unicon wrote:

Since you added a new parameter  in audio play back called : Decor  I'm afraid, it may make it far too hard.

unicon wrote:

I am afraid you are in wrong shape of set up in first place For instance from pictures you putted in site I guess you may get better response if you put your everything and LF in back of room and faced toward windows ...it can for sure can give you better image on MB LF section ,because the closed windows can act as acoustic low pass filter.

unicon wrote:

using the limp mass acoustic and how much you need to change your Decor is all dependence based on how you can get results with no treatment helps.

unicon wrote:

and tuga is dead right about trying symmetry in room

el`Ol wrote:

And what about the brute force method (room correction for the bass arrays)? http://www.audyssey.com/hometheater/subeq.html

el`Ol wrote:

And what about the brute force method (room correction for the bass arrays)? http://www.audyssey.com/hometheater/subeq.html

("Does MultEQ eliminate the need for acoustic treatment?"

unicon wrote:

el 0l if you could understand the basics about how audio waves especially bass range acts in closed space you wouldnt even bring the name Bass EQ it just cures the sound pressure in a single spot(listener) and possibly can not do anything about ring of bass, and what we even hear is the constant  of Frequency over time which in playback audio describes as Q (quality factor) the most importance and usually  the most ignored aspect of room audio by DIGI EQ makers ... good to hear a breif note on audyssey website : ("Does MultEQ eliminate the need for acoustic treatment?" No. Although MultEQ will improve sound significantly in untreated rooms, a properly treated room calibrated with MultEQ can achieve stunning results throughout the listening area. ") I'm not ignoring the benefits we may get from it but actually A well treated room does not need any EQ

Unicon, I agree with what you say and not.

LF the digital EQ will flatten the response for a single listening location. It will do it with no problem. Will it result sonic improvement? This is more complicated question. Let pretend that EQ does not destroy sound by DSP in case it is digital and does not spin phase. Still, flat response is not the objective. I have seen in some rooms very un-flat response that did not affect listening. Some peaks and some dives in the response are fine – it all depends how wide, where, how they related to the rest of the room response and how they masked out. No one advocate running digital IQ to flat bass (it is not complex) but to use digital IQ discreetly, fixing the major problems I think would worth to explore. BTW, what you do is not much different – only you use resonating limp panels. I consider your way of doing the thing is preferable but you endure a lot of acoustic treatment in your room. If it is a dedicated or demo room then it is fine but I do not have an objective to have DEMO room, I am looking for to make it living room.

Frankly I think that my way to do the ROOM is more preferable: do not fine with room and do not treat the room but rather to design the accustom system around the specific room behavior. I admit that so far I do not have in my room success but I just started. I think the final result might use some of your limp methods but the EQ ONLY for LF doe not sound too absurdish as well. My problem not is not with EQ but with absent of ULF channel with which I would model some lower bass behavior. Again, the jury is out but I still would not put the treated room in the epicenter of attention.

Romy the Cat wrote:

unicon wrote: el 0l if you could understand the basics about how audio waves especially bass range acts in closed space you wouldnt even bring the name Bass EQ it just cures the sound pressure in a single spot(listener) and possibly can not do anything about ring of bass, and what we even hear is the constant  of Frequency over time which in playback audio describes as Q (quality factor) the most importance and usually  the most ignored aspect of room audio by DIGI EQ makers ... good to hear a breif note on audyssey website : ("Does MultEQ eliminate the need for acoustic treatment?" No. Although MultEQ will improve sound significantly in untreated rooms, a properly treated room calibrated with MultEQ can achieve stunning results throughout the listening area. ") I'm not ignoring the benefits we may get from it but actually A well treated room does not need any EQ Unicon, I agree with what you say and not. LF the digital EQ will flatten the response for a single listening location. It will do it with no problem. Will it result sonic improvement? This is more complicated question. Let pretend that EQ does not destroy sound by DSP in case it is digital and does not spin phase. Still, flat response is not the objective. I have seen in some rooms very un-flat response that did not affect listening. Some peaks and some dives in the response are fine – it all depends how wide, where, how they related to the rest of the room response and how they masked out. No one advocate running digital IQ to flat bass (it is not complex) but to use digital IQ discreetly, fixing the major problems I think would worth to explore. BTW, what you do is not much different – only you use resonating limp panels. I consider your way of doing the thing is preferable but you endure a lot of acoustic treatment in your room. If it is a dedicated or demo room then it is fine but I do not have an objective to have DEMO room, I am looking for to make it living room. Frankly I think that my way to do the ROOM is more preferable: do not fine with room and do not treat the room but rather to design the accustom system around the specific room behavior. I admit that so far I do not have in my room success but I just started. I think the final result might use some of your limp methods but the EQ ONLY for LF doe not sound too absurdish as well. My problem not is not with EQ but with absent of ULF channel with which I would model some lower bass behavior. Again, the jury is out but I still would not put the treated room in the epicenter of attention.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Ok, I found my RTA cable and did some very basic measurements of what Macondo does in the room. The results were in the direction that I anticipated but worth in amplitude.  My right bass channel that that sited right next to the equipment bay has no bass. The left LF channel is sitting in a very good “hot” spot but the right is in bass hole.  I would need 6-8dB of extra gain across the entire bass bandpass to have to work properly but Milq does not have these 6-8dBs. The bass channel have a strong room mode around 63Hz that severally mask any lower response. I need to find a way to deal with it. Also, I do not think my bass channel do a lot of good in this room in sub 30Hz region. I would need, I would need another 6-8dB to handle it….

unicon wrote:

if you could understand the basics about how audio waves especially bass range acts in closed space you wouldnt even bring the name Bass EQ it just cures the sound pressure in a single spot(listener) and possibly can not do anything about ring of bass, and what we even hear is the constant  of Frequency over time which in playback audio describes as Q (quality factor) the most importance and usually  the most ignored aspect of room audio by DIGI EQ makers ...

tuga wrote:

I am curious as to how you'll "integrate" the 63Hz mode into your acoustic system but I can see it possible without any "room treatment".

el`Ol wrote:

Romy, it would be interesting to test whether it is really that impossible to get into the near field at 30 Hz as Griffin's simple formula in the line array white paper implies. I am thinking about laying the arrays on the ground, having in mind ceiling-mounted arrays in the final version.

An interesting observation about the Velodyne SMS, thanks, Jessie.

There are a number of similar units out there. The Velodyne specification is very fine:   

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/SMS_manual.pdf

I did not use those units and I do not know how they perform. It is obvious that with drop of frequency the negative impact of DSP will be minimized. How much minimized – that is the question.

There are a number review of the Velodyne and the similar units, I did not read them but I do not think they will be talking about what I would like to know.  Jessie’s transient comparing of the unit in and out bypass I think is not convincing as well.   Still, this area very much worth to explore.  Jessie, or anybody who use the similar units, can you do some specific tests for me? Also, did anybody has a circuit of output stages of those units?

msaudio wrote:

If you put your speakers in the back extra bedroom, you could have your cake and eat it 2. You will have a normal living room and your headphones sound that you love from small room will be back and better then ever and it don't cost anything except your time and bad back, after you move it again. Then all will learn nothing from ordeal, I am reading these comments and i realize why most people's hifi systems sound like shit because they donot have a clue about audio in the first place. Any 1 that would add solidstate in there line of tube electronics is a nonbeliever in audio purity. EQ bab idea, bass modules center of room a joke, that would be against everything this site stands 4.  Preaching Horn Religion     MSAUDIO

30cm Subwoofer

Type Number: 30W/4558-00
• Fiberglass/Paper Sandwich cone, black coated
• Fs 19,5 Hz
• SPL 90,5dB @ 2,83V / 1m
• 56 mm peak excursion – hereof 25mm linear
• Aluminum Short Circuiting Ring and the

Aluminum Spacer on the pole piece to reduce distortion and power compression.

• Aluminium Voice coil former
• Vented cone / dustcap
• Nomex spider
• Low damping rubber surround
• Litze wire woven into the spider

Specs: Electrical Data Power Handling Nominal impedance Zn 100h RMS noice test (IEC) Minimum impedance Zmin Long-term Max Power (IEC18.3) Maximum impedance Zo Max linear SPL (rms) @ power DC resistance Short-term Max Power (IEC18.2) Voice coil inductance mH Voice Coil and Magnet Parametres Voice coil diameter Resonance Frequency fs Voice coil height Mechanical Q factor Qms Voice coil layers Electrical Q factor Qes Height of gap Qts Linear excursion +/- Tm Max mech. Excursion +/- Mechanical resistance Rms Flux density of gap mWb Moving mass Mms Total useful flux mWb Suspension compliance Cms Diameter of magnet Effective cone diameter Height of magnet Effective piston area Sd Weight of magnet Equivalent volume Vas ltrs Unit net weight Sensitivity (2.83V/1m) Ratio fs/Qts IEC Specs refer to IEC 60268,5 third sdition. All Scan Speak products are RoHS compliant

Well Romy:

If you wanted to stick to some known quantities, you might do well to look at these soon to be released drivers from Scan Speak which seem fairly promising, and might work quite well. They are rather inexpensive according to their indicative prices and so may not be such an expensive experiment. The excursion of 58mm is rather good, they are current production and you could easily add more as you feel necessary.

Regards
Rakesh