AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Seaton Sound SubMersive1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Seaton Sound SubMersive1 - Page 257

post #7681 of 8062
12/22/12 at 11:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Glass, in general is almost transparent to bass, having an STC, (Sound Transmission Coefficient), of about 20 below 100 Hz, (see chart below.) This basically means that whole wall is already "open" for bass frequencies.
Don't mistake the 'transparency' of glass for being non-reflective of low frequencies. Glass passes bass because it vibrates easily, but for that matter midrange vibrates it easily as well. Reading that vibration is how spy microphones aimed at windows work. This transparency doesn't mean that reflective nodes don't arise, just that they aren't as severe as with more rigid surfaces. I've seen windows referred to as bass traps, and that's not the case. The ability of sound to transmit easily through a medium doesn't necessarily equate with a lack of reflectivity. What it mainly indicates is that the waveform energy isn't dissipated within the medium.
Reply
Reply

AVS Top Picks

post #7682 of 8062
12/22/12 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Don't mistake the 'transparency' of glass for being non-reflective of low frequencies. Glass passes bass because it vibrates easily, but for that matter midrange vibrates it easily as well. Reading that vibration is how spy microphones aimed at windows work. This transparency doesn't mean that reflective nodes don't arise, just that they aren't as severe as with more rigid surfaces. I've seen windows referred to as bass traps, and that's not the case. The ability of sound to transmit easily through a medium doesn't necessarily equate with a lack of reflectivity. What it mainly indicates is that the waveform energy isn't dissipated within the medium.
Glass vibrating and generating it's own "sound" is not the same as glass reflecting sound. If glass allows the bass to pass through it, it doesn't reflect it. On open window is a bass trap. A closed window is only slightly more reflective at those frequencies.

Craig
Reply
Reply
post #7683 of 8062
12/22/12 at 12:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Glass vibrating and generating it's own "sound" is not the same as glass reflecting sound. If glass allows the bass to pass through it, it doesn't reflect it. On open window is a bass trap. A closed window is only slightly more reflective at those frequencies.
Craig
To be accurate, glass does not allow the bass to pass through it. The acoustical waveform transmitted by air molecules excites the glass, which then vibrates and transfers that waveform to the air molecules on the other side. Being a dense yet relatively flexible material it transmits more energy to the air on the other side than does a wall, which absorbs more energy within its structure, and therefore passes less energy to the air on the opposite side.

I just grabbed my handheld RTA and switched my HT source to pink noise, then measured a few inches from the walls and also the windows, one of which measures 5x5 feet. From 20 to 80Hz there was no discernible difference. I took a 40Hz reading at the front door, then opened it, revealing the glass storm door. The level didn't change. Then I opened the glass storm door, and the level dropped by 6dB. I went onto the porch and took a reading with the storm door open, then closed it. The level went down by 6dB. I then closed the inner solid oak door, the level went down another 6dB. So inside the room the reflectivity difference between walls and glass was negligible, that between glass and air significant, while outside the difference in transmission between glass and two inches of oak was also significant. To tell the truth I'd expected the reflectivity of the glass would be at least a couple of dB less than the wall, but it wasn't.
Reply
Reply
post #7684 of 8062
12/22/12 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

You're applying your comments as if they're universal to all rooms and all conditions which isn't realistic as the LFE channel is 0-120Hz and 25dB is a huge attenuation, which we all know as the chart doesn't go below 100Hz.
The reason the graph only goes to 125 Hz is that STC's are only calculated to 125 Hz. This is because the Transmission Loss at lower frequencies is so low as to be essentially meaningless. In this link, http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-15517.pdf on page 4, you can see the Transmission Loss, (TL), of a "sandwiched glass panel", (as well as the formulas used to calculate the losses.) At 100 Hz, the TL is less than 5. IOW, if you have 100 dB of SPL @100 Hz on the "inside", you'll have over 95 dB on the "outside." Very little of the sound at 100 Hz is retained on the inside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

This is a done topic of conversation. Please, if you wish to continue, take it to PM. If you don't wish to take the topic of your post to PM, please don't address me directly or indirectly.
You keep posting with misinformation/disinformation. Stop posting this stuff and we'll stop responding.

Craig
Reply
Reply
post #7685 of 8062
12/22/12 at 1:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

To be accurate, glass does not allow the bass to pass through it. The acoustical waveform transmitted by air molecules excites the glass, which then vibrates and transfers that waveform to the air molecules on the other side. Being a dense yet relatively flexible material it transmits more energy to the air on the other side than does a wall, which absorbs more energy within its structure, and therefore passes less energy to the air on the opposite side.
I just grabbed my handheld RTA and switched my HT source to pink noise, then measured a few inches from the walls and also the windows, one of which measures 5x5 feet. From 20 to 80Hz there was no discernible difference. I took a 40Hz reading at the front door, then opened it, revealing the glass storm door. The level didn't change. Then I opened the glass storm door, and the level dropped by 6dB. I went onto the porch and took a reading with the storm door open, then closed it. The level went down by 6dB. I then closed the inner solid oak door, the level went down another 6dB. So inside the room the reflectivity difference between walls and glass was negligible, that between glass and air significant, while outside the difference in transmission between glass and two inches of oak was also significant. To tell the truth I'd expected the reflectivity of the glass would be at least a couple of dB less than the wall, but it wasn't.
That's not how TL is calculated. See the link I provided above. You would need to measure the SPL on the outside of a solid wall vs the SPL on the outside of a glass window.

Craig
Reply
Reply
post #7686 of 8062
12/22/12 at 1:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

That's not how TL is calculated. See the link I provided above. You would need to measure the SPL on the outside of a solid wall vs the SPL on the outside of a glass window.
Craig
I did, unless you don't consider two inches of solid oak a solid wall. cool.gif
Bringing up TL at all in the context of this discussion infers there is a direct correlation between reflectivity and TL, specifically that they have an inverse relationship. Based on my measurements I'd have to say that they don't.
Edited by Bill Fitzmaurice - 12/22/12 at 1:35pm
Reply
Reply
post #7687 of 8062
12/22/12 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bfreedma View Post

but I'm learning from the downstream conversation correcting it and subsequent posts, particularly the recent debate by Craig and Bill. No reason to attempt to censor good information on the topic of subwoofers.
Engineers don't debate, they compare objective data. Sometimes the available data is incomplete, so you have to collect more, like I did with my RTA earlier today. We leave arguing about subjective opinions based on pure conjecture to others. Not that we don't engage in conjecture; hardly a project ever starts without the key phrase "I wonder what would happen if...?". But that's where the wondering ends, the rest of the job is to prove it. Or disprove it, either way you learn something.
Reply
Reply
post #7688 of 8062
12/22/12 at 4:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

I did, unless you don't consider two inches of solid oak a solid wall. cool.gif
Bringing up TL at all in the context of this discussion infers there is a direct correlation between reflectivity and TL, specifically that they have an inverse relationship. Based on my measurements I'd have to say that they don't.
To calculate TL, you need to isolate the loss to just the loss across the "partition" under test. You mount the "partition" into a lossless frame, (i.e. a thick concrete wall) Then you measure the SPL by frequency on the inside vs. the outside. The way you did it, it's impossible to know how much sound leaked around the solid wall, through the glass to your microphone.

To your comment that reflectivity and sound transmission are unrelated, I would say that noise abatement with sound absorption techniques is unrelated to sound isolation techniques. However, when a sound wave is transmitted through a partition, the "return wave" experiences "return loss." IOW, if most of the SPL present on the inside is still present on the outside, then most of the sound energy was transferred through the partition, leaving a very reduced SPL in the reflected energy.

Craig
Reply
Reply
post #7689 of 8062
12/22/12 at 4:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Engineers don't debate, they compare objective data. Sometimes the available data is incomplete, so you have to collect more, like I did with my RTA earlier today. We leave arguing about subjective opinions based on pure conjecture to others. Not that we don't engage in conjecture; hardly a project ever starts without the key phrase "I wonder what would happen if...?". But that's where the wondering ends, the rest of the job is to prove it. Or disprove it, either way you learn something.

Fair enough though I consider technical debate to be the process of comparing that objective data and identifying the areas for further analysis and data gathering. It's a term used frequently among computer engineers and other IT domains but perhaps isn't as prevalent in other Engineering realms.

The term debate today has, unfortunately, been used to describe the exchange of subjective opinions but the traditional form of debate is an exchange of factual data from two differing positions

Is it ok if I say I learned something from the exchange of objective data between you and Craig :-)
Edited by bfreedma - 12/22/12 at 4:57pm
Reply
Reply
post #7690 of 8062
12/22/12 at 7:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

To calculate TL, you need to isolate the loss to just the loss across the "partition" under test. You mount the "partition" into a lossless frame, (i.e. a thick concrete wall) Then you measure the SPL by frequency on the inside vs. the outside. The way you did it, it's impossible to know how much sound leaked around the solid wall, through the glass to your microphone.
The wall may not have been solid, but close enough. My house is planked on the outside with full 1 inch lumber beneath pine claps, with an inch of urethane foam over the claps and vinyl over the foam. The walls are full dimension 2x6 framed (built in 1938, before they started planing framing lumber) filled with glass, sheathed on the inside with two layers of 1/2 inch sheet rock. My house is so quiet that you can't hear it raining outside if you don't open a door. Whatever sound I measured six inches outside of my front door came though that door, not through the walls surrounding it.
I didn't set out to do a white paper on the subject, just to see if there was any difference in what was measured in room at the boundary when the boundary was a solid wall versus glass. I didn't measure any. I did measure a 6dB loss when the glass was removed and there was a literal hole in the wall in its place. That to me confirmed that the glass was indeed reflecting energy back into the house, and that it did so with the same effectiveness as two inches of solid oak and my built like a tank walls. If I ever did want to do a white paper on the subject I'd do a lot more than fifteen minutes worth of data collection, but even the amount that I did was enough to make me question the supposed inability of glass to reflect low frequencies. There may be data out there that contradicts what I measured, but I'm not aware of it. I wouldn't be surprised if, as I did until I measured it, the assumption was made that since glass transmits more lows than walls that it doesn't reflect them as well as walls and that assumption was never tested or challenged. I haven't even found a reference to it on Ethan Winer's site, and I thought he'd measured everything that could be.
Edited by Bill Fitzmaurice - 12/22/12 at 7:32pm
Reply
Reply
post #7691 of 8062
12/22/12 at 8:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

I took a 40Hz reading at the front door, then opened it, revealing the glass storm door. The level didn't change.
I don't know how to interpret this. The inside wooden door had no sound attenuation properties at all? It sounds like both it and the glass door were transmitting the full SPL of the 40 Hz energy through to the SPL meter on the other side, with no "transmission loss." That doesn't make any sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

Then I opened the glass storm door, and the level dropped by 6dB.

Wait... You opened the glass door and the level *dropped* 6 dB? Was the door amplifying the 40 Hz tone? If the level had gone up 6 dB, it would have shown the door was attenuating the sound 6 dB. Your test shows it was amplifying it 6 dB. confused.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Fitzmaurice View Post

The wall may not have been solid, but close enough. My house is planked on the outside with full 1 inch lumber beneath pine claps, with an inch of urethane foam over the claps and vinyl over the foam. The walls are full dimension 2x6 framed (built in 1938, before they started planing framing lumber) filled with glass, sheathed on the inside with two layers of 1/2 inch sheet rock. My house is so quiet that you can't hear it raining outside if you don't open a door. Whatever sound I measured six inches outside of my front door came though that door, not through the walls surrounding it.
I didn't set out to do a white paper on the subject, just to see if there was any difference in what was measured in room at the boundary when the boundary was a solid wall versus glass. I didn't measure any. I did measure a 6dB loss when the glass was removed and there was a literal hole in the wall in its place. That to me confirmed that the glass was indeed reflecting energy back into the house, and that it did so with the same effectiveness as two inches of solid oak and my built like a tank walls. If I ever did want to do a white paper on the subject I'd do a lot more than fifteen minutes worth of data collection, but even the amount that I did was enough to make me question the supposed inability of glass to reflect low frequencies. There may be data out there that contradicts what I measured, but I'm not aware of it. I wouldn't be surprised if, as I did until I measured it, the assumption was made that since glass transmits more lows than walls that it doesn't reflect them as well as walls and that assumption was never tested or challenged. I haven't even found a reference to it on Ethan Winer's site, and I thought he'd measured everything that could be.

I don't know what your homemade test means, but it is not the correct way to test Transmission Loss or STC. You don't measure with the partition in place and then remove it and re-measure, which is what you seemed to be doing. You measure the SPL on the "source" side and then compare that to the SPL on the "target" side. The test requires that the only thing "transmitting" sound is the partition. The rest of the structure separating the source and target must be non-transmitting with no flanking opportunities. The standard for this testing, (ASTM E90*: Standard Test Method for Laboratory Measurement of Airborne Sound Transmission Loss of Building Partitions and Elements), calls for two adjacent rooms with an opening for the test partition.
Quote:
4. Summary of Test Method
4.1 Two adjacent reverberation rooms are arranged with an opening between them in which the test partition is installed. Care
is taken that the only significant sound transmission path between rooms is by way of the test partition. An approximately diffuse
sound field is produced in one room, the source room. Sound incident on the test partition causes it to vibrate and create a sound
field in the second room, the receiving room. The space- and time-averaged sound pressure levels in the two rooms are determined.
In addition, with the test specimen in place, the sound absorption in the receiving room is determined.
The sound pressure levels in the two rooms, the sound absorption in the receiving room and the area of the specimen are used to
calculate sound transmission loss as shown in Section 1211. Because transmission loss is a function of frequency, measurements
are made in a series of frequency bands.
http://www.moderco.com/kits/standards/ASTM%20E-90-09%20-%20modifications%20from%2004.pdf

The standard goes on to specify how to measure to ensure the reverberant sound fields of the two rooms are taken into account. In addition, the source and receiving rooms are switched and the two results are averaged. This is the rigorous and repeatable way to take these measurements.

Craig
Edited by craig john - 12/22/12 at 8:55pm
Reply
Reply
post #7692 of 8062
12/23/12 at 1:47am
Craig, I think Bill's measurements were inside for the initial measurements, i.e. measuring room reinforcement/reflection. When he opened the door, the lack of reflection from it caused a drop in the measurements.


Max
Reply
Reply
post #7693 of 8062
12/23/12 at 6:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

Craig, I think Bill's measurements were inside for the initial measurements, i.e. measuring room reinforcement/reflection. When he opened the door, the lack of reflection from it caused a drop in the measurements.
Max
+1. Craig, you're hung up on the STC. I don't care about the STC. I only wanted to confirm one way or another whether glass presented a reflective medium for low frequencies. Some have suggested that it does not, being for all intents and purposes the same as a hole in the wall. My measurements indicated that not only does glass not act like a hole in the wall, it has essentially the same reflective properties as a wall. In order to make the test valid I had to confirm whether a hole in the wall acted, well, like a hole in the wall. It did. I also had to confirm if the STC influenced the low frequency reflectivity. It didn't. Methinks perhaps you're too close to the trees to be aware of the forest. Case in point:
Quote:
I don't know how to interpret this. The inside wooden door had no sound attenuation properties at all? It sounds like both it and the glass door were transmitting the full SPL of the 40 Hz energy through to the SPL meter on the other side, with no "transmission loss." That doesn't make any sense.
The results of the oak and glass doors were the same measuring inside the doors, not outside. Outside the door the difference between an open door and the glass door was 6dB, the difference between the glass door and the glass door plus oak door was another 6dB, for a total of 12dB compared to the open door.
Edited by Bill Fitzmaurice - 12/23/12 at 7:46am
Reply
Reply
post #7694 of 8062
1/6/13 at 9:48am
The blu-ray 'The Dark Knight Rises' in surround sound...YOWSERS!
Reply
Reply
post #7695 of 8062
1/6/13 at 10:00am
Guys--I just added some Crowson transducers to my setup and the Submersive+Transducer combination that has elevated my HT enjoyment significantly. To anyone who wants a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Submersive, but simply doesn't have the budget for one--definitely consider picking up the Crowson Tactile Effects system. The under-the-seat vibrations blend seamlessly with the Submersives. The already amazing clarity of the submersive's bass takes the theater enjoyment to "10" and a tactile tranducer system takes it to "12."
Reply
Reply
post #7696 of 8062
1/6/13 at 10:02am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mphfrom77 View Post

The blu-ray 'The Dark Knight Rises' in surround sound...YOWSERS!

Yes Sir! Bass is used wonderfully throughout TDKR mix! I hear it's limited below 35Hz....but I couldn't care less. The bass that is there is amazing and is more than enough to bring a smile to my face!!!
Reply
Reply
post #7697 of 8062
1/6/13 at 10:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrolicBeast View Post

Guys--I just added some Crowson transducers to my setup and the Submersive+Transducer combination that has elevated my HT enjoyment significantly. To anyone who wants a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Submersive, but simply doesn't have the budget for one--definitely consider picking up the Crowson Tactile Effects system. The under-the-seat vibrations blend seamlessly with the Submersives. The already amazing clarity of the submersive's bass takes the theater enjoyment to "10" and a tactile tranducer system takes it to "12."

Almost forgot about this thread since the naughty boys were sent on vacay. Maybe they're out on good behavior soon. tongue.gif Do those require wires going to the seats?
Reply
Reply
post #7698 of 8062
1/6/13 at 10:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

Almost forgot about this thread since the naughty boys were sent on vacay. Maybe they're out on good behavior soon. tongue.gif Do those require wires going to the seats?

Yes indeed, speaker wire would need to be run discreetly to the transducers, which are placed under the seats. Those with carpet would have it easy, but those with hardwood might find it difficult to implement. They really add remarkable tactile feedback to the Submersives' great LFE reproduction.
Reply
Reply
post #7699 of 8062
1/6/13 at 12:37pm
So underneath a carpet and up through a hole?
Reply
Reply
post #7700 of 8062
1/6/13 at 12:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrolicBeast View Post

Guys--I just added some Crowson transducers to my setup and the Submersive+Transducer combination that has elevated my HT enjoyment significantly. To anyone who wants a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Submersive, but simply doesn't have the budget for one--definitely consider picking up the Crowson Tactile Effects system. The under-the-seat vibrations blend seamlessly with the Submersives. The already amazing clarity of the submersive's bass takes the theater enjoyment to "10" and a tactile tranducer system takes it to "12."

 

Sounds good Brolic... got a link to what you bought?

Reply
Reply
post #7701 of 8062
1/6/13 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrolicBeast View Post

Guys--I just added some Crowson transducers to my setup and the Submersive+Transducer combination that has elevated my HT enjoyment significantly. To anyone who wants a 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Submersive, but simply doesn't have the budget for one--definitely consider picking up the Crowson Tactile Effects system. The under-the-seat vibrations blend seamlessly with the Submersives. The already amazing clarity of the submersive's bass takes the theater enjoyment to "10" and a tactile tranducer system takes it to "12."

I'm thinking that cattle prods are cheaper. biggrin.gif just saying.
Reply
Reply
post #7702 of 8062
1/6/13 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sputter1 View Post

I'm thinking that cattle prods are cheaper. biggrin.gif just saying.
Ok, sure buddy... how would you like to sit on this:



Just sayin' biggrin.gif

Craig
Edited by craig john - 1/6/13 at 1:17pm
Reply
Reply
post #7703 of 8062
1/6/13 at 2:56pm
^ ^ ^ He could tickle his Tonsils with that.
Reply
Reply
post #7704 of 8062
1/6/13 at 3:05pm
It's $58, so it's definitely cheaper than the Crowsons. In addition, you can cauterize your hemorrhoids with it, something the Crowsons definitely won't do. Still, I'm not changing out my Crowsons for it. Just sayin'. biggrin.gif

Craig
Reply
Reply
post #7705 of 8062
1/6/13 at 3:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

Sounds good Brolic... got a link to what you bought?

Sure thing:

Crowson Website
Unboxing Video & Installation
Behringer iNuke1000DSP Amplifier
Edited by BrolicBeast - 1/6/13 at 3:51pm
Reply
Reply
post #7706 of 8062
1/6/13 at 3:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sputter1 View Post

I'm thinking that cattle prods are cheaper. biggrin.gif just saying.

Cheaper, yes...but also unrelated.
Reply
Reply
post #7707 of 8062
1/6/13 at 3:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

So underneath a carpet and up through a hole?

Yup, that would be the easiest route. I don't have any carpet though--my seats happen to be very close to the rear wall so I was able to avoid the cable-run woes.
Reply
Reply
post #7708 of 8062
1/6/13 at 3:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrolicBeast View Post

Sure thing:
Crowson Website
Unboxing Video & Installation
You need a link to the amp also. smile.gif

Very cool video, Matt.

You are supplying the signal to the transducer system from the analog output of your Oppo player, much like I am. What are the Bass Management settings in your Oppo? I have mine set to "Small" speakers and an 80 Hz crossover. I have the all the speakers set to the longest Distance setting and the subwoofer set to the shortest Distance setting to provide maximum delay of the subwoofer signal. Your amp provides for much more accurate delay settings, but my approach seems to work pretty well.

For others reading along, the biggest benefit of this setup is that it provides a signal to the transducer system that is devoid of any Audyssey Room Correction. A transducer is a mechanical device, not an acoustic device. Hence it doesn't benefit from acoustical room correction. The signal taken from the Oppo's analog subwoofer output provides a "pure" un-EQ'd signal.

I have had Crowson transducers in my system for several years, and I can attest that Matt's impressions of the benefits of tactile response are spot-on. Tactile response is a huge upgrade in immersiveness and the Crowson's are, IME, the best of these devices. Even with the substantial output provided by multiple Submersive HP's, I find significant benefit from the addition of tactile response. My system is on a concrete floor, and the only way I can get significant tactile shaking of the seating is with tactile transducers.

Craig
Edited by craig john - 1/6/13 at 4:08pm
Reply
Reply
post #7709 of 8062
1/6/13 at 3:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

You need a link to the amp also. smile.gif

Quite True! The link has been added to the post!
Reply
Reply
post #7710 of 8062
1/6/13 at 4:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

You need a link to the amp also. smile.gif
Very cool video, Matt.
You are supplying the signal to the transducer system from the analog output of your Oppo player, much like I am. What are the Bass Management settings in your Oppo? I have mine set to "Small" speakers and an 80 Hz crossover. I have the all the speakers set to the longest Distance setting and the subwoofer set to the shortest Distance setting to provide maximum delay of the subwoofer signal. Your amp provides for much more accurate delay settings, but my approach seems to work pretty well.
For others reading along, the biggest benefit of this setup is that it provides a signal to the transducer system that is devoid of any Audyssey Room Correction. A transducer is a mechanical device, not an acoustic device. Hence it doesn't benefit from acoustical room correction. The signal taken from the Oppo's analog subwoofer output provides a "pure" un-EQ'd signal.
I have had Crowson transducers in my system for several years, and I can attest that Matt's impressions of the benefits of tactile response are spot-on. Tactile response is a huge upgrade in immersiveness and the Crowson's are, IME, the best of these devices. Even with the substantial output provided by multiple Submersive HP's, I find significant benefit from the addition of tactile response. My system is on a concrete floor, and the only way I can get significant tactile shaking of the seating is with tactile transducers.
Craig

Thanks Craig! I too have my Oppo 105 speaker settings set to small, however, I have my crossovers set to 120Hz and LPF settings in the Behringer iNuke1000DSP set to 120Hz as well. As I tweaked this weekend, I ended up with zero delay in both the Oppo and the Behringer. I started with a 4f foot delay and worked my way down until I hit zero. At first, I thought my delay was off using the War of the Worlds Pod emergence Scene (the part when the alien foot crashes into the car); however, after getting out of the seat, I heard that the subwoofer activity also kicks in right before the foot hits the car, so that's either a track flaw or an intentional atmospheric element to the track. 0 feet delay in the Behringer has every accurate respone--my accuracy benchmark being the WOTW, scene when the alien tri-pod begins shooting its beams for the first time. There are a number of short bursts of bass that begin and end in time with each of the blasts. I also use TDKR as Catwoman shoots the missiles from the bat-cycle to clear the debris from the tunnel. The Submersive is excellent for conveying these excellent bass moments, and the Crowson TES system definitely nudges me closer to the "being there" experience.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

AVS Top Picks

AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Seaton Sound SubMersive1