ellisdj said:
I have done something similar to what you suggested - its a bit more long winded. I already knew what level I had for 80hz so I knew that I needed to raise the volume on the sub to hit 6db hot of that.
I actually explained that incorrectly in my post before - its 6db @ 30 hz and 4db at 35hz. However to hit 6+ db @ 30hz with this sub I had to raise the volume too much and it didnt sound great as it introudced too bad modes that I could do nothing about - so I worked to 35 @ + 4db.
I also did a 30 / 80hz test - play 80 hz - then play 30hz and up the volume until they sound the same - thats how much increase is needed. 6 db sounded spot on
Right, I still don't quite follow what you are doing here. Incidentally a sub can't introduce modes, they either exist in the room or they don't, changing volume at different frequency points will simply excite those modes to a greater or lesser extent, as will moving the sub position, which should always be the first step to flatten the response naturally.
So are you calibrating to a standard 75dB reference point for the rest of the frequency range? In which case, you you running 6dB higher at 30Hz i.e. 81dB on your SPL meter?
But then you go on to say "play 80 hz - then play 30hz and up the volume until they sound the same"' which suggests the opposite, i.e. you are trying to boost a null at 30Hz to get a flat frequency response?
Sorry if Im being a bit thick here and not following what you are saying.
ellisdj said:
The trick to the hard knee house curve is the steep linear nature of it - a standard house curve has a bulge and that apparently causes bloom to the bass. Keeping it linear means smooth transitions and makes it leaner in the key area around the 60hz to crossover region so it doesnt mask anything else such as the mid range despite the extra volume - very clever whoever thought of it.
Not in my experience. A decent EQ should also have an effect in the time domain, and therefore shouldn't cause a 'bloom' to any boosted frequencies. ARC certainly never did in my room, though that said the modes in my room are not too severe.
ellisdj said:
You are also right what you are saying about the Bryston procesor - unless thats in the right room it will sound average, however in the right room stunning. I firmly believe people dont hear differences in cables etc because they are hearing their room and not their kit in the first place.
Good example of this before my room treatment and moving my listening position off the back wall I would have said that a pc with a £150 soundcard and a certain software at the time sounded close to my Meridian MS600. Its notnear as good but I wasnt getting anything like its full potential at the time because of the room, speaker / seating placement etc, still prbably not even now.
I also know that no room EQ can fully take away the effect of the room - so even with ARC unless you have room treatment you will not hear the D2V at its best either, regardless of what they market. A first reflection will always be there - eq maybe can reduce the amplitude but its still there, dont forget there are lots of reflections especially for 5.1. Its trickery really - and its easy to do it for moves - but music reproduction I find is a lot more sensitive and difficult to get right. Not sure why that is but its always the same.
Absolutely, I fully agree with you there, room treatments should be the first step in tuning the audio system, though I appreciate many shy away from it for aesthetic reasons. What treatments have you gone for in you room, it'd be good to see some pics?
As for "no room EQ can fully take away the effect of the room" you should listen to a Dirac or Trinnov based system if you haven't already, they are spectacular and they might just change your mind on that opinion.
They don't just work on frequency response, but well within the time domain and correct impulse reponse issues, as well as correct phase response and phase alignment. So they can deal with the RT60 as well as first order reflections affecting the impulse response. Granted ARC can't do these things, but Dirac Live and Trinnov are significantly higher tech systems and go a great deal further in achieving a target response in both the frequency and time domains.
ellisdj said:
Companies like Meridian had room correction in the processors over 10 years ago and basic room correction in their dsp speakers before that. They have always pushed the benefits of digital processing and if a full frequency equalisation improved the sound I am sure they would have implemented them years ago. They actually say the opposite - its damaging to the sound above nyquist frequency approx 250hz
Again, I disagree to an extent. The frequency limitation applies to more basic and manual parametric EQ systems, where as I'm sure you now, the largest effect of room modes exists below 250Hz. But on higher end systems, again, like Dirac Live or Trinnov, they have such a huge degree of resolution, the control they can exert on the full frequency range is quite dramatic. Even with ARC on the D2v, I had the flexibility to choose the frequency range that EQ could be applied to, and there was a definite improvement extending it to 10kHz - the sound became smoother and more liquid, and the size of the perceived soundstage certainly improved. But Dirac and Trinnov take things to a whole new level, the sort of fluidity and cohesion they can achieve through the whole frequency range is palpable, and easily A-B-able with the press of a button.