Small or Large....speakers

I believe that it is best to set all speakers to small and set the crossover on sub all the way up.

 

This way there is a greater range of frequencies between the sub and mains.

 

I know that there is a more technical way to say this, but that is what I have seen recommend on this(and other) board(s) many times before.

 

That is also how I have mine set up.

 

I have a 12" sub, and 10" mains, but I set the mains to small.  The sub does most of the heavy lifting.

 

I will defer to those with more know-how and a better vocabulary.

Sure, it can be a good starting platform, i.e., mains set small. However, it's all dependent on exactly how capable each channel is, and more importantly, how they interact acoustically in their environment as related to the listening position.

Experiment, that's the luxury of having the imaging characteristics tied to the mains, and the heavy lifting of the bottom end more able to move around the room, to achieve optimization of response at the LP.

Here's a nice guide to bass management.

Here's another very, very good combo of info for sub-woofing.

Good luck

^^^ I highly recommend anything written by "BigDaddy" over at Bluray.com.  He knows his stuff.

 

I've lurked over there for a few years, and he really knows subwoofers and Bass.  Has quite a few, has built quite a few, and in general is a wealth of knowledge.

 

I do not know if he posts over here tho...

According to the forum search tool, there is no such user over there.

I don't see any information about your sub. Did I miss something?

Sorry, it's "Big Daddy".  I dropped the space.

 

Either way, he's the one who wrote the two articles linked above.

That works!

The OP said that he has his sub set to plus...whatever that means.  However, I do assume that he has a sub...but you know what they say about people who AssUMe.

Go to this thread for info and READ . . . http://www.avsforum.com/t/824554/setting-up-your-home-theater-101.

With MCACC in speaker setup, set all speakers to small, sub set to 80 hz crossover. and NO plus just subwoofer on.

The ancient Kenwood 8: subwoofer appears to the weak link. The mains have more surface area on their cones for moving air.

Given your sub, I think it is likely you are using the best setting for now, except that the rears and possible center might still be best set as small. The small Kenwood is best utilized in your system as a secondary source of low frequencies in smoothing the response and seat to seat variation. To that end, playing with placement of your small sub and reviewing frequency response measurements made at each seating position might be benificial though I wouldn't expect miracles.

Were your sub much more capable, I'd recommend setting everything to small and worrying then about the optimum crossover point.

Given your sub, I think it is likely you are using the best setting for now, except that the rears and possible center might still be best set as small. The small Kenwood is best utilized in your system as a secondary source of low frequencies in smoothing the response and seat to seat variation. To that end, playing with placement of your small sub and reviewing frequency response measurements made at each seating position might be benificial though I wouldn't expect miracles.

Were your sub much more capable, I'd recommend setting everything to small and worrying then about the optimum crossover point.

Read this on small v large:
http://www.audyssey.com/blog/2009/05/small-vs-large

That article is good as far as it goes. I would like to try to come up with reasons why it may or may not be correct.

(1) Situations where the subwoofer may be too incompetent to justifying setting the mains to small:
- The cone area of the sub is the same or less than that of the total of the low range drivers in the mains and does not have an offsetting advantage in linear cone travel.
- The mains actually contain competent subwoofers that compare to or surpass the external sub in the system.
- The subwoofer can only be placed where it and the crossover point that must be used cause the subwoofer to affect imaging.
- The subwoofer has less bass extension than the mains
- The subwoofer has less dynamic range than the mains in the bass range

(2) Situations where setting the mains to small is clearly indicated:
- The subwoofer has the same or more bass extension and or dynamic range than the mains and can be placed and a crossover point can be set that does not affect imaging.
- The mains have adverse effects on their own midbass and midrange when reproducing full range bass (very common).
- The mains are fine with bass in general, but system sound is not so good where they should be placed for the best possible system imaging.

Can you think of other additions to list (1) or (2)?

If you have truly full range speakers, setting them to large and using the sub in LFE+Main (or whatever your prepro calls it) can be beneficial as they act as multiple subs and smooth the response.

Check out Earl Geddes bass guide.
Edited by Steve Dodds - 7/28/12 at 5:29am

I could accuse you of being mean given what happens if one tries to search for the above! ;-)

Please be more helpful...

Leave them on large and then position the sub to get the smoothest bass you can. Statistically, you have a much, much greater chance of achieving perceptually better, smoother bass at your seat and others in your listening area, by utilizing more, not less LF sources.
The only exception to this is if the main speaker is inept at producing LF. Not the case in your scenario.

cheers,

AJ

Hi Arny,

It used to be that you had to sign up at Earl's forum to get the articles, but DS-21 has put them in his blog with Earl's permission.

It's interesting that Earl recommends not high-passing the mains. But if you look at the data for his Abbey speakers, they are 3 dB down at about 100 Hz.

Thanks for the improved information.

As you may know I have been a personal friend of Earl and his family for years even decades. Like all other authorities what Earl writes should be analyzed thoughtfully and in the light of other authorities. Earl has gone through some recent apparent changes his philosophy of subwoofers. Not that long ago he seemed to consider his larger speakers as subwoofer replacements.

I think that Earl may still be using his speakers as a base line for his current recommendations. There are other speakers with other characteristics.

I added my thinking on the matter in post 16 above.

In short I think you need to adjust your speaker management settings based on the main speakers, the subwoofer, and the application. I therefore am prone to consider recommendations that don't include at minimum those influences to be poorly-founded.

With the current crazy state of high-end audio being what it is, a situation kind of like the Bizarros from the old Superman comics, there's few people in the industry that I actually take seriously. Earl is one of them. Even if I end up disagreeing with some small aspect of what he says, it's only after considerable head-scratching that I might do so. The usual suspects in the high-end audio biz typically don't say anything worth spending much time thinking about.

Another thing worth mentioning about Earl's recommendations is that, according to a post in his forum, he no longer considers spatial averaging to be absolutely necessary below 150 Hz. That simplifies the measurements a lot.

While it may seem like I'm tooting my own horn, this guy (who I think is this guy) had some interesting comments on a recent such show (you can just skip to the last paragraph).
It made me chuckle.
We are in mutual agreement. But don't forget Olive, Toole, Linkwitz, Fincham, Salmi, Moulton, Griesinger, Jones, etc (especially Toole!). Each provides valuable insight that should be viewed as a composite.
One of the features that separates the rational subjective brain, in room or not, is adaptation.

cheers,

AJ

doh! guess the link would have helped
Edited by AJinFLA - 7/28/12 at 1:40pm

Wow, it's unusual to see that sort of commentary on the Positive Feedback site. When I think of that e-mag, I think of "danceable cables" and giving the Brutus Award to the Clever Little Clock

I'll have to check out Salmi, Moulton and Griesinger, as I'm not familiar with them. Most of what I've studied about loudspeakers is related to subs, as I'm not really qualified to design full-up speaker systems. But yeah, I have Toole's book, though I do struggle with it, trying to ferret out the practical implications.

Way OT here, but who cares


May I add Everest, Patronis, Davis, and D'Antonio.

Also, far too AVS'ers are familiar with Syn-Aud-Con, and what a phenomenal resource it is.



"It's all about the room", especially wrt the bottom end.

This image, from an AVS sub shootout;



Far from purely scientific, however I enjoy how it shows how all these various different subs, from different mfrs, were dominated by the room.


Thanks

I would suspect most (AVSers) are concerned mainly with living rooms, not control rooms, which are quite separate situations, despite what Studiophiles may believe.
No. It's all about the acoustic source room interaction. Never heard a "room" produce sound other than AC noise myself.
You mean "various" different monopole after monopole after monopole interacted modally with the room? Well, yeah...

cheers,

AJ

No, the audio fundamentals, ... too few have any idea what's going on electronically, or acoustically.

The control room info is just a bonus if you want to read it.

---

I realize you feel the room isn't of significance, and it is amazing how much we "hear past", but the room is dominant wrt the bottom end.

Due to a discussion between Winer, Erskine, and myself, ... wrt Toole's findings, ...I took down all my treatment a year or so ago, plunged head first into my room, and my LP. There is a better way than no treatment in my room. I've manipulated every parameter I can, mains type, mfr, location, sidewall prox, distance, angle, ....with and without scattering, absorption @ ceiling, wall, front and side, ... I've done the legwork, as each system/room requires it's own approach.

Everybody wants immediate answers though, ...what do I do?

While more precise, FOH's point was clear as is

Audio as it concerns audible, i.e, the perception of domestic soundfields by humans, or audio something else?
That may be academic, but end users should mainly be concerned with end use. In this case, the sound they desire.
Unfortunately some simply cannot discern the relevance.
You realize quite incorrectly, given that I just stated there is an intrinsic interaction.
The source/room interaction dominates the whole thing, top to bottom. Like rooms, there are far more than one type of acoustic source (perhaps unbeknownst to studiophiles ?)
Thus there is also variability in the interaction.
Seems like you've worked it out yourself, so I'm not quite sure what your question is?

cheers,

AJ

AJ tries to make out that his speakers aren't affected by room modes... but yet won't publish a frequency response graph that isn't either cut off at 200hz or smoothed and manipulated to look flat at a quick glance. It will be interesting to see various independent room measurements with his speakers.