Definitive Owners Thread - Page 373

That is what I wanted to hear... now I just need to sell all my current gear.. have it listed on craigslist... but no bites

Before taking advantage of that feature, you might want to consider the arguments by Colin Miller and Brian Florian published in a "Secrets" Feature Article a while back spelling out why they think it might not be as good an idea as it seems to be on the surface. This viewpoint probably explains why some manufactures don't provide the option.

Either way, the Z7 is a great receiver.

That is a great article but doesn't that defeat the purpose of the basic design of the Def Techs? If they have independent subs and they are from the same series you should be able to setup the crossover points individually without having in gaps, thus allowing you to use the LFE to simply fill in? I can see how individual crossover points one be a bad thing for someone who's setup was a mix match... but if you are component matching I think this would be ideal since the speakers are designed to work together and essentially match for one another. Correct me if I am wrong... this is a learning process for me as well.

Suppose I have no wall to mount BP2X's on for my rear channels? Anyone have these on stands?

Well, I don't think it matters, the principle remains the same. The LFE doesn't just fill in. It's a separate channel and information from it isn't sent elsewhere unless you set the sub to no/off (in which case, this discussion is moot). As for bass encoded into the non-LFE channels, the phase shifts induced by multiple crossover points can result in more harm than the good the multiple crossovers are intended to accomplish.

With DefTechs, my preference is to run the full range ones as Large (there are very few other brands where I would do that) and use the quasi-standard 80Hz crossover for the others. I'm in a minority here on that, I think. Most members agree with you. I just thought I'd call attention to another point of view that is rarely mentioned here.

you can put them on stands, just make sure the drivers are not blocked by your chairs or couch

it always seemed weird to me to use different crossover points for different channels. i couldn't really explain it or even prove it but it just didn't seem natural to me. it always seemed to me that you would get a more over-all even experience using a universal crossover setting than several different crossover points for each channel

this is why it's important to get speakers that are as close to identical as possible

i think a few posts back someone asked about using 2 bpx's with 2 bp2x's. personally i'd rather have all 4 identical for many reasons. timbre matching and keeping things "even" is very important. sound in movies is always panning from channel to channel

i think i mentioned this once before but back in the 90s i read an article in stereo review or audio, one of those audio mags where they did an experiment and set up 2 theaters. one room had all high end speakers but they did not match them all the way around. the other theater had radio shack speakers but each channel was identical. the speakers were hidden and most people preferred the over all experience they had in the theater that had the radio shack speakers

this may be the reason why a lot of people hate what Audyssey does to the sound quality. all that "smoothing" of the frequencies is nothing more than dozens of crossovers cutting and boosting several different frequencies

Multiple crossover points is still a very desirable feature to have. If I may loosely quote some of his summation; "We acknowledge that a different crossover point for each channel is a desirable thing from the point of view of real world acoustics and dynamics. The different positions of speakers in the room virtually dictate it." Going along with the science that was explained so eloquently in this article (which in no way was an argument), one could easily create more problems than you are trying to correct. Even more so without the use of testing equipment. I would say a SPL meter and the best measuring device known to man... your ears. I understood the final paragraph as meaning; if you don't want to tweak or take any chances at all, just set all your speakers to small and give them the same crossover. This being the reason that some manufacturers don't provide the option can be suggested, but not a veiwpoint I would go with. Most manufacturers offer this option with their entry level units and the other manufacturers (notably Yamaha and Pioneer) offer it in their higher end units only.

It makes total sense to have 5 or 7 identical speakers all set at the same crossover point. In my case, all the speakers have the 6.5" mid drivers. my rear speakers have the older version silk tweeters, all the others are silk/aluminum. I have my 7001's set at 40hz since they have the built in subs. I have my sides and rears set at 50hz, I found 40 to be a little more then they could handle. I have my clr3000 set at 60, anything lower sounded to un natural to me.

your bp20s can't handle 40hz ?

have you ever tried using 60hz all the way around with each speaker even with the 7001s just as an experiment to see if things sound more "even" ?

However they finish that paragraph by saying, "But without also having a selection of slopes in the SSP and some VERY expensive measuring equipment, one is likely to end up further behind than ahead."

To me, that seems to imply a bit more than a RS SPL meter and an average person's ears.


Perhaps, but I think they take a stronger position than that.

The final paragraph of the feature article is not very equivocal: "If you want consistent bass response from each channel of your 5.1 system, in our opinion, you're best to set all speakers to "Small", set them all to the same crossover point, and set that point no lower than what you are comfortable throwing away from the LFE channel. If your main left and right speakers are genuinely full range (be honest now!), then you are better off running them full range as opposed to high-passing them at a ridiculously low frequency..."

In fact, when he reviewed the TX-SR806 last fall, Brian Florian chided Onkyo for including multiple crossover points: "The crossover frequency can be set independently for each pair of speakers, the soundtrack's bass can be sent to both the main speakers and a subwoofer ("Double Bass" they call it), and the LFE channel can be low-passed at a different frequency from the rest of the bass being sent to the subwoofer... all of which we vehemently maintain are bad ideas..."

I always thought it would be cool to have the independent crossover option because I like to play and tweak. Nonetheless, when I found a receiver I liked in every other respect but lacked that feature, I recalled that article and decided I would not let it be a deal breaker, as in the end I wouldn't use it permanently. It came to mind again today when someone seemed to think it was an important consideration with a very fine receiver, so I thought I'd draw attention to a viewpoint seldom expressed in this thread.

Obviously, others here think differently. That's what started horse races.

Yeah, they can handle 40 hz. I guess I thought since the bpvx were at 50 hz (they are the ones that sound slightly strained at 40 hz) I would keep the rear soundstage at the same crossover point. I could try setting everything at 60 to see how it works. It feels like I would be robbing the 7001's of some good lf output but I understand your point about a consistent xover point.

here's a head scratcher - moving my home theatre to a space with MUCH more room (YAY! My 7001sc's will finally get a chance to breathe!). As such, I can, hypothetically, change my surround setup.

I'm running the PM900s now, with a 3000 for center. Curious if anyone has done real comparison of the front firing 900s with the dipolar BPVX/P (or BPVX). I've yet to see a real, scientific comparison between the two surround speakers that are supposedly meant to be paired with the 7001s. Anything else I should look for for the heck of it? There wasn't a BP2000 series that had the same driver, was there? The /P version is now discontinued, but is the BPVX still around?

Any thoughts/suggestions welcome.

anything is worth trying

chances are you'll like the way you have it now better

i never stop tweaking after all these years

the bpvx is still around and would go great with the pm900s

my friend has the pm900s, clr2000 and bpx's in the rear and it sounds awesome

by the way, the bpvx/p bpvx bpx are all bi-polar not di-polar. any speaker that starts with "bp" is bi-polar

typo, OTK, sorry about that...

yeah, you misread what I've got - my 900s are my surround, with 7001s for front. So, I'd be replacing 900s with BPVX (or BPVX/p) for wall mounted surround.

I'm likely one of the few that actually use the 900s in this fashion, as most would have bought the BPVXs in the first place.

So, OTK (and I can't belive how often you still post in this thread, it's great!) - what are ALL the Deftechs that'd match my 3000/7001 for surround application. I'd think:

- Another pair of 7001s
- PM 900 (what I've got now)
- BPVX
- BPVX/p (discontinued - any ideas why, save for those that don't want to plug in Surround speakers?)
- 7000sc (now THAT would be hillarious, keeping 7000s in rear...)
- ????

thoughts? stupid itchy upgraditis, I really don't know without hearing them if I'm going to get better DVD-A/SACD/surround film soundtrack performance from a direct firing speaker like the PM900 or the more disperse sound of the BPVX. And OTK, what are your thoughts on the /p?

Yes, that is the continuation of that paragraph. The suggestion there seems to imply to not bother using expensive measuring equipment and just use a universal crossover. It is my assertion to use a SPL meter and my average ears. I merely disagree that one is likely to end up further behind than ahead. There's not a really strong position in the articles conclusion at all. I feel that their conclusion is equivocal, indefinite, and somewhat ambiguous. But this is good. It is an enlightenment to the unintentional effects of tweaking. I would like to add that I am running all my speakers small with a 60Hz xover, except for my 7002 mains. I set them as large because 60Hz is no good and my Yamaha RX-V3800 leaves me no other options with the universal xover (and the fact that my sub sucks ). My setup may actually be in compliance with this article to an extent, but I sure would like to try some other adjustments.

A pair of BPVXs would be a real nice addition to your setup. But ya know... I hear a high quality subwoofer can really soothe that itchy, scratchy feeling you can get from upgraditis.

LOL, yeah, they haven't kicked me out yet


are you running 5.1 or 7.1 ?

i'll assume 5.1 so the BPVX's would be a great upgrade for the surrounds

for 7.1 some people prefer direct radiating for the rears and bi-polar for the sides but i prefer everything identical across the rear and bi-polar (i like everything identical and bi-polar all the way around for that matter)


if you can swing getting another pair of 7001s for the surrounds, that would be awesome. especially since you're going to be doing DVD-A/SACD


the BPVX/P is an awesome surround speaker but IMO the BPVX is even better because it uses all 4 of it's 6 1/2" drivers for the mid-range instead of taking 2 of those drivers away from the mids and converting them into some sort of "subwoofer" that can barely get down to 40hz (home theater mag measured the +/-3db point of the BPVX/P as 38hz which means they are razor flat down to the low 40s

i can't find any mags who measured the BPVX but if def tech says the +/- 3db point is 48hz, that probably means it's really 50 or 52hz in real world use

so they took 2 drivers from the BPVX, added an amp and some EQ to boost the response from the low 50s to the low 40s at the trade off of losing 2 drivers on the mid-range to gain a "little" response

i was the first to start pointing this out in this thread about 2 years ago and then soon after that the BPVX/P was history. i hope i didn't cause that

either way, def tech does not sell it anymore so they either agree with me or the BPVX/P wasn't selling very well or both

so in a nutshell, i'd rather have the non powered BPVX but if you can swing the bp7001s for the surrounds, go for it !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fools!


You assume poorly... heh.

My setup right now is 7.1, using a small pair of Paradigm bookshelves for the 6/7 channels. For the minimal info that usually gets thrown that way, they more than do the trick.

At the moment the PM900s are at 90 degrees to listening position, just a few feet away. I'm moving from a 10x14 room to a 14x21. My sub (as per the comment above yours) is certainly up for negotiation, but it's a 15" Velodyne CT-150 that, in my current room, isn't above 1 on the volume dial and still rocks the house for LFE. I'll give it time to settle, particularly when the 7001s are setup right.

And yes, for the record, I'm buying a house to serve host to my Deftech setup. There, I said it. Eat it.


Yeah, tell me about it... Retarded dream would be to relegate the ones I have to surround and buy a pair of 7000s, though I've never been convinced that the increase in sub size really does so much more than what I've already got.


Yeah, I had read your comments about that, and wasn't sure if there were more details about the real difference between the two. I had honestly thought they were more like my 900s, dropping a pair of the mids in favour of one of the side firing woofers. I was wrong, natch. Intuitively it strikes me that the /P would be basier, but not in a good way.


Yeah, funky indeed.


well, yeah. But, that said, am I being stupid for dropping 900s in favour of BPVX? I had thought I'd move the 900s to 2ch duty upstairs, but I'm certainly not in a rush to do so. I also figured that I'd set them up a bit behind listening position, aimed towards the listener (they'll be now several feet away), as again they serve dual purpose of both music surround in 5.1 (ie., dvd-a/sacd, and even some beloved quad (!) discs), and for move soundtracks. I tend to listen to 5.1 music without engaging 7.1 post-processing, so I'd like a setup that does, as best as I can replicate both the music-in-the-round ideal setup of m/c music.



In other words, I'd be moving to the 110 degree more than the 90 for side surrounds...

I should wait, naturally, but there's a pair of bpvx/p that I'm oggling on ebay right now (for those wanting a pair, don't bid against me... )

nah, I think you're right, if anything I'll wait for a pair of the non-powered to show up (they're still being made, right?) and stick with what I've got... Unless, of course, you care to convince me otherwise...

stupid, stupid hobby...

the 7000s will go deeper than the 7001s

but since you're doing 7.1 i would get 2 more pairs of 7001s for across the rear and dual trinitys for the LFE channel

So according to Def Tech they recommend the following receiver speaker settings:

BP7002 = Large

C/L/R 2500 = Large

BPX = 60 hz

BP2X = 80 hz

Give then... what would be the ideal crossover setting for the sub?

That depends on what kind of AVR/Proc you are using... but I would recommend 120Hz if you don't have room correction in the AVR/proc.

120hHz at which speakers? I replied to your PM BTW... side note... FilmMixer like Dj. Roonie G?

You were asking about the sub, correct?


Side note.. Film Mixer like mixer for films.

And he is way cooler than I'll ever be.

Yeah I know... I met him a few times at CES... he is a crazy mixer... arguably the best

I just went through the same scenario. I wound up going with bpvx for sides and bp20 for rears. Got them off audiogon. I am very happy with the sound stage I am getting. Using bipoles for rears has not been an issue.

sorry, you had PM900s and went to BPVX? or you were in same situation of upgradeitis?

And Filmmixer, my man... nice to see you in the DT section... Do you own a set? I mean, if anyone here has ears to tell how film soundtracks should sound, it'd be you... and if your home setup includes a set of these, that'd be nerdy fun...

One day I want to see equipment porn of your mixing studio...

Once upon a time I thought it'd be amusing to see about building a 5.1 system out of NS10Ms... I figue the universe would explode.

By the way, when stuff like this exists (http://www.ns-10.net/) the internet is too big...

you make me weep at the thought...