sleepysurf
Well-known member
I'd love to see your full spectrum frequency response measurement, to see how your speakers and room interact in mids and highs too!
How do you know that you ordered a sub that counts?
- Thread starter Hocky
- Start date
Help Support MartinLogan Audio Owners Forum:
User211
Well-known member
Be careful the Summits don't get blown over by those new subs, which can surely shift some serious air. Watch out for structural damage in neighbouring homes as this could lead to expensive lawsuits.
But more seriously enjoy
Look forward to seeing more plots.
But more seriously enjoy
Look forward to seeing more plots.Hocky
Well-known member
OK, so here is how we ended up.... looks pretty clean over all. There is a room node at 120hz, but it is very small and is what it is, no reasonable sub positioning changes affected it. Now I need to do some listening. lol
Smoothed bass response:
Unsmoothed bass response:
Bass decay:
Bass waterfall:
Full range response, smoothed:
Smoothed bass response:
Unsmoothed bass response:
Bass decay:
Bass waterfall:
Full range response, smoothed:
sleepysurf
Well-known member
Very helpful! Actually pretty good trace overall, considering some of your room limitations! No offense, but I'm glad to see the roll-off above 10k, as that's essentially what I get with my Summits/Room measurement (I was concerned my panels were going bad)! I'm still dialing-in my Summits since putting down wood floors, and will post my latest XTZ Room Analyzer plots once done (will probably take a couple weeks).
With regard to your 120 Hz room node, have you tried positioning the subs at mid side-walls (or farther back) just to see if that helps? I would think having ALL your sub energy coming from the front of the room would exacerbate nodes.
I have a similar dip (at ~63 Hz), and hope to address that with 2 smaller subs (possibly ML BalancedForce 210's) positioned near mid side-walls.
With regard to your 120 Hz room node, have you tried positioning the subs at mid side-walls (or farther back) just to see if that helps? I would think having ALL your sub energy coming from the front of the room would exacerbate nodes.
I have a similar dip (at ~63 Hz), and hope to address that with 2 smaller subs (possibly ML BalancedForce 210's) positioned near mid side-walls.
Last edited:
Hocky
Well-known member
I didn't try bringing them forward because the only other good position is going to be a rear of listening seat position and frankly I didn't want to deal with trying to get the phase right. I think that I would probably be causing more problems than I solved.
Regarding the HF roll off, my Summit X did not roll off like that (but the Summit did since I got them at ~1yr old). That is actually the primary reason that I went back to the Summits - the X felt bright to me.
Regarding the HF roll off, my Summit X did not roll off like that (but the Summit did since I got them at ~1yr old). That is actually the primary reason that I went back to the Summits - the X felt bright to me.
User211
Well-known member
That's really good.
Here's my Duetta Sigs, just for interest's sake. I deliberately engineered the HF response down to get the speaker sounding right to me by inductor value change.
The Behringer test mic is at listening position, which is rear wall enforced. Put the mic one metre forward and the 30Hz bass lift reduces quite a bit. Anyway, not bad considering no sub - about 22Hz at around 5db below average response. Not, however, as good as yours down there! But you get the idea
BTW: no EQ of any kind. Might mess with JRiver room eq soon... as the standard graphic equaliser in it is VERY good. Much to my surprise! Also BTW I did this plot and many more some time ago, proving to a sceptic that tube rolling alters frequency response. Which it definitely does! Not shown in this plot, obviously.
Here's my Duetta Sigs, just for interest's sake. I deliberately engineered the HF response down to get the speaker sounding right to me by inductor value change.
The Behringer test mic is at listening position, which is rear wall enforced. Put the mic one metre forward and the 30Hz bass lift reduces quite a bit. Anyway, not bad considering no sub - about 22Hz at around 5db below average response. Not, however, as good as yours down there! But you get the idea
BTW: no EQ of any kind. Might mess with JRiver room eq soon... as the standard graphic equaliser in it is VERY good. Much to my surprise! Also BTW I did this plot and many more some time ago, proving to a sceptic that tube rolling alters frequency response. Which it definitely does!
Not shown in this plot, obviously.
Last edited:
Yeah that's pretty damn smooth. Are you going to apply a house curve? I personally have to or the bass doesn't sound right to me. Your waterfall graph is hard to read and is useless beyond 250hz or so. You should resize it and expand the time to 450ms. Is the measurement with the 120hz null just the sub or subs + mains? I have a null at around 140hz and 200hz but that's from my mains. Er just saw the last measurement... it seems hard to find out info on the internet on nulls like that but the closest I was able to narrow it down to was possibly a cancellation due to being too close to the back wall or side walls. I once tried to EQ it out just because... well yeah modal ringing from hell. Nothing like hearing the snap of a bass drum echo to ruin your enjoyment of a song at least that's easy to revert hehe.
Last edited:
Hocky
Well-known member
Unfortunately, I don't have enough adjustability to hit a house curve and smooth the response without buying more gear. I have the bass turned up about 3db hot to compensate. I might order a minidsp and stick it in line.
The graph is subs and mains with the mains crossed at 80hz. Any other crossover point yielded poor integration.
I assume you measured with mic pointed up? If so you measured room freq response. Set your mic close to panel, point straight at and I'm pretty sure you'll have it flat without such roll off.
Dip around 100Hz is SBIR (Speaker boundary interference response). I'm very curious how are you going to deal with this one....
Hocky
Well-known member
I assume you measured with mic pointed up? If so you measured room freq response. Set your mic close to panel, point straight at and I'm pretty sure you'll have it flat without such roll off.
Dip around 100Hz is SBIR (Speaker boundary interference response). I'm very curious how are you going to deal with this one....
It was up-ish, but was still pointing at the speakers at listening position. I don't care how they measure nearfield as I don't listen to them nearfield. As far as the 120hz dip, I am not going to deal with it.... there really isn't anything I can do. It is what it is, unfortunately.
Justin, does Holmimpulse provide recommended PEQ filter values? Some measurement tools do, some don't. If it does, best to use a few PEQ filters to address specific problem areas (like your 30Hz peak) vs. wide-band graphic EQ, which isn't an ideal solution.
If Holm doesn't provide such values, post a closeup of the bass region @ 1/12 or greater smoothing and high res on the dB axis and I can calculate - or show you how to calculate! - PEQ values (Q and gain) which will be very close. I'm almost certain JRiver provides PEQ capability. Plug in the proper filter values and Bob's your uncle.
User211
Well-known member
Ken - sorry for the slow reply.
Yeah I'm sure PEQ is a better solution, the graphic equaliser isn't specific enough to hit where it counts.
The GEQ is sonically seemingly quite transparent, though - much better than SRS, for instance. It also makes it quite evident that the HF roll-off I implemented is probably unnecessary with the Lampizator DAC I now own. MF kit does have a reputation for sounding a bit bright (rough and slightly sibilant is probably more accurate) - but the HF via the Lampizator is just lovely by comparison.
TBH I thought the HF issues I had were to do with the KLM5 ribbon. I now realise the KLM5 ribbon is better than the equipment I had driving it, so to speak!
I borrowed the test kit to do the plots. I'm not sure how linear the Lampizator is versus the old MF Tri-Vista, but I doubt they disagree by much. I'd be better off doing the plots again, though. I might buy a mic.
Interestingly, the measured HF roll-off is greater than the calculated roll off we implemented via inductor change in the x-over. The chap I borrowed the mic off, who works as an acoustic engineer, was convinced this was something to do with the supposedly linear Behringer.
I'll raise a thread called JRiver PEQ when I'm up for playing with it in greater depth.
Yeah I'm sure PEQ is a better solution, the graphic equaliser isn't specific enough to hit where it counts.
The GEQ is sonically seemingly quite transparent, though - much better than SRS, for instance. It also makes it quite evident that the HF roll-off I implemented is probably unnecessary with the Lampizator DAC I now own. MF kit does have a reputation for sounding a bit bright (rough and slightly sibilant is probably more accurate) - but the HF via the Lampizator is just lovely by comparison.
TBH I thought the HF issues I had were to do with the KLM5 ribbon. I now realise the KLM5 ribbon is better than the equipment I had driving it, so to speak!
I borrowed the test kit to do the plots. I'm not sure how linear the Lampizator is versus the old MF Tri-Vista, but I doubt they disagree by much. I'd be better off doing the plots again, though. I might buy a mic.
Interestingly, the measured HF roll-off is greater than the calculated roll off we implemented via inductor change in the x-over. The chap I borrowed the mic off, who works as an acoustic engineer, was convinced this was something to do with the supposedly linear Behringer.
I'll raise a thread called JRiver PEQ when I'm up for playing with it in greater depth.
Last edited:
Hocky
Well-known member
I guess that I owe everyone a final review now that everything is finalized and I've gotten some listening time. I spent some time setting the JL back up, testing, comparing, and then finally setting the SVS back up and tweaking to perfection via placement and miniDSP. Here are my final findings:
Physical:
The SVS fit/finish is pretty good. The veneer is decent, everything looks well assembled, and it feels like a quality piece. Cabinet inertness based on the knuckle test is good, but not in the same planet as the JL... the JL is much more dense and dead. JL's fit/finish may be just slightly better, but it isn't offered with any veneer so comparison isn't really fair. My F212 has the satin finish and it is very well done and durable. There is not a scratch on it anywhere after 2 years of use where as the SVS has one very small knick in the veneer already near a corner. Bummer. The JL also has pretty lame post mount grills vs the SVS's much nicer internal magnet design. Of course, the dual PB13 take up very significantly more floor space.... even a single PB13 does. If I was choosing between the two based on appearance and feel alone, I would definitely choose the JL, but not by a large margin.
Performance:
In my room, the dual PB13 by far exceed the capabilities of the F212 at nearly every metric. I would bet that a single PB13 probably would, too. The JL is a bit easier to set up being that it has built in room correction, but honestly it is a poor implementation at best. The built in PEQ filters of the SVS subs allow for significantly improved frequency response over the autocorrection in the JL, but it obviously does require external measurements and tweaking knowledge. I was able to get very significantly better response (with just Audyssey and the built in correction) with the dual SVS vs the JL. The JL ended up being +/- 10db or so where as the SVS were more like +/- 3db. For output, the F212 was made to look silly. In my room, it was making mechanical noise at 84db @ 18hz. The SVS did 92db at the same frequency without issue and I stopped turning it up because it had already outperformed the JL by a large margin. I could push the JL to mechanical noise up until about 25hz and never did the same with the SVS. Either way, the trend continued and the SVS had more output all the way up until around 60hz or so where they were close. The SVS did nose dive hard after 100hz in my room where as the JL played out flatter for longer, but I don't crossover high enough to care about that difference. The decay/waterfall timing between the two were very similar with the SVS actually outperforming the JL at some points, but for the most part the difference between the two was minimal in that regard.
Listening:
Again, the SVS just make the JL look silly. The SVS are better, period. For music listening, notes are more well defined and differentiated between one another. I attribute this to the significantly better frequency response. The instruments are more properly placed in the air, likely because the room is more equally loaded with 2 subs vs one fighting the odd layout of my room. There is no noticeable ringing going on nor any noises that one could associate with the ported design. Punchiness was very similar between the two in music. For movies, the SVS's better response and greater dynamics just blow away the JL. Everything seemed to punch harder, deeper, more articulately, with more impact, and without calling attention to itself. I never thought that the JL was compressing content, but it definitely was in the sub 30hz range.
I didn't think it would end this way, but the SVS are without a doubt a better product. They might fall slightly behind in aesthetics and obviously require a lot more space, but they're far superior in performance and I think this more than makes up for the short comings. I paid about $1000 more for my single JL than I did my pair of SVS subs and honestly, that value was nowhere to be found. I received good customer service from SVS, the subs were shipped quickly and were well packed, and I have no reason to believe that they'll provide anything but the best customer service going forward. Customer service is the reason that I started investigating other companies in the first place, so I hope that this holds true.
The SVS is the better buy. For those in the future reading this, take the leap. They're a good product and a good company to work with. SVS, if you're reading this, I want a free t-shirt or something. lol
Physical:
The SVS fit/finish is pretty good. The veneer is decent, everything looks well assembled, and it feels like a quality piece. Cabinet inertness based on the knuckle test is good, but not in the same planet as the JL... the JL is much more dense and dead. JL's fit/finish may be just slightly better, but it isn't offered with any veneer so comparison isn't really fair. My F212 has the satin finish and it is very well done and durable. There is not a scratch on it anywhere after 2 years of use where as the SVS has one very small knick in the veneer already near a corner. Bummer. The JL also has pretty lame post mount grills vs the SVS's much nicer internal magnet design. Of course, the dual PB13 take up very significantly more floor space.... even a single PB13 does. If I was choosing between the two based on appearance and feel alone, I would definitely choose the JL, but not by a large margin.
Performance:
In my room, the dual PB13 by far exceed the capabilities of the F212 at nearly every metric. I would bet that a single PB13 probably would, too. The JL is a bit easier to set up being that it has built in room correction, but honestly it is a poor implementation at best. The built in PEQ filters of the SVS subs allow for significantly improved frequency response over the autocorrection in the JL, but it obviously does require external measurements and tweaking knowledge. I was able to get very significantly better response (with just Audyssey and the built in correction) with the dual SVS vs the JL. The JL ended up being +/- 10db or so where as the SVS were more like +/- 3db. For output, the F212 was made to look silly. In my room, it was making mechanical noise at 84db @ 18hz. The SVS did 92db at the same frequency without issue and I stopped turning it up because it had already outperformed the JL by a large margin. I could push the JL to mechanical noise up until about 25hz and never did the same with the SVS. Either way, the trend continued and the SVS had more output all the way up until around 60hz or so where they were close. The SVS did nose dive hard after 100hz in my room where as the JL played out flatter for longer, but I don't crossover high enough to care about that difference. The decay/waterfall timing between the two were very similar with the SVS actually outperforming the JL at some points, but for the most part the difference between the two was minimal in that regard.
Listening:
Again, the SVS just make the JL look silly. The SVS are better, period. For music listening, notes are more well defined and differentiated between one another. I attribute this to the significantly better frequency response. The instruments are more properly placed in the air, likely because the room is more equally loaded with 2 subs vs one fighting the odd layout of my room. There is no noticeable ringing going on nor any noises that one could associate with the ported design. Punchiness was very similar between the two in music. For movies, the SVS's better response and greater dynamics just blow away the JL. Everything seemed to punch harder, deeper, more articulately, with more impact, and without calling attention to itself. I never thought that the JL was compressing content, but it definitely was in the sub 30hz range.
I didn't think it would end this way, but the SVS are without a doubt a better product. They might fall slightly behind in aesthetics and obviously require a lot more space, but they're far superior in performance and I think this more than makes up for the short comings. I paid about $1000 more for my single JL than I did my pair of SVS subs and honestly, that value was nowhere to be found. I received good customer service from SVS, the subs were shipped quickly and were well packed, and I have no reason to believe that they'll provide anything but the best customer service going forward. Customer service is the reason that I started investigating other companies in the first place, so I hope that this holds true.
The SVS is the better buy. For those in the future reading this, take the leap. They're a good product and a good company to work with. SVS, if you're reading this, I want a free t-shirt or something. lol
User211
Well-known member
Excellent post and looks like you have some great subs. The only neg is the size of the things, I suppose, but then again we're not messing around here.
Gordon Gray
Well-known member
Congrats Hocky,
Thanks for the follow-up. Will put that in the back of my brain should I be in the need for a "woof woof".
GG
Thanks for the follow-up. Will put that in the back of my brain should I be in the need for a "woof woof".
GG
sleepysurf
Well-known member
Thanks for the follow up! Personally, I've still got my sights set on a pair of BalancedForce 210's, but am waiting for some reviews (hopefully with measurements).
Hocky
Well-known member
I liked my Descents a lot. I didn't have measuring stuff then, but they sounded pretty damn good. I am sure their new stuff will be solid.
