or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › Manufacturers: PLEASE include full bass management on more 2.0 receivers, integrateds and preamps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Manufacturers: PLEASE include full bass management on more 2.0 receivers, integrateds and preamps

post #1 of 48
Thread Starter 
Subwoofer outputs with no filtering just ain't gonna cut it imo. frown.gif
post #2 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by donutfan View Post

Subwoofer outputs with no filtering just ain't gonna cut it imo. frown.gif

I just built a 2.1 system that works great with a 5.1 receiver and some parameter setting. I don't know why anybody even bothers with 2.0 receivers and integrateds.
post #3 of 48
Quote:
I don't know why anybody even bothers with 2.0 receivers and integrateds.

Agree. With being able to do so much for my room in the digital domain with an AVR... I can't imagine going back to a 2ch analog preamp ever again.
post #4 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I just built a 2.1 system that works great with a 5.1 receiver and some parameter setting. I don't know why anybody even bothers with 2.0 receivers and integrateds.
I also don't see the market for such a device being worthwhile for most manufacturers. Most 'philes eschew subs and the 2ch market outside of niche 'phile stuff is very limited, and overall has been shrinking for ages.
post #5 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I don't know why anybody even bothers with 2.0 receivers and integrateds.
Because for the same price a 2.0 component will (usually) use higher-quality parts.

Quote:
Most 'philes eschew subs.....
My theory about that is that many 2.0 channel audiophiles *have* tried out subwoofers, but got lousy results because of the lack of proper integration between the sats & sub.
post #6 of 48
Quote:
My theory about that is that many 2.0 channel audiophiles *have* tried out subwoofers, but got lousy results because of the lack of proper integration between the sats & sub.

Or could that be because they tried to integrate subs with 2ch analog preamps. I don't see many digital 2.1 channel preamps on the market. (i.e just like an AVR but only 2.1 instead of 7.1 or what have you)

Why aren't there more 2.1 channel preamps on the market? Why do most people seem to stick with old school 2ch analog preamps that have no bass management or EQ or time alignment capabilities that are fundamental for integrating subs/speakers/room..???
post #7 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Or could that be because they tried to integrate subs with 2ch analog preamps.

Not hard to do, but you need to obtain an external crossover.
Quote:
I don't see many digital 2.1 channel preamps on the market. (i.e just like an AVR but only 2.1 instead of 7.1 or what have you)

I think that the traditional 2 channel person is about being traditional.
Quote:
Why aren't there more 2.1 channel preamps on the market? Why do most people seem to stick with old school 2ch analog preamps that have no bass management or EQ or time alignment capabilities that are fundamental for integrating subs/speakers/room..???

There is not any logical need at all for specialized 2.x equipment as long as you can easily configure 5.1 channel down for 2.x channel operation. The 2.0 market is about being traditional.
post #8 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Or could that be because they tried to integrate subs with 2ch analog preamps.
Actually, that's what I meant (I should have been clearer). But the thing is, you don't need digital circuitry for bass management. For example, Outlaw Audio uses an all-analog b.m. system on their RR2150 stereo receiver.
post #9 of 48
Quote:
There is not any logical need at all for specialized 2.x equipment as long as you can easily configure 5.1 channel down for 2.x channel operation. The 2.0 market is about being traditional.


Quite true. The trouble is that no self-respecting audiophile would admit to using an AVR as their preamp. Even though it could do wonders for their room integration. No, let's just keep using 30-year-old technology. cool.gif
post #10 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by donutfan View Post

Because for the same price a 2.0 component will (usually) use higher-quality parts.
I wouldn't like to bet too much on that statement even being remotely universal and many "better" parts will not make any audible difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donutfan View Post

My theory about that is that many 2.0 channel audiophiles *have* tried out subwoofers, but got lousy results because of the lack of proper integration between the sats & sub.
Agreed. Many I read are simply using a splitter cable in between pre/power and running the 2.0 wide open and with no measurement gear or willingness to learn how it all fits together, get predictably poor results.
post #11 of 48
Why doesn't someone just make a Digital room correction module that is can be placed in between the Pre-amp out and the Main amp in? I would be interested in something like that rather than get rid of the components I already have.
post #12 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tweaked05 View Post

Why doesn't someone just make a Digital room correction module that is can be placed in between the Pre-amp out and the Main amp in?

There are some devices like that available... http://www.minidsp.com/
post #13 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by A9X-308 View Post

I wouldn't like to bet too much on that statement even being remotely universal and many "better" parts will not make any audible difference.
I'm mainly thinking of components like power transformers, power supply capacitors, output transistors with improved current handling capacities, tighter-tolerance resistors/caps/etc and maybe just improved overall physical construction.
post #14 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by donutfan View Post

I'm mainly thinking of components like power transformers, power supply capacitors, output transistors with improved current handling capacities, tighter-tolerance resistors/caps/etc and maybe just improved overall physical construction.

That's just a matter of specification. Parts to do the job right are pretty much commodities, these days.
post #15 of 48
I don't know that a lot of two channel folks feel they need subwoofers. Depending on musical tastes, listening levels & the design of the main speakers I could see how a good percentage (of an already small population) could come to the conclusion that a subwoofer isn't necessary thus making the market even smaller.

That said I would be very interested in seeing more products along these lines.
post #16 of 48
Did the same, its a pain to bring over a TV for the OSD.

I do wish for more 2.1 intergraded or pre-amp.
There are no equipment that are prefect. All design have some comprises, and 2 ch equipment should be easier for the manufacturer to get it more 'right'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

I just built a 2.1 system that works great with a 5.1 receiver and some parameter setting. I don't know why anybody even bothers with 2.0 receivers and integrateds.
post #17 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnyk View Post

That's just a matter of specification. Parts to do the job right are pretty much commodities, these days.
Parts may be cheap as dirt, but they still cost something. So I stand by my original opinion.

And btw the price of metals, especially copper, have been rising signficantly the past few years and power transformers use lots of that........

Quote:
I don't know that a lot of two channel folks feel they need subwoofers. Depending on musical tastes, listening levels & the design of the main speakers I could see how a good percentage (of an already small population) could come to the conclusion that a subwoofer isn't necessary thus making the market even smaller.

That said I would be very interested in seeing more products along these lines.
Maybe if they heard a properly-configured 2.1 system they would change their opinion. Also, a music-oriented system doesn't really require a SUBwoofer, instead I believe all they need is a device capable of response down to just say, 30Hz (see chart). That's because we're, or me anyway smile.gif, mostly trying to recommend them a system with improved bass quality, rather than the quantity or depth of bass. Not to mention some $$ savings, since they would not require as large an amp for their main speakers.
Edited by donutfan - 7/30/12 at 4:03pm
post #18 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by donutfan View Post

Parts may be cheap as dirt, but they still cost something. So I stand by my original opinion.
I'm sure that I can't change your opinion, no matter what facts I provide.

The facts are that the FTC still regulates power ratings, and the regulations plus the need to keep warranty costs reasonable pretty well define the capabilities of power transformers, heat sinks, and output devices.
Quote:
And btw the price of metals, especially copper, have been rising signficantly the past few years and power transformers use lots of that........

Being lectured on the topic of power transformers tickles the irony bone of an EE who could possibly have been winding his own transformers before your father was a glint in your grandfather's eye! ;-)
Quote:
Maybe if they heard a properly-configured 2.1 system they would change their opinion.

Why do you think that this mysterious undisclosed they hasn't heard a properly-configured 2.1 system?

I've been in the engineering offices of some well-known mainstream consumer electronics firms and seen their house systems. Cost is no object! They know far more about configuring audio systems then most audio journalists or self-appointed web eggspurts. Wanna compare notes about configurting systems with say, Floyd Toole?
Quote:
Also, a music-oriented system doesn't really require a SUBwoofer, instead I believe all they need is a device capable of response down to just say, 30Hz

I wish you'd make your mind up about which side of this issue you are on! ;-)
Quote:
(see chart). That's because we're, or me anyway smile.gif, mostly trying to recommend them a system with improved bass quality, rather than the quantity or depth of bass.

So you're now telling us that using subwoofers is antithetical to improved bass quality?

I notice that your chart ignores certain well-known instruments that do have response below 30 Hz.

To take an approach whose inverse was tried here lately, do you even have a 2.1 system of your own? ;-)
Quote:
Not to mention some $$ savings, since they would not require as large an amp for their main speakers.

Looking at the chart you provided, I see that they start the sub-bass range at 63 Hz. There are a number of sound quality advantages to splitting the workload at this point. But, you already know them, right? ;-)
post #19 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by donutfan View Post

Parts may be cheap as dirt, but they still cost something. So I stand by my original opinion.
And btw the price of metals, especially copper, have been rising signficantly the past few years and power transformers use lots of that.....

Like I do, you can just use a AVR as the pre and run dedicated poweramps to drive the speakers. No need to get too hung up on AVR power issues.
post #20 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Like I do, you can just use a AVR as the pre and run dedicated poweramps to drive the speakers. No need to get too hung up on AVR power issues.

The best 7.2 system I know of and have heard extensively is based on a ca. $300 AVR with resistive pads on the speaker terminals. From there it is off to 8 channels of pro-grade speaker management systems (one idling for a total of 9 channels in 3 boxes) and 8 pro grade powered speakers with 2 subs driven by pro grade power amps (each bridged) on their own 230 volt circuit.

If one treats a modern receiver's power amp like it is a heavy-duty line driver it is all there - lots of voltage (or not if you don't need it), low source impedance, and clean sound. Of course, it is barely idling but being on vacation doesn't hurt its performance.
post #21 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Also, a music-oriented system doesn't really require a SUBwoofer, instead I believe all they need is a device capable of response down to just say, 30Hz (see chart). That's because we're, or me anyway smile.gif, mostly trying to recommend them a system with improved bass quality, rather than the quantity or depth of bass.
I wanted to re-word this part of my post since it's rather confusing: first, I didn't mean to imply I was the only person in this thread who believes that subwoofers can offer improved bass output vs. a pair of conventional speakers. Secondly, in addition to the potential for more extended bass & increased volume of bass, the quality of bass is usually improved vs. a pair of conventional speakers because a subwoofer can be placed where bass reproduction is optimal (that's not always possible with conventional speakers since the remaining frequency spectrum has different needs as far as the location of the speakers in the room).

The only reason I stressed the quality of bass is because so many non-professional audiophiles mention that they don't particularly care about "loud" bass or ultra-deep bass (though those two aspects ARE needed for certain types of classical music and many movie soundtracks). But they DO mention many times, especially fans of rock & pop music, that undistorted and accurate i.e. realistic bass is something they enjoy. And that's what a properly-configured subwoofer can help to provide.

Anyway, as far as this discussion is concerned, I simply would like to see more 2.0 components with full bass management made available, rather than having to buy an AVR and wasting all that surround sound-related circuitry inside (not to mention the tuner, which I would never use).
post #22 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwi2 View Post

Like I do, you can just use a AVR as the pre and run dedicated poweramps to drive the speakers. No need to get too hung up on AVR power issues.
Unfortunately it seems like fewer & fewer new AVRs (under around $1,000 anyway) are equipped with preouts. frown.gif
post #23 of 48
I think a good option are those 2 ch Integrated Amplifiers with PRE and Power amp inputs and then use a Mini DSP in between
post #24 of 48
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qguy View Post

I think a good option are those 2 ch Integrated Amplifiers with PRE and Power amp inputs and then use a Mini DSP in between
Maybe I missed it, but on the miniDSP site I couldn't find any mention of a subwoofer-related ability.
post #25 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by donutfan View Post

Maybe I missed it, but on the miniDSP site I couldn't find any mention of a subwoofer-related ability.
Go to the DIY speaker section here and other sites, and you'll see plenty of people actually using it for that. It is a speaker processor with capability to do xovers, EQ and delay. Their site is pretty poor - maybe understanding what the unit can they thought people would know.
Doing an active xover between sub and mains is no different in principle to doing it in a 2 way speaker.
post #26 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by donutfan View Post

Maybe I missed it, but on the miniDSP site I couldn't find any mention of a subwoofer-related ability.

They can be used as crossovers...

http://www.minidsp.com/applications/digital-crossovers/digital-crossover-basics
post #27 of 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by qguy View Post

I think a good option are those 2 ch Integrated Amplifiers with PRE and Power amp inputs and then use a Mini DSP in between

The other commonly chosen alternatives is to use one of these:

http://www.behringer.com/en/Products/DCX2496.aspx



There are three separate channels (3 ins, 6 outs) in the one box, so it is perfect for setting up 2.1 systems.

There are three of these in that very large 7.1 system that one of my friends has. Great sound!
post #28 of 48
Thread Starter 
I wanted to mention Velodyne's SMS-1 Digital Subwoofer Management System for those interested in an improved subwoofer experience, but then found that it also included a hi-pass filter. Great!.....but then saw that while it's (fixed) crossover point was set at 80Hz (a good choice I believe for many larger speakers) its cutoff slope was only 6dB per octave. IMO that cutoff is quite shallow and will allow a sizable chunk of lower-bass energy to be sent to the satellite speakers and potentially produce a large overlap with the low-pass filter's output i.e. phase issues could rear their ugly head. So while it's not totally useless, personally I would have liked to see Velodyne implement, say, an 18dB/octave slope instead.
post #29 of 48
There are actually a few units out there and I think it is a good trend. We've got the Harmon Kardon KH990 and the Classe CP-800 which I blogged about a while back. If you want to get a bit more sophisticated there's the DEQX, TACT and Trinnov.
post #30 of 48
Thread Starter 
^ thanks Nyal for those links.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: 2 Channel Audio
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › 2 Channel Audio › Manufacturers: PLEASE include full bass management on more 2.0 receivers, integrateds and preamps