ASIO on Win 7 or 10 worked fine with Focusrite in either REW or RMAA for measuring my amps. After I installed Jriver, it seems like the sound generator (DAC) had a lot of distortion - I could see huge distortion. At first I thought my amp went bad. But then did a loopback and distortion still there. Then looked at sine wave on O-scope and it was visibly distorted - like some sort of background processing was occurring in Jriver that I could not turn off. What was worse, it was intermittent and dependent on the actual USB port you plugged into. Once I uninstalled and wiped registry entries manually all was normal again. Uninstalling Jriver did not work. Had to search registry and manually delete all entries associated with Jriver. Strange but leaves me only choice of not putting Jriver in my measuremt machine which I depend on daily for testing amps.
Hi X,
Think really not you should be afraid of JRiver as culprit, myself have it running on four computers and ever weird thing experienced is the thing that a RMAA startup will trigger startup up JRiver too and probably because of when JRiver vitual soundcard "WDM driver" is installed (the one fluid call loopback driver), think what you experienced was crosslinked port or interface corruption in registry and that can happen because its a mess when 3-4 programs try have exclusive access via WASAPI and ASIO and at same soundcard is remove-able and it can happen you by accident pulled it when a program actual used it or cable connection was bit loose without knowing.
Suggest install JRiver again and use it for its quality its good at playing bit perfect stream and hinder any sample rate conversion takes place adding measureable distortion and ruin how tracks was suppose to be listened with right DAC reconstruction filters.
Because RMAA/REW/JRIVER take exclusive access suggest be serious use only one at a time and insure USB cable is safe connected and never pulled under operation, there is one exception and that is actual you can have JRiver open with other program because it only takes exclusive access when you hit play button and release soundcard again when one hit stop, but that's not the same for RMMA and REW they will both probe sondcard at startup and REW continuously lock it even one does not sweep.
Think really not you should be afraid of JRiver as culprit, myself have it running on four computers and ever weird thing experienced is the thing that a RMAA startup will trigger startup up JRiver too and probably because of when JRiver vitual soundcard "WDM driver" is installed (the one fluid call loopback driver), think what you experienced was crosslinked port or interface corruption in registry and that can happen because its a mess when 3-4 programs try have exclusive access via WASAPI and ASIO and at same soundcard is remove-able and it can happen you by accident pulled it when a program actual used it or cable connection was bit loose without knowing.
Suggest install JRiver again and use it for its quality its good at playing bit perfect stream and hinder any sample rate conversion takes place adding measureable distortion and ruin how tracks was suppose to be listened with right DAC reconstruction filters.
Because RMAA/REW/JRIVER take exclusive access suggest be serious use only one at a time and insure USB cable is safe connected and never pulled under operation, there is one exception and that is actual you can have JRiver open with other program because it only takes exclusive access when you hit play button and release soundcard again when one hit stop, but that's not the same for RMMA and REW they will both probe sondcard at startup and REW continuously lock it even one does not sweep.
*snipped*
Curious about this one. What was the configuration of the LX521 [front wall distance, side wall distance, LR spacing, side wall toe in angle]
Curious about this one. What was the configuration of the LX521 [front wall distance, side wall distance, LR spacing, side wall toe in angle]
Maybe pictures will do instead, the 90 degree nulls were aimed at the TV unit and toed in so back of drivers pointed at the wall corners.
Arrays are 1.3m from side walls, 0.5m from front. LX521 probably closer to 1m from sides and bit further forward. Frequency response is likely the main culprit as I can also make the arrays sound rough with the wrong EQ. The extra room contribution from not being able to have the speakers as far from the walls as I would like is my bet for the other. Putting foam sheets against the front wall towards the corners had a noticeable reduction in the amount of perceived reverb on drums.
Thanks for the pics.
My understanding, is the LX dipole design's 90deg "nulls" minimize lateral reflections from the side walls. The front wall reflections (rear lobe) require a min distance or wall treatment. Given these are in place, it also has multi way drivers that should perform better than a full range driver.
I have no doubt the LAs sound good and look good. So don't take this as criticism, its not. The LX should have a flatter wider freq response than your LA, as it has more specialized multiway drivers. Probably lower distortion as well, as the drivers are optimized for their operating band. Could it be the LA sound field shape (semi cylindrical) that makes it sound better?.
My understanding, is the LX dipole design's 90deg "nulls" minimize lateral reflections from the side walls. The front wall reflections (rear lobe) require a min distance or wall treatment. Given these are in place, it also has multi way drivers that should perform better than a full range driver.
I have no doubt the LAs sound good and look good. So don't take this as criticism, its not. The LX should have a flatter wider freq response than your LA, as it has more specialized multiway drivers. Probably lower distortion as well, as the drivers are optimized for their operating band. Could it be the LA sound field shape (semi cylindrical) that makes it sound better?.
Not with the DRC treatment fluid is playing with... Did you see his previous post regarding the FR curve he has in this untreated room? But I do agree that a LA with no help does not sound particularly good indeed.
Nope again. 25 drivers sharing the load will certainly have a much lower distortion than 3... but then again, some measurements would confirm or refute this.
The 25-driver LA will have mirror images from floor and ceiling, so not cylindrical.
Jim Griffin's white papers on LA is a very interesting read... if you have an hour or so to spend on reading about line arrays.
Last edited:
I'm not questioning the LA theory or experience. There are many here, including pioneers like @wesayso that have successful LAs.
The Jim Griffin paper is a good read. The floor and ceiling images are the vertical portions. The horizonal pattern is the same as the driver (front lobe), so you get a cylindrical shape, and that's in Jim's paper and Toole's book.
What I was very interested in, was the comparison to the LX521, which is generally raved about for its sound quality. @fluid now has both working so he can compare them.
The Jim Griffin paper is a good read. The floor and ceiling images are the vertical portions. The horizonal pattern is the same as the driver (front lobe), so you get a cylindrical shape, and that's in Jim's paper and Toole's book.
What I was very interested in, was the comparison to the LX521, which is generally raved about for its sound quality. @fluid now has both working so he can compare them.
DonVK,
Think would mention if you didn't know that TC9 even its relative cheap driver unit its very well behaved smooth little performer documented by many builders and sites.
Back at post 601 countryman of your member opc had these description compared to other quality units (link post 601: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...c9-line-array-cnc-cabinet-61.html#post5108087).
Think would mention if you didn't know that TC9 even its relative cheap driver unit its very well behaved smooth little performer documented by many builders and sites.
Back at post 601 countryman of your member opc had these description compared to other quality units (link post 601: http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...c9-line-array-cnc-cabinet-61.html#post5108087).
My single favorite trait of the line array is the impeccable low frequency integration. I've had dual B&C 21" subwoofers in both vented and sealed enclosures, dual 10" Peerless driver setups, a pair of 18" Goldwood drivers in H-frames, quad CSS 10" woofer setups, and even a setup with a pair of those crazy 12" backwards Volt drivers. Absolutely none of the above could produce bass as effortlessly and as perfectly integrated as the arrays. The B&C drivers were capable of more output, but certainly not more quality. If all you want is output, then there are very cheap solutions out there which can get you just that. I don't think that's the purpose of this thread.
After the massive success of the arrays I decided that maybe I could do one better with a pair of RD-75 drivers and the right subwoofer setup. The RD-75 drivers do give the arrays a run for their money above about 800Hz, but getting subwoofers to integrate properly was impossible, and I tried pretty much everything. The lowest you can cross the RD-75s is at about 175Hz, and you need a 4th order, and still need to limit output. Crossing any subwoofer that high, especially when it's crossing to a line array, is a very bad idea. At the end of the whole thing, I sold the RD-75s, kept the TC9 arrays, and the subs are current sitting unused in my garage
Fluid, you have LX521s? Wow, would love to hear your thoughts on how the arrays compare. I've heard the LX521s at Burning Amp and they were superb. What we do using targets and DSP, Linkwitz does using his ear and math skills! I was really impressed with the LX521s, but I bet the arrays can hold their own and probably better it in some regards.
Apologies in advance for a long disjointed post with too many quotes
The dipole pattern gives a figure of 8 so there are nulls to either side. I aim the inside ones at the TV to reduce interaction from them and the the outside ones will reduce side wall interaction. The front wall is the closest and I try to deal with that by toe in aiming the bulk of the rear figure eight response into the corners to give the greatest distance. The fact that placing foam sheets (at the points where the wall is closest) has an effect on the perceived reverb says to me the distance really should be greater for my taste.
That is why I say that I think they would be better in a bigger room or with damping behind them. Most of this is track / genre specific though. Orchestral or acoustic music that has "space" in the recordings sound really great on the LX521 with very minimal EQ that is designed into the system already.
As to being flatter without any assistance the LX's surely are. There is a built in HF shelving tilt that can be removed. It is too bright with it off, again that could be my room as it has a pretty high RT60 in the HF's. Wider, maybe, but not anywhere that matters to me and we would be talking the extremes of the audible range.
As you can see from the last graph I do not like the FR to be flat. It took a long time and lots of trial and error to arrive at the target curve and it probably still could be better here and there. I have tried all different types of responses and DRC parameters, I currently have 39 convolver filters that I have actually listened to. Many more virtually created that didn't make it for one reason or another. To me flat is not anywhere near "right".
Both are great speakers, I also have an early generation Orion without the rear firing tweeter which when given the EQ tilt of LX521 and driven with the same amps is very very similar sounding. There is something that I like more about the Orion being dipole only to 1.6K. But the LX521 does sound a little better overall. I glued my LX521 tweeters in so I can't easily turn off the back one to see if that would be more to my liking. Plus it only runs from 6.7K up.
I don't know what sort of music is being demoed on the LX521's at shows but I suspect it is not Iron Maiden, Motley Crue, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Megadeth, Pantera, Anthrax etc.
On acoustic music the added reverb sound of the dipoles is very attractive. SL is an acoustic / orchestral fan so it is no surprise that his speakers favour those types of music.
There is a ton of processing being done on the arrays based on measurements and listening to make it what I want it to be. There are still things which I wish were better in the arrays. There is something missing in the bass after the phase correction and EQ but every time I try to add it back I lose something good about what the processing did to the clarity and balance. My last rephase tweak go me closer without losing something. I have a feeling that it could be an either or situation.
I am very tempted to try the LX521 woofers with the arrays and some processing to see what I can come up with but just like measuring and tweaking the LX521's with DSP it is a project for another day and probably not anytime soon.
I have also thought about making an active monitor style speaker like the Grimm audio LS1 with a wide baffle and rounded edges with the Orion Drivers and a 10F as midrange and maybe a waveguide on the tweeter. I also have the parts for Synergy horns, so many ideas so little time....
The arrays have given me what I was aiming for. A living room speaker that does not take up much space, does not need a subwoofer for music and sounds tonally very similar (now better) to my headphones and sounds that way on the bulk of my music collection not only a few special tracks. In that role the arrays are more successful than LX521 or Orion and therefore better.
In a different room or with enough time and effort to adjust the LX521's perhaps they can be as good or better overall. They certainly are a top class speaker. Maybe one day I will have the answer.
I really don't know the answer to the question "why". Is it the radiation pattern, is it the EQ and target, is it the impulse response correction, is it the way the speaker interacts with the room, is it the coherency from all drivers being the same. I don't know. I suspect the frequency response would even out the differences quite a lot.
What I do know is that a multiway speaker will need a different set of DRC parameters and a lot of time and effort to find out what they are.
I think that the speaker and the room need to be considered together and that it is hard to separate them. In an untreated room an averaged measurement has provided a very good base for correction for me. Removing most of the room from the measurement worked much better. That could also be done through physical means (treatment) and the end result of that is probably better but not necessarily a reality for everyone.
It is perhaps a similar method to Harman's listening window measurement but done in your own room.
The dipole pattern gives a figure of 8 so there are nulls to either side. I aim the inside ones at the TV to reduce interaction from them and the the outside ones will reduce side wall interaction. The front wall is the closest and I try to deal with that by toe in aiming the bulk of the rear figure eight response into the corners to give the greatest distance. The fact that placing foam sheets (at the points where the wall is closest) has an effect on the perceived reverb says to me the distance really should be greater for my taste.
That is why I say that I think they would be better in a bigger room or with damping behind them. Most of this is track / genre specific though. Orchestral or acoustic music that has "space" in the recordings sound really great on the LX521 with very minimal EQ that is designed into the system already.
As to being flatter without any assistance the LX's surely are. There is a built in HF shelving tilt that can be removed. It is too bright with it off, again that could be my room as it has a pretty high RT60 in the HF's. Wider, maybe, but not anywhere that matters to me and we would be talking the extremes of the audible range.
As you can see from the last graph I do not like the FR to be flat. It took a long time and lots of trial and error to arrive at the target curve and it probably still could be better here and there. I have tried all different types of responses and DRC parameters, I currently have 39 convolver filters that I have actually listened to. Many more virtually created that didn't make it for one reason or another. To me flat is not anywhere near "right".
Measurements would help but I don't have the ones that are needed yet. Harmonic distortion is low in both, I would suspect that intermodulation / frequency modulation type distortion will be higher in the array and would be amazed if it was not. I do not like the sound of either speaker when turned up to what I would call loud, I think that is me though because I haven't heard any speaker in a room that I really liked loud. It is possible that I am getting into higher levels of amplifier distortion with the arrays due to the level of boost and cut to get the right frequency response but I doubt it as wesayso is running with 100W and I have about 200W available before distortion rises in the amp.
Both are great speakers, I also have an early generation Orion without the rear firing tweeter which when given the EQ tilt of LX521 and driven with the same amps is very very similar sounding. There is something that I like more about the Orion being dipole only to 1.6K. But the LX521 does sound a little better overall. I glued my LX521 tweeters in so I can't easily turn off the back one to see if that would be more to my liking. Plus it only runs from 6.7K up.
I don't know what sort of music is being demoed on the LX521's at shows but I suspect it is not Iron Maiden, Motley Crue, Aerosmith, Bon Jovi, Megadeth, Pantera, Anthrax etc.
On acoustic music the added reverb sound of the dipoles is very attractive. SL is an acoustic / orchestral fan so it is no surprise that his speakers favour those types of music.
There is a ton of processing being done on the arrays based on measurements and listening to make it what I want it to be. There are still things which I wish were better in the arrays. There is something missing in the bass after the phase correction and EQ but every time I try to add it back I lose something good about what the processing did to the clarity and balance. My last rephase tweak go me closer without losing something. I have a feeling that it could be an either or situation.
I am very tempted to try the LX521 woofers with the arrays and some processing to see what I can come up with but just like measuring and tweaking the LX521's with DSP it is a project for another day and probably not anytime soon.
I have also thought about making an active monitor style speaker like the Grimm audio LS1 with a wide baffle and rounded edges with the Orion Drivers and a 10F as midrange and maybe a waveguide on the tweeter. I also have the parts for Synergy horns, so many ideas so little time....
The arrays have given me what I was aiming for. A living room speaker that does not take up much space, does not need a subwoofer for music and sounds tonally very similar (now better) to my headphones and sounds that way on the bulk of my music collection not only a few special tracks. In that role the arrays are more successful than LX521 or Orion and therefore better.
In a different room or with enough time and effort to adjust the LX521's perhaps they can be as good or better overall. They certainly are a top class speaker. Maybe one day I will have the answer.
I really don't know the answer to the question "why". Is it the radiation pattern, is it the EQ and target, is it the impulse response correction, is it the way the speaker interacts with the room, is it the coherency from all drivers being the same. I don't know. I suspect the frequency response would even out the differences quite a lot.
What I do know is that a multiway speaker will need a different set of DRC parameters and a lot of time and effort to find out what they are.
I think that the speaker and the room need to be considered together and that it is hard to separate them. In an untreated room an averaged measurement has provided a very good base for correction for me. Removing most of the room from the measurement worked much better. That could also be done through physical means (treatment) and the end result of that is probably better but not necessarily a reality for everyone.
It is perhaps a similar method to Harman's listening window measurement but done in your own room.
If you ask me, that last point is a very valid one. One that I have advertised more than once.
Treat the speaker + room as one system. Optimize it as such and you'll get ahead.
Sometimes it may seem I am a spokesperson for arrays and arrays only. That's not entirely true. The reason I seem to defend arrays is because that's what I could fit and make to work in my room.
I'm pretty sure other types of speakers can be made to work too, chances are they need more space and/or more treatment to optimize them in the room they are in. For my space, the arrays made a lot more sense. small footprint but powerful and dynamic sound. Only 3 damping panels needed to optimize it's behavior within the room.
I don't know if it's viable at one point or another, fluid. Taking care of the largest reflections could help get you even closer to seamless sound. Even better if you'd add ambient speakers to play with. definitely one of my most fun experiments. One that could be made to suit the genre, for acoustic/orchestral work some small changes can make it very persuasive.
Can you try the arrays with movies? If you can, they are a lot of fun that way! Just yesterday I've been busy to setup my HT mode again. Small changes were done in mid/side EQ compared to the Stereo setup and my ambient speakers double as surround. It does tell me my TV is too small.
In an ideal world I'd need a real big-screen.
Treat the speaker + room as one system. Optimize it as such and you'll get ahead.
Sometimes it may seem I am a spokesperson for arrays and arrays only. That's not entirely true. The reason I seem to defend arrays is because that's what I could fit and make to work in my room.
I'm pretty sure other types of speakers can be made to work too, chances are they need more space and/or more treatment to optimize them in the room they are in. For my space, the arrays made a lot more sense. small footprint but powerful and dynamic sound. Only 3 damping panels needed to optimize it's behavior within the room.
I don't know if it's viable at one point or another, fluid. Taking care of the largest reflections could help get you even closer to seamless sound. Even better if you'd add ambient speakers to play with. definitely one of my most fun experiments. One that could be made to suit the genre, for acoustic/orchestral work some small changes can make it very persuasive.
Can you try the arrays with movies? If you can, they are a lot of fun that way! Just yesterday I've been busy to setup my HT mode again. Small changes were done in mid/side EQ compared to the Stereo setup and my ambient speakers double as surround. It does tell me my TV is too small.
In an ideal world I'd need a real big-screen.
Last edited:
Having seen the measurements and listened to what is possible with DRC then yes, taking care of the first reflections would be the way forward. I have never been against the idea but it is not a must do for now. Ambient speakers are interesting and I can see the possibilities but again not on my immediate list.
I could if I set up Kodi on the computer but I haven't watched a movie for over a year (unless I am on an aeroplane) as I don't often get two hours to watch them anymore.
The ambient speakers could bring you what the LX does at will. It isn't a fake surround. It is used to enhance what's coming from the front. It is definitely a recommended upgrade for enjoyment.
Isn't JRiver capable enough as a movie player? I love that part of JRiver, but then again I do have a very powerful graphics card to be able to fine tune the experience.
As a sound experience, the movie "Rush" is recommended. The start of those engines just before a race is a tremendous experience. No need to see the movie, just skip to the best parts.
Isn't JRiver capable enough as a movie player? I love that part of JRiver, but then again I do have a very powerful graphics card to be able to fine tune the experience.
As a sound experience, the movie "Rush" is recommended. The start of those engines just before a race is a tremendous experience. No need to see the movie, just skip to the best parts
.Probably but then I would need another DAC and amp in the system and need to be able to place them in the right position and run wires around. Depending on the room layout that is less attractive. I wanted simpler, it is the same as the damping. Your room layout actually works well for both, mine not so much. It is not that I doubt either would be an improvement as everything you have said improved your setup has worked for me. For now it is not something I am in a position to do.
Jriver as a player is fine, but as an interface it is hopeless. I tried it and didn't like it. Kodi with a decent skin is a very slick interface and that is important to me, I don't like it when things look bad
To be honest the overall interface in Jriver is not to my liking but it is the best option as far as functionality goes and Jremote does a good job to control everything. The inbuilt graphics in the new NUC chip is more than enough I don't worry about tweaking the video quality. I usually watch TV shows streamed via a Cubox-i.
Apologies in advance for a long disjointed post with too many quotes
A good description of the differences. If there was a clear winner, all designs would converge, and then we'd all buy "it".
** snip ** snip **
My Omni's shine with acoustic / orchestra as well. I also generate lateral reflections that make it sound more natural. I have compared them to upmixed 4.0 stereo to create the side fields as well.
** snip ** snip **
That sounds like success to me. It would be interesting if catch yourself switching between systems to occasionally get a different sound. Two good systems should be enjoyed.
I have different setups for different purposes. They sound different and I switch between them for that reason. I suspect that even if the FR is the same, but the radiation pattern is different it will sound different.
** snip **
Echoing other comments, I agree that the speaker and room are one system. What is interesting in your comparison is that you have a) low cost mono driver LA + DSP compared to b) higher cost multiway driver dipole + active XO. The cost of DSP processing can be cheap (or free with your PC) and may be required anyways for DRC for either system. Even a dedicated $50 Rpi3B can easily run a large convolution based filter. That holds promise for making gains on any moderately priced driver. It also seems to me, that in both cases, a specialized driver (sub) is still required for really low end.
Not likely at this stage as there is only room for one or the other so switching becomes a rather physical activity. Moving 7ft towers is a bit of a mission and the LX521 woofer boxes are a rather solid 30Kg each. I do hope to eventually get a dedicated listening space where that could be a reality. Auditory memory is very short so you end up relying on your overall impression for comparisons which isn't ideal.
No doubt they would sound different but I was talking of quite gross differences. If the frequency responses were similar then the sound should be closer than not. Assuming that the speaker has quite well controlled directivity, if there are directivity problems with the speakers it is difficult to get the frequency responses the same as they will change more markedly with the axis of listening.
Part of that thinking comes from measuring and EQ'ing the arrays, it isn't always the biggest change in frequency response that causes the biggest change in perception.
The arrays are not really that low cost the way I built them but they could be done for less money. Shipping costs of drivers plays a large part for me the LX521's cost a lot to ship from the UK due to the weight of the woofers. Even though the cost of the drivers themselves was less than the cost of the drivers for Orion. So driver cost is not really the overriding factor in performance if that was your point.
Where the arrays get a price advantage is not needing 6 to 8 channels of amplification unless, you add subs and ambient speakers
The only situation where I think a sub is needed is for loud or reference level home theatre playback of the .1 channel.
Both the arrays and the dipole woofers go very very low but they can't do that at the same time as being very loud. There is a trade off there due to the amount of Volume displacement that is available. I used a High Pass filter with the Dipoles when I did use them with movies as the effects could cause some massive excurions. The reason Linkwitz developed the Thor subwoofer.
For music at reasonable volumes both have enough for me.