Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [regsaudioforum] More tests (M30s)

Expand Messages
  • Rod Hill
    George: Is the following (please see extract from web page below)the same unit you recommended in your email to Charlie? If so, do you know anything about the
    Message 1 of 106 , Oct 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      George: Is the following (please see extract from web
      page below)the same unit you recommended in your email
      to Charlie?
      If so, do you know anything about the software they
      mention in the last paragraph of the extract?

      EXTRACT:
      Presonus FireBox
      6x10 24-bit/96K FireWire Recording System
      $ 699 RRP

      Jump to Computer Equipment

      Extend your warranty to 5 years on this product for
      just $69.90!


      The FIREBOX is the most powerful 24-bit/96k FireWire
      recording interface that fits in the palm of your
      hand. The FIREBOX is a complete 24-Bit/96k personal
      recording studio combining two high quality PreSonus
      microphone/instrument preamplifiers, 24-Bit/96k sample
      rate and Steinberg's Cubase LE 48-track recording
      software. The FIREBOX is the perfect hardware and
      software combination for a powerful
      professional-quality and compact computer-based
      studio.

      Hardware

      The FIREBOX has the highest record/playback track
      count of its size with the ability to record six
      inputs and playback through ten outputs simultaneously
      all at pro-quality 24-bit/96kHz. Two ultra-low noise
      high-headroom microphone/instrument preamplifiers with
      48V phantom power are on the front panel for quickly
      and easily connecting your favorite microphones and
      instruments. The FIREBOX also includes a high quality
      stereo headphone output with volume adjustment on the
      front panel. The headphone output has its own
      two-channel driver stream which can be used as a
      separate stereo bus or two-channel output giving you
      the ability to send a “cue” mix to the headphone
      output and a main mix to the main output. Two
      additional balanced TRS line inputs are located on the
      rear of the FIREBOX along with six balanced TRS line
      outputs. Two channels of S/PDIF input/output and MIDI
      input/output are also included via DB9 breakout cable.
      A software router/mixer is also included for further
      flexibility and power. The 1/3U-wide metal chassis of
      the FIREBOX is designed to fit the MAXRACK
      rack-mounting system from PreSonus and can be racked
      with the TubePRE, COMP16, EQ3B and HP4 for a neat and
      compact computer recording system.

      The FIREBOX works with both four and six-pin FireWire
      (IEEE 1394) connectors and can be powered by either
      6-pin FireWire bus power, or powered by an external
      power transformer.

      The Windows XP and Macintosh compatible FIREBOX comes
      ready-to-record with Steinberg's Cubase LE 48-track
      24-bit/96K recording software, and is also compatible
      with many popular ASIO/WDM and Core Audio based
      applications including Logic, Sonar, Audition, Digital
      Performer and others.

      ROD
      Sydney Australia



      --- george day <george@...> wrote:

      > I realized the error of my ways. I replaced the
      > gear. Actually, and
      > conveniently, Guitar Center had a returned Firebox,
      > so I bought it for just
      > about the price of the old one. I bought a less
      > expensive mic, but it
      > performs almost the same, so I¹d really lose out
      > there. Invest was $250. I
      > already have cables, etc., so what the heck? And,
      > they even have a 30
      > day, no questions asked policy!
      >
      > Here¹s what I use:
      >
      > 1. Presonus Firebox audio device. The thing is
      > idiot proof. You connect it
      > to your computer via Firewire. You punch in the
      > phantom power button. You
      > click in the mic cable, run it to the mic at the
      > listening position, and
      > have at it.
      > 2. Mic: I picked up a Behringer ECM-8000. I¹ve had
      > one before and I¹ve had
      > a DBX RTA, which was supposed to be superior (and
      > which costs twice as
      > much). In my experience, they are the same, and
      > people I know recommend the
      > Behringer. It undulates by half a db or so here or
      > there ‹ not an issue for
      > our purposes.
      > 3. Software: Fuzzmeasure, for the mac. For the PC,
      > you can use something
      > like TrueRTA (I¹m not entirely sure how it works,
      > but I imagine the basic
      > setup is the same). If you¹re feeling game, get
      > Liberty Audio Suites.
      > $1,200 or so, and it comes with a calibrated mic.
      > Might be more than
      > $1,200, actually. Anyway, it does RTA and FFT,
      > Robert uses it, etc.
      >
      > I¹d be glad to field more questions!
      >
      >
      > On 9/30/06 6:16 PM, "Charlie Daniell"
      > <danvetc@...> wrote:
      >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > George,
      > >
      > > I thought you sold your measuring gear. What will
      > you use this time? (I need
      > > to get something myself.)
      > >
      > > Charlie Daniell
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > From: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
      > [mailto:regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com]
      > > On Behalf Of george day
      > > Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 7:55 PM
      > > To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
      > > Subject: [regsaudioforum] More tests (M30s)
      > >
      > >
      > > All,
      > >
      > > I¹m set up for some measurements ‹ again. I
      > should have time to take some
      > > readings, without EQ, of my Monitor 30s tonight.
      > I will post them to the Web
      > > page.
      > >
      > > What brought me back to this was the whole ³more
      > bass extension² thing. On a
      > > lark, I phoned ACI, whose subs I like (and have
      > used and sold) to ask if they
      > > make European versions. Lo and behold, they said
      > that, were I to buy a new
      > > one, when the time came they would fix it for
      > 220/240 free of charge. I
      > > placed my order on the spot.
      > >
      > > So, the measuring equipment is basically to get an
      > idea of what is going on
      > > and then to help adjust the subwoofer. I think
      > that the M30s sound pretty
      > > darn linear. But I could be wrong! We¹ll see
      > tonight!
      > >
      > > If things are far off, I¹ll probably pick up a
      > Behringer 2496. It costs far
      > > less than a Z-Systems device (which I had and
      > stupidly sold) and I can use it
      > > in the digital domain only, between my Squeeze Box
      > and my Lavry. Another
      > > forum member, an M40 user, does just this and
      > claims that, given the Lavry, it
      > > is essentially transparent. The connections have
      > to be: SB->digital
      > > optical->EQ->s/pdif cable->Lavry. I have no idea
      > what the intrinsic jitter of
      > > the Behringer is...or if it matters. I¹m guessing
      > it doesn¹t.
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >




      ____________________________________________________
      On Yahoo!7
      Music: Create your own personalised radio station.
      http://au.launch.yahoo.com/
    • thomas_pfenning
      I guess I am in the category of highly reverberant then. I used eq to dramatically reduce my bass output but the result sounded very slow and mushy. I still
      Message 106 of 106 , Oct 3, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        I guess I am in the category of highly reverberant then. I used eq to
        dramatically reduce my bass output but the result sounded very slow
        and mushy. I still had quite a slope from the lower to the higher
        frequencies.

        Now with the absorbers the bass sounds much more on time and precise
        and I am still reducing the bass. I take the better sound over the
        additional heat any day ...

        When I find the time I will do a complete recalibration and let you
        know the before and after.

        Cheers

        Thomas

        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "regtas43" <regonaudio@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > This is absolutely correct and is one of the advantages of close to
        > corner(or in corner) woofer placement,etc.
        > However, a hugely reverberant space cannot really be tamed by EQ in
        > practice. (In principle the room/speaker combo as a filter can
        > always be "inverted" at one point, but in practice this is not
        going
        > to work well in a highly reverberant room.)
        >
        > REG
        >
        > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Mallin" <tmallin@>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > One thing to keep in mind in choosing bass absorber v. bass EQ:
        > > Absorbed bass is turned into ambient room heat and has no benefit
        > for
        > > your system. Equalized bass has benefits for your system, at
        > least if
        > > all you are doing is pulling down peaks.
        > >
        > > In contrast, any electronic equalization minimizes the amp power
        > and
        > > driver excursion necessary to reach any defined flat-frequency-
        > response
        > > SPL. Your amp and drivers will "loaf," relatively speaking,
        > reducing
        > > distortion and increasing dynamic headroom for both speaker and
        > amp.
        > > The more bass you "subtract" with electronic equalization, the
        > greater
        > > these positive effects. M40s will play quite loudly and cleanly
        > indeed
        > > in my room after I pull out the excess midbass I get in my room
        > pre-EQ.
        > >
        > > >>> thomas_pfenning@ 10/02/06 08:59PM >>>
        > > Thanks for the response. That is more than you shared last time:-)
        > >
        > > I did measurements similar to this in my last iteration but I did
        > not
        > > like the sound to much. My M40s are 30" from the back wall and
        the
        > > result of the eq was lowering of the low frequencies.
        > >
        > > The reverberation time in my room is much longer towards the
        lower
        > > frequencies and I guess the sum of the direct arrival and the
        > > reverberant field does result in a significant higher amount of
        > bass
        > > in the frequency response.
        > >
        > > I recently added some 6" panels between the wall and the M40s as
        > well
        > > as one in front of an open fireplace which was creating one weird
        > > resonance. This is in additon to 14" Supertraps in the corners.
        > >
        > > The sound is dramatically changed to the better with much less
        > > equalization. The bass sounds much faster and clean vs. boomy
        > before
        > > and the room response flattened out.
        > >
        > > After this experience I am not so sure anymore that steady state
        > bass
        > > measurements are very useful. Somehow it would be good to find
        out
        > > how much of the response comes from direct arrival vs.
        reverberant
        > > field especially in the bass and get a feel for when to put in
        > > absobers vs. equalizing.
        > >
        > > What do you think?
        > >
        > > Cheers
        > >
        > > Thomas
        > >
        > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "regtas43" <regonaudio@>
        > > wrote:
        > > >
        > > > This is a somewhat tricky issue. If one knew a definitive
        > answer,
        > > > then one could design one's own room correction system and it
        > would
        > > > be perfect, or as nearly perfect as such a system can be.
        > > >
        > > > However, roughly speaking I think that one can get a good idea
        > by
        > > > starting from the viewpoint that as the windowed response
        > > > stabilizes, it should stabilize to flat. This amounts to
        > > > having a time window on the order of the period( one over the
        > > > frequency) for various frequencies.
        > > >
        > > > There is a trade-off here in resolution of frequencies versus
        > > > windows. This is why it is probably a good idea to correct the
        > > > speaker in the high frequencies anechoically (direct arrival
        > with a
        > > > long window) ,which is what the Essex unit did. You can get
        > pretty
        > > > close to this by making the speaker flat in the igher
        > freuqnencies
        > > > for a measurement quite close to it.
        > > >
        > > > Then in the bass you just do steady state and in the
        > midrange ,in
        > > > between--ummm, that is trickier, but some sort of cross between
        > > > direct (anechoic) response and steady state, involving say the
        > > > direct plus the floor bounce(and ceiling if it si early).
        > > >
        > > > This works pertty well in my experience.
        > > >
        > > > I think UB does an almost complete inversion of the room plus
        > > > speaker as a filter, but this is not really doable by hand. (He
        > > also
        > > > does some phase correction, ie not pure minimum phase EQ).
        > > > He can explain more.
        > > >
        > > > But for hand done EQ the above seems to work out nicely.
        > > >
        > > > Do not hesitate to use your ears!!!
        > > >
        > > > REG
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "thomas_pfenning"
        > > > <thomas_pfenning@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > > A next point is the important direct arrival. The best
        > method
        > > is
        > > > to
        > > > > apply
        > > > > > frequency dependant windowing to the pulse response
        > resulting
        > > > from the
        > > > > > logsweep measurement. As the windows concentrate around the
        > > > direct
        > > > > arrival
        > > > > > peak in the pulse response. Fix time windows as e.g. used
        in
        > > ETF
        > > > or
        > > > > > smoothing methods like 1/n octave averaging do not give the
        > > true
        > > > > results.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > acourate applies both logsweeps and FDW. Thus the final
        > > > correction
        > > > > result is
        > > > > > a very good interchannel balance.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Uli
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > I have asked this before a while ago with no repsonse. How do
        > you
        > > > set
        > > > > the window time dependent on the frequency?
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Cheers
        > > > >
        > > > > Thomas
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > >
        > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.