|
Post by jmilton on Mar 4, 2013 14:30:37 GMT -5
You're right, but the important factor isn't the equipment. A professional cabinetmaker might own a $150 hammer, but he could still do good work with a $12 one from Walmart. What a pro is bringing to the table these days is *experience* and *expertise*. In the past, good quality calibrated microphones were very expensive, but that is no longer true. Today, in fact, you *can* buy a calibrated microphone (with software) for under $300 that is quite good enough to get "professional results". Accuracy alone is not what separates "pro" equipment from "consumer" equipment. There are other reasons why a pro might find a more expensive microphone or analyzer easier to work with. Likewise, what EmoQ brings to the deal isn't the microphone we throw in; it's the fact that it uses the results of those measurements to do a room correction (which is something that not everyone knows how to do). What EmoQ provides is expertise (in the form of "an expert system" - a program that does what a human expert would do). And, yes, you could learn to do as good a job as EmoQ does by reading a few chapters in a book, and you could even learn to do as good a job as your human pro - by reading the *whole* book.... if you actually paid attention and learned what was in it. But you probably don't want to bother to; you'd probably rather pay us (or him) to do it for you. Probably the biggest difference between what EmoQ does and what a human pro does is that EmoQ can ONLY control your equipment, whereas a human pro can advise you about moving your furniture, or doing wall treatments, or moving your speakers around to more optimum locations... (Of course, you can also learn those things from a good book on room acoustics.) If anyone can match a pro's results with equipment under $1000, and no experience beyond doing their own system, they could be out there making a small fortune with very little investment. Right on: www.hometheaterhifi.com/audio-accessories-misc/audio-accessories-misc/xtz-room-analyzer-ii-pro.html
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Mar 4, 2013 15:47:59 GMT -5
Quotes from lenardaudio.com/education/17_cinema_7.html "Thou can not equalize time with amplitude” This is the first commandment of acoustics. Trying to compensate for a reverberant venue (that does not allow proper stereo imaging and or poor fidelity speakers) with equalization, is as silly as a dog chasing its tail" Black art - "All techniques that use Equalization for controlling sound system alignment in reverberant fields have no external reference in science. This practice is only held in place by belief, which only the true believer hears. Many who make a living from this type of obscure acoustic alignment do not have benchmarks between themselves from which they are able to create consistent outcomes. Also these procedures do not require those doing it to have a background in acoustics and therefore refer to their craft as a ’Black art’ which they will defend to the death."
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Mar 4, 2013 16:09:33 GMT -5
Quotes from lenardaudio.com/education/17_cinema_7.html "Thou can not equalize time with amplitude” This is the first commandment of acoustics. Trying to compensate for a reverberant venue (that does not allow proper stereo imaging and or poor fidelity speakers) with equalization, is as silly as a dog chasing its tail" Black art - "All techniques that use Equalization for controlling sound system alignment in reverberant fields have no external reference in science. This practice is only held in place by belief, which only the true believer hears. Many who make a living from this type of obscure acoustic alignment do not have benchmarks between themselves from which they are able to create consistent outcomes. Also these procedures do not require those doing it to have a background in acoustics and therefore refer to their craft as a ’Black art’ which they will defend to the death." Interesting article. Although the discussion is about large cinemas and not home HT systems. I fine it odd that in the section of the article you quoted it seems to condem EQ but then further into the article in the Alignment steps it says: 2. Sound system EQ Independent correction EQ for lower frequency propagation from the floor (if necessary), including hi-frequency boost for screen and air attenuation These EQ adjustments must be identical to all 3 screen speakers. This can be done with an independent dedicated parametric system, a 1/3 octave EQ or a digital signal processor DSP. The EQ results must be double checked and logged for future reference. Use independent EQ for surrounds. It seems odd that in one part EQ is quoted as "Black Art" but then it later it is part of the Alignment steps. Bill
|
|
|
Post by sacdukeman on Mar 4, 2013 16:19:08 GMT -5
sacdukeman . . . How do you like that Rythmik F12? Does it do the job? I want to upgrade my sub, and that one is currently at the top of my list. But also considering the F15HP. I really like it and feel it is an unparalleled performer for its price range. My room isn't large (17L x 13W x 10H) and I wanted sealed for cleaner/smoother response. Two qualifications though - I just got it correctly set up by Jeff a couple of weeks ago and haven't listened to a lot of low bass extension (<30hz) films since then (though when I have its been smooth and powerful); and it's now part of a .2 system making it hard to comment on the performance above 30hz (the DefTech won't go below 30) because it's a team effort. That team is buttery smmoth so far - I'll have to start experimenting with War of the Worlds or Cloverfield to really get a sense of what it can do!
|
|
|
Post by sacdukeman on Mar 4, 2013 16:24:04 GMT -5
Quotes from lenardaudio.com/education/17_cinema_7.html "Thou can not equalize time with amplitude” This is the first commandment of acoustics. Trying to compensate for a reverberant venue (that does not allow proper stereo imaging and or poor fidelity speakers) with equalization, is as silly as a dog chasing its tail" Black art - "All techniques that use Equalization for controlling sound system alignment in reverberant fields have no external reference in science. This practice is only held in place by belief, which only the true believer hears. Many who make a living from this type of obscure acoustic alignment do not have benchmarks between themselves from which they are able to create consistent outcomes. Also these procedures do not require those doing it to have a background in acoustics and therefore refer to their craft as a ’Black art’ which they will defend to the death." Yes - eq can't fix bad acoustics or speakers and is unneeded with great acoustics and speakers. Most of us are in between, decent speakers and decent acoustics but not ideal. That is why I bought the UMC-200 - to tweak a good setup closer to really good.
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Mar 4, 2013 16:28:21 GMT -5
Easy - They are talking about equalizing for reverberation vs equalizing for simple attenuations due to screen hindrances. Umr talked about equalizing to SMPTE 202M, 220M, of which there are 4 varients - all of which are used to equalize large auditoriums (500 seats +) mainly to compensate for reverberation reinforcements. These curves are impractical and probably just plain wrong for small room home cinema installations.
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Mar 4, 2013 17:15:36 GMT -5
I really like it and feel it is an unparalleled performer for its price range. My room isn't large (17L x 13W x 10H) and I wanted sealed for cleaner/smoother response. Two qualifications though - I just got it correctly set up by Jeff a couple of weeks ago and haven't listened to a lot of low bass extension (<30hz) films since then (though when I have its been smooth and powerful); and it's now part of a .2 system making it hard to comment on the performance above 30hz (the DefTech won't go below 30) because it's a team effort. That team is buttery smmoth so far - I'll have to start experimenting with War of the Worlds or Cloverfield to really get a sense of what it can do! It looks like the size of our rooms are almost indentical other than the 10' ceiling height. I might have to grab a second sub although another F12SE would be out of my budget. Jeff is supposed to be in my area in the summer or fall so I might have him do my system if it is in my budget. Bill
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Mar 4, 2013 17:16:24 GMT -5
Easy - They are talking about equalizing for reverberation vs equalizing for simple attenuations due to screen hindrances. Umr talked about equalizing to SMPTE 202M, 220M, of which there are 4 varients - all of which are used to equalize large auditoriums (500 seats +) mainly to compensate for reverberation reinforcements. These curves are impractical and probably just plain wrong for small room home cinema installations. Thanks for the explanation of the differences . Bill
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,002
|
Post by KeithL on Mar 4, 2013 18:22:25 GMT -5
And we can sum up the important stuff quite simply: Speakers tend to have frequency response issues while rooms tend to have reverberence issues. Also, you should realize that reverberence isn't a simple number. Things like the ratio between direct and reflected sound, the proportions of early and late reflected sound, and the directions they reflect from, are important. This is the area where the experience of a pro should prove valuable. (You will also find that pros - and books - vary widely in their opinions of what constitutes "correct" in this area.) You cannot fix reverberation problems using EQ. However, when you get the reverberence correct, you often find out that you don't need much EQ after that. If, however, your room response isn't flat AFTER you fix the reverberence issues, then applying EQ will usually work well to fix your room response. Easy - They are talking about equalizing for reverberation vs equalizing for simple attenuations due to screen hindrances. Umr talked about equalizing to SMPTE 202M, 220M, of which there are 4 varients - all of which are used to equalize large auditoriums (500 seats +) mainly to compensate for reverberation reinforcements. These curves are impractical and probably just plain wrong for small room home cinema installations.
|
|
|
Post by sfdoddsy on Mar 4, 2013 18:43:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by mgbpuff on Mar 4, 2013 19:13:12 GMT -5
Room modes cannot be fixed with eq alone. In fact room treatment is a better approach. If resonant freguencies have been reduced as much as practical with room treatment (bass absorbers), then eq at a specific resonate frequency can optimize response at any given position plus nodal increments of that position. So, yes small room low frequency response is somewhat addressable by amplitude equalization. But high frequency resonances in large spaces are less correctable because of significant time smear due to the distances involved.
|
|
|
Post by garym on Mar 4, 2013 20:50:56 GMT -5
Hey I have the F12 as well why didn't you ask me for my opinion ;D? I didn't notice it in your sig or I would have! If I go with the F15HP it will be the kit. I'll have to build my own box, since the factory one won't fit where I wanna put it (my box will have the same internal volume though). The F12 assembled and the FP15HP kit are about the same price. And I like DIY stuff.
|
|
|
Post by garym on Mar 4, 2013 21:09:48 GMT -5
Speed is not in question but the quality of the end product. Which again I highly doubt with basic tools you could match Jeff's results. Er, Bill, the "basic tools" to which you refer, namely, a calibrated mic and REW, are just as accurate as anything Jeff might have. When a mic response is flat, given its calibration curve, it is as good as it gets. Spending more will not give you a response any flatter. The only one that matters is the processor you're using for the PEQ (the UMC-200 in my case). You'll have to learn how it responds to adjustments. Of course not. But then, I'm not working with many different processors; only with one. Nor do I need to know whether I'm "getting the best out of it," whatever that might be. When the measured response curve is flat, I'll be "getting as much out of it" as I need to.
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Mar 5, 2013 11:03:15 GMT -5
If I go with the F15HP it will be the kit. I'll have to build my own box, since the factory one won't fit where I wanna put it (my box will have the same internal volume though). The F12 assembled and the FP15HP kit are about the same price. And I like DIY stuff. Gary, That sounds like a good plan . I think you will like the Rythmik very much. I was listening to a Porcupine Tree DVD-A the other day and one of the tracks has an unbelievable amount of low bass. With just the one F12SE the bass was impressive and very accurate. I'm sure the FP15HP would be much better but in my small room the F12SE does quite well. Not foundation shaking bass but enough for me . Er, Bill, the "basic tools" to which you refer, namely, a calibrated mic and REW, are just as accurate as anything Jeff might have. When a mic response is flat, given its calibration curve, it is as good as it gets. Spending more will not give you a response any flatter. Sounds good. I'm going to let this go . Bill
|
|
|
Post by sacdukeman on Mar 5, 2013 11:19:28 GMT -5
Speed is not in question but the quality of the end product. Which again I highly doubt with basic tools you could match Jeff's results. Er, Bill, the "basic tools" to which you refer, namely, a calibrated mic and REW, are just as accurate as anything Jeff might have. When a mic response is flat, given its calibration curve, it is as good as it gets. Spending more will not give you a response any flatter. The only one that matters is the processor you're using for the PEQ (the UMC-200 in my case). You'll have to learn how it responds to adjustments. Of course not. But then, I'm not working with many different processors; only with one. Nor do I need to know whether I'm "getting the best out of it," whatever that might be. When the measured response curve is flat, I'll be "getting as much out of it" as I need to. Why don't you post some before and after calibration results with the UMC-200 for us to consider and learn from?
|
|
|
Post by garym on Mar 5, 2013 13:04:08 GMT -5
Why don't you post some before and after calibration results with the UMC-200 for us to consider and learn from? I didn't save the plots from the current cal, but I'm about to buy a new sub, and then I'll run the cal again. I'll post those.
|
|
|
Post by avaddikt on Mar 6, 2013 15:56:41 GMT -5
Sounds good. I'm going to let this go.
Bill.
YEAH, me TOO! The info is out there for those who have a genuine interest.
Rythmik is a great choice. There are several small sub mfr.s that crank out quality subs. ATS Acoustics for room treatments is worth a look too.
|
|
|
Post by moe on Mar 7, 2013 9:52:13 GMT -5
If I go with the F15HP it will be the kit. I'll have to build my own box, since the factory one won't fit where I wanna put it (my box will have the same internal volume though). The F12 assembled and the FP15HP kit are about the same price. And I like DIY stuff. Gary, That sounds like a good plan . I think you will like the Rythmik very much. I was listening to a Porcupine Tree DVD-A the other day and one of the tracks has an unbelievable amount of low bass. With just the one F12SE the bass was impressive and very accurate. I'm sure the FP15HP would be much better but in my small room the F12SE does quite well. Not foundation shaking bass but enough for me . Er, Bill, the "basic tools" to which you refer, namely, a calibrated mic and REW, are just as accurate as anything Jeff might have. When a mic response is flat, given its calibration curve, it is as good as it gets. Spending more will not give you a response any flatter. Sounds good. I'm going to let this go . Bill Wow....we finally have a breakthrough, congrats.
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Mar 7, 2013 10:11:53 GMT -5
Gary, That sounds like a good plan . I think you will like the Rythmik very much. I was listening to a Porcupine Tree DVD-A the other day and one of the tracks has an unbelievable amount of low bass. With just the one F12SE the bass was impressive and very accurate. I'm sure the FP15HP would be much better but in my small room the F12SE does quite well. Not foundation shaking bass but enough for me . Sounds good. I'm going to let this go . Bill Wow....we finally have a breakthrough, congrats. Didn't even need to call in Henry Kissinger or Jimmy Carter. ;D
|
|
|
Post by billmac on Mar 7, 2013 12:18:23 GMT -5
Wow....we finally have a breakthrough, congrats. Hey moe, As always your posts are so enlightening . Especially since you haven't posted here in several months. I feel so special that you came out of your Lounge hiatus just for little ole' me ;D. Bill
|
|