Time to move to Separates

[AcuDefTechGuy]

True enough, altho as I just added, DEQ changes that somewhat. It's still EQ...

Yeah DEQ boosts the bass and slightly boosts the treble. But I mainly hear the bass boost.

 

[Pogre]

Yeah DEQ boosts the bass and slightly boosts the treble. But I mainly hear the bass boost.

So one could say that you do indeed prefer a li'l eq...

Me too!

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

So one could say that you do indeed prefer a li'l eq...

Me too!

Of course. Bass EQ, which is what I do with the Yamaha PEQ - just for the bass.

 

[Pogre]

Of course. Bass EQ, which is what I do with the Yamaha PEQ - just for the bass.

That's what I like most about it too. 200 hz and down is where I put the major focus.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

That's what I like most about it too. 200 hz and down is where I put the major focus.

With all EQs I've heard, I can't tell that they do much, unless they EQ the bass.

 

[Bucknekked]

We're hobbyists, extremists and some are far more into audio than many engineers but one thing we are not is part of the mass market. That's who self-contained subs are made for and they reach that market very well.

@Pogre @TLS Guy @highfigh
For reasons I can't quite define, I just read this whole thread. Your quote sums up the AH forum in just a phrase.
Brilliant work.
"We're hobbyist, extremists and some more in to audio than many engineers but one thing we are not is part of the mass market". Amen. That's the AH in a nutshell. Let's keep it that way.

And any thread that has a tome penned by @TLS Guy is one that's usually informative to read.
I'm not sure world hunger or world peace were solved here, but I still love my sub, how big the amp on it is, where its placed, and how it sounds. Wouldn't change a thing.

 

[Am_P]

With all EQs I've heard, I can't tell that they do much, unless they EQ the bass.

Huh? With manual PEQ, I can change the whole signature....make it sound like I bought a different speaker with each one of my different manual saved PEQ settings. Learn to use PEQ uncle (Don't ya have a Yamaha prepro n all?)

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Huh? With manual PEQ, I can change the whole signature....make it sound like I bought a different speaker with each one of my different manual saved PEQ settings. Learn to use PEQ uncle (Don't ya have a Yamaha prepro n all?)

We were talking about AUTOMATIC Room EQ like Audyssey, Dirac, Trinnov, Anthem, etc., which all attempt to produce a more linear or flatter +/-3dB FR.

Obvious with manual EQ, you can boost the 8-12 kHz region by +6dB if you wanted.

I do use my manual PEQ to boost the subs by +3dB.

 

[Am_P]

We were talking about AUTOMATIC Room EQ like Audyssey, Dirac, Trinnov, Anthem, etc., which all attempt to produce a more linear or flatter +/-3dB FR.

Obvious with manual EQ, you can boost the 8-12 kHz region by +6dB if you wanted.

I do use my manual PEQ to boost the subs by +3dB.

Automatic EQ is for granma (who can't figure out how to use a smartphone) when she moved up from tv speakers to a receiver for the first time. An audioholic uncle like you would go more in-depth...go a bit more hardcore with the PEQ and soundfield adjustments, I'd think.

 

[3db]

I'm not referring to "EQ can have a small effect", I mean that EQ isn't a cure for room modes- anything attempted needs to be a solution, not a BandAid.

If the modes coincide at a spot where they're in phase, EQ is very limited in its effect especially if that two sides are the same length and the height is a multiple of that dimension. It can't change the room's dimensions and the EQ band would need to have a very high Q in order to be effective. When room modes are involved, the amount of energy needed for those frequencies to be too strong is much lower than the rest of the frequency range. OTOH, most rooms aren't sealed and they open into other spaces that can react to the energy in a way that softens the peak to some extent.

All rooms have standing waves, but treatment is the best choice- IF equalization is needed, a parametric equalizer is the best choice because Murphy's Law is in effect WRT the center frequencies of the sliders (physical or virtual).

I have good experience with multiple sub placement using REW to find the best positions and then EQing them with REW as one virtual sub and downloading the EQ file into a miniDSP2x4HD. I looked at each subwoofer's in room response and made sure that the suck out wasn't occuring at the same frequencies for each sub. I staggered them. It worked really well for the basement and to some extent worked well for the great room.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Automatic EQ is for granma (who can't figure out how to use a smartphone) when she moved up from tv speakers to a receiver for the first time. An audioholic uncle like you would go more in-depth...go a bit more hardcore with the PEQ and soundfield adjustments, I'd think.

I don’t like any Automatic EQ for my systems.

But everyone has their own preference.

Some like auto EQ, some like manual PEQ.

And then among people who like auto-EQ, some like one brand over the others.

Some like to use EQ for 20Hz-20kHz, some like to EQ only for 20Hz-200Hz.

Everyone has their own preference.

 

[PENG]

I'm not referring to "EQ can have a small effect", I mean that EQ isn't a cure for room modes- anything attempted needs to be a solution, not a BandAid.

If the modes coincide at a spot where they're in phase, EQ is very limited in its effect especially if that two sides are the same length and the height is a multiple of that dimension. It can't change the room's dimensions and the EQ band would need to have a very high Q in order to be effective. When room modes are involved, the amount of energy needed for those frequencies to be too strong is much lower than the rest of the frequency range. OTOH, most rooms aren't sealed and they open into other spaces that can react to the energy in a way that softens the peak to some extent.

All rooms have standing waves, but treatment is the best choice- IF equalization is needed, a parametric equalizer is the best choice because Murphy's Law is in effect WRT the center frequencies of the sliders (physical or virtual).

It's not just that, but room modes could result in both peaks and dips. REQ can in fact have huge effects that I don't think we could call it "Band-Aid" solution for peaks, but you would be correct if you referred to the dips only.

 

[PENG]

It seems like Audyssey did a “better job” than Dirac in this measurement.

They both did a “better job” than no-EQ.

But I am not sure either one actually sounds any better than no-EQ.

You know I wouldn't disagree with you, because as I said many time, it depends!! The example I just used earlier about you would scream, would only apply if your room/speaker placement was anything like mine, but then it also depends on one's preference, that is a very subjective thing.

Even on the objective side of the equation only, REQ can only make improvement for people who need it. If you run Audyssey in an anechoic room, it would likely do nothing anyway, hopefully..

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

You know I wouldn't disagree with you, because as I said many time, it depend!! The example I just used earlier about you would scream, would only apply if your room/speaker placement was anything like mine.

REQ can only make improvement for people who need it. If you run Audyssey in an anechoic room, it would likely do nothing anyway, hopefully..

It is cool to see how they all compare, especially when people claim that one is much better. But then you see the graphs and you see that it's not the best. Then they say that the graphs don't tell you how they really sound. Haha.

 

[PENG]

I might be confusing you with someone else, but I thought you turned pretty anti-Audyssey and we'd had some debates about it. I might be remembering wrong. I do remember you liking DEQ quite a bit tho.

Okay, I'll give you that you don't necessarily beat up on Denon but you are Yamaha's head cheerleader here! Granted they are a fine company, for the most part...

Yes, ADTG has been absolutely consistent since the time I starting reading his posts about Audyssey. That is, he used to like running Audyssey only because of the DEQ feature, and he would get by using front L/R bypass in order to use DEQ.

 

[PENG]

Doc, hates Adyssey! and AVR's! Any AVR! No exceptions!!

In my opinion, you've got a winner for accuracy.

 

[PENG]

It is cool to see how they all compare, especially when people claim that one is much better. But then you see the graphs and you see that it's not the best. Then they say that the graphs don't tell you how they really sound. Haha.

Please note that I did highlight that was the DL trial version (should have said Beta version) vs XT32. I am not now testing the final version, that is DL3 PC standalone. So far, without comparing to XT32, I got the impression that DL is a little better, objectively speaking only. Will try to find a way to compare it with Audyssey, but it would be difficult to do.

Sorry, made a serious typo..

 

[highfigh]

It's not just that, but room modes could result in both peaks and dips. REQ can in fact have huge effects that I don't think we could call it "Band-Aid" solution for peaks, but you would be correct if you referred to the dips only.

You should have seen me refer to sound as energy many times on AH and that the interference from collisions between modes can be constructive or destructive. It can also be more neutral because the interference will have whatever effect it can, depending on where in the phase the energy coincides but it's still considered 'constructive' or destructive'. Think of this as if the sound was sine waves- the modes would be complete waves at the frequencies that are determined by the dimensions (c=wavelength/distance) and if the wave from two modes intersect at their maximum, it will result in a positive peak, if they intersect with one at max and the other at min, they cancel. If one is at max or min and it intersects with one at 0 (midpoint), its effect will depend on whether the amplitude is min or max. Then, the 3rd dimension needs to be considered. In two dimensions, this can be seen in water waves when two points of surface interruption exist- some wave become larger, some smaller and at some points, the surface will be the same as it is outside of the disturbance.

If you know boaters, you might hear them talking about standing waves- this is where that term came from- it's a literal name for the waves that are abnormally high. These are caused by the waves coming in and hitting shore, then reflecting outward and if the results from the intersections are bad enough, boats can sink.

These examples describe the reason EQ can't completely 'fix' room mode problems. If it could shift the phase of the signal, it could, but only if it can do this acoustically and it's not possible to do that for only one room dimension. It can be done electrically- that's the reason for the rotary phase control on some subs and the distance control in AVR/AVP menus.

 

[highfigh]

I have good experience with multiple sub placement using REW to find the best positions and then EQing them with REW as one virtual sub and downloading the EQ file into a miniDSP2x4HD. I looked at each subwoofer's in room response and made sure that the suck out wasn't occuring at the same frequencies for each sub. I staggered them. It worked really well for the basement and to some extent worked well for the great room.

Using multiple subs results in more even distribution of the room modes and it calms them.

 

[PENG]

You should have seen me refer to sound as energy many times on AH and that the interference from collisions between modes can be constructive or destructive. It can also be more neutral because the interference will have whatever effect it can, depending on where in the phase the energy coincides but it's still considered 'constructive' or destructive'. Think of this as if the sound was sine waves- the modes would be complete waves at the frequencies that are determined by the dimensions (c=wavelength/distance) and if the wave from two modes intersect at their maximum, it will result in a positive peak, if they intersect with one at max and the other at min, they cancel. If one is at max or min and it intersects with one at 0 (midpoint), its effect will depend on whether the amplitude is min or max. Then, the 3rd dimension needs to be considered. In two dimensions, this can be seen in water waves when two points of surface interruption exist- some wave become larger, some smaller and at some points, the surface will be the same as it is outside of the disturbance.

If you know boaters, you might hear them talking about standing waves- this is where that term came from- it's a literal name for the waves that are abnormally high. These are caused by the waves coming in and hitting shore, then reflecting outward and if the results from the intersections are bad enough, boats can sink.

These examples describe the reason EQ can't completely 'fix' room mode problems. If it could shift the phase of the signal, it could, but only if it can do this acoustically and it's not possible to do that for only one room dimension. It can be done electrically- that's the reason for the rotary phase control on some subs and the distance control in AVR/AVP menus.

I never said it could completely fix anything, you were the one making a general statement. I am just saying that REQ could in fact have significant effect on room mode related bass peaks, and agreed with you that it couldn't do much if your original general statement referred to room mode related dips/suck outs etc..