Hello Marcus
I would assume so but to play it safe I would read the manual first. Looking the the JBL Manual I don't think it would work for my set-up. It can do 4 subs in Stereo mode. I use 3 subs two in stereo L/R and and an LFE. I didn't see anywhere in the manual where I could set up a seperate LFE and run Stereo subs as an example. It would need 3 inputs to do what I need it to do. I didn't go nuts reading it and I could have missed it but it looks like only 2 inputs or a mono on the Left input. I find most use questions covered in a decent owners manual. Before I buy anything I have the manual preaty much read through just to make sure it can do what I want it too.
Rob🙂
I would assume so but to play it safe I would read the manual first. Looking the the JBL Manual I don't think it would work for my set-up. It can do 4 subs in Stereo mode. I use 3 subs two in stereo L/R and and an LFE. I didn't see anywhere in the manual where I could set up a seperate LFE and run Stereo subs as an example. It would need 3 inputs to do what I need it to do. I didn't go nuts reading it and I could have missed it but it looks like only 2 inputs or a mono on the Left input. I find most use questions covered in a decent owners manual. Before I buy anything I have the manual preaty much read through just to make sure it can do what I want it too.
Rob🙂
Earl,
My wife I recently stopped by your house when we were in Michigan to listen to your home theater setup. We both were very impressed with what we heard! Bass was just what it should have been.
But why reverb? Why are you looking to add reverb? Are your reasons subjective or technical?
My wife I recently stopped by your house when we were in Michigan to listen to your home theater setup. We both were very impressed with what we heard! Bass was just what it should have been.
But why reverb? Why are you looking to add reverb? Are your reasons subjective or technical?
Its technical based on some research that I did into the optimal way to get smooth bass in a small room and the observation that bass in a big room always sounds good. I have no experince with doing this at all and have only heard that Greisinger also suggests this. There are technically good reasons to do it, but as you have noted the bass in my room doesn't seem to need any improvement. I have always been driven by a "need" when I do things. Multiple subs was a huge improvement and I push this like crazy, but all these electronic boxes - that cost more than my speakers do - just seem like the same old thing of going overboard with electronics when it's the acoustical part of the solution that gains the most. By this I mean that almost any implimentation of multiple subs will be an improvement no matter how they are setup. An electronic box is just frosting on the cake - and expensive frosting at that! Adding reverb might be the trim on the frosting, who knows.
Will I do it? - I've had this idea for years and I still haven't tried it. Guess I'm not disatisfied enough to make the effort - its certainly not a high priority.
Will I do it? - I've had this idea for years and I still haven't tried it. Guess I'm not disatisfied enough to make the effort - its certainly not a high priority.
This reverb idea sounds interesting, and not only for the subs but also in the high frequencies that are often too dampened.
Could an homogeneous reverb time at all frequencies, based on the longest one without reberb added (that should be in the low mids in a typical small room), have some positive effect on removing room signature?...
Please Earl, try it, for the sake of science 😀
Could an homogeneous reverb time at all frequencies, based on the longest one without reberb added (that should be in the low mids in a typical small room), have some positive effect on removing room signature?...
Please Earl, try it, for the sake of science 😀
Why would you want to add HFs using a reverb? If your room has too much HF damping then you need to add absorption for all other frequencies. Otherwise the frequency response of reflections is not linear. This leads to coloration.
Best, Markus
Best, Markus
Yes, I would only add reverb to the subs, not even the mains. This has the effect of decorrelating the subs and increasing the time duration of the LF signals for a better perception of them without having to "up" the level. LF in large rooms last a long time and the ear has time to process them. In a small room the lows are gone before the ear can even recognize the pitch or detect the level. They have to be louder in a small room to even be perceived. By increasing the time of the LF signals they can be smoothed out in spatial and frequency response and made to be more "audible" by a time increase instead of a level increase.
The longest reverb time will likely be in the low mids/high bass region, and any "normal" attempt to dampen this will likely also dampen high frequencies further. Adding HF reflectors is not that easy in a typical living room (the room dominate over the speakers, but the wife dominate over the room).
So one strategy could be to try to reduce the reverb time with minimal acoustic treatment, and then, using a reverb, to increase the reverb time for all the frequencies that need it, so that it is the same at all frequencies. Having a reverb setting that varies w/ frequency would dictate some sort of convolution reverb tho...
Does that make sense?
So one strategy could be to try to reduce the reverb time with minimal acoustic treatment, and then, using a reverb, to increase the reverb time for all the frequencies that need it, so that it is the same at all frequencies. Having a reverb setting that varies w/ frequency would dictate some sort of convolution reverb tho...
Does that make sense?
So in a small room vented subs are better than closed ones, due to their inerrant longer decay time?gedlee said:
Subs like the JBL 4645C that use a low tuning with additional boost (resonant HP) at the tuning frequency would even be better in that respect?!
I would not use electronic reverb above 150-200 Hz at all.
How to deal with rooms "when you can't change anything" is an everlasting problem, but it is safe to say that they will always be sub-optimal. I know that I am lucky to have a room that I can optimize as it makes a big difference.
How to deal with rooms "when you can't change anything" is an everlasting problem, but it is safe to say that they will always be sub-optimal. I know that I am lucky to have a room that I can optimize as it makes a big difference.
pos said:
I wouldn't go this far as there are lots of other factors and you are mixing them up. I prefer closed boxes because they are better damped.
A good reverberator is a long decay that is NOT modal, i.e. frequency independent. The kinds of deacys that you are talking about are highly modal, which is a bad thing. Modes are good things if they are somewhat damped and interact with other modes so as to not be dominate in the decay. But they are bad things if they are not well damped and Don't interact with a lot of other modes, because they will deacy at their resonance frequency no matter what frequency they are driven at.
When talking about porous absorbers then simply wrapping them in thin foil prevents them from absorbing HFs.
All other absorbers (plate or helmholtz) don't affect HFs.
The frequency response of reflections contribute how the direct sound is perceived. We hear them (but not as single sound sources), there is no masking. How they are processed depends on the time they arrive. So you need to alter them individually in time. A reverb ignores that.
Best, Markus
markus76 said:
No. The Velodyne SMS-1 only allows one global phase, EQ, and output setting for three subs. (It technically has four outputs, 3 RCA and 1 XLR, but I'm not sure if one can/should use both them.
Unless there's a firmware update that unlocks a whole bunch of potential that mine doesn't yet have installed.
Thank you Earl and Markus.
relatively small mains, and some small subs that can be randomly (ie where they please the wife) placed. All the tweaking can be done with the LP settings afterwards.
That is very convenient!
Make it wireless and you will screw bose as the most WAF compliant speaker manufacturer ever 😉
I think your system is the most living room-friendly that I have seen:gedlee said:
relatively small mains, and some small subs that can be randomly (ie where they please the wife) placed. All the tweaking can be done with the LP settings afterwards.
That is very convenient!
Make it wireless and you will screw bose as the most WAF compliant speaker manufacturer ever 😉
Think I found the solution to my routing and level problems:
As my AV-Receiver isn't capable of routing R + L + LEF to the sub out, I have to do it externally. Although the DCX has 3 inputs, only 2 of them can be used simultaneously. Fortunately Behringer offers a solution: the MX882. This device is capable of splitting L/R and mixing R + L + LEF. So all signals are kept balanced and I have control over levels.
Has anybody experience with this device and its sound quality?
Best, Markus
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
As my AV-Receiver isn't capable of routing R + L + LEF to the sub out, I have to do it externally. Although the DCX has 3 inputs, only 2 of them can be used simultaneously. Fortunately Behringer offers a solution: the MX882. This device is capable of splitting L/R and mixing R + L + LEF. So all signals are kept balanced and I have control over levels.
Has anybody experience with this device and its sound quality?
Best, Markus
The problem with all the Behringer stuff is the usage of the cheap and cheerful 4580 op amp, it just isn't audiophile quality. What makes it worse is the way that they utilise it in their "servo balanced output stage".
Audiosmile have a diagram here:
http://www.audiosmile.co.uk/images/deq-output.jpg
If you use the MX882 in your signal path before the DCX2496 you will be adding that circuit, or something similar to it again. That can only lead to more degradation.
col.
Audiosmile have a diagram here:
http://www.audiosmile.co.uk/images/deq-output.jpg
If you use the MX882 in your signal path before the DCX2496 you will be adding that circuit, or something similar to it again. That can only lead to more degradation.
col.
I'd like to know that as well. If it isn't audible, or even if it's very minor, I don't care. I've never seen any data either way. Does anyone know of any (reasonably objective) tests that have been done?
This is more often than not a good thing.
col said:
This is more often than not a good thing.
Rybaudio said:
I agree with that. To me "audiophile quality" means that its over-priced and probably sounds about the same as everything else, but some "guru" claims its ...
ok, using the word "audiophile" was probably not the best term. All the Behringer equipment has an "acceptable" level of sound quality and in the end I guess it depends on whether it is acceptable to the person using it. Marcus will have to suck and see.
I thought the purpose was to remove the DCX2496 out of the signal path between the receiver and the amp so that the Nathans get a good clean signal and the DCX2496 only handles the subs. Isn't adding a MX882 defeating that purpose?
I thought the purpose was to remove the DCX2496 out of the signal path between the receiver and the amp so that the Nathans get a good clean signal and the DCX2496 only handles the subs. Isn't adding a MX882 defeating that purpose?
That's all very vague about what the processor does to the signal and it's implications. I want to know if the processor makes an audible difference and if so, if it is significantly harmful to the percieved sound quality of the system. I am not interested in keeping the signal close to the original purely for aesthetic purposes. Here are some concrete questions for you.
If you pass a signal full-range through the dcx and blind ABX test that with the original, can you tell a difference?
If the answer is yes to that question, is there a clear preference for the unprocessed signal?
If you pass a signal full-range through the dcx and blind ABX test that with the original, can you tell a difference?
If the answer is yes to that question, is there a clear preference for the unprocessed signal?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.