Took a few snaps just now to illustrate placement. If you remember my damping panel behind the couch:
The pictures will make more sense with the above in mind. Here's the left surround/ambient channel:
Directly behind the cushion of the couch, aimed to the outside.
The right one is on the other end of the damping panel pointed outwards to the desk that's near (where I sit typing this). No pictures, don't want to show off the mess I make (lol)
Here's a shot to show where the left channel is pointed at:
Behind that curtain there is a huge damping panel. I need to boost this channel somewhat to get the same level as the right. On the other end it's basically the desk with pencil holders etc. that's the reflective area. The desk is open at the sides. No big side area to reflect off, just a bunch of small stuff.
I'm amazed it works this well. With the driver pointed up I had no way to correct the Frequency response due to a reflection off the ceiling ~7ms later which was stronger. With the drivers firing to the sides most of the reflections plus direct sound arrives within 2.5 to 5 ms (the messy peaks in the impulse)
I could shape that response to get as good as equal left and right SPL levels. and still have a decent FR curve.
For measurements and critical listening I put a couple of pillows between the couch and damping panel. They do a good job to attenuate back wall reflection and direct sound of the ambient channels to the listening position. The point source nature of these ambient channels make the difference in loudness apparent when moving closer to them. A line array is much more forgiving when moving closer. I had thought about small arrays of TC9's, about 4 each side but settled on the single 10F's. The arrays would have given me other worries due to size. It is still a living room after all and even though I was allowed to have 2 huge standing towers in the room there is a limit to what I'm allowed to put into the room
.When I first showed the ambient solution I had to be convincing enough to get away with it. My girl thought they were pretty big! They looked real small to me
.
Last edited:
I guess I'm finally there, project done...
Sounds crazy I know, but for now I can't figure out how to move ahead without mayor surgery to the living room. I have squeezed out way more than I expected. I'll tidy up the addition of the second amp, getting under the floor to lay some cables for it and call it finished.
With the processing changes in DRC, basically doing FR correction over the entire bandwidth 20 Hz to 20 kHz and only correcting the Excess phase over the 20 to 500 Hz window was key here for the mains. That change made it possible to get the system time coherency.
The ambient channels are a very nice addition for atmosphere. It works really well to get back what I loved about the sound of the arrays with more toe-out. More toe-out weakened the phantom centre though. So now I have the same envelopment as with the "more" toe out setup, but with a very strong phantom centre as well. It plays every piece I throw at it with conviction. There will always be some songs that did sound a little bit better with a previous rendition and vice versa, but I think this is it as far as the best I had overall by far.
Maybe I'll think differently about it in a few weeks but right now...
I'll recap one bit I didn't think of checking again. I've showed the STEP and impulse and flat phase and flat group delay countless times but forgot about the RT60 times.
Last time I showed that graph I was getting:
So here's the current setup:
Mains playing only in the above graph...
And with the added surrounds:
I say pretty good for 3 damping panels and a whole bunch of processing
I could go on and on with this forever, add ambient tweeters, some subs etc. etc. and maybe, someday, I will. For now it's time to go do other stuff. I'm pretty pleased with the end result. It's not a fragile HiFi sound I have, it's got balls, a wall of sound, engaging and fun. Exactly what I set out to get. Plus it images great, tonality is pleasing... and it will do Zeppelin all day long...
No exaggerated TIZZ, plenty of BOOM.
I finally found my eyebrows!
With the help of my computer
One of the most important lessons learned: I was able to measure my way to better sound!
Sounds crazy I know, but for now I can't figure out how to move ahead without mayor surgery to the living room. I have squeezed out way more than I expected. I'll tidy up the addition of the second amp, getting under the floor to lay some cables for it and call it finished.
With the processing changes in DRC, basically doing FR correction over the entire bandwidth 20 Hz to 20 kHz and only correcting the Excess phase over the 20 to 500 Hz window was key here for the mains. That change made it possible to get the system time coherency.
The ambient channels are a very nice addition for atmosphere. It works really well to get back what I loved about the sound of the arrays with more toe-out. More toe-out weakened the phantom centre though. So now I have the same envelopment as with the "more" toe out setup, but with a very strong phantom centre as well. It plays every piece I throw at it with conviction. There will always be some songs that did sound a little bit better with a previous rendition and vice versa, but I think this is it as far as the best I had overall by far.
Maybe I'll think differently about it in a few weeks but right now...
I'll recap one bit I didn't think of checking again. I've showed the STEP and impulse and flat phase and flat group delay countless times but forgot about the RT60 times.
Last time I showed that graph I was getting:
So here's the current setup:
Mains playing only in the above graph...
And with the added surrounds:
I say pretty good for 3 damping panels and a whole bunch of processing
I could go on and on with this forever, add ambient tweeters, some subs etc. etc. and maybe, someday, I will. For now it's time to go do other stuff. I'm pretty pleased with the end result. It's not a fragile HiFi sound I have, it's got balls, a wall of sound, engaging and fun. Exactly what I set out to get. Plus it images great, tonality is pleasing... and it will do Zeppelin all day long...
No exaggerated TIZZ, plenty of BOOM
.I finally found my eyebrows!
With the help of my computer
One of the most important lessons learned: I was able to measure my way to better sound!
Pleasure reading how happy you seem now for hole system and open declare "I finally found my eyebrows!"
Congratulation and great thanks sharing
Couldn't have gotten there without your generosity!
It has been my pleasure. This forum has been a substantial source of information to get me where I wanted to go.
It's not a fragile HiFi sound I have, it's got balls, a wall of sound, engaging and fun. Exactly what I set out to get. Plus it images great, tonality is pleasing... and it will do Zeppelin all day long...
No exaggerated TIZZ, plenty of BOOM
Take a bow man! Reading your thread and trying to follow (again, many things I don't understand
) has been fun. Good to know you got the sound you like. Now let loose with the music! Wish you lived closer, I would have tried to visit you for an audition.
Yes... do you know how many measurement graphs you've posted on this thread? Will be a task itself to count.
Take a bow man! Reading your thread and trying to follow (again, many things I don't understand
Wish you lived closer, I would have tried to visit you for an audition.
Yes... do you know how many measurement graphs you've posted on this thread? Will be a task itself to count.
I'll take a deep bow, right here, right now
. Thanks! Yes, I did post a lot of them graphs, didn't I? And they did get prettier.
I just spent some morning coffee time re-reading some older portions of this thread. Good times
Hi Greg,
Glad to see you again. I've also done that a couple of times, just re-reading here and there, different threads. Indeed good times! I'm not gone, will be around. If there are things to share I will. I just need to close this focus I had for way to long on this project. It's an incurable disease in a way. The ever lasting hunger for more info.
But I'm still an addict, I'll be checking in regularly
. Got to thank you for the push start into DRC processing, learned a lot from you and mitchba. I hope to have provided enough data here for others to take the plunge. Many others to thank as well, but it's only closure on this project, I'm not leaving. Still have some further ideas but that will just have to wait.
Sure, see the attached sample.zip for the target and configuration file.
The window, target and template settings are overruled in the batch file generating the convoluted impulse. Not sure if those settings are going to help though as they are optimised for my line arrays. I use way to long correction window at high frequencies to use for a point source speaker. At least that's how I view it.
Psychoacoustic stage is bypassed, as is the ringing truncation.
Also added the batch files I use to create my correction. I've actually looked at the batch files you used (on the DRC thread) and remodelled that for my own purpose. It creates a test file for left and right channels as well as the stereo convolved IR in one step.
I have a similar setup for the ambient channels but that uses a different target, configuration and window settings obviously.
My setup is based on the last DRC Designer setup available but even though the directory still says DRC 3.2.0 I actually replaced all files with the newer DRC 3.2.1
As noted; optimised to work with my arrays. No guarantee what it would do with point source speakers. I'd use a 4 cycle window with point source, at least on the top end. The Excess Phase correction window is also tailored to my setup. Stopping at 500 HZ works because I don't have any crossovers.
Another warning: the EP correction window I use is way outside the normal spec advised for DRC. It is what works for me after trying countless variations. By looking at the results in REW and by listening I determined which parts I wanted to correct and which room effects should be left alone. So all parameters are highly optimised to work in my specific room with my speakers.
Hope that's enough disclaimers here.
Keep an eye on the pre-ringing (levels) if you use any of this. I arrived at these settings trough a lot of experimentation. (yet another disclaimer LOL)
The window, target and template settings are overruled in the batch file generating the convoluted impulse. Not sure if those settings are going to help though as they are optimised for my line arrays. I use way to long correction window at high frequencies to use for a point source speaker. At least that's how I view it.
Psychoacoustic stage is bypassed, as is the ringing truncation.
Also added the batch files I use to create my correction. I've actually looked at the batch files you used (on the DRC thread) and remodelled that for my own purpose. It creates a test file for left and right channels as well as the stereo convolved IR in one step.
I have a similar setup for the ambient channels but that uses a different target, configuration and window settings obviously.
My setup is based on the last DRC Designer setup available but even though the directory still says DRC 3.2.0 I actually replaced all files with the newer DRC 3.2.1
As noted; optimised to work with my arrays. No guarantee what it would do with point source speakers. I'd use a 4 cycle window with point source, at least on the top end. The Excess Phase correction window is also tailored to my setup. Stopping at 500 HZ works because I don't have any crossovers.
Another warning: the EP correction window I use is way outside the normal spec advised for DRC. It is what works for me after trying countless variations. By looking at the results in REW and by listening I determined which parts I wanted to correct and which room effects should be left alone. So all parameters are highly optimised to work in my specific room with my speakers.
Hope that's enough disclaimers here
.Keep an eye on the pre-ringing (levels) if you use any of this. I arrived at these settings trough a lot of experimentation. (yet another disclaimer LOL)
Last edited:
Well, not having used Acourate I couldn't say if it's better or not. It might be.
But as with all things it's just as easy to mess up with Acourate, Audiolense or DRC.
In the end it's how you use it, not necessary the program itself. Not that I wouldn't want to find out though, I think it's save to say Dr. Ulrich Brüggemann probably knows what he's doing. Did you know he was around providing input during the creation of DRC by Dr. Denis Sbragion?
I'm not going to pay the admission fee to find out if Acourate is better, I just can't afford it right now. The demo option makes no sense to me(*) so no way to really try and see it it's worth it.
(*) I understand why Dr. Brüggemann does it this way, he has to protect his software, but for me it isn't helping me to try that demo to judge my system performance. I'd need full freedom and time to really learn something about the software to be able to make an honest judgement.
For now DRC has shown to be a pretty powerful and capable piece of software. I have no reason to doubt it's performance. I rated it 5 starts and wrote a recommendation here.
But as with all things it's just as easy to mess up with Acourate, Audiolense or DRC.
In the end it's how you use it, not necessary the program itself. Not that I wouldn't want to find out though, I think it's save to say Dr. Ulrich Brüggemann probably knows what he's doing. Did you know he was around providing input during the creation of DRC by Dr. Denis Sbragion?
I'm not going to pay the admission fee to find out if Acourate is better, I just can't afford it right now. The demo option makes no sense to me(*) so no way to really try and see it it's worth it.
(*) I understand why Dr. Brüggemann does it this way, he has to protect his software, but for me it isn't helping me to try that demo to judge my system performance. I'd need full freedom and time to really learn something about the software to be able to make an honest judgement.
For now DRC has shown to be a pretty powerful and capable piece of software. I have no reason to doubt it's performance. I rated it 5 starts and wrote a recommendation here.
I very much agree with all your comments. I've spent years and years using DRC-FIR, and it is spectacular. But as I always love to try all options. I've been through DIRAC, SONARWORKS, etc ... but I have always had the desire to try Acourate but you can not have a demo for a few days of testing.
I know the history of Denis, I exchanged many emails with. And always completely disinterested. I will also put 5 stars in 2012 !!
I know the history of Denis, I exchanged many emails with. And always completely disinterested. I will also put 5 stars in 2012 !!
I'll take a deep bow, right here, right now
Yes, I did post a lot of them graphs, didn't I? And they did get prettier.
Hi Greg,
Glad to see you again. I've also done that a couple of times, just re-reading here and there, different threads. Indeed good times! I'm not gone, will be around. If there are things to share I will. I just need to close this focus I had for way to long on this project. It's an incurable disease in a way. The ever lasting hunger for more info.
But I'm still an addict, I'll be checking in regularly
Congrats wesayso! Really an awesome journey, documented build, and sharing your discoveries. Good on ya man!
Cheers! Mitch
I very much agree with all your comments. I've spent years and years using DRC-FIR, and it is spectacular. But as I always love to try all options. I've been through DIRAC, SONARWORKS, etc ... but I have always had the desire to try Acourate but you can not have a demo for a few days of testing.
I know the history of Denis, I exchanged many emails with. And always completely disinterested. I will also put 5 stars in 2012 !!
isabido,
I don't think one can go wrong with DRC, Acourate or Audiolense.
Wrt to Acourate and Audiolense, I have used both. Both Uli (Acourate) and Bernt (Audiolense) have offered myself and other's generous support, far beyond what I would call normal software support. I can't thank both of them enough for the time spent.
Depending on what your requirements are will assist in the selection of the right software for the job. In my case, Acourate offers linear phase XO's, the ability to time align drivers in a multi-way system, and linearize each individual driver, in addition to DRC functions. Those were my requirements. Uli's software is really a digital audio toolbox which offers a full array of features that are listed in a chart here.
If considering Acourate, I wrote a basic and advanced article that may be useful.
Cheers, Mitch
Thanks Mitchba, I know your articles are very elaborate. Also good hand of that Uli gives much support beyond.
In my case, I just want functions of DRC, my system is a pre-cooked system. YAMAHA HS7.
These functions would not apply in my case. (linear phase XO's, Ability to time align the drivers in a multi-way system, and linearize each driver individually)
I've always wondered whether it would be worth linearize the response of the complete box very near field isolating the room. Then calculate other filter in listening point.
Forgive my bad English, not if I have explained well.
In my case, I just want functions of DRC, my system is a pre-cooked system. YAMAHA HS7.
These functions would not apply in my case. (linear phase XO's, Ability to time align the drivers in a multi-way system, and linearize each driver individually)
I've always wondered whether it would be worth linearize the response of the complete box very near field isolating the room. Then calculate other filter in listening point.
Forgive my bad English, not if I have explained well.
isabido, wrt to linearization of the HS7, hard to say. One way to determine is measure the HS7 in-room at 30cm distance and look at the frequency response. If it is within +- 2dB, then linearization will likely not make a difference. However, if the variation is greater than +- 2db, then linearization will likely make a difference. Every little bit helps
In my case, with midrange and high frequency CD's and waveguides, I found that at 30 cm distance the mids measured +-7 dB from 300 Hz to 7 kHz and the highs were +- 6.5 dB from 2 kHz to 20 kHz. Linearizing the mids brought them within +- 2 dB and the highs +- 1 dB. I ended up linearizing the woofers too. You can see the measurement pics on the advanced article linked above.
Hope that helps.
In my case, with midrange and high frequency CD's and waveguides, I found that at 30 cm distance the mids measured +-7 dB from 300 Hz to 7 kHz and the highs were +- 6.5 dB from 2 kHz to 20 kHz. Linearizing the mids brought them within +- 2 dB and the highs +- 1 dB. I ended up linearizing the woofers too. You can see the measurement pics on the advanced article linked above.
Hope that helps.
Wesayso,
Nice to know that your are slowing down, finally and have decided to just sit back and enjoy your speakers. It sure has been a long journey. Seems like you started somewhere in 2012!
Congratulation on finding your eyebrows!
As for myself I am still tweaking, given the very limited time I get to spend with my TPY03 arrays. I improved RT60 with optimal damping. My EDT time is 200 to 300ms and T30 is 400 to 500ms above 250Hz. Below 250 Hz, is not a different story. But thats all the damping I could manage in a domestic environment. Earlier, I mentioned harsh and confusing highs. That must have been due to high RT60 times. Though I can still improve the room decay times, my arrays are already sounding awesome right now
Vocals and dialogues are crystal clear. There is just a lot of air, I must say. I'll be adding a tweeter for 15KHz + range shortly. Lets see how that works out. Bass is of course awesome, lots of boom, none of the boooooom. Absolutely no bass bleeding.
I once mentioned that I would test my arrays for excursion limits playback. Well, my 120 Watts amplifier does not have the balls to take it to excursion limits. So, I have attached a graph with as much high level sweep as my amplifier would allow. i.e. around 102 to 105 dB at 3m listening distance. (Please note that test is done at a single mic position. I would have got extra 6 dBs if I took the reading at 3.7m distance from the arrays but with a dip at 45Hz). The graph shows heavy distortion at 30-40Hz and 70-80Hz range; thats where I have two 4dB boost filters active. Again, most of this distortion may be due to my low- fi amplifier working up at the extreme of its limits.
Notice the low distortion at 20-30Hz. Thats 5 ports per array tuned at 20Hz
Distortion above 200Hz is still very low
You once advised me to be gentle with my arrays. I certainly won't abuse them but indeed I tortured a TPY03
The TPY03 takes abuse pretty well. At around 4.5 - 5 mm one way excursion levels, while playing music it gives a distinct flapping sound, most probably coming from the cone surrounds. This is where you would definitely turn off your arrays given the flapping sound warning. Well, I played the TPY03 at say around 7/8 mm excursion continuously for 3 bass boosted songs in a sequence. The drivers were making crazy loud flapping sounds now. This was supposed to be a destructive
test where the cone flies out of the basket. But after 15 minutes of torture I gave up, partly due to pity and partly due to respect for the little black kevlar beauty. Its a tough driver, so should be the TC9. The only way to burn your arrays, I guess would be due to very intense clipping from an underpowered amplifier.
All I am saying is that your array does not only sound tough, it is tough
You have mentioned FIR taking out some dynamic from your arrays versus IIR. I haven't used FIR yet, but I myself noticed some difference before and after adding damping with just IIR. Underdamped room certainly gave a lots of extra
Anyways, thanks a lot. Your thread has been a lot of help in my journey of an awesome array as well. Have fun!!
Nice to know that your are slowing down, finally and have decided to just sit back and enjoy your speakers. It sure has been a long journey. Seems like you started somewhere in 2012!
Congratulation on finding your eyebrows!
As for myself I am still tweaking, given the very limited time I get to spend with my TPY03 arrays. I improved RT60 with optimal damping. My EDT time is 200 to 300ms and T30 is 400 to 500ms above 250Hz. Below 250 Hz, is not a different story. But thats all the damping I could manage in a domestic environment. Earlier, I mentioned harsh and confusing highs. That must have been due to high RT60 times. Though I can still improve the room decay times, my arrays are already sounding awesome right now
Vocals and dialogues are crystal clear. There is just a lot of air, I must say. I'll be adding a tweeter for 15KHz + range shortly. Lets see how that works out. Bass is of course awesome, lots of boom, none of the boooooom. Absolutely no bass bleeding.
I once mentioned that I would test my arrays for excursion limits playback. Well, my 120 Watts amplifier does not have the balls to take it to excursion limits. So, I have attached a graph with as much high level sweep as my amplifier would allow. i.e. around 102 to 105 dB at 3m listening distance. (Please note that test is done at a single mic position. I would have got extra 6 dBs if I took the reading at 3.7m distance from the arrays but with a dip at 45Hz). The graph shows heavy distortion at 30-40Hz and 70-80Hz range; thats where I have two 4dB boost filters active. Again, most of this distortion may be due to my low- fi amplifier working up at the extreme of its limits.
Notice the low distortion at 20-30Hz. Thats 5 ports per array tuned at 20Hz
Distortion above 200Hz is still very low
You once advised me to be gentle with my arrays. I certainly won't abuse them but indeed I tortured a TPY03
The TPY03 takes abuse pretty well. At around 4.5 - 5 mm one way excursion levels, while playing music it gives a distinct flapping sound, most probably coming from the cone surrounds. This is where you would definitely turn off your arrays given the flapping sound warning. Well, I played the TPY03 at say around 7/8 mm excursion continuously for 3 bass boosted songs in a sequence. The drivers were making crazy loud flapping sounds now. This was supposed to be a destructive
test where the cone flies out of the basket. But after 15 minutes of torture I gave up, partly due to pity and partly due to respect for the little black kevlar beauty. Its a tough driver, so should be the TC9. The only way to burn your arrays, I guess would be due to very intense clipping from an underpowered amplifier.All I am saying is that your array does not only sound tough, it is tough
You have mentioned FIR taking out some dynamic
from your arrays versus IIR. I haven't used FIR yet, but I myself noticed some difference before and after adding damping with just IIR. Underdamped room certainly gave a lots of extra Anyways, thanks a lot. Your thread has been a lot of help in my journey of an awesome array as well. Have fun!!
