JZStudios

52 minutes ago, Whiskers said:

Thread cleaned.

 

A reminder for everyone to please be civil and respectful to one another when discussing a difference of opinion.

It was though. I know it's pointless to argue that what I said wasn't offensive, which it wasn't, but this forum is quickly becoming a place of not allowing discussion.

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

Except a driver's license exists specifically so you can't drive cars if you don't know how. We don't just let people try their luck with potentially deadly vehicles. If you learn how to drive with an automatic car then there's no guarantee you'll know how to drive a manual. For a while I didn't even know you could get an automatic-only license because everyone here just takes the manual test, which is valid for both.

 

But if you can't drive a manual, you just wouldn't drive it. A drivers license is more proof that you know how to drive on the road and obey the laws. Anyone learning to drive a manual, just like an automatic, is going to take it slow and practice in their neighborhood or in a parking lot. Ooh! Super scary!

3 hours ago, Sauron said:

Can you just, like... read the op before you type out a rant? They said they need to drive 10 hours a week for work, not to get a license. The learning time is the same regardless of whether you get a "full" license or the automatic-only one.

Can you just, like... not exaggerate shit and read other posts before you type out a dumb comment? Since when did a single sentence constitute "typing out a rant?"

For the record;

14 hours ago, James Evens said:

Looking at it you now need (after getting the licence) another 10 hours and 15 minute test drive on manual to get it removed. Not sure how much this actually changed. If the parents/you only drive automatic then there is no reason todo the manual anymore as you can easily upgrade to manual later on if needed.

So I'll take that apology now. Not you James, I assume confusion will happen.

What in the hell is a manual car? This isn't the Flintstones. We also don't have as many silly regulations for these things. In colder climates you might have some ice driving tests, but here in the desert, no point, why bother? Only snows once every 3-5 years.

The real question is, why does Europe have a manual license to begin with? Do the laws of the road suddenly change? Seems like if you don't know how to drive stick you just wouldn't do it. Doesn't seem like a reasonable requirement to have 2 different licenses with manual taking 10 hours. I learned to drive stick on my first day of work.

1 hour ago, H713 said:

Dr. Floyd Toole's research is both widely accepted and still very accurate. Whether it's from 1988 or 2018 is irrelevant - the physics is still accurate. Dr. Toole is one of the most respected scientists in the field of acoustics / psychoacoustics, so I wouldn't toss aside his work.

 

Acoustics isn't really part of EE - it's generally more in the realm of physics. Physicists and EEs often have different understandings of the same phenomena, and they often use different terms / definitions - and neither is necessarily wrong.

 

Most people in STEM are quite specialized. Class D power amplifier designers are often woefully unqualified to design loudspeakers, and loudspeaker engineers are usually woefully unqualified to design reliable electronics. Just because your friend is very good at one aspect of audio engineering does not mean that they are experts in all areas.

 

Also, throwing around that someone is an EE doesn't give them all that much credibility in my mind, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels that way. I've worked with lots of people who have impressive credentials, yet barely understand what they're talking about.

So... none of that has anything to do with the fact that what you referenced either had nothing to do with the discussion at hand or it actively disproved your point.

No, but his side hobby of music production kind of thrusts him into it. Either way, "speaker decay" isn't acoustics. In this case the terminology is the same.

Not relevant in the slightest. Also kind of proves you don't know what you're talking about. Here's an example, I've made composite airframes. I can pretty reasonably argue that I can also make vehicle parts because it's literally the same process. In this particular case, he explicitly works on loudspeakers, speakers, headphones, and amplifiers among many other products. So... I'm really not sure what your argument here is. It sounds like you're trying to say the guy working at the power station might not know EE, but the EE definitely knows how to do the power station, so at best this argument is moot and completely bunk at worst.

Good for you. I suppose audiophiles and high-end companies use the products he designs because he's actually garbage at doing it.

2 hours ago, tikker said:

This is the same as my CP example and in both cases a game-breaking bug.

That's not a game breaking bug. Deleting your save or corrupting your save is. Not being able to progress at all is. A minor side quest being broken isn't game breaking.

2 hours ago, tikker said:

Can we stop with the ad hominems? I did watch it, and it specifically shows building not loading, characters T-posing and literally missing their entire face, so saying W3 has/had none of that is simply not true. The things you mention are huge problems, I completely agree with that, and I never said I approve of them.

That wasn't an ad hominem. And neither did I say TW3 had no issues. Once again, for the third fucking time, it had minor bugs, that were fixed shortly after release. I'm not responding after this because A. You objectively don't know how to classify bugs, and B. You keep ignoring me so this argument is pointless.

2 hours ago, tikker said:

That I agree with.

So then you agree that by comparison, which is objectively true, The Witcher 3 was far more stable and less bug ridden at launch than 2077, but disagree that 2077 is worse.

I literally can't argue with this oxymoronic logic. I said in my initial comment that TW3 had few minor bugs and fixes, then you started acting like it was just as bad as 2077. Now you agree with me, but somehow I'm still wrong. I'm done.

9 minutes ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

Heres the thing:

They still can force  agame to be out from higher ups at the company, or one of the stores (steam or MS or Sony or EGS) said that they need the game to be out because its pissing off their users, which made the higher up force it.

At some point, there was probably a ultimadium issued, like "This game is going to be out buy blah blah or your fired", so tehy fixed as much as they could

Still doubtful. Those are all digital storefronts, there's no need to reserve shelf space or anything. And it pissing off their users doesn't make much sense. What's the logic behind that? If they don't rush the game out MS and Sony won't let them put it on Xbox and Playstation?

1 hour ago, CTR640 said:

Something like the iFi iPower2 power cable nonsense? It brings "noise-free and audiophile" quality.

Haha, no. These cables are legitimately just a cable and that's it. 

https://www.gr-research.com/store/p119/B24_Power_Cable.html

1 hour ago, Brok3n But who cares? said:

Different strokes for different folks. People will beileve whatever they want to beileve, as is demonstrated by just this topic, I suppose. People like spending money, or have hobbies, or hear things, or get placeboed, whatever. 

 

I would just refrain from making such abstract judgements of products from say, GR-research from what looks to be purely from unrelated products and speaker decay measurements. Ears should be the judge of a speaker, no?  

Not really, no. See, the power cord is just a cord, which sends the power into the power supply of your unit. Even if your power into the unit was perfectly "clean," you'd still be running it through the same power supply that's converting it from AC into DC with a constant steady state of flowing energy. It literally does not matter and can not in any way effect audio quality.

The thing is, there's signal measurements you can make using proper tools that are inaudible, even within audible frequencies. So when you're buying a $700 power cable that isn't affecting the signal response at all, it is literally impossible for the speaker to sound any different. It's getting and producing the exact same signal. It's snake oil.

Same thing with THD, they've done lots of studies about the audibility of THD (since it's easier to just add it into the speakers) and found that it kind of doesn't matter below like .1 percent or something. I'd have to find the actual results. But people still get all obsessed with having it be lower than .01. It's already inaudible, what is that supposed to be? Less than inaudible? Even crappy budget systems have less than .1 THD.

You want to blow your money, go for it. But as you said, it's the placebo effect. You spent $700 on a cable, it MUST be better. Then you go and tell everyone it makes a difference, and you have fast speakers, and the misinformation is spread around, all while typically ignoring the single biggest aspect of what will actually impact sound the most, room treatment and correction.

1 hour ago, tikker said:

See my second point below, but I can only return this question to you in regards to your later comment: how do you encounter a game-breaking bug and say "no big deal"? I also never said the horse floating around is a huge problem; your words, not mine. Nowhere will you see me praising Cyberpunk as the best game ever or saying all its flaws should be overlooked. They should be addressed, just like stuff got addressed for W3. I compared wonky horse physics with wonky car physics. I don't see why Bethesda needs to be brought up at this specific juncture. We're talking about CDPR. You could play Cyberpunk 2077 all the way through from day 1 as well, I personally did so and the three things I encountered:

1. Side-quest got bugged, major bummer, luckily I had a save briefly before it.
2. Hole in the floor, one mesh triangle was missing in an obscure location that I tried getting to with the mild intent of breaking the game.
3. The slow texture loading, also bad and definitely needed a fix

My playthrough was as smooth as any other game otherwise and none of those bugs prevented me from playing and finishing the game, so same thing: you could play CP2077 all the way through from day one and only see some minor bugs.

The bug I referred to earlier was exactly this situation. It was a single side quest out of many, I did not encounter any game-breaking bugs for the main story nor other side quests in my play through. If that was a minor bug for W3, then it's also a minor bug for CP2077. You cannot blame Cyberpunk for having this and at the same time for Witcher 3 say "'t is only one out of many". Both should be labeled as equally bad, because both are game-breaking bugs. Same for the horse getting stuck on everything vs. the dumb cars in CP.

Where did W3 have a game breaking bug? The horse glitch you had to actively attempt to do, it didn't just happen, and it had an identifiable cause. And you specifically said W3 was seen through nostalgia, insinuating it was just as bad or worse as CP77, which it wasn't. W3 had c or d class bugs, CP77 straight deleted your save files. For a LOT of people. It's not even close to the same.

Mmm, X to doubt. Did you watch the video I linked? Also, that texture loading is way more than "minor." You don't know what a game breaking bug is. Check out Matt Mcmuscle's Bug Report videos where he discusses what being a QA tester is like while playing some games. A side quest being incompletable is maybe a B or C. The game not loading shit, you falling through the world, deleting your saves, are A class. TW3 didn't have any of that.

1 hour ago, tikker said:

So both games have glitches and bugs? Why would e.g. Triss' hand being bugged on fire, Geralt glitching through terrain, buildings not loading or characters T-posing and literally missing faces be "oh look at this minor inconvenience" for Witcher 3 but a person standing on top of a wheel chair or any variant of the aforementiond "omg look at this dumb design, burn CDPR" in CP2077?

 

I'm not defending all the problems the game has. They should have never launched on PS4, have delivered better on their promises and in general and neither side should have let hype take over as much as it did. What I am saying, is that if CP2077 just launched without all that hype that I'm certain reviews would have been much milder.

The frequency, for starters. Then the severity/widespread...ness of the problem. TW3 had some very minor bugs like flaming hands very occasionally. The t-posing and missing faces was rare, and fixed pretty quickly. I think it actually only happened in Novigrad, and not every single time you went there. CP77 is consistently broken. The bugs are more serious, and way more frequent.

7 hours ago, Shike said:

While I can't say I care for the designer much anymore, Dave F of Ascend Acoustics does measure decay in relation to ETC and CSD as can be seen here.

 

 

So there you go - I don't necessarily agree with the validity of his statements or put a particular level of merit on it but some designers do pay attention to it.

Huh. So back to the waterfall plot, which is room decay. Again, unless it's done in an anechoic chamber, it's a pointless test and just measuring that speaker, in that position, in that room, at that mic position. He even says the mic is 1m away, so it's just the room response.

Not aimed at you, but looking at stuff like PS audio and GR-research, they're legit selling snake oil and/or don't know what they're talking about. GR-Research has a $250 power cable that's "cheap" that uses wire larger than what's in your wall. Standard Romex is 12-14 gauge (smaller number being larger diameter) and he's selling 8 gauge per leg and requires "burn-in" for a POWER CABLE. It's literally snake oil, and these are the kinds of guys that hear about this "speaker decay" from the audiophile circle jerk, so they measure it without knowing how it actually works and it seriously brings into question the rest of their entire product line.

31 minutes ago, StDragon said:

That's really what amazes me; all that effort into creating virtual cities with all the details. Not just the man-hours put into drafting them up, but the coordination is mind blowing from my perspective.

 

What I'm really trying to say is that the process of these maps being built is far more amazing than the coding of the game engine itself.  

Eh, not really. There isn't "all the details," especially compared to prior titles. 90% of the map is open fields and they don't have any sense of flow like prior maps. Cities are way easier to create than nature, and both are lacking in 2042. Looking at hourglass (the desert one) it's some very sparse buildings literally clipping through big sand dunes. Not that impressive.

11 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

https://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/cyberpunk-2077/credits

 

Cyberpunk 2077 credits.

12 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

Nvidia and AMD both had staff on it

Then Digital Scapes Studios Ltd, Microsoft, Sony, GOG, Bandai, warner brothers, Kojima productions, Porsche, Epic games... The list is very long when you look into game development partnerships.

They were initially going to support AMD's game physics software, then Nvidia paid more money instead. Neither one of these companies would force a game to be released early. Digital Scapes is a support development group. M$ and Sony are because they launched on their respective consoles, again, not forced to publish. They own GOG. KojiPro put some cross branding in Death Stranding. The Porsche was a 1971 911 they licensed to be in game. Epic Games would be for the Epic Games Store. Bandai Namco was a distributor in Europe, unlikely to push for early release. and WB did distribution in NA.

None of those companies have a lot of reason to push the release out the door. The distributors maybe, if they're paying for marketing.

5 hours ago, tikker said:

Rose-coloured/nostalgia glasses. The post-release stuff was much more than some UI and QOL changes. Look at this patch. Fxing quest-related NPCs not spawning, player getting stuck, stuff not working properly or not being calculated properly. This is among the stuff people burn CP2077 for. The strange difference is flying Roach is now considered a funny quirk, but weird car physics launching you into space equals terrible game (and I say that admitting the driving is pretty poor in CP2077).

 

I played CP2077 at launch. Yeah there was one game-breaking thing I encountered for a side-quest, for which I had to reload an earlier save and a small corner where the ground didn't load, but that was it. I'm not saying it is flawless, but people have greatly exaggerated certain aspects, partly because of their own silly expectations of the game (which also stem from overhyping and unrealistic marketing from CDPR).

  

True. Time will tell, but I'm positive about it. They seem to really care about making it better.

I had the game since launch, and played it at launch. It's not rose tinted glasses. How do you encounter a game breaking issue in CP77 and say "No big deal" but the horse floating around is a huge problem? Like I said, it had minor bug fixes, but it launched day 1 better than anything Bethesda has ever done. You could play Witcher 3 all the way through from day 1 and only see some minor bugs in the entire playthrough.

If we're going on personal experiences, I never had those kinds of problems, except for 1 NPC in a sidequest being bugged so I couldn't complete a single side quest out of over a hundred. Most people had the same experience. The biggest issue I had was the dipshit horse getting stuck on fences and trees and not knowing what the fuck to do about it. Which was annoying, but not really a bug, certainly not game-breaking.

I mean, look at this shit. We're a year after launch and while the Witcher 3 at this point had fixed it's minor issues, CP77... hasn't.

5 hours ago, 05032-Mendicant-Bias said:

 

  Hide contents

CEO stealing children bodies to live forever, AIs, dystopian corpos, rampant corruption, organ harvester gangs, augs, new aug related illnesses, even a human-kid blood farm at one point. Hard stuffs.

I'm told CP77 barely run on PS4 and XB4 console, which is inexcusable. CDPR deserves all the criticism it got for launching a broken product there.

 

Still, judging CP77 as a game, I can't help but feel review were far too harsh. CP77 was amazing and buggy. I'm pretty sure CP77 at launch It was less buggy than Skyrim

Sounds kind of generic.

Oh, no. My buddy has a PS5, we haven't tried it on PS4, and it's still broken as shit. Remember, Sony had to remove it from sale and the huge refund debacle. Though I'll never understand why people keep buying Skyrim and Bethesda games when they've proven themselves to be incompetent with every release.

18 hours ago, Roswell said:

Battlefield games have always had enormous maps, that’s one of the staples of the series. The game’s map sizes aren’t abnormal compared to previous entries.

Only compared to the completely barren deserts n such of 1942 with distance haze so you can't see more than 100m. Compared to anything more recent, the maps are goddamn huge.

17 minutes ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

Nvidia and AMD both had staff on it

Then Digital Scapes Studios Ltd, Microsoft, Sony, GOG, Bandai, warner brothers, Kojima productions, Porsche, Epic games... The list is very long when you look into game development partnerships.

What? None of that is true, nor sensical.

19 hours ago, Nimrodor said:

See Toole and Olive's "The Modification of Timbre by Resonances: Perception and Measurement".

Alright, so my buddy managed to get the .pdf free somewhere. I have no idea why you brought it up, because it has nothing to do with transients. I skimmed through it, filtering by the word "decay," which wasn't used at all in the incorrect context you guys keep using, it was only mentioned 3 times. The word "transient" was mentioned 14 times. On page 3 he might be attempting to discuss speaker transients, but then goes on to say "The subjective effect of these local irregularities is negligible if not absent in the first place."

Every later mention of transient is talking about transient sounds, like speech and instruments, not speaker transients. He then goes on to argue that an amount of resonance is beneficial and preferred.

In essence, the paper you linked debunked your argument. Congratulations.

1 hour ago, Derkoli said:

IR/decay time/whatever you wanna call it at this point is measured. Sometimes not directly, but if the speaker is resonating to hell during simple FR measurements, its IR will be crap.

He says;

"It's not "whatever you want to call it." It's an actual term used in technical literature called damping coefficient. It is not provided on speaker manuals nor documentation."

21 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

IR/decay time/whatever you wanna call it at this point is measured.

By who? It's not the EE's nor the speaker designers.

1 hour ago, geo3 said:

So that just confirms everything I've been saying....   

 

Oh, but they used "snappy" instead of "fast" 

Wow, way to entirely skip everything of actual value and jump to the cinema guy, instead of the multiple actual technical resources. I fucking knew you were going to come in and say that, even though it doesn't confirm your argument.

You also failed to provide me with a speaker manufacturer that tests "decay." You said they all do it, I as an outsider can't find any speaker designer that does (and neither could the guy in the article) and my buddy who designs these circuits for them hasn't heard of any that do.

Also, way to gloss over the fact that he's had 15 years of high-level professional experience making some of the best chips in the world. Again, he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, he's just been doing it for multinational companies and boutique audio suppliers for over a decade. And his technical explanation of why it's not called decay.

Just saying "This non-technical movie guy proved you wrong" is the best argument. You're also intentionally misappropriating what he actually said, which is a great argument technique BTW. Doesn't mean you know you're wrong or anything.

Out of curiosity, what actually is your professional qualification in this subject? It really sounds like you're telling Gordon Ramsey he doesn't know how to cook because you saw Binging with Babish on YouTube.

7 hours ago, jagdtigger said:

I havent bought any of them since they started using browser and external site based "launcher". Guess what happens when they pull the plug on the website.....

I know that all the BF games up to V have been using the same launcher thing. No idea about 2042, but if it does, it's likely to just be the BF launcher for the foreseeable future. Unless BF itself is cancelled by EA.

4 hours ago, GhostRoadieBL said:

That's not actually true, they bent to the partner companies who are the only ones who can push a game out early. Fans have zero control over the game release.

Considering CDPR are self published, who would that be?

3 hours ago, RejZoR said:

The issue here is, no one will remember it as such even if it some day reaches that point. Just look at "No Man's Sky" game. There are still people who will say it's a shit game because thats what they know from back then. But devs were busy improving it, making it what it should have been in the beginning.

I remember on launch people compiled lists of promised features that weren't in game. I'm curious how many of those are in game now. It's definitely not the product it was marketed as, it's just turned into another kind of shitty pointless survival game. Even if I had bought it in the hopes it would be updated, they've gone in a direction different than they marketed so I'd still be unhappy with it.

8 hours ago, tikker said:

Witcher 3 took some time to fix as well. I think calling it a flawed game is a bit too much and that they are selling themselves a little short by saying it will be a good game eventually. In my opinion it already is an good enjoyable game. Many mistakes were made, both sides hyped it way too much. At least they're owning up to them.

Witcher 3 improved rather than fixed. The initial release of Witcher 3 was fine, and far more stable than anything Bethesda has done. The post release stuff of Witcher 3 was some UI and QOL changes with minor bugfixes.

2077 is straight broken, it's been a year since launch (HOLY SHIT!) and it's still not much better. Keeping in mind that they started developing 2077, paused, made the entirety of the Witcher 3, then went back to work on 2077 after W3 was supposed to have solved some issues like open world. How they went from their prior game releases to 2077 is astounding.

15 hours ago, Nimrodor said:

Decay is a well-understood term in EE (and science/engineering in general) for describing time domain behavior. λ in the damped oscillator equation (particularly relevant to this application) is called the decay constant for a reason.

He recommends you read this.

https://www.cinemasound.com/x-things-dont-know-transient-response/

He's worse at letting things go than I am.

"No one that knows what they're talking about would call it a decay coefficient because if the damping coefficient is negative, then the poles are in the right half plane and the system will oscillate. Therefore a system that oscillates with increasing amplitude doesn't decay. Hence why it's called the damping coefficient. It’s called the damping coefficient for a reason."

And again.

https://www.sweetwater.com/insync/damping-factor/

"The damping factor is the ratio of the load impedance to the source impedance. In other words the speaker impedance over the amp impedance."

Once more.

https://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/index.php/amplifiers/75-amp-tests/149-damping-factor.html

"Damping factor does affect bass quality, but there's little difference between a majority of transistor amplifiers because their use of feedback results in low output impedance, around 0.1ohms and a DF of 40 or more. Very high DF suggests and amplifier uses a lot of feedback."

11 hours ago, Nimrodor said:

See Toole and Olive's "The Modification of Timbre by Resonances: Perception and Measurement". Resonances of the type which are typically measured via CSD are often audible enough to be distinguishable between typical speakers. Even beyond the context of this discussion it's worth a read; it's one of the foundational texts for our modern approach to objective audio design.

I'm definitely not paying $33 for a .pdf from 1988.

His response;

" Yes the term decay is used in certain contexts, like capacitor discharge etc. It is not used in regards to step input transient responses with percent overshoot and settling time. They didn't go through EE. They're jacking terms from other aspects of EE and incorrectly applying them here. It's like saying I looked at the FFT of the speaker and it's fast. It makes zero sense."

In regards of your suggested reading;

"I like how he's trying to tell the tell the EE with over 50 books what's what. I guess I should burn all my books because they're all incorrect. Shit, I've only been using them for 15 years, graduating valedictorian with 10 years of professional experience and promotions. What he should do is go through the entire EE curriculum. He should read books on signals and systems. He won't be able to understand them without prior knowledge such as differential equations and circuit theory."

On 11/26/2021 at 12:43 AM, geo3 said:

It does mean allot. It's a great indicator of how clean a speaker will sound. Also it can reveal if the drivers or cabinet have any resonances at a particular frequency.

It can be used for either rooms or speakers. It works basically the same with slight tweaks to the data collection methodologies. 

It really isn't, unless it's exceptionally shit.

On 11/26/2021 at 12:43 AM, geo3 said:

You can go anechoic. But the more typical and easier is to gate the analysis software to a few ms after the pulse, essentially after the direct signal has hit but before the reflections have a chance to reach the mic.  Now the later way does have the disadvantage being unable to accurately measure the lower frequencies due to the wavelengths being longer than the reflection distance (unless you have a huge room and get the speaker 30ft up off the floor.) Or just go anechoic if you have access to one.  

So it's inaccurate. At the upper ranges it's unimportant because most people won't hear it anyways.

On 11/26/2021 at 12:43 AM, geo3 said:

Factually false. Speaker designers do it. Some people who review or are just interested in the speakers performance also do it. 

Such as?

On 11/26/2021 at 12:43 AM, geo3 said:

Yes, it's I've also heard it called transient response but almost no one uses that term, at least that I know of. They just call it fast. 

So you literally already understand this concept but have been playing dumb for.... what exactly? 

It's not playing dumb, it's calling things by the wrong name. If you want to have a technical discussion you have to use the correct terms. Speaker decay doesn't exist.

Just so I don't make another new post and my buddy is now invested in this, I'm adding this.

"Literally no one measures speaker decay and no one calls it decay. In all EE literature it is called transient response which consists of percent over shoot and settling time. Components such as peak time can be extracted out of this measurement and used in stability analysis in methods such as the root locus. Decay time means absolutely nothing in this context. All audio originates from Electrical Engineering as does most things in todays society. Use the correct terms when having technical discussions and don't make up your own terms."

2 hours ago, King_PIN said:

You guys should see what happens when sub 10hz over 100db is played in a room.  

Forget rattles the house starts to make some real weird sounds and the sensations are absolutely fascinating.   

That (doesn't) sounds awful. Anything over 100db I'm pretty much out.

2 hours ago, King_PIN said:

43 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

For your closet door, I'd try to stick weights onto the door, and stick the hook side of Velcro onto the door in the 2 corners furthest away from the hinges, if it touches wood there. Should make the resonance frequency a bit lower and hopefully cut down on rattles/vibrations.

I could, but considering I don't think I ever noticed it before and I just found out by doing a sine sweep in a mod synth I'm not too bothered by it. It's a bedroom with a cheap setup, not a studio. I'm actually surprised my sub hits 33hz.

20 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

A subwoofer shouldn't really make everything rattle. Isolate the crap out of your loudspeakers. My favourite way to isolate loudspeakers is by using the IsoAcoustic pucks.

 

I can have my Martin Audio subs at full tilt in my listening room and have very little rattling occurring.

It starts getting into what else in your room can rattle. Any windows and doors can start to rattle. Going off his current room and anything like lamps, wall art, etc. can start rattling. It doesn't matter what sub. Everything has it's fundamental frequency and it will start vibrating. Just in my bedroom, my closet door starts rattling pretty hard at 40-45hz. I'd have to remove the door to get rid of the rattle. Doesn't matter what sub you use, it's going to start rattling at 40hz.

This feeds back into an untreated room.

28 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

A Genelec 7360 APM subwoofer. Hits 19Hz at -3dB, plenty of connectivity if you ever wanna go to 5.1 or 7.1, and loud enough.

He said he's only doing music, and while I experiment with surround and ambisonic, it's not near prevalent enough to matter nor recommend. Though the albums that do it right are pretty awesome. I'd say the same for movies. For 90% of movies it's not really worth it as a lot of directors don't care much about audio, or they're heavily dialogue based.

19 minutes ago, Brok3n But who cares? said:

Yip. You have any suggestions for acoustic panels besides GIKacoustics? Gonna be spending a decent chunk of change on treatment

Auralex. But whatever you do isn't going to be cheap, and it's best if possible to rip the walls off and put more isolation and padding in the walls to begin with.

Also, why he get a heart for saying the same thing I've been saying since the beginning with no argument?

Just for posterity, here's why "speaker speed/decay" literally makes zero sense.

Look at the ADSR lights going through the motion, and how shit the signal sounds when the decay is low. Which in terms of speakers, means fuck all, because this is a signal and speaker decay doesn't exist.

12 hours ago, geo3 said:

I doubt your buddy is a gainfully employed sound engineer if he's not familiar with this concept. Maybe they just call it something else?

They don't call it anything, because it doesn't exist. If you can look at the videos above and tell me speaker decay is still a thing that not only exists, but makes sense, I don't know what to tell you. Even if it did, it's not something you would actively want.

What you're failing to attempt to describe is transient response and the settling time of the driver. This would have been less confusing if you knew what you were talking about.

You measure transient response with step pulses in a very well controlled room, with a very sensitive and calibrated mic. You could see the overshoot of the signal and the settle time back to zero. The overshoot is distortion of the signal, so better speakers will be quicker to settle.

Except literally no one does this for speakers.

My buddy, who's not a gainfully employed sound engineer, does this for op amps he designs. It's also used for shocks in mass spring systems, but no manufacturer does it for speakers. From here on it's his fucking nerd talk.

Quote

"Do this real quick to prove it. Calculate 1/20,000 and tell me what you get. Better yet 1/25hz is 0.04 seconds. So you're trying to tell me that these subs won't settle faster than 40ms!!!? Seriously!? Where's the proof? If that were true they wouldn't be in business.

Even at the upper limit of ~200hz it's still 5ms. If shit can't settle by then something is severely fucked."