XSP-1 Bass Management / Subwoofer Application

[geeqner]

Re-Arranged / moved my Stereo Gear within the Living Room this weekend.

Temporarily disconnected the Sub (Goldenear ForceField series), due to need to run BOTH sets of Speaker Wires to it and then to Speakers.
It WAS in a back corner of the room, where I had set-up my gear in a stack that was close to that location / partially hidden behind a love seat.

Gear is now in a Glass-Shelf Entertainment Center beneath the TV with a speaker / stand temporarily located on the Left and a large window on the right.
This means = No "good" place to put the sub nearby at present (PARTICULARLY if I need to run 4 Sets of #12 AWG Wire to it [L&R IN / L&R OUT]).
(Dogs like to hang-out near Window and fear them using the Sub to help them get a better view.)

Existing Receiver does not have a mono / summed Output to drive the sub via a single Base Band Analog Connection. 
(Sub has an Input for this that I have not been using, along with Speaker In/Out that I WAS using.)

Q1.  If you HAVE used the Subwoofer / Bass Management features of the XSP-1 - how did you like the control that you achieved?
Q2.  How tough / practical would it be to run a high-quality Low-Level Audio signal from a "New" XSP-1 across the room (about 20 feet) and back up to the Sub at its "old" location?
         (I feel that it is impractical to route the speaker wires out that far and then back to the speakers - one is relatively near to the Right Speaker but the other is close to the gear.)

I feel that this arrangement would simplify the wiring scheme and could at least PARTIALLY make my argument to SWMBO for replacing my trusty but old NAD receiver that I am using as a Pre-Amp.
[Plus it would

• Match my XPS-2 Gen 3 / look "prettier"
• Provide Balanced Outputs to drive my XPS-2 Gen 3 (maybe SOUND a bit better / cleaner)
• Add Remote Control capability]

Q3.  Is there some sort of device that I could hook-onto the un-used "Tape Monitor" Outputs - to Sum them into a signal that I could feed to the sub?
         (In that case, the Tape Monitor On/Off could function as a "Sub Enable / Disable" function...)

[leonski]

Just a couple questions, since I don't know.

When you run speaker wire TO the sub than to the speakers, does the sub act as a high pass filter, removing the LF information?

Don't forget that Stereo is pretty much MONO below the 80hz to 100hz level. Very LF stereo can make sense in very large spaces.
You'll never 'localize' LF in most normal spaces. The OVERTONES? Now thats another matter and what gives the boost to imaging
when certain kinds of sub hookups are used.
Because the speaker inputs on the sub PROBABLY are of fairly high impedance, they don't 'suck up' much power and you could probably
use #26 hookup wire or even Magnet wire. That's 'dead ending' the sub's connection at the sub....no passthru to the main speakers.

I see from the goldenear site that the sub has a 150speaker level high pass filter......

If you could experiment with running your speakers full range, run speaker wire (not 12, it's not needed) to the sub and run the crossover fairly low.....

This wouldn't have been my 1st choice for a sub. Using the LFE input (RCA) deletes the subs crossover. And the subs LP filter is ONLY 12db / octave, not the usual 24, which provides a steeper
cutoff to the sub.....

I'd call GoldenEar and ask about running the sub 'dead ended'.

And ONE other thing. NO PHASE CONTROL on the sub. If you have a bass 'suck-out' issue after connection, the only 'test' would be to start swapping speaker wires......at both speakers.

I can think of a few More Expensive solutions, but you aren't yet at that point.

[Gary Cook]

Q1 With my XSP-1 I run the L &R speakers full range as that utilises the discrete fully balanced outputs and then I have blended in the sub using REW and a lot of my own ears. My room is very large, has cathedral ceilings with a small listening area and some acoustic treatment in addition to carpet and soft furnishings. The cross over is around 70 hz, which evens out the response and still gives bass harmonics imaging.

I have had over 25 years of running stereo 2.1 and this is the best sounding system so far. What I have found is that it’s the whole system that little by little adds up to the better sound. For example I couldn’t quantify exactly how much difference having balanced XLR interconnects adds or locating the amps close to the speakers or the very short speaker cables that facilitates.

In summary, the XSP-1 is great in its own right, but even more so it adds the capability of optimising the rest of the system, it’s a team player.

Cheers
Gary

[geeqner]

Thanks for the information so far -

LEONSKI:
I have found that with the sub that I have, Parallel-Wiring the Speaker Inputs and my L&R Speakers works the best with the Receiver that is currently functioning as my Pre-Amp.

The Left (analytical / Enginerd) part of my brain tells me that using the Speaker In/Out connections with the built-in cross-over SHOULD be the best solution, since the Main Speakers [ELACs] WOULD get to work within a narrower envelope.

However, I TRIED that - and the Right (perceptive) part of my brain feels that using the cross-over that is built-into the Sub leaves the ELACs sounding a bit "tinny".
(They seem to benefit from a full-range [or more-carefully managed frequency content than I can currently provide] feed)

Your thought about "dead-ending" it (maybe with a decent, but relatively light-gauge 3 or 4-conductor cable) may be the best temporary solution.
I am currently able to run my Right Speaker down, into the basement, and back up at the speaker location - I could probably run a light 4-conductor back there as well and parallel-connect at the outputs of my XPS-2.

All of the connections on the sub are pretty-well marked for polarity and it HAD been working pretty well with the equipment in the back corner of my room.
I had the speakers parallel-wired with the sub as AMP-->SUB (SPEAKER IN)
                          |--->SPEAKERS

BUT AMP--->SPEAKERS should be functionally the same thing, since the sub Inputs are high-impedance.
                  |--->SUB

In either of the cases above, the Main Speakers are running full-range and the sub can be adjusted for Cutoff Frequency and Level.

I'm thinking that if I (near future) use the LFE Input with the Sub Output of the XSP-1 the result will be functionally "moving" sub management from the Sub itself to the XSP-1.
(I would set the cutoff on the Sub to something SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the Setting within the XSP-1 and leave the level probably at mid-scale.)

I agree with you about the ForceField Sub being a bit less than optimal for MUSIC duty.
It is fairly well-controlled when adjusted properly and has a SOLID purpose-built Amp.
I think that it's pretty hard to beat in the "bang-for-the-buck" category.
(But to be honest, my FIRST choice would have been an REL T7 or better / Goldenear SuperSub, but at the time, those were a bit too pricey.)

I've been watching several sources for a good second-hand REL, but I would rather invest in upgrading the Pre-Amp FIRST.

GARY:
What is "REW"?
I like the idea of the XSP-1 for (3) MAIN reasons, plus a few more lesser ones:
1. Balanced Output to feed my XPS-2 Inputs (not sure how big of a difference that will make, but it can't hurt, right?)
2. Better management of output to Sub, which is lacking on my trusty old NAD unit
3. My NAD unit is probably old enough that the sound quality has "degraded" a bit over time, in a way that I have probably not noticed does not have a dedicated sub-out.
But, I wanted to hear about it from an ACTUAL OWNER / USER before "taking the plunge"...

[Gary Cook]

REW = Room Equalisation Wizard
It’s software that shows the full audio spectrum results from your system. Common use is for setting up processors, but for the XSP-1 I simply used it to work out the best cross over point for the sub. Just aimed for no peaky response during the cross over frequencies, in my case from around 100 down to 20 hz. Mostly I use my ears to get what sounds “right” for me and just use REW to confirm.

Going to balanced interconnects removed a very slight and infrequent buzz that comes from the ice maker in the fridge when using RCA’s. With the fully discrete circuitry (all the way from the ERC-3 to the XPA-1L’s) it also gives a dead silent noise floor. Which I never really gave much thought to before, but it does make a difference. Plus I have the XPA-1L’s located right beside their respective speaker so the speaker cable is very short (and grossly oversized). So no degradation in damping factor.

As I noted in the previous post, a stereo system is a package and the XSP-1 enables a lot of little things, each one contributing in some way. Plus in itself it’s a quality piece of gear.

Cheers
Gary

[geeqner]

Yup - That's what I heard.
It sounds like the XSP-1 is the right amount of "bang for the buck" in the Pre-Amp department for my needs.
(Are there better units out there = yup! But - can I afford one and will it provide a SIGNIFICANT difference above & beyond the XPS-1 in MY listening environment = DOUBT IT!)

REW = When the Engineering firm that I used to work for folded-up, I should have contacted somebody and snapped-up the Goldline TEF Analyzer that they had.
It had been sitting in a case in a closet for YEARS.  It was a VERY expensive tool (probably around $10K in the late 1990's) that nobody ever bothered to learn how to use...
(Had a calibrated Behringer microphone with it.)  It's a POWERFUL tool for analyzing acoustical response of rooms when one invests the time in learning how to use it.

Only thing I'm kinda' considering is NAD has a new unit = ND C658 sounds like a Pre-Amp with a BlueSound Node and DAC built-in (has Balanced Outputs to drive my Amp)
Mainly because it would save me from needing Separate Pre-Amp and BlueSound Node 2i boxes with a better DAC than the one built-into the Node 2i
Anticipated cost is about the same as the XSP-1, but probably a bit lower in SQ, but also get more for my money than a bunch-o-separate boxes.
My receiver is "old-school" NAD and I've always liked their stuff as well, so I'm sort of torn between the two future solutions.
From what I can tell - NAD's design philosophy is pretty similar to that of Emotiva = they're both sort of the "Value" end of the highish-end without going into ludicrous pricing.

[leonski]

Dec 17, 2018 11:00:55 GMT -5 geeqner said:

Thanks for the information so far -

LEONSKI:
I have found that with the sub that I have, Parallel-Wiring the Speaker Inputs and my L&R Speakers works the best with the Receiver that is currently functioning as my Pre-Amp.

The Left (analytical / Enginerd) part of my brain tells me that using the Speaker In/Out connections with the built-in cross-over SHOULD be the best solution, since the Main Speakers [ELACs] WOULD get to work within a narrower envelope.

However, I TRIED that - and the Right (perceptive) part of my brain feels that using the cross-over that is built-into the Sub leaves the ELACs sounding a bit "tinny".
(They seem to benefit from a full-range [or more-carefully managed frequency content than I can currently provide] feed)

Your thought about "dead-ending" it (maybe with a decent, but relatively light-gauge 3 or 4-conductor cable) may be the best temporary solution.
I am currently able to run my Right Speaker down, into the basement, and back up at the speaker location - I could probably run a light 4-conductor back there as well and parallel-connect at the outputs of my XPS-2.

All of the connections on the sub are pretty-well marked for polarity and it HAD been working pretty well with the equipment in the back corner of my room.
I had the speakers parallel-wired with the sub as AMP-->SUB (SPEAKER IN)
                          |--->SPEAKERS

BUT AMP--->SPEAKERS should be functionally the same thing, since the sub Inputs are high-impedance.
                  |--->SUB

In either of the cases above, the Main Speakers are running full-range and the sub can be adjusted for Cutoff Frequency and Level.

I'm thinking that if I (near future) use the LFE Input with the Sub Output of the XSP-1 the result will be functionally "moving" sub management from the Sub itself to the XSP-1.
(I would set the cutoff on the Sub to something SIGNIFICANTLY higher than the Setting within the XSP-1 and leave the level probably at mid-scale.)

I agree with you about the ForceField Sub being a bit less than optimal for MUSIC duty.
It is fairly well-controlled when adjusted properly and has a SOLID purpose-built Amp.
I think that it's pretty hard to beat in the "bang-for-the-buck" category.
(But to be honest, my FIRST choice would have been an REL T7 or better / Goldenear SuperSub, but at the time, those were a bit too pricey.)

I've been watching several sources for a good second-hand REL, but I would rather invest in upgrading the Pre-Amp FIRST.

GARY:
What is "REW"?
I like the idea of the XSP-1 for (3) MAIN reasons, plus a few more lesser ones:
1. Balanced Output to feed my XPS-2 Inputs (not sure how big of a difference that will make, but it can't hurt, right?)
2. Better management of output to Sub, which is lacking on my trusty old NAD unit
3. My NAD unit is probably old enough that the sound quality has "degraded" a bit over time, in a way that I have probably not noticed does not have a dedicated sub-out.
But, I wanted to hear about it from an ACTUAL OWNER / USER before "taking the plunge"...

One possible solution to the 'tinny' ELACs?    Find out with a meter if GROUND is shared at the sub between the either speaker connection poles.
Check the amp, too, while you're at it.     MAKE CERTAIN everything is powered down and unplugged.    I'd wait HOURS, maybe unplug last thing at night and do the
test next morning over coffee.  
It is POSSIBLE that since you have NO phase control that you need to SWAP +/- on the speakers to get back IN phase with the sub.    Some speakers swap phase, others don't.

Not ONE speaker, but BOTH.       Bass Suckout MAY have the effect you note.   

Next time?   Get a sub with a built in crossover so you can run Balanced or Single Ended TO the sub and using a full range signal, dial it in with the subs xover.  
The other solution?    Involves a low-cut TO the main speakers.     When I did that move, it really helped the bass, clarity and musicality.  

Rel makes good stuff. No question.    Don't know anything about Goldenear.       My go-to, from HSU is quite a runner.    Only ONE functional feature is compromised.    My sub  as to most, has a +/- phase switch.
I'd prefer a completely VARIABLE, perhaps marked in 'degrees' from 0 to 180........That might work better with my panels which are dipoles.    

[leonski]

POSSIBLE Preamp choice?

Parasound P6 is an upgraded P5. I LOVE my P5 but the upgrade is tempting. I don't know what it would do for ME, but I'll admit to being a sucker for displays and other buttons and knobs.

Price is a TICK over the XSP-1. The Parasound ALSO provides for extensive bass management. High cut to the sub, which I leave OFF (sub does this) and Low Cut to the mains, which is, in my case, only 12db / octave.
I set the crossover NOT at the same frequency, but rather with a 'gap' to provide for summing flat thru the passband. (Sub output Decreases as main speaker output Increases)

www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PAHAP6

I ordinarily would NOT link a sales site, but the pics are good and the description tells a good story. I'm TEMPTED, but won't do anything until after the 1st of the year.

[Gary Cook]

Dec 17, 2018 17:17:40 GMT -5 geeqner said:

Only thing I'm kinda' considering is NAD has a new unit = ND C658 sounds like a Pre-Amp with a BlueSound Node and DAC built-in (has Balanced Outputs to drive my Amp)
Mainly because it would save me from needing Separate Pre-Amp and BlueSound Node 2i boxes with a better DAC than the one built-into the Node 2i
Anticipated cost is about the same as the XSP-1, but probably a bit lower in SQ, but also get more for my money than a bunch-o-separate boxes.
My receiver is "old-school" NAD and I've always liked their stuff as well, so I'm sort of torn between the two future solutions.
From what I can tell - NAD's design philosophy is pretty similar to that of Emotiva = they're both sort of the "Value" end of the highish-end without going into ludicrous pricing.

The problem (that I see) with the ND C658 (and a lot of recent NAD gear) is that they take analogue inputs and run them through an ADC to convert them to digital. Then do things like equalisation and bass management digitally and finally run them through a DAC to get analogue output. This is quite a different comparison to the XSP-1 which is 100% analogue. So even if you have sources with DAC's that you like the sound of, what you will hear is the NAD DAC. Of course any vinyl also gets the ADC/DAC treatment. Personally I'm a fan of having as little fiddling with my music as possible and multiple DAC/ADC conversions is a lot of fiddling. Processors, multi channel sound tracks, equalisation and movies, where I don't have the same requirements as I do for music.

Cheers
Gary

[leonski]

I'm not sure I 'dig' that approach, either. DAC? ADC? Than apply various processing in the 'digital domain'?

I worry about a couple things:

To start?
Long term satisfaction
and
Long term reliability.

I'd even be concerned with getting it FIXED, should it go south.

[geeqner]

Dec 17, 2018 18:42:53 GMT -5 Gary Cook said:

Thanks for that bit of information - I had not (yet) researched things down to that level.

On Pro Audio or a system for a schools "Cafegymatorium" - I've been AMAZED at what some of those single-box DSP / Mixer units can accomplish by inserting "virtual' Parametric Equalizers / Compressors etc into the "virtual signal stream" (drag-and-drop icons / flow chart boxes with "gazintas & goesouttos" just like a rack full-o separate equipment boxes).  Those are GREAT solutions for optimizing Intelligibility in difficult environments / making it "Non-Techie Proof" (give the Teachers a few simple buttons for different Pre-Enginerded scenarios) and the goals there are very different from Home Audio. 

There are those who think that once it's "DIGITAL" (used in the buzz-word sense) = It's Automatically BETTER - Which is a theory that I am not ready to buy-into (yet)...
(You know, like "It's got Electrolytes - It's what the plants WANT" [Ever seen "Idiocracy"?])
Digital technology and DSP is continually getting better and better - but I don't think that we're "there" yet to the point where a $1000 box that does ALL of those separate tasks will trump a properly executed set of high-grade Analog Circuits.     

In this case:   (Analog Distortion, etc. from high-grade circuitry) < (Artifacts & information "lost" to / introduced by Sampling / DSP with sub-state-of-the-art technology)

But for a home Hi-Fi system - I gotta' agree with you that less conversion / processing B.S. should be more "true" to the sound as the Recording Engineer / Artist envisioned it.

[leonski]

IMO technology has moved maybe too far and perhaps too fast. It's difficult to keep up with 'the latest' if that's what you like.
This from a guy mainly on the sidelines I'll admit.
It also seems to be turning into a 'features' chase rather than serving the sound. Some engineer working with his 'team' gets a really neat idea and than! It works!
But is it really better or just different?
I always keep in mind that at least for Home Theater, NOBODY has any idea what most of those effects are supposed to sound like. So any multilation of the file is OK, since
no natural sound matches or one that many people have actually HEARD.
Can one of those processesors HANDLE a 10 or 12 channel stream? And by time you have access or play with all those filters and such a DSP can provide, you are probably thoroughly
confused AND have lost whatever baseline you started with.
Idiocracy? I'm in love with Maya Rudolph.

[Gary Cook]

A long list of features is a far easier sell than the simple claim of sounding better. This piece has X feature and the opposition doesn’t, not all that hard to understand. Compared to this piece sounds better, followed by a long winded technical info dump about its circuitry that would take an electronics engineer to understand. From a marketing prospective any sales person would gladly have a long list of features where they can selectively say ours has this and that one doesn’t. Convincing a prospect to ignore the features that one day they just might need is far harder. Demonstrating that it sounds better takes much longer, requires the sound room be set up to handle that particular piece of gear and then be faced with the prospect knowing that their room, speakers, amps etc are different and as a result it may not sound the same when they get it home.

Not hard to understand why the volume manufacturers are constantly chasing some new feature, to brag about, for their new model due out tomorrow, next week/month.

Cheers
Gary

[Cogito]

Dec 17, 2018 18:05:02 GMT -5 leonski said:

POSSIBLE Preamp choice?

Parasound P6 is an upgraded P5. I LOVE my P5 but the upgrade is tempting. I don't know what it would do for ME, but I'll admit to being a sucker for displays and other buttons and knobs.

Price is a TICK over the XSP-1. The Parasound ALSO provides for extensive bass management. High cut to the sub, which I leave OFF (sub does this) and Low Cut to the mains, which is, in my case, only 12db / octave.
I set the crossover NOT at the same frequency, but rather with a 'gap' to provide for summing flat thru the passband. (Sub output Decreases as main speaker output Increases)

www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PAHAP6

I ordinarily would NOT link a sales site, but the pics are good and the description tells a good story. I'm TEMPTED, but won't do anything until after the 1st of the year.

The fact that the P6 also has a built in DAC makes it even a bit more enticing. In fact, if I were in the market now, the P6 would be on top of my list.

[leonski]

A few 'sweeteners' going from P5 to P6 would make it tempting, IF I could get a good price for my P5.
Slightly better DAC and level LED display. Other improvements?

I might go to the link I provided and actually READ it in detail.