HT3 vs. HT1 in 5.1 (long post)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 5368 times.

brj

HT3 vs. HT1 in 5.1 (long post)
« Reply #20 on: 3 Jan 2006, 06:45 pm »
Quote from: zybar
I was originally going to use my pair of VMPS Larger subs, but couldn't get them to match up with the HT3's. I think you will have the same issue with the SVS subs.

George, can you expand on this?  What exactly about the sub integration wasn't working?  Speed of the drivers, crossover point/slope, etc.?


Quote from: zybar
When Jim showed me a model of the sub I wanted it was flat down to 14Hz!!!

Sounds impressive!  How physically large was this sub concept?


Thanks!

DMurphy

  • Industry Participant
  • Posts: 1478
    • SalkSound
HT3 vs. HT1 in 5.1 (long post)
« Reply #21 on: 3 Jan 2006, 07:40 pm »
Quote from: David Ellis
Yep, many folks have benefited largely from the Dennis Murphy (aka The Godfather), and his professional vocation.  His professional position prohobits him from making any profit from his hifi labors.  Dennis has spent easily 150+hrs with me, and I am sure this number is similar for Jim.]  

I haven't been paid in cash--but have received beautiful cabinets from Dave and Jim.  Plus the satisfaction of having my work showcased so well by these gentlemen.


Quote
 I think Dennis's dogs were trained by that RCA dog.

I can assure you--Dennis's dogs have not been trained period.

jackman

HT3 vs. HT1 in 5.1 (long post)
« Reply #22 on: 3 Jan 2006, 09:24 pm »
Quote from: David Ellis
Yep, many folks have benefited largely from the Dennis Murphy (aka The Godfather), and his professional vocation.  His professional position prohobits him from making any profit from his hifi labors.  Dennis has spent easily 150+hrs with me, and I am sure this number is similar for Jim.  

I think Dennis's dogs continue to apprecaite their master's work.  When I visited with Dennis the dogs seemed to utter a pleasing sigh following each MLS sweep  :) , and a sublime howl when phase and amplitude were correct.  :) .  I think Dennis's dogs were trained by that RCA dog.


It's really good to see guys like Dennis and Jim finally get the credit and respect they deserve.  I'd also include Dave Ellis in the mix!  :D   All of the people mentioned represent the best this hobby has to offer.  They are honest, talented and extremely helpful...oh, and hard working!  Plus, they are all involved in helping regular people (and irregular folks like Marbles  :D ) achieve performance levels at prices that were unheard of in the past.  

I look forward to the great products these guys will create in 2006 and beyond!  

Cheers,

Jack

zybar

HT3 vs. HT1 in 5.1 (long post)
« Reply #23 on: 3 Jan 2006, 09:49 pm »
Quote from: brj
Quote from: zybar
I was originally going to use my pair of VMPS Larger subs, but couldn't get them to match up with the HT3's. I think you will have the same issue with the SVS subs.

George, can you expand on this?  What exactly about the sub integration wasn't working?  Speed of the drivers, crossover point/slope, etc.?


Quote from: zybar
When Jim showed me a model of the sub I wanted it was flat down to 14Hz!!!

Sounds impressive!  How physically large was this sub concept?


Thanks!


I tried different crossover points, slopes, etc... via the TacT.  Yet everybody who came over could hear the sub as a seperate entity from the main speakers.  The subs just sounded slow and thick compared to the HT3's.

I will need to dig up the specs on the sub.  It wasn't small, but neither were the VMPS subs...

George

JoshK

HT3 vs. HT1 in 5.1 (long post)
« Reply #24 on: 3 Jan 2006, 10:50 pm »
sounds like a group delay issue...  room acoustics can make sub integration quite difficult adding another variable to an already complex problem.

zybar

HT3 vs. HT1 in 5.1 (long post)
« Reply #25 on: 3 Jan 2006, 10:55 pm »
Quote from: JoshK
sounds like a group delay issue...  room acoustics can make sub integration quite difficult adding another variable to an already complex problem.


Josh,

Might have been, but I had no problem integrating the subs with the RM 40's.  Could it simply be that since the 40's and Larger used similar drivers that it was easier to integrate?

According to my measurements things were time and phased aligned (or darn close).

In general, the sound of the HT3 is very different from the RM 40.  So I wasn't exactly suprised with the integration issues.

George

ctviggen

  • Full Member
  • Posts: 5087
HT3 vs. HT1 in 5.1 (long post)
« Reply #26 on: 4 Jan 2006, 08:50 am »
It would be interesting to perform a square wave analysis of the HT3s and the Largers.  I'd bet the woofers in the HT3s are simply faster.  If that's the case, digital room correction cannot change that.  I also wonder about Qs of these speakers and what the effect of Q is on integration.  For instance, is it easier to integrate a sub having a Q that's about the same as the speaker?  While Largers are designed to be adjustable in Q, that adjustability is limited and likely over a small range.  Anyone know what the Q of the HT3s is?  

I think that DRC, while beneficial, has its limits -- it can't change the physics under which speakers operate.  Perhaps that's the case here.  Another limit to DRC is its total reliance on linear systems -- any non-linear parameter (such as the transient response of a woofer) cannot be modified by DRC.  In fact, it can't even be modeled by DRC.