|
Post by leonski on Dec 20, 2021 1:51:25 GMT -5
Any rumors floating around yet on when Emotiva might consider offering a replacement for their Stealth DC1 DAC? I've been holding off, waiting for that one... Boomzilla Also - a question on the Emotiva Virtual Cu subwoofer wireless system - To add another sub to the network, all one need do is to buy a second receiver & pair it to the existing transmitter? Of course, should I do that, I've got 2 subs, but still a monophonic bass signal. Since the transmitter (if I understand it right) is NOT capable of transmitting a stereo signal, to get stereo bass, I'd need to buy both a second transmitter and a second receiver. Of course, since bass isn't directional (and it really & truly ISN'T), I'm not sure that the expense is justified. Stereo subs? Sure - they distribute room resonances. Stereo sub channels? Other than bragging rights, what do you gain? I'm thinking that the mono sub signal with two wireless subs is my best bet. And a by the bye - The Virtual Cu wireless sub system is not only great sounding and bulletproof, but also makes it possible to put subs where they sound best - not just where your wires will go. I recommend the wireless system HIGHLY. It isn't cheap, but it's definitely a class act. Most bass is MIXED to mono below 80hz or so, anyway......'stereo' subs are s solution in search of a problem....
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 20, 2021 2:37:26 GMT -5
You're not only right, leonski, but in fact, I'm getting such awesome performance out of a single sub that I'm questioning whether it's even worth spending an extra penny for a second sub. My room is uniquely exempt from standing waves and the position where I have my sub makes it clean and articulate without being able to locate the sub by ear (even when sitting close to it). Once I get the frequency response flat, it should be perfect. (I'm currently using a 12" Klipsch home theater sub that has a huge peak at about 50 Hz.). I have a sealed 15" sub with flat response on order, and when it arrives, I'm expecting great things! I have two pairs of speakers in house - the 6.5 inch, two-way Klipsch RP-600m ones and a pair of 5.25 inch, two way HK ones. With the Klipsches, I normally run the speakers full-range and blend in the sub using the crossover on the sub's plate amp. With the smaller HK speakers, I normally use the built-in 90 Hz. crossover on my Emotiva PT-1 preamp instead. Both sound awesome. Boom
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Dec 20, 2021 7:25:41 GMT -5
Any rumors floating around yet on when Emotiva might consider offering a replacement for their Stealth DC1 DAC? I've been holding off, waiting for that one... Boomzilla Also - a question on the Emotiva Virtual Cu subwoofer wireless system - To add another sub to the network, all one need do is to buy a second receiver & pair it to the existing transmitter? Of course, should I do that, I've got 2 subs, but still a monophonic bass signal. Since the transmitter (if I understand it right) is NOT capable of transmitting a stereo signal, to get stereo bass, I'd need to buy both a second transmitter and a second receiver. Of course, since bass isn't directional (and it really & truly ISN'T), I'm not sure that the expense is justified. Stereo subs? Sure - they distribute room resonances. Stereo sub channels? Other than bragging rights, what do you gain? I'm thinking that the mono sub signal with two wireless subs is my best bet. And a by the bye - The Virtual Cu wireless sub system is not only great sounding and bulletproof, but also makes it possible to put subs where they sound best - not just where your wires will go. I recommend the wireless system HIGHLY. It isn't cheap, but it's definitely a class act. Most bass is MIXED to mono below 80hz or so, anyway......'stereo' subs are s solution in search of a problem.... Yes but .... in a multichannel system with many small speakers, some of them need to cross at 100-120Hz or higher. In that case I would prefer the option to have stereo subs. But I also like the option to send only LFE to subs, and send that bass management to large fronts. To make that configuration fully work would require an additional option to send large speaker bass to subs below a (very low) crossover, while still running the large speakers full range.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 20, 2021 7:38:17 GMT -5
Hi marcl - A reasonable hypothesis, but one that is being rapidly eliminated by the tower speaker manufacturers, many of whom are now producing towers that are significantly less than full range. For example, I recently reviewed a $7,000 per pair set of tower speakers whose -3dB point in the bass was 40 Hz.! Such speakers make the concept of "large fronts" obsolete. Why are manufacturers increasingly doing this? To save manufacturing costs. Tower speakers with less bass require: Smaller and cheaper bass drivers with less excursion and less strong (and expensive) suspensions & magnets Lighter cabinets with less bracing and damping that are cheaper to ship Less current capability for the driver coils so that wimpier AVRs can still produce "crisp bass" I'd have no objection IF the manufacturers chose to pass some of those savings on to the consumers. Do they? I think the $7,000 per pair MSRP of the speakers I just reviewed speaks for itself... I do agree with you, however, that often surround speakers that grow perpetually in number, and are consequently sized smaller and smaller DO need a higher subwoofer crossover point than larger speakers typically used for fronts and centers. Do AVRs & processors allow different crossover frequencies for different speakers? If not, they definitely should. An "effects" speaker can tolerate a higher sub crossover frequency than can the front R & L speakers (intended to also play stereo music). Just another compromise required by the intrusion of home theater into the realm of music reproduction... Bah Humbug! LOL
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Dec 20, 2021 8:39:16 GMT -5
Hi marcl - A reasonable hypothesis, but one that is being rapidly eliminated by the tower speaker manufacturers, many of whom are now producing towers that are significantly less than full range. For example, I recently reviewed a $7,000 per pair set of tower speakers whose -3dB point in the bass was 40 Hz.! Such speakers make the concept of "large fronts" obsolete. Why are manufacturers increasingly doing this? To save manufacturing costs. Tower speakers with less bass require: Smaller and cheaper bass drivers with less excursion and less strong (and expensive) suspensions & magnets Lighter cabinets with less bracing and damping that are cheaper to ship Less current capability for the driver coils so that wimpier AVRs can still produce "crisp bass" I'd have no objection IF the manufacturers chose to pass some of those savings on to the consumers. Do they? I think the $7,000 per pair MSRP of the speakers I just reviewed speaks for itself... I do agree with you, however, that often surround speakers that grow perpetually in number, and are consequently sized smaller and smaller DO need a higher subwoofer crossover point than larger speakers typically used for fronts and centers. Do AVRs & processors allow different crossover frequencies for different speakers? If not, they definitely should. An "effects" speaker can tolerate a higher sub crossover frequency than can the front R & L speakers (intended to also play stereo music). Just another compromise required by the intrusion of home theater into the realm of music reproduction... Bah Humbug! LOL Yeah my Magnepan 3.7s (which I paid $5500 for, and now cost $8000, if you can wait six months to get them) have excellent bass down to 40Hz and that's it. I have crossed them at 40, 50 and 60 and the bass gets muddy around 60Hz. The XMC-2 allows me to send LFE-only (up to 120Hz) to the Center Sub output, which is great because LFE needs to play in the subs and the Magnepans most definitely do not like LFE. So we're getting close ... in this configuration small speaker bass goes to the 3.7s and that's what I want. They cross at 60, 100, 120 depending on size, so I get good "Maggie bass" down to 40Hz. So what about non-LFE bass below 40Hz ... surround content that can go down to 30Hz, or the odd pipe organ or B1 bass fiddle? I split the L/R outputs, low pass at 50Hz and send that feed to the subs separately. And those surround speakers ... "effects", yes ... but with Atmos some mixes put music all over the room. And then there's the Apple's "Spacial" and the many 5.1 music recordings that I have. My surround speakers - and especially the center - need to have good fidelity, full range.
|
|
|
Post by dsonyay on Dec 20, 2021 8:47:31 GMT -5
The opposite side walls are so far away from the speakers that the inverse square law takes care of side reflections. The speakers are about 8 feet apart, and each speaker is 7 feet away from its nearest side wall. That being the case, side-wall reflections are of little concern. But to answer your question, yes, I have tried the diffusers on the side walls and found that they made no audible difference there. The three places where the diffusers made the greatest difference were: 1. on both sides of the listening couch and perpendicular to the back wall 2. on both sides of the speakers and perpendicular to the wall behind them 3. between the speakers and parallel to the wall behind them (where the photo shows them) Since they're on rollers, it was easy to try them in different spots. Boomzilla Good info.. what i meant earlier was the wall behind listener. Not side walls. I would think those diffusers would do really well at that wall behind listener. I’ve got four diffuser/scattered panels on order .. similar concept.. but not exactly QRD design I like the wheels ease of moving around.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 20, 2021 16:44:48 GMT -5
Hi dsonyay - I actually did try the diffusers behind the listening position (that's where I'd read online that they'd be the most effective). I was disappointed that they seemed to make little to no difference there. I was sorely afraid that I'd wasted my money on them. I finally just took them down and for lack of anywhere to put them at the time, I just set them on either side of the listening couch to get them out of the way. WHOA! They definitely made a difference there! So to experiment, I just happened to have some "speaker outriggers" whose spike-thread just happened to match some rollers I had. I put the rollers on the outriggers, screwed the outriggers to the diffusers, and went to work. I tried the diffusers on the side walls - no difference I tried them in the corners - no difference I tried them at the edges of the listening couch, at right angles to the wall behind the couch - better center focus I tried them at the outside edges of the speakers, at right angles to the wall behind them - better image width And then, just to temporarily get them out of the way, I rolled them behind and between the speakers, parallel to the wall behind them (as seen in the photo) - Almost as good a center focus as having the diffusers near the couch (but better than having the diffusers next to the speakers) - Almost as wide an image as having the diffusers next to the speakers (but better than having the diffusers next to the couch). In other words, the position behind and between the speakers seems to be an excellent compromise position with most of the advantages of the other positions but with none of their inconveniences. I can always try other things, but the current positions are the best I've yet gotten from the diffusers. If we were able to be comfortable with visitors in the house (we're not yet), I'd get you and/or garbulky over here to listen & see what y'all think. I usually learn something new about the speakers and the room when some good ears come by to check out the system. You're the only one I know, dsonyay, who has actually had a "professional analysis" done of their listening room and then followed the suggestions done by the company. When you get to where they want you to be with room treatment, I want you to post about what changes you heard, which items made the biggest difference, and how the sound changed with each successive treatment. Thanks - Boom
|
|
|
Post by dsonyay on Dec 20, 2021 17:50:14 GMT -5
Hi dsonyay - I actually did try the diffusers behind the listening position (that's where I'd read online that they'd be the most effective). I was disappointed that they seemed to make little to no difference there. I was sorely afraid that I'd wasted my money on them. I finally just took them down and for lack of anywhere to put them at the time, I just set them on either side of the listening couch to get them out of the way. WHOA! They definitely made a difference there! So to experiment, I just happened to have some "speaker outriggers" whose spike-thread just happened to match some rollers I had. I put the rollers on the outriggers, screwed the outriggers to the diffusers, and went to work. I tried the diffusers on the side walls - no difference I tried them in the corners - no difference I tried them at the edges of the listening couch, at right angles to the wall behind the couch - better center focus I tried them at the outside edges of the speakers, at right angles to the wall behind them - better image width And then, just to temporarily get them out of the way, I rolled them behind and between the speakers, parallel to the wall behind them (as seen in the photo) - Almost as good a center focus as having the diffusers near the couch (but better than having the diffusers next to the speakers) - Almost as wide an image as having the diffusers next to the speakers (but better than having the diffusers next to the couch). In other words, the position behind and between the speakers seems to be an excellent compromise position with most of the advantages of the other positions but with none of their inconveniences. I can always try other things, but the current positions are the best I've yet gotten from the diffusers. If we were able to be comfortable with visitors in the house (we're not yet), I'd get you and/or garbulky over here to listen & see what y'all think. I usually learn something new about the speakers and the room when some good ears come by to check out the system. You're the only one I know, dsonyay, who has actually had a "professional analysis" done of their listening room and then followed the suggestions done by the company. When you get to where they want you to be with room treatment, I want you to post about what changes you heard, which items made the biggest difference, and how the sound changed with each successive treatment. Thanks - Boom Arrgh.. accidentally deleted my previous text to a reply.. let’s try again.. lol. Your reply about the QRD was very interesting.. so glad it worked out. When you first installed them on the wall behind listening position.. was it way off the floor? Or on the floor? I think the preferred spot is up there midway from floor to ceiling. But I’m glad you’ve got it sorted out! Those things are EXPENSIVE.. so it’s not wasted money. For a cheap fix.. and it mimics a QRD.. put bookshelves up and fill with misc items.. books of varying sizes, magazines, odds and ends, plants, etc. As for me.. panels were ordered from GIK recently. 13 panels. Bass traps- both broadband and with frequency limiters, diffusers and scatterers as well. I’ve got all walls treated .. even the ceiling. I went with the designer’s “no holds barred approach “. Vice plan B and plan C. I just wanted it done to what their optimal solution was. Not terribly expensive. A little under 1800.00 after shipping. Plus I’ve got 2 extra panels from you.. GIK got the specs of those two panels and told me the best spot to incorporate them with theirs.. so 15 panels total. I’m going to try and make some recording of music playing before panels and after panels. Same songs. Right off my iPhone. Not scientific but I should be able to hear a difference. Right now the room is a bit boomy, has some resonance, and flutter. That should all be resolved. Would love to take actual measurements with some sort of analyzer, before and after, but I don’t have access to these tools. Would love to have EmoSouth here for a listening session once all is in place. I’ll cook gumbo and serve cocktails. Jackets not required.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,004
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 21, 2021 10:30:41 GMT -5
Some things are not as simple as they seem.
In this case part of the problem lies in how our wonderful human brains process sound.
Obviously, when you have a speaker in a room, the sound from that speaker can reach your ears by many different paths. You have direct sound... And you have a whole lot of reflected sound, which reaches your ears by many different paths, each of which introduces a different delay.
You have that direct sound, and sound that reflects off the floor and ceiling, and sound that reflects off the side walls, and off the back wall. And you actually have quite a bit of sound that wraps around the speakers and bounces off the walls behind them. And then you have sound that manages to do a double bounce... And, at any of those reflection points, there can be diffusion.
But it's even more complicated because our brains interpret sound that's been delayed by different amounts in different ways. We hear sound that arrives after a long delay as a distinct echo... But we hear sound that arrives quickly, perhaps under 20 milliseconds after the first arrival, as "liveness" instead... But in-between those two points there is a sort of grey area - where what we hear depends on the type of sound involved.
Diffusers "break up the sound"... and so make it less distinct. But how this affects a reflection that is already delayed can be quite complex... The general hope is that it breaks up the reflection enough that "it still contributes to the room sounding alive"...
But at the same time it "no longer confuses our brain about where the actual original source was located"...
It's sort of the audible equivalent of trying to illuminate a dark room, using a few very bright lamps, but without causing any glare anywhere... You want to spread the light around in a pleasant way, and contribute to the overall visibility, but without creating any weird shadows, or any glare anywhere... (Except, of course, with sound, you can't simply see what you've got while you're adjusting things.)
In this case the "trick" would be to figure out where the areas lie that are causing "coherent reflections that cause problems"... Then you put diffusers there to break up those coherent reflections into diffuse reflections... But where that is will depend on the dispersion characteristics of your speakers, the acoustics of your room, and where your speakers are located. (And some locations just won't work... for example it's not usually practical to put a diffuser on the floor... although the ceiling may turn out to be a good spot.)
Hi dsonyay - I actually did try the diffusers behind the listening position (that's where I'd read online that they'd be the most effective). I was disappointed that they seemed to make little to no difference there. I was sorely afraid that I'd wasted my money on them. I finally just took them down and for lack of anywhere to put them at the time, I just set them on either side of the listening couch to get them out of the way. WHOA! They definitely made a difference there! So to experiment, I just happened to have some "speaker outriggers" whose spike-thread just happened to match some rollers I had. I put the rollers on the outriggers, screwed the outriggers to the diffusers, and went to work. I tried the diffusers on the side walls - no difference I tried them in the corners - no difference I tried them at the edges of the listening couch, at right angles to the wall behind the couch - better center focus I tried them at the outside edges of the speakers, at right angles to the wall behind them - better image width And then, just to temporarily get them out of the way, I rolled them behind and between the speakers, parallel to the wall behind them (as seen in the photo) - Almost as good a center focus as having the diffusers near the couch (but better than having the diffusers next to the speakers) - Almost as wide an image as having the diffusers next to the speakers (but better than having the diffusers next to the couch). In other words, the position behind and between the speakers seems to be an excellent compromise position with most of the advantages of the other positions but with none of their inconveniences. I can always try other things, but the current positions are the best I've yet gotten from the diffusers. If we were able to be comfortable with visitors in the house (we're not yet), I'd get you and/or garbulky over here to listen & see what y'all think. I usually learn something new about the speakers and the room when some good ears come by to check out the system. You're the only one I know, dsonyay , who has actually had a "professional analysis" done of their listening room and then followed the suggestions done by the company. When you get to where they want you to be with room treatment, I want you to post about what changes you heard, which items made the biggest difference, and how the sound changed with each successive treatment. Thanks - Boom Arrgh.. accidentally deleted my previous text to a reply.. let’s try again.. lol. Your reply about the QRD was very interesting.. so glad it worked out. When you first installed them on the wall behind listening position.. was it way off the floor? Or on the floor? I think the preferred spot is up there midway from floor to ceiling. But I’m glad you’ve got it sorted out! Those things are EXPENSIVE.. so it’s not wasted money. For a cheap fix.. and it mimics a QRD.. put bookshelves up and fill with misc items.. books of varying sizes, magazines, odds and ends, plants, etc. As for me.. panels were ordered from GIK recently. 13 panels. Bass traps- both broadband and with frequency limiters, diffusers and scatterers as well. I’ve got all walls treated .. even the ceiling. I went with the designer’s “no holds barred approach “. Vice plan B and plan C. I just wanted it done to what their optimal solution was. Not terribly expensive. A little under 1800.00 after shipping. Plus I’ve got 2 extra panels from you.. GIK got the specs of those two panels and told me the best spot to incorporate them with theirs.. so 15 panels total. I’m going to try and make some recording of music playing before panels and after panels. Same songs. Right off my iPhone. Not scientific but I should be able to hear a difference. Right now the room is a bit boomy, has some resonance, and flutter. That should all be resolved. Would love to take actual measurements with some sort of analyzer, before and after, but I don’t have access to these tools. Would love to have EmoSouth here for a listening session once all is in place. I’ll cook gumbo and serve cocktails. Jackets not required.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,004
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 21, 2021 10:39:14 GMT -5
The real catch with that philosophy is that you have a whole lot of speakers making sound in overlapping frequency ranges. And, with each speaker you add, the number of possible interactions with other speakers increases geometrically. (Remembering that there is no such thing as an absolutely sharp crossover and all filters introduce delay and/or phase shift.) And, of course, each of those speakers can also interact with the room.
The argument AGAINST sending bass management to the large fronts is simply this... You MUST locate the front speakers where they deliver good imaging at mid and high frequencies. And, unless you're very lucky, that location probably WILL NOT be where they deliver the best bass. And, since there are two of them, not only can you not move both, but you cannot adjust their positions in relation to each other.
(Whereas, with a separate sub, at least in theory, you get to position both optimally.)
Most bass is MIXED to mono below 80hz or so, anyway......'stereo' subs are s solution in search of a problem.... Yes but .... in a multichannel system with many small speakers, some of them need to cross at 100-120Hz or higher. In that case I would prefer the option to have stereo subs. But I also like the option to send only LFE to subs, and send that bass management to large fronts. To make that configuration fully work would require an additional option to send large speaker bass to subs below a (very low) crossover, while still running the large speakers full range.
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Dec 21, 2021 11:06:53 GMT -5
The real catch with that philosophy is that you have a whole lot of speakers making sound in overlapping frequency ranges. And, with each speaker you add, the number of possible interactions with other speakers increases geometrically. (Remembering that there is no such thing as an absolutely sharp crossover and all filters introduce delay and/or phase shift.) And, of course, each of those speakers can also interact with the room.
The argument AGAINST sending bass management to the large fronts is simply this... You MUST locate the front speakers where they deliver good imaging at mid and high frequencies. And, unless you're very lucky, that location probably WILL NOT be where they deliver the best bass. And, since there are two of them, not only can you not move both, but you cannot adjust their positions in relation to each other.
(Whereas, with a separate sub, at least in theory, you get to position both optimally.)
Yes but .... in a multichannel system with many small speakers, some of them need to cross at 100-120Hz or higher. In that case I would prefer the option to have stereo subs. But I also like the option to send only LFE to subs, and send that bass management to large fronts. To make that configuration fully work would require an additional option to send large speaker bass to subs below a (very low) crossover, while still running the large speakers full range. Here's the thing ... yes, you place the large fronts for imaging from the mid and high frequencies and this is typically not the best location for good bass ... especially bass around where room resonances are the worst between 40 and 100Hz. But if the alternative is to use subs optimally placed for the deep bass, you have another problem. With Atmos systems lots of people are going to be using ceiling (or in-ceiling) speakers that have to be crossed at 100Hz or higher. You have little choice. Lots of people use surrounds that have to be crossed at 100Hz. My Magnepan CC5 is the exception for a center, crossing at 200Hz, but the MMGC that I used to have crossed at 100. Subs can put out the dynamics needed for LFE, and do the LFE job up to the spec 120Hz. But how many subs are "musical" above 80 or 100Hz? So yes, use optimally positioned subs (at least two) for LFE and the lowest channel bass below 40-50Hz. I'd argue that for the small speakers that have to cross higher than that, it's better to have their bass coming from the front speakers. To the very important points of phase, as well as the compromise of front speaker position with regard to bass ... Dirac Live. I positioned my front speakers for imaging, and even did some things to let the resonances be higher in the low and mid bass. Dirac corrects the large speaker bass really well, and the small speaker bass directed to the fronts integrates really well (not withstanding the current BM elevated bass issue). The system treated as a whole regarding speaker placement and room treatment can overcome some compromises and produce excellent well-balanced sound. Dirac is the final step that really makes it work.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 21, 2021 11:47:14 GMT -5
Room equalization systems (DIRAC, etc.) do great things - but they are a two-edged sword. Although the "electronically erase" room artifacts (and speaker artifacts) that are within their "programmed window," they miss sounds that are delayed beyond their correction window, apply narrow band equalization that can tax the amplifier and the speaker's ability to comply without significant distortion, and generally ignore speaker artifacts unless the speakers are time and phase coherent to start with.
I've tried a bunch of "flavors" of room correction including:
Emo-Q Audyssey YPAO ARC DIRAC AccuEQ REW Lyngdorf "Room Perfect"
With the sole exception of Room Equalization Wizard, I've ended up turning them all off after trying to wrestle them into sounding good. And even the REW results, I'm skeptical of.
My method is to take the original "suggested" results of each room correction method, and then switch back and forth - with correction / without / with / etc. If there are at least some things I like about the correction, I'll spend some time trying to tweak out the things I dislike while trying to retain whatever improvements I think the correction has made. In 50% of the cases, I've preferred the "unimproved" sound over the corrected option and just given up on that particular flavor of room correction altogether.
Somewhat earlier in my audio career, I had very (VERY) high hopes that a good enough room correction could turn a sow's ear of a listening room into the proverbial silk purse. Alas, I was overly optimistic. Even the supposedly "best" of today's room correction systems seem to not be very good. That said, the less you ask the correction systems to do, the better they seem to perform. A room with good acoustics to start with that has some physical room treatment to assist can go from good to VERY good with the application of electronic room correction. But a room with poor or even fair acoustics, but unimproved with physical room treatments, doesn't seem to benefit very much from electronic bandaids.
Now not everyone shares my experiences. I have some audio amigos who swear by their particular flavors of electronic room correction. But I have a similar number who swear AT it instead. There are so many variables that affect how well (or not) a room correction system can perform. Included in those are:
The size and liveness of the listening room The power handling capabilities of the speakers being corrected The power capabilities of the amplifier(s) driving the speakers The "fit" of the room correction algorithm to the actual application The listening preferences and expectations of the user
So I don't rule out future improvements in the performance of room correction, but I still think that the current state of the art is still "not ready for prime time."
Boomzilla
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 21, 2021 23:07:08 GMT -5
Dream system #1:
Berkely Alpha DAC & Preamp JL Audio CR1 crossover Starke Sound A2.640 power amplifier MBL Radialstrahler speakers Two or more excellent subwoofers
Dream system #2:
Schiit Yggdrasil DAC Audio by Van Alstine preamp OR Audio GD HE-1 preamp JL Audio CR1 crossover Unknown, balanced tube mono block amps (BAT?, Audio Research?) Klipschorn speakers Two or more excellent subwoofers
And on system 2, I think it would be cool to remove the passive crossovers from the K-horns, and tri-amp the drivers using DSP to time and phase align the three horns. In fact, with DSP crossovers, even the La Scala or Belle Klipsch models would provide the advantages of the K-horns without their placement restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 22, 2021 5:24:04 GMT -5
...Would love to take actual measurements with some sort of analyzer, before and after, but I don’t have access to these tools... Hi dsonyay - I have a calibrated UMIK-1 USB microphone & microphone stand. If you have a laptop computer & would like to download the free Room Equalization Wizard (REW) software, I'd loan you my microphone. Boom
|
|
|
Post by dsonyay on Dec 22, 2021 9:48:58 GMT -5
...Would love to take actual measurements with some sort of analyzer, before and after, but I don’t have access to these tools... Hi dsonyay - I have a calibrated UMIK-1 USB microphone & microphone stand. If you have a laptop computer & would like to download the free Room Equalization Wizard (REW) software, I'd loan you my microphone. Boom Wow ! I will definitely take you up on the offer!! It would be fascinating to be able to get real before and after measurements.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,004
|
Post by KeithL on Dec 22, 2021 10:18:59 GMT -5
I agree entirely...
I was merely making the point that, the more speakers you have, and the more crossovers you have, the more complex it becomes to optimize it all. (That's not to say that, in the end, you cannot achieve a better result.... merely that it makes the process a lot more complicated.)
The real catch with that philosophy is that you have a whole lot of speakers making sound in overlapping frequency ranges. And, with each speaker you add, the number of possible interactions with other speakers increases geometrically. (Remembering that there is no such thing as an absolutely sharp crossover and all filters introduce delay and/or phase shift.) And, of course, each of those speakers can also interact with the room. The argument AGAINST sending bass management to the large fronts is simply this... You MUST locate the front speakers where they deliver good imaging at mid and high frequencies. And, unless you're very lucky, that location probably WILL NOT be where they deliver the best bass. And, since there are two of them, not only can you not move both, but you cannot adjust their positions in relation to each other.
(Whereas, with a separate sub, at least in theory, you get to position both optimally.)
Here's the thing ... yes, you place the large fronts for imaging from the mid and high frequencies and this is typically not the best location for good bass ... especially bass around where room resonances are the worst between 40 and 100Hz. But if the alternative is to use subs optimally placed for the deep bass, you have another problem. With Atmos systems lots of people are going to be using ceiling (or in-ceiling) speakers that have to be crossed at 100Hz or higher. You have little choice. Lots of people use surrounds that have to be crossed at 100Hz. My Magnepan CC5 is the exception for a center, crossing at 200Hz, but the MMGC that I used to have crossed at 100. Subs can put out the dynamics needed for LFE, and do the LFE job up to the spec 120Hz. But how many subs are "musical" above 80 or 100Hz? So yes, use optimally positioned subs (at least two) for LFE and the lowest channel bass below 40-50Hz. I'd argue that for the small speakers that have to cross higher than that, it's better to have their bass coming from the front speakers. To the very important points of phase, as well as the compromise of front speaker position with regard to bass ... Dirac Live. I positioned my front speakers for imaging, and even did some things to let the resonances be higher in the low and mid bass. Dirac corrects the large speaker bass really well, and the small speaker bass directed to the fronts integrates really well (not withstanding the current BM elevated bass issue). The system treated as a whole regarding speaker placement and room treatment can overcome some compromises and produce excellent well-balanced sound. Dirac is the final step that really makes it work.
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Dec 22, 2021 11:14:09 GMT -5
I agree entirely...
I was merely making the point that, the more speakers you have, and the more crossovers you have, the more complex it becomes to optimize it all. (That's not to say that, in the end, you cannot achieve a better result.... merely that it makes the process a lot more complicated.)
Here's the thing ... yes, you place the large fronts for imaging from the mid and high frequencies and this is typically not the best location for good bass ... especially bass around where room resonances are the worst between 40 and 100Hz. But if the alternative is to use subs optimally placed for the deep bass, you have another problem. With Atmos systems lots of people are going to be using ceiling (or in-ceiling) speakers that have to be crossed at 100Hz or higher. You have little choice. Lots of people use surrounds that have to be crossed at 100Hz. My Magnepan CC5 is the exception for a center, crossing at 200Hz, but the MMGC that I used to have crossed at 100. Subs can put out the dynamics needed for LFE, and do the LFE job up to the spec 120Hz. But how many subs are "musical" above 80 or 100Hz? So yes, use optimally positioned subs (at least two) for LFE and the lowest channel bass below 40-50Hz. I'd argue that for the small speakers that have to cross higher than that, it's better to have their bass coming from the front speakers. To the very important points of phase, as well as the compromise of front speaker position with regard to bass ... Dirac Live. I positioned my front speakers for imaging, and even did some things to let the resonances be higher in the low and mid bass. Dirac corrects the large speaker bass really well, and the small speaker bass directed to the fronts integrates really well (not withstanding the current BM elevated bass issue). The system treated as a whole regarding speaker placement and room treatment can overcome some compromises and produce excellent well-balanced sound. Dirac is the final step that really makes it work. I understand, and ... I neglected to make the point I was after with stereo subs Actually it wasn't so much that I wanted stereo subs as I wanted stereo bass management. So when small speakers must be crossed higher than 80Hz, and if you use Center Sub=LFE, then bass management would go in stereo to the large L/R speakers. All the right surround and top speaker bass to the right front, and all the left surround and top speaker bass to the left front. Could I hear the difference? Who knows, but in principle it would make more sense than sending it all to subs placed front and rear of the room and running up to 100-120Hz. Since we don't have DLBC (and even if we did) I check all the speakers with REW after doing a Dirac calibration and inevitably tweak the crossover frequency a bit to get a smooth transition. I wish I could measure the Atmos tops, but alas. And I know some speakers sold as surrounds and tops claim response down to 50Hz. But with this sort of bass management and crossing them higher it should result in better bass all around ... literally!
|
|
|
Post by jackfish on Dec 23, 2021 11:09:33 GMT -5
I could be totally satisfied with this dream system: Schiit Yggdrasil OG DAC Bel Canto PRe5 Balanced Analog Control Preamplifier Bel Canto e.One REF600M Monoblock Amplifiers Meadowlark Blue Heron 2 speakers www.patmcginty.com/pow/bh2.htmsubwoofer probably not needed but a pair of Rythmik F12s could be amazing Years ago I heard the Blue Heron 2 with Jolida Music Envoy stuff and I remember it was too good. Dream system #1: Berkely Alpha DAC & Preamp JL Audio CR1 crossover Starke Sound A2.640 power amplifier MBL Radialstrahler speakers Two or more excellent subwoofers Dream system #2: Schiit Yggdrasil DAC Audio by Van Alstine preamp OR Audio GD HE-1 preamp JL Audio CR1 crossover Unknown, balanced tube mono block amps (BAT?, Audio Research?) Klipschorn speakers Two or more excellent subwoofers And on system 2, I think it would be cool to remove the passive crossovers from the K-horns, and tri-amp the drivers using DSP to time and phase align the three horns. In fact, with DSP crossovers, even the La Scala or Belle Klipsch models would provide the advantages of the K-horns without their placement restrictions.
|
|
|
Post by leonski on Dec 23, 2021 16:03:04 GMT -5
I don't know what my 'dream system' consists of .....
With the following exception.
Absorption and diffusion panels.......Nearly any system, if it IS a system, can be improved by simply improving the room.....
Fine-tuning, maybe time align / multi-amp of an already good speaker may be a way forward there, too......I'm still wanting to
go LISTEN to a set of the new Forte IV before I decide IF and HOW I go forward.....
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Dec 24, 2021 11:04:47 GMT -5
Since I was scheduled for blood work yesterday, I've been BRUTAL with my diet this month - limiting carbs & sugars to the point where I've been flirting with Ketosis all month long. Despite my efforts, my blood sugar has been in the range of 140 to 160 every single morning, with an occasional 170. So after my samples were taken yesterday morning, I decided that since it was coming on Christmas, I'd splurge a bit. Yesterday, I had a BIG egg-nog with lots of alcohol, a chocolate cupcake for lunch, and some rice with my gumbo. Got up this morning with the expectation that my blood sugar would be bumping 200 - and... Wait for it... My effing blood sugar rang in at 125! This is contrary to what logic predicts. WHY the eff am I able to wake up with a 125 for blood sugar the day after blowing my diet to shreds? Was my body so starved for sugar that it just processed what I ate the way it should have? Had I built up an insulin reserve by being so strict with my diet for so long? Did Santa Clause come early and roll back my body chemistry by a decade? I need to check my crotch to see if the situation is similarly miraculous. If so, it's time to go find a Christmas strumpet! LOL
|
|