AVS Forum banner

10341 - 10360 of 10362 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
435 Posts
I would go with the HD. My horned subs almost max out the distance/delay value on Audyssey and doesn't leave much room for subs/mains integration. Also have to consider the output voltage from the AVR when browsing the miniDSP lineup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
I don't see the DIY kit on Danley's website. Cam the kitsch still be bought? Are the plans available anywhere?
No kits available, it was a slim window of opportunity back then to buy one. Luckily Tom and the Gents at Danley allowed a kit to even exist at the time.

Special day for me was I actually picked up the very last kit of the final kit production run. Bought my second kit 22 Apr 2011 and picked up at QMS 29 Jul 2011. They gave a nice quick tour of the facility I wasn't expecting. Needless to say it's understood why they are used to make majority of pro cabs there.

No plans i'm aware of. Online I believe some share the THspud plans using the 8's. There are probably some that try to model and use pictures in this thread to scale dts10 dimensions and folds. Same with the TH50 clones.

All kits of dts10s assembled I'm aware of are glued and screwed sealed forever. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
208 Posts
No kits available, it was a slim window of opportunity back then to buy one. Luckily Tom and the Gents at Danley allowed a kit to even exist at the time.

Special day for me was I actually picked up the very last kit of the final kit production run. Bought my second kit 22 Apr 2011 and picked up at QMS 29 Jul 2011. They gave a nice quick tour of the facility I wasn't expecting. Needless to say it's understood why they are used to make majority of pro cabs there.

No plans i'm aware of. Online I believe some share the THspud plans using the 8's. There are probably some that try to model and use pictures in this thread to scale dts10 dimensions and folds. Same with the TH50 clones.

All kits of dts10s assembled I'm aware of are glued and screwed sealed forever. :)
That is very disappointing. I would LOVE to build two of these kits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
45 Posts
This tapped horn design that uses one Lab12, has its knee at 16hz, works well with all the Alpine SWS and SWR that I have modelled and measured (including the new R-W series) and has been likened to the DTS20 might be a viable alternative?
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Does the DTS-10 deserve new test charts & graphs to better represent what its owners actually hear at home?

I certainly think so.
I’ve always wondered why the existing frequency response, spectrogram, waterfall & distortion graphs are so awful, and so different from what I’m experiencing at home, but I finally realized that the DTS-10 was never designed to play outside in the anechoic space of an open field, it’s supposed to be played in the smaller acoustical space typically found within the average home.

I think the problem is that it’s become so widely accepted that the best place to measure a subwoofer or full range speaker is either in an anechoic room or in the great outdoors in order to prevent reflections from contaminating the measurements. This method works well for direct radiator designs (i.e. sealed, infinite baffle or vented designs) but it definitely does not work well for the DTS-10 because the acoustical transformer properties of a horn are greatly affected by the acoustical impedance of the air that they are designed to play in, whereas a direct radiators response is not appreciably affected at all.

Tom Danley has already explained this in post #430 of this thread. Tom answers multiple questions in that post, but in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 & 5 he explains to "bossobass" how the frequency response of the TH-115’s gets smoothed out when it's operated in a space with higher acoustical radiation resistance, which occurs when either multiple subwoofers are operated close to each other, or when a single sub is operating in a smaller fractional space. (like indoors or close to a wall or corner)
Tom makes it very clear that the DTS-10 was never designed to operate in a free space environment.

Tom’s attached picture at the end of the post (visible here) shows multiple characteristics affected when operating in a higher acoustical radiation resistance location, notably:
- a flattening of the power response curve.
- extending the low frequency cut-off point.
- increasing efficiency/raising sensitivity.

I think the only fair way of assessing the DTS-10’s true capabilities are to measure them in a small acoustical space that is somehow devoid of reflections, but I don’t know how that can be done. I’d like to hear your opinions/suggestions on possible methods that can achieve that goal.

Previously, reviewers made use of the near-field measurement method when testing subwoofers indoors, where the microphone is placed as close to the sound source as possible in order to reduce room reflection contribution to a minimum. This is the only method I can think of that will provide measurements more closely resembling what I hear in my listening position.


Examples of outdoor versus near-field indoor measurements: (Note: no EQ is used on indoor signals)

Outdoor measurement:

Notice the typical peaky response with a major resonance at 55Hz.

My indoor near-field measurement, positioned in right front corner of room, sub is parallel to and approximately 6" from right wall, mouth is facing wall:

Notice how the peaky response is greatly reduced, and the 55Hz resonance has dropped to 51Hz.


Indoor near-field measurement, right front corner diagonal placement: (sub placed 45° against front and right wall with mouth facing corner)

Notice how the deep bass energy is higher than the upper bass energy now.


Indoor near-field measurement comparison, parallel to diagonal placement differences:

This graph shows just how much deep bass energy is gained without changing the input drive level just by placing the sub diagonally in the corner, also the 51Hz peak has now dropped to 47Hz!


Outdoor spectrogram:

Most of the energy is in the upper bass and isolated to two narrow frequency domains.


Indoor near-field spectrogram:

Notice how the bass energy is more evenly spread out and extends well below 20Hz.

Outdoor waterfall diagram:
7) Data-Bass_Waterfall.png

Notice the two frequencies that tend to take longer to decay in an outdoor environment.

Indoor waterfall diagram:
8) In-Room_Waterfall.png

Notice how all frequencies take longer to decay when measured inside an enclosed room, but the two previously peaky frequencies are actually lower in amplitude after 300ms then the outdoor measurements indicated.

Six-seat average frequency response, no EQ:
11) Six Seat Avg, No EQ.png

Notice how different this response is compared to the outdoor measurement diagram. The DTS-10 was definitely designed to work in the higher radiation resistance environment of an enclosed room.

Equalizer settings needed to obtain a flatter frequency response:
9) Mini DSP Correction Values.png

This image shows the equalization required to create a flat response at the listening position. Notice all gains are set to less than +/-5 dB, and even the large outdoor 10 dB peak at 55Hz now only requires a 2.5 dB cut at 47Hz, all due to the effects of indoor radiation resistance increases.

I think all DTS-10 owners can ignore the wildly fluctuating frequency response graph that was taken in an outdoor environment. The actual frequency response is determined more so by the space it is operating in than it does for direct radiator design subs.
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Does the DTS-10 deserve new test charts & graphs to better represent what its owners actually hear at home?

I certainly think so.
I’ve always wondered why the existing frequency response, spectrogram, waterfall & distortion graphs are so awful, and so different from what I’m experiencing at home, but I finally realized that the DTS-10 was never designed to play outside in the anechoic space of an open field, it’s supposed to be played in the smaller acoustical space typically found within the average home.

I think the problem is that it’s become so widely accepted that the best place to measure a subwoofer or full range speaker is either in an anechoic room or in the great outdoors in order to prevent reflections from contaminating the measurements. This method works well for direct radiator designs (i.e. sealed, infinite baffle or vented designs) but it definitely does not work well for the DTS-10 because the acoustical transformer properties of a horn are greatly affected by the acoustical impedance of the air that they are designed to play in, whereas a direct radiators response is not appreciably affected at all.

Tom Danley has already explained this in post #430 of this thread. Tom answers multiple questions in that post, but in paragraphs 1, 2, 3 & 5 he explains to "bossobass" how the frequency response of the TH-115’s gets smoothed out when it's operated in a space with higher acoustical radiation resistance, which occurs when either multiple subwoofers are operated close to each other, or when a single sub is operating in a smaller fractional space. (like indoors or close to a wall or corner)
Tom makes it very clear that the DTS-10 was never designed to operate in a free space environment.

Tom’s attached picture at the end of the post (visible here) shows multiple characteristics affected when operating in a higher acoustical radiation resistance location, notably:
- a flattening the power response curve.
- extending the low frequency cut-off point.
- increasing efficiency/raising sensitivity.

I think the only fair way of assessing the DTS-10’s true capabilities are to measure them in a small acoustical space that is somehow devoid of reflections, but I don’t know how that can be done. I’d like to hear your opinions/suggestions on possible methods that can achieve that goal.

Previously, reviewers made use of the near-field measurement method when testing subwoofers indoors, where the microphone is placed as close to the sound source as possible in order to reduce room reflection contribution to a minimum. This is the only method I can think of that will provide measurements more closely resembling what I hear in my listening position.


Examples of outdoor versus near-field indoor measurements: (Note: no EQ is used on indoor signals)
Outdoor measurement.

Notice the typical peaky response with a major resonance at 55Hz.

My indoor near-field measurement, positioned in right front corner of room, sub is parallel to and approximately 6" from right wall, mouth is facing wall.

Notice how the peaky response is greatly reduced, and the 55Hz resonance has dropped to 51Hz.


Indoor near-field measurement, right front corner diagonal placement. (sub placed 45° against front and right wall with mouth facing corner)

Notice how the deep bass energy is higher than the upper bass energy now.


Indoor near-field measurement comparison, parallel to diagonal placement differences.

This graph shows just how much deep bass energy is gained without changing the input drive level just by placing the sub diagonally in the corner, also the 51Hz peak has now dropped to 46Hz!


Outdoor spectrogram.

Most of the energy is in the upper bass and isolated to two narrow frequency domains.


Indoor near-field spectrogram.

Notice how the bass energy is more evenly spread out and extends to
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
24,317 Posts
I think the only fair way of assessing the DTS-10’s true capabilities are to measure them in a small acoustical space that is somehow devoid of reflections, but I don’t know how that can be done. I’d like to hear your opinions/suggestions on possible methods that can achieve that goal.

The only thing that occurs to me is an outdoor measurement with vertical panels adjacent to the DTS-10 to simulate nearby wall surfaces.

This would give the increased acoustic impedance that they contribute but not muddy things up with ceiling and far wall reflections.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
The only thing that occurs to me is an outdoor measurement with vertical panels adjacent to the DTS-10 to simulate nearby wall surfaces...

I agree.
Adding one vertical panel would make it 1/4 space, and adding one more panel at 90° to the other would make it 1/8 space.
I'm sure the DTS-10 would have given much smoother response graphs if it were tested in such a setup.


But I can't blame Tom Danley or Josh Ricci for not testing it that way though.
What a hassle it would be trying to build ultra-stiff walls of great height and width in order to maintain the acoustic load down to ultra-low frequencies.
I guess there's just no demand for such a test site once you consider that the majority of home speakers and subs are of a dynamic radiator design, which gives a similar response in any space it's operated in.


If only there was an app you run on a horns outdoor frequency response graph that would modify the graphs shape depending on the acoustical space you set it to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,738 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
Parts express has a good sale going on for Ultimax drivers. Would the 12” be a good fit/match for the DTS-10?

I already have alpines in 2 of mine and really am not considering a move but was just curious.


https://www.parts-express.com/dayton-audio-um12-22-12-ultimax-dvc-subwoofer-2-ohms-per-coil--295-512
Only person I know first hand that could answer that cause has the horn model is lilmike. He's been busy but can try to PM. I know the Alpine SWR and newer W series model very well as past posted. The W newest version handle even more power like we'd need that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,010 Posts
Thank you. I just finalized on the miniDSP 2X4. Not sure if I should get the HD version for twice the cost.
Behringer Ep4000 is running the DTS-10. Another EP4000 for the 2 IXL 18" ported subs.
Do you mine sharing how you have the sub wired to your amp? I have the same setup and need a bit of help.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
91 Posts
Here was my in room response at the LP with two of them, it has been a long time since then.

Now that we're beating the "dead horse" (this thread's just been sitting idly for some time, waiting to be re-awoken ;)):

That's certainly a respectable measurement of your twin DTS10's at the time. How's your current set-up measure by comparison, and why do favor it compared to the DTS10's?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,671 Posts
That was with my radio shack meter which smooths things out compared to a UMIK. I also had to EQ it flat above 30hz. I wanted more low end as I could reach the limits on some movies. I run my LFE hot and MV at 0 dB. I run an IB now.
 
10341 - 10360 of 10362 Posts
Top