Question Help needed . Marty sub crossover settings No punch out of sub just low bass

The subs natural response dictates how it sounds, or how it's character sounds. How it responds under load largely boils down distortion, or rather how much it initially produces and by how much this increases as you ask more of the sub.

In the case of the sub in this thread, the issue isnt that the op's sub is struggling under load, rather, it's that it's character sounds heavily ULF bias to the detriment of mid range punch. In a sealed sub you would put this down to a very low Q value, which is accurate but lacking in what is usually referred to a mid bass punch. Ported subs dont have a fixed Q value, but you can subjectively compare how they sound in those terms if you have that familiarity. It's something I've experienced directly and discussed on many occasions over the years and it's where I would but my money in respect of this thread.
 
In room FR is what matters for that point
But the point I'm making is that a measured in room FR tells you nothing about the quality of bass reproduced or what the characteristic sound/nature of that subwoofer will be. Simply aiming for a flat in room FR isn't going to do much to change the ULF focused nature of the subwoofer.
 
Just years I spent in the car audio business my own ears and personal builds
A properly designed ported sub (low tune, large box, sufficient port area) will be equally, if not better for music (lower distortion) than a sealed sub.
 
A properly designed ported sub (low tune, large box, sufficient port area) will be equally, if not better for music (lower distortion) than a sealed sub.
A ported sub may have lower distortion in the ports bandpass, but the added resonances inherant in ported subwoofers and the out of phase component of the port usually put accuracy in the favour of sealed subs, as long as your sealed subwoofer isnt struggling. I only use sealed subs for that reason, and use multiples to make up the difference in output. It's more expensive, but I prefer it over any ported design Ive ever heard.
 
But the point I'm making is that a measured in room FR tells you nothing about the quality of bass reproduced or what the characteristic sound/nature of that subwoofer will be. Simply aiming for a flat in room FR isn't going to do much to change the ULF focused nature of the subwoofer.
yes I understand your point & I don't agree with it.

It's also largely irrelevant to the OP who, based on the slightly difficult to read graphs presented, simply has a setup/integration problem
 
A ported sub may have lower distortion in the ports bandpass, but the added resonances inherant in ported subwoofers and the out of phase component of the port usually put accuracy in the favour of sealed subs, as long as your sealed subwoofer isnt struggling. I only use sealed subs for that reason, and use multiples to make up the difference in output. It's more expensive, but I prefer it over any ported design Ive ever heard.
Again, a properly designed low ported sub will make these issues moot. If low tuned, yes the port throws out of phase sound out, but it will be indaudible at these frequencies anyway. Group delay in the musical region +40hz will be similar to a sealed sub, and port resonances will be out the pass and anyway, and therefore inaudible. There’s really no benefit in this regard to sealed, unless size is an issue or you want sub 15hz extension!
 
I would agree with this to an extent, that a flat response should sound the same regardless of the sub, but you aren’t taking other factors into consideration. 2 18s playing at 110db will sound better and less strained than 1 12 playing at 110db, even if they both measure flat. Likewise I tend to believe that higher efficiency pro drivers, sound better in the mid bass region, as they suffer less from thermal compression and take less power to get to the same spl, again reducing distortion, which further translates to better dynamics and transients or ‘tightness’ (a word which I don’t tend to use as it offers no real insight into what is being described). It has been linked above, using the example of PSA, that higher efficiency pro drivers sound cleaner than high excursion drivers, even if they are both EQ’d to the same response curve.

I don't disagree. I was definitely way too simplistic with my statement and should definitely have included phase/group delay and THD. That said I'm not so confident that it makes all that much difference in reality. Don't get me wrong, they DO make a difference but I'm wondering how much of a difference they make these days as there's a line I'm not sure you ever cross. That line defines differences you can hear and ones you can't.

As I said in an amp thread, you CAN make some horrendous choices and make things accidentally (or even purposely) sound different but generally that's not the goal. In a sub if you want very high SPL at a low frequency then you don't chose a single 12" driver. Of course you CAN do it but why on earth would you do so out of choice?

In your example, if you want 110dB you wouldn't, normally, choose a 12" driver or small enclosure as that's not going to get you to 110dB down low. Conversley if you did, you'd have to accept the comprmises that limited space comes with. So sure, a single 12 is absolutely not going to sound as good as dual 18's down low at 110dB's

Now on the other hand, if you were to compare 110dB on a dual 18" over a single 21" measured flat in enclosures designed to match the speakers parameters then I'd start scratching my chin and doubting things. I doubt, in use, there will be any audible difference between them. Could you get an audible difference? Sure, just making a cabinet too small of constructing it badly will do that for you. Or make the ports the wrong size. Or any one of a hundred things you could do to make that difference but in reality you never would.

But moving away from the theoretical the reality is you'd stand on the shoulders of giants and you'd most likely build one of the very well designed "DIY" subs using one of the well designed for purpose speakers. For the vast majority, they don't know or really care because frankly unless you're going to go into it with the sort of depth @mattkhan goes into it (and he REALLY does know his stuff) most people just want to build a great performing box cheap (or at least much cheaper than a commercial sub or equivalent performance would). Those designs, generally, don't suffer from any of these problems.

With the internet the way it is, the free and easily available wealth of information and the ability to get plans, designs and builds that have been designed by, in many cases, experts in the field I think we are broadly past "bad" designs and builds. That's not to say designs can't be improved it's to say that on the whole we've never been in a better place with audio where even the entry level really is exceptional high and higher than most people can appreciate.

As I said I don't obsess over this but it's an interesting discussion.

G
 
A ported sub may have lower distortion in the ports bandpass, but the added resonances inherant in ported subwoofers and the out of phase component of the port usually put accuracy in the favour of sealed subs, as long as your sealed subwoofer isnt struggling. I only use sealed subs for that reason, and use multiples to make up the difference in output. It's more expensive, but I prefer it over any ported design Ive ever heard.

Completely and provably wrong. @Liammonty123 is absolutely correct.

This may have been right 20+ years ago but today a well designed ported sub is every bit as good at music as a sealed. The sealed will extend lower and takes up less space but that's really it these days. There is very little to pick between them and certainly not music performance.

G
 
Hows about actually helping the OP out instead of trying to prove each other wrong.
This used to be a great forum but appears like most things it's gone to shit.
Arrogance is not wanted, good luck OP I hope you get it sorted.
Think I'll disappear for another few years.
 
Hows about actually helping the OP out instead of trying to prove each other wrong.
This used to be a great forum but appears like most things it's gone to sh*t.
Arrogance is not wanted, good luck OP I hope you get it sorted.
Think I'll disappear for another few years.
Admittedly the thread has gone slightly off topic. But it’s unhelpful when you make suggestions based on outdated myths, that is what we are trying to disprove, don’t confuse this with arrogance
 
Hows about actually helping the OP out instead of trying to prove each other wrong.
This used to be a great forum but appears like most things it's gone to sh*t.
Arrogance is not wanted, good luck OP I hope you get it sorted.
Think I'll disappear for another few years.

With that kind of attitude it's probably for the best.

I have helped the OP in a number of posts (as I have helped 100's of others). With his latest posts I can't offer any more than others have already done (and the likes of mattkhan are far more of an expert than me). In conjunction with that, as @Liammonty123 remarks, you don't want to be sending the OP down some rabbit hole based on outdated myths.

Plus it's called discussion and debate - you know that thing you do when you're trying to work things out? Would you prefer to let the OP work out the wheat from the chaff instead? Waste countless hours (or big money) chasing a "solution" that doesn't exist? Seemingly so.

G
 
A ported sub may have lower distortion in the ports bandpass, but the added resonances inherant in ported subwoofers and the out of phase component of the port usually put accuracy in the favour of sealed subs, as long as your sealed subwoofer isnt struggling. I only use sealed subs for that reason, and use multiples to make up the difference in output. It's more expensive, but I prefer it over any ported design Ive ever heard.

I was having a look around this morning and I thought this might be of interest to you @D1gita1 (and others).


I'm not a fan of Audioholics usually as they're a little too far into audio quackery for my liking. That said this is a better written article from them and pretty much sums up exactly what @Liammonty123 and I have been saying.

G
 
Thanks for your help guys but please don’t fall out over this . Will try again tomorrow and see what I can come up with . After I try set up REW and try work our final settings on the inuke do I then re use odyssey and re calibrate the denon 3600 .
 
yes I understand your point & I don't agree with it.

It's also largely irrelevant to the OP who, based on the slightly difficult to read graphs presented, simply has a setup/integration problem
Matt if I managed to get a clearer picture of the graph could you please have a quick look at it and try help me with the next step please .
 
Matt if I managed to get a clearer picture of the graph could you please have a quick look at it and try help me with the next step please .
unlikely, it's a time consuming thing to walk through sub setup so probably best to post on a thread with some traffic where you can get comments from multiple people
 
High builder my current setup is a SI HT18 mini Marty currently powered by the NX 3000 non dsp.
Wired at 4 ohms in bridged mode, I also use a umik1 and mini dsp 2x4 balanced for EQ.
Mine was pretty straight forward to eq, i setup the mic took some readings with rew ( which was simple enough) rew then set 2 filters through the EQ tab.
I then simply wrote that file to the mini DSP, the sub is plenty powerful enough with slam and low down grunt, i think your problem may lie with the dsp version of the amp.
As I dont own a dsp version I cant help with the configuration of it, it may be worth reading through threads related to that amp and its setup.
If you dont find anything here head over to avs forums I'm sure you will find something there, especially buried deep inside the Marty threads.
Good luck buddy.
 
High builder my current setup is a SI HT18 mini Marty currently powered by the NX 3000 non dsp.
Wired at 4 ohms in bridged mode, I also use a umik1 and mini dsp 2x4 balanced for EQ.
Mine was pretty straight forward to eq, i setup the mic took some readings with rew ( which was simple enough) rew then set 2 filters through the EQ tab.
I then simply wrote that file to the mini DSP, the sub is plenty powerful enough with slam and low down grunt, i think your problem may lie with the dsp version of the amp.
As I dont own a dsp version I cant help with the configuration of it, it may be worth reading through threads related to that amp and its setup.
If you dont find anything here head over to avs forums I'm sure you will find something there, especially buried deep inside the Marty threads.
Good luck buddy.


Thank you

Getting some amazing help and advice from a forum member who has been calling throughout the day and helping me step by step . we are slowly making progress . Will keep at it till it’s perfect 👍
 
Ok I’m
Slowly getting there .
After lots of phone calls with the brilliant forum member “ RINGNUT” I’m
Getting a lot closer to my goal on this sub . Couple questions please .

After re running calibration on the denon the amp is asking me to set the sub gain on the inuke at 75db so just after half volume knob of the inuke 3000dsp

After calibration the amp is giving me a -8,5 after its calibrated . Is this ok

Also when you are asked what amp you have what is the inuke listed as . So far it’s set to dcx2496 Is this right also .

Will try upload my graphs later for you guys to look at .

Would just like to say Thankyou for the advise don’t far especially RINGNUT . Could not of got this far without it .
E7C4EC4C-FE53-4274-A47F-C3C0F3CE4C08.jpeg
 
I was having a look around this morning and I thought this might be of interest to you @D1gita1 (and others).


I'm not a fan of Audioholics usually as they're a little too far into audio quackery for my liking. That said this is a better written article from them and pretty much sums up exactly what @Liammonty123 and I have been saying.

G
I won't take the thread any more off topic but I've been building subs for over ten years and have a wealth of experience to draw from. I'm well aware of the merits of all designs. I have yet to hear a single ported subwoofer that is able to completely match a high quality sealed sub, IKO of course. I can always tell a ported sub is ported, and it's why I don't use them, even though I've built several and heard a lot more. This is a debate that's circled forever and I'm sure will continue to do so, but for another thread perhaps. I'm not hating on ported subs either, I do recommend them and know very good ones exist.
 
So I take it you have now got the rew software and umik 1 setup on a PC and can take readings etc.
If you can do the above your half way there, your issues are now related to the nx3000d and its configuration.
Take some rew readings find the correct dsp model and let it automatically set filters, you just need to figure out how to write these to the amps dsp, as I said I use a mini dsp and its relatively simple.
 
So I take it you have now got the rew software and umik 1 setup on a PC and can take readings etc.
If you can do the above your half way there, your issues are now related to the nx3000d and its configuration.
Take some rew readings find the correct dsp model and let it automatically set filters, you just need to figure out how to write these to the amps dsp, as I said I use a mini dsp and its relatively simple.

Yes, that is where Highbuilder has got to now. I was uncertain as to which setting was appropriate for the iNuke 3000 and guessed at DCX2496. Anyone know if that is correct?
 
I have Highbuilder's permission to publish these. :)

FWIW this is an early sweep of his centre/sub prior to Audyssey taken from his MLP. His sub is situated behind his MLP in the rear/right corner of his room.

Highbuilder centre + sub pre calibration.jpg
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom