msaudio wrote:

Romy You have not done your main test yet, And you are ready to get rid of your LF array's to soon or maybe you did it and did not post it or say anything about it. The way i would troulble shoot this problem is to a test referance of 3 foot from Lf array first With RTA, use that along with the overall room test specs then mod my LF enclosure before more money was spent if that would be the case. If you have done your 3 foot ref test of your Lf array, Please post picture of it so everyone understands the over all problem at hand. Every 1 will not learn from this without all the the facts.   Preaching Horn Religion    MSAUDIO

jessie.dazzle wrote:

You might find that you don't need that much power. When I first built the ULF channels I assumed they would require loads of power, so I bought a single, mono, 1KW class D amp to use in testing. Then I tried driving them with a pair of M1.1s that I had planned to sell; even with 94dB sensitivity in a large room, the 2 x 100w turned out to have been easily more than necessary; I decided to continue using them.

msaudio wrote:

Your Typical Acoustical Suspension-type Loudspeaker enclosure witch has less then 90 db at 1 watt does not belong with a horn system that starts at 110db at 1 watt, even when you ad more then 1 driver, it is still way to far off to even consider using. It is like talking about the devil in church, they should be kept on the bookshelf because they suck. Why would anyone want a Acoustical Suspension-type speaker because they donot have the space for a better option. I am 47 years old and i was born listening to good speakers, from my first generation that had good audio taste and since the First AR speaker hit the market they have all sucked and were ment to be used for 1 thing a bookshelf. Then all these magazines started pushing small low output mailorder, cheap Japanease-later chinease junk speaker componetes with the rubber surrounds and thick cones and ceramic magnets, the sheep were eating them up because they donot no what music sounds like. It was all about making something small that sounds halfway desent that could be sold at a larger profit, made shipping easy and cheaper. It is so bad the recording studio's half to use them for monitoring to get a referance of shit for your typical boombox sound witch the people want for there RAP-CRAP sound. The hay day of sound was the 40,50,60, witch audio engineer mixed horns with acoustic suspension speakers? None that would be like witchcraft, these guy's that wrote the books on audio would all meet at the audio clubs, they all new eachother they had pride and they were trying to out do 1 another. They had shows just like they do now witch brought all the best to hear and look at, and make fun of the junk and that was AR. Talk to the old timer's that had horn systems they no a lot of the old story's. I am from california, my dad use to work for Altec pre anaheim then worked at a motionpicture sound house as chief engineer and went to all the clubs, so i herd all the story's and then some you would not believe.  Preaching Horn Religion   MSAUDIO

MsAudio, I am not sure why you have a rant about Acoustical Suspension here. It is not that you are incorrect but rather that you’re your correctness is not truly applicable in my case. I am not a big fan of Acoustical Suspension as it was used in end of 70s but the way how they did it was just one very narrow application of Acoustical Suspension. Any sealed enclosure is acoustically suspended. The question is what kind drivers, how suspended. You can suspend drivers very loose or very over damped, you can make sipping suspension as it become fashionable with some people nowadays. Yes, an Acoustical Suspension as it was in 70s was the option to get from bad driver and small box more bass BUT it is not all. Any infinite baffle in sealed box is suspended to a degree, the question is how. If Jessie circulation’s about Aura and 13 cub feet are correct then what you use your aura in 23 cub feet then your Aura was also suspended in the very end of it’s exertion. It was near open baffle configuration – some drivers work better and some worse in this application. Generally for open baffle you need very hard suspended drivers with short throw – it will be not Aura.

I guess I did not get a memo that box bass boxes do not match with horns.  I would be VERY happy is in my new room I will be able to get the same bass I had in my old room – and I had the “acoustical suspension-type enclosure which has less than 90 db at 1 watt”. It was very good and I had no desire for anything better – it  was very proper bass.

If you look at the park of available options for complimentary lowest frequency sections for horn MF systems then what is available. I do not believe in the LF bass horns. The ported configuration, all of them are out of attention. The large open baffles are must not be used with lowest octaves. I do not like dipoles – they are for teenagers. What is left besides offensively made/powered sealed enclosures? Well, any sealed enclosures will be in a way Acoustically Suspended driver. You might not USE the Acoustically Suspended gain but I do feel that it is very fine what the driver in the end of it’s run is slightly taped by the volume of the box. Different drivers and different amps react differently to it – fine the configuration that does better to you and I think it is a right direction to go for lower octave.

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".