Rock and Drum videos thread

[SlapEcho]

After more modifications on the DAC and sub crossover power supplies. Among other things, a whole new mean dynamic beast! Enjoy!

 

[stehno]

After more modifications on the DAC and sub crossover power supplies. Among other things, a whole new mean dynamic beast! Enjoy!

Nice presentation. Rather surprised at how well-defined the bass regions sound especially with the subwoofers tight in the corners there. In my limited experience, subs in corners usually amount to little more than a boomy ill-defined experience but in your case it sounds like you have them dialed in pretty good.

 

[SlapEcho]

Appreciate the positve feedback Stenho!

Not a fan of boomy bass. Not to derail, but a few things noted:
- Choosed low fs drivers(for the 10" size) and Q value was made low (~.55)
- The sub cabinet platform was made with 2" thick bluestone and the bottles on cabinet are filled with steel shot and mineral oil. Over 200lbs per sub with spiked feet to concrete flooring.
- 8 band parametric per channel on the crossovers each tuned separately and low(they mainly come in around 35Hz).
- 4 gauge wire from sub to ML amp
- Various mods on the crossover.
It's a temp sub(and speaker for that matter) until I finally get around to finishing my version of magnum opus, but for now I'm quite please how nicely it turned out.

 

[stehno]

Appreciate the positve feedback Stenho!

Not a fan of boomy bass. Not to derail, but a few things noted:
- Choosed low fs drivers(for the 10" size) and Q value was made low (~.55)
- The sub cabinet platform was made with 2" thick bluestone and the bottles on cabinet are filled with steel shot and mineral oil. Over 200lbs per sub with spiked feet to concrete flooring.
- 8 band parametric per channel on the crossovers each tuned separately and low(they mainly come in around 35Hz).
- 4 gauge wire from sub to ML amp
- Various mods on the crossover.
It's a temp sub(and speaker for that matter) until I finally get around to finishing my version of magnum opus, but for now I'm quite please how nicely it turned out.

My pleasure. And you should be proud of what you've accomplished with your subs config. and sonics. Among other things and contrary to just about everybody else in the industry, it seems you chose the superior methodology of addressing unwanted mechanical energy by your efforts of mass-loading and by your focus on resonant energy transfer rather than the grossly inferior isolation methodology.

What about the spikes/points you are using under the subs? Who makes 'em, what's the material, etc? Most importantly, are the spikes/points tightly fastened to the underside of the subs? If per chance the points are just resting/freestanding under the subs, then even with the mass-loading they most likely are too compromised to be of much influence than if tightly fastened.

This would be true even if the spikes/points are the best designs in the world as they simply cannot perform to their full potential if the mechanical energy connections are compromised. The full potential being to create a superior mechanical energy conduit (hopefully zero compromises) that allows the greatest amounts of unwanted energy to escape the subs and drain into the subflooring or in your case, concrete, before the unwanted mechanical energy can induce its sonic harm.

I would also consider replacing the steel shot with single steel better yet cast iron plates or cylinders since the steel shots will move around with the mechanical energy as some mechanical energy would be released there when the preference would be to have all unwanted energy released furthest away from the subs i.e. into the subflooring.

Anyway, nice work.

 

[PeterA]

My pleasure. And you should be proud of what you've accomplished with your subs config. and sonics. Among other things and contrary to just about everybody else in the industry, it seems you chose the superior methodology of addressing unwanted mechanical energy by your efforts of mass-loading and by your focus on resonant energy transfer rather than the grossly inferior isolation methodology.

What about the spikes/points you are using under the subs? Who makes 'em, what's the material, etc? Most importantly, are the spikes/points tightly fastened to the underside of the subs? If per chance the points are just resting/freestanding under the subs, then even with the mass-loading they most likely are too compromised to be of much influence than if tightly fastened.

This would be true even if the spikes/points are the best designs in the world as they simply cannot perform to their full potential if the mechanical energy connections are compromised. The full potential being to create a superior mechanical energy conduit (hopefully zero compromises) that allows the greatest amounts of unwanted energy to escape the subs and drain into the subflooring or in your case, concrete, before the unwanted mechanical energy can induce its sonic harm.

I would also consider replacing the steel shot with single steel better yet cast iron plates or cylinders since the steel shots will move around with the mechanical energy as some mechanical energy would be released there when the preference would be to have all unwanted energy released furthest away from the subs i.e. into the subflooring.

Anyway, nice work.

Stehno, could you share photos and a description of your extreme clamping rack solution to take this discussion further? Or post a link if you have already done so elsewhere?

 

[SlapEcho]

My pleasure. And you should be proud of what you've accomplished with your subs config. and sonics. Among other things and contrary to just about everybody else in the industry, it seems you chose the superior methodology of addressing unwanted mechanical energy by your efforts of mass-loading and by your focus on resonant energy transfer rather than the grossly inferior isolation methodology.

What about the spikes/points you are using under the subs? Who makes 'em, what's the material, etc? Most importantly, are the spikes/points tightly fastened to the underside of the subs? If per chance the points are just resting/freestanding under the subs, then even with the mass-loading they most likely are too compromised to be of much influence than if tightly fastened.

This would be true even if the spikes/points are the best designs in the world as they simply cannot perform to their full potential if the mechanical energy connections are compromised. The full potential being to create a superior mechanical energy conduit (hopefully zero compromises) that allows the greatest amounts of unwanted energy to escape the subs and drain into the subflooring or in your case, concrete, before the unwanted mechanical energy can induce its sonic harm.

I would also consider replacing the steel shot with single steel better yet cast iron plates or cylinders since the steel shots will move around with the mechanical energy as some mechanical energy would be released there when the preference would be to have all unwanted energy released furthest away from the subs i.e. into the subflooring.

Anyway, nice work.

Again, very much appreciated!

When it comes to sub coupling to flooring it is an interesting subject and I've seen plenty of discussions on WBF about this. Everyone has their own philosophy on what works and I'm in agreeance that they have that right. Personally, what I prefer or aim to achieve is zero compliance between driver cabinet structure and its mechanical sink(flooring). In an ideal situation I would bolt/anchor my cabinet directly to high mass flooring(concrete) with the belief that unwanted speaker driver mechanical back energy instead of dissipating out the cabinet, gets shunted directly to the sink. This to me makes sense as far as gives the least amount of unwanted radiated energy with most it going to/out the driver.

This however doesn't work in all cases. With timber flooring/joist this coupling may be less desirable in so the more directly coupled the cabinet to the floor via added mass, the lower the resonate frequency of the system(i.e. - speaker, added mass, & floor) which it gets it closer to the natural resonating frequency or "Q" of the floor. In short it may be better to dampen coupling between the cabinet and sink where the cabinet resonating is less audibly efficient than timber flooring resonances. Via personal experimentation I feel when coupled this way it's a bit less dynamic with loss of frequency extension but no floor "boom".

As an example these drivers have high mass cones(closer to larger 12" or even 15") in order to get low driver resonance. I made these subs for a bedroom system I had in a 3 story timber flooring Victorian home in which the bedroom was located on the 3rd floor. When I tried loading them with mass even at low volumes it sounded like a small earthquake throughout the house down to the bottom landing.

All that said, this sub and speaker system is just for the interim so nothing fancy on the floor spikes. Just some DIY adjustable floor spikes(I think steel) set/fastened into the bluestone base(https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/tiptoes/feet/feet-yung-ybt-set-of-4-tiptoe/). With the mass I can assure your these are making solid footing to the concrete through the carpet and underlayment. Yes, agreed with the steel shot. At the time I thought since I had the bottles sitting around it may look cool to add the shot then realized the shot in the bottles was audible on bass peaks. Adding kitchen grade mineral oil the bottles alleviated that issue. Working on much larger system using mineralized plastic and plasticized concrete in which adding mass would probably be moot.

 

[stehno]

Again, very much appreciated!

When it comes to sub coupling to flooring it is an interesting subject and I've seen plenty of discussions on WBF about this. Everyone has their own philosophy on what works and I'm in agreeance that they have that right.

Indeed. Everybody has the right to be wrong as evidence of this right surrounds us.

Personally, what I prefer or aim to achieve is zero compliance between driver cabinet structure and its mechanical sink(flooring). In an ideal situation I would bolt/anchor my cabinet directly to high mass flooring(concrete) with the belief that unwanted speaker driver mechanical back energy instead of dissipating out the cabinet, gets shunted directly to the sink. This to me makes sense as far as gives the least amount of unwanted radiated energy with most it going to/out the driver.

Exactly. Of course welding though not practical here is superior to fastening/bolting disparate objects, right? But your thinking is exactly right.

This however doesn't work in all cases. With timber flooring/joist this coupling may be less desirable in so the more directly coupled the cabinet to the floor via added mass, the lower the resonate frequency of the system(i.e. - speaker, added mass, & floor) which it gets it closer to the natural resonating frequency or "Q" of the floor.

Not quite true. We're dealing with fundamental principles or laws of nature i.e. the primary behaviors of energies / unwanted energies. If so, then the methodologies and principles ought never change since energies behaviors do not change. Sure some sub-floors are less ideal than others but a sub-floor is what it is and not so easy to change out.

In short it may be better to dampen coupling between the cabinet and sink where the cabinet resonating is less audibly efficient than timber flooring resonances.

That's damp, not dampen (moisten). But I know what you mean.

Via personal experimentation I feel when coupled this way it's a bit less dynamic with loss of frequency extension but no floor "boom".

Again, do you think you're dealing with laws of nature in your endeavors? If so, under what circumstances does one change methodologies to address basic laws of nature (behaviors of energies)?

Also, if one adheres strictly to these laws of nature (without overthinking things) and applies genuinely superior executions in strict accordance to those laws of nature, ouught not the benefits be all pros and no cons?

The fact that you experienced at least one con or negative here should be an indication that you strayed (over thinking) in your execution from the simplicity of these laws of nature, right?

As an example these drivers have high mass cones(closer to larger 12" or even 15") in order to get low driver resonance. I made these subs for a bedroom system I had in a 3 story timber flooring Victorian home in which the bedroom was located on the 3rd floor. When I tried loading them with mass even at low volumes it sounded like a small earthquake throughout the house down to the bottom landing.

There's too many potential variables for the 3rd floor bedroom that you mention. Including inferior subwoofer placement potentials which could easily contribute to this boomy earthquake sound you mention. At the very least, there should be no reason for anybody to expect stellar performance when placing their playback config in a potentially less than reasonably constructed room/floor.

All that said, this sub and speaker system is just for the interim so nothing fancy on the floor spikes. Just some DIY adjustable floor spikes(I think steel) set/fastened into the bluestone base(https://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/tiptoes/feet/feet-yung-ybt-set-of-4-tiptoe/). With the mass I can assure your these are making solid footing to the concrete through the carpet and underlayment.

No doubt.

Yes, agreed with the steel shot. At the time I thought since I had the bottles sitting around it may look cool to add the shot then realized the shot in the bottles was audible on bass peaks. Adding kitchen grade mineral oil the bottles alleviated that issue. Working on much larger system using mineralized plastic and plasticized concrete in which adding mass would probably be moot.

Most any mass-loading should be better than no mass-loading but what is the real purpose behind mass-loading? Earlier you spoke of damping. My question to you is, when an object is sufficiently damped, what does it become? Based on your experience and correct line of thinking the answer should be rather obvious.

It's nice to see you take these matters seriously because in the end it's all about performance and I suspect you're finding bits of performance under every corner of the carpet you overturn. Otherwise, I'm guessing you would have abandoned this pursuit a long time ago.

 

[stehno]

Stehno, could you share photos and a description of your extreme clamping rack solution to take this discussion further? Or post a link if you have already done so elsewhere?

No.

 

[SlapEcho]

Exactly. Of course welding though not practical here is superior to fastening/bolting disparate objects, right? But your thinking is exactly right.

Same page.

Not quite true. We're dealing with fundamental principles or laws of nature i.e. the primary behaviors of energies / unwanted energies. If so, then the methodologies and principles ought never change since energies behaviors do not change. Sure some sub-floors are less ideal than others but a sub-floor is what it is and not so easy to change out.

Not disagreeing about fundamentals, laws are laws period. More so about what are we trying to accomplish here? Is it just simply remove all unwanted mechanical energies from the system(this includes the environment) at all costs or settle on some sort of compromise between mechanical, aesthetics, and monetary? I can understand why one would choose to decouple cabinets from flooring when left with the options - A.) "Simply couple my cabinet directly to the floor and settle with ill defined bass due to floor vibrations", B.) "Decouple the cabinets from flooring to give up a bit of low end extension and dynamic verve, but yet retain decent bass definition and remain visually appealing", C.)"Get it right by mass loading the hell out of the cabinets, break the bank re-configuring the environment, disregard visual appeal, ...". Option C is loaded, but I think you get my point - essentially to what end?

To add, in my opinion there is though a tendency to associate decoupling between speaker cabinet and flooring as defacto without the understanding of compromises made and the exploration of other options.

There's too many potential variables for the 3rd floor bedroom that you mention. Including inferior subwoofer placement potentials which could easily contribute to this boomy earthquake sound you mention. At the very least, there should be no reason for anybody to expect stellar performance when placing their playback config in a potentially less than reasonably constructed room/floor.

Hey buddy, I would hope you'd think I did my homework?
I wasn't willing to make changes required to properly resolve that problem. Just pointing out reasons why one may choose to go the decoupling route.

 

[stehno]

Crank it up

 

[stehno]

Not exactly the most superior engineered recording but still quite musical. Especially if you give it the juice.

 

[SlapEcho]

Fun album to rock to on a rainy New England evening.

 

[Rob181]

Fun album to rock to on a rainy New England evening.

Hi SE - what is your system makeup - the voice & drums sound VERY good - thanks...

 

[PeterA]

Fun album to rock to on a rainy New England evening.

This sounds good. I like the music. Is that a Pass Aleph 5 I notice on the floor?

 

[hopkins]

Of course you absolutely do. You’ve asked this before and I responded but this time I’ll respond a bit differently.

Let’s say for sake of argument you’re in search of a fine sports car and you’ve the opportunity to evaluate the latest Bugatti Veyron model on a local track. Do you drive the Veyron limiting your speed to 55 mph or do you stress the car and track designs to their and your limits?

Or let’s say for sake of argument you already own a Veyron and you’ve been invited to bring it to a newly designed track. Do you keep your speed around 55 mph max or do you attempt to take the Veyron and track to its potential limits?

Which is more telling? Can’t most any vehicle handle 55 mph without much difficulty? If that’s all you’re willing to give it, where’s the challenge? That question applies your own skills, the vehicle, and the track. Speaking of which, how is your knowledge, understanding, skill level, etc ever expected to expand or improve if you’re only willing to drive 55?

Does any of this imply the Veyron or track is to be driven balls-to-the-walls pedal-to-the-medal at all times? Of course not. For there is a certain pleasure and relaxation and safety driving at 55 mph. But you’re certainly not able to evaluate much of anything at that speed and at the same time you’ve stripped away most everything the sport has to offer.

It also pays to ask, how did the Veyron designers intend the car be driven? Same question with the track designers.

Or is it your argument that since scientists have discovered the risk of injury and death go up when driving fast, all driving and racing should be limited to a conservative speed like 55 mph?

Regardless of the above, the musicians, producers, and engineers all agreed to some extent how loud the live performance ought to be and recorded. Are you suggesting they should have consulted you and your friends first?

Gotta’ remember, Peter. This industry is (or was) supposedly called high-end audio for a reason.

Do you wear earplugs when you listen to your system at "concert level"?

 

[SlapEcho]

Hi SE - what is your system makeup - the voice & drums sound VERY good - thanks...

This sounds good. I like the music. Is that a Pass Aleph 5 I notice on the floor?

Hey gents - I appreciate the comments, it feels good having positive feedback reinforce my sentiment I think I’m heading in the right direction.

@Rob181 – This is a fair question I’ve felt I‘ve owed to the forum so I’ll list the gear soon on my page just so that I don’t completely derail the thread.

@PeterA – Yes it is an Aleph 5, but with a few modifications to get the sound to where it’s at. There were the normal “old amp” maintenance changes as well as some in signal capacitor mods. I understand the original Aleph sound well. There’s absolutely something special about the class A single end sound. The positives I would sum up as, lack of crossover distortion, beautiful midrange warmth, and upper end sparkle. I learned a lot of the original sound was attributed to electrolytic caps, mainly that fluffy mid band to bass region. I think I went through five cap changes and listening cycles before permanently settling with the current iteration. It now has an absolutely amazing amount of dynamic verve, extreme resolution with even more upper end extension (effervescent air?), while retaining much of the original positive attributes I described earlier. I would subjectively say it even feels like the amplification power doubled.

 

[stehno]

Do you wear earplugs when you listen to your system at "concert level"?

No. Sorry, but bearing in mind our presumable efforts toward a more realistic perspective of our playback presentations, your question seems a bit absurd. At least on its face.

Why do you ask?

Pretend for a moment that you’re a disco junkie. At what listening volume levels would you listen to this piece before you find it most engaging, musical, enjoyable, and realistic?

When I listen to this piece at max volume on my macbook pro with headphones, it roughly equates to my preferred in-room volume level which hopefully is in the ballpark of the perceived recording studio volume levels. For this piece but also other music of like-nature. Then again, I’ve never attended a studio performance so I’m speculating.

But even if this Michael Jackson piece was recorded at low db levels, it’s still a benefit to possess a system that can play near/at live concert volume levels when called upon and most importantly without significant distortions. Especially since very few systems can.

That said, I have a few questions for you.

- What exactly do you think one’s goal ought to be in their pursuit of higher-end audio? To generate a playback presentation that is more or less realistic?

- If your quest is to attain a sense of realism with your playback presentations, why would you downplay realistic listening volume levels?

- Do you think realistic listening volume levels is any less worthy than any other realistic sonic characteristic you may covet?

- Are you one of those audiophiles who like Peter listens to recordings at unengaging, unmusical, unpleasant, and unrealistic volume levels so your precious ears can live another day to listen to more unengaging, unmusical, unpleasant, and unrealistic volume levels?

- If your ears are unable to tolerate live performance volume levels, then why would you attend live performances?

- When was the last time you attended a live performance and asked the conductor or engineers to turn the volume down to your preferred listening levels? Would that be realistic? Actually, it would just as realistic because it’s still a live performance. But that’s another subject.

- Where did enthusiasts like you and Peter get the notion that music ought to be most enoyed at volume levels significantly lower than realistic live performance levels?

- Might this be just one of the many differences between a supposed music lover and a performance-first enthusiast?

- Might this be just one more of the numerous preconceived narratives many fall for?

Sorry but you asked first.

 

[hopkins]

No. Sorry, but bearing in mind our presumable efforts toward a more realistic perspective of our playback presentations, your question seems a bit absurd. At least on its face.

Why do you ask?

Pretend for a moment that you’re a disco junkie. At what listening volume levels would you listen to this piece before you find it most engaging, musical, enjoyable, and realistic?

When I listen to this piece at max volume on my macbook pro with headphones, it roughly equates to my preferred in-room volume level which hopefully is in the ballpark of the perceived recording studio volume levels. For this piece but also other music of like-nature. Then again, I’ve never attended a studio performance so I’m speculating.

But even if this Michael Jackson piece was recorded at low db levels, it’s still a benefit to possess a system that can play near/at live concert volume levels when called upon and most importantly without significant distortions. Especially since very few systems can.

That said, I have a few questions for you.

- What exactly do you think one’s goal ought to be in their pursuit of higher-end audio? To generate a playback presentation that is more or less realistic?

- If your quest is to attain a sense of realism with your playback presentations, why would you downplay realistic listening volume levels?

- Do you think realistic listening volume levels is any less worthy than any other realistic sonic characteristic you may covet?

- Are you one of those audiophiles who like Peter listens to recordings at unengaging, unmusical, unpleasant, and unrealistic volume levels so your precious ears can live another day to listen to more unengaging, unmusical, unpleasant, and unrealistic volume levels?

- If your ears are unable to tolerate live performance volume levels, then why would you attend live performances?

- When was the last time you attended a live performance and asked the conductor or engineers to turn the volume down to your preferred listening levels? Would that be realistic? Actually, it would just as realistic because it’s still a live performance. But that’s another subject.

- Where did enthusiasts like you and Peter get the notion that music ought to be most enoyed at volume levels significantly lower than realistic live performance levels?

- Might this be just one of the many differences between a supposed music lover and a performance-first enthusiast?

- Might this be just one more of the numerous preconceived narratives many fall for?

Sorry but you asked first.

Have you noticed that musicians wear ear protection when playing live? Do you think they come home and blast music in their living room ?

Since when is loud volume required for "engagement"? Everyone is free to listen at whatever volume they find comfortable.

You seem to think that a system cannot sound "realistic" unless it plays loud. I would say that systems never sound realistic even if they play loud, but if you think differently, more power to you! Maybe it's a question of expectations.

 

[hopkins]

I'll add that my personal preference, since you asked, is to listen for long periods at moderate to low volume. There are times I will "blast music", but that's pretty rare. I don't find that I am missing out at low volume with most music that I play, including pop/rock, and I don't think I am less engaged.

With symphonic music, given the number of musicians involved, it is true that you can have huge dynamic range, so if you want to hear the quietest passages, you need to turn up the volume. I keep my remote handy.

When it comes to live music, I always take a pair of ear plugs in case the music gets too loud. Example: last year I was seated next to the brass section of a big-band and had to put them on. All the musicians sitting right in front of me had earplugs as well. I had no choice!

 

[morricab]

Have you noticed that musicians wear ear protection when playing live? Do you think they come home and blast music in their living room ?

Since when is loud volume required for "engagement"? Everyone is free to listen at whatever volume they find comfortable.

You seem to think that a system cannot sound "realistic" unless it plays loud. I would say that systems never sound realistic even if they play loud, but if you think differently, more power to you! Maybe it's a question of expectations.

Usually it’s a sign of a system that lacks the ability to deliver engagement at lower volume levels…that said I know some people who almost always play loud to very loud no matter what system.