or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Data-Bass version 2 is live
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Data-Bass version 2 is live - Page 6

post #151 of 244
I thought of something that might be interesting to measure when doing the CEA max output testing. Input power... IMHO it would be interesting to know how many watts are really required to push a design to its CEA THD limit at the various frequencies.
post #152 of 244
Thread Starter 
One step ahead. The problem is that I have no way to measure it with these very short bursts. What I have to do is know my voltage from an earlier measurement like the 90dB 2m sweep and then know exactly how much the gain has been increased for each burst frequency. The voltage gain can be back calculated later. Problem is that this is yet another thing to remember and if I forget to determine my gain/voltage settings before changing them I won't be able to do it. I'm going to try it but no guarantees I will remember.
post #153 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

First, any data above 80 Hz is irrelevant. The input signal will be down -15dB at 100 Hz and the driver will never see signal beyond that in its lifetime.

Silly nonsense.

It's worth noting that Josh, in his (last?) place, used the RE XX18's (placed in the four room corners, if memory serves) up to 200Hz.

People who care about music reproduction, rather than just getting that 3Hz that's technically in the spec but utterly irrelevant in fact, will often run subs much higher than that. Indeed, if one uses Parham's "flanking subs" idea (vertically offset pair of subs to deal with floor bounce, etc., supplemented by randomly placed subs in the room) one could use some of the subs in a competently designed and executed multisub system as high as 200-250Hz.
post #154 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Silly nonsense.
It's worth noting that Josh, in his (last?) place, used the RE XX18's (placed in the four room corners, if memory serves) up to 200Hz.
People who care about music reproduction, rather than just getting that 3Hz that's technically in the spec but utterly irrelevant in fact, will often run subs much higher than that. Indeed, if one uses Parham's "flanking subs" idea (vertically offset pair of subs to deal with floor bounce, etc., supplemented by randomly placed subs in the room) one could use some of the subs in a competently designed and executed multisub system as high as 200-250Hz.

That's me... silly nonsense.

The latest doo-dad, random placement, multiple K-Mart subs all over the room and flown from the ceiling crossed at 225 Hz to get flat to 20 Hz.

Good stuff, DS-21. I'll keep it in mind.
post #155 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post


That's me... silly nonsense.

Way too often, yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

The latest doo-dad, random placement, multiple K-Mart subs all over the room and flown from the ceiling crossed at 225 Hz to get flat to 20 Hz.

Good stuff, DS-21. I'll keep it in mind.

Actually, that's partially what I've written, and partially your silly nonsense. I never wrote anything about "K-mart subs"* and there was nothing about any "doo-dad." (Unless in your world basic competence in design and execution is a "doo dad.")

But as for the parts that I actually wrote, you should indeed keep it in mind. You might learn something over and above your constant bloviation about how important it is that a membrane can thrust three times per second.

*Though to be sure the Fi things you flog are insufficient in quality for my use. Has Scott figured out how to line up the surround so that the indentations in its landing actually line up with the screw-holes yet, so the end user doesn't have to puncture the surround just to mount the driver? He hadn't figured it out as of my old Ava18...
post #156 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Way too often, yes.
Actually, that's partially what I've written, and partially your silly nonsense. I never wrote anything about "K-mart subs"* and there was nothing about any "doo-dad." (Unless in your world basic competence in design and execution is a "doo dad.")
But as for the parts that I actually wrote, you should indeed keep it in mind. You might learn something over and above your constant bloviation about how important it is that a membrane can thrust three times per second.
*Though to be sure the Fi things you flog are insufficient in quality for my use. Has Scott figured out how to line up the surround so that the indentations in its landing actually line up with the screw-holes yet, so the end user doesn't have to puncture the surround just to mount the driver? He hadn't figured it out as of my old Ava18...

Right, well one man's "tuneful and in time" is another man's K-mart.


Bloviate.jpg

Let's see, Use SMS-1 to apply +6dB of boost at 20 Hz, use Audyssey to cascade another >+4dB of boost at 20 Hz, use 3 "whatever" subwoofers placed strategically (no doubt) in the room, use MiniDSP to affect a steep life-saving HPF to the PR and several "light" filters to an already 1/6 octave smoothed graph.

I'm sure there's lots of your typical gems in that thread but the first post was too bloviated for me. It really isn't hard to guess the rest of what you had to offer there, I got it right off. Like I said, I'll keep it in mind if I ever have some really good music to listen to, like Pink Floyd's "Time" on DSOTM.

Yeah, yeah, I know... you save the really, really good music for the gaggle of Auras, etc.
post #157 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Let's see, Use SMS-1 to apply +6dB of boost at 20 Hz,

Incorrect.

As I wrote in the thread from which you took my words (I assume the picture is simply a distorted view of the measurement I posted, but I don't care enough to check), the SMS-1 was only used as a measurement device. Its outputs were not corrected to the subs.

And given that you couldn't even understand those words, there's no use further talking about this stuff with you for me.

Enjoy your cheap subs, obsolete processor, and crappy sold-by-a-criminal-and-hacked-to-further-incompetence mains. It can thrust at you 3x per second, and that's obviously all that you care about.
post #158 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Incorrect.
As I wrote in the thread from which you took my words (I assume the picture is simply a distorted view of the measurement I posted, but I don't care enough to check), the SMS-1 was only used as a measurement device. Its outputs were not corrected to the subs.
And given that you couldn't even understand those words, there's no use further talking about this stuff with you for me.
Enjoy your cheap subs, obsolete processor, and crappy sold-by-a-criminal-and-hacked-to-further-incompetence mains. It can thrust at you 3x per second, and that's obviously all that you care about.

You name-call all you want, fella, but if you aim it at me, expect a response. You post like a child and have nothing to say while you put others down for not being you. I've had enough of it and if you want to throw stones then run and hide, fine, that's to be expected, but I prefer to see this new standard you've derived from hero-worship for what it is, golden-ear descriptives notwithstanding.

You mentioned some bull snot about a 250 Hz crossover. My response, without your supposedly high tech smoothing EQ and SMS smoothing graph, is flatter than yours at 200 Hz by magnitudes. Distorted (which is what you posted, not me) response graph or not, it looks to be taking a nose dive at 200 Hz, even when smoothed by the crude SMS measurement system, and you call it tuneful, on time, blah, blah (talk about silly nonsense).

Bring that little toy on over and we'll invite a few guests and ask them which sounds more tuneful, if we can get them to understand what the heck that means.

No one here uses a 250 Hz crossover. No one here ever will. Flat to 20 Hz at 85dB is elementary and not worth a discussion in this forum. What's irrelevant is your interpretations of the format requirements and your taste in music.

Post the data. I know you have none, so get it. Put together a measurement rig that isn't laughable, set up the methodology, run the tests and post the data here. Otherwise, you're only contributing pink noise.

I want "tuneful" and "better time integration" and "people who care about music reproduction" exhaustively explained, objectively, and how it relates to a bandwidth-limited subwoofer crossed at 250 Hz vs a full bandwidth subwoofer crossed at 80 Hz. Put up or shut up.
post #159 of 244
i recall josh talking about something of the same effect in his system.
post #160 of 244
Thread Starter 
I did cross at 200Hz in my old place when I was equidistant from 4 corner located subs in a very symmetric room. I couldn't locate them because of that layout and it did a world of good to smooth out 100-200Hz octave as compared to what each of my mains response was. I would say that is an isolated type of case though. Not many people have a set-up that just happens to work like that due to placement of the LP and subs.

I no longer cross at 200hz. I am an octave lower at 100Hz now. I now have 1 sub which is much closer than the others and directly behind the couch. I could easily localize this one. 100Hz was where I ceased to be able to. The main problem was male voice where the chest sound was not anchored to the CC anymore and was pulled to the closest sub rather than emanating from "everywhere" like before.

Different room, different results and settings. It depends.
post #161 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ricci View Post

I did cross at 200Hz in my old place when I was equidistant from 4 corner located subs in a very symmetric room. I couldn't locate them because of that layout and it did a world of good to smooth out 100-200Hz octave as compared to what each of my mains response was. I would say that is an isolated type of case though. Not many people have a set-up that just happens to work like that due to placement of the LP and subs.


Mono bass to 4 corner located subwoofers crossed at 200 Hz?

What gives, did you have something against stereo bass effects as long as you measured flat to 200 Hz?
post #162 of 244
Thread Starter 
Not particularly against it but it is down the list of priorities for me personally. Yes I lost directional ques mainly in the 100-200 octave but pure bass tones without a ton of upper end harmonic and other content are rare and the accompanying content is largely what provides the sense of direction IMHO not the bass fundamentals. With the bass coming from 360deg all around so I get no sense of direction from it but did from the accompanying upper freq content so it largely still felt very much directional in a psychological sense even if it wasnt really. Yes there were still instances where something should have had direction but didnt. It was a tradeoff like most everything else in audio. As soon as one sub was much closer than the others it pulled the upper bass sound to it and became obvious to me.
post #163 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

What gives, did you have something against stereo bass effects as long as you measured flat to 200 Hz?

If you don't do mono bass, the relative contribution of each sub changes and the net effect is unpredictable.

Without knowing how what proportion of the bass is coming from each sub, how would you EQ it to begin with?
post #164 of 244
Sweet! Man, that site is killer!
post #165 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah katz View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

What gives, did you have something against stereo bass effects as long as you measured flat to 200 Hz?

If you don't do mono bass, the relative contribution of each sub changes and the net effect is unpredictable.

Without knowing how what proportion of the bass is coming from each sub, how would you EQ it to begin with?




Does not matter to me. How do you EQ which bass frequencies? 20 Hz? 50 Hz? 80 Hz? 100 Hz? 150 Hz?

My dedicated stacked subwoofer(s) are located in a single room corner, and covers from 50 Hz nominal on down. The balance of the bass is driven by content placed on the individual R & L mains and surrounds.


Some background information here:

http://www.filmaker.com/papers/RM-2SW_AES119NYC.pdf
post #166 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

Does not matter to me. How do you EQ which bass frequencies? 20 Hz? 50 Hz? 80 Hz? 100 Hz? 150 Hz?
My dedicated stacked subwoofer(s) are located in a single room corner, and covers from 50 Hz nominal on down. The balance of the bass is driven by content placed on the individual R & L mains and surrounds.
Some background information here:
http://www.filmaker.com/papers/RM-2SW_AES119NYC.pdf

This is great. Another white paper from a space alien. I'll leave the "binaural neurons" in the "operational amplifiers in the brain" stuff alone for now and let the paper sum itself up:

"More exhaustive, independent analysis (e.g. ANOVA) is needed to confirm the hypotheses in this paper."

Ya don't say.

I'm with Josh on this one. Having used multiple subs for a decade, during which Soundhound and I had many conversations about his penchant for stereo bass (actually, it sounds to me like this guy nicked quite a bit from SH), and during which he made his own carefully designed stereo bass recordings, which he shared, I'm certainly not against the idea. It's just a ways down the list of priorities.

Being the broken record that I am, I'll repeat for the billionth time; limiting the bandwidth does far more to damage the original content and perception than mono vs 2 channel subwoofers.

Showing a typically errant bias when discussing a movie soundtrack, we get : "... a beat which, although probably synthesized unintentionally by the sound designer, is sub-audible (in the "theta" range of brain waves!)", which is used as the excuse to filter it.

Yet, there is always the example used of sitting in attendance at a live orchestral concert. When the "drum strike" occurs, not a single person with the least education on the subject would deny the content of that strike, much less call it unintentional, but it gets filtered anyway for the " listening test".
post #167 of 244
total non sequitur
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

Does not matter to me. How do you EQ which bass frequencies? 20 Hz? 50 Hz? 80 Hz? 100 Hz? 150 Hz?
My dedicated stacked subwoofer(s) are located in a single room corner, and covers from 50 Hz nominal on down. The balance of the bass is driven by content placed on the individual R & L mains and surrounds.
Some background information here:
http://www.filmaker.com/papers/RM-2SW_AES119NYC.pdf
post #168 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

Does not matter to me. How do you EQ which bass frequencies? 20 Hz? 50 Hz? 80 Hz? 100 Hz? 150 Hz?
My dedicated stacked subwoofer(s) are located in a single room corner, and covers from 50 Hz nominal on down. The balance of the bass is driven by content placed on the individual R & L mains and surrounds.
Some background information here:
http://www.filmaker.com/papers/RM-2SW_AES119NYC.pdf

This is great. Another white paper from a space alien. I'll leave the "binaural neurons" in the "operational amplifiers in the brain" stuff alone for now and let the paper sum itself up:

"More exhaustive, independent analysis (e.g. ANOVA) is needed to confirm the hypotheses in this paper."

Ya don't say.

I'm with Josh on this one. Having used multiple subs for a decade, during which Soundhound and I had many conversations about his penchant for stereo bass (actually, it sounds to me like this guy nicked quite a bit from SH), and during which he made his own carefully designed stereo bass recordings, which he shared, I'm certainly not against the idea. It's just a ways down the list of priorities.

Being the broken record that I am, I'll repeat for the billionth time; limiting the bandwidth does far more to damage the original content and perception than mono vs 2 channel subwoofers.

Showing a typically errant bias when discussing a movie soundtrack, we get : "... a beat which, although probably synthesized unintentionally by the sound designer, is sub-audible (in the "theta" range of brain waves!)", which is used as the excuse to filter it.

Yet, there is always the example used of sitting in attendance at a live orchestral concert. When the "drum strike" occurs, not a single person with the least education on the subject would deny the content of that strike, much less call it unintentional, but it gets filtered anyway for the " listening test".



The lower frequency limit of the subwoofer system is not even an issue that is being discussed, so you are playing the wrong record. The link that I provided does mention that stereo bass already exists in music and movie sound tracks and no new recording methods are required.

I know all about Soundhound. Posted back and forth to him many, many, many times. He even posted pictures of the actual speakers that were used in various sound stages and we "discussed" (kind of a one way discussion) the FR specs of each channel.

Soundhound is the first mixer who told me that he never monitors the low end of content with any measurement equipment like a spectrogram. Soundhound claimed that he mixed by ear (AKA by how the mix sounded to him). Soundhound claimed that no low bass content was placed on the center and surround channels, therefore he and other professional sound mixers did not need to use bass management.

Soundhound did not use conventional bass management. His Soundhound bass management crossed over his VOTT R & L mains @ 50 Hz to his stereo pair of 2-stack ported 18" JBL subwoofers placed in each of the front R & L corners. Soundhound mixed in his LFE direct to the 4 JBL subwoofers. Soundhound did not bass manage his VOTT center and VOTT surround speakers. He said that he just let the C and Surrounds roll off unfiltered near 40-50 Hz.

No need to discuss this in any further detail on this thread. I do not follow Soundhounds recommendations because there often is low bass recorded on all channels (AKA intentional bass below 50 Hz).
post #169 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Heck yes, a discrete LF system beats a summed mono system every day of the week.

Bosso

When asked about using stereo subs, you once said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass 
Not only does the system make sense to me, I wrote an article about it before the MC-12 hit the streets.

It's interesting to note, though no one ever talks about it, Griesinger created the perfect LF output config in the MC-12 for the purpose of making his 'Bass Enhance' idea easier to implement. Keeping the .1 channel discrete is essential to preserving the LF soundfield created by Bass Enhance for the same reasons it's necessary to keep the mono .1 channel out of stereo subs.

As a bonus, the output config allows for Rebase Routing, which is simply a discrete sub for left side lows, a discrete sub for right side lows and a discrete sub for LFE/.1 channel.

You touted stereo subs on the av123 forum and quoted Sound Hound from the Outlaw Saloon several times. You even included it in your Rebase Routing instructions and felt it was the best method. It seems like you have now changed your opinion. Maybe I am misunderstanding.
post #170 of 244
interesting paper.

"Six experienced audio and music professionals participated...

...All participants expressed that they now desired stereo bass management and two subwoofers for themselves!"

"In demonstrations with presentations of this paper at the
23rd VDT Tonmeisters in Leipzig, November 2004, and
to the combined Acoustical Society of America and
Canadian Acoustical Association in Vancouver, May
2005, the descending 13 step test 100~25Hz was played
using two 18in (45cm) drivers at the mid side wall
positions. As above, each step was played first by
mixing tones differing by 0.5Hz electrically so as to
drive the subwoofers in monaural, then unmixed to
reproduce VLF binaurally. At VDT by a simple show
of hands, nearly all of approx. 40 attendees reported at
100Hz perceiving no “swirling motion” in monaural,
but a definite “impression of motion” in stereo. Half the
attendees heard “motion” down to 50Hz, 1/3 heard to
45Hz, and 1/5 heard to 40Hz. At ASA/CAA, again half
of approx. 70 attendees reported perceiving “motion” to
50Hz, 1/3 heard to 45Hz, and ¼ heard down to 40Hz."
post #171 of 244
Interesting. cool.gif
post #172 of 244
yeah, but in the grand scheme of things, there are other things that are more grand. :-)
post #173 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdome View Post

When asked about using stereo subs, you once said,
You touted stereo subs on the av123 forum and quoted Sound Hound from the Outlaw Saloon several times. You even included it in your Rebase Routing instructions and felt it was the best method. It seems like you have now changed your opinion. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

You are indeed misunderstanding.

REBASE ROUTING had nothing to do with stereo bass. It separated sat channel-loaded bass from .1 channel loaded bass. That would have allowed people way back when (and today as well) to optimize their subs for music vs movies. I applied for a patent and found that Greisinger beat me by a few months. Although his system was meant for a pseudo/psychoacoustic matrixed stereo bass and nothing to do with separate 5 vs .1 sub systems, it had the same routing scheme.

I abandoned the idea when, after setting the system up in which I could monitor where the low freqs were coming from, I found that a lot of movies had the LFE routed to the front channels and not the .1 channel. This happened at Dolby's recommendation to not mix all of the LFE into the .1 channel to keep DD 5.1 backward compatible with ProLogic. ProLogic has no .1 channel. It takes a stereo mix and matrixes it to 5 channels and bass management sends the low freq content to the SW output. So, if the DD 5.1 mix had all of the LFE in the .1 channel, ProLogic users would get no LFE.

Sadly, the practice is still prevalent, a decade later.

I never "touted" stereo subs, just mentioned that the idea works and has merit. Stereo subs requires stereo bass mixed source, of which there is precious little. Most every case of music production has all of the low end panned to the center, making stereo subs a fruitless effort. Greisinger devised a matrix using phase shifts to approximate stereo bass in human perception. This idea required separating left, right and .1 bass to work and also required extremely specific sub placement and seating position.
post #174 of 244
When I first had two subwoofers, I placed them in a stereo configuration. Everything sounded much more even, localization of the subs wasn't an issue anymore... Then after 3 days I found out I had one of them muted the whole time. What you see is what you hear.
post #175 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

The link that I provided does mention that stereo bass already exists in music and movie sound tracks and no new recording methods are required..

Really?

Name some.
post #176 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimVG View Post

When I first had two subwoofers, I placed them in a stereo configuration. Everything sounded much more even, localization of the subs wasn't an issue anymore... Then after 3 days I found out I had one of them muted the whole time. What you see is what you hear.

Amen.

I once had a listening group to test some of the wild theories that perpetuate.

One of the goals was to see if the folks who claimed that they could localize the subs if they were crossed any higher than 40 Hz (insert whatever golden ear cross point you've heard being tossed around), so the listeners were all of that sort, self-proclaimed that is.

I used Sting's Brand New day DTS 5.1 version, track #3, Big Lie, Small World. I played the song and asked listeners to point to where they thought the low end was coming from. Everyone pointed to the subs, which were in the front left and right corners.

I then flipped a switch that shut the FL/FR mains off and everyone immediately turned around and pointed to the rear speakers. The front right sub was being fed a summed mono signal and crossed at 100 Hz and the front left sub was not connected.
post #177 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

I never "touted" stereo subs, just mentioned that the idea works and has merit.

Thanks for the clarification. cool.gif
post #178 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Amen.
I once had a listening group to test some of the wild theories that perpetuate.
One of the goals was to see if the folks who claimed that they could localize the subs if they were crossed any higher than 40 Hz (insert whatever golden ear cross point you've heard being tossed around), so the listeners were all of that sort, self-proclaimed that is.
I used Sting's Brand New day DTS 5.1 version, track #3, Big Lie, Small World. I played the song and asked listeners to point to where they thought the low end was coming from. Everyone pointed to the subs, which were in the front left and right corners.
I then flipped a switch that shut the FL/FR mains off and everyone immediately turned around and pointed to the rear speakers. The front right sub was being fed a summed mono signal and crossed at 100 Hz and the front left sub was not connected.

I've stopped arguing the folks with the so called "golden ears". You can throw objective data at them all day long, but they'll never accept it. You say you don't hear something, so your hearing must be substandard. You provide them with clear, objective data, then they'll say science/physics isn't at the point yet to grasp the magical field of audio, or they give you some counter paper based on theories with "new" physics that have zero scientific value.

It's one big marketing machine, and people gladly walk into, participate and defend it, and they don't even know they're making some people rich in the process.

Thankfully there is still a crowd out there that wants quality, backed up by objective data and real life results.
post #179 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdome View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Heck yes, a discrete LF system beats a summed mono system every day of the week.

Bosso

When asked about using stereo subs, you once said,
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass 
Not only does the system make sense to me, I wrote an article about it before the MC-12 hit the streets.

It's interesting to note, though no one ever talks about it, Griesinger created the perfect LF output config in the MC-12 for the purpose of making his 'Bass Enhance' idea easier to implement. Keeping the .1 channel discrete is essential to preserving the LF soundfield created by Bass Enhance for the same reasons it's necessary to keep the mono .1 channel out of stereo subs.

As a bonus, the output config allows for Rebase Routing, which is simply a discrete sub for left side lows, a discrete sub for right side lows and a discrete sub for LFE/.1 channel.

You touted stereo subs on the av123 forum and quoted Sound Hound from the Outlaw Saloon several times. You even included it in your Rebase Routing instructions and felt it was the best method. It seems like you have now changed your opinion. Maybe I am misunderstanding.



Was Rebase Routing ever in stereo? I don't see that mentioned in the instructions written by Bosso!


http://forums.vwvortex.com/showthread.php?1644671-Subwoofer-Setup-Guide&s=122e789fc5a148c1078d3af1e51f3a3a
post #180 of 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post

The link that I provided does mention that stereo bass already exists in music and movie sound tracks and no new recording methods are required..

Really?

Name some.


I have noted some in the past, and included waterfalls of same. Your response went along the lines that everyone uses mono bass management, so who cares.

You can research obvious stereo in content just as easily as I can. Just use Spectrumlab if you are interested (and you are not)!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › Data-Bass version 2 is live