or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Archaea's Kansas City Blind Subwoofer Shootout 2012
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Archaea's Kansas City Blind Subwoofer Shootout 2012 - Page 5

post #121 of 848
This just made my decision for Cap S or SubM that much harder. I really can't go wrong with either one, but the S has that introductory price.... ahhhhhh my brain.

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #122 of 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post

Jedi, I put this in the other thread too but unless I am reading it wrong you scored the ported Cap better than the sealed for both music and movies.



Yeah, like I posted in the other thread I did love the Ported Caps and overall they were rated higher than the sealed Caps. But in music they were only 1 point higher which is a wash. In movies they were several points higher but relatively speaking still fairly similar.

My reasoning for preferring the Cap S is a small form factor for multiple placement options, great price, and in my room I think I would have plenty of output with 2 Cap S's and get the benefit of added extension as well. So I think it is a better choice for me overall even though it goes slightly against my rankings.

There is just something I don't like about knowing there is content that I am missing even if I could barely tell the difference between ported and sealed.

Decisions, Decisions........
post #123 of 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedimastergrant View Post

There is just something I don't like about knowing there is content that I am missing even if I could barely tell the difference between ported and sealed.

Decisions, Decisions........

Go with the Cap S and you'll never have to look back.
post #124 of 848
To everyone involved, thanks so much for the collective effort put forth.

Good stuff
post #125 of 848
Does anyone know what mode the SubMersive HPs were in during the tests (15hz or 19hz)?

There are a few SubMersive HP owners that run theirs in the 15hz mode for movies and 19hz for music. There's also a few that run Audyssey with the 19hz mode and then turn on the 15hz mode post Audyssey to add some extra umpf to the lower frequencies.
post #126 of 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunga99 View Post

Does anyone know what mode the SubMersive HPs were in during the tests (15hz or 19hz)?

There are a few SubMersive HP owners that run theirs in the 15hz mode for movies and 19hz for music. There's also a few that run Audyssey with the 19hz mode and then turn on the 15hz mode post Audyssey to add some extra umpf to the lower frequencies.

The process for the shootout was simply to run Audyssey with the subs hooked to Sub1 & Sub2 outputs of the Onkyo receiver. The only adjustments made after running Audyssey was to raise the level of the subs by 3dB in the receiver. Playback was then at -10dB on the main volume, with 2 last movie cuts, Black Hawk Down and U-571 played at -4dB on the main volume.

For the shootout the SubMersive HP was set to the 15Hz mode before running Audyssey.
post #127 of 848
It's an amazing amount of information gathered from 9 judges (like the supreme court) and 7 subject sub systems. Pages and Pages . . . . a statisticians DREAM.
I note that even though an extreme amount of attention to detail was given in setting up each sub to avoid any unfair advantage there STILL persists a very noticeable range of measured performance from one sub to the next.
Case in point:
`
1) the "teaser" page listing max SPL dB of each sub measured during demo testing.
Name of each sub not yet identified.
`
In random order:
`
118.3dB
117.1dB
123.3dB
118.3dB
122.0dB
118.1dB
116.4dB
`
2) The colored graph of frequency responses overlaid one another.
The graph shows the 7 responses @ 100Hz to be within 4 dB.
As the frequency goes lower there is a wider variation in the dB and at about
14Hz the difference is close to 10dB.

Sighting these two examples can we assume those differences are actual differences between the subs or are they measurement and "treatment" artifacts from from using Audyssey?
post #128 of 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINEARX View Post

It's an amazing amount of information gathered from 9 judges (like the supreme court) and 7 subject sub systems. Pages and Pages . . . . a statisticians DREAM.
I note that even though an extreme amount of attention to detail was given in setting up each sub to avoid any unfair advantage there STILL persists a very noticeable range of measured performance from one sub to the next.
Case in point:
`
1) the "teaser" page listing max SPL dB of each sub measured during demo testing.
Name of each sub not yet identified.
`
In random order:
`
118.3dB
117.1dB
123.3dB
118.3dB
122.0dB
118.1dB
116.4dB
`
2) The colored graph of frequency responses overlaid one another.
The graph shows the 7 responses @ 100Hz to be within 4 dB.
As the frequency goes lower there is a wider variation in the dB and at about
14Hz the difference is close to 10dB.

Sighting these two examples can we assume those differences are actual differences between the subs or are they measurement and "treatment" artifacts from from using Audyssey?

The SPL numbers listed above are good for amusement, but only relate to the efficiency of the output delivered to the back of the room near the command table where Archea had the mic during listening. This was well behind the listening area and the frequency response had little relation to what the listeners heard. Whatever frequencies were strong at this mic location are the ranges which mostly contributed to those SPL readings. Those ranges recessed at this location didn't contribute much at all.

Even with perfectly matched frequency response I would expect some differences in the numbers depending on dynamic behavior of the subwoofer during the scenes. Add in the differences in extension and the frequency response Audyssey created and the variation is easily within expectations.
post #129 of 848
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jedimastergrant View Post

Yeah, like I posted in the other thread I did love the Ported Caps and overall they were rated higher than the sealed Caps. But in music they were only 1 point higher which is a wash. In movies they were several points higher but relatively speaking still fairly similar.

My reasoning for preferring the Cap S is a small form factor for multiple placement options, great price, and in my room I think I would have plenty of output with 2 Cap S's and get the benefit of added extension as well. So I think it is a better choice for me overall even though it goes slightly against my rankings.

There is just something I don't like about knowing there is content that I am missing even if I could barely tell the difference between ported and sealed.

Decisions, Decisions........

Now that's counter intuitive. You choose the only equitable ported sub in a blind listening test against world class sealed subs all running on superior amps. And you are trying to rationalize that you like sealed better?

That's not how blind listening is supposed to work.

As to the subsonic frequencies... If a tree falls in the middle of the forrest...
post #130 of 848
Sorry for the delay posting. I arrived home last night at midnight, rose for work at 4:30 am, and just got home again not long ago. My subs even rode to work with me, I had no time to unload the vehicle until now. Many of us lost a lot of sleep over the weekend.

What we heard at the GTG was not the CS-18.T subwoofers, it was the iNUKE amp running out of steam. It was hidden from view with the subs and the clipping lights were not visible. I heard it during the test, but as the audition was underway, it was too late to stop.

I was positive something was awry and asked Archaea to help me investigate. He was kind enough to spend several hours with me the next day, setting up, putting the EQ curves in place, doing measurements, then running the program material over and again, trying to recreate what happened. We tried the Dayton, then we tried the iNUKE. The Dayton was a little light on the bottom end (Bass Boost off, Audyssey left the natural room response basically untouched), but no untoward sounds were made, during music or movies. The iNUKE sounded better than the Dayton on music, as it gave a needed 4 dB boost centered at 20 Hz. But during some movie clips, what sounded like bottoming occurred.

It can be difficult to distinguish the sound of an amp hard clipping from a driver bottoming, they both sound very similar. With the amp in full view, it started to become apparent that what we heard during the testing was the iNUKE clipping HARD. Still not sure if it was the driver bottoming or the amp running out of steam, we grabbed a flashlight and sat right in front of the drivers, running the "Bass I Love You" clip over and over. No bottoming, everything sounded good. Running the "Skadoosh" scene, the amp clipped and the subs made a horrible sound. We did this over and over, checking both subs. I am positive that what we heard was the amp clipping and not the subs bottoming. More excursion was had from "Bass, I Love You" with no bad sounds, less excursion was had from "Skadoosh" with bad sounds. This was repeated with the "Iron Man" missile launch clip, the iNUKE pegged it's meters and the CS-18.T drivers reproduced the sound of the amp clipping... quite faithfully. It didn't sound good. Luke Kamp showed up and we replayed the movie clips. He felt the same as I, Xmech wasn't reached and wasn't the cause of the untoward sounds we heard.

I owe Craig and everyone else an apology. I wanted to experiment with the iNUKE and it's DSP. This was a bad time to do so, it was my mistake and I own it. Had I run the Dayton instead, I feel we would have scored higher.

A positive outcome for this was, I do feel that the DSP the iNUKE has is beneficial. With more power behind it, this would have been successful. I feel strongly enough about this that I will be experimenting further. On my own time, not during a critical listening audition.

The takeaway from this is, the Chase subwoofers did not get a chance to put their best foot forward, they were hobbled by a poor decision. The scoring during the test and the test itself was completely fair, but the low scoring does not accurately reflect the performance of the 18.1's.

I edited my reserved post on the first page.
post #131 of 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaea View Post

Now that's counter intuitive. You choose the only equitable ported sub in a blind listening test against possibly the best sealed subs in the world all running on superior amps. And you are trying to rationalize that you like sealed better?

That's not how blind listening is supposed to work.

As to the subsonic frequencies... If a tree falls in the middle of the forrest...


Agree. Luckily I don't listen to only music or I would have already bought carp's Captivators. Man, that would have been an even bigger punch to the gut. Actually, the way things went, I bet Archaea would have loved and voted for a sealed sub. I can't wait for the next blind testing so it happens to him......too.
post #132 of 848
Thanks for the great thread to everyone who participated.

My only experience with any of the subs at the meet is with the Submersive HP, but the comments don't surprise me. I was not sure what to expect when I hooked it up in my house, as it dwarfs my last couple of subs (offerings from B&W and M&K). My wife was concerned that it would be really boomy and drive us out of the room based solely on its size. After running XT32, however, I was shocked at how for the most part it just disappeared into the background and blended in with the rest of the system. It only kicks you in the face when the scene calls for it. Also, there are times when I notice the hair standing up on my forearms, but I don't notice any sound at all. I'll replay the scene and, yes, there was some ULF that I just felt and didn't really hear at first. It can be almost creepy but really cool at the same time.

Subjectively, I am really happy with my SubM and I think that it does what I think a quality sub should do, but I could see how someone who likes to run the bass really hot or likes it more in your face might not appreciate it at first or might simply prefer something else.

Also, based on the different rankings, it looks like there were a lot of fine offerings present at the meet and that even the less expensive models--even if they didn't blow people away--faired pretty well considering the apparent difficulty of the room and the stiff competition. Its nice to see that there are some good choices out there even at lower price points. (I'm a little curious as to how some of the top offerings from Rythmik or SVS would have faired, but I understand you can't demo every sub out there in one sitting).

Thanks again, I am really enjoying this thread.
post #133 of 848
Hi all,
This was a great thread, and I have followed it from the begining up to now. I have a SubM-HP and I it is an outstanding sub. I have a question though. I had not seen in any of the post what the room measurements were that the test was conducted in (if over looked my apology). If possible can that info be given? Thanks to all for your input this has been a great read.
Greg
post #134 of 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by tesseract67 View Post

Sorry for the delay posting. I arrived home last night at midnight, rose for work at 4:30 am, and just got home again not long ago. My subs even rode to work with me, I had no time to unload the vehicle until now. Many of us lost a lot of sleep over the weekend.

What we heard at the GTG was not the CS-18.T subwoofers, it was the iNUKE amp running out of steam. It was hidden from view with the subs and the clipping lights were not visible. I heard it during the test, but as the audition was underway, it was too late to stop.

I was positive something was awry and asked Archaea to help me investigate. He was kind enough to spend several hours with me the next day, setting up, putting the EQ curves in place, doing measurements, then running the program material over and again, trying to recreate what happened. We tried the Dayton, then we tried the iNUKE. The Dayton was a little light on the bottom end (Bass Boost off, Audyssey left the natural room response basically untouched), but no untoward sounds were made, during music or movies. The iNUKE sounded better than the Dayton on music, as it gave a needed 4 dB boost centered at 20 Hz. But during some movie clips, what sounded like bottoming occurred.

It can be difficult to distinguish the sound of an amp hard clipping from a driver bottoming, they both sound very similar. With the amp in full view, it started to become apparent that what we heard during the testing was the iNUKE clipping HARD. Still not sure if it was the driver bottoming or the amp running out of steam, we grabbed a flashlight and sat right in front of the drivers, running the "Bass I Love You" clip over and over. No bottoming, everything sounded good. Running the "Skadoosh" scene, the amp clipped and the subs made a horrible sound. We did this over and over, checking both subs. I am positive that what we heard was the amp clipping and not the subs bottoming. More excursion was had from "Bass, I Love You" with no bad sounds, less excursion was had from "Skadoosh" with bad sounds. This was repeated with the "Iron Man" missile launch clip, the iNUKE pegged it's meters and the CS-18.T drivers reproduced the sound of the amp clipping... quite faithfully. It didn't sound good. Luke Kamp showed up and we replayed the movie clips. He felt the same as I, Xmech wasn't reached and wasn't the cause of the untoward sounds we heard.

I owe Craig and everyone else an apology. I wanted to experiment with the iNUKE and it's DSP. This was a bad time to do so, it was my mistake and I own it. Had I run the Dayton instead, I feel we would have scored higher.

A positive outcome for this was, I do feel that the DSP the iNUKE has is beneficial. With more power behind it, this would have been successful. I feel strongly enough about this that I will be experimenting further. On my own time, not during a critical listening audition.

The takeaway from this is, the Chase subwoofers did not get a chance to put their best foot forward, they were hobbled by a poor decision. The scoring during the test and the test itself was completely fair, but the low scoring does not accurately reflect the performance of the 18.1's.

I edited my reserved post on the first page.

When used with the dayton amp none of this occurred?
post #135 of 848
Quote:



Not saying you did this on purpose but this is a really inaccurate way of displaying frequency response of subs. The Y axis is uselessly squished, and the x axis is deceivingly stretched. The range on the y axis is too much as well

Is there a way to change the way the graph looks on omnimic so its actually readable?
post #136 of 848
To say my side in this.

I sat in the back during blind testing in what appeared to me to have a very peaky response at the control table. I didn't hear any mechanical noise during the blind test. I did stick to this seat all night though, but wanted to stay out of the way for the most part.

I came over the next day to pick up my subs (ended up staying and playing around and adding up scores the rest of the night). I showed up to a couple quick demos of the skadoosh scene at -10 on the iNuke. Being right up by the driver it sounded bad. It didn't look like the driver had much excursion to me but I have zero experience with this sub and very little with the amp. I said it is quite possible that the iNuke boosted down low like that may not have the steam down that low for that at 8 ohms stereo.

I don't claim to know that much about subwoofer design so I think more testing is a good idea. I do read a lot of the diy section and will have to give it a go down the road. Anyways Mizzou won, going over to help Carp out.
post #137 of 848
Sounds like everyone had a really good time. Wish I was there.

Archaea...understand now what I was getting at about the tedious aspect of blind testing in that PM many moons ago? Applause for you taking on that task. I'm still toying with doing another meet if I get off my butt and build something new.
post #138 of 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

Cap Pro's and CHT 18.T's both had some DSP in the iNuke that the whole group apparently went through on Friday night and collectively agreed on. When I asked Archea about the EQ on the iNuke (I arrived in town from CES around midnight Friday and was not at Archea's on Friday), they said the EQ gave a flatter response as measured at the listening area the night before. This was the starting point from which Audyssey did it's thing. No EQ was applied after Audyssey was run.

Hmm, so to get it flat typically requires some boost, and then audyssey liberally applies boost after that... maybe im wrong but the reason the amp might have been clipping is if you have double boost occuring, from the dsp software and then from audyssey on top of that. Am i wrong?
post #139 of 848
Would it be fair to say, that it is really not a level playing field when utilizing the subs with amps that they were not designed to be ran with?

I would expect the powered versions to sound best since the amps are mated to the driver/enclosure with all necessary tuning in the DSP.

Great thread!
post #140 of 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post

I haven't read through nearly all of it yet, or seen the overall scoring or list of stuff, but I did notice one issue that might get picked out by more than a few sore losers:

There's up to a 10db difference between the EQ'd and level matched responses on that mashup graph showing them all.

That's an ENORMOUS, HUGE, TERRIBAD LARGE difference between subs. Combine that with comments that some subs seemed to be run hotter than others, and I think people will likely use this as a sticking point.

I'd like to see that graph with subs names linked to the colored responses to see if maybe loudness = preference (as has been noted on these boards since time immemorial). Audyssey looks really inconsistent. Also, those graphs are super smoothed, masking any real dips or peaks.

I doesn't think Archaea Team missed to check this point. My best guess is "Power compression happens when some weak sub(s) reaches its limit at max SPL outputs though all of them are carefully calibrated in advance."

I'd like to see some graph too ... and it's much appreciated if a brief layout of the room and seats (who at which seat) is available. Many thanks!!!
post #141 of 848
Unless I misread something, the ported Caps were run by the same Inukes as well as the CHT's right? If yes, how come they didn't audibly clip with the Caps? I realize that usually ported subs are easier to drive, but the drivers themselves are vastly different, and without the TS figures one can only guess of their efficiency . Also was there a different DSP setting in the Inuke for the Caps Vs. the CHT's?
post #142 of 848
Thread Starter 
I'm engaged in a PM with Dennis right now. Stand by.

It wasn't solely the INuke amp going into clipping - the Inuke amp never went into clipping with any of the songs played including bass i love you and the sine sweep during Sunday's retesting, (all the songs only showed 2-3 signal lights tops at the standardized audition settins) however during this testing Dennis and I heard \\slightly mechanical type noises on the low end of the 100hz to 20hz sine sweep that we chalked up to room noises during our testing. Luke's HSU subs which I tested with Luke later in the night made no such noises, nor did the other subs during the meet on the day before at those same volume levels at the low end of the sweeps with the same audyssey setups. IMO the INuke amp in 8ohm stereo and the CHT subs were reaching their limits about the same time. I'm not knowledgeable enough about amps to say what occurred there. As Husker mentioned in the CHT forum - when I overdrive the inuke amp on the Caps it just resets and doesn't make a bad noise, but the inuke didn't shut completely off and power cycle on the CHT subs it just clipped on those most intense scenes. Luke suggested a theory that makes sense, (the Cap driver is capable of taking a full clip/shutdown/short of the inuke amp without bottoming out the drivers and making a bad noise, but the CHT driver, being of a lesser power rating will not be able to take that same clip/short without bottoming out the driver. I'm no amp expert and I'm not sure he is either --Perhaps someone else can validate why this occurred. The amp was definately clipping on the hardest movie scenes, but based on the 100hz to 20hz sine wave sweep test sound with no clipping I don't believe the driver had much if any headroom left over where it was beginning to reach the clip point.
post #143 of 848
Thank you guys for doing this. Very informative and helpful!
post #144 of 848
I found the Inuke NU3000DSP official "rated" specs on page 8 of this marketing brochure:

http://www.behringer.com/assets/NU10...ebBrochure.pdf

Quote:


RMS:
8 Ω per channel, stereo 315 W
4 Ω per channel, stereo 620 W
2 Ω per channel, stereo 1040 W

MAX:
8 Ω per channel, stereo 440 W
4 Ω per channel, stereo 820 W
2 Ω per channel, stereo 1520 W

This thing is barely giving the dual Captivators any workout. I also don't know much about clipping other than what causes it, but I can't imagine the 18.1 is unable to handle the amount of power this amp puts out. I also can't imagine that the Dayton puts out much more...especially if everyone agreed that this amp produced much more authority on the CHT subs than the Dayton they (used to) come packaged with.
post #145 of 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post

I found the Inuke NU3000DSP official "rated" specs on page 8 of this marketing brochure:

http://www.behringer.com/assets/NU10...ebBrochure.pdf

This thing is barely giving the dual Captivators any workout. I also don't know much about clipping other than what causes it, but I can't imagine the 18.1 is unable to handle the amount of power this amp puts out. I also can't imagine that the Dayton puts out much more...especially if everyone agreed that this amp produced much more authority on the CHT subs than the Dayton they (used to) come packaged with.

According to those specs the CHT and Caps were causing the amp to have problems.
post #146 of 848
Great job overall guys! I've enjoyed reading all the feedback on all these subs. Even though I'm a DIY guy, I appreciate good commercial subs.

I'm very interested in buying the DVD demo used for this sub comparison. If someone has one extra to sell me (perhaps Archaea), please send me a PM for details, thanks.
post #147 of 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post

I found the Inuke NU3000DSP official "rated" specs on page 8 of this marketing brochure:

http://www.behringer.com/assets/NU10...ebBrochure.pdf


This thing is barely giving the dual Captivators any workout. I also don't know much about clipping other than what causes it, but I can't imagine the 18.1 is unable to handle the amount of power this amp puts out. I also can't imagine that the Dayton puts out much more...especially if everyone agreed that this amp produced much more authority on the CHT subs than the Dayton they (used to) come packaged with.

Maximum output power
Stereo
8 Ω per channel, stereo 440 W
4 Ω per channel, stereo 820 W
2 Ω per channel, stereo 1520 W
Bridged mono
8 Ω 1500 W
4 Ω 3000 W
RMS
Stereo
8 Ω per channel, stereo 315 W
4 Ω per channel, stereo 620 W
2 Ω per channel, stereo 1040 W
Bridged mono
8 Ω 1250 W
4 Ω 2075 W

Im confused, "dual captivators"? Wasnt it just one of each sub

The 3000DSP is no joke, although it will have problems if its being asked to do +10db of boost via the parametric EQ and audyssey.
post #148 of 848
@omegaslast. Duals of each sub tested.
post #149 of 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by omegaslast View Post


Maximum output power
Stereo
8 ? per channel, stereo 440 W
4 ? per channel, stereo 820 W
2 ? per channel, stereo 1520 W
Bridged mono
8 ? 1500 W
4 ? 3000 W
RMS
Stereo
8 ? per channel, stereo 315 W
4 ? per channel, stereo 620 W
2 ? per channel, stereo 1040 W
Bridged mono
8 ? 1250 W
4 ? 2075 W

Im confused, "dual captivators"? Wasnt it just one of each sub

The 3000DSP is no joke, although it will have problems if its being asked to do +10db of boost via the parametric EQ and audyssey.

No, it was duals of EVERY sub. Not sure how you missed that.
post #150 of 848
Quote:
Originally Posted by nube View Post

I found the Inuke NU3000DSP official "rated" specs on page 8 of this marketing brochure:

http://www.behringer.com/assets/NU10...ebBrochure.pdf


This thing is barely giving the dual Captivators any workout. I also don't know much about clipping other than what causes it, but I can't imagine the 18.1 is unable to handle the amount of power this amp puts out. I also can't imagine that the Dayton puts out much more...especially if everyone agreed that this amp produced much more authority on the CHT subs than the Dayton they (used to) come packaged with.

I've run each of my CHT 18.2's with both the Dayton amp and a 3,400 watt pro amp and the drivers handled each just fine. After reading the comments about the CHT sub, I have to believe that something went wrong. I appreciate all the effort in the contest, but if someone noticed certain issues with at least one of the subs, when not stop and fix it or take the sub out of the contest - to be fair?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread:

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Archaea's Kansas City Blind Subwoofer Shootout 2012