Xilica 4080
61 - 80 of 95 Posts
Joined
·
99 Posts
John,
Here are the Left and Right Channels with the subs delay of 5ms and the xover at 100 hz.
Here are the Left and Right Channels with the subs delay of 5ms and the xover at 100 hz.
Okay. That worked out much better.
We need to reduce the SWs delay by 3ms for this new 100 Hz XO setting to achieve the best phase tracking.
With that new setting the following SPL is predicted:
First the left channel. Comparing the alignment of the data from Post-59 (50 Hz) to Post-62 (100 Hz). Note that the SPL support from 55-90 Hz is much better with the 100Hz XO. This is due to the SWs being placed better in the room to avoid that room effect.
![Text White Line Pattern Plot]()
Now the right channel. We see the same impact.
![Text White Line Green Plot]()
The 100 Hz XO will be easier to EQ and result in better bass quality. I would not expect the any downside to this change.
Below is the mdat comparison:
View attachment ja Post 62 Vs Post 59 SPL Result.mdat
We need to reduce the SWs delay by 3ms for this new 100 Hz XO setting to achieve the best phase tracking.
With that new setting the following SPL is predicted:
First the left channel. Comparing the alignment of the data from Post-59 (50 Hz) to Post-62 (100 Hz). Note that the SPL support from 55-90 Hz is much better with the 100Hz XO. This is due to the SWs being placed better in the room to avoid that room effect.
Now the right channel. We see the same impact.
The 100 Hz XO will be easier to EQ and result in better bass quality. I would not expect the any downside to this change.
Below is the mdat comparison:
View attachment ja Post 62 Vs Post 59 SPL Result.mdat
Joined
·
99 Posts
John,
These are the latest measurements left right with subs and eq according to REW. Let me know if you want to see the subs by themselves. I am going to listen like this for now and see how it sounds, so far it sounds really good.
These are the latest measurements left right with subs and eq according to REW. Let me know if you want to see the subs by themselves. I am going to listen like this for now and see how it sounds, so far it sounds really good.
I'm glad we found a good starting point - one you can enjoy.
> The timing/phase looks good just a predicted. That work was very successful.
> The EQ improved in the flatness in the low bass.
> There is a significant broad increase in SPL from 100-400 Hz. Post-62 data, showed a minorbut more modest. If you added any EQ in that range you may want to check to see if you inadvertently added boost instead cut filters in that range.
The only remaining work is listen and adjust house curve/EQ to determine what sounds best to you given your setup and program material.
> The timing/phase looks good just a predicted. That work was very successful.
> The EQ improved in the flatness in the low bass.
> There is a significant broad increase in SPL from 100-400 Hz. Post-62 data, showed a minorbut more modest. If you added any EQ in that range you may want to check to see if you inadvertently added boost instead cut filters in that range.
The only remaining work is listen and adjust house curve/EQ to determine what sounds best to you given your setup and program material.
Joined
·
99 Posts
Hey John,
After looking at the two measurements I see the increase in SPL as you pointed out, funny REW eq called for that boost. so I am going to cut it in half and see where it lands. If you notice in the right chaneel in 59 the REW eq didn't ask for any boost at the same frequency strange...
After looking at the two measurements I see the increase in SPL as you pointed out, funny REW eq called for that boost. so I am going to cut it in half and see where it lands. If you notice in the right chaneel in 59 the REW eq didn't ask for any boost at the same frequency strange...
Joined
·
99 Posts
John,
It was pretty much the same you and I covered when you were showing me how to use the eq function. I have lowered the boost on that filter by half, I will make a measurement in the next couple days hard to do when the wife is home the high frequency's hurt her ears. Then if need be I will post the mdat file of the eq for you to have a look. I played with it some and as you said each time the calculation changes ever so slightly, I just found it strange that it called for the boost on the left channel but not the right???
It was pretty much the same you and I covered when you were showing me how to use the eq function. I have lowered the boost on that filter by half, I will make a measurement in the next couple days hard to do when the wife is home the high frequency's hurt her ears. Then if need be I will post the mdat file of the eq for you to have a look. I played with it some and as you said each time the calculation changes ever so slightly, I just found it strange that it called for the boost on the left channel but not the right???
Joined
·
99 Posts
John,
Changing the mic position from up to forward made a big difference, so this is where I am now with the new mic position.
This was using REW's EQ. Sounds pretty good!!!
Changing the mic position from up to forward made a big difference, so this is where I am now with the new mic position.
This was using REW's EQ. Sounds pretty good!!!
Joined
·
99 Posts
Ok John,
Great now a little advice please, I listened for a couple hours today and really like the sound. What I noticed was I liked it best around 95db which is a little too much, so is there anything I can do to get the dynamics I get at 95db at a lessor gain?
Great now a little advice please, I listened for a couple hours today and really like the sound. What I noticed was I liked it best around 95db which is a little too much, so is there anything I can do to get the dynamics I get at 95db at a lessor gain?
I have no confidence that I can help. It does not help that I am not sure how to understand '95 dB'. How was that measured? Does it mean you listening above live levels?
My best guess would be that the frequency response (house curve) does not work well for your preferred; listening level, program material, etc.
The best course of action is to modify the house curve and see what impact it has. It takes time and effort, but that is the only way to satisfy yourself that that you have found the best solution for your situation.
Initially, you may want to try resetting the >300 Hz EQ at ~1m to flat or even slightly up-slope above 2 kHz. We initially set a slightly falling SPL above 2 kHz.
My best guess would be that the frequency response (house curve) does not work well for your preferred; listening level, program material, etc.
The best course of action is to modify the house curve and see what impact it has. It takes time and effort, but that is the only way to satisfy yourself that that you have found the best solution for your situation.
Initially, you may want to try resetting the >300 Hz EQ at ~1m to flat or even slightly up-slope above 2 kHz. We initially set a slightly falling SPL above 2 kHz.
Joined
·
99 Posts
Ok John,
Well maybe you are correct about the curve we used but, I like what I am hearing a lot I just have to turn it up to hear and feel the impact. I measured the SPL with my Radio Shack Meter, maybe if I could move the whole spectrum up a few db I could listen at a lessor gain and still have the dynamics and impact I have at 95db?
Well maybe you are correct about the curve we used but, I like what I am hearing a lot I just have to turn it up to hear and feel the impact. I measured the SPL with my Radio Shack Meter, maybe if I could move the whole spectrum up a few db I could listen at a lessor gain and still have the dynamics and impact I have at 95db?
I also find that it takes near live SPL levels to excite my room and provide a sense of dynamics in the way I prefer. I was guessing that if the highs are rolled off too much it may make it necessary to go even higher in SPL to get that effect. I only know what I have experienced in my room so I don't have any general experience. I would guess that too much absorbent, so very dead room, may have an impact also? Room size may also be a factor? Others with more room acoustics experience are likely to be more helpful.
Joined
·
99 Posts
Well I am pretty sure my room isn't dead, it does have four bass traps and two corner traps and two first reflection zone panels' also a 9x12 rug. It still sounds plenty alive to me I just like the impact of the dynamics, so sometime I push the gain up to feel the pressure it creates. It's sounding really good right now so no worries, I will try a few changes down the road but for now I am very happy.
Joined
·
99 Posts
Yes that is the plan!!!:grin2:
Joined
·
99 Posts
Hey John,
As instructed I have been enjoying the music very much still, I do have a question. About 3-4 months ago I changed the tubes in my pre-amp, these tubes are way more linear than the ones before. Do you think I need to remeasure my room to see if the new tubes changed anything? is that even possible?
Joined
·
5,849 Posts
If it sounds different... I would think it would. Measure different too.Try it out, and let us know.
Joined
·
99 Posts
I am now really sure you are correct, I changed output tubes today and the difference was huge. That tells me for sure I need to remeasure and make setting adjustments, I will post results as soon as I am done...
61 - 80 of 95 Posts
