H/K: best bass management=best choice?

[Rip Van Woofer]

I have been surveying A/V receivers for awhile now (verily, the head spinneth, the eyes glazeth over!) with the intention of using one mainly as a prepro for my yet-to-be-built active biamped front speakers at least, and to finally enter the wonderful world of multichannel. This will be a music-only system.

Based on my admittedly incomplete survey I've been leaning toward H/K because they seem to offer the most comprehensive and flexible bass management even at low to moderate price points. That to me seems to be the main distinguishing characteristic between various receivers. I'll probably get someting in the range of an H/K AVR 430

So, my question for those of you who have long since left the two-channel paradigm behind: am I barking up the right tree? Are there other brands/features/factors to consider?

 

[mtrycrafts]

I have been surveying A/V receivers for awhile now (verily, the head spinneth, the eyes glazeth over!) with the intention of using one mainly as a prepro for my yet-to-be-built active biamped front speakers at least, and to finally enter the wonderful world of multichannel. This will be a music-only system.

Based on my admittedly incomplete survey I've been leaning toward H/K because they seem to offer the most comprehensive and flexible bass management even at low to moderate price points. That to me seems to be the main distinguishing characteristic between various receivers. I'll probably get someting in the range of an H/K AVR 430

So, my question for those of you who have long since left the two-channel paradigm behind: am I barking up the right tree? Are there other brands/features/factors to consider?

One consideration I would bring up as I am reading the new issue of T$$, is digital crossovers and DSP. It appears that may be the future of speaker crossovers and amping at the speakers. NHTXd DSP controlled loudspeaker review.

After that, if you need bass management and will be adopting to 5.1 audio, DVDA and SACD, you will need good bass management. If the HK meets the reqirements, go for it. You may want to be sure it has pre amp out to take advantage of the bass management and if needed, you can add amps.

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Thanks. Those NHTs are intriguing, and IMO DSP and wider adoption of active crossovers are probably the Next Big Things in speakers. My speakers will have active crossovers but if I DIY them they'll be analog using PCBs and plans from Linkwitz. Or I might look into one of the pro audio digital units. Decisions, decisions...

 

[Az B]

A couple of ideas:

First off, you may not want that receiver. If you decide to actively biamp, a digital xover will give you all the bass management you need. You can select the slope, frequency, and even EQ for each driver seperately.

Also, keep in mind that active biamping makes your speakers a lot more efficient. This means that any noise from the preamp will be more noticeable. Receivers generally make more noise than dedicated pre/pros. Especially with DSP modes.

The good news is that since your speakers will be much more efficient, you'll be able to drive them with a lot less power. (My biamped horns have run with as little as 4w to over 100db SPL) You can either get smaller, cheaper amps and save some money, or you can get smaller, higher quality amps for the same money and get a little better sound.

 

[mtrycrafts]

A couple of ideas:

First off, you may not want that receiver. If you decide to actively biamp, a digital xover will give you all the bass management you need. You can select the slope, frequency, and even EQ for each driver seperately.

Also, keep in mind that active biamping makes your speakers a lot more efficient. This means that any noise from the preamp will be more noticeable. Receivers generally make more noise than dedicated pre/pros. Especially with DSP modes.

The good news is that since your speakers will be much more efficient, you'll be able to drive them with a lot less power. (My biamped horns have run with as little as 4w to over 100db SPL) You can either get smaller, cheaper amps and save some money, or you can get smaller, higher quality amps for the same money and get a little better sound.

I believe the bass management he is seeking will redirect the bass in a flexible manner from 5.1 audio that is not part of the current suite of the 5.1? So, it is more than selecting slopes and crossover pints but where to send them, which speakers?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Thanks. Those NHTs are intriguing, and IMO DSP and wider adoption of active crossovers are probably the Next Big Things in speakers. My speakers will have active crossovers but if I DIY them they'll be analog using PCBs and plans from Linkwitz. Or I might look into one of the pro audio digital units. Decisions, decisions...

You can always upgrade later

 

[Az B]

I believe the bass management he is seeking will redirect the bass in a flexible manner from 5.1 audio that is not part of the current suite of the 5.1? So, it is more than selecting slopes and crossover pints but where to send them, which speakers?

I'm a little unsure about the question, so if this makes no sense, sorry.

Basically, with a digital crossover on L/C/R or even all speakers, you are sending an indidual signal to an individual amp for each individual driver. This allows accuracy far beyond any bass management setups available as you are specifying what driver plays exactly what frequency range from the full spectrum.

And since most digital crossovers have digital parametric EQs, you can even tailor the drivers to the room and to personal tastes.

 

[TheAudioCARtist]

As i say in every post of mine.."Well,in CAR audio.."

When i first got into car audio,i was told about the bi-amping,but i heard things i knew weren't supposed to sound THAT way..
well,that was years ago,like 16..anyway,the point is this..
i have found that bi-amping doesn't take into account speaker impedance curves,which directly relate to response curves(well close enough anyway..)
not to mention phase shift,which is again accounted for in a passive crossover( a good one!)..these things are far more important on the high side of our beloved octaves,above a sub to sub-mid cross anyway..
now taking into account dsp,and other such wonders,i am guessing most of these things can be accounted for..
but i ran the bi-amped course(i guess technically tri,i still am an advocate of sub to mid,but now i try to stay away from anything bi-amped (again i guess,i think you understand..) above ..say...150-180..
the phase shift at a crossover point,both drivers playing,and if you dont shift right(or left..haha) then your imaging is WAY off.sometimes anyway..
MOST peoples general perception is usually being impressed,with the fidelity,but close your eyes,picture the scene(i guess i say that alot too..) listen for how well placed that piano is,or especially a female voice,i forget what freqs,but i think around 2000-4000,if the crossover is around there,and your phase shift is off,you can move a couple inches left(or right..seriously this time!) and the voice can 'move' a few feet! or just be all over the place,so to speak,i think you understand..
alot (hell,ALL)of the high end systems i have done,i listen to Madonna's immaculate collection..not to say this is the best of anything,except that i KNOW what it sounds like..i have heard it on systems(car now) that ranged from 5,000,to one that was worth over 200,000..
i just know what the spit sounds like when it separates from her teeth,
i listen to one particular track,i think 15( i haven't done what i would consider a high end system in like 4-5 years)
people just want boom...
off the subject..there are advantages to passive's,i would spend the money on a bigger amp,and use the passives..
we ALL know what a larger amp does for sound!
just one persons opinion..
thanks for listening..try closing your eyes next time,and listen to something you think you know..

 

[Az B]

not to mention phase shift,which is again accounted for in a passive crossover( a good one!)..

Phase shift is caused by the electronics in passive xovers, and is not a problem with a digital active xover.

If you'll do a search on the web you'll find that there are a lot of advantages to the sound with an active setup. Well proven and well documented. The only real advantage of a passive setup is that it's generally cheaper and easier for the end user.

 

[Az B]

With a true bi-amp setup (active crossover and removed passive crossovers), you get the full damping factor of the amps controlling the motion of the speaker cones. You also have absolute and perfect control over the crossover that isn't affected by heat or extended use. The slew rates and decay rates of the speaker cones are improved. Removal of the passive crossovers improves phase shift, delay, voltage ringing in capacitors, inductor compression, complimentary induction between inductors, compression from heat generation in resistors and capacitors, variances in component values (usually +/-10%) and decoupling of the amp from the driver. Each amp only amplifies the signal appropriate for the driver it is attached to. A terribly loud bass frequency will have zero effect on the treble amp and bass induced treble clipping is virtually eliminated. The amps run at least 50% more efficiently - meaning - you need half the amp power to get the same output. Since the effective damping factor of each amp is greatly increased with the removal of the crossovers, the speakers will respond more accurately to the signals. This is especially noticeable when the signal stops and the cones stop as well. With non-active setups, the cones might continue vibrating from the inertia generated.
You could add room compensation to the crossover parameters instead of forcing a standard passive crossover system to be flat in the room with extreme EQ settings. There's more, but my carpal tunnel is acting up.

If you heard an active system that sounded worse, it wasn't set up correctly. They can be complicated to set up correctly, but it's worth the effort.

 

[mtrycrafts]

I'm a little unsure about the question, so if this makes no sense, sorry.

Basically, with a digital crossover on L/C/R or even all speakers, you are sending an indidual signal to an individual amp for each individual driver. This allows accuracy far beyond any bass management setups available as you are specifying what driver plays exactly what frequency range from the full spectrum.

And since most digital crossovers have digital parametric EQs, you can even tailor the drivers to the room and to personal tastes.

Bass management and crossover types and quality are two different issues
Bass management send low frequencies to different channels as designated by the listener. Digital crossover and eq are for each specific speaker and how accurately they send the full frequency spectrum or th espectrum designed to that speaker. 5.1 so far doesn't have a LFE channel per say. So, if you have a sub and want to use it, you need bass management incorporated in the processor for 5.1 audio. This is separate from crossover technology.

He had a two part question bass management and the idea he is building an active crossover speaker system. For the latter, I suggested the new digital crossover principle as he is just getting into it. But then he can always upgrade. Even with a digital crossover he will need bass management most likely.

 

[mtrycrafts]

When i first got into car audio,i was told about the bi-amping,but i heard things i knew weren't supposed to sound THAT way..
well,that was years ago,like 16..anyway,the point is this..
i have found that bi-amping doesn't take into account speaker impedance curves,which directly relate to response curves(well close enough anyway..)
not to mention phase shift,which is again accounted for in a passive crossover( a good one!)..these things are far more important on the high side of our beloved octaves,above a sub to sub-mid cross anyway..
now taking into account dsp,and other such wonders,i am guessing most of these things can be accounted for..
but i ran the bi-amped course(i guess technically tri,i still am an advocate of sub to mid,but now i try to stay away from anything bi-amped (again i guess,i think you understand..) above ..say...150-180..
the phase shift at a crossover point,both drivers playing,and if you dont shift right(or left..haha) then your imaging is WAY off.sometimes anyway..
MOST peoples general perception is usually being impressed,with the fidelity,but close your eyes,picture the scene(i guess i say that alot too..) listen for how well placed that piano is,or especially a female voice,i forget what freqs,but i think around 2000-4000,if the crossover is around there,and your phase shift is off,you can move a couple inches left(or right..seriously this time!) and the voice can 'move' a few feet! or just be all over the place,so to speak,i think you understand..
alot (hell,ALL)of the high end systems i have done,i listen to Madonna's immaculate collection..not to say this is the best of anything,except that i KNOW what it sounds like..i have heard it on systems(car now) that ranged from 5,000,to one that was worth over 200,000..
i just know what the spit sounds like when it separates from her teeth,
i listen to one particular track,i think 15( i haven't done what i would consider a high end system in like 4-5 years)
people just want boom...
off the subject..there are advantages to passive's,i would spend the money on a bigger amp,and use the passives..
we ALL know what a larger amp does for sound!
just one persons opinion..
thanks for listening..try closing your eyes next time,and listen to something you think you know..

You may want to invest in a few $ and read the current issue, number 101, of The $ensible $ound, page30 -33. Or, Barns & Noble coffee shop reading free

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

Yes, active x-overs and bass management are indeed two separate issues. My intended main speakers will be two-way full ranges with no sub planned so I wanted to be sure I could send the bass to them.

As for the noisy prepro stage in receivers: if that is true it's a sacrifice I'll have to make for budgetary reasons. Good separate prepros are expensive even used. By "good" I mean with comprehensive, flexible bass management, 0.5dB step trims for all channels, and up-to-date DSP (DPL II at least). Gene and Hawke make a good case in articles here for a receiver instead of a prepro for those reasons. They influenced my thinking a lot.

Linkwitz told me that choosing between DIY x-overs using his PCBs and plans vs. an off the shelf pro audio unit is mainly a choice between the work of building them vs. time spent twiddling knobs. I think that by the time I buy the plans, PCBs, and components for DIY the price difference would be slight.

Filters in any event will be Linkwitz-Riley, which give good phase coherence, the audibility of which is controversial in any case. Both store bought and DIY solutions allow for time-aligning the drivers, a nice touch.

Building my own amps too, BTW, using plans and PCBs from Elliot Sound. The phrase "biting off more than I can chew" often comes to mind! I fully expect this to take a year.

So, where's Yamahaluver extolling the wonders of his favorite brand?

 

[Az B]

I also use full range speakers for my mains and no sub. If you turn off bass management in the preamp, you are sending a full range signal to the mains. Then you use the active xover to set the crossover points for the drivers.

Not to beat a dead horse, but bass management and active xovers are not seperate issues. You're either using the xovers in the preamp, or you're using the active xovers. Technically it makes no difference in sound quality, but the convenience factor is far greater since the level of adjustability in the active xover is much higher than in many receivers. This can make the speakers perform to thier fullest as well.

You can also run the sub input into the xover and mix that signal with the woofers. For example, my xover has 6 inputs and 6 outputs. All 6 can be mapped and mixed with each other. Also, the gain control for each driver is .1 db.

As we say here in the south, there's more'n one way to skin a cat.

4th order LR slopes have few problems with phase, but some modern digital active xovers have phase correction circuits built in. Generally though, 4th order LR slopes kick butt and take names. Most times they work better with speakers than any other slope. But every speaker is different. Another advantage to digital active xovers is the ability to try different slopes easily, and even compare one to another with the push of a button.

Let me know if you need the procedure for time aligning drivers. And BTW, I'd invest in a good calibrated mic and an RTA to set all this stuff up. It will make it a lot easier and a lot more accurate. If you're anywhere near Atlanta, just let me know and I'll be glad to loan you mine. It shouldn't take more than a couple days to get it all straight!

I'm simply pointing all this out because you will probably figure it all out for yourself after you've bought everything and started putting it together. I'm just trying to save you a little money man...

 

[Rip Van Woofer]

OK, I'll get the crossover/bass management issue sorted out...and I built a mic per plans on Linwitz's site and speakerbuilder.net using a electret cartridge and have a software-based RTA. And a signal generator too (a funky old Heathkit but it works).

But my main question was: am I correct that H/K seems to have the most comprehensive bass management in mid-priced receivers?

Alas, I'm up in chilly Motown, but thanks!

 

[annunaki]

I agree with you Rip. I think that the bass management in the H/K receivers is quite good.

 

[mtrycrafts]

But my main question was: am I correct that H/K seems to have the most comprehensive bass management in mid-priced receivers?

After all the discussions of evreything else I don't have the HK but, if it can send bass signals from any channel, incuding rears, to any other channel in any or mot combinations, such as either all channels to a sub, or th erears to a sub, or if no sub, the rears to the front, any or all front speakers, then I think it is flexible enough for anything I can think of but I am a simple person