Markus
Just the kind of random numbers that I expect to see. If there was any pattern then I would be concerned.
Those are almost classic numbers from my recollection. One could almost say that it would always be a good starting point, and then tune by ear - as long as the changes were small. Thats simple enough, right?
Just the kind of random numbers that I expect to see. If there was any pattern then I would be concerned.
Those are almost classic numbers from my recollection. One could almost say that it would always be a good starting point, and then tune by ear - as long as the changes were small. Thats simple enough, right?
Yes, I've added the porous absorbers:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I'm just going to throw this out there because it was an interesting read on subwoofer placement and qty of subwoofers.
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/multsubs.pdf
http://www.harman.com/wp/pdf/multsubs.pdf
Thats a well known paper and quite good, although I do take acception with some of its points.
I found that a more random placement works better (which Welti never actually tried), but the bottom line of using multiple subs for lower frequency response variations is right on.
I found that a more random placement works better (which Welti never actually tried), but the bottom line of using multiple subs for lower frequency response variations is right on.
Markus, how have you got your inputs arranged? Do you have the full signal going to the Nathans going through the DCX2496 or just the subs?
As the digital input of the DCX and DEQ has a hardware bug I use the analog input. Besides the fact that there now is an additional A/D-D/A conversion (for the subs) I couldn't resolve how to match the different levels of AV receiver and DCX. Still looking for a satisfying solution. So if someone has an idea I would love to hear it!
The ideal solution would be to have a device that has several (IR switchable) digital inputs and is capable of downmixing a multichannel signal to stereo. Then output the analog signal for the mains to a multichannel volume control. The digital stereo downmix of "the device" feeds a digital XO that outputs 3 analog signals for the subs. This signal is controlled by the multichannel volume control too.
Best, Markus
The ideal solution would be to have a device that has several (IR switchable) digital inputs and is capable of downmixing a multichannel signal to stereo. Then output the analog signal for the mains to a multichannel volume control. The digital stereo downmix of "the device" feeds a digital XO that outputs 3 analog signals for the subs. This signal is controlled by the multichannel volume control too.
Best, Markus
Are you using some kind of preamp that has two sets of outputs? Might be an idea to try moving the mains onto a separate set of outputs so the DCX is only controlling the subs.
I'm using a Y cable. The receiver delivers -10 dBV (balanced XLR) which is much to low for the DCX. Can switch the receiver to +4 dBu but that would overload the amp ins...
can you post a digram or some pictures of how your receiver, DCX, amps, cables etc.. are connected with make and models. Might be possible to spot something obvious.
col.
col.
"I'm using a Y cable. The receiver delivers -10 dBV (balanced XLR) which is much to low for the DCX. Can switch the receiver to +4 dBu but that would overload the amp ins..."
Why not just use the +4 dBu output and pad it down for the amps?
Why not just use the +4 dBu output and pad it down for the amps?
Noah, that's the plan. But I would need to pad down the signal coming from the DCX too (I use the same 5 channel amp for L, R and the 3 sub signals). Any cheap and good solution to pad down a balanced signal to an unbalanced one?
Best, Markus
Best, Markus
Rod Elliot has heaps of stuff on his website that deals with these kind of issues. I often use his balanced/unbalanced converters. Project P87a and b
http://sound.westhost.com/project87.htm
I wouldn't be trying to convert to unbalanced, I would go the other way convert to balanced. There are also quite a few DI boxes available to do stuff like that. Not to mention the very good value for money Nuetrik NTE transformer range.
col.
http://sound.westhost.com/project87.htm
I wouldn't be trying to convert to unbalanced, I would go the other way convert to balanced. There are also quite a few DI boxes available to do stuff like that. Not to mention the very good value for money Nuetrik NTE transformer range.
col.
if you can find the US Jaycar they have one of these kits:
http://jaycar.com.au/productView.as...d2=&pageNumber=&priceMin=&priceMax=&SUBCATID=
I prefer the ESP separate boards though.
col.
http://jaycar.com.au/productView.as...d2=&pageNumber=&priceMin=&priceMax=&SUBCATID=
I prefer the ESP separate boards though.
col.
I guess the best solution is to buy an amp with balanced ins like the emotiva XPA-5:
http://emotiva.com/xpa5.html
So signal flow is like this:
Is there any problem with the use of a balanced XLR Y-cable to split the signal for amp and DCX? Level, loading, impedance, etc. - anything I have to take care of?
Best, Markus
http://emotiva.com/xpa5.html
So signal flow is like this:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Is there any problem with the use of a balanced XLR Y-cable to split the signal for amp and DCX? Level, loading, impedance, etc. - anything I have to take care of?
Best, Markus
Marcus
It seems like that would work with the amp that you suggest, but WOW - thats a lot of expense compared to what I do and I am completely satisfied with my setup.
200 watts per channel is overkill for the mains and I would think the subs too. Your neighbors will not like you at all if you ever get to use all those watts. The amp is a good deal for what it is, but this just doesn't seem like a good "cost" mix with the Nathans.
As you and I have discussed, a decent Pioneer receiver has exactly the output configurations that are needed, plenty of power to the point of causing hearing damage and its very inexpensive (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...=OTC-Froogle-_-Receivers-_-Pioneer-_-82117251). The Pioneers even have sub amps in them so one sub can run off those amps - it doesn't have the flexibility required for the three subs. But subs usually have amps in them anyways, at least when they are purchased. (PS. I love the Bose recommendation for the speakers at the bottom of the page - buy a great receiver and trash it with Bose cubes. What a laugh!)
I just don't want people thinking that my proposed setup takes all the electronics that you are showing because it doesn't. If you decide to spend the money thats fine (of course you already had a lot of what you show), but I don't feel that its necessary. I just hate to see people spending more money on electronics than they do on the speakers.
Also - I would think that splitting a balanced signal could be tricky. I'm not sure how I would do it except to convert it to unbalanced, split it with a Y and then maybe back to balanced if that were required, but thats a lot of extra outboard boxes.
It seems like that would work with the amp that you suggest, but WOW - thats a lot of expense compared to what I do and I am completely satisfied with my setup.
200 watts per channel is overkill for the mains and I would think the subs too. Your neighbors will not like you at all if you ever get to use all those watts. The amp is a good deal for what it is, but this just doesn't seem like a good "cost" mix with the Nathans.
As you and I have discussed, a decent Pioneer receiver has exactly the output configurations that are needed, plenty of power to the point of causing hearing damage and its very inexpensive (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...=OTC-Froogle-_-Receivers-_-Pioneer-_-82117251). The Pioneers even have sub amps in them so one sub can run off those amps - it doesn't have the flexibility required for the three subs. But subs usually have amps in them anyways, at least when they are purchased. (PS. I love the Bose recommendation for the speakers at the bottom of the page - buy a great receiver and trash it with Bose cubes. What a laugh!)
I just don't want people thinking that my proposed setup takes all the electronics that you are showing because it doesn't. If you decide to spend the money thats fine (of course you already had a lot of what you show), but I don't feel that its necessary. I just hate to see people spending more money on electronics than they do on the speakers.
Also - I would think that splitting a balanced signal could be tricky. I'm not sure how I would do it except to convert it to unbalanced, split it with a Y and then maybe back to balanced if that were required, but thats a lot of extra outboard boxes.
You're abolutely right that the setup you propose (decent cheap multichannel amp and subs with built-in amplifier) is much easier to handle and is very cost effective.
Maybe you should finally draw some diagrams and post them together with some descriptive text on your website so people finally know what the heck we're talking about?
My decision to use a digital crossover (and to use only balanced lines on top) makes things complicated and expensive.
But still I would love to hear from the forums electronic pros if splitting of a balanced line is risky?
Best, Markus
Maybe you should finally draw some diagrams and post them together with some descriptive text on your website so people finally know what the heck we're talking about?
My decision to use a digital crossover (and to use only balanced lines on top) makes things complicated and expensive.
But still I would love to hear from the forums electronic pros if splitting of a balanced line is risky?
Best, Markus
Markus
Sure - that makes sense.
Wish I knew the precise answer to the balanced problem, there probably is a simply one. I never use balanced so I don;t have much experience.
You know you could probably do balanced in series, 1/2 the drop across each input. But best to get some expert advice on that.
Sure - that makes sense.
Wish I knew the precise answer to the balanced problem, there probably is a simply one. I never use balanced so I don;t have much experience.
You know you could probably do balanced in series, 1/2 the drop across each input. But best to get some expert advice on that.
Markus,
I don´t understand at all how you could get in trouble with the digital connection between the AV and the DCX. For me it works without a hassle. Were you feeding the DCX with an upsampled signal (96 bit)? Have you been scared by the Input clip LED lighting up all the time?
Perhaps the DCX is not as good as it gets, but I don´t see how its analog input can ever deliver better results than the digital one.
I don´t understand at all how you could get in trouble with the digital connection between the AV and the DCX. For me it works without a hassle. Were you feeding the DCX with an upsampled signal (96 bit)? Have you been scared by the Input clip LED lighting up all the time?
Perhaps the DCX is not as good as it gets, but I don´t see how its analog input can ever deliver better results than the digital one.
Rudolf, did you follow the discussion on the DCX Yahoo group? Here's a good start (paragraph "The DCX2496 hidden flaw"):
http://www.dcx2496.fr/en/src1_en.php
Besides that, how do you feed the DCX with a digital multichannel signal?
Best, Markus
http://www.dcx2496.fr/en/src1_en.php
Besides that, how do you feed the DCX with a digital multichannel signal?
Best, Markus
- Status
- Not open for further replies.