Sorry, I missed the other half of your question. The configuration you describe might sound great, but it's (not to beat a dead horse) a little complex for my taste. In your shoes, I'd personally be inclined to look at something like the HK 990, which provides all the DSP (including x-over) and amplification in a single 2 channel box. As a bonus, it includes room correction, so you could A-B that against the Dirac to see which you prefer.
To be clear, that isn't a recommendation (tho I've heard and like the HK 990 quite a lot), just a simpler alternative that I'd likely pursue given my own particular priorities.
As to the required second DAC in the set-up that Dirac suggested, I can say that the Cambridge represents good value IMO. |
For what its worth, here are some tricks I learned living with a Velodyne DD18:
-do as much of the setup in the analog domain as possible. Move the sub, adjust position, height etc before doing anything digital / EQ. In my ears, the less EQ the better.
- if you have a big heavy sub, consider a low trolley or similar. Positioning is not just a one-time issue. You may want to vary the sub position between "good" closer to a wall, and "optimal" more into the room, with different components in the system, room tweaks, etc.
- give it a sandbag on top (big improvement), better feet like Cerapucs (some improvement), plus a better power cable and interconnect (some).
- I have done a bit of room tuning including two Daad3 bass traps (that don't really catch much low bass, but help a bit in the 100hz or so region), but I don't believe in overinvestment at this point. It is very room-dependent. I have a fairly large 20 x 27 feet room.
-timing - better subs, materials etc may be a solution, but for now, move the sub closer to the listening position (DD18 is forward-firing). Often not so practical, but it can work.
-in some contexts the sub sounds better with the EQ and the crossover defeated. I was ridiculed for this viewpoint, in another thread, but sometimes it works, to get the best blend of sub and big speakers. The trick is to turn the sub volume REALLY LOW (like 4 of 30 steps at the DD18), so there is just a touch of deep bass. After awhile you'll notice that no more volume is needed.
- listen for the music not the bass as such. With optimal tweaking positioning you will hear more depth, more juicy treble instruments also, like flute in front of the speakers, bells sounding in the room, and similar.
- the speakers and sub should "grip" the room. Or make the room play along. I can hear this, for example, listening from a nearby room. I make better salads in our kitchen if the system plays well in the living room... But as noted above, this is a balancing act, hard to achieve perfectly.
- shifting phase 90 degrees can help cure standing modes (or a sub array).
- run the speakers full range, if they were designed for it. The sub is an add-on into the lowest frequencies. I have never had success cutting the bass to the main speakers. Even most monitors I have tried sounded best getting the full signal.
It is good to see that there are many ways to reach the same goal. I tried several subs ten years ago, before settling on the DD18. Mostly, they were too slow, lazy, or what one might call it (B&W ASW 800, REL Stratas) but I also remember a funny little over-active Sunfire that wheezed and danced on the floor when pushed. I had the Krell FPB600 / Dynaudio Consequence mk2 for ten years, and with this combo, I often liked the EQ and crossover defeat ("stealth"?) method. With my current Atma-sphere MA1s / Audiokinesis Dream Makers combo, however, it sounds best with a conventional setup, crossover at 44hz, a little EQ and 90 degrees phase. I can hear it, and it appears when I measure (using Rode mics and the REW program) also.
My problem, now, is that my new preamp (Einstein The Tube mk2) only has one set of volume-controlled outputs, going to the speakers, so if I want sub integration, I will have to use speaker level connections (or use the line out outputs on the preamp, and then adjust sub volume manually each time I adjust preamp volume - not realistic). In my experience this means worse sound (except for the REL subs, that were built for it) compared to preamp level connections. I have not tested yet, and the reason is that the new preamp sounds great and makes the whole system more muscular not least in the bass. So I am seriously thinking that perhaps the sub goes out the door. Yet I sometimes thought so, with the Krell/Dynaudio combo also, supposed to be bass leaders. So I guess the sub stays. Even if I don't use it for now, testing with / without sub is a luxury problem, compared to missing something and then pay a lot to try. And I still remember that great first impression late evening, with the DD18 in place: "hello, bass player". |
I have a Rel Stadium III with my Parsifal and really enjoy the sound. The majority of the time, I listen with the monitor, woofer cabinet, and sub. The fun thing about most of the Verity speakers is that you can listen to many combinations.
I enjoy listening to them in different configurations when I have a nice stretch. Sometimes I listen to the monitor (vocals and strings). The monitors have nice speed and easily reach down into the low 40's. Sometimes I'll pull the sub out into the room and listen to the monitors and sub. Other times I turn off the sub.
I think I've integrated them to my tastes. Great speaker. |
My Parsifal (Encore) barely makes the low 40hz range WITH the woofer cabinet - they start to quit in the mid 40s range and are well down by 40hz. The monitors start to roll off at about 55 to 60 hz in my room. There's a hump in the upper 40s thru the crossover region to the monitors that gives kick drum some extra (ahem) kick and a satisfying sense of bass with almost all music. Not exactly textbook accurate, but I love 'em with most program material, just not for the deepest bass.
I guess YMMV |
Marty,
I certainly agree with you on simplicity being preferable. Further looking into these units I came across the DEQX HDP-4, and the QOL, amongst others, but these appear to be most endorsed. What's your thought on these, as an experienced DRC user?
I think the approach proposed by miniDSP is a non starter for me. As much as I love my Lamm pre, I think I will need to decide if I'd rather keep it or do the mains/sub crossover and integration thing. Much to consider! |
Lewinski,
The DEQX has always looked interesting to me, but the local dealer (possibly also the national distributor) isn't very accommodating, so - even tho I tried to stop in for a demo - I never got a chance to check it out and can't really comment. It's gotten some good press, tho.
I know zero about the QOL and never thought it was designed for this application, tho I'm not sure what it IS designed for.
If you decide to keep the Lamm, my guess is that you'd be best off passing on subs unless you want to run separate 2 systems (or dual front ends). I don't mean to spend your money, but...
The good news is that +/- $2700 buys an Onkyo 5509 with Audyssey xt32 and a pair of 12" subs from SVS. That's a set-up that I'd be happy with and it's a modest investment relative to the LAMM. It would allow you to swap the amp and sources between the pre-amps on the fly (once you've attached the subs and set-up the DRC on the Onkyo), but you have to be the type that wants to repeatedly rewire the system.
I was that guy at one time, but not anymore - and I certainly can't speak for you. |
Hey Marty; go for Audyssey Pro with your 5509. You will go to a much higher endresult. |
Marty,
You are right: after further reading about the QOL, I realized it doesn't do what I need. So that one's out.
Switching cables between the Lamm and an Onkyo doesn't sound like me. I'd rather spend the time I have for listening to music just listening to music rather than swapping cables. We are likely alike along these lines.
About the Lamm: this is not their reference preamp; it's their entry pre, in Lamm terms. So it's not a huge investment compared to the other components, and is similar to the ARC and Joule pres you replaced with the Onkyo+Audyssey. BTW, at the time I was looking for a pre I did consider that Joule pre.
The problem is I cannot listen to any of these options beforehand, so it comes down to a leap of faith.
But the two Rythmik subs I already have and I'm sold on using them.
I'm also ditching the path proposed by miniDSP. Too complex to implement and cumbersome to operate, especially the latter.
So it looks like I need a DEQX, or Onkyo 5509, or HK 990 to replace my DAC and pre, and using Dirac or another DRC software at the server, and call it a day. I can't see other practical alternatives as of now.
I might start with the DRC software and a cheap crossover between pre and amp, knowing it's a temporary setup, and finally settle on replacing the DAC and pre with a digital processor. |
Lewinski,
If you need an inexpensive, sand-alone active x-over, see if you can find an NHT x-2. It's now discontinued and hard to find (probably because it's pretty widely sought after and used offers tend to get snapped up quickly), but it's a very good sounding unit, quite flexible, and a steal for the $.
Good luck with the project.
Bo:
I've thought about Audyssey Pro and looked into buying the calibration pack, but I haven't yet pulled the trigger. Knowing myself, I might get sucked into another year or two of compulsive tweaking and I'm not sure I want to do that. But, either way, thanks for the recommendation. |
Audyssey is not an easy system. Even when I gave the instructions to clients and friends, it was difficult.
I work at mm precision. There is no room for error. When you do not work extreme precise it will work against you.
This is a big advantage for me, but for most it is a disadvantage.
The professional microphone can measure about 1000-10.000 times as much information compared to XT32.
But you also can make more measurments. You also have a lot more options to change.
You can make your own target curves. I did read many articles about human hearing. This gave me the freedom to create a superior articulation of voices.
I can let all people hear details which the best highend pre amps of far above 15000 dollar cannot reveal.
That is why a person who is distributer of many highend brands said: you can put the highend market up side down.
I use the knowledge and thinking in highend in every price level I sell. This gives me the option to create a 3 dimensional stage for a lot less than what was possible in the past. |
here's the thing about subs. you have to put them in a position to succeed.
what do i mean by that? first off, older subs are too slow. integration issues were rightly noted. thats not the case with the new 'super-subs' that are out there (JL Audio, REL, Velodyne, etc). these newer subs are very quick and can keep up and properly augment mains in the right circumstances, leaving a drastically improved playback for those who will put them in a position to succeed.
what circumstances are those?
1) sealed subs (no ports)
2) sealed mains (no ports)
3) sub position flexibility (but close to the front plane of the mains)
4) adequate setting flexibility (namely, LP filter freq and slope, phase and volume)
and finally
5) digital room correction within the subs (JL Audio has the ARO system).
and here's why:
one of JL Audio's designers wrote a white paper in which he astutely identified that each source of bass will make the integration of a sub more challenging. ports are a source of bass, and a non-linear one at that! main channels are typically designed using ports to make the speakers A) more dynamic B) louder and C) seemingly deeper in the bass (though its really just a port-tuning phenomenon which tricks the listener. the truth is that the frequencies roll off sharply below the port tuning frequency). ---the nonlinearities of the port (whether on the mains or the sub) create a host of problems (room nodes, freq bumps) that are tough to work around. ergo, #1 and #2 above...the fewer ports, the fewer sources of bass that you have to contend with. --this is reason #1 sub integrations fail.
positioning is a function of getting the timing relationships correct. subs tucked way behind the plane of the mains means their sonic impulse has to travel further to get to the listener--and this gives rise to timing errors. plan on putting the subs close to the mains to maintain timing relationships. this is reason #2 sub integrations fail.
setting flexibility is critical to getting the most out of your subs. when you start with sealed mains, you have speakers that will have a very linear rolloff in the bass (excl room nodes, but more on this later). the subs come from the bottom up...where you have to play with settings to get the subs to roll off quickly once you reach the frequencies that the mains handle properly. if your speakers roll off 3 or 6db at 50hz, then its natural to start the subs LP filter around 40-60 (experiment) and play with the slope (12, 24 db per octave) to get the subs to drop off quickly so as not to intrude on the mains. phase should be set before anything though---check phase w/ mains and dial in for least output when both mains and subs are running, and then reverse phase of the subs. now that phase, crossover and slope are all set, play with volume to your liking. ---improperly setting phase, x-over, slope & volume (with volume the least important factor) is reason #3 sub integrations fail.
(note the mains are running full range---no parts in the signal path is best, and its preferred, given sealed mains and their natural linear rolloff).
finally, some digital room correction is in order. most high end subs have some feature to do so, and generally they're about removing room nodes (points of elevated volume)..these are far more problematic than nulls (points of reduced volume). run the sub's digital correction which will identify the nodes and shelve these frequencies down in order to reduce the node...and the beauty is, with sealed speakers / subs, you only have room-generated nulls, not port-generated! the digital correction will eliminate the node for the sub, so even if the main still aggravates the room-node, it will be counteracted by the sub's digital correction which has nulled out this freq from the sub's playback.
i've done just this, using magico S3s w/ JL F110s, and the setup is startling---the above is best bang for the buck sonics possible (as big full range speakers are expensive, for one reason---bass is expensive! so save a bunch of $$ and get the bass into a diff box and put the subs in a position to succeed).
then again, YMMV. |
cool post...thanks Rhyno. |
Rhyno,
Informative post indeed. |
Richard Vandersteen advocates the use of powered subs. Not only does it extend the bottom, but cleans the mids and highs as well |
Rhyno,
While there's more than a little good info in your recap of JL's white paper, there's also some misinformation - not sure if it's yours or theirs.
Your description of port behavior may get the spirit of the design's performance more or less right, but it's not exactly correct: Ported enclosures are not merely a "trick" resulting from a port tuning phenomenon. A properly tuned ported box will drive the 3db down frequency lower from any given driver/suspension and will roll off faster below that point than the same system rolls off in a sealed box. That's more extended bass - no trick.
Bear in mind that, as you move lower from the tuning frequency, there will eventually be less bass output from the ported box, due to the more rapid roll-off below the tuning frequency. However, if the port tuning is low enough, as it is on many high-end ported subs (I believe most or all of the SVS subs can be tuned below 25hz, for example), that may not be an issue. For music, the rapid roll-off of a ported sub tuned this way will almost never be an issue.
However, there are definitely other trade-offs with a ported box and I personally do agree that it's much easier to get a good sounding set-up with sealed subwoofers than with ported designs.
As to positioning subs in/near the same plane as the mains, many of the external bass management/digital room correction (DRC) systems will delay the electrical signal to either sub or mains to account for the delta in distance between the sub and mains. This allows more flexibility in optimizing position of both the subs and mains, which may be optimized when they are far from the same plane.
I'm not sure whether JL's own system offers this, but I'm guessing that it doesn't. Since JL's products offer in-sub room correction, it shouldn't surprise that they suggest that it's where DRC belongs (and it also explains their recommendation on room positioning). Personally, I use an external bass management DRC system and enjoy the added placement flexibility.
Running the mains full-range may offer the simplest signal path, but it also eliminates one of IMO the biggest benefits a subwoofer offers. All drivers produce more distortion as frequency drops - the longer driver excursions required for lower frequencies will reduce linearity (increase distortion). The good news is that a high quality sub (like your JL which is among the highest quality IMO) is better equipped to handle the heavy lifting at low frequency than is the woofer in virtually all main speaker systems (even including your Magico, I'd think). If you actively low cut the mains, you remove the heavy lifting from their woofer and shift the burden to the subwoofer, where it belongs. Your mains will benefit from the narrower bandwidth they're being asked to handle. So, there's a trade-off; simplicity vs optimizing bandwidth to driver. Some may prefer the full-range option (I definitely don't), but that's a matter of personal preference not system optimization.
Also, you'd need to consider the room-correction side of the issue. If your DRC is in-sub, I assume that it's functional only to the sub's high cut frequency, yes? If so, and you cross the sub out at 60ish hz, you're only room correcting to that point. In every room that I've ever measured, serious response irregularities run up to 120ish hz and significant irregularities persist above 200hz. Below about 80hz, passive treatments become increasingly cumbersome. If you limit your DRC to 60hz and below, there's a lot of room clean-up that you're foregoing.
At the end of the day, I'd say that most of JL's advice (at least as you've characterized it) is sound, but I'd also note that it's definitely slanted in favor of selling their products. |
Hi Martykl,
Thanks for another very detailed post. A question for your advice:
- I have Wilson X1s and am contemplating using the Wilson Active Crossover to cut them off below 38hz (as recommended by David Wilson)...and have the Active Crossover send a properly adjusted sub-38hz signal to my Velodyne DD18.
- Currently I run the X1s full range with a 2nd IC from my preamp to the Velodyne DD18
- I'd love to get a Thor...but that is serious money for a sub! (not to mention amp, cables, etc)
- I am told to expect a very significant improvement in the effortless of the X1s even with such a seemingly subtle change
(I use a Gryphon Colosseum amp to drive the X1s).
I have found tremendous improvement thru vibration isolation of my X1s (Ultra 5s, some mass damping of the upper modules)...and have been told that Actively crossing them over may even produce a greater improvement through even further reducing distortion from thermal, mechanical and cone excursion associated with these toughest/lowest frequencies.
Assuming it is professionally set up by the Wilson dealer who carefully adjusts the Active Crossover (crossover frequency, rolloff, phase, etc) including the sub38hz-signal to send to the Velodyne...what do you think? Worth a try?
I am told it is a great bang for buck given its "only" a Wilson Crossover and one extra IC.
WHAT KINDS OF IMPROVEMENTS WOULD YOU EXPECT ME TO HEAR (IF ANY?) Thanks for your advice! |
A source has a very big influence on a subwoofer. For example we did a test between the Olive 06HD and the Wadia 7Si. The Olive had more controle and more layers in the lowest freq. When a source is better in timing and has better dynamics a subwoofer will sound a lot different.
I have tested many powercables on subwoofers. This is the same story. With a better awg you will hear the difference. But when you use a sub from 16hz till 140hz, you even need other qualities in a powercable.
I got the best result sofar with Purist Audio powercables. Also from 80-140hz they work better than most others do.
The interconnect you use for your cable also makes a big difference. I tested many in 16 years of time. The one I own now: Audioquest Wild Dog pure silver subwoofer cable even gives you a new level in drive and integration.
All other cables I have tested don't even come close. Silver also works extreme well in speed, drive and control. |
martykl, appreciate your contribution and i think everyone benefits from it--too many people turn up their noses at subs, incorrectly. i can see your points and find truth in them in certain applications while not changing my mind (though mine are also incorrect in select applications too).
agreed that the port does do as you describe, but the quick rolloff in turn supports mine. 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. a port is a bass bump at a given freq, and the room contributes enough of those without adding more via the port. and yes, some ported subs can sound great (wilson) without the huffing, i'm just offering a 'more likely to succeed' path, and a cheaper ported sub is less likely to succeed than a sealed sub for the same $. (further, if your mains have ports but your subs don't, you will need a darn good bass-optimization feature as you need it to address both room nodes and main-generated port nodes---the JLs ARO feature will not do this, FWIW).
if you have a preamp that can filter HP v LP or accommodate temporal shifts by delaying signal to mains / sub, great (as you describe) and its likely a benefit vs alt setups. but, if you have a pre like mine (ARC Ref 5se) and most other uber products which have no such features, you're not going to dump a great pre to move backwards to a good one in order to gain the features; furthermore, the notion of adding an outboard x-over (or using the half-assed one in the sub) is going to compromise the mids / highs---bad parts, bad results. one earlier poster mentioned his einstein preamp (great pre btw, spartan in its features), and folks w/ products like that are quite particular to transparency loss. running their mains full range and integrating a sub as i advocate is the likely best choice.
(of course, using an x-over and its resultant loss in transparency may be offset by the opp to switch amps to a lowered power, better sounding choice that doesn't have to contend w/ sub-80hz bass. YMMV).
room correction above 80hz is an entirely separate matter for room acoustics, not subwoofer bass management IMO. both are required in high end systems. (well, addressing room acoustics is ALWAYS required).
if nothing else, i hope folks realize that if their first sub integration doesn't work, think about what factors you've yet to try, as it can work exceptionally well if done right...i offered my original post as a most-likely-to-succeed route, but not the only route possible. |
Hi Bo1972,
I am also a big fan of PAD cables and use their 25th Ann to Canorus across the board, with 2 exceptions: my Gryphon Colosseum was sold (2nd hand) to me with its own Gryphon Ref cable; and my Sub...after using PAD Canorus/Dominus for years...I now use Sablon Audio Quantum Gran Corona which is the only cable I have found I prefer to the mighty PADs. FWIW...I could hardly complain about the PAD with my Velodyne...so I agree with you. But I was pleasantly surprised by Mark Coles great designs with the SA QGC cable (which I thought did have some silver in it?) |
Dear Lloydelee,
which subwoofercable do you use? |
Lloyd,
The first question in my mind re: actively low cutting your main speaker at 38hz is: What's your program material?
If this is a music-centric system, I'd only point out that very few recordings in my collection have much signal below 38hz. We're talking about a couple of keys on a piano, the longest pipe on an organ, and a couple of notes on the electric bass, for the most part. It's pretty rare that these are present on a recording so the low-cut isn't really doing much to lighten the load on your X-1s 99+% of the time.
Obviously movie soundtracks are another story, but your set-up appears to be 2 channel, so I'm guessing that it's music based. I personally don't see a ton of benefit in crossing a sub in so low on a music system, but many other knowledgeable folks (including, evidently David Wilson) disagree with me on that one.
Rhyno,
I was just trying to clarify a few points that you made in a little different way, because they seemed to me to be presented in the way JL deems best to promote their (admittedly excellent) products. I hope I made clear that I wasn't really taking much issue with the main points in your post, more clarifying in a way that I feel is more even-handed. As you say, however, it's mostly six of one, a half dozen of the other. |
Thanks, Martykl,
Interestingly, because I can mute my Gryphon Colosseum amp, I often do so just to hear how much the Sub is working. I will say it surprises me how much it is active.
I don't hear notes per se, but the room seems tons bigger. This is on many, many recordings (live recordings) as well as deep house, electronic, soundtracks, etc.
I can mute my CJ preamp...which shuts off everything...and suddenly the 'atmospherics' disappear and I am back in our living room. But with the CJ UN-muted (but the Gryphon amp still on mute so no X1s)...those atmospherics come back again.
I believe this is part of what I like about good subs.
But your point is well taken...how much does this really alleviate from the X1s? The only thing I know is that DW himself designed the Wilson Thor/XS to be used with the big X-series speakers (cut off below 38-39hz with the Wilson Active crossover)...
guess there is only one way to find out! Thanks for your advice. |
You're not the only person to mention the "expanded space" phenomenon. I'm not sure I've ever really experienced it, but it makes some sense if the sub is providing very low level bass throughout the room and that is perceived as ambient special information.
My post was focused more on your chosen x-over point and my guess is that the effect you describe is probably (I'd think) independent of that choice. |
Got it. Thanks, Martykl. I am working on a few custom 'tweaks' at the moment. After these I will look further into the active crossover. |
What I don't understand is why don't more mid-level to high-end speakers just design their speakers with a subwoofer built in. This, it seems, should eliminate (or at least greatly reduce) the coherency problem? |
My mains in my main rig are rated -3db 55Hz, while my office monitors to 44Hz. In either case, I can listen to a lot of music and be mostly satisfied without a sub for acoustic, vocals, jazz, blues, etc., even some rock. But there are times I do not want to be MOSTLY satisfied. And for those times, and when I wish to crank it, I employ a pair of 12" powered subs in my main rig.
The deep, visceral, gut-wrenching, grunt of those subs can fill in the missing parts, transporting me to musical Nirvana and change my MOSTLY satisfied experience to COMPLETELY satisfied. I'll never live without a sub (and preferrably at least two) regardless of how wonderful my mains are. |
Rockadanny,
Totally agree!!! |
Elegal,
Ideal placement of a subwoofer is most often far from ideal placement of mid/tweeters. If you put a sub in the same cabinet as the other drivers, you'll end up with (pardon the pun) suboptimal placement of one or the other. |
I love the pun! And thank you for a great answer. Perhaps they could design systems with a separate sub with suggestions on placement? |
Elegal,
Those do exist. Duke at Audiokinesis makes a really interesting speaker system with your choice of two different subwoofer arrays, one sealed the other ported. There are four subs with four channels of amplification in either array. I think it's worth visiting his web site to check out.
There are also traditional 2.1 systems out there, tho not as many as there once were. |
I've been using subs since '98 with excellent results. I think the trick is the right low pass xover and slope. I run my mains, Revel M106 full range and use a Velodyne SMS 1 to apply the low pass slope and freq which is steep and at 60 Hz. I use a REL R305 sub, it's 10" driver is perfect for music and plenty for movies.
It's nearly impossible to locate where the sub is, it blends perfectly. I also run the SMS 1 's EQ to tame a nasty 40Hz room mode. I have a very compact 2.1 system that sounds way better than it has a right to.......it would not be the same without the sub |
Should we? Should you, should I?
Answers: No. Maybe, absolutely.
Is there any other audio subject that is so subjective and fraught with as many room, system, and media, variables as extra low frequency reproduction?
If there's ELF on the recording and you want to hear and feel it and you're using passive speakers then you might want to at least audition a properly integrated sub/s in your room. Keep in mind even the term, "properly integrated," is subjective. |
