Optimizing subwoofers and integration with mains: multi sub optimizer - Page 15 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 162Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #421 of 777 Old 01-29-2017, 06:06 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
In the earlier plots I defined the unoptimized combined response as the target curve hoping any reduction in variance would be easier to spot.
Ahhhhh..... I was wondering why the "after" MLP curve didn't end up flatter, even thinking there might be a bug in the software. Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
Guess that didn't work too well That's why a normalization feature would come in handy.
I'll look at the code for the metrics too, to see if there needs to be changes made to help answer this question quantitatively, and to implement such changes if needed. It would be nice to get a numeric answer such as "the RMS error of the 'extra' positions from the MLP was X dB before optimization and Y dB after", so that one needn't rely solely on visual interpretation.

Last edited by andyc56; 01-29-2017 at 06:21 AM.
andyc56 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #422 of 777 Old 01-29-2017, 06:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,873
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4189 Post(s)
Liked: 1577
Thanks Andy!

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #423 of 777 Old 01-29-2017, 02:17 PM
Member
 
mcb61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Oz (Au)
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Very interesting software package thanks Andy.

I am currently playing with various optimisation parameters to see the impacts.

I have read elsewhere various comments about limiting the no. of PEQ's and also the maximum value of the Q's.

Is there any prevailing thoughts on the max. number of PEQ's and also the max. Q values?
mcb61 is offline  
 
post #424 of 777 Old 01-29-2017, 06:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcb61 View Post
Very interesting software package thanks Andy.

I am currently playing with various optimisation parameters to see the impacts.

I have read elsewhere various comments about limiting the no. of PEQ's and also the maximum value of the Q's.

Is there any prevailing thoughts on the max. number of PEQ's and also the max. Q values?
I've typically used four PEQs per sub, but you can go higher, e.g to the maximum of 6 per sub in the miniDSP 2x4 if need be. I believe @Svenibaer has gone even higher than this.

I originally did not allow a maximum Q higher than 16, per Welti and Devantier's paper, but this turned out not to be high enough to get best results with real-world data. The default maximum Q (in Tools, Application Options, Parametric EQ) is now 25, but you can set it to be as high as 35 in that dialog. I've found with an allowable maximum Q at its highest value of 35, one can get "spiky" solutions that MSO has a hard time getting rid of (because it minimizes the RMS value of the frequency response error, not the peak), so maybe 30 or so might be a practical limit if you're trying to push it.

Different hardware vendors often use different definitions of Q for PEQ filters. For the miniDSP, always use the biquad text export of MSO, together with the biquad text import of the miniDSP. MiniDSP use the Q convention of Robert Bristow-Johnson (RBJ), and MSO currently does not display the Q according to the RBJ convention in its filter reports. I wrote an article about this after having a discussion with REW author John Mulcahy about it. I'll be adding the computed PEQ Q values according to the RBJ convention to the filter reports of the next version.
andyc56 is offline  
post #425 of 777 Old 01-30-2017, 01:58 AM
Member
 
mcb61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Oz (Au)
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Thanks Andy for your response.

I am using a MiniDSP 88A with bass management module to combine 3 subs. Having previously read your comments about MiniDSP's I have been using exporting the biquads.

Based on comments I have read elsewhere, I have been reducing the Q value to 15 and using 6 PEQ's and just started experimenting with 8 PEQ's.

As I am having issues with spiky solutions, I will try increasing the Q value.
mcb61 is offline  
post #426 of 777 Old 01-31-2017, 02:32 PM
Member
 
Svenibaer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
I've typically used four PEQs per sub, but you can go higher, e.g to the maximum of 6 per sub in the miniDSP 2x4 if need be. I believe @Svenibaer has gone even higher than this.
That's correct. With my DDRC-88A/BM I'm driving 3 subs with 8 PEQs each. For details see my posts in this thread.
Svenibaer is offline  
post #427 of 777 Old 02-01-2017, 05:06 PM
Member
 
mcb61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Oz (Au)
Posts: 27
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 15 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Svenibaer View Post
That's correct. With my DDRC-88A/BM I'm driving 3 subs with 8 PEQs each. For details see my posts in this thread.
Thank you for your reply.

I have gone back and checked your previous posts, thanks for taking the time to write up your findings.

My latest results are now looking very good. Minor difference between 6 and 8 PEQ, so I am still considering which option to use. Will take one more set of measurements and rerun MSOP again with the new measurements. The last lot where at quite low levels and I want to see what effect higher levels (dB) has.

Also for anybody who is running front and rear subs in a difficult room (open plan) be aware that large delays may be needed. Latest results are in the vicinity 28ms for the rear sub. This is beyond what AVR's and MiniDSP 2 x 4 can handle, however the 2x4HD (and the 88A with bass management) can.
Svenibaer likes this.
mcb61 is offline  
post #428 of 777 Old 02-01-2017, 06:01 PM
Senior Member
 
welldun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 219 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Andy, there have been quite a number of updates to MSO, are any of them significant enough to warrant a re-calibration of my system?

HT Room: 18'x13'x7.5' with 2 rows of seating.
Pioneer SC-99 & Audiosource AD1002 for Atmos & DTS:X 7.2.4
Andrew Jones Pioneer Elite SP-EFS73 Mains , SP-EC73 Center, SP-EBS73-LR Rear Surrounds, SP-BS41-LR Side Surrounds & Dual SVS SB12-NSD Subs with MiniDSP 2x4 Tuned with REW and MSO.
ELite Screens Edge Free Aeon Series 100 inch Cinewhite Screen & Epson 5040UB Projector.
Nvidia Shield (2017), SONY UBP-X800 4K UHD Blu-ray player & SONY PS3.
welldun is offline  
post #429 of 777 Old 02-02-2017, 07:18 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 4,656
Mentioned: 9 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 995 Post(s)
Liked: 522
Andy, I post this reluctantly because I couldn't find a private contact, but I think the MSO Google+ page in your signature has been hacked. I followed it, and all of a sudden when I went to Google Plus my screen was filled with really despicable and noxious KKKrusader type propaganda. I unfollowed the MSO page and the hate speech disappeared.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #430 of 777 Old 02-02-2017, 10:34 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Thanks for mentioning that! I just deleted that account, changed my Google password and removed all references to the account on the MSO web pages.
andyc56 is offline  
post #431 of 777 Old 02-02-2017, 10:44 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by welldun View Post
Andy, there have been quite a number of updates to MSO, are any of them significant enough to warrant a re-calibration of my system?
Per this post, you should be fine. The latest change was Nov. 8 of last year, which added the ability to use a target curve for sub-only configurations. That doesn't affect earlier results for "sub+main" configurations as you used.
andyc56 is offline  
post #432 of 777 Old 02-03-2017, 02:44 AM
Senior Member
 
welldun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 219 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Thank you Andy.
welldun is offline  
post #433 of 777 Old 02-04-2017, 03:21 PM
Member
 
Svenibaer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 39
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 29 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Planning for 4th Sub upgrade…

The pretty good results I’ve archived with my Source Sink Sub /Bass Array in the last year have encouraged me to go for a fourth sub.
It took me a lot effort to get another sub identical to the one already placed behind the listening position. Most difficult was the colour finish, because it had to meet the acceptance criteria of my wife… But finally I managed to get a already outdated model “brand new” and painted in grey metallic by the manufacturer itself! That’s service!

So soon I’ll own 4x 12” Subs. They all have identical drivers, but the two older models in the front are ported downwards and have “weaker” amps (350 W each). The subs planned for the backside have a 12” passive radiator downwards instead and are rated with 750 W each. Unfortunately the newer ones have only phase switches in 90° steps, but that’s because of RF remote – which should be very helpful to adjust them behind the couch…
Again, our living room home theatre – right now…



The reason for the 4th Sub is to balance out my bass array (membrane surface front vs. backside) in order to further improve its correcting effect for room modes and bass reverberation…
I plan to place the backward subs like the front subs approx. at 1/4 and 3/4 room width. But because of less space behind the couch and optical reasons both backward subs should face to the left side (see schema). Because of spherical sound dispersion in the low end this shouldn’t be a problem in my opinion.



Unfortunately I have only the 3 miniDSP channels left that I already use. I don’t want to integrate another miniDSP 2x4 because of overall complexity, another box and another A/D – D/A conversion. So I have to drive 2 Subs together on one channel with one delay and PEQ setting – which shouldn’t be a problem with symmetrical placed Subs. Because of having only one Sub cable running to the back, the easiest way would be to drive the backwards subs as a pair… what do the experts think?

First, I plan to measure and fine tune the Sub placement of the “Sub pair” for modal correction and level and phase alignment with REW. Then I think I have to match the gain/ Volume of the different Sub channels roughly. Afterwards I will do the MSO measurements and handle the Sub pair as one Sub – just like I did in the past, right?

Maybe I’m overlooking something… any suggestions and feedback welcome…

Regards,
Sven
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	LivingRoomHomeTheatre_Overview.PNG
Views:	349
Size:	760.0 KB
ID:	1944369   Click image for larger version

Name:	LivingRoomHomeTheatre_Overview_4th_Sub.PNG
Views:	361
Size:	764.4 KB
ID:	1944377  
andyc56 likes this.

Last edited by Svenibaer; 02-04-2017 at 03:27 PM.
Svenibaer is offline  
post #434 of 777 Old 02-04-2017, 05:05 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Svenibaer View Post
Unfortunately I have only the 3 miniDSP channels left that I already use. I don’t want to integrate another miniDSP 2x4 because of overall complexity, another box and another A/D – D/A conversion. So I have to drive 2 Subs together on one channel with one delay and PEQ setting – which shouldn’t be a problem with symmetrical placed Subs. Because of having only one Sub cable running to the back, the easiest way would be to drive the backwards subs as a pair… what do the experts think?
Interesting arrangement. After looking again at your previous post about your setup, I'd say you certainly know more about the practical aspects of the source-sink configuration using MSO than I do, so "expert" applies to you in this case. I was kind of surprised that such a setup worked as well as it did without the full-blown "double bass array" configuration having four subs each on front and rear walls. I was worried that the polarity inversion of the rear subs might cause MSO to wander off to impractical solutions. I guess it did do that to some extent in your previous configuration until you also looked at the time domain in REW and constrained MSO settings appropriately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Svenibaer View Post
First, I plan to measure and fine tune the Sub placement of the “Sub pair” for modal correction and level and phase alignment with REW. Then I think I have to match the gain/ Volume of the different Sub channels roughly. Afterwards I will do the MSO measurements and handle the Sub pair as one Sub – just like I did in the past, right?
This sounds like a good plan. Sorry I don't have better advice for you, but so far you've been the guy pioneering the use of the source-sink configuration with MSO. It will be interesting seeing your results.
Svenibaer likes this.
andyc56 is offline  
post #435 of 777 Old 02-05-2017, 08:53 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,873
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4189 Post(s)
Liked: 1577
@andyc56 , would it be possible to have MSO use a dynamic target curve which is the calculated envelope of all measurement groups at any given time during the optimization process? See yellow curve in the attached plot.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	before-envelope.png
Views:	53
Size:	80.4 KB
ID:	1945625  

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole
markus767 is offline  
post #436 of 777 Old 02-05-2017, 10:38 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus767 View Post
@andyc56 , would it be possible to have MSO use a dynamic target curve which is the calculated envelope of all measurement groups at any given time during the optimization process? See yellow curve in the attached plot.
I thought about this, and I'm not interested in pursuing it. Here's why.

A necessary condition to make it work properly without producing an absolute frequency response that's out of control would be to disallow shared EQ for the subs. But would that be a sufficient condition? I have no idea, and the effort required to find out is more than I'm willing to put in.

The kinds of changes I like to put in are ones that have a good chance of success. In the case of your suggestion of plotting traces relative to the MLP, the merit of doing that is beyond any doubt from my POV, and the effort required to do it is reasonable. I'm happy to put in such changes.

To be honest, I don't plan on doing much more MSO development.
andyc56 is offline  
post #437 of 777 Old 02-10-2017, 07:56 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
While working on the relative trace plotting requested by Markus, I noticed a bug, so I've released an interim bug fix as version 1.19a. The bug occurred if one specified a listening position as the MLP in the optimization options, then renamed the MLP measurement group in the config view afterwards. This was causing an internal out-of-sync situation which would require re-launching the optimization options dialog and re-choosing the MLP to correct. This bug is now fixed.

Gotta love Git version control software.
andyc56 is offline  
post #438 of 777 Old 02-10-2017, 03:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
artur9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: near philly
Posts: 1,848
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 671 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
Gotta love Git version control software.
My coworkers and I have decided we hate git. Version control - good. Git - OMG give me a root canal instead!
artur9 is offline  
post #439 of 777 Old 02-10-2017, 04:29 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by artur9 View Post
My coworkers and I have decided we hate git. Version control - good. Git - OMG give me a root canal instead!
I only use it for pretty simple things. I don't do any of the team stuff since I'm retired and just working on the project by myself. It's saved my bacon on a number of occasions.
andyc56 is offline  
post #440 of 777 Old 02-10-2017, 04:31 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
artur9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: near philly
Posts: 1,848
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 671 Post(s)
Liked: 237
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
I only use it for pretty simple things. I don't do any of the team stuff since I'm retired and just working on the project by myself. It's saved my bacon on a number of occasions.
Gotcha. For that it could be nice. I preferred mercurial if you ever need a change.

There's a guy somewhere on the 'Net that keeps his whole home directory/folder in version control. Whenever he screws something up the older/working version is just a revert away.
artur9 is offline  
post #441 of 777 Old 02-14-2017, 05:56 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Is there a link someone could provide that shows how to use multiple "configurations"?

I didn't see it in the tutorial or reference.

Thanks,
Scott
Onetrack97 is offline  
post #442 of 777 Old 02-14-2017, 06:12 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onetrack97 View Post
Is there a link someone could provide that shows how to use multiple "configurations"?

I didn't see it in the tutorial or reference.
That can be found in "Special Topics: Understanding Configurations". You'll need to create your first configuration by hand, but after you've done that, the easiest way to make a new one is to clone the existing one, then make the desired changes.
Onetrack97 likes this.
andyc56 is offline  
post #443 of 777 Old 02-15-2017, 02:23 PM
Senior Member
 
welldun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 389
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 219 Post(s)
Liked: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
While working on the relative trace plotting requested by Markus, I noticed a bug, so I've released an interim bug fix as version 1.19a. The bug occurred if one specified a listening position as the MLP in the optimization options, then renamed the MLP measurement group in the config view afterwards. This was causing an internal out-of-sync situation which would require re-launching the optimization options dialog and re-choosing the MLP to correct. This bug is now fixed.

Gotta love Git version control software.
Andy I just redid my setup last weekend using version 1.19. based on the bug that you found, would/should I rerun the program?

If so, I assume I don't need to rerun REW, but instead just feed the REW results to MSO 1.19a correct?

HT Room: 18'x13'x7.5' with 2 rows of seating.
Pioneer SC-99 & Audiosource AD1002 for Atmos & DTS:X 7.2.4
Andrew Jones Pioneer Elite SP-EFS73 Mains , SP-EC73 Center, SP-EBS73-LR Rear Surrounds, SP-BS41-LR Side Surrounds & Dual SVS SB12-NSD Subs with MiniDSP 2x4 Tuned with REW and MSO.
ELite Screens Edge Free Aeon Series 100 inch Cinewhite Screen & Epson 5040UB Projector.
Nvidia Shield (2017), SONY UBP-X800 4K UHD Blu-ray player & SONY PS3.
welldun is offline  
post #444 of 777 Old 02-15-2017, 05:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by welldun View Post
Andy I just redid my setup last weekend using version 1.19. based on the bug that you found, would/should I rerun the program?

If so, I assume I don't need to rerun REW, but instead just feed the REW results to MSO 1.19a correct?
Per the release notes, the bug only occurs if you have done the following:
1) Opened up the Optimization Options dialog for a given configuration and chosen an optimization method that requires choosing an MLP
2) Then subsequently gone to the Optimization Parameters, Measurement Groups in the Config View and renamed the measurement group you previously chose as the MLP in step 1.

If you did not do that, the bug will not be triggered. If you do not remember whether you have done that or not, you can do the following:
1) Open up your .msop project file in the latest version
2) Open up the Optimization Options dialog for the config you wish to optimize
3) Select the desired position as the MLP if it is not already selected
4) Choose OK in the dialog.
5) Re-run the optimization
6) Save the project

Steps 3 and 4 will put things back in sync if they were out of sync before. This does not require doing anything different in REW, nor does it require creating a new MSO project - just re-opening your earlier project. If the optimization in step 5 above runs for a while before it finds a better solution than it found in the previous run, it's very unlikely you were subject to the bug to begin with.

This was a fix for a pretty rare scenario, but when I find such bugs I like to fix them right away.
andyc56 is offline  
post #445 of 777 Old 02-16-2017, 03:26 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Is there an easy way to clone a configuration that has mains+subs to a new config that is Subs Only?

I tried just removing the references to the mains but the optimizer won't run?


Thanks,
Scott
Onetrack97 is offline  
post #446 of 777 Old 02-16-2017, 04:10 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onetrack97 View Post
Is there an easy way to clone a configuration that has mains+subs to a new config that is Subs Only?
Unfortunately that can't be done at this time. Sorry. You can only clone a sub-only configuration to a mains+subs configuration. The reason is that there are a number of things that are legal in a mains+subs configuration that are not legal in sub-only configurations, because they could cause optimizer convergence problems if not disallowed.

So you'll have to create a new configuration from scratch in this situation, unfortunately. This can be made somewhat less painful by using the filter copy and paste feature to paste existing filters into the new configuration. Select the "Filters" node of the channel whose filters you want to copy and press Ctrl+Shift+C to copy them, and Ctrl+V at the destination "Filters" node to paste.
andyc56 is offline  
post #447 of 777 Old 02-16-2017, 04:54 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Great, thanks for the tip.

Is there any advantage to implementing the Subwoofer LPF in MSO (biquad) vs. just doing it with the MiniDSP plug-in?

It would seem to be easier to change/experiment doing it in the MiniDSP.

Thanks,
Scott
Onetrack97 is offline  
post #448 of 777 Old 02-16-2017, 05:02 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
andyc56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,171
Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by Onetrack97 View Post
Is there any advantage to implementing the Subwoofer LPF in MSO (biquad) vs. just doing it with the MiniDSP plug-in?

It would seem to be easier to change/experiment doing it in the MiniDSP.
Most people who use MSO are using an AVR or AV pre-pro, in which case no LPF should be used at all in MSO. The filters in MSO represent changes from the as-measured condition (that is, filters to be added that aren't already present). When using an AVR or pre-pro, the as-measured condition already includes the effect of the sub LPF that's internal to the AVR (and the HPF on the main speakers, if used).

Last edited by andyc56; 02-16-2017 at 05:13 PM.
andyc56 is offline  
post #449 of 777 Old 02-16-2017, 05:17 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Texas
Posts: 30
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
Most people who use MSO are using an AVR or AV pre-pro, in which case no LPF should be used at all in MSO. The filters in MSO represent changes from the as-measured condition (that is, filters to be added that aren't already present). When using an AVR or pre-pro, the as-measured condition already includes the effect of the sub LPF that's internal to the AVR (and the HPF on the main speakers, if used).
That's what I was thinking, thanks.
Onetrack97 is offline  
post #450 of 777 Old 02-17-2017, 01:24 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
markus767's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9,873
Mentioned: 111 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4189 Post(s)
Liked: 1577
Played around some more with MSO to find out how it can be used to smooth the sub/sat splice in a multichannel system. This is L+SW, R+SW, C+SW, LS+SW, RS+SW at 3 mic locations 2ft apart, crossover L-R48@80Hz, before and after (black = target curve) – compare the range below 160Hz:





Looking pretty promising!
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	before.png
Views:	199
Size:	39.5 KB
ID:	1976441   Click image for larger version

Name:	after.png
Views:	198
Size:	38.8 KB
ID:	1976449  

Markus

"In science, contrary evidence causes one to question a theory. In religion, contrary evidence causes one to question the evidence." - Floyd Toole

Last edited by markus767; 02-17-2017 at 11:46 PM.
markus767 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off