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

Seaton Sound SubMersive1 - Page 258

post #7711 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by quattroatl View Post

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!

Welcome to the club - they are a joy to listen to.
post #7712 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by quattroatl View Post

All I want to do is watch movies with LFE now...I feel like an LFE crackhead!

I know the feeling smile.gif
post #7713 of 9384
Bought a Audyssey Pro Kit and ran it tonight on my Integra DHC 80.3. Huge improvement with bass and SQ. Pro set my crossovers at 50 for the LCR and 60 for the 4 surrounds. I did try 80 hz crossover but got the best audio SQ with the 50 hz. I have dual stacks of 2 Submersives in each front corner and Pro set those trims at -1 and the seat shakes and vibrates at -5 on the volume. Bass is pretty much the same either at 50 or 80 crossover so I went with what sounds best for me for SQ. Using Pro with XT32 is a improvement with overall bass and SQ. WOW pod scene was 116 db (not running hot from set trims) with both 80 & 50 crosssovers. Those JTR speakers are damn efficiant with audio freqs.
post #7714 of 9384
Pro certainly gives a lot more flexibility. I have modified target curves for my left and right speaker as Audyssey leaves a 4 to 5 db dip from about 100 to 300 hz and Pro allows me to fix it. Plus the ability to select different crossovers and then have Audyssey calculate the filters AFTER I change them.

Dual stacked SubMersives?? A serious smile configuration !!
post #7715 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsoko2 View Post

Bought a Audyssey Pro Kit and ran it tonight on my Integra DHC 80.3. Huge improvement with bass and SQ. Pro set my crossovers at 50 for the LCR and 60 for the 4 surrounds. I did try 80 hz crossover but got the best audio SQ with the 50 hz. I have dual stacks of 2 Submersives in each front corner and Pro set those trims at -1 and the seat shakes and vibrates at -5 on the volume. Bass is pretty much the same either at 50 or 80 crossover so I went with what sounds best for me for SQ. Using Pro with XT32 is a improvement with overall bass and SQ. WOW pod scene was 116 db (not running hot from set trims) with both 80 & 50 crosssovers. Those JTR speakers are damn efficiant with audio freqs.

Bsoko2, out of curiosity, why didn't you go all JTR or all Seaton?
post #7716 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsoko2 View Post

Bought a Audyssey Pro Kit and ran it tonight on my Integra DHC 80.3. Huge improvement with bass and SQ. Pro set my crossovers at 50 for the LCR and 60 for the 4 surrounds. I did try 80 hz crossover but got the best audio SQ with the 50 hz. I have dual stacks of 2 Submersives in each front corner and Pro set those trims at -1 and the seat shakes and vibrates at -5 on the volume. Bass is pretty much the same either at 50 or 80 crossover so I went with what sounds best for me for SQ. Using Pro with XT32 is a improvement with overall bass and SQ. WOW pod scene was 116 db (not running hot from set trims) with both 80 & 50 crosssovers. Those JTR speakers are damn efficiant with audio freqs.

So you are saying the pro kit made a huge difference in SQ. Did you set individual filters and if so on what channels/frequencies? How many Audyssey positions did you run?

Sorry for all the questions but my experience with the pro kit vs standard XT32 was not much (if any) difference in SQ.
post #7717 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bsoko2 View Post

Bought a Audyssey Pro Kit and ran it tonight on my Integra DHC 80.3. Huge improvement with bass and SQ. Pro set my crossovers at 50 for the LCR and 60 for the 4 surrounds. I did try 80 hz crossover but got the best audio SQ with the 50 hz. I have dual stacks of 2 Submersives in each front corner and Pro set those trims at -1 and the seat shakes and vibrates at -5 on the volume. Bass is pretty much the same either at 50 or 80 crossover so I went with what sounds best for me for SQ. Using Pro with XT32 is a improvement with overall bass and SQ. WOW pod scene was 116 db (not running hot from set trims) with both 80 & 50 crosssovers. Those JTR speakers are damn efficiant with audio freqs.

So you are saying the pro kit made a huge difference in SQ. Did you set individual filters and if so on what channels/frequencies? How many Audyssey positions did you run?

Sorry for all the questions but my experience with the pro kit vs standard XT32 was not much (if any) difference in SQ.

 

My experience with the Pro kit is that it is more the 'icing on the cake' than a profound difference in SQ. It is certainly nowhere near the difference from going from XT to XT32. If you use the Target Curve Editor and independent measuring software together, then Pro can make more of a difference as you 'fine tune' it.

post #7718 of 9384
I would also surmise that the more acoustically challenging a room is the more profound effect Audyssey Pro may have compared to Audyssey XT32.

Travis
post #7719 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by FroggyTaco View Post

I would also surmise that the more acoustically challenging a room is the more profound effect Audyssey Pro may have compared to Audyssey XT32.

Travis

My room is fully treated and would be considered a med to small (2300 cu ft) room. One of the big changes between Pro and XT32 was that the ideal crossover dropped 5 hz. XT at 55 and Pro at 50; center 55 to 50 and mains 70 to 50. I had run REW in the past before Pro and it showed the ideal crossover at 50 hz. I know I do need to take more time and rerun REW to check on exactly what crossover is the most effective now for my room.
post #7720 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by FroggyTaco View Post

I would also surmise that the more acoustically challenging a room is the more profound effect Audyssey Pro may have compared to Audyssey XT32.

Travis

 

I don't know. The main advantages of Pro over regular XT32 are:

 

  • Individually ranked crossovers
  • Filters created after the desired crossover has been selected
  • Higher quality, calibrated mic with better tolerances
  • Target Curve Editor
  • Ability to save and reload as many measurements as you have storage room for
  • Ability to use up to 32 measurement positions

 

Some of those might be expected to give a better calibration in any room including more challenging ones. But I still believe, from my experience, that the differences are subtle. Pro also uses the underlying version of MultEQ in the AVR/AVP, so a Pro calibration on an XT machine does not deliver a result as good as just a regular XT32 calibration without Pro.

post #7721 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I don't know. The main advantages of Pro over regular XT32 are:
  • Individually ranked crossovers
  • Filters created after the desired crossover has been selected
  • Higher quality, calibrated mic with better tolerances
  • Target Curve Editor
  • Ability to save and reload as many measurements as you have storage room for
  • Ability to use up to 32 measurement positions

Some of those might be expected to give a better calibration in any room including more challenging ones. But I still believe, from my experience, that the differences are subtle. Pro also uses the underlying version of MultEQ in the AVR/AVP, so a Pro calibration on an XT machine does not deliver a result as good as just a regular XT32 calibration without Pro.

Do you think the difference is enough to warrant the cost of the pro kit plus license ($700 bucks!)? I was looking to pick up a kit
post #7722 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackdevil77 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

I don't know. The main advantages of Pro over regular XT32 are:
  • Individually ranked crossovers
  • Filters created after the desired crossover has been selected
  • Higher quality, calibrated mic with better tolerances
  • Target Curve Editor
  • Ability to save and reload as many measurements as you have storage room for
  • Ability to use up to 32 measurement positions

Some of those might be expected to give a better calibration in any room including more challenging ones. But I still believe, from my experience, that the differences are subtle. Pro also uses the underlying version of MultEQ in the AVR/AVP, so a Pro calibration on an XT machine does not deliver a result as good as just a regular XT32 calibration without Pro.

Do you think the difference is enough to warrant the cost of the pro kit plus license ($700 bucks!)? I was looking to pick up a kit

 

It's a difficult call. First off, if you do not have a unit with XT32, then you will get far more difference in SQ by upgrading to XT32. If you already have XT32, then the improvements are subtle. But that doesn’t mean they are not real. Personally, I would not be without Pro simply for the Target Curve Editor and the ability to save and reload prior measurements at will. It does make a difference to SQ, but it is more subtle than the difference between XT and XT32. If I had never have bought my Pro kit I would always have been wondering what I might be missing, and that was another good enough reason for me to buy it. 

 

I'd also consider what else you have done in the quest for improved SQ. If you have not yet applied room treatments (assuming WAF etc permits) then that will bring bigger benefits than moving from XT32 to Pro IMO. I assume your speakers are all you want right now and I know that if you have one or more Submersives, then you are not lacking in that area. If I had to choose between spending 700 bucks on room treatments (and you can do your room a few times over for that money if you DIY them) and 700 bucks on Pro, I would first choose the treatments. If the latter are not an option for you, or you already have them in place, then yes, I personally would buy a Pro kit just for the better mic, the greater flexibility and the ability to save and reload known good calibrations. You will find SQ improvements as I did I am sure. Specifically, I found that Pro made for a noticeable improvement in the integration of the surrounds - the 'bubble' was noticeable better. I may have also noticed improvements in imaging and separation and clarity in the treble - but some or all of those may have been placebo.

 

I would also say that to get the very best out of Pro you need independent measuring gear like OmniMic or REW. If you have that, then measure the room with XT32 alone, measure again after running Pro and see what you find. I bought Pro before I bought my measuring gear - if I was going back in time, I'd do it the other way around now, based on my experience.

 

You may care to check out the Pro FAQ, linked in my sig for more info too.

post #7723 of 9384
Thanks for the info on the pro kit guys!

Where can I buy these kits? I looked online, but didn't have much luck.
post #7724 of 9384
Good points Keith. With the caveat of being an XT32 non-Pro user, I've looked at the measured and graphed results between XT32 and XT32 Pro for the exact same setup in the same room and although there were some improvements, as Keith said, they're subtle.

If you already have XT32, then my personal recommendation for that $700 (we love spending other people's money) would be, listed in order:
1) measuring equipment if you don't yet have any (i.e. REW, XTZ, Omnimic or similar)
2) acoustic treatment if you don't have any (beginning with bass traps)
3) then the Pro kit.

The reason for the order is that 1) will allow you to see the results you're getting in your room and is invaluable with things like optimizing the placement of your sub(s), speakers and even potentially your MLP if those are flexible. You can check crossover optimization, room anomalies etc.

Ideally, you should use 1) to assist with 2) as knowing where acoustic problems lie in your room and setup allows you to target the specific issues to apply acoustic treatment for.

1) & 2) will provide better bang for the buck, and finally, 3) to fine tune.



Max
post #7725 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by dominguez1 View Post

Thanks for the info on the pro kit guys!

Where can I buy these kits? I looked online, but didn't have much luck.

 

Email Luke at Audyssey. If there is no dealer in your area you can buy the Pro Kit direct from Audyssey. Luke will sort it out for you. His email address is JLoke@audyssey.com 

post #7726 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1 View Post

Good points Keith. With the caveat of being an XT32 non-Pro user, I've looked at the measured and graphed results between XT32 and XT32 Pro for the exact same setup in the same room and although there were some improvements, as Keith said, they're subtle.

If you already have XT32, then my personal recommendation for that $700 (we love spending other people's money) would be, listed in order:
1) measuring equipment if you don't yet have any (i.e. REW, XTZ, Omnimic or similar)
2) acoustic treatment if you don't have any (beginning with bass traps)
3) then the Pro kit.

The reason for the order is that 1) will allow you to see the results you're getting in your room and is invaluable with things like optimizing the placement of your sub(s), speakers and even potentially your MLP if those are flexible. You can check crossover optimization, room anomalies etc.

Ideally, you should use 1) to assist with 2) as knowing where acoustic problems lie in your room and setup allows you to target the specific issues to apply acoustic treatment for.

1) & 2) will provide better bang for the buck, and finally, 3) to fine tune.



Max

 

+1. I bought 1 and 3 the other way around and can confirm that your way is much better/more useful.

post #7727 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by djbluemax1

Good points Keith. With the caveat of being an XT32 non-Pro user, I've looked at the measured and graphed results between XT32 and XT32 Pro for the exact same setup in the same room and although there were some improvements, as Keith said, they're subtle.

If you already have XT32, then my personal recommendation for that $700 (we love spending other people's money) would be, listed in order:
1) measuring equipment if you don't yet have any (i.e. REW, XTZ, Omnimic or similar)
2) acoustic treatment if you don't have any (beginning with bass traps)
3) then the Pro kit.

The reason for the order is that 1) will allow you to see the results you're getting in your room and is invaluable with things like optimizing the placement of your sub(s), speakers and even potentially your MLP if those are flexible. You can check crossover optimization, room anomalies etc.

Ideally, you should use 1) to assist with 2) as knowing where acoustic problems lie in your room and setup allows you to target the specific issues to apply acoustic treatment for.

1) & 2) will provide better bang for the buck, and finally, 3) to fine tune.



Max
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post

+1. I bought 1 and 3 the other way around and can confirm that your way is much better/more useful.

+2

I think the Pro Kit may be more of a salve for the tweaker (wink.gif). Audyssey is the best way to get good sound at multiple seating locations in a room and I can only imagine the difficulty in using conventional measuring and EQ methods to get optimal sound over multiple seating locations. Nearly every measurement I see posted on these boards are taken from a single point in space. Move the mic 6 inches in any direction and you get a different FR. Move it a foot or two and you get a very different FR.

I haven't use ARC or Trinov but Audyssey XT32 has made the most impact on my rooms sound. The Pro Kit does allow for extra measuring positions and tweaking what Audyssey does within the context of the automatic filters Audyssey applies and so does allow for improvements in the FR. My comments were related to the audibility of those tweaks and in my experience, they were certainly not dramatic ... smile.gif
post #7728 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

I think the Pro Kit may be more of a salve for the tweaker (wink.gif). 

 

 

Maybe, but there are audible and measurable benefits from using Pro too.

 

Quote:
Audyssey is the best way to get good sound at multiple seating locations in a room and I can only imagine the difficulty in using conventional measuring and EQ methods to get optimal sound over multiple seating locations. Nearly every measurement I see posted on these boards are taken from a single point in space. Move the mic 6 inches in any direction and you get a different FR. Move it a foot or two and you get a very different FR.

 

 

True - but many people will take several mic position measurements and then average the result to closer emulate the Audyssey mic positions they used. This is very easy to do with REW.

 

Quote:
I haven't use ARC or Trinov but Audyssey XT32 has made the most impact on my rooms sound. The Pro Kit does allow for extra measuring positions and tweaking what Audyssey does within the context of the automatic filters Audyssey applies and so does allow for improvements in the FR. My comments were related to the audibility of those tweaks and in my experience, they were certainly not dramatic ... smile.gif

 

 

Also true. As Max and I said earlier, the benefits of Pro are much more subtle than, say the difference between XT and XT32. Your experience confirms what many have said on the Audyssey Pro thread. 

post #7729 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post

Audyssey is the best way to get good sound at multiple seating locations in a room and I can only imagine the difficulty in using conventional measuring and EQ methods to get optimal sound over multiple seating locations. Nearly every measurement I see posted on these boards are taken from a single point in space. Move the mic 6 inches in any direction and you get a different FR. Move it a foot or two and you get a very different FR.

Exactly, but you will find a lot of people in the forum are more interested in optimizing a single seating position at the expense of others. Either they have one person HTs or they convince themselves that others in the room just do not care about (or could appreciate) good sound as much as they do. I would rather optimize the listening area that Audyssey was engineered to do rather than try to trick it into doing something else by playing whack-a-mole with different mic positions and measurements.
post #7730 of 9384
That's for all the info guys. The biggest appeal to me is the ability to adjust the target curve. Right now with regular XT32, I'd like to be somewhere between the "Music" and "Movie" target curves. Music is a bit too bright for my tastes and I'd like a little more high end or "airy-ness" then what the "Movie" curve does. My room will be modestly treated with bass traps, front wall treatment and a few acoustic panels but not much beyond that.

I have 2 Submersive HP's and the XT32 does a wonderful job and balancing out the bass. Even in the atrocious, untreated room everything is in at the moment. I have a DHC-80.3 processor with a full Seaton set up with Cat 12C's as LCR and am waiting on Sparks for surrounds that I ordered a few weeks ago.
post #7731 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbarnes701 View Post


Maybe, but there are audible and measurable benefits from using Pro too.



True - but many people will take several mic position measurements and then average the result to closer emulate the Audyssey mic positions they used. This is very easy to do with REW.



Also true. As Max and I said earlier, the benefits of Pro are much more subtle than, say the difference between XT and XT32. Your experience confirms what many have said on the Audyssey Pro thread. 

I would hope the the +or-3db filters would lead to measurable differences but it is the audible part that I find unreliable.

As for the measuring, I get the easy part with REW. The not so easy part is the EQ device itself and what speakers are being EQ'ed. If just the L&R have filters applied what about the CC and surrounds. I have had members say that the surrounds "don't need EQing" but they are speakers playing a good amount of content. EQing 2 speakers out of 5 or 7 or 11 seems to me to be a half measure.

Nothing wrong with being a hobbyist and experimenting/playing with these tools but I think that the real science involved is beyond most of us. That's why I contend that Audyssey is the best answer for good sound in most rooms for most folks.

That said, tweak on my brothers ... cool.gif
post #7732 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by RMK! View Post


I would hope the the +or-3db filters would lead to measurable differences but it is the audible part that I find unreliable.

+/-3dB or more can be hard to hear when they are narrow peaks or dips. When you start expanding out to an octave or more in bandwidth adjustments, +/-0.5dB can be easily audible from a starting reference point. This is nothing new and matches well understood matters of audibility, hearing sensitivity and realities with real program material.

While yearns for a simple, single measurement plot to which then can bulldoze flat, the reality is that audible equivalence or similarity varies every time the decay vs frequency changes in the room, which is complicated further in being a 4D problem most often visualized in 2D or 3D.
post #7733 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

+/-3dB or more can be hard to hear when they are narrow peaks or dips.

How well can we hear a dip that's 5Hz wide and 3dB deep?.

How well can we hear a dip that's 8Hz wide and 7dB deep?

Based on your above, the reason I ask is to find out how sensitive our hearing is to these types of expected fluctuations one might find in a standard REW frequency graph.
post #7734 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

How well can we hear a dip that's 5Hz wide and 3dB deep?.
There's no way of knowing. 5Hz might be an octave, it might be 1/100th of an octave. In theory you can hear with an average resolution of 1dB and 1/6 octave, but that varies with both frequency and level. As noted the wider the bandwidth the smaller the variation that can be heard, and vis-versa. Plus notches are less audible than peaks. A 1/3 octave wide peak 3dB high would be obvious, a 1/24 octave wide notch 12dB deep would probably not be heard at all.
post #7735 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

...which is complicated further in being a 4D problem most often visualized in 2D or 3D.

Oh no.. don't let audioguy see this! He'll want to go out and get a 4D display so he can better visualize his frequency response. Chuck, just don't say it was *me* that made you spend more money this time! biggrin.gif

Craig
post #7736 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

+/-3dB or more can be hard to hear when they are narrow peaks or dips.

How well can we hear a dip that's 5Hz wide and 3dB deep?.

How well can we hear a dip that's 8Hz wide and 7dB deep?

Based on your above, the reason I ask is to find out how sensitive our hearing is to these types of expected fluctuations one might find in a standard REW frequency graph.

Going further on Bill's response, it's not a simple answer, and needs to be expressed as fractional octaves, not Hz. In the bass range it is possible to have very high Q peaks or dips. At the same time, some LF effects and sounds can be very specific in frequency content vs wider band noise like a drum hit. In order to hear a peak or dip you have to have program content which lands on it. This means that you could have a peak or dip which is hard to identify on 70% material until you find a scene that lands right on it. If a deep hole coincides with a strong effect the subjective result it "what's the big deal about this scene?".

When you get into the upper octaves, especially above 250-500Hz, it's all about bandwidth. A 1-3 octave wide 0.3dB change can be audible, while a 6dB narrow spike or dip might be rather hard to pick up on.
post #7737 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Oh no.. don't let audioguy see this! He'll want to go out and get a 4D display so he can better visualize his frequency response. Chuck, just don't say it was *me* that made you spend more money this time! biggrin.gif

Craig

No worry about that. One must have vision out of two eyes to see 3D and I don't so 4D won't happen either. But if I do spend any money on anything, it's still your fault !
post #7738 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

Going further on Bill's response, it's not a simple answer, and needs to be expressed as fractional octaves, not Hz.

Based on Bill and your response, I'll try to articulate my question better. My question concerns LFE or subwoofer content limited to <120Hz. Using today's captured graph, no smoothing applied, as an example:



The 3Hz wide dip at 43Hz, that's 3.4dB deep; highest shoulder to trough.

And a dip that's roughly twice the above dip in size.

The 7.4Hz wide dip at 72Hz, that's 7.3dB deep; highest shoulder to trough.

I don't know the best way to express the above in octaves. In the case of the first example, would 43Hz be considered the middle of an octave, the beginning of an octave or the end of an octave? In each of the above examples, with a fast paced action scene flashing before a viewer's eyes, volume at -10, are each of the exampled anomalies large enough for a listener to notice? Will the anomalies diminish the overall quality of a reproduced action sound track?

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 1/28/13 at 5:09pm
post #7739 of 9384
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton View Post

Going further on Bill's response, it's not a simple answer, and needs to be expressed as fractional octaves, not Hz.

Based on Bill and your response, I'll try to articulate my question better. My question concerns LFE or subwoofer content limited to <120Hz. Using today's captured graph, no smoothing applied, as an example:



The 3Hz wide dip at 43Hz that's 3.4dB deep; highest shoulder to trough.

And a dip that's roughly twice the above dip in size.

The 7.4Hz wide dip at 72Hz that's 7.3dB deep; highest shoulder to trough.

I don't know the best way to express the above in octaves. Is 43Hz considered the middle of an octave, the beginning of an octave or the end of an octave? In each of the above examples, with a fast paced action scene flashing before a viewer's eyes, will a listener notice the exampled anomalies?

-
Simple way to think of an octave is from one frequency to its double, i.e.

5Hz to 10Hz is one octave,
7Hz to 14Hz is one octave,
10kHz to 20kHz is one octave.

A 10db dip 5Hz wide encompasses a whole octave from 5Hz to 10Hz and will be noticeable IF you have content that goes down that low AND have a system that can play it loud enough to feel when the FR is flat.

A 10db dip 5Hz wide from 7500Hz to 7505Hz is inaudible because it's a tiny fraction of an octave. Comb filtering in typical rooms produces dips and peaks of 30+db in this range.



Max
post #7740 of 9384
Yes, I understand what an octave is. That's why I specify in my above, the range of frequency (<120Hz) and two specific graphed examples (43Hz and 72Hz) as I ask; when a specific frequency is referenced, is that considered the beginning, middle or end of an octave?

I did some quick math for the above examples. If each of the referenced frequencies were in the middle of their respective octave, they would represent roughly 10% and 15% of each of their octaves. So I'd have a 3.4dB drop at 10% of the width of the first octave and a 7.3dB drop at 15% of the width of the second mentioned octave.

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 1/28/13 at 5:29pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Seaton Sound SubMersive1