or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › 6 DIY eD A7S-650 kits with FP14K clone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

6 DIY eD A7S-650 kits with FP14K clone - Page 5

post #121 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by edoggrc51 View Post

Hey Beast, you anywhere near the Greenville (S.C.) area??

About 45 minutes biggrin.gif Hour from the dead center. Used to do it 4-5 days a week!
post #122 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

About 45 minutes biggrin.gif Hour from the dead center. Used to do it 4-5 days a week!
HHHMMMM interesting. I'll be in that part of town the weekend of the 29th for work. Maybe I can rent a car and sneak out for a few hours and see some XXX's in action! biggrin.gif
post #123 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by edoggrc51 View Post

HHHMMMM interesting. I'll be in that part of town the weekend of the 29th for work. Maybe I can rent a car and sneak out for a few hours and see some XXX's in action! biggrin.gif

September 29th?? Awesome! Im headed up to Appalachian State for our home game Saturday, but I will be around that Friday night, and Sunday as well if you can make it work, bring it on!!! If it is late, it doesnt bother me one bit as I'm still young and kickin' (for the most part I guess)
post #124 of 249
Thanks for letting me invite myself over! biggrin.gif

Let me see what my schedule is gonna like for that weekend and I'll shoot you a PM. I'll be in touch bro. smile.gif
post #125 of 249
Thread Starter 
Here is a study of my different mics using the same sub system the CHT 18.2's.

First here they were with the RS meter and correction files

4cs182s-1.jpg

Then with omnimic

realresponsewithnoEQ.jpg

Finally with REW and my behinger mic

no_eq-1.jpg
post #126 of 249
Pardon my ignorance, but it looks like you have 3 totally different sets of information. I'm assuming all levels were exactly the same for the sweeps? If so, that is confusing. I would assume you could instantly throw away the RS data. Which process is supposed to be more accurate-the omni or rew? The RS data reminds me of the speedomoters on our old polaris sleds-always 15 MPH faster than we were really going.
post #127 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrischaos View Post

Pardon my ignorance, but it looks like you have 3 totally different sets of information. I'm assuming all levels were exactly the same for the sweeps? If so, that is confusing. I would assume you could instantly throw away the RS data. Which process is supposed to be more accurate-the omni or rew? The RS data reminds me of the speedomoters on our old polaris sleds-always 15 MPH faster than we were really going.

Nevermind the levels, these were all done at different days. Just focus on the response shape. I have to remember if that last one had boost or not. I thought I remember being down 10 dBs at 10hz for some reason and it is showing 5 dBs. The RS meter is showing flat to 7hz without any EQ so I wanted to show people that is not accurate. Many people are still using the RS meter with correction files(I used to be one of them) to show how deep their sub systems go.
post #128 of 249
I looks like you were down close to10db's at 10 on omni (from peak). 5 on the behinger/rew. I find this info deflating. I measured my subs using a digital RS meter and was quite happy with the results. I can now safely disregard those measurements. Thanks for ruining my inflated confidence in my sustem MK!tongue.gif
post #129 of 249
Thread Starter 
Hey guys,
I finally got around to adding my DCX to my sub system. I added a 10ms delay which made them flat at the XO and then I added a LP filter at 20hz with a 6 dB boost and a slope of 12dB per octave. I ran them 5 dBs hot and tried the same scenes that the DTS-10's wowed me. I just want to say there is no comparison whatsoever. I ran the DTS-10's 10 dBs hot and the same with every other system. This system at 5 dBs hot is so much stronger, more visceral, deeper, you name it. The THX amazing life was insane!
post #130 of 249
Nice MK! I was confused for a minute thinking LP was low pass filter.
post #131 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpmbc View Post

Nice MK! I was confused for a minute thinking LP was low pass filter.

Whatever the DCX calls their LP(I thought it was low pass filter) it added 6 dBs of boost under 20hz. It has BP, LP, and HP for types of EQ. These little drivers can really dig deep in bunches.
post #132 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Whatever the DCX calls their LP(I thought it was low pass filter) it added 6 dBs of boost under 20hz. It has BP, LP, and HP for types of EQ. These little drivers can really dig deep in bunches.


Hi,

which DCX you have is that Behringer DXC 2496? There is a new model Behringer DEQ2496 Ultra-Curve Pro !
post #133 of 249
Thread Starter 
Yes the DCX 2496
post #134 of 249
Thread Starter 
Btw, I need to repair my light since I literally ripped one of the recessed lights down from the sound board and drywall from the bass.
post #135 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Whatever the DCX calls their LP(I thought it was low pass filter) it added 6 dBs of boost under 20hz. It has BP, LP, and HP for types of EQ. These little drivers can really dig deep in bunches.

Do you mean LT as in Linkwitz Transform?
post #136 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

Do you mean LT as in Linkwitz Transform?

You know I had a brain fart before about this, I added a low shelf filter, not a low pass filter, doh! Sorry about any confusion, yah, it acts like a LT boost. Anyways, the bass is better than ever!
post #137 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

You know I had a brain fart before about this, I added a low shelf filter, not a low pass filter, doh! Sorry about any confusion, yah, it acts like a LT boost. Anyways, the bass is better than ever!

What exactly is the function of a Linkwittz Transform? It boosts the frequency at the desired point? Pardon my ignorance.
post #138 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reddig View Post

What exactly is the function of a Linkwittz Transform? It boosts the frequency at the desired point? Pardon my ignorance.

A real Linkwitz Transform would typically add a low shelve boost AND have a specifically tailored PEQ to change the overall Q of said bass device. These days, we don't use old style discrete LT's anymore but mimic them in the digital domain with whatever processor one uses to get the job done. These days its' a Behringer DCX or a MiniDSP doing the LT job.
post #139 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

A real Linkwitz Transform would typically add a low shelve boost AND have a specifically tailored PEQ to change the overall Q of said bass device. These days, we don't use old style discrete LT's anymore but mimic them in the digital domain with whatever processor one uses to get the job done. These days its' a Behringer DCX or a MiniDSP doing the LT job.

Not to derail this thread, but what is the difference between an LT and say a SMS1/2496/etc?

With an SMS one you would be cutting the upper frequencies (I'm guessing around 30 hz) to compensate for the low frequency roll off. This eats up headroom in the upper frequencies, but is generally less drastic than boosting down low.

An LT adds a "low shelf boost", which eats up headroom as well, does in not?

So what would be the benefit of using this over the other options out there?
post #140 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass addict View Post

Not to derail this thread, but what is the difference between an LT and say a SMS1/2496/etc?
With an SMS one you would be cutting the upper frequencies (I'm guessing around 30 hz) to compensate for the low frequency roll off. This eats up headroom in the upper frequencies, but is generally less drastic than boosting down low.
An LT adds a "low shelf boost", which eats up headroom as well, does in not?
So what would be the benefit of using this over the other options out there?

A bi-quad filter (L/T) affects the knee before the shelf. A simple shelf cannot. The shelf requires additional filters to do this which, IMHO, requires some additional skill to do properly and introduces phase error, which may adversely affect multiple sub systems.

The L/T is an analog solution. The MiniDSP, Berry EQs, SMS, etc., require an analog-to-digital-to-analog conversion. Most everyone assumes that the AD/DA converters in a $150-300 piece are high quality which is far more optimistic than I am.

The L/T analog circuit can be built with whatever values of DC blocking caps the builder prefers. That means it can easily be built flat-to-2 Hz (under the radar of most AVR+Amplifier roll off profiles), unlike the roll off of the digital solutions whose analog output stages have wildly varying (and mostly unknown) roll off points and orders, none of which approach flat-to-2 Hz.

Regarding so-called low inductance, high sensitivity driver based systems vs so-called inductance hump, low sensitivity driver based systems, it is completely irrelevant whether you choose one and affect a cut on the top end or choose the other and affect a boost on the low end. The end result comes down to displacement capability. Once that capability is maxed, the system is at its limit and the only way to go further from there is to change the systems frequency response by selectable preset curves or severe limiting (less top end cut or less low end boostP.
post #141 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

Here is a study of my different mics using the same sub system the CHT 18.2's.
First here they were with the RS meter and correction files
4cs182s-1.jpg
Then with omnimic
realresponsewithnoEQ.jpg
Finally with REW and my behinger mic
no_eq-1.jpg

I'm gonna hafta start breakin' yer balls a bit James. biggrin.gif

You posted many graphs after EQ and the RS meter graph is a lot more similar to some of them than the above comparison. You simply have to start labeling these graphs. They're too all over the map to have any value otherwise.

I believe the OM graph is the CHT sub before you flattened in stages using top end cuts, not a shelf boost. It would be instructional to discuss the difference using the CHT vs Ed systems measurements and subjective results, but you have to start calibrating REW, using a set sweep level and labeling your graphs. cool.gif
Edited by bossobass - 11/23/12 at 5:42am
post #142 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

A bi-quad filter (L/T) affects the knee before the shelf. A simple shelf cannot. The shelf requires additional filters to do this which, IMHO, requires some additional skill to do properly and introduces phase error, which may adversely affect multiple sub systems.
The L/T is an analog solution. The MiniDSP, Berry EQs, SMS, etc., require an analog-to-digital-to-analog conversion. Most everyone assumes that the AD/DA converters in a $150-300 piece are high quality which is far more optimistic than I am.
The L/T analog circuit can be built with whatever values of DC blocking caps the builder prefers. That means it can easily be built flat-to-2 Hz (under the radar of most AVR+Amplifier roll off profiles), unlike the roll off of the digital solutions whose analog output stages have wildly varying (and mostly unknown) roll off points and orders, none of which approach flat-to-2 Hz.
Regarding so-called low inductance, high sensitivity driver based systems vs so-called inductance hump, low sensitivity driver based systems, it is completely irrelevant whether you choose one and affect a cut on the top end or choose the other and affect a boost on the low end. The end result comes down to displacement capability. Once that capability is maxed, the system is at its limit and the only way to go further from there is to change the systems frequency response by selectable preset curves or severe limiting (less top end cut or less low end boostP.

Is it correct to assume the signal shaping in your systems is done in analog domain?
post #143 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

I'm gonna hafta start breakin' yer balls a bit James. biggrin.gif
You posted many graphs after EQ and the RS meter graph is a lot more similar to some of them than the above comparison. You simply have to start labeling these graphs. They're too all over the map to have any value otherwise.
I believe the OM graph is the CHT sub before you flattened in stages using top end cuts, not a shelf boost. It would be instructional to discuss the difference using the CHT vs Ed systems measurements and subjective results, but you have to start calibrating REW, using a set sweep level and labeling your graphs. cool.gif

I agree, I have always said I was a noob when measuring but have tried lots of sub systems. I usually get caught up in some demos while measuring so I always forget to label and make sure they are the same level, etc... All I know is that my current subs rolloff less than the CHT subs, by a fair amount. There are some sweeps in transformers 2 that the DTS-10's were awesome with(Why I kept them) and my eD 190v's were not producing at all. I ran my dts-10's 5 dBs hot so when I got the CHT stuff I felt it just a little bit but nothing like the DTS-10's. So I raised the volume or LFE only 5 dBs more and it was better, but still not quite as powerful as the DTS-10's. BTW, this was with them all EQ'd flat. With these little guys I ran it 5 dBs hot and WOW, it had just as much as the DTS-10's and then when I added the shelf it simply went to a whole new level. So with the shelf and 5 dBs hot there has not been another sub system I have owned to do what this can, I thru in the THX amazing life and I just laughed. Running these guys flat and a shelf is all I need. I will try to get up some graphs of how the shelf changes the response but it basically does not make me flatter lower like a LT, it just raises all the bass below 20hz 6 dBs so I am a little hot from 12-20hz but it brings up 5hz a bit. I think my gear rollos off at 5hz(processor, mic, etc....) so I am not sure if I can ever get flat to 3 hz at high levels but 6hz no problem.
post #144 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

A bi-quad filter (L/T) affects the knee before the shelf. A simple shelf cannot. The shelf requires additional filters to do this which, IMHO, requires some additional skill to do properly and introduces phase error, which may adversely affect multiple sub systems.
The L/T is an analog solution. The MiniDSP, Berry EQs, SMS, etc., require an analog-to-digital-to-analog conversion. Most everyone assumes that the AD/DA converters in a $150-300 piece are high quality which is far more optimistic than I am.
The L/T analog circuit can be built with whatever values of DC blocking caps the builder prefers. That means it can easily be built flat-to-2 Hz (under the radar of most AVR+Amplifier roll off profiles), unlike the roll off of the digital solutions whose analog output stages have wildly varying (and mostly unknown) roll off points and orders, none of which approach flat-to-2 Hz.
Regarding so-called low inductance, high sensitivity driver based systems vs so-called inductance hump, low sensitivity driver based systems, it is completely irrelevant whether you choose one and affect a cut on the top end or choose the other and affect a boost on the low end. The end result comes down to displacement capability. Once that capability is maxed, the system is at its limit and the only way to go further from there is to change the systems frequency response by selectable preset curves or severe limiting (less top end cut or less low end boostP.

OK, so avoiding the analog vs digital debate, let's assume a comparison between the Mini DSP and SMS/2496/etc.

Does my original question regarding both accomplishing the same thing apply?
post #145 of 249
"The MiniDSP, Berry EQs, SMS, etc., require an analog-to-digital-to-analog conversion. Most everyone assumes that the AD/DA converters in a $150-300 piece are high quality which is far more optimistic than I am."

at 48khz, that is 48,000 samples per second. a single 50hz sine wave is 20 milliseconds in length, so that works out to 2,400 digital measurements.

here is a single 50hz sine wave with red blocks that digitally approximate it.

the first picture shows the whole wave. the second picture shows a 400% zoom.

the blocks are actually 2.4 times as small as this but my minimum block size is 0.01" but i think the principal idea is clear.

the dac conversion rates that modern gear run at do not degrade bass signals.




Edited by LTD02 - 11/23/12 at 11:52am
post #146 of 249
^^^

I would definitely agree with that. For a full range speaker I'd prefer no conversion, but for an LFE signal.....................
post #147 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by bass addict View Post

OK, so avoiding the analog vs digital debate, let's assume a comparison between the Mini DSP and SMS/2496/etc.
Does my original question regarding both accomplishing the same thing apply?

You decide for yourself (I don't have an SMS, so you'll have to seek another source).

There's no Q in my mind which is the better solution, but that's just me, after years of testing and building.

04d1da5e9e936c62153ee09d427cb362.jpg

LTD is basically claiming that all DACs are exactly the same and send an exact copy of the input signal to the output jacks with no baggage, as I said many assume. I disagree because I know it isn't true. Debate is irrelevant because you decide for yourself in the end and I certainly am not going to wade through another "all DACs are the same" hijack of MKT's thread.
post #148 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

I agree, I have always said I was a noob when measuring but have tried lots of sub systems. I usually get caught up in some demos while measuring so I always forget to label and make sure they are the same level, etc... All I know is that my current subs rolloff less than the CHT subs, by a fair amount. There are some sweeps in transformers 2 that the DTS-10's were awesome with(Why I kept them) and my eD 190v's were not producing at all. I ran my dts-10's 5 dBs hot so when I got the CHT stuff I felt it just a little bit but nothing like the DTS-10's. So I raised the volume or LFE only 5 dBs more and it was better, but still not quite as powerful as the DTS-10's. BTW, this was with them all EQ'd flat. With these little guys I ran it 5 dBs hot and WOW, it had just as much as the DTS-10's and then when I added the shelf it simply went to a whole new level. So with the shelf and 5 dBs hot there has not been another sub system I have owned to do what this can, I thru in the THX amazing life and I just laughed. Running these guys flat and a shelf is all I need. I will try to get up some graphs of how the shelf changes the response but it basically does not make me flatter lower like a LT, it just raises all the bass below 20hz 6 dBs so I am a little hot from 12-20hz but it brings up 5hz a bit. I think my gear rollos off at 5hz(processor, mic, etc....) so I am not sure if I can ever get flat to 3 hz at high levels but 6hz no problem.

Yeah, I was assuming you did not use a shelf with the CHTs but rather cut the top end to get flat to 5 Hz because it was the logical conclusion after looking at the graphs and your comments. Adding the shelf to the current system is the method I prefer (obviously). If you get a chance, do a close-mic at one of the drivers without and with the shelf at the same output level, all the way down to 2 Hz.
post #149 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

A real Linkwitz Transform would typically add a low shelve boost AND have a specifically tailored PEQ to change the overall Q of said bass device. These days, we don't use old style discrete LT's anymore but mimic them in the digital domain with whatever processor one uses to get the job done. These days its' a Behringer DCX or a MiniDSP doing the LT job.

Thanks for the explanation Scott! I really need to save up for a MiniDSP or a DCX.
post #150 of 249
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Yeah, I was assuming you did not use a shelf with the CHTs but rather cut the top end to get flat to 5 Hz because it was the logical conclusion after looking at the graphs and your comments. Adding the shelf to the current system is the method I prefer (obviously). If you get a chance, do a close-mic at one of the drivers without and with the shelf at the same output level, all the way down to 2 Hz.

Hey, what is that graph showing?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › 6 DIY eD A7S-650 kits with FP14K clone