or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › BeastAudio's DIY Sub and Main Testing Measurement Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BeastAudio's DIY Sub and Main Testing Measurement Thread - Page 3

post #61 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

What's this?
An extreme ride experience at Universal? A Metallica rig at an intimate venue? ... confused.gif




wink.gif

I know, crazy right? Well, when I got the super deal on these SI 18's I had a rethink of what I was doing with the LFE/bass system of the uber mains. I already have four RLp18's which I wanted to use in the rear of the room (cuz they look sweet) but then I thought, "well, nobody thinks twelve pro 15's will have good bass rolleyes.gif so now I've got four 18's available per channel eek.gif let's use those." cool.gif

And it's interesting that you bring up 'extreme ride experience at Universal' cuz the T2 3D stunt show's sound system was probably the catalyst that made me crave extreme capability.
post #62 of 79
You are using SI's for the bottoms of your mains? If so then yeah, 4 18's is plenty, hell two is plenty for some rooms. Yes, 105 dBs for the mains and every speaker. I am just talking the low stuff as it requires much more power and displacement. My system's drivers don't even move until I big scene with loud 10hz is involved. So it is needed for those little moments. Just making sure man! Why do you want to run large so bad? If one runs 8x18 for their LFE channel then one would need 3 18's for each speaker to run large for the same performance. So for a full large and LFE theater one would need 15 more 18s or 21 more for 7.1. So for a large 7.1 channel system with our proper no compression full band you need 29 18's or you can simply have 8 and run small and then you have 8 18's for every channel rather than 3. It just does not make any sense to do this IMHO. Hey, enjoy either way, I personally don't think large sounds any better than small with subs and that is large with the same subs. Usually the small with subs have better midbass but with the 2226s this is not the case.
post #63 of 79
I want to run full range so bad because .... I want to. tongue.gif I like the idea better, I have found in past experience that the sound quality is better (not considering output and compression at 'fun' levels) and it's just... something that NOBODY has the balls to do. Ever. Yeah, it's easier to just let the subs to the work of all eight channels but I SAY NAY SIR! The whole spirit of my uber build is that it is different and unusual. Count how many people around here in the DIY area designed their own speakers, that aren't from a kit or a clone of something.

But anyway, I just want to build something crazy so I stand out a bit. I'm just the little guy trying to hang with the big guys. wink.gif
post #64 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

I want to run full range so bad because .... I want to. tongue.gif I like the idea better, I have found in past experience that the sound quality is better (not considering output and compression at 'fun' levels) and it's just... something that NOBODY has the balls to do. Ever. Yeah, it's easier to just let the subs to the work of all eight channels but I SAY NAY SIR! The whole spirit of my uber build is that it is different and unusual. Count how many people around here in the DIY area designed their own speakers, that aren't from a kit or a clone of something.

But anyway, I just want to build something crazy so I stand out a bit. I'm just the little guy trying to hang with the big guys. wink.gif

Why do you think it sounds better? I can try it out myself as I have 6 subs and 5.1. I could not play crazy levels like this but I could play reference still.
post #65 of 79
I just thought it did. It's a crazy large expensive set up and if I think it's not worth it I can downsize easily.
post #66 of 79
Cool thread.

One thing I didn't see mentioned is the suckout introduced by running your mains full range was probably partially due to the port output being out of phase with the subs.

Also I didn't see your measuring methodology. Are you measuring C, L, R, L&R, L&R&C, or all channels simultatneously?
post #67 of 79
Thread Starter 
The subs based graphs just looking at the low end response and the crossover graphs are with the left speaker playing in concert with the sub. The full range graphs are the same. I had previously tested my response across the front stage LCR's and shown it to be pretty uniform at the MLP. The point of these tests is to take that a little further, but I would gladly post a graph of each if you wanted.
post #68 of 79
Hi Beast,

I dig the graphs, but am a bit confused:

1) It's hard to tell from the wording, but the 2nd post has: "Here is the graphing for the close mic measurements using various EQing along the way:" Are all 3 traces close mic?

2) I wish everyone would use the front channel for sub only measurements. The crossover on the SW out makes it very difficult to place the traces in overlay. My Onk actually has less roll off down low than the SW out... go figure, but, if you use the FR or FL for your sub only measurement and set the fronts to large, you'll get a full range result, no filters.

For example, using your close mic against Josh's GP result, you see that it's certainly accurate enough, but the LPF roll off makes it a PITA to spot with the EQ'd and MLP results to gauge room gain.



3) If you select colors for a) close mic naked (red, say), b) close mic w/EQ (blue, say) and c) MLP (green, say) and keep those colors consistent throughout the thread, it will be a breeze to see what's what and make it simple to grab traces from various places and overlay them.

BTW, cool how opening huge holes on the room increases the "pressure" wink.gif
post #69 of 79
Thread Starter 
Bosso, I updated the first post with slightly better explanations of what I was doing, but I will try and adjust the colors if I am able to later this evening

I had never thought about putting the sub on the FL or FR channel to test the rolloff. That is a great idea smile.gif
post #70 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Simonian View Post

I want to run full range so bad because .... I want to. tongue.gif I like the idea better, I have found in past experience that the sound quality is better (not considering output and compression at 'fun' levels) and it's just... something that NOBODY has the balls to do. Ever. Yeah, it's easier to just let the subs to the work of all eight channels but I SAY NAY SIR! The whole spirit of my uber build is that it is different and unusual. Count how many people around here in the DIY area designed their own speakers, that aren't from a kit or a clone of something.

But anyway, I just want to build something crazy so I stand out a bit. I'm just the little guy trying to hang with the big guys. wink.gif

Scott,

Watch out with this idea. By going 'the fullest of full range possible', you lose what distributed subs give you: less change in FR between seats. If you will EQ every channel for the sweet spot that you alone will occupy, your idea works. Otherwise, it is a room size thing. Every set of 18's will have a different freq response at the listening position unless EQ'ed for the sweet spot independently. Then asking them to all play together as the 'LFE' could mean you are tweaking things until you die of old age, or have a separate 'LFE channel' sub system. In an open field, your idea would be a world-beater. But in an enclosed room, not so much. I really hope you have not ordered 28 SI drivers to outfit for 7.1......

JSS
post #71 of 79
Thread Starter 
TBQH, if I was dumping that type of funding into my system, I would only eq to one spot and everyone else could, as the Eagles so pointedly put it, "Get over it." Haha! Heck, I already do that for the most part anyways, and no one I have ever had over has even noticed a difference. The back row suffers a shade from a loss of a dB or two from the front stage but other than that, I just get it right for the guy that spends countless more hours listening to the system than anyone else. Call me selfish I guess, but once again, everyone else seems peachy keen when I fire up a movie so I am not too worried about it biggrin.gif
post #72 of 79
That's right! I only have one spot to really worry about. Mine. It's a small room and it's hard enough to get some company over to watch anything with me. redface.gif

Max, just fyi. I will have a wall of sound. Erm, bass. Wall to wall sub drivers. I'm not expecting a severely compromised FR but if I do and the whole deal doesn't work out the way I planned, I sure have all the gear for a WICKED multi-sub system. cool.gif


Hmmm..... 28 sub drivers eh? I do already have twelve.

post #73 of 79
Scott I bet your response will be great.
post #74 of 79
Thanks! smile.gif
post #75 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by beastaudio View Post

The subs based graphs just looking at the low end response and the crossover graphs are with the left speaker playing in concert with the sub. The full range graphs are the same. I had previously tested my response across the front stage LCR's and shown it to be pretty uniform at the MLP. The point of these tests is to take that a little further, but I would gladly post a graph of each if you wanted.

Thats cool. What processing are you using when measuring?

Any reason in particular you use the L channel? I normally start with my center since its placement is pretty much established(Center). I optimize the sub: Placement, Level, Crossover, Phase, and EQ etc. for that channel. I do this because my main priority is seamless integration of the Center channel. After I settle with Center settings I move to L and R and optimize Placement, Level, Crossover, Phase, and EQ etc and see how good I can get them individually and then L and R together. Sometimes a compromise must be made between L&R and Center but I place higher priority on Center perfection.

Not saying anything your doing is wrong, just sharing some of my process which is not perfect just mine..biggrin.gif......
post #76 of 79
Thread Starter 
Left was just the one set up in REW and it was the plug I used on the end of the RCA cord. Haha. I do a similar process as you with the full front stage integration, but end on the center channel instead of start on it. 2 channel listening is the most important to me for stereo music listening, but I still do get a pretty darn good integration across the whole front stage.
post #77 of 79
Ill bet you do with those sweet SEOS beauties.....
post #78 of 79
Thread Starter 
Nothing like that curved cab you got going right now! I did at least finish 'em right this time. I was dying wanting to get them playing, but it was well worth the extra time once I saw the finished product!
post #79 of 79
Thread Starter 
Updated the 4th post with the different screen materials stuff smile.gif Pretty neat results
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: DIY Speakers and Subs
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › DIY Speakers and Subs › BeastAudio's DIY Sub and Main Testing Measurement Thread