or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Speaker Shootout!!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Speaker Shootout!! - Page 4

post #91 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

They're not extending to 12kHz. Looks like they're down well over 10dB at that point.

MK, are you ok with that? I know the ears should be the final arbiter, but it seems there's got to be an audible impact with essentially no effective output above 10-11K

He's using a Rat Shack SPL meter for mic, so his HF readings are not likely to be very accurate.
post #92 of 1141
That could explain it. I thought he had picked up a condensor mic and preamp...
post #93 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

That could explain it. I thought he had picked up a condensor mic and preamp...

I've owned and tested MK speakers that use the same tweeter as the ones that MKTheter posted graphs of on the first page of this thread, and they had usable output up to 16KHz, with the expected roll off above that point.
post #94 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

He's using a Rat Shack SPL meter for mic, so his HF readings are not likely to be very accurate.

His got a new (Behringer ECM 8000?), calibrated mic. I think these measurements are with that mic.
post #95 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

I've owned and tested MK speakers that use the same tweeter as the ones that MKTheter posted graphs of on the first page of this thread, and they had usable output up to 16KHz, with the expected roll off above that point.

The measurements on the first page did use the RS mic...I think.
post #96 of 1141
Thread Starter 
Still using the RS meter, the new mic and preamp has not arrived yet. This was to get a measurement on the DR's close to the others and see if they sound as good. I will remeasure with the new gear when I get it.
post #97 of 1141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifisponge View Post

I've owned and tested MK speakers that use the same tweeter as the ones that MKTheter posted graphs of on the first page of this thread, and they had usable output up to 16KHz, with the expected roll off above that point.

The 5000's and maybe the SC-1's are the only M&K speakers with these open back transmission line tweeters. Not that the others measure worse, just that they are different unless they are those 2 speakers you measured.
post #98 of 1141
Thread Starter 
Here is my sub's response at the LP.



I am using the digital rat shack meter on c-weighting, no cal files. The DR's still can sound rough at times but during Tron it was very clear and effortless. I need to run the M&K's and Triads the same way to be sure.
post #99 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Here is my sub's response at the LP.

I am using the digital rat shack meter on c-weighting, no cal files. The DR's still can sound rough at times but during Tron it was very clear and effortless. I need to run the M&K's and Triads the same way to be sure.

I assume that's with bass management engaged? Is your crossover at 70 Hz?
post #100 of 1141
Thread Starter 
80 hz. It always rolls off before the xo.
post #101 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

80 hz. It always rolls off before the xo.

Which I think is perfectly acceptable. Looks like from 15hz-80hz you are +/- 3db which is impressive in its own right.

-Chad
post #102 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

80 hz. It always rolls off before the xo.

I was close. Your FR is outstanding, although I usually use 1/6 smoothing since it is often cited as the finest resolution we actually hear. When calibrating I will often go with a higher resolution (1/24) to get a little better picture of what's going on, then retake a shot at 1/6 to be sure I got everything that matters.
post #103 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

They're not extending to 12kHz. Looks like they're down well over 10dB at that point.

MK, are you ok with that? I know the ears should be the final arbiter, but it seems there's got to be an audible impact with essentially no effective output above 10-11K

Is this with the SPL meter or the new mic?
post #104 of 1141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post


Is this with the SPL meter or the new mic?

Still the spl meter. I use rew's eq filters to eq and just plug them in my processor. I don't use smoothing until I take the graph.
post #105 of 1141
Cool. Knowing your room, I would be surprised to see any significant difference between 1/3 and 1/6 anyway.
post #106 of 1141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

Cool. Knowing your room, I would be surprised to see any significant difference between 1/3 and 1/6 anyway.

Correct, it was still +/- 3 dbs and from 10 hz it is +/- 5 dbs.
post #107 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

They're not extending to 12kHz. Looks like they're down well over 10dB at that point.

MK, are you ok with that? I know the ears should be the final arbiter, but it seems there's got to be an audible impact with essentially no effective output above 10-11K

Maybe MK didn't set REW to measure up to 20KHz? Nevermind, I made it to the last page...he hasn't used the new gear.
post #108 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Maybe MK didn't set REW to measure up to 20KHz? Nevermind, I made it to the last page...he hasn't used the new gear.

If MK changes measuring gear like he does speakers, it's possible he already has new gear to replace the "new gear".
post #109 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

If MK changes measuring gear like he does speakers, it's possible he already has new gear to replace the "new gear".

How about a measurement gear shootout?

Craig
post #110 of 1141
Thread Starter 
So I tried phantom center and it sound great, but then I switched to center and everything became more dynamic and much better. The bass even became very powerful again. I think my processor might compress the audio without the center. I will have to test all the speakers as pairs with phantom center.
post #111 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

How about a measurement gear shootout?

Craig

Speaker shootouts are child's play compared to that shootout. I don't think even MK has the stomach for that mess
post #112 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

So I tried phantom center and it sound great, but then I switched to center and everything became more dynamic and much better. The bass even became very powerful again. I think my processor might compress the audio without the center. I will have to test all the speakers as pairs with phantom center.

AFAIK, most, if not all, do compress with a phantom center.
post #113 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gooddoc View Post

AFAIK, most, if not all, do compress with a phantom center.

Out of curiosity, if you run DTS or DD but with no surrounds (just LCR.1), do most processors/receivers compress/mix the surround channels into the LR? Reason I ask is I just got my surrounds hooked up and the LCR seems to sounds much better, more open, less distortion. Or, it could be just my imagination.
post #114 of 1141
Since you had no surrounds, it's possible you've been listening to the 2 channel audio track on the disc in the past. I'm pretty sure that unless you tell the AVR you have surrounds it will not decode the DTS or DD tracks and will default to the lesser stereo version. The DTS track will likely have a higher bit rate and be overall a higher quailty mix than the stereo track which could account for what you're hearing.

Or not...
post #115 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

So I tried phantom center and it sound great, but then I switched to center and everything became more dynamic and much better. The bass even became very powerful again. I think my processor might compress the audio without the center. I will have to test all the speakers as pairs with phantom center.

That was the case with Dolby Digital on DVD, that Dynamic Range Compression (DRC) (similar to midnight-mode on AVRs) would engage when fewer than 5.1 speakers were used to avoid clipping the analog output of channels when signals are combined. I wondered if they were being smarter with lossless audio. The obvious way to do it without losing any dynamic range would be to decrease the gain of all channels. It sounds like they are still decreasing dynamic range when phantom center is engaged, which would be a huge reason not to use a phantom center.
post #116 of 1141
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post

That was the case with Dolby Digital on DVD, that Dynamic Range Compression (DRC) (similar to midnight-mode on AVRs) would engage when fewer than 5.1 speakers were used to avoid clipping the analog output of channels when signals are combined. I wondered if they were being smarter with lossless audio. The obvious way to do it without losing any dynamic range would be to decrease the gain of all channels. It sounds like they are still decreasing dynamic range when phantom center is engaged, which would be a huge reason not to use a phantom center.

I agree, it was a huge difference between the 2 which just adding a center would never do. So far my M&K's are my reference points for smaller speakers(they are big for bookshelves). If the DR's don't out perform them then they will go back. The Triads are smoother and sound really nice but can't do reference in my room without compression. As surrounds they may just be the ticket. I do like system matching though so I will sell them. I am going to EQ the DR's at 2 M and then take a LP measurement to see how they do. They sound better for movies than music right now but the recording is much better with DTS-HD. I will use my Bluray concerts from now on to compare.
post #117 of 1141
MK, why EQ at 2 M? Everything may be completely different at the MLP, particularly below Schroeder and importantly at the crossover. Are you trying to achieve a house curve by manipulating the mic position?
post #118 of 1141
Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post
That was the case with Dolby Digital on DVD, that Dynamic Range Compression (DRC) (similar to midnight-mode on AVRs) would engage when fewer than 5.1 speakers were used to avoid clipping the analog output of channels when signals are combined.
For DVD and DD, the compression was done digitally in the decoding process. The intent was to avoid digital "overs" when downmixing caused by sending to much data to the processor. For example, in Phantom CC mode, the CC info is added to the L & R channels. If the CC content is high and the L& R channels are already high, the added content could overload the processors, causing errors. To avoid this, controls are placed in the "Metadata" to avoid overload. From the Dolby document labeled: Dolby MetaData Guide, Vol. 2 (attached)

Quote:
In addition to the DRC profile, metadata can limit signal peaks to prevent clipping during downmixing. This metadata, known as overload protection, is inserted by the encoder only if necessary. For example, consider a 5.1-channel program with signals at digital full scale on all channels being played through a stereo, downmixed line level output. Without some form of attenuation or limiting, the output signal would
obviously clip. Correct setting of the dialogue level and DRC profiles normally
prevents clipping and unnecessary application of automatic overload protection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by psgcdn View Post
I wondered if they were being smarter with lossless audio. The obvious way to do it without losing any dynamic range would be to decrease the gain of all channels. It sounds like they are still decreasing dynamic range when phantom center is engaged, which would be a huge reason not to use a phantom center.
For TrueHD, the process is different. The following is from a Dolby document entitled: Dolby® TrueHD Audio Coding for Future Entertainment Formats (attached)

Quote:
Channel Extensions, Downmixing, and Dolby TrueHD

One channel extension technique is the method by which MLP Lossless, Dolby TrueHD, and MPEG-2 LII deliver compatible downmixes for soundtracks with expanded channels. In these codecs, a 7.1-channel soundtrack is first downmixed to create a 5.1 mix, which is supplemented by a two-channel extension (which well call extension B). The 5.1 mix is then further downmixed to a two-channel stereo mix, and another supplemental stream is created that carries the 3.1-channel extension A.

So the 7.1-channel program is delivered in three separate components: a two channel mix, the 3.1-channel extension A, and the two-channel extension B. The total payload is still 7.1 channels, with preconfigured subsets to create two-, 5.1-, and 7.1-channel presentations. If a listener desires a stereo presentation, the decoder plays only the two-channel downmix, thereby minimizing DSP resources for the simplest hardware productsa useful idea. If a listener selects a 5.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it from the two-channel downmix plus the 3.1-channel extension A substream by means of rematrixing. If a listener wants a 7.1 presentation, the decoder reconstructs it by rematrixing the reconstructed 5.1-channel program with the final two channel extension B substream.
This all works nicelyon paper.

However, when used with lossy codecs that rely on psychoacoustic principles such as noise masking, this rematrixing can reveal coding artifacts that were otherwise inaudible. Its not that the coding artifacts have increased; instead, they become physically separated from the sound that originally masked them. As a result, the main sound and the coding artifacts may be directed to different loudspeakers, taking different acoustic paths to the listener and resulting in a phenomenon called coder unmasking.
Bottom line, depending on the source material, there will be some sonic impact from using "Phantom CC." However, it will be a different cause/effect scenario to blame depending on whether you're using DVD DD or BlueRay TrueHD.

BTW, DTS/DTS-MA doesn't use MetaData, and does not have this "issue."

Craig

 

Dolby Metadata.pdf 120.4482421875k . file

 

TrueHD_Tech_Paper_Final.pdf 149.51953125k . file
post #119 of 1141
Thread Starter 
It happened with LOTR which is DTS-HD.
post #120 of 1141
Did you go from the "stereo" track to the the 6.1 track? Or did you shut off the CC in the multi-channel track?

What processor are you using?

Craig
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Speakers
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Speakers › Speaker Shootout!!