Is a subwoofer with an integrated EQ a gimmick?

[elelel]

Researching for a new sub it feels like many newer subwoofers have an integrated auto-EQ like the new Paradigm Defiance with ARC.
If the subwoofer will be used with an AVR and I already have a good room correction implemented into the AVR (I personally have Denon 6400 but this will hold true to many other AVR vendors) will the EQ implemented into the sub help or can I save my money and buy a sub without such EQ?

 

[shadyJ]

Subs will built-in EQ correction might improve the response that AVR systems can give, so it might make for an even flatter response on top of EQs like Audyssey. However, I am not so sure that is a good idea to do that. Every time you adding filters, it creates group delay. I don't think human hearing is all that sensitive to group delay, but after a certain point it will most definitely be audible. I have a friend who has been doing some testing in this area, and he has found some hugely delayed energy in low frequencies in some systems. It looks like all of these layers of processing could be seriously adding up, and the problem may be pervasive. His findings may be pointing to the direction of minimal use of EQ if EQ must be used at all. If it can be done, I would suggest looking into a multiple sub system to tame room modes in subwoofer band frequencies, and bass traps in mid and upper bass frequencies.

 

[elelel]

Subs will built-in EQ correction might improve the response that AVR systems can give, so it might make for an even flatter response on top of EQs like Audyssey. However, I am not so sure that is a good idea to do that. Every time you adding filters, it creates group delay. I don't think human hearing is all that sensitive to group delay, but after a certain point it will most definitely be audible. I have a friend who has been doing some testing in this area, and he has found some hugely delayed energy in low frequencies in some systems. It looks like all of these layers of processing could be seriously adding up, and the problem may be pervasive. His findings may be pointing to the direction of minimal use of EQ if EQ must be used at all. If it can be done, I would suggest looking into a multiple sub system to tame room modes in subwoofer band frequencies, and bass traps in mid and upper bass frequencies.

Thanks, I am researching 2 options for dual subs: the Paradigm Defiance X10 with the ARC support and the SVS SB2000. Based on your experience do you think that if I have Audyssey xt32 I will do better with dual SVS that the Paradigm as I will not need the ARC and the Paradigm higher cost reflects the "high tech" features embedded into the sub?

 

[shadyJ]

Thanks, I am researching 2 options for dual subs: the Paradigm Defiance X10 with the ARC support and the SVS SB2000. Based on your experience do you think that if I have Audyssey xt32 I will do better with dual SVS that the Paradigm as I will not need the ARC and the Paradigm higher cost reflects the "high tech" features embedded into the sub?

I think both those subs would be good. When you buy the Paradigm Defiance subs, you do pay for a lot of the high tech stuff. I am not so sure that I would use Audyssey or ARC, to be perfectly honest. I think a better route might be to just smooth out the room response with multiple subwoofers and good placement. These EQ systems are just a bunch of filters, and the more filters you use, the more group delay you accumulate. If it were me, I would get three subs, and just find the places for them where the overall response is flattest. I would avoid EQ if possible. I would only use EQ if there was some egregious peak in the response.

 

[TLS Guy]

Subs will built-in EQ correction might improve the response that AVR systems can give, so it might make for an even flatter response on top of EQs like Audyssey. However, I am not so sure that is a good idea to do that. Every time you adding filters, it creates group delay. I don't think human hearing is all that sensitive to group delay, but after a certain point it will most definitely be audible. I have a friend who has been doing some testing in this area, and he has found some hugely delayed energy in low frequencies in some systems. It looks like all of these layers of processing could be seriously adding up, and the problem may be pervasive. His findings may be pointing to the direction of minimal use of EQ if EQ must be used at all. If it can be done, I would suggest looking into a multiple sub system to tame room modes in subwoofer band frequencies, and bass traps in mid and upper bass frequencies.

Well if you Eq you affect phase, and phase and time change are the same thing. The lower the frequency the more the time shift.

I have been telling you guys this for years. So that is why my designs do not use Eq. The time shift in the crossovers is quite enough for comfort, if not too much. I think that is one of the reasons this rig really does sound significantly different than other systems and far more life like. On my travels I never hear a system that comes close to the realism of this system.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Researching for a new sub it feels like many newer subwoofers have an integrated auto-EQ like the new Paradigm Defiance with ARC.
If the subwoofer will be used with an AVR and I already have a good room correction implemented into the AVR (I personally have Denon 6400 but this will hold true to many other AVR vendors) will the EQ implemented into the sub help or can I save my money and buy a sub without such EQ?

I vote for passive subwoofers like the passive Funk subs or RBH SV-1212N or SV-1212NR and use separate amps, especially if you already have extra amps.

 

[shadyJ]

I vote for passive subwoofers like the passive Funk subs or RBH SV-1212N or SV-1212NR and use separate amps, especially if you already have extra amps.

Recommending passive subs is not something I would do very easily. That is not a simple plug and play system, it does take more setup and configuration than a typical sub, certainly not something for a novice user. Funk's and RBH's passive subs are not inexpensive either.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Recommending passive subs is not something I would do very easily. That is not a simple plug and play system, it does take more setup and configuration than a typical sub, certainly not something for a novice user. Funk's and RBH's passive subs are not inexpensive either.

NHT introduced the passive subwoofer (SW2) with an 80W external amp over 24 years ago. It was the first sub I ever used.

I don't see why so many people consider it difficult. It's the same concept as passive speakers. You hook the sub output from the AVR to the amp, just like you hook the speaker output from the AVR to the amp. Then you connect the amp to the sub just like you connect the amp to the speakers.

But yeah, when I tell people about passive subs, they look at me like "Oh my gosh, what do I do?"

 

[lovinthehd]

NHT introduced the passive subwoofer (SW2) with an 80W external amp over 24 years ago.

I don't see why so many people consider it difficult. It's the same concept as passive speakers. You hook the sub output from the AVR to the amp, just like you hook the speaker output from the AVR to the amp. Then you connect the amp to the sub just like you connect the amp to the speakers.

But yeah, when I tell people about passive subs, they look at me like "Oh my gosh, what do I do?"

Depends how you use the sub to an extent. I think Shady was referring to lack of low pass filter or "phase" controls on the plate amp? Of course some external amps do have such, or sometimes you want more control than most plate amps provide, too. Passive sub just means the controls/amp are elsewhere....not really all that meaningful to generalize with IMO.

 

[shadyJ]

Depends how you use the sub to an extent. I think Shady was referring to lack of low pass filter or "phase" controls on the plate amp?

I would be more concerned about the lack of a high-pass filter, especially for ported subs. Ported subs need to have some kind of protection for the driver below the port tuning frequency. In a normal turnkey sub, that is all figured out for you. For a passive cabinet, the user has to figure out how to implement the frequency and slope of the filter.

 

[lovinthehd]

I would be more concerned about the lack of a high-pass filter, especially for ported subs. Ported subs need to have some kind of protection for the driver below the port tuning frequency. In a normal turnkey sub, that is all figured out for you. For a passive cabinet, the user has to figure out how to implement the frequency and slope of the filter.

True, but fairly easily accomplished....if you have the information that it's necessary in the first place.

 

[elelel]

I understand that experienced professionals can manually customize the room and the EQ (and go with passive subs) to create the best experience but what about notices like me? I understand your feedback and I am convinced I should go with dual subwoofers and will do the sub crawl to find a good placement (within the room constraints). However I am a big believer in technology and it makes sense to me that a leading vendors can invest in R&D and create something that automates the process professionals do manually. Since MartinLogan, B&W and Paradigm have EQ in their higher end subwoofers I still struggle to understand if I miss something and those vendors just try to sell me useless tech or do the Paradigm/Anthem engineers know what they are doing? Also thinking about this from a business perspective, this is how those "traditional" vendors can differentiate themselves from ID vendor which most likely dont have the resources to develop or license such tech (or maybe I am mistaken here).

 

[TLS Guy]

I understand that experienced professionals can manually customize the room and the EQ (and go with passive subs) to create the best experience but what about notices like me? I understand your feedback and I am convinced I should go with dual subwoofers and will do the sub crawl to find a good placement (within the room constraints). However I am a big believer in technology and it makes sense to me that a leading vendors can invest in R&D and create something that automates the process professionals do manually. Since MartinLogan, B&W and Paradigm have EQ in their higher end subwoofers I still struggle to understand if I miss something and those vendors just try to sell me useless tech or do the Paradigm/Anthem engineers know what they are doing? Also thinking about this from a business perspective, this is how those "traditional" vendors can differentiate themselves from ID vendor which most likely dont have the resources to develop or license such tech (or maybe I am mistaken here).

When it comes to these Eq programs no one knows what they are doing. They are a dead end period.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I would be more concerned about the lack of a high-pass filter...

True that passive subs do require more work. I guess I've used them for so long (24 years) that I don't even think about it, but newbies might be scared.

I guess 24 years ago when I got my first sub and started learning how to "Swim", I jumped right into the DEEP END with passive subs, instead of the shallow end like most newbies.

As far as HPF, sub amps (like RBH SA-500DSP) and pro amps like the Crown XLS amps do have HPF.

my Crown XLS-2000 has a programmable HPF. So I can actually do this without putting the towers at risk below their vent tuning.

 

[shadyJ]

I understand that experienced professionals can manually customize the room and the EQ (and go with passive subs) to create the best experience but what about notices like me? I understand your feedback and I am convinced I should go with dual subwoofers and will do the sub crawl to find a good placement (within the room constraints). However I am a big believer in technology and it makes sense to me that a leading vendors can invest in R&D and create something that automates the process professionals do manually. Since MartinLogan, B&W and Paradigm have EQ in their higher end subwoofers I still struggle to understand if I miss something and those vendors just try to sell me useless tech or do the Paradigm/Anthem engineers know what they are doing? Also thinking about this from a business perspective, this is how those "traditional" vendors can differentiate themselves from ID vendor which most likely dont have the resources to develop or license such tech (or maybe I am mistaken here).

These EQ programs are not totally useless. There are circumstances where they can improve things. There are just better but less conventional ways to solve the same problems, and too much EQing can turn into a real problem itself. From a business perspective, consider that developing this software is a one-time expense that gives you a braggable feature to advertise. Also consider that Paradigm and Martin-Logan are owned by the same company, same company that owns Anthem, and that Mobile ARC EQ program can be used with both Paradigm and Martin-Logan subs, so the development of that program benefits a lot of their subwoofers.

The situation in which ARC is beneficial is when you only have a single subwoofer and you are getting some EQ'able peaks in the frequency response. In my opinion, its not really worth doing unless the peaks are significant, but that is often the case when you only have one sub, and only have one place to put it. You certainly do not want to have ARC going along with another program like Audyssey or whatever. I would prefer to use ARC on the subs than Audyssey over the entire system, in fact, I just wouldn't use Audyssey period, unless there was something terrible wrong with the speakers. EQing is a band-aid when there are larger problems present.

 

[lovinthehd]

True that passive subs do require more work. I guess I've used them for so long (24 years) that I don't even think about it, but newbies might be scared.

I guess 24 years ago when I got my first sub and started learning how to "Swim", I jumped right into the DEEP END with passive subs, instead of the shallow end like most newbies.

As far as HPF, sub amps (like RBH SA-500DSP) and pro amps like the Crown XLS amps do have HPF.

No, the Crown XLS amps' HPF is not suited to providing a protective filter below tuning, its DSP is for crossover use, doesn't have a sufficiently low range for sub protection..

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

No, the Crown XLS amps' HPF is not suited to providing a protective filter below tuning, its DSP is for crossover use, doesn't have a sufficiently low range for sub protection..

The Crown manual doesn't give any specific values on the filters.

But the Crown amp is not like the RBH sub amp that allows a HPF of 20, 25, 31 Hz with 24dB slope?

 

[lovinthehd]

The Crown manual doesn't give any specific values on the filters.

But the Crown amp is not like the RBH sub amp that allows a HPF of 20, 25, 31 Hz with 24dB slope?

It doesn't list them like the gen 1 amp manual, but it is in there " provides a variable state Linkwitz-Riley 24dB/octave filter allowing you to choose a point between 30Hz and 3kHz on standard 1/12th octave centers. Three filter types are available: Low Pass, High Pass and Band Pass" So maybe okay if the 30 hz one works for your sub....but most would just add a minidsp (many use the iNuke DSP series amps).