|
Post by hsamwel on Dec 29, 2020 22:11:50 GMT -5
Btw is it not possible to have for example.. Two MiniDSP’s. One, with two subs, connected to center sub output set to LFE. Then the other, with two additional subs, connected to Left sub set to Mono.
This should work without using the front LR as BM speakers.. Or is there a reason this wouldn’t work? Maybe Emotiva hasn’t been smart enough in their code that Mono in this case always means LFE+BM?
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Dec 29, 2020 22:35:35 GMT -5
Btw is it not possible to have for example.. Two MiniDSP’s. One, with two subs, connected to center sub output set to LFE. Then the other, with two additional subs, connected to Left sub set to Mono. This should work without using the front LR as BM speakers.. Or is there a reason this wouldn’t work? Maybe Emotiva hasn’t been smart enough in their code that Mono in this case always means LFE+BM? I bought a second miniDSP but haven't had time to implement it yet. Been distracted with home organization and improvements. But finally I am on track to get it integrated this weekend! So, yes, I'll keep miniDSP-1 on Center Sub for LFE only. Then change from using the Left and Right Sub outs for BM to only Left Sub Out to miniDSP-2 for BM. And correct, there is no BM going to any Large Speakers when any subwoofer output is set for any form of Mono. Also, when Center Sub is set for LFE, there is no LFE going anywhere else. All of this assumes Enhanced Bass is not enabled.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Dec 30, 2020 19:30:20 GMT -5
The fun begins again with the addition of a second miniDSP for BM.
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Dec 31, 2020 19:15:01 GMT -5
The fun begins again with the addition of a second miniDSP for BM. View AttachmentWow! And my friends think I have a complicated setup.. I simply have: RMC-1 -> XPA-11 gen3 / Anthem MCA225 -> SVS Ultra/Prime (complete 9.2.4) All connected with XLR. Subs: XTZ 12.17 Edge (two) connected serially between to Center sub output. Placed in front between the LR. No MiniDSP, Waiting for DLBM then may get another sub for the back of the room.
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jan 1, 2021 11:37:21 GMT -5
I've been considering a second miniDSP also, but for different reasons. I'd use an HD this time to get more range of time delay and positive gain adjustment for my DWM's. My DWM's run in parallel with my L/R fronts to augment the bass and fill in some of the nulls. If I only wanted bass management from the DWM's - and if we had actual stereo L/R sub outputs and not confusingly mis-labeled L/R mono sub outputs - I would run the DWM's from those stereo sub outputs and then also send a third output to the other miniDSP to drive the same subs as the LFE below 50Hz. But alas ... In my current setup the benefit of running the DWM's in parallel with the L/R fronts is significant, and I run them in stereo as they go up over 200Hz. I get the benefit by being able to place them independent of the main fronts. But I also have to consider their location in order to keep them in phase with the fronts, which means placing them a couple feet closer to the front wall. With a second miniDSP I could place them based on room modes, and then phase-align with the delay settings. I probably would also increase the level of the DWM's to fully fill in the nulls and let Dirac flatten them out. Of course I still maintain that bass management will always be better done by competent main speakers than subwoofers, down to the point where the main speakers roll off. I want to use subs ONLY where there is no other solution. As far as I've been able to tell ... no one else believes this to be true :-) My current configuration for L/R, LFE and BM.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Jan 1, 2021 12:56:07 GMT -5
Of course I still maintain that bass management will always be better done by competent main speakers than subwoofers, down to the point where the main speakers roll off. I want to use subs ONLY where there is no other solution. As far as I've been able to tell ... no one else believes this to be true :-) My current configuration for L/R, LFE and BM. I also believe that using Mains for BM is better than "most" subwoofers, but I want my Mains to only be forced to play the sound meant only for them. I don't play any multi-channel music, so this might be where we differ here. I also believe that a subwoofer is best implemented when it fills in under the natural rolloff of a speaker as opposed to crossing over at some point. I still have yet to try my active XO with the Center speaker, but when I let the speaker run full range and adjust a subwoofer to be the optimum for the situation, it sounds better than using the XMC-2 and crossing over. Now the caveat with my particular Center Speaker is that it has a unusual bump in SPL between 100-200Hz exactly, so something weird is going on, and I further believe this is why this speaker can sound a bit boxy AND why when I adjust the XO above 150-200Hz it sounds better and better. Today I'm playing with something that probably won't work, but that isn't stopping me. Cardioid Array. I want to see if a 60-80Hz null can be diminished by reducing the back-wave bounce and cancel - if that's what might be a cause.
|
|
|
Post by richter250 on Jan 1, 2021 13:32:59 GMT -5
So, wanting to try mains for BM. Thought I would give it a try with a much simpler set up. Front L/R set up as large with bass enhance on and crossover set to 50. Center sub set to mono. With two channel modes this should send a full range signal to my mains and bass below 50 to the sub as well. In multichannel modes does BM go to the mains or the sub with this configuration? Maybe I should set the center sub to LFE if I want all BM to go to the mains supplemented by the sub below 50?
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jan 2, 2021 14:28:14 GMT -5
So, wanting to try mains for BM. Thought I would give it a try with a much simpler set up. Front L/R set up as large with bass enhance on and crossover set to 50. Center sub set to mono. With two channel modes this should send a full range signal to my mains and bass below 50 to the sub as well. In multichannel modes does BM go to the mains or the sub with this configuration? Maybe I should set the center sub to LFE if I want all BM to go to the mains supplemented by the sub below 50? If you set any sub=Mono/DualMono, then they get LFE and BM. If you then set large speakers to Enhanced Bass and set the crossover low, the large speakers run full range and bass from the large speakers also goes to the subs below the crossover. No way to get BM to the mains in this configuration though. The only way to get BM to go to mains is with no subs at all, or with Center Sub=LFE and no L/R Subs. But if you do that, then Enhanced Bass does nothing (it should actually be disabled, and this has been reported to Emotiva). The other issue with this is that there's no setting that will send any bass from the large or small speakers to the subs. If your large speakers go down to at least 40Hz this is probably fine. A final alternative is to split the L/R fronts set to large and send one split to the L/R amp and the other split to the subs. This assume you have a way to get this L/R signal low passed at 50Hz and send this and the Center Sub output to the subs. I do it this way and use a miniDSP to handle the combining and front speaker low pass.
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Jan 2, 2021 16:29:42 GMT -5
Of course I still maintain that bass management will always be better done by competent main speakers than subwoofers, down to the point where the main speakers roll off. I want to use subs ONLY where there is no other solution. As far as I've been able to tell ... no one else believes this to be true :-) My current configuration for L/R, LFE and BM. I also believe that using Mains for BM is better than "most" subwoofers, but I want my Mains to only be forced to play the sound meant only for them. I don't play any multi-channel music, so this might be where we differ here. I also believe that a subwoofer is best implemented when it fills in under the natural rolloff of a speaker as opposed to crossing over at some point. I still have yet to try my active XO with the Center speaker, but when I let the speaker run full range and adjust a subwoofer to be the optimum for the situation, it sounds better than using the XMC-2 and crossing over. Now the caveat with my particular Center Speaker is that it has a unusual bump in SPL between 100-200Hz exactly, so something weird is going on, and I further believe this is why this speaker can sound a bit boxy AND why when I adjust the XO above 150-200Hz it sounds better and better. Today I'm playing with something that probably won't work, but that isn't stopping me. Cardioid Array. I want to see if a 60-80Hz null can be diminished by reducing the back-wave bounce and cancel - if that's what might be a cause. Nice that you wrote ”most”. Because I think a professional install with great subs that are optimally placed, calibrated and with room treatment will beat any large mains. Under 80hz anyway. I also believe that it’s not actually good have the crossover point when the speaker natrually fall off. Why? Because (almost) no speaker has a textbook perfect fall off. Then you have room modes. Dirac makes it possible though. But without calibration you should have the crossover atleast 20hz over the natrual fall off. IMO Your center probably has problems with room modes. Isn’t Dirac fixing it? If you have a sub just for the center placed closed to it having a higher crossover should work. But you will also start to hear were the bass is coming from especially above 120-150hz.
|
|
|
Post by richter250 on Jan 2, 2021 16:43:12 GMT -5
Thanks Marci! That clarified things for me! It gets a little confusing. I have Maggie 3.7s like you and was trying to be able to try a similar set up with only one sub and no MiniDSPs. I thought I could do it by setting the center sub to LFE and using bass enhance on the mains but as you noted bass enhance does not work when the sub is set to LFE. Only LFE goes to the sub in this configuration. I really like the sound having the mains set to large with bass enhance helping below 40-50hz. And it measures really well on REW. The BM from the surrounds still all goes to the sub. Maybe a good excuse for a second sub?😎😎I am thinking that a nice REL with a high level connection with the mains and my first sub for LFE would do the trick. Thanks for your help!
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Jan 2, 2021 17:05:47 GMT -5
I also believe that it’s not actually good have the crossover point when the speaker natrually fall off. Why? Because (almost) no speaker has a textbook perfect fall off. Then you have room modes. Dirac makes it possible though. But without calibration you should have the crossover atleast 20hz over the natrual fall off. IMO When I make statements like "under the natural rolloff", I am meaning that I found that the speaker's natural rolloff and integration with a sub was better than using a XO to clip the bottom off the speaker. Where the sub rolls in is a matter of what sounds good and verifying with measurements. To cover more bases, all of this is fraught with caveats of one sort or another, as you say, "(almost) no speaker has a textbook perfect fall off". But without calibration you should have the crossover atleast 20hz over the natrual fall off. IMO Totally agree, and even higher works well, but again, it depends on the synergy between the speaker and sub. Your center probably has problems with room modes. Isn’t Dirac fixing it? If you have a sub just for the center placed closed to it having a higher crossover should work. But you will also start to hear were the bass is coming from especially above 120-150hz. In the case of my Center Speaker which is a ML Motif, it's not room modes. It's just the strangest thing that the speaker has this straight across raised level between exactly 100Hz and exactly 200Hz. This bump can be altered by way of changing a setting on the speaker for "On Wall" and Off Wall" usage, even though this switch covers a larger range of frequencies. My very simple work-around has been to set the crossover in the processor at 200Hz. End of story. But I have yet to work on the dedicated sub for this speaker in lieu of working on other things first. All in good time.
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jan 3, 2021 11:11:52 GMT -5
Regarding crossover to subs .... ttocs, hsamwel ... I think there's an obvious difference between: 1 - letting large speakers run full range and adding a sub with LPF and some overlap to pick up only what the large speaker can't do (adjusting the LPF until the transition is smooth) 2 - using the processor bass management to do HFP on the main speaker and LPF on the sub (and HOPE that the transition is smooth). This is in general, then add Dirac to the mix. If you do scenario #1 by using Enhanced Bass, Dirac sees the large speaker and sub separately and corrects them separately but you can adjust the LPF for a smoother transition. In scenario #2 Dirac also corrects them separately, but your ability to optimize the transition is more limited due to the HPF. But there's a third scenario where you do #1 but you send the large speaker signal to the sub in parallel outside the control of the processor. As far as the processor and Dirac are concerned, it's just one big speaker and you can optimize the transition through whatever combination of LPF and possibly HPF filter you're using, and let Dirac further manage the transition as it thinks it's just one speaker with peaks and dips. If you concatenate the subs and mains outside the processor and maybe have phase/time control on the subs or in a miniDSP - or physically move subs to time align (i.e. 1ms per foot) - you might accomplish an optimal transition without any EQ in the transition range. All this to say yes, look at the natural falloff of speakers. But in practice, fine tune it through testing to get the best transition. And you know my preference ... have the sub do as little as possible. And back to what I think is a philosophical question, if I understand some earlier discussion .... I don't think there's anything wrong with mixing content in a particular speaker if it's competent with respect to bandwidth and dynamic range. Specifically, I don't see a problem with a 40Hz LFE explosion peak coming from the same speaker that's simultaneously producing a bowed E string on 10 double bases, also at 40Hz. But here's my thought ... the reason NOT to do it is not because one interferes with the other, but rather because one speaker is not likely to be equally good at both types of content. Maybe we actually agree? Semi-related .... I'll admit it's a little hard to get my head around, but Magnepans routinely have multiple voice coils adjacent or even interleaved on a single mylar diaphragm. Each voice coil drives the diaphragm to reproduce whatever sound is fed to the voice coil, even though it's one big sheet vibrating. These voice coils can be woofer and tweeter wires occupying adjacent sections (with overlapping range depending on the crossovers). And maybe the most interesting is the DWM which has a diaphragm about a foot square with two totally independent and symmetrically interleaved voice coils that can be connected to any two different sources ... both simultaneously driving the full diaphragm with totally different content.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Jan 3, 2021 13:37:43 GMT -5
I tried a "cardioid layout" with two subs to find out what would happen in a "small room" as opposed to an outdoor venue where this type of layout is more common. I have a wide, deep, null between 60-80Hz, and I wanted to see if this layout could reduce that null. The simple answer is yes. The other simple answer is it doesn't work for me. There is a bitter taste to this cure. Here is the layout. L1 and L2 were lined up in a "shotgun" type arrangement. The idea is similar in approach to a shotgun microphone in that there is rejection to the rear so the focus is pushed out to the front. Also, the distance between the front and rear subs determines the frequency tuning. I chose about 4 feet to approximate the 70Hz center frequency I wanted to deal with, 1/4 wavelength = 4'. Then the front sub must be delayed by that distance to the rear sub, but it doesn't work exactly by using straight math in a room, so I needed to play with the delay a bit to get a better result. This is the layout showing L2 behind L1. This is the before/after plot. The blue is with L2 stacked on top of L1, the red is with L2 behind by about 4 feet. Instead of peaking at 70Hz, the peak is around 73Hz, probably due to the room reflections. The principle works, basically, but comes with other issues like worse impulse response, and extra ringing. I might play some more, but it seems like too much work. Just thought I'd share while taking a break. edit: This method probably/most-likely won't work for when I get the other pair of subwoofers involved. I suspect that with all four producing the same mono signal for BM that the interactions would become quite unmanageable.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Jan 3, 2021 17:33:23 GMT -5
Here's where things are at the moment. This is with a miniDSP dedicated to the four subs being used for BM, and connected to the Left Sub Output on the XMC-2. This is the system layout and connections. First REW plot is Left SOS (Stack Of Subs), then Right SOS, all four subs but no ARC (each sub has Anthem Room Control), all four subs with ARC enabled. Unfortunately, ARC is only per sub, not multiple subs together. I'll need to run Dirac with and without subwoofer ARC, sometimes Dirac doesn't respond well when ARC is enabled - but those sometimes are sometimes fixed by playing with the Dirac curtains. The ARC Enabled plot rolls off the upper frequencies a little. There's a lot of gain left on the table with the gain controls all set to -20dB on each sub. When I did some dB tests a few weeks ago, two subs were 6dB higher gain than one, and four were over 10dB higher gain than one, and they were in the same locations they are now. The dB's aren't exactly free in this case, not like when I shut all the doors in the hallway - those extra dB's are free. Next up, playing with bales of rockwool. I already did some initial testing a couple weeks ago and got some interesting differences. And as always, everything is subject to change based on future findings.
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Jan 3, 2021 19:08:36 GMT -5
The BM measures pretty good though. Too bad you have the big dip at 60-70hz.. Maybe you need a fifth sub? Or simply try to move them around some more? Maybe try some ”impossible” places were they absolutely can’t be placed IRL. Just to test? Edit: the left side seems to have the biggest issues. Probably standing in a too open space?
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Jan 3, 2021 19:55:18 GMT -5
The BM measures pretty good though. Too bad you have the big dip at 60-70hz.. Maybe you need a fifth sub? Fifth sub, eh? (must be said like Homer would say it) Or simply try to move them around some more? Maybe try some ”impossible” places were they absolutely can’t be placed IRL. Just to test? Did that months ago. I scouted almost every square foot of the room, literally. But, the main purpose of these particular four subs is for augmented bass to the Main L&R speakers and as such need to be placed where they are. BM is the secondary reason. The initial testing I did the first week I had these subs I got really good results from using the High Level input connected to the L&R speakers. The difference when using this input on the subs is that the crossover is in the path which allows for extra tweaking ability. Plus, when the main speakers' woofers mingle with the SOS everything improves. The L&R speakers each have two bass controls of their own which allows for lots of flexibility. As much as I may try to do otherwise, it may end up that BM will stay running through the Main L&R speakers as Marc suggests, but that will then include the subwoofers working with the L&R. Movies sound great! I just need to extinguish other possibilities to be able to make a final decision. It's a small jump from using only the SOS for BM to SOS + L&R. Edit: the left side seems to have the biggest issues. Probably standing in a too open space? That null can altered if the SOS is moved away from the wall behind, but the side effect is that it moves to a lower frequency. The way it is, it is controllable enough that it's 10Hz smaller in width now, and less depth in lost SPL. All of this is still in its infancy. Heck, just opening and closing hallway doors changes that null. Treatment also changes things and that's what's next on the docket.
|
|
|
Post by hsamwel on Jan 3, 2021 19:59:58 GMT -5
Regarding crossover to subs .... ttocs, hsamwel ... I think there's an obvious difference between: 1 - letting large speakers run full range and adding a sub with LPF and some overlap to pick up only what the large speaker can't do (adjusting the LPF until the transition is smooth) 2 - using the processor bass management to do HFP on the main speaker and LPF on the sub (and HOPE that the transition is smooth). This is in general, then add Dirac to the mix. If you do scenario #1 by using Enhanced Bass, Dirac sees the large speaker and sub separately and corrects them separately but you can adjust the LPF for a smoother transition. In scenario #2 Dirac also corrects them separately, but your ability to optimize the transition is more limited due to the HPF. But there's a third scenario where you do #1 but you send the large speaker signal to the sub in parallel outside the control of the processor. As far as the processor and Dirac are concerned, it's just one big speaker and you can optimize the transition through whatever combination of LPF and possibly HPF filter you're using, and let Dirac further manage the transition as it thinks it's just one speaker with peaks and dips. If you concatenate the subs and mains outside the processor and maybe have phase/time control on the subs or in a miniDSP - or physically move subs to time align (i.e. 1ms per foot) - you might accomplish an optimal transition without any EQ in the transition range. All this to say yes, look at the natural falloff of speakers. But in practice, fine tune it through testing to get the best transition. And you know my preference ... have the sub do as little as possible. And back to what I think is a philosophical question, if I understand some earlier discussion .... I don't think there's anything wrong with mixing content in a particular speaker if it's competent with respect to bandwidth and dynamic range. Specifically, I don't see a problem with a 40Hz LFE explosion peak coming from the same speaker that's simultaneously producing a bowed E string on 10 double bases, also at 40Hz. But here's my thought ... the reason NOT to do it is not because one interferes with the other, but rather because one speaker is not likely to be equally good at both types of content. Maybe we actually agree? Semi-related .... I'll admit it's a little hard to get my head around, but Magnepans routinely have multiple voice coils adjacent or even interleaved on a single mylar diaphragm. Each voice coil drives the diaphragm to reproduce whatever sound is fed to the voice coil, even though it's one big sheet vibrating. These voice coils can be woofer and tweeter wires occupying adjacent sections (with overlapping range depending on the crossovers). And maybe the most interesting is the DWM which has a diaphragm about a foot square with two totally independent and symmetrically interleaved voice coils that can be connected to any two different sources ... both simultaneously driving the full diaphragm with totally different content. I agree somewhat.. But if you can get really good subs, treat the room and calibrate the leftovers. Then having a crossover set in the range of 60-80 should be better than letting front speakers play all the way down. You have some benefits of doing this. You relieve the amps letting them play cleaner. You let the speakers play cleaner without the low bass and vibrations that hurt upper range. There are distortion when the speaker reach its bottom. The worst room modes below 80hz is not played through your main speakers. Best would actually be if nothing below the transition frequency would be played from main the speakers. But that’s impossible I guess. The problem is, most can’t treat their room the way it has to. Most don’t/can’t actually buy good enough subs, let alone 4 of them. Most don’t have the room or can place the subs ”anywhere”. So we make do with what we can and have. This is were I agree with you, as a compromise for most people these suggestions will probably even give better sound in their setup. Mine as well. Due to Dirac I get a pretty flat response from my LR. So placing BM in them is not an issue. But uncalibrated with my room modes and +13db at 25hz and -8db at 35hz for example wouldn’t have sounded as nice. Then Dirac do even more with phase and such. Now I get a slimmer more defined bass. Actually as if I had done some room treatments and bought myself some better subs. I’m very satisfied with the LFE setup. I would have liked it more if I had subs handling <40hz instead of my LR. If I could have split up the BM in two.. LR handling >40hz and subs taking care of the bottom part. Isn’t that kind of what you do?
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Jan 4, 2021 0:16:06 GMT -5
I decided to switch over to testing the High Level Connection for the Left speaker. This is easier than working on that null of the four subs together. Yeah, I know Dirac can work around it a bit, but I'd rather come up with a non-calibration reduction method first. That null might not be as bad if I employ the Left Speaker Group and Right Speaker Group for BM, the L&R speakers are the wild card here. First operational result of Left Speaker Group w/SOS connected via the High Level (Speaker Level) Connection. So basically, it's the speaker with its two woofers plus 2 subwoofers as low-bass. The Left/Right speakers are set as Large in the XMC-2. No subwoofer is assigned. No Enhanced Bass. To integrate the subs with the Left speaker a number of speaker settings and subwoofer settings were adjusted. After running ARC on each sub and the Left speaker, I adjusted the pair of subs using gain and a contour setting. Then got the speaker running. Martin Logan suggested using inverted phase to adjust the sub to the speaker. Invert the speaker wires, run a test tone at whatever I choose to integrate at, adjust the phase on each sub until it's the quietest. This ended up being 180 on one sub, and 10 degrees inverted on the other. Then I went about adjusting the XO on each sub as well as gain until I reached the point where no further improvement could be found. At this point it was up to Dirac. This is before and after Dirac. Blue is User, and Red is Dirac corrected. It should be apparent looking at the plots that it's not about more bass, it's about better bass, and you can't see better bass. There's still some dips, but the deep ones are narrow, and the wider one is not very deep. The one at 48Hz is 6dB deep, and the one at 69Hz is only a few Hz wide, so I'm not concerned too much yet.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Jan 5, 2021 1:52:24 GMT -5
Tonight I integrated the Right Front with its SOS via the High Level connection, so now both L&R are functional. I setup the processor for 5.1 with the Center Sub setup as LFE so BM goes to the Fronts with their SOS's. The Left Front w/SOS is the speaker and two dedicated subs connected via the High Level (Speaker Level) inputs, same for the Right Front. The Left and Right are setup as Large in the XMC-2, the Center Sub is setup as LFE. All LFE goes to the 3 subs in the LFE group, so Bass Management for all Small speakers goes to both Fronts equally, unfortunately. It would be nice to have stereo bass management and you'll see why below. This shows each Front with its Stack Of Subs. The only connection the subs have is via speaker wire between the Speaker and both subs. After tuning each Front speaker group, I ran Dirac and got the following results. Disregard that one deep dip at 25Hz when both Fronts are producing the same mono signal, it didn't happen on the first Dirac run measuring for a 2.0 setup even though the mic never moved, so I'm sure it's just another anomaly like has happened before but I haven't taken any time to worry about it yet. This is the Left and Right Fronts together, and also just the Right Front only. When both are measured together that big dip shows up. Also note that the level is as much as 7dB higher in the bass region when both are running the same signal. This is the Left and Right Surrounds. You can see that the Fronts are producing the bass for both, just look at that big dip between 60-70Hz. And this is interesting, it shows a difference in levels in the bass region between just the Right Front alone and Right Surround with its bass going through both Fronts. The Surrounds are using both Fronts for bass so it's higher than just the Right or Left Front alone because both Front channels are producing the bass, not one. You would think that the system would compensate for this additive bass. Now it's not like the speakers are each louder, it's just that both Fronts are operating as one in this case so you get a free bump in dB's. 5dB is a bit strong for my taste, but I know many who like to use curves that add bass, so it's just a matter of personal choice I guess. The bad part is that I can't just lower the level of the Fronts because the higher frequencies would be lowered too much due to the fact that there's a slope to the increased bass level. So it's only the bottom few hundred Hz that begins elevating as the frequency goes lower.
|
|
|
Post by ttocs on Jan 5, 2021 17:08:52 GMT -5
There are ways to solve most any issue, but sometimes there's a cost to the benefit. I want to cure this null between 60-70Hz. THAT, and a Bump around 30Hz has plagued my room but the more I learn, the better I get to disguising those issues. I have a smaller ML sub, a 800X, that I bought to use with the Center speaker. So I decided to use it to tweak that null and reduced it quite a bit. The Left Front speaker group is a bit weak at some lower bass so I put the 800X behind and farther left and against the wall. This isn't as random as it sounds. I've done enough testing in the room to kinda remember where some freqs are better or worse, and I'm only going for boosting the 60-70Hz range. So I aligned the 800X with the Left group using an inverted 65Hz tone, then began using all the controls available built into the sub. I used Volume, Profile: Movie/Music/Night, Inverted, Low Pass Filter, and the 20Hz-30Hz boost/cut feature. So here's where the settings are at the moment (using the nomenclature on the sub app): Plus Center, v-8 nit, xo90Hz, phINV160, 2030-10dB, Volume: -8dB Profile: Night (which I believe reduces the lowest frequencies) LPF: 90Hz Phase: Inverted 160 degrees (160 is correct for alignment, but Non-Inverted is correct if I wanted the most bass output, but I inverted to flip the null) 20-30Hz: -10dB So this helped immensely for when the Left and Right are outputting the same mono signal but disrupted the response of the Left alone. There are remedies available, not sure yet which way to go yet but there's one very simple one and that's simply to use a trigger just for that Null-Sub. The first image shows just the Left channel, before and after adding the Null Sub. This one shows both Left and Right channels playing together. The major null is reduced, but a small dip at 95Hz is increased. Overall, I'm pretty happy so far. Some more tweaking is needed. I'm only a little disappointed that the Center speaker "may" not get a dedicated sub, but who knows? Lots of balls up in the air with the entire system. Time will tell, need to let some dust settle a little.
|
|