2 channel system and subs.

Sorry about the echo - lol: No question a crossover is necessary for proper integration of a subwoofer.
 
kach22i said:
Must be an echo in here.......haha.

He says it straight out that the controls on the sub woofer will only add more delay to an already delayed and out of phase subwoofer. Being 360 out of phase, as in measuring well on a computer screen isn't going to help things in reality.
Click to expand...

Regardless of time delay isn't 360[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]º out of phase actually in phase?[/FONT]
 
JoeESP9 said:
Regardless of time delay isn't 360[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Tahoma,Calibri,Geneva,sans-serif]º out of phase actually in phase?[/FONT]
Click to expand...
Under test conditions of a steady tone maybe.

Under conditions of music there will be a time lag.

I've read that some people find this time lag to be pleasing as it adds a sense of depth and space.

Others are sensitive to the timing inaccuracies.

I suspect that because I like panel speakers and open baffle speakers such time delays would just mix all the better with my dipolar speakers, but I cannot say for sure.

Just saying being out of phase 360 may not be the end of the world. Worse things like being 90 degrees out of phase I suppose.
 


I've never employed an active x-over but it's interesting how some of you reach some of your conclusions. I don't find integrating a sub to the mains a disaster but rather quite the opposite Although I do find integrating and tuning subs a potential royal pain in the ass as it is perhaps the most difficult and tedious thing to accomplish. But it can and must be done.

I recently installed a second Rythmik E15 subwoofer on the left to match the one on the right. The one on the right I'd been fine-tuning for several years and had just gotten it soooo fine-tuned just days before installing the second sub.

Everything about the 2nd sub is identical to the first in the way of symmetry to within 1/4", cables, custom footers anchoring it rock solid to the subflooring, mass-loading, each on its own dedicated 20 amp outlet, line, circuit, the settings, etc.

Regardless, since installing the 2nd sub I've spent just a bit of time attempting to fine-tune both subs (identically) and as things stand, I do not consider the subs as fine-tuned as could be but for now I call it close enough.

BTW, I'm rather pleased with the Rythmik subs' performance. But only after much fine-tuning. The subs are mated to a pair of full-range VMSP RM-40 speakers and I've got the subs' x-over set around 84Hz. And though each main speaker has two 9" inch woofers plus a 9" passive radiator I still find the RM-40's bass to be the speaker's weakest link.
 
Stehno said:


I've never employed an active x-over but it's interesting how some of you reach some of your conclusions. I don't find integrating a sub to the mains a disaster but rather quite the opposite Although I do find integrating and tuning subs a potential royal pain in the ass as it is perhaps the most difficult and tedious thing to accomplish. But it can and must be done.

I recently installed a second Rythmik E15 subwoofer on the left to match the one on the right. The one on the right I'd been fine-tuning for several years and had just gotten it soooo fine-tuned just days before installing the second sub.

Everything about the 2nd sub is identical to the first in the way of symmetry to within 1/4", cables, custom footers anchoring it rock solid to the subflooring, mass-loading, each on its own dedicated 20 amp outlet, line, circuit, the settings, etc.

Regardless, since installing the 2nd sub I've spent just a bit of time attempting to fine-tune both subs (identically) and as things stand, I do not consider the subs as fine-tuned as could be but for now I call it close enough.

BTW, I'm rather pleased with the Rythmik subs' performance. But only after much fine-tuning. The subs are mated to a pair of full-range VMSP RM-40 speakers and I've got the subs' x-over set around 84Hz. And though each main speaker has two 9" inch woofers plus a 9" passive radiator I still find the RM-40's bass to be the speaker's weakest link.
Click to expand...


Yes, I too believe that subs are necessary to complete most systems.
I do question your setup in trying to mirror match the exact location of your subs.
If you look into multiple sub setup/placement you find many approach it as placing subs in non symetrical locations. Doing so helps to to smooth the bass, working with the rooms peaks and nulls for better integration.
A good read on this can be found from Audiokenisis/James Romeo on their "Swarm" subwoofer system.
This may or may not be helpfull in your application but it does shed some light on a different approach.
 
jadedavid said:
Yes, I too believe that subs are necessary to complete most systems.
I do question your setup in trying to mirror match the exact location of your subs.
If you look into multiple sub setup/placement you find many approach it as placing subs in non symetrical locations. Doing so helps to to smooth the bass, working with the rooms peaks and nulls for better integration.
A good read on this can be found from Audiokenisis/James Romeo on their "Swarm" subwoofer system.
This may or may not be helpfull in your application but it does shed some light on a different approach.
Click to expand...

I'm unsure how to respond here. Either you

1. Watched the video I provided and dislike what you've heard so you're suggesting alternative options.
2. You didn't watch the video and prefer non-symmetrical configs and suggesting your preferred method.
3. You like reading all the ways others strive to achieve a superior bass and you're just tossig out another option.

Regardless, in my limited research and experience I find it rather difficult to discern who knows what they are talking about when it comes to high-end audio in general and especially when it comes to achieving a superior / musical bass. Everybody sounds good on paper but few seem able or even willig to actually demonstrate a superior / musical bass.

In my case, since I only recently acquired a 2nd sub, though aware of both options, the symmetrical option just seemed to make more sense to me. I could have chosen the wrong option but I'm rather pleased thus far, especially since I've yet to do any painstaking fine-tuning with the pair. So far, I think I spend maybe 30 min or 45 min at most doing any tuning and I'm impressed enough that I've made a satisfactory choice but perhaps not the best choice.

Below is a sample of what I consider a musical bass. You've got a better suggestion, by all means show me, don't tell me. Again, everything can sound good on paper but it's another thing to actually demonstrate it. Like the fella' says, talk is cheap.

 
No, I did not watch your videos as I personally find on line videos to be very subjective.
You truly may have found the best place for your subs, in your room, to your liking.
As to showing you, If you look at the AMROC room mode calculator you can see where the peaks and nulls appear in any given room.
It is my understanding that placing two or more transducers in the same peak/null location has minimal additive effect. Thus I referenced multiple sub placement from Duke LaJune AKA "The Swarm". It has received accolades from The Absolute Sound.
Some find this approach beneficial.
If you enjoy the placement you have then that's great, just enjoy.
 
jadedavid said:
No, I did not watch your videos as I personally find on line videos to be very subjective.
You truly may have found the best place for your subs, in your room, to your liking.
As to showing you, If you look at the AMROC room mode calculator you can see where the peaks and nulls appear in any given room.
It is my understanding that placing two or more transducers in the same peak/null location has minimal additive effect. Thus I referenced multiple sub placement from Duke LaJune AKA "The Swarm". It has received accolades from The Absolute Sound.
Some find this approach beneficial.
If you enjoy the placement you have then that's great, just enjoy.
Click to expand...

And what in high-end audio isn't very subjective?

So you like to hypothesize? Nice. But isn't that even far more subjective and a bigger waste of everybody's time than listening to music?
 
Stehno said:
And what in high-end audio isn't very subjective?

So you like to hypothesize? Nice. But isn't that even far more subjective and a bigger waste of everybody's time than listening to music?
Click to expand...

Enjoy your music, as I have previously stated. Or perhaps you missed that part.
 
Stehno said:
And what in high-end audio isn't very subjective?

So you like to hypothesize? Nice. But isn't that even far more subjective and a bigger waste of everybody's time than listening to music?
Click to expand...

See also post #9 in the "re: DSP and Parametric EQ" thread.
 
Stehno said:
Thanks, jade. Much appreciated and don't forget... The hypothesizing mind is a terrible thing to waste - especially on others.
Click to expand...


How does the saying go? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Perhaps with all your wisdom you may wish to write a book so the rest of us can learn from your vast knowledge and experience. Just saying.
Or is that hypothesizing?
 
jadedavid said:
How does the saying go? You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Perhaps with all your wisdom you may wish to write a book so the rest of us can learn from your vast knowledge and experience. Just saying.
Or is that hypothesizing?
Click to expand...

Some people simply don't understand and don't want to learn. Their loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top