|
|
Post by ukengb on Jun 1, 2024 12:33:03 GMT -5
Planning on getting an RMC soon, when the G4s are available. However, in the meantime would appreciate it if someone could help with the following:-
Ideally, I'd like to be able to run 3 subs, so L and R at the front and a single one at the rear. Can the RMC-1 handle that sub combination and split the signals appropriately?
If so and I wanted 9.3.6, that would require 2 more channels, but is there any news when such an expansion module might be available? Or will they never actually appear, so I might as well stick with the RMC-1L.
I have realised a problem with the Yamaha amps I've been using and would like to find out how the RMC-1 handles this.
On a Yamaha amp, you can set it up for small speakers and the amp will filter off the low frequencies from the main speaker channels and send to the sub output instead. This is all well and good except that those low frequencies are simply mixed with the .1 effects channel, with no control over their relative levels. So if I want a bit more bass for the main channels and up the sub level, the low frequency effects are also boosted which is invariably too high as film makers seem to like adding massive effects like a loud humming (supposed to increase tension I guess) but which is way too loud and reverberates around the room and rattling the windows. If I turn down the sub level to suit the effects signal, I lose bass from the main channels. As I said, there's no way to separate these, at least that I've found. Happy to be proved wrong though.
So, in the RMC-1, is it possible to control the effects level, independently from the level of any main channel's signals that are filtered and output to the sub?
Hoping an RMC-1 expert can help here.
|
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jun 1, 2024 13:35:18 GMT -5
Planning on getting an RMC soon, when the G4s are available. However, in the meantime would appreciate it if someone could help with the following:- Ideally, I'd like to be able to run 3 subs, so L and R at the front and a single one at the rear. Can the RMC-1 handle that sub combination and split the signals appropriately? If so and I wanted 9.3.6, that would require 2 more channels, but is there any news when such an expansion module might be available? Or will they never actually appear, so I might as well stick with the RMC-1L. I have realised a problem with the Yamaha amps I've been using and would like to find out how the RMC-1 handles this. On a Yamaha amp, you can set it up for small speakers and the amp will filter off the low frequencies from the main speaker channels and send to the sub output instead. This is all well and good except that those low frequencies are simply mixed with the .1 effects channel, with no control over their relative levels. So if I want a bit more bass for the main channels and up the sub level, the low frequency effects are also boosted which is invariably too high as film makers seem to like adding massive effects like a loud humming (supposed to increase tension I guess) but which is way too loud and reverberates around the room and rattling the windows. If I turn down the sub level to suit the effects signal, I lose bass from the main channels. As I said, there's no way to separate these, at least that I've found. Happy to be proved wrong though. So, in the RMC-1, is it possible to control the effects level, independently from the level of any main channel's signals that are filtered and output to the sub? Hoping an RMC-1 expert can help here. The XMC-2, RMC-1, and RMC-1L have three XLR sub outputs. A Left, Right and Center. The Left and Right can only be configured as Mono getting redirected bass and/or LFE. The Center can be configured as Mono and will get the redirected bass and LFE. The Center can also be configured as LFE only in which case the Left and Right will receive only redirected bass while LFE and only LFE will go to the Center. All three have their own Level adjustments in setup. You can also adjust the global LFE level from 0 to -20dB in the Preferences section of Setup. |
|
|
|
Post by foggy1956 on Jun 1, 2024 13:50:18 GMT -5
Planning on getting an RMC soon, when the G4s are available. However, in the meantime would appreciate it if someone could help with the following:- Ideally, I'd like to be able to run 3 subs, so L and R at the front and a single one at the rear. Can the RMC-1 handle that sub combination and split the signals appropriately? Â If so and I wanted 9.3.6, that would require 2 more channels, but is there any news when such an expansion module might be available? Or will they never actually appear, so I might as well stick with the RMC-1L. I have realised a problem with the Yamaha amps I've been using and would like to find out how the RMC-1 handles this. On a Yamaha amp, you can set it up for small speakers and the amp will filter off the low frequencies from the main speaker channels and send to the sub output instead. This is all well and good except that those low frequencies are simply mixed with the .1 effects channel, with no control over their relative levels. So if I want a bit more bass for the main channels and up the sub level, the low frequency effects are also boosted which is invariably too high as film makers seem to like adding massive effects like a loud humming (supposed to increase tension I guess) but which is way too loud and reverberates around the room and rattling the windows. If I turn down the sub level to suit the effects signal, I lose bass from the main channels. As I said, there's no way to separate these, at least that I've found. Happy to be proved wrong though. So, in the RMC-1, is it possible to control the effects level, independently from the level of any main channel's signals that are filtered and output to the sub? Hoping an RMC-1 expert can help here. The XMC-2, RMC-1, and RMC-1L have three XLR sub outputs. A Left, Right and Center. The Left and Right can only be configured as Mono getting redirected bass and/or LFE. The Center can be configured as Mono and will get the redirected bass and LFE. The Center can also be configured as LFE only in which case the Left and Right will receive only redirected bass while LFE and only LFE will go to the Center. All three have their own Level adjustments in setup. You can also adjust the global LFE level from 0 to -20dB in the Preferences section of Setup. But he would still need an expansion module if he chooses to go to 6 tops as stated. |
|
|
|
Post by geebo on Jun 1, 2024 13:56:03 GMT -5
The XMC-2, RMC-1, and RMC-1L have three XLR sub outputs. A Left, Right and Center. The Left and Right can only be configured as Mono getting redirected bass and/or LFE. The Center can be configured as Mono and will get the redirected bass and LFE. The Center can also be configured as LFE only in which case the Left and Right will receive only redirected bass while LFE and only LFE will go to the Center. All three have their own Level adjustments in setup. You can also adjust the global LFE level from 0 to -20dB in the Preferences section of Setup. But he would still need an expansion module if he chooses to go to 6 tops as stated. I was only relaying the capabilities of the Gen3 processors with regards to subwoofer configuration. I can't answer the question about the possible availability of an expansion module to handle two additional Atmos channels. |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jun 1, 2024 14:07:28 GMT -5
I'd like to add for clarity ... the so-called Left and Right sub outputs are not actually Left and Right. They always have mono content when it is the redirected bass from speakers configured as Small.
As geebo says, the way for you to have independent control over the redirected bass vs LFE is to use the LFE level control. So there is no need to have LFE only go to the Center Sub output to independently control the LFE level. You can have all subs set to Mono, set their level as high as you want for redirected bass to the other speakers ... and if the LFE ends up too loud, lower its level with the LFE level control.
Now, you would like to have two more Height channels and to do that you need to use the outputs labeled LSub and RSub. Since all the sub outputs are mono anyway, you can (and should for several reasons) ONLY use the Center Sub output. Using a splitter - or if your subs have the capability daisy-chain - feed all three subs from the Center Sub output. So the RMC will see 9.1.6 and you will still be driving three subs.
Note that for added precision and control you could use a miniDSP 2x4HD on the Center Sub output to drive three subs and time/level align them to each other. This will also allow Dirac Live to correct the sum of the three subs which is how it should work. Now ... IF the RMC gets the capability to run Dirac Live Bass Control and you want to pay for that ... then you will have to have expansion to add the two additional independent sub outputs.
|
|
|
|
Post by ukengb on Jun 2, 2024 1:33:18 GMT -5
All very intersting guys, thanks.
I seem to recall that a Yamaha I had some years ago did have the ability to control LFE level, but the later ones have no such control (that I can find). It's just the overall sub level control. So good to know the Emotivas provide that independent control.
However, the Emotivas have only one single mono sub channel, yes? I realise that there is only one single LFE channel in the original signal, but the Yamahas can be set up to drive a Front sub and a Rear sub. I'm not sure how they do that though, Perhaps the LFE is the same to each and it's only the redirected bass that is directed to Fr. or Rr. depending on which channels it is being redirected from. Anyone know?
If the Emotivas only deal with a single mono LFE channel, with no L/R/Fr/Rr shenanigans, then 9.1.6 is all that can be achieved and expansion modules won't really change that. Unless they also change the software to play around with the LFE. Always possible I guess, but otherwise the RMC-1 will offer no advantage over the L version. Just split the single sub output to as many actual subs as I want.
I still like the idea of potential for expansion, but that adds significant cost. So far expansion seems limitied to additional inputs which to my mind seems less useful than additional output channels. Who knows what the future holds.
|
|
|
|
Post by markc on Jun 2, 2024 5:16:52 GMT -5
But he would still need an expansion module if he chooses to go to 6 tops as stated. I'm guessing you are deliberately being hilarious! You refer to the output expansion modules that were advertised as features for the RMC-1 seven years ago and have failed to ever materialise!!!! If we discount the archaic phono module's existence and the completely redundant extra XLR input module then we can count the available modules as zero. This means that almost every single one of the RMC-1 owners paid a huge $1000 premium simply for that chunk of fresh air inside their case and an unnecessarily tall processor that simply wasn't needed when once the RMC-1L became available! (although the price differential is now a "bargain!" $700, but still, the company made fools of people not opting for the RMC-1L or even the XMC-2) |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jun 2, 2024 8:20:20 GMT -5
All very intersting guys, thanks. I seem to recall that a Yamaha I had some years ago did have the ability to control LFE level, but the later ones have no such control (that I can find). It's just the overall sub level control. So good to know the Emotivas provide that independent control. However, the Emotivas have only one single mono sub channel, yes? I realise that there is only one single LFE channel in the original signal, but the Yamahas can be set up to drive a Front sub and a Rear sub. I'm not sure how they do that though, Perhaps the LFE is the same to each and it's only the redirected bass that is directed to Fr. or Rr. depending on which channels it is being redirected from. Anyone know? If the Emotivas only deal with a single mono LFE channel, with no L/R/Fr/Rr shenanigans, then 9.1.6 is all that can be achieved and expansion modules won't really change that. Unless they also change the software to play around with the LFE. Always possible I guess, but otherwise the RMC-1 will offer no advantage over the L version. Just split the single sub output to as many actual subs as I want. I still like the idea of potential for expansion, but that adds significant cost. So far expansion seems limitied to additional inputs which to my mind seems less useful than additional output channels. Who knows what the future holds. The unfortunate fact is that - probably for marketing purposes - manufacturers use terms like left, center, right, front, rear for subs .... when essentially they are identical and should just be numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. It's all mono, and yes there is only ever one LFE signal. And redirected bass (bass management) is always summed to mono. The only exception to this is that Emotiva gives us the option to split LFE and bass management ... with LFE going only to the "center" sub and bass management going to either or both other subs (or to Large speakers if there are no other subs). |
|
|
|
Post by PaulBe on Jun 2, 2024 8:45:12 GMT -5
All very intersting guys, thanks. I seem to recall that a Yamaha I had some years ago did have the ability to control LFE level, but the later ones have no such control (that I can find). It's just the overall sub level control. So good to know the Emotivas provide that independent control. However, the Emotivas have only one single mono sub channel, yes? I realise that there is only one single LFE channel in the original signal, but the Yamahas can be set up to drive a Front sub and a Rear sub. I'm not sure how they do that though, Perhaps the LFE is the same to each and it's only the redirected bass that is directed to Fr. or Rr. depending on which channels it is being redirected from. Anyone know? If the Emotivas only deal with a single mono LFE channel, with no L/R/Fr/Rr shenanigans, then 9.1.6 is all that can be achieved and expansion modules won't really change that. Unless they also change the software to play around with the LFE. Always possible I guess, but otherwise the RMC-1 will offer no advantage over the L version. Just split the single sub output to as many actual subs as I want. I still like the idea of potential for expansion, but that adds significant cost. So far expansion seems limitied to additional inputs which to my mind seems less useful than additional output channels. Who knows what the future holds. The unfortunate fact is that - probably for marketing purposes - manufacturers use terms like left, center, right, front, rear for subs .... when essentially they are identical and should just be numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. It's all mono, and yes there is only ever one LFE signal. And redirected bass (bass management) is always summed to mono. The only exception to this is that Emotiva gives us the option to split LFE and bass management ... with LFE going only to the "center" sub and bass management going to either or both other subs (or to Large speakers if there are no other subs). L and R for the SUB/HEIGHT channels do refer to the proper HEIGHT channels. Perhaps it could be more clear if the silk screening read L HEIGHT/SUB and R HEIGHT/SUB instead of L SUB/HEIGHT AND R SUB/HEIGHT. There isn't any more room for additional letters and numbers. Emotiva had to pick a lettering system... The current description works fine. |
|
|
|
Post by ukengb on Jun 3, 2024 8:48:39 GMT -5
All very intersting guys, thanks. I seem to recall that a Yamaha I had some years ago did have the ability to control LFE level, but the later ones have no such control (that I can find). It's just the overall sub level control. So good to know the Emotivas provide that independent control. However, the Emotivas have only one single mono sub channel, yes? I realise that there is only one single LFE channel in the original signal, but the Yamahas can be set up to drive a Front sub and a Rear sub. I'm not sure how they do that though, Perhaps the LFE is the same to each and it's only the redirected bass that is directed to Fr. or Rr. depending on which channels it is being redirected from. Anyone know? If the Emotivas only deal with a single mono LFE channel, with no L/R/Fr/Rr shenanigans, then 9.1.6 is all that can be achieved and expansion modules won't really change that. Unless they also change the software to play around with the LFE. Always possible I guess, but otherwise the RMC-1 will offer no advantage over the L version. Just split the single sub output to as many actual subs as I want. I still like the idea of potential for expansion, but that adds significant cost. So far expansion seems limitied to additional inputs which to my mind seems less useful than additional output channels. Who knows what the future holds. The unfortunate fact is that - probably for marketing purposes - manufacturers use terms like left, center, right, front, rear for subs .... when essentially they are identical and should just be numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. It's all mono, and yes there is only ever one LFE signal. And redirected bass (bass management) is always summed to mono. The only exception to this is that Emotiva gives us the option to split LFE and bass management ... with LFE going only to the "center" sub and bass management going to either or both other subs (or to Large speakers if there are no other subs). Yes, probably true. It just seems like a good idea though. So with that in mind, seems to me that the RMC-1L will be sufficient. I certainly don't need any more inputs and I cannot really foresee anything more than 9.1.6 being required (with sub output spilt to multiple subs). Perhaps Atmos 9.1.8? However my opinion would be that is unnecessary. The only thing that would make the RMC-1 worthwhile would be if they made a 'Sub' expansion module and introduced a way to directionalise redirected bass (makes sense to me) and/or LFE channels (probably impossible). Perhaps a new .2 standard? In fact, the ideal would be .4 so up to 4 directional subs, but can be combined in any way to actually drive 1, 2, 3 or 4 subs. That could all be done in software once the .4 signal is being received. That would definitely require an expansion module. Have I just talked myself into needing the RMC-1 ?  |
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jun 3, 2024 9:07:50 GMT -5
The unfortunate fact is that - probably for marketing purposes - manufacturers use terms like left, center, right, front, rear for subs .... when essentially they are identical and should just be numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, etc. It's all mono, and yes there is only ever one LFE signal. And redirected bass (bass management) is always summed to mono. The only exception to this is that Emotiva gives us the option to split LFE and bass management ... with LFE going only to the "center" sub and bass management going to either or both other subs (or to Large speakers if there are no other subs). Yes, probably true. It just seems like a good idea though. So with that in mind, seems to me that the RMC-1L will be sufficient. I certainly don't need any more inputs and I cannot really foresee anything more than 9.1.6 being required (with sub output spilt to multiple subs). Perhaps Atmos 9.1.8? However my opinion would be that is unnecessary. The only thing that would make the RMC-1 worthwhile would be if they made a 'Sub' expansion module and introduced a way to directionalise redirected bass (makes sense to me) and/or LFE channels (probably impossible). Perhaps a new .2 standard? In fact, the ideal would be .4 so up to 4 directional subs, but can be combined in any way to actually drive 1, 2, 3 or 4 subs. That could all be done in software once the .4 signal is being received. That would definitely require an expansion module. Have I just talked myself into needing the RMC-1 ? I think it's extremely unlikely that we will get any ability to manipulate the redirection of bass from individual speakers or speaker groups, to individual subs or sub groups. If I understand your scenario correctly, there is just one reason to go for an RMC-1+: Dirac Live Bass Control. If that is available and you want to use it to optimize the behavior of all subs (playing mono content) in conjunction with all of the other speakers in the system, then you can justify the RMC-1+. But ... that is predicated on the availability of the sub expansion modules .... OR ... you could forgo the center top speakers, stick with 9.1.4 and use the three existing sub outputs with DLBC. |
|
|
|
Post by webmst007 on Jun 16, 2024 19:16:20 GMT -5
If you decide you need 3 or 4 subs and you need the 6 height channels then the best options ( for the RMC gear that is) is using the single centre sub channel with a mini DSP ( or other suitable one in and at least 3 or 4 out processor). How you manage those subs is then a case of how much interest and time you wish to spend on the project. With a mini DSP unit installed,
A set of eq filters and time alignment can be achieved with the help of REW, a measurement mic, and a computer. (See you tube via some links in posts on this forum for more).
Alternatively - you can get really into calibration of those subs and employ MSO as well as REW to add a series of calculated filters into the minidsp based on multisub optimisation algorithms in MSO's many many options.
The good news is REW and MSO programs are free. You can try them for nothing. Only a calibration mic is required and a computer.
With MSO you import some readings from calibrations you run in REW first.
Then those readings are used to create filters which are exported into the minidsp. Then you can rerun the measurements in REW to see how the result sounds and measures.
The good thing is that MSO allows you to try many different variations on these filters without needing to rerun the original measurements. So you try different filter designs for all 3 or four subs and upload them to the minidsp and see how they work for you.
Only your time, interest, and patience to run calibrations and calculations is needed. Again loads of tutorials on you tube are available!!
|
|
|
|
Post by jpwoodbu on Jun 25, 2024 14:14:09 GMT -5
This discussion reminds me of the room setup guide I saw at rel.net/room-setup/. One of their home theater setup modes is to run all your speakers in full range mode and connect subs to the speaker terminals AT THE SPEAKER. You could do this for any number of channels, not necessarily all of them. Then you would run the LFE line output to either one or more dedicated LFE subs or into one or more of the subs also taking its input from speaker terminals. Their subs can mix the signals. They also suggest stacking subs 3-tall in the front. I know they want to sell some subs, but I do think all this would sound amazing if tuned right! But even with all I've spent on this hobby, I can't bring myself to deploy more than a couple of their subs just running off the LFE line out. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 25, 2024 17:04:38 GMT -5
As a generalization low bass, at the frequencies normally handled by a sub, is not considered to be directional... at least not in normal sized rooms. Theaters do use multiple LFE channels - equivalent to separate subs in separate areas of the room (but still not actually directional). Many of us are quite sure that we can tell the difference between "stereo subs" and "mono subs"... But Dolby's "official stand" is that it should not be audible. (And that any stereo you hear there is due to "side effects" like breathing noises or vibrations and not due to the bass itself being audibly directional.) .......................... Yes, probably true. It just seems like a good idea though. So with that in mind, seems to me that the RMC-1L will be sufficient. I certainly don't need any more inputs and I cannot really foresee anything more than 9.1.6 being required (with sub output spilt to multiple subs). Perhaps Atmos 9.1.8? However my opinion would be that is unnecessary. The only thing that would make the RMC-1 worthwhile would be if they made a 'Sub' expansion module and introduced a way to directionalise redirected bass (makes sense to me) and/or LFE channels (probably impossible). Perhaps a new .2 standard? In fact, the ideal would be .4 so up to 4 directional subs, but can be combined in any way to actually drive 1, 2, 3 or 4 subs. That could all be done in software once the .4 signal is being received. That would definitely require an expansion module. Have I just talked myself into needing the RMC-1 ? |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 25, 2024 17:08:19 GMT -5
REL has their own specific "logic" for why "taking the bass from the terminals of the speakers themselves" would be "better". For one thing it works with processors and other sources that don't have a subwoofer output... And, for another, by "taking the bass directly at the speakers", it is sampling the bass AFTER any upstream processing. However... on the down side... - it's more complicated and it makes both setup and "operation" more complicated - it requires more wiring - it may require SPECIAL wiring with some amplifiers and be flat-out incompatible with others - sometimes it just plain doesn't work very well at all This discussion reminds me of the room setup guide I saw at rel.net/room-setup/. One of their home theater setup modes is to run all your speakers in full range mode and connect subs to the speaker terminals AT THE SPEAKER. You could do this for any number of channels, not necessarily all of them. Then you would run the LFE line output to either one or more dedicated LFE subs or into one or more of the subs also taking its input from speaker terminals. Their subs can mix the signals. They also suggest stacking subs 3-tall in the front. I know they want to sell some subs, but I do think all this would sound amazing if tuned right! But even with all I've spent on this hobby, I can't bring myself to deploy more than a couple of their subs just running off the LFE line out. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 26, 2024 10:10:58 GMT -5
Something else I should add here... about the idea of stacking multiple subs... It's NOT as silly as it sounds. Normally, if you have a sub, you have three room dimensions that can each have their own "room modes". For better or worse, when you stack two subs, two of those dimensions will be the same for both. So, basically, if you ignore the ceiling, they count as a single sub "for the purposes of the math". (You get to avoid worrying about the interactions between them and just treat them as one sub with more output.) However, if you were to stack up several, so that they became "a floor to ceiling column"... You have then reduced the geometry to two dimensions... (sort of) ("They can be treated like they're radiating into 'quarter space' and the floor and ceiling can be ignored"... sort of.) "Line sources" do this to some degree... But it gets better when the "line source" goes fully from floor to ceiling... And even better when the wavelengths involved are low enough that you can ignore things like the distances between the individual drivers... This discussion reminds me of the room setup guide I saw at rel.net/room-setup/. One of their home theater setup modes is to run all your speakers in full range mode and connect subs to the speaker terminals AT THE SPEAKER. You could do this for any number of channels, not necessarily all of them. Then you would run the LFE line output to either one or more dedicated LFE subs or into one or more of the subs also taking its input from speaker terminals. Their subs can mix the signals. They also suggest stacking subs 3-tall in the front. I know they want to sell some subs, but I do think all this would sound amazing if tuned right! But even with all I've spent on this hobby, I can't bring myself to deploy more than a couple of their subs just running off the LFE line out. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,275
|
Post by KeithL on Jun 26, 2024 10:50:03 GMT -5
I wanted to add a few more details there... about "the pluses and minuses" of doing it that way. On the plus side... 1. Connecting the sub to the actual speaker connections is totally generic. It will work on ANY system, whether it is stereo or surround sound, and whether it has bass management or not. (So it works on systems that DO NOT have a sub output.) 2. In theory you MAY get a better blend between the main speakers and the sub. (You are "setting up the sub to fill in the low frequencies" rather than "dividing the frequencies between the main speakers and the sub". On the minus side... 1. When you do it this way the main speaker is receiving a full-range signal (with no high-pass filtering). This is OK for big speakers - under some circumstances. However it fails to give you the benefits of USING a high-pass filter on the speakers. (ALL frequencies, including the ones being reproduced by the sub, are STILL going to the main speaker, and to its amp channel.) (This means that both the amp and the main speaker are "working harder" and so may raise the distortion in that end of town.) 2. There is actually MORE overlap between the sub and the main speaker. Depending on the details this can make for a smoother transition... or it can make it more difficult to avoid interactions. 3. Some amps will not tolerate this sort of connection... and it can actually blow up a fully balanced fully differential amp. (Some of the REL subs CAN be used with balanced amplifiers - but they have a special input and a special cable for it.) 4. Some subs, and some speakers with built-in powered subs, allow you to make BOTH types of connections. While this can work it makes the setup and operation MUCH more complicated (and really doesn't offer much benefit in return). Overall, and this is a VERY general statement... That "speaker level connection" favors perfectly smooth natural bass over huge amounts of powerful low bass.... (And, again, only if you get it just right...) So maybe better... - if you have a system that doesn't have bass management and doesn't have a subwoofer output - if you listen to mostly music (and even more if you listen to mostly acoustic or non-electronic music) - and ONLY if those main speakers, at least the main fronts, CAN handle low bass without distorting And probably NOT better... - if you listen to a lot of movies (with a lot of low frequency effects and explosions) - if you listen to a lot of electronic music (that is more "processed" but also has "lots of super-clean powerful low notes" - if your main front speakers "don't like having to handle lots of low bass" (or distort when doing so) - if the amplifiers powering your main speakers aren't powerful enough (unlike real bass management... doing it this way DOES NOT reduce the power you'll need on those front channels) REL has their own specific "logic" for why "taking the bass from the terminals of the speakers themselves" would be "better". For one thing it works with processors and other sources that don't have a subwoofer output... And, for another, by "taking the bass directly at the speakers", it is sampling the bass AFTER any upstream processing. However... on the down side... - it's more complicated and it makes both setup and "operation" more complicated - it requires more wiring - it may require SPECIAL wiring with some amplifiers and be flat-out incompatible with others - sometimes it just plain doesn't work very well at all This discussion reminds me of the room setup guide I saw at rel.net/room-setup/. One of their home theater setup modes is to run all your speakers in full range mode and connect subs to the speaker terminals AT THE SPEAKER. You could do this for any number of channels, not necessarily all of them. Then you would run the LFE line output to either one or more dedicated LFE subs or into one or more of the subs also taking its input from speaker terminals. Their subs can mix the signals. They also suggest stacking subs 3-tall in the front. I know they want to sell some subs, but I do think all this would sound amazing if tuned right! But even with all I've spent on this hobby, I can't bring myself to deploy more than a couple of their subs just running off the LFE line out. |
|
|
|
Post by fbczar on Jun 26, 2024 13:00:07 GMT -5
Something else I should add here... about the idea of stacking multiple subs... It's NOT as silly as it sounds. Normally, if you have a sub, you have three room dimensions that can each have their own "room modes". For better or worse, when you stack two subs, two of those dimensions will be the same for both. So, basically, if you ignore the ceiling, they count as a single sub "for the purposes of the math". (You get to avoid worrying about the interactions between them and just treat them as one sub with more output.) However, if you were to stack up several, so that they became "a floor to ceiling column"... You have then reduced the geometry to two dimensions... (sort of) ("They can be treated like they're radiating into 'quarter space' and the floor and ceiling can be ignored"... sort of.) "Line sources" do this to some degree... But it gets better when the "line source" goes fully from floor to ceiling... And even better when the wavelengths involved are low enough that you can ignore things like the distances between the individual drivers... This discussion reminds me of the room setup guide I saw at rel.net/room-setup/. One of their home theater setup modes is to run all your speakers in full range mode and connect subs to the speaker terminals AT THE SPEAKER. You could do this for any number of channels, not necessarily all of them. Then you would run the LFE line output to either one or more dedicated LFE subs or into one or more of the subs also taking its input from speaker terminals. Their subs can mix the signals. They also suggest stacking subs 3-tall in the front. I know they want to sell some subs, but I do think all this would sound amazing if tuned right! But even with all I've spent on this hobby, I can't bring myself to deploy more than a couple of their subs just running off the LFE line I own a pair of Kreisel DXD12012 Subwoofers. They are made to be stacked. This link explains how their push/pull design lends itself to stacking: hometheaterhifi.com/reviews/speaker/subwoofers/ken-kreisel-dxd-12012-dual-12-push-pull-subwoofer/ |
|
