Mine too. And a couple popped up I didn't see before, so I'm now putting up the same things John already posted.Couple of my posts are missing... I'm being silenced!![]()
So, when does your SDP-75 come and how many channels for you?
Mine too. And a couple popped up I didn't see before, so I'm now putting up the same things John already posted.Couple of my posts are missing... I'm being silenced!![]()
Lol, nothing happening anytime soon. If anything, I'm actually thinking less SDP and more the new 16 channel Trinnov, with remapping. I have the amps/tuning files already (for the M2's and 708 at least, and hopefully SCL's in the near future). The target curve is mildly interesting, but I'd end up making my own anyway (as thats largely salt-to-taste). No SFM with he plain vanilla Trinnov, but I could assign separate channels for each sub for trims and delays and then optimize the summed result.Mine too. And a couple popped up I didn't see before, so I'm now putting up the same things John already posted.
So, when does your SDP-75 come and how many channels for you?
Hopefully will ship to me on Friday. Not sure which unit - whichever Harman can spare! Asked for the 24 or 32.Mine too. And a couple popped up I didn't see before, so I'm now putting up the same things John already posted.
So, when does your SDP-75 come and how many channels for you?
The new Altitude 16 is not shipping for a while, correct? So why assessed as not a great deal?I'm bummed that the remapping isn't an option, but it's hard for me to not trust Harman. The Altitude 16 ended up not being as great of a deal as I had hoped. It's a lot of money on a bologna budget for me. By the time I save, I'll be able to make the choice. It'll be a while.
Couple of my posts are missing... I'm being silenced!![]()
Cost has been quoted in the Altitude post. I would just buy the Altitude 32-8-16 for the cost. Sure it's a little more, but at least you have the peace of mind knowing it isn't maxed if you ever do decide to change. It does include the codecs, which I don't understand why they all don't. What good is a 32 channel processor without atmos?The new Altitude 16 is not shipping for a while, correct? So why assessed as not a great deal?
Little more? I thought the new Altitude16 will be $15k or less. The upgradeable 16 is about $23k. Unless I misread something...Cost has been quoted in the Altitude post. I would just buy the Altitude 32-8-16 for the cost. Sure it's a little more, but at least you have the peace of mind knowing it isn't maxed if you ever do decide to change. It does include the codecs, which I don't understand why they all don't. What good is a 32 channel processor without atmos?
I think it releases in a few months or less.
Personally, 15K to 23K is quite significant. And for me, I’m just not going past 16 channels. I don’t have room for it, and I’m sure my next space down the road would be the same or smaller, not larger.I was hoping in in the 12 range. I guess the next step up was 22k, so that is a good jump from 15k, but, like I said, I'd hate to spend that and be stuck, so I would probably keep going, just in case. It's back to square one if you decide you want even one more channel.
You know floor speakers are next! jk
I've got a while, who knows what direction I'm going. But, I think I saw the mic was extra on the 16 as well. Atmos etc. included.
You are correct. I definitely look forward to reading the book when it's out.I'm guessing that you have not read my existing book, because some of your questions are answered in it. I think all of your concerns will be addressed in the new book, days/weeks away. So, with respect, I won't spend time regurgitating pages of text.
Reviewing Figure 19B in your 2015 JAES paper, I don't see anything that really surprises me or really changes my opinion. Yes, the curves are very close above 1 kHz (actually 2 kHz, really). I'm not sure I'd say they are "right on top of one another", being that I believe calibration to within 0.25 dB is ideal for high frequencies. The differences in distance roll-off definitely complicates the assessment quite a bit.One point you bring up - different rooms. You would be surprised, as I and my colleagues have been, at how consistently the "anticipated" curve is replicated in many rooms of different shapes and sizes - from home theaters and listening rooms through to screening rooms and cinemas. Figure 19 in my 2015 JAES paper shows the M2 measured in a 6-seat home theater and six cinema venues ranging from 24 seats to 516 seats. Above about 1kHz they almost lie on top of one another - the only systematic difference being at the highest frequencies, traceable to the larger listening distances in cinemas (air absorption). In the middle frequency range there is evidence of seat interference when the microphones were located at ear level. At lower frequencies the differing reflective characters of the rooms can be seen. There are many more examples, all of which confirm that the "early reflections" curve in spinorama is a good predictor of steady state room curves outside the domain of room resonances. This can be seen in Figure 4 in my 2015 JAES paper, from the original JAES paper I published in 1986 - none of this is new.
I agree with these considerations, and I would expand on them to note that early reflected sound does influence balance perception. In the process of voicing my speakers, I discovered that optimizing for flat first arrival sound averaged across a listening window provides superior sound to *flatter* first arrival sound at a single listening position, even at that listening position. In a way, this is kind of an elaboration on your secondary consideration of differentiating resonances from interference effects. But I have found this to be true even with regard to signal shaping at a very coarse scale.As explained in the old (and new) book and in Devantier's AES preprint, the listening window is intended to describe the average direct sound frequency response for typically located listeners (not always on axis). It is based on a survey of domestic listening situations. It has a secondary purpose, which is to provide some spatial averaging that will help separate evidence of resonances (bad) from acoustical interference that often appears only in on-axis curves (which may not be audible). It is a diagnostic tool, as are the early reflections and sound power curves, which are even greater spatial averages. Resonances show up in all of them, interference does not.
A single measurement microphone at a single location is indeed "deaf" to incident angle. If that's a problem, it can be worked around using various tricks, but I don't believe it's that important for doing in-room EQ optimization unless one is working with multiple independent sound sources above the frequency at which sound can be localized. That's something I plan to study in the future.Above the frequencies where what we hear is substantially filtered through room resonances, the direct sound, as measured on axis in the anechoic chamber is what we hear in our rooms when the LCRs are correctly aimed. It should be flat. The rising characteristic that appears in steady-state curves is due to reflected off axis sound. Collectively, it has more energy than the direct sound, so that explains why the shape of room curves above a few hundred Hz is well predicted by the "early reflections" curve in spinorama. The measurement microphone is "deaf" to incident angle and arrival time - two ears and a brain are not, which is why steady-state room curves are not definitive statements of perceived sound quality.
Bass: the final frontier.At bass frequencies we have the complication of the circle of confusion to deal with, as discussed in an earlier post.
You're very welcome. And thank you likewise, both for your responses and your participation on this forum. I never imagined I would have the privilege of corresponding with a preeminent expert in this field.Thanks for your detailed response.
Looks wise, the datasat has it beat. I'm curious to see how it sounds though.Our SDP75 is here already, but have not calibrated it - still installing the SCL-3s and 4s. There are some default JBL profiles loaded in but haven't seen any specific target curve yet.
![]()
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
For me, the datasat has the look of a big bowtie with a little screen in the middleLooks wise, the datasat has it beat.
Since the goal of SFM is to make the bass response as similar as possible across all seats, there has been some research into how best to prepare for SFM (i.e., how best to arrange your subs to get the bass response as similar as possible across all seats, in order to give SFM a head start rather than cripple it).Does SFM allow for nearfeild subs to be ideally integrated too? Or is it still pretty much best to stick with 4 around the room?
Thanks for this great study Sanjay, right up my alley.Since the goal of SFM is to make the bass response as similar as possible across all seats, there has been some research into how best to prepare for SFM (i.e., how best to arrange your subs to get the bass response as similar as possible across all seats, in order to give SFM a head start rather than cripple it).
https://www.harman.com/sites/default/files/multsubs_0.pdf
Best results were four subs in four corners or four subs at the midpoints of the four walls or two subs at the midpoint of opposite walls. No nearfield locations were used, will almost all subwoofer locations at the boundary. There's nothing in the SFM algorithm that prevents it from being used with nearfield subs, but it hasn't been tested, so there's no definitive answer to your question.
Personally speaking, I liked the 5000 subwoofer results.Since the goal of SFM is to make the bass response as similar as possible across all seats, there has been some research into how best to prepare for SFM (i.e., how best to arrange your subs to get the bass response as similar as possible across all seats, in order to give SFM a head start rather than cripple it).
https://www.harman.com/sites/default/files/multsubs_0.pdf
Best results were four subs in four corners or four subs at the midpoints of the four walls or two subs at the midpoint of opposite walls. No nearfield locations were used, will almost all subwoofer locations at the boundary. There's nothing in the SFM algorithm that prevents it from being used with nearfield subs, but it hasn't been tested, so there's no definitive answer to your question.
Just to answer the other part of your question: SFM2 is coming to the SDP75. It's not in there yet. Right now the only way to get SFM is in the JBL SDEC, and that's "original recipe" SFM.So SFM is only in the SDP-75?
Does SFM allow for nearfeild subs to be ideally integrated too? Or is it still pretty much best to stick with 4 around the room?
What's been described to me is a general situation where 2 subs will help smooth out seat to seat response either front to back in a room or side to side, where four will smooth out response front to back and side to side. There are variables, but that's the general idea I have taken away.Thanks for this great study Sanjay, right up my alley.
I'm interested in a room without a rear wall.
However, two is almost as good as four, and with better LF response than 4! was an eyeopener.
Many threads go with 6 or more, but this likely depends on room size/volume.