MartinC

Wammer
  • Content Count

    1,966
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Community Reputation

527 Excellent

About MartinC

Personal Info

  • Location
    Southwest

Wigwam Info

  • Digital Source 2
    OPPO BDP-83
  • DAC
    miniDSP 2x4 HD
  • Power Amp/s
    Bel Canto eVo4
  • My Speakers
    Shearwaters+Monolith
  • Trade Status
    I am not in the Hi-Fi trade

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. MartinC

    Banana plug stuck in amp speaker post

    I think the plug is stuck in an amplifier, not a speaker.
  2. MartinC

    mini dsp 2x4 balanced vs dayton 408

    I hadn't heard of the Dayton 408 so just had a quick Google... From what I can see both the Dayton and the particular miniDSP you mentioned are limited to about an 8 ms maximum delay, which for you could easily find shorter than you want/need for your setup. What is your main system? You describe it as 'audiophile' which makes me think you should probably be looking at some of the better performing miniDSP products. If you have the budget of course. Edit: I have a miniDSP 2x4 HD myself.
  3. MartinC

    Bi Wire V Jumpers ?

    Standard cable plus jumpers is what I use. I've never seen any remotely compelling argument for bi-wiring to a single amp offering any advantage.
  4. MartinC

    To treat or not to treat

    Yeah, I'd understood you weren't looking to treat the lowest frequencies, I was just making a general comment on what typical panels placed at early reflection points could achieve. To try to give an idea of how much variation there can be in the frequency range affected by early reflection panels, the graph below shows a quick theoretical comparison of absorption vs frequency for two examples. The blue curve is a denser* panel that is 100 mm thick and with a 100 mm air gap behind it before the wall, and the green curve is a lower density panel that is 50 mm thick and placed directly on the wall. I'm just trying to make the point that there can be significant differences over mid-range frequencies, not just in the low bass region. None of this changes your plan of borrowing panels to see what you think of course . Source: http://www.acousticmodelling.com/multi.php *Technically differences is gas flow resistivity (GFR) but roughly this varies with density.
  5. MartinC

    Banana plug stuck in amp speaker post

    It might help if you posted a photo of one of the other plugs, so we can see what type you're dealing with.
  6. MartinC

    Favourite female singers

    I'll spare you all a long list and just post my absolute favourite: Beth Hart.
  7. MartinC

    To treat or not to treat

    I've just had a skim through this and I'm torn what to post... On the one hand you are clearly very happy with the results you have achieved, and I'm not someone who would argue for an individual doing what is 'correct' over what they enjoy listening to the most. On the other I have real concerns about what is proposed negatively affecting sound quality in many cases, in two main ways: 1) Applying 'correction' way above the Shroeder frequency. I appreciate that the moving microphone approach is being used to get an idea of the speaker output separate to the room at higher frequencies but I'm still not at all persuaded that more harm than good won't be done by this in many cases. 2) The high levels of boost suggested by the picture in step 11. No boost at all is the safest option. There are a number of issues with high boosts: Driving the speakers harder at boosted frequencies is likely to increase distortion, and for big boosts you run the risk or reaching the limits that the amplifier or speaker can handle. Large boost filters are likely to lead to significant time-domain ringing at the boosted frequencies. This can be assessed by looking at the Filter T60 values in the in the EQ Filters window. (From the view where you optimise the filters, click the EQ Filters button at the top to see this.) If you start introducing filters that have significantly longer decay times than are inherent to the room then this is a way of making the sound worse despite an apparently better amplitude response graph. I may have missed advice to manage this last part, but if boosts are applied without first reducing the peak levels of the audio signal, then clipping of this signal can occur. Dirac systems apply such attenuation to accommodate boosts, and I've done so with my miniDSP when I've tried some modest boosts, but I'm not sure how this may be handled if using Roon.
  8. MartinC

    To treat or not to treat

    To get the terminology right, note that there are two first reflection points on the ceiling and that one purpose of a ceiling cloud is to manage these. Are you considering treating the four side-wall first reflection points? The effects you get with panels will depends on their type, placement and how many you have. Typical panels used at first reflection points will do essentially nothing at bass frequencies though.
  9. MartinC

    DIY Townsend Seismic Speaker Platform

    In case you haven't considered this @lostwin, I would personally be considering using Sorbothane hemispheres instead if you wanted to provide some damping/isolation for your speakers. Five 50 mm 50 duro hemispheres would be enough for each of your speakers. On a hard floor you could just put the speakers straight on top but on carpet you'd probably want something rigid (e.g. a granite chopping board) to act as a base that you put the hemispheres on. eBay is a good source, and they aren't expensive. For example: https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/4-x-Sorbothane-50mm-hifi-audio-isolation-hemispheres-for-Amps-Speakers-etc/382995044689?epid=24024343244&hash=item592c489951:g:7qAAAOSwjrZc-28D And more details are included in the following Sorbothane catalogue: https://www.sorbothane.com/Data/Sites/31/pdfs/product-guides/Sorbothane-SPG.pdf
  10. MartinC

    To treat or not to treat

    You misunderstood my post. My point was that some hardware would be required to implement any desired change. Your post could have been read as if REW itself could make changes to the sound. I'll add that time-gated measurements are what should be used to properly identify speaker-specific problems. Measurements at different positions in an untreated room will vary, at mid-range frequencies due to comb filtering. I don't think the idea of trying to make sensible changes to speaker output should be taken lightly and it's not personally something I'd suggest the OP does. A tone-control style high frequency roll-off would be relatively 'safe' but there is plenty of scope to make things worse with parametric EQ, especially if someone is only looking at un-gated amplitude response measurements.
  11. MartinC

    To treat or not to treat

    For clarity, @newlash09 would need something to address any issues identified on measurements made using REW (edit: and a microphone that would need to be bought), rather than REW itself being a way to change the sound.
  12. MartinC

    To treat or not to treat

    As a general point I'll just say that acoustic panels / bass traps achieve different things to what can be using EQ and so they aren't really alternatives to each other. Which is not to say that some EQ to tame the top end might not help here, at least temporarily.
  13. I'll ask the obvious question: can you listen to the Dynaudio's to decide if you like them?
  14. MartinC

    To treat or not to treat

    If you can borrow some that's ideal . Are they a commercial product or home-made?
  15. MartinC

    Treating Room Nodes with bass traps etc

    You probably have this in mind anyway, but I think it's important to understand why the current difference has arisen, rather than just changing gain. You could swap the subs over to separate out room/position induced differences. I actually wonder if there may be an issue affecting both subs, since both look like they have a response that's gradually falling off as frequency decreases. In case it's of any interest I'll post a measurement from my own sub with no crossover or EQ applied (and the same 1/24th smoothing you have above). I'm a little surprised at how different yours are but I may well be missing something obvious. I'm not sure how much you want to explore but bear in mind that you have the option of running your two subs with a combined left plus right mono signal, rather than as separate channels. There are advantages to doing this provided your crossover frequency and roll-off are such that the frequencies from the subs don't get high enough that you can tell where they come from. With a sharp roll-off this may well be higher than you expect (I'm currently crossing over at 120 Hz but with 48 dB/octave roll-off filters). The benefits of running the subs mono are that you'll get consistent results for bass no matter where the sound is panned in recordings (which is not universally the dead-centre you might expect). Having the subs working in a consistent complementary fashion means you can take advantage of placements like one in a corner and one in the middle of a side-wall, or opposite corners, to get a more even bass response.