- Thread Starter
- #161
AJ so what is the 'ideal' solution?
Keith.
Keith.
Based on what volume of data? You have listening test results that show mono versus stereo for 80 Hz crossover?Oh and if your example above is mono bass, that's great for movies and Bieber. It won't cut it for Classical, Jazz or other acoustic music, sorry. YMMV.
No, the answer is that you are not reading the information provided to you. Tell me how you got a "null" at 400 Hz. Do you know the concept of modal density? How about the differential in what your left and right ear hear at those frequencies versus a single mic measurement? And do you listen in mono or stereo? You don't think the nulls from speaker don't remain nulls when the other is playing?No I want you to tell me how multisub EQ fixes nulls at 150Hz, 200Hz, 250Hz, 300Hz, 350Hz, 400Hz, etc etc?
Ok the answer: It CANNOT
I don't know about "ideal", but check out the 2 links in my response to Frantz for one possibility.AJ so what is the 'ideal' solution?
Keith.
Yes, learned it from this guy.Tell me how you got a "null" at 400 Hz. Do you know the concept of modal density?
Based on what?
No it starts around 200 Hz. It ends around 400 Hz. The actual range depends on room size.
They are dips, not nulls. Again this measurement is for a single microphone, not what two ears and a brain, hear.Where you can clearly see peaks/nulls in a real room, as anyone who measures in real rooms can attest to, especially acoustically small ones.
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=7868
http://www.akustinenseura.fi/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/goldberg.pdf
And heaven forbid injecting 6db less power at LF....with the exact same onset response. No, let's create energy, then turn it into heat. Yay.
Ethan, you use one sub with "bass traps" right? Are you familiar with >LINK lateralisation?< Or the work of this guy:
Lateralization. Please read what he wrote a bit more carefully and yes, the link is there to the AES paper."Detecting" localization is not the same as user preference over smoother response.
Apparently, stereo subs are the answer for AJ so he can identify "lateralization" down to 20hz.AJ so what is the 'ideal' solution?
Keith.
Lateralization. Please read what he wrote a bit more carefully and yes, the link is there to the AES paper.
Only your strawman claims smoother response isn't preferred.
Yes, just like the authors indicated.According to your paper, stereo bass "lateralization" can be identified down to 20hz. Of course, it may be an error down to 20hz.
No need to assume, here, I'll quote for brevity:But let's assume down to 35hz. The only solution for that is stereo bass down to that frequency.
Am I not being clear when I say stereo, not mono down to 40-50hz?and so we do conclude that lateralisation is possible at frequencies as low as 31.5 Hz (albeit marginal) and 40 Hz.
Nope, not my position. Stereo to 40-50hz is fine. Using variable gradients, so power can be controlled, instead of being wasted. Why your objection to such an approach? Have you experimented with and not liked it, or..???Apparently, stereo subs are the answer for AJ so he can identify "lateralization" down to 20hz.
Michael, my apologies if I wasn't clear. I use multi-subs to 40-50hz, mono. More output, less distortion, spatial averaging. I use non-mono i.e. stereo above 40-50hz, for my preferences, which include recordings with inter-aural phase differences, i.e. "stereo" content, all the way down such as classical jazz etc. just like I linked.AJ, you can't have it both ways. Either you believe stereo bass is better or you believe multiple mono subs in strategic positions. I get the feeling you have an opinion but you a little reticent to let out. I'm okay with that. I've tried stereo subs and mono Welti in my room. The mono sub approach is best. It's not even close, IMO.
So Michael, I'm guessing you like the M...4367. You know, the speaker featured in this "review".
What did you think of my explanation why your guest may have thought them having less "resolution" than the YGs (assuming you weren't accepting the WBF "Engineers" reasons like "steel sound" and no magic XO parts, etc)?
cheers,
AJ
Dr. Toole is a friend, colleague and teacher. He and I are joined at the hip in this domain. Should you find any divergence between what I say and what he says, it is a mistake .Amir,
I would suggest you (and everyone else) read this free paper:
http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20160327/17839.pdf
By page 12 there are dozens of references and graphs showing room issues to 500hz and what EQ can and cannot do.
http://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/jbl-m2-review.190/page-6#post-4984I don't recall what you said.
Hmmm the post I linked above was this one http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?18741-Jbl-4367&p=386721&viewfull=1#post386721 from 3/18/16I lived with the YG anat III for almost four years. I can't explain my friend's one year old auditory memory. I was using different DSP and target curve at the time. I also know the YG has a nasty off axis flare at 5.5khz which many new listeners think sound like more resolution.
I know my friend prefers the $15,000 JBLs over the $76,000 YGs. I agree with him. It's a superior speaker. It's also better than the vivid Giya G3, which is $40,000.
The reviewer in this review strikes me as your typical clueless reviewer with a joke room.[/QUOTE
I see nothing wrong with that room at all or any reason a well designed speaker shouldn't sound very good in there. Perhaps only objection would be the equipment stand, which should be lower.
If anything, I think JBL should have made them a bit taller, like the M2
Congrats. The great thing is, anyone can read that paper I linked and see all the graphs and where real in room issues begin.Dr. Toole is a friend, colleague and teacher.
100% Agree. Now if we could just find someone who doesn't...Bottom line remains: EQ is a powerful tool to optimize in-room speaker response.