or Connect
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 9372
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.
post #7682 of 9372
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
post #7683 of 9372
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
post #7684 of 9372
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
post #7685 of 9372
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
post #7686 of 9372
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
post #7687 of 9372
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
post #7688 of 9372
The blu-ray 'The Dark Knight Rises' in surround sound...YOWSERS!
post #7689 of 9372
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."
post #7690 of 9372
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!!!
post #7691 of 9372
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?
post #7692 of 9372
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.
post #7693 of 9372
So underneath a carpet and up through a hole?
post #7694 of 9372
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?

post #7695 of 9372
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.
post #7696 of 9372
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
post #7697 of 9372
^ ^ ^ He could tickle his Tonsils with that.
post #7698 of 9372
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
post #7699 of 9372
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
post #7700 of 9372
Quote:
Originally Posted by sputter1 View Post

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

Cheaper, yes...but also unrelated.
post #7701 of 9372
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.
post #7702 of 9372
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
post #7703 of 9372
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!
post #7704 of 9372
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.
post #7705 of 9372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

So underneath a carpet and up through a hole?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrolicBeast View Post

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.

If you can find some of these, you could do it wirelessly: http://www.wiredathome.com/products/ButtKicker-BK%252dLINK-Wireless-RF-Link.html
post #7706 of 9372
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrolicBeast View Post

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

 

Thanks!

post #7707 of 9372
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post


If you can find some of these, you could do it wirelessly: http://www.wiredathome.com/products/ButtKicker-BK%252dLINK-Wireless-RF-Link.html

They appear to be discontinued. Perhaps some interference problems. I went with the wires.
post #7708 of 9372
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post

They appear to be discontinued. Perhaps some interference problems. I went with the wires.
What transducers did you get?
post #7709 of 9372
Qty Description
1.00 ButtKicker LFE Kit Regular: plus
1.00 ButtKicker LFE Sonic Shaker Regular
1.00 ButtKicker Chair/Couch Mounting Accessory Kit Regular
post #7710 of 9372
So I'm a new SubM HP owner, and could not be more pleased.

It took a few days to realized how smoothly it blends in with my speakers for music.

But movies....just wow! All I want to do is watch movies with LFE now...I feel like an LFE crackhead!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Seaton Sound SubMersive1