Innnnnnteresting
- Thread starter MO!
- Start date
penance
Arrogant Cock
Originally posted by bear
Penance very humorous i think i will fit in here quite nicely
Interesting debate. Don't think I'd want a graphic eq in my system though. The only exception would be a Behringer parametric equaliser used to tweak just the sub response in my movie system. These can accurately dial into specific frequencies without affecting adjacent frequencies.
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
What would you like on yours?
It's made me think. I might commission the same guy to design a parametric equalization module. I won't put any electronics into the Nonsuch 4 (full-range) pathway but I thought something on the Little Awesome's (deep bass speakers) pathway. This means that the parametric equalization will just be active in the frequency range below 100Hz and it would be offered as an option on the bass filter unit.
I'll happily listen to any suggestions for the features of this projected unit in terms of its function. So, if you had a parametric equalizer on your system below 100Hz, what would you want it to be able to do?
I've just taken delivery of the filter for my Little Awesomes. It's made an amazing difference. I didn't even realize that my bass was a bit 'all over the place' before I put the new filter into the circuit. Great improvement.
It's made me think. I might commission the same guy to design a parametric equalization module. I won't put any electronics into the Nonsuch 4 (full-range) pathway but I thought something on the Little Awesome's (deep bass speakers) pathway. This means that the parametric equalization will just be active in the frequency range below 100Hz and it would be offered as an option on the bass filter unit.
I'll happily listen to any suggestions for the features of this projected unit in terms of its function. So, if you had a parametric equalizer on your system below 100Hz, what would you want it to be able to do?
MO!
MOnkey`ead!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,881
- Reaction score
- 1
not exactly sure what a parametric eq is as opposed to a normal eq but, for general equalization wants, i'd say pretty much MOre of the same of what the seperate MOdule offers. That being the ability (in the case of the subs, by MOving about the room), to make them MOre usable in real world rooms. Obviously still designed to work best as possible, then in different rooms see if you can have them eq'd to retify anything negative caused by none typical (ie MOst) rooms. Should be able to play with them enough to get them to work top banana in many situations. Perhaps being able to save several settings profiles. Saving profiles also for when used for different sources. Your tt might need set different for your cd for example!
Re: What would you like on yours?
Exactly as I am running my setup at the moment Steve, with the EQ only working on the subs below 80hz.
For most people, the crossover design will be a major factor in sub integration, the ones used by most manufacturers seem to me to be wholly insufficient which leads people to crossover much lower down than is ideal. Sub makers should fit 4th Order as a minimum if you ask me, I prefer a real brick wall, makes integration far easier IMHO.
As for parametric EQ, chances are you are only going to need to treat three bands in most rooms, namely the first and second order axial modes, plus the peak inbetween them. Given that these will vary with room dimensions, adjustability of both frequency and Q is essential. Should be well within the realms of something like a Behringer unit.
For your speakers, I reckon bass EQ is a damned good idea, given that any excess in this area leads to obscuring of detail and spatial information in the mid and treble. There will still be those that prefer their bass to be room assisted, but then those guys would be unlikely to enjoy the delicacy and sublety that I understand are the main strengths of 7V speakers.
Exactly as I am running my setup at the moment Steve, with the EQ only working on the subs below 80hz.
For most people, the crossover design will be a major factor in sub integration, the ones used by most manufacturers seem to me to be wholly insufficient which leads people to crossover much lower down than is ideal. Sub makers should fit 4th Order as a minimum if you ask me, I prefer a real brick wall, makes integration far easier IMHO.
As for parametric EQ, chances are you are only going to need to treat three bands in most rooms, namely the first and second order axial modes, plus the peak inbetween them. Given that these will vary with room dimensions, adjustability of both frequency and Q is essential. Should be well within the realms of something like a Behringer unit.
For your speakers, I reckon bass EQ is a damned good idea, given that any excess in this area leads to obscuring of detail and spatial information in the mid and treble. There will still be those that prefer their bass to be room assisted, but then those guys would be unlikely to enjoy the delicacy and sublety that I understand are the main strengths of 7V speakers.
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
Re: Re: What would you like on yours?
Artefacts in the filter, sub amplifier and sub speakers (such as distortions or vibrations) will also make integration less seamless and make the sub draw attention to itself in practice.
Variability of frequency and Q is necessary and I may go into peoples' houses with my ETF5 software and calibrated mike to set up the equalizer. I would not go automatic (like B & O). Also, I'm not sure whether the room mode cancellation should be 100% or less for the most natural effect. Do you have a view on this?
Yes, that's my thinking too. My new low-pass filter is 4th order and has made a big difference. My designer tells me that going higher than 4th order is more trouble than it's worth (using analogue). I'm happy with 100Hz, which was the frequency designed for and seems to represent a good compromise.
Artefacts in the filter, sub amplifier and sub speakers (such as distortions or vibrations) will also make integration less seamless and make the sub draw attention to itself in practice.
Is that three bands below 100Hz? Presumably they are all negative equalizations, notch filters, or are you trying to fill in the room nulls?
Variability of frequency and Q is necessary and I may go into peoples' houses with my ETF5 software and calibrated mike to set up the equalizer. I would not go automatic (like B & O). Also, I'm not sure whether the room mode cancellation should be 100% or less for the most natural effect. Do you have a view on this?
Lt Cdr Data
om
actually if any advernturous bods want to rip their crossover out, you can get active ones pretty cheap now....behringer do one, so you only need 2 amplfiers, and you can go active and tweek the crossover frequency, with some you can even alter the type of crossover...bessel, butterworth, LR, etc...
Re: Re: Re: What would you like on yours?
Steve, I often find a small boost of say 5-6db around the room null (usually near the crossover frequency) does help to fill in the sound. Obviously not possible to correct for big nulls ( I've got -32db at 72hz due to a triple axial node at the listening position!) but I still find putting a little in (providing your amp can take it) can be worthwhile.
As for total correction, it does depend on the listeners priorities. Any bass excess seems to have a negative impact on detail retrieval and transparency in the midrange. If you want your system to image like a bastard then total correction will achieve that. On the other hand, if you are a PRAT guy, you will lose some emphasis on rythmns, a judiciously placed bass hump is what's required to shift the focus in that direction IMHO.
EQ does give you the option to fine tune a truly transparent speaker system to the individual's tastes I suppose, but given that your design seems to be aimed at the imaging crowd, going fullly flat would be a good starting point I reckon.
Steve, I often find a small boost of say 5-6db around the room null (usually near the crossover frequency) does help to fill in the sound. Obviously not possible to correct for big nulls ( I've got -32db at 72hz due to a triple axial node at the listening position!) but I still find putting a little in (providing your amp can take it) can be worthwhile.
As for total correction, it does depend on the listeners priorities. Any bass excess seems to have a negative impact on detail retrieval and transparency in the midrange. If you want your system to image like a bastard then total correction will achieve that. On the other hand, if you are a PRAT guy, you will lose some emphasis on rythmns, a judiciously placed bass hump is what's required to shift the focus in that direction IMHO.
EQ does give you the option to fine tune a truly transparent speaker system to the individual's tastes I suppose, but given that your design seems to be aimed at the imaging crowd, going fullly flat would be a good starting point I reckon.
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
Re: Re: Re: Re: What would you like on yours?
Re. your 32dB suck-out, how many subs do you have, one or two? You can get some cancellation of room resonance by positioning two subs at the centre of opposite walls.
The other thing that occurs is whether there would be any point building an extra sub just to operate at 72Hz and give a fill-up.
Can we take it that you're stuck with a 7'x7'x15' for a while?
Thanks for all that info.
Re. your 32dB suck-out, how many subs do you have, one or two? You can get some cancellation of room resonance by positioning two subs at the centre of opposite walls.
The other thing that occurs is whether there would be any point building an extra sub just to operate at 72Hz and give a fill-up.
Can we take it that you're stuck with a 7'x7'x15' for a while?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would you like on yours?
Most men on this forum would be proud of such statistics Steve!
It's actually worse than that, it's really 7ft6 x 7ft6 x 15ft, in other words a perfect 2x1x1. It's not too much of an issue to me, as it's a very narrow dip so subjectively it's not as noticeable as a shallower but broader suckout. I can get round it by listening on the long wall and offsetting the system to one side, but I'm then sat in the extreme nearfield and I might as well stick on the Stax'
You should come up one day, have a play with the TacT and toy with various crossovers. I'd agree with you that 4th order really is the limit with analogue design, but digital slopes really do rewrite the rulebook. I guess that's why most of the major manufacurers are frantically working with them at the moment.
Most men on this forum would be proud of such statistics Steve!
It's actually worse than that, it's really 7ft6 x 7ft6 x 15ft, in other words a perfect 2x1x1. It's not too much of an issue to me, as it's a very narrow dip so subjectively it's not as noticeable as a shallower but broader suckout. I can get round it by listening on the long wall and offsetting the system to one side, but I'm then sat in the extreme nearfield and I might as well stick on the Stax'
You should come up one day, have a play with the TacT and toy with various crossovers. I'd agree with you that 4th order really is the limit with analogue design, but digital slopes really do rewrite the rulebook. I guess that's why most of the major manufacurers are frantically working with them at the moment.
7_V
I want a Linn - in a DB9
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What would you like on yours?
I'm planning to take a second system to Alex's on Wednesday evening for the Riders, assuming that's still on. I'm feverishly running in the Nonsuch 4 drivers as we speak.
I'm taking my speakers to Paul Messenger's on Tuesday and he'll have them for about 3 weeks. He'll also have my fancy new crossover. I was thinking of coming up once I get them back so we can check out the system with the crossover. I remain to be convinced about the qualities of digital crossovers but maybe your kit will persuade me.
I'm planning to take a second system to Alex's on Wednesday evening for the Riders, assuming that's still on. I'm feverishly running in the Nonsuch 4 drivers as we speak.
MO!
MOnkey`ead!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 4,881
- Reaction score
- 1
Originally posted by Hex Spurt
Yes, it's the sound made by a special breed of sightless fish. It's a sustained noise that starts something like this...
fsh
You see, it's a fish with no eyes.
missed this last night.
<<clap clap>>
