bring up the SPL "thing" but it's been battered to near death in this thread and I didn't want to get the feathers ruffled all over again. Honest question though, IMO.

James

Hi Guys,

From the best I can tell in re-reading and what I've heard from those in attendance the peak SPL numbers are good for amusement and speculation, but they won't provide any solid conclusions. There were no frequency response measurements taken from the location of the SPL meter, and the attempt for maximum SPL readings was in the midst of doing the listening and evaluation for HT use. Unless you had time to go through each scene ~10 different times changing the level up and down for each subwoofer, it's impossible to know if maximum was reached. We know the maximum observed through the process, but we have no where near enough information to draw conclusions from a C-weighted dB SPL reading of a various complex soundtracks.

Counsil's comment about the SubMersive providing lots of subjective pressurization suggests he could have been sitting in a location where there was strong VLF energy, and the SubMersive HP's 2nd order, sealed roll off made for a big advantage down below the tuning and high pass filters of the other subwoofers. Between the relative response of the rest of the range (at the SPL meter) and the spectral content of the scenes played, we don't have enough information to determine why the readings came out as they did. There was no indication the meter was misbehaving, so that leaves us with the numbers recorded and many unknowns. The error here is probably in getting overly excited about the numbers.

Again, the VLF extension is the one correlating detail that tracks with the measured differences. The meter would register this energy according to the C-weighting curve (assuming that is what was used), and it makes perfect sense that while experienced, the subjective loudness of the deep VLF content was less than what was indicated by the SPL meter. None of this changes the listening impressions, and those can still be plenty interesting for the context of what was compared.
post #333 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by otk View Post

you could have gotten 7 Legends

or 32 of these

http://www.amazon.com/Polk-Audio-10-...dp/B0002KVQBA/

Touché.
post #334 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by otk View Post


you could have gotten 7 Legends

or 32 of these

http://www.amazon.com/Polk-Audio-10-...dp/B0002KVQBA/

Just pictured 32 of those scattered about my living room and the subsequent look on my wives face and I almost lost my liquid!

Just imagine 6 towers, 5-6 high??!! Lmao.

James
post #335 of 553
Stop teasing Chad....somebody order 7 Legends :-)
post #336 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by goonstopher View Post

Personally I never understood EQ built into amplifiers by default. Two rooms are never alike and the in room response may be totally different and cause the EQ to be detrimental even if it moves the ground plane closer to flat.

Why does the response of a main loudspeaker matter when the room's reflections will make that pretty anechoic curve look like a roller coaster? Answer: The power response and the larger scale balance from top to bottom are quite audible. More importantly, EQ is most effective when it is set to exactly combat different issues. You will often overlook or simply not be able to identify, mounds and tilts to the bass response once the room has had its way with it, but those trends are audible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

^ I forgot to mention that, but I'm certain it has to do with "tailoring" it specifially to the driver/cabinet...only to be potentially over-ridden by the eq/pre-pro/avr or whatever else is put in "front" of it.

James

This is a common assertion; that the in-room EQ will lump it all together. The simple test is to take a subwoofer with rather flat anechoic response and EQ in room. Now use an external single band PEQ to add a broad mound in the response around say 50-80Hz. Now go through the same process of applying EQ to the in-room response. See if you actually get the same curve without the benefit of overlaying them and inserting the exact filter to counter act this mound. Now listen and see if you hear a difference.

Small wiggles in the response are not as audible as we might think, but those wider bandwidth trends can be quite surprising. In fact they account for part (no, not all) of the character differences enthusiasts describe when doing direct plug-n-play comparisons.
post #337 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

Great. I attached the raw REW measurements to the first page. Hopefully someone will take the time to do this.

Before this gets burried can some post the distortion measurements since we have the raw REW files in the OP?
post #338 of 553
Thanks for the explanation mark...I didn't mean to imply it was without merit, I was just a bit skeptical of the total benefit once, as you said, it all gets "lumped together".

James
post #339 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by stgdz View Post

Before this gets burried can some post the distortion measurements since we have the raw REW files in the OP?

I don't think there is a way to extrapolate distortion from the measurements taken. The only way I know of to take distortion measurements in REW is through the RTA and by playing a sine wave.

-Mike
post #340 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post


I'd love to side by side the powered and competently powered passive cap and witness the results. As I've already stated, their are numerous owners who seem to be beyond satisfied with their passive model, but of course an immediate context against the powered version would prove to be very useful for obvious reasons. I for one would welcome the comparo...I am fortunate to have both the space and time to do so.

James

Hi James,

Since the rest of your post is insulting nonsense, I won't bother commenting.

The part I am quoting is what I've tried to explain to readers of this thread. You have the comparison right in front of you. All you have to do is stop playing subwoofer statistics and cost analysis expert and interpret the data available.

Here is a graph that has 4 traces scaled and overlaid:

1) JP's posted response of the powered Cap.
2) The resulting in-room FR of that Cap in the G2G room.
3) JP's posted response of a passive Cap.
4) The extrapolated resulting response of that passive Cap in the same room with the same placement/mic position.



The facts should be obvious. In order to bring the passive version to equality with the powered version, the top end must be pulled down, then the entire BW boosted by +6-7dB. JP can feel free to help me out here if I'm missing something.

Now, it's your stated opinion that a "capable amplifier", HPF and outboard EQ will result in a $1000 difference between the powered and passive versions and that the performances differences can be summed in one word... compromise.

The popular choice is the Behringer EP4k. If one chooses to use such a budget amp, the specs on the JTR site for the Cap fly out the window.

The fact is that the differences are rather significant. This would have been reflected in the results of the G2G, both subjectively and objectively.

It will take 2 of the passive Caps, Berry EP4ks, fan mods, cables and the Mic 2200 to have the same performance level as a single powered Cap. The difference being that with the powered version there is no required user-response mod or fan mod. You also get dead quiet operation, a single warranty source, extra rack space and a single power cord/single cable connection scheme, not to mention a much more predictably well behaved system.

So, you save $1000 and you get 1/2 the subwoofer performance, none of the advantages mentioned and possible warranty conflicts. Certainly, you're right about the compromises, but where does the savings part kick in? Of course, that's all irrelevant to me and up to any potential buyer to weigh. My only point in this thread regarding the 2 versions (and I only posted it at all because of requests from interested folks) is that the passive choice (the $1000 cheaper version you keep alluding to) would have faired notably worse at the G2G and that potential buyers should be made aware of the differences.

And, for the record, 1 of not's "gigantic boxes" and 1 of his amplifiers (a "one box solution for under $3000") cost him less than a powered cap and would have completely dominated the G2G. Yes, right.

Bosso
post #341 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Hi James,

Since the rest of your post is insulting nonsense, I won't bother commenting.

The part I am quoting is what I've tried to explain to readers of this thread. You have the comparison right in front of you. All you have to do is stop playing subwoofer statistics and cost analysis expert and interpret the data available.

Here is a graph that has 4 traces scaled and overlaid:

1) JP's posted response of the powered Cap.
2) The resulting in-room FR of that Cap in the G2G room.
3) JP's posted response of a passive Cap.
4) The extrapolated resulting response of that passive Cap in the same room with the same placement/mic position.



The facts should be obvious. In order to bring the passive version to equality with the powered version, the top end must be pulled down, then the entire BW boosted by +6-7dB. JP can feel free to help me out here if I'm missing something.

Now, it's your stated opinion that a "capable amplifier", HPF and outboard EQ will result in a $1000 difference between the powered and passive versions and that the performances differences can be summed in one word... compromise.

The popular choice is the Behringer EP4k. If one chooses to use such a budget amp, the specs on the JTR site for the Cap fly out the window.

The fact is that the differences are rather significant. This would have been reflected in the results of the G2G, both subjectively and objectively.

It will take 2 of the passive Caps, Berry EP4ks, fan mods, cables and the Mic 2200 to have the same performance level as a single powered Cap. The difference being that with the powered version there is no required user-response mod or fan mod. You also get dead quiet operation, a single warranty source, extra rack space and a single power cord/single cable connection scheme, not to mention a much more predictably well behaved system.

So, you save $1000 and you get 1/2 the subwoofer performance, none of the advantages mentioned and possible warranty conflicts. Certainly, you're right about the compromises, but where does the savings part kick in? Of course, that's all irrelevant to me and up to any potential buyer to weigh. My only point in this thread regarding the 2 versions (and I only posted it at all because of requests from interested folks) is that the passive choice (the $1000 cheaper version you keep alluding to) would have faired notably worse at the G2G and that potential buyers should be made aware of the differences.

And, for the record, 1 of not's "gigantic boxes" and 1 of his amplifiers (a "one box solution for under $3000") cost him less than a powered cap and would have completely dominated the G2G. Yes, right.

Bosso

None of it was "nonsense". Not a single word of it. And if you find a salient, level-headed reaction to your condescending posts "insulting" then I would encourage you to measure them a bit more carefully.

Matter of fact, on that topic, why don't you ask 5 people you know to read what you posted and then scan my response and ask them what's "insulting" and where the "nonsense" resides.

I should have known better to think that this would have been left alone nearly 24hrs ago, as internet forums have taught me better (or so I thought), but, sigh, whatever.

You're right, a powered Captivator is TWICE (what's twice or half, lol, who knows?!...kinda like mid-bass slam. right? ) the performer of a passive model and anyone who even considers the latter obviously lacks the intellect to engage in the "most correct" decision making processes. I'm certain you understand that's precisely what you're implying, right? lmao.

The apex of the laughable irony: you have absolutely no clue what I'm talking about re your commentary, nor how you essentially insulted a staggering number of AVS members who took the time out of their lives to read what essentially amounted to cornering the obvious while impaling those who don't think like you.

I, like countless others here, appreciate your knowledge and expertise in this discipline, but it's skewered by the effort you seem to put towards not-so-clandestinely belittling said subjects and their personal choice.

Now, I realize this is nonsensical drivel, so please spare me and the balance of the group with a response stating so. I in turn will continue to quietly operate in my own fantastical, wasteful, dream-world.

Happy Friday.

James
post #342 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post


You're right, a powered Captivator is TWICE (what's twice or half, lol, who knows?!...kinda like mid-bass slam. right? ) the performer of a passive model and anyone who even considers the latter obviously lacks the intellect to engage in the "most correct" decision making processes.

See, I read that too and it didn't make then, and it doesn't make sense now. I look at it as a beefy amp that you pony up the dough for to give you a nice one stop monster subwoofer solution. But unless logarithmic means something different to other people, I wouldn't dare imply it to be half the performer without it. It's like those people who say you need a beefy 400 rms amp on a pair of B&W 802s because it's half the performer at 200 watts. 5%, maybe 15%, sure, buy me a couple beers I'd believe it. Half seems goofy.
post #343 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post


It will take 2 of the passive Caps, Berry EP4ks, fan mods, cables and the Mic 2200 to have the same performance level as a single powered Cap. The difference being that with the powered version there is no required user-response mod or fan mod. You also get dead quiet operation, a single warranty source, extra rack space and a single power cord/single cable connection scheme, not to mention a much more predictably well behaved system.

So, you save $1000 and you get 1/2 the subwoofer performance, none of the advantages mentioned and possible warranty conflicts. Certainly, you're right about the compromises, but where does the savings part kick in? Of course, that's all irrelevant to me and up to any potential buyer to weigh. My only point in this thread regarding the 2 versions (and I only posted it at all because of requests from interested folks) is that the passive choice (the $1000 cheaper version you keep alluding to) would have faired notably worse at the G2G and that potential buyers should be made aware of the differences.

And, for the record, 1 of not's "gigantic boxes" and 1 of his amplifiers (a "one box solution for under $3000") cost him less than a powered cap and would have completely dominated the G2G. Yes, right.

Bosso

As far as "2 passive Caps(along with needed gear) = 1 powered Cap," I'm not getting your math. One powered Cap would require 4x the power of an EP4000to put as much as two passive Caps. Assuming that the Cap amp does indeed meet it's 4000 watt specs, it is not 4x the power of an EP4000.

Even if we were to assume that the powered Cap did indeed match two passive Caps in output (again, a ridiculous assumption), the two passive Caps along with the need gear are going to have superior performance and flexibility advantages. You could start with one passive Captivator, then add another one later powered by the same single EP4000. If needed, another amp can be added down the line. Two passive Caps have double the displacement and twice the voice coils of one, meaning less distortion and less thermal compression and two subs never driven to their limits. Two Caps (not co-located) are likely to have a smoother in-room response than one Cap. The external eq needed for the passive Caps give much more flexibility since you can not only eq the sub, but can also eq the room response. This still doesn't even take into account the option of easy amp upgrades should one want or need more power.

This is not a put-down of the powered Captivator, but there are other ways to go about getting similar or perhaps even superior results with similar overall costs as long as one doesn't mind the external equipment and tweaking.
post #344 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirpie View Post


See, I read that too and it didn't make then, and it doesn't make sense now. I look at it as a beefy amp that you pony up the dough for to give you a nice one stop monster subwoofer solution. But unless logarithmic means something different to other people, I wouldn't dare imply it to be half the performer without it. It's like those people who say you need a beefy 400 rms amp on a pair of B&W 802s because it's half the performer at 200 watts. 5%, maybe 15%, sure, buy me a couple beers I'd believe it. Half seems goofy.

I'm sure this is one of those "issues" that will become a circular, miserable contest of who can define an incalculable figure/value level the "best", and while I would guess most would likely tend to agree with us, that doesn't mean others are not free to their own thoughts, of course.

If for instance TWICE as 'good' is defined as 6 more dbs of output or an "x" amount of increased linearity over "x" range for some, how to you begin to even initiate a constructive dialogue when aligning the aforementioned stats against increased costs?

You know what I mean? I have already apologized to Bosso through PM and now to the rest of this thread for engaging in such speak which consistently ends where it started.

I look forward to continued dialogue regarding over what WAS auditioned last weekend.

James
post #345 of 553
How many passive Caps, using the EP4000, would it take to equal a single SubM's ULF? How many powered Caps? I believe it has already been established that it would at least 6 Empires.

What do the answers to the above tell us?
post #346 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

How many passive Caps, using the EP4000, would it take to equal a single SubM's ULF? How many powered Caps? I believe it has already been established that it would at least 6 Empires.

What do the answers to the above tell us?

It tells that we have too much friggin' time on our hands and we nothing better to do than debate a bunch of useless audio drivel!
post #347 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

How many passive Caps, using the EP4000, would it take to equal a single SubM's ULF? How many powered Caps?

What do the answers to the above tell us?

below the tuning point of the cap ?

eleventy billion
post #348 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike View Post

It tells that we have too much friggin' time on our hands and we nothing better to do than debate a bunch of useless audio drivel!

all this noise about noise
post #349 of 553
I suppose I thought that (throwing SQ out for just a second) that the Seaton was the "deeper sub" (obviously) while the Cap would not only have more output ~ 20hz but still above that point, in general, given a comparable amount of supplied power.

In my head, for whatever reason, I think I just assumed that the 18" high excursion driver, larger, ported box and HP amp would outgun the Seaton, but I guess I didn't put enough thought/consideration into Mark's great design, TWO powered 15" drivers, and its own high powered amp.

In short, I think I looked at it from an apples to apples typical hi-end sealed vs hi-end ported comparison, but the Submersive is far from "just" a typical, really good sealed sub- far beyond one in fact, considering the Caps capabilities.

I know this is obvious to most, so lol. BTW: I'm pretty much basing this on bosso's assertion that he would expect/wasn't surprised the Seaton to equal or best the JTR pretty much around the block, SPL-wise.

If I have that wrong bosso, please correct me.

James
post #350 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by otk View Post

below the tuning point of the cap ?

eleventy billion

"That's not even a real number."

"Yet!"
post #351 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by chirpie View Post

"That's not even a real number."

"Yet!"

post #352 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike View Post

As far as "2 passive Caps(along with needed gear) = 1 powered Cap," I'm not getting your math. One powered Cap would require 4x the power of an EP4000to put as much as two passive Caps. Assuming that the Cap amp does indeed meet it's 4000 watt specs, it is not 4x the power of an EP4000.

Even if we were to assume that the powered Cap did indeed match two passive Caps in output (again, a ridiculous assumption), the two passive Caps along with the need gear are going to have superior performance and flexibility advantages.

Let me try a stab at helping you to get my math:

The EP2500 gave 1336W into 8 ohms per Chas' results. If you have 2 of them, each bridged into a passive Cap the output would roughly equal a single powered Cap with 4000W, within an inaudible difference.

Try it another way. The Cap is spec'd at 91dB 1W/1M @ 20 Hz. With 1336W, that's roughly 121.5dB. Dual system adds +6dB, or a total of 127.5dB. A single system with 4000W comes to approximately 126.9dB.

Yeah, it's not exactly 4x, but close enough to make the point, which has apparently been completely lost on everyone here, to the point of labeling my post "(a ridiculous assumption)".

And, although I know it's an assumption that's been written in stone by most who post here, spreading out the dual passives does not guarantee a better in room response. Even if so, it would not have been relevant at the G2G, where all subs were placed in the same spot.

As far as distortion, etc., one would hope that JP hasn't built the powered system so that the amp overpowers the driver to audibly poor non-linear behavior. That's an assumption I made and I'll stick by it.

Again, the point I was making is that the compromise mentioned earlier in saving $1000 by using a grossly underpowered amplifier and a cheap 2 parametric band mic pre has been grossly understated here and elsewhere, IMO, and according to the facts of the matter.

That is, unless you have a different math formula, in which case maybe you could explain?

Bosso
post #353 of 553
Bosso, I dont know if you ever peek in the Cap thread, but it seems the "rocking"/distortion that was present with the Cap when pushed at the KC GTG has now been remedied with some modification to the driver, acording to JP.

Spose we'll see what happens now at some point...perhaps that rocking was limiting output in some form, I don't know.

Just fyi.

James
post #354 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Let me try a stab at helping you to get my math:

The EP2500 gave 1336W into 8 ohms per Chas' results. If you have 2 of them, each bridged into a passive Cap the output would roughly equal a single powered Cap with 4000W, within an inaudible difference.

Try it another way. The Cap is spec'd at 91dB 1W/1M @ 20 Hz. With 1336W, that's roughly 121.5dB. Dual system adds +6dB, or a total of 127.5dB. A single system with 4000W comes to approximately 126.9dB.

Yeah, it's not exactly 4x, but close enough to make the point, which has apparently been completely lost on everyone here, to the point of labeling my post "(a ridiculous assumption)".

And, although I know it's an assumption that's been written in stone by most who post here, spreading out the dual passives does not guarantee a better in room response. Even if so, it would not have been relevant at the G2G, where all subs were placed in the same spot.

As far as distortion, etc., one would hope that JP hasn't built the powered system so that the amp overpowers the driver to audibly poor non-linear behavior. That's an assumption I made and I'll stick by it.

Again, the point I was making is that the compromise mentioned earlier in saving $1000 by using a grossly underpowered amplifier and a cheap 2 parametric band mic pre has been grossly understated here and elsewhere, IMO, and according to the facts of the matter.

That is, unless you have a different math formula, in which case maybe you could explain?

Bosso

Let me take another stab at this math thing. Be sure to correct me if I'm wrong since math is not my strong suit.

One passive Captivator with 1336 watts of power will produce "x" db.
For "x+3db" we need 2672 watts.
For the output of two passive Captivators, we need x+6db. To produce "x+6db" we would need 5344 watts into one powered Captivator. With 4000 watts output, we come up 1344 watts short. That's only the straight math and does not even take into account the effects of dynamic compression as we push 2000, 3000, 4000 watts into one driver.
post #355 of 553
Nvmd ... think your math is correct!
post #356 of 553
No, it's a DOUBLING of input for every additonal 3dbs.

James
post #357 of 553
Yeah, scotch, playoffs, and math don't mix ....
post #358 of 553
$hit, I didn't know scotch mixed with anything.

James
post #359 of 553
I'm sure bosso will tell you that the ~1300 watt shortage is negligible (less than one db) from an SPL standpoint when we're at these kinds of power levels (4000+ watts).

But then again, an amp like mine at around 2300 cont is "grossly underpowered" compared to this proposed 4000 watt model...at around a 2.5 db difference, so go figure: 1db: negligible. 2.5db: worthwhile. ??? I know, I know, don't forget the "impossible to duplicate" EQ in the amp (jk!).

Again, not considering any compression though either.

James
post #360 of 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike View Post

Let me take another stab at this math thing. Be sure to correct me if I'm wrong since math is not my strong suit.

One passive Captivator with 1336 watts of power will produce "x" db.
For "x+3db" we need 2672 watts.
For the output of two passive Captivators, we need x+6db. To produce "x+6db" we would need 5344 watts into one powered Captivator. With 4000 watts output, we come up 1344 watts short. That's only the straight math and does not even take into account the effects of dynamic compression as we push 2000, 3000, 4000 watts into one driver.

Is this a case where the 7200 watt burst capability of the plate amp comes into play? Typical content, as opposed to a continuous 20 Hz sine wave, won't demand high continuous draw, no?

Chris
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › 2011 Kansas City Subwoofer Meet Results