or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › [B]*PLEASE HELP ME*[/B] SVS PB-13 Ultra {OR} Rythmik FV15HP Subwoofer {Experiences, Opinion, Thoughts, Reviews, Comparisons, Insight, & General Knowledge Or Ideas)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[B]*PLEASE HELP ME*[/B] SVS PB-13 Ultra {OR} Rythmik FV15HP Subwoofer {Experiences, Opinion,... - Page 4

Poll Results: Which Is The Best Option For My Current Setup; SVS PB-13 Ultra {OR} Rythmik FV15HP Subwoofer????

 
  • 45% (16)
    Rythmik FV15HP (based on sound quality / personal preference)
  • 25% (9)
    Rythmik FV15HP (based on price / slight differences doesn't justify $600 price difference)
  • 20% (7)
    SVS PB-13 Ultra (based on sound quality / personal preference)
  • 8% (3)
    Either One Will Sound Great With Your Current Setup / No Personal Preference
35 Total Votes  
post #91 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saints View Post

There's no way possible for the mic in the video camera, cell phone or whatever to relay the sound quality of being there. Not even a small chance of comparison.

^^This. Unless you have professional recording equipment/mics, there can't be any possible way that you could come close to reproducing what was heard in that room.
post #92 of 100
Just saying, considering the collective technical genius that populated that room, come on. They had measuring gear that was able to measure down to what, 5Hz? And I'd be willing to bet the recording mics were calibrated. My bet, if one were to check the recording gear present for recording and displaying sweeps, they would find the gear present was at a minimum standard, professional field grade.

Today's SLR's record in 1080p and are used for Hollywood movie making magic.

I know the stuff on our home office shelf (mic, stand, cables, phantom power supply) as is the desktop PC/soundcard/headphones used to at home, record room sweeps with, is professional field grade and some of the gear we have would qualify as studio grade. Is there anybody who was there, able to comment on what the grade of the recording gear was that was used to record and display the sweeps with?

I hold you guys in higher esteem then using junk for recording gear and I know that most decent SLR's (1080p capable), coupled with today's readily available RTA gear is more then able to produce high level, professional field grade recordings. And yes, I agree, on the other hand, out-of-hand, YouTube will kill anything that qualifies as quality.

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 1/8/13 at 6:08am
post #93 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

Just saying, considering the collective technical genius that populated that room, come on. They had measuring gear that was able to measure down to what, 5Hz? And I'd be willing to bet the recording mics were calibrated. My bet, if one were to check the recording gear present for recording and displaying sweeps, they would find the gear present was at a minimum standard, professional field grade.
Today's SLR's record in 1080p and are used for Hollywood movie making magic.
I know the stuff on our home office shelf (mic, stand, cables, phantom power supply) as is the desktop PC/soundcard/headphones used to at home, record room sweeps with, is professional field grade and some of the gear we have would qualify as studio grade. Is there anybody who was there, able to comment on what the grade of the recording gear was that was used to record and display the sweeps with?
I hold you guys in higher esteem then using junk for recording gear and I know that most decent SLR's (1080p capable), coupled with today's readily available RTA gear is more then able to produce high level, professional field grade recordings. And yes, I agree, on the other hand, out-of-hand, YouTube will kill anything that qualifies as quality.
-

Even if all of that were true and they were able to capture everything accurately and you had direct access to the original recordings of the event, it still doesn't matter. All you heard were the capabilities and limitations of your system (computer and headphones).

You simply can't draw any conclusions about performance by listening through a secondary system.
post #94 of 100
Even YouTube couldn't mask the distortion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

Even if all of that were true and they were able to capture everything accurately and you had direct access to the original recordings of the event, it still doesn't matter. All you heard were the capabilities and limitations of your system (computer and headphones).

I don't got no junk in my computer as everything was custom purchased and installed in the PC box for sonic accuracy from power supply, to sound card, to headphones and cables; transparency. My gear is much better than any normal person's hearing, including my own. If there were any limitations introduced, it would be that brought by my ears and YouTube's quality stealing compression algorithms. When I listen to test tone sweeps through the computer generated headphone system, my son yells at me from the other room for the irritation the mosquito like sounds cause, our cat immediately leaves the room while the parrot chirps in agreement from two rooms away. Despite what you might think, that's not a system "limited" in any shape, manner or form as cats and parrots don't lie. My personal limitations; >14kHz. But at 10Hz (yes, I understand harmonics and can tell the difference in 2f, 3f or 4f frequency increases), despite what some like to believe, my bass capabilities are not a limitation.

FWIW, over the many decades, I've been around the argument track of what's live vs recorded about a million times. Just saying; distortion is distortion and no matter how one tries to argue this point, the distortion was as obvious as a sunrise in the "West." Funny how easy it is to kill quality yet on-the-other-hand, how hard it is to mask distortion. A point we can all agree on, once above personally noticed distortion levels, for the most part, all that's being amplified is noise. The point, what ever my personal limitations are, the limits of my gear might be or what the sonic stealing quality of YouTube's compression algorithms might be, the distortion wasn't hidden.

Hopefully you'll let this go so as to not hijack the thread as the point I was making dealt with introduced distortion and the invalidity of the posted YouTube videos for the stated reasons.

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 1/8/13 at 7:22am
post #95 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

Even YouTube couldn't mask the distortion.
I don't got no junk in my computer as everything was custom purchased and installed for sonic accuracy from power supply, to sound card, to headphones and cables; transparency. My gear is much better than any normal person's hearing, including my own. If there were any limitations introduced, it would be that brought by my ears and YouTube's quality stealing compression algorithms. When I listen to test tone sweeps through the computer generated headphone system, my son yells at me from the other room for the irritation the mosquito like sounds cause, our cat immediately leaves the room while the parrot chirps in agreement from two rooms away. Despite what you might think, that's not a system "limited" in any shape, manner or form. My personal limitations; >14kHz. But at 10Hz, despite what some like to believe, my bass capabilities are not a limitation.
FWIW, over the many decades I've been around the argument track of what's live vs recorded about a million times. Just saying; distortion is distortion and no matter how one tries to argue this point, the distortion was as obvious as a sunrise in the "West." Funny how easy it is to kill quality yet on-the-other-hand, how hard it is to mask distortion. A point we can all agree on, once above personally noticed distortion levels, all that's being amplified is noise. The point, what ever my personal limitations are and what the limits of my gear might be, the distortion wasn't hidden.
-

If you can't understand that what you may be hearing are the limits of the recording or your gear, there isn't anything more to say. This isn't a knock on your system, just the reality of the situation.

Go ahead and audition speakers by listening to them over your system - it's utterly worthless, but logic seems to be escaping you here.
post #96 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

If you can't understand that what you may be hearing are the limits of the recording or your gear, there isn't anything more to say. This isn't a knock on your system, just the reality of the situation.
Go ahead and audition speakers by listening to them over your system - it's utterly worthless, but logic seems to be escaping you here.

What you're having trouble grasping, my system was purposefully and with malice towards poor quality, assembled so it wouldn't be a limitation. Yes, it's that good of a system and was thoughtfully put together with quality of capability in mind. I'd say between computer based sound card, headphones, computer based power supply, off-board DAC and off-board headphone amplifier, I have spent ~$3k to assure me of a system not having any weak links in the sonic chain. And yes, agreed, despite the accuracy of my system, we both know better than to audition gear via the web hence why I encourage one to use empirical evidence coupled with multiple examples of anecdotal evidence; personal reviews.

Computer based sound gear:

Soundcard: Xonar, Essence STX; 124dB SNR
Headphones, Reference Class; HD-650 (headphone cables, custom hand made for manufacturing accuracy)
April Music, Stello DA100 Signature DAC
Burson Audio HA-160 Headphone Amplifier
The power supply is in the case and forgive me as I'm not going open the case up to get the power supply name but it too was chosen specifically for it's sonic transparency.

Not exactly what one might call a "limited" system.

.....biggrin.gif

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 1/8/13 at 8:35am
post #97 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

What you're having trouble grasping, my system was purposefully and with malice towards poor quality, assembled so it wouldn't be a limitation. Yes, it's that good of a system and was thoughtfully put together with quality of capability in mind. I'd say between computer based sound card, headphones, computer based power supply, off-board DAC and off-board headphone amplifier, I have spent +$3k to assure me of a system not having any weak links in the sonic chain. And yes, agreed, despite the accuracy of my system, we both know better than to audition via the web, hence why I encourage one to use empirical evidence coupled with multiple examples of anecdotal evidence; personal reviews.

So what's your point about hearing distortion in the Youtube video again?
post #98 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

So what's your point about hearing distortion in the Youtube video again?

LOL..... that was funny.
post #99 of 100
Thread Starter 
Thanks again for the help guys. After all the great advice I think I'm going to pull the trigger and pick up the Rythmik and see how it performs and based on my experience either double down and get a second one or return it and go with the CAP 2400's. But I think the dual rythmiks should more than suffice, but you never know.
post #100 of 100
^^
Good choice. Please come back and tell us about it (them).
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › [B]*PLEASE HELP ME*[/B] SVS PB-13 Ultra {OR} Rythmik FV15HP Subwoofer {Experiences, Opinion, Thoughts, Reviews, Comparisons, Insight, & General Knowledge Or Ideas)