Optimizing subwoofers and integration with mains: multi sub optimizer - Page 57 - AVS Forum | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Forum Jump: 
 501Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1681 of 1708 Old 07-22-2019, 09:33 AM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 1,147
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 947 Post(s)
Liked: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnaan View Post
Using a MiniDSP 2x4 HD, with these settings:
Attachment 2593234
Then I'm out of ideas. Sorry matte. Do keep us updated when do figure out what caused it.
harrisu is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1682 of 1708 Old 07-22-2019, 10:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
AV_mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 241 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnaan View Post
Using a MiniDSP 2x4 HD, with these settings:
Attachment 2593234
Could you upload the MiniDSP configuration file (.xml format) - with all the PEQ, gains, delays, applied?

Regards, Mike.

System: Pioneer KRP-500M, Lumagen Mini3D, Denon AVR-4520 (custom modified to allow use of >>>), miniDSP DDRC88BM, Oppo 103EU, Sky+HD DRX895, Humax HDR-FOX-T2 (x2), Apple ATV3
Bowers & Wilkins CM8 (left & right) - CMC2 (centre) - Kef HTS3001SE Surrounds, miniDSP 2x4HD, SVS SB13 Ultra, SVS SB2000 (x2) <<< Perfectly blended by MSO
AV_mike is offline  
post #1683 of 1708 Old 07-23-2019, 02:50 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV_mike View Post
Could you upload the MiniDSP configuration file (.xml format) - with all the PEQ, gains, delays, applied?

Regards, Mike.
Sure. I just redid the whole process but with Dynamic EQ disabled on my AVR, to make sure this didn't mess up any measurements. The result was a very different but equally bad graph..

I zipped the MiniDSP xml file and the Multi-Sup Optimization file: mso.zip
Bnaan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #1684 of 1708 Old 07-24-2019, 12:29 AM
Member
 
mcb61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Oz (Au)
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnaan View Post
Sure. I just redid the whole process but with Dynamic EQ disabled on my AVR, to make sure this didn't mess up any measurements. The result was a very different but equally bad graph..

I zipped the MiniDSP xml file and the Multi-Sup Optimization file: Attachment 2593752

Did you make sure that Audyssey, DynEQ etc where all turned off when you took the initial readings that you feed into MSO?
mcb61 is offline  
post #1685 of 1708 Old 07-24-2019, 09:39 AM
Advanced Member
 
AV_mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 241 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnaan View Post
Sure. I just redid the whole process but with Dynamic EQ disabled on my AVR, to make sure this didn't mess up any measurements. The result was a very different but equally bad graph..

I zipped the MiniDSP xml file and the Multi-Sup Optimization file: Attachment 2593752
Can you upload the REW mdat file associated with these optimisations, before and after.

Please confirm that all settings are zero'ed, bypassed - including the XO on channel 1 when you take the initial measurements, and as has been asked - is Audyssey, Dynamic EQ, etc disabled?

Regards, Mike.

Silly question - but you are using a timing reference when taking the measurements??
Bnaan likes this.

System: Pioneer KRP-500M, Lumagen Mini3D, Denon AVR-4520 (custom modified to allow use of >>>), miniDSP DDRC88BM, Oppo 103EU, Sky+HD DRX895, Humax HDR-FOX-T2 (x2), Apple ATV3
Bowers & Wilkins CM8 (left & right) - CMC2 (centre) - Kef HTS3001SE Surrounds, miniDSP 2x4HD, SVS SB13 Ultra, SVS SB2000 (x2) <<< Perfectly blended by MSO

Last edited by AV_mike; 07-24-2019 at 09:43 AM.
AV_mike is offline  
post #1686 of 1708 Old 07-24-2019, 10:05 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcb61 View Post
Did you make sure that Audyssey, DynEQ etc where all turned off when you took the initial readings that you feed into MSO?
Yes, both disabled. Initially I had DynEQ enabled, but for the last measurements I disabled it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AV_mike View Post
Can you upload the REW mdat file associated with these optimisations, before and after.

Please confirm that all settings are zero'ed, bypassed - including the XO on channel 1 when you take the initial measurements, and as has been asked - is Audyssey, Dynamic EQ, etc disabled?

Regards, Mike.

Silly question - but you are using a timing reference when taking the measurements??
Apparently I didn't save the REW results after optimization so I'll have to redo it. But this is the mdat file containing the 4 before sweeps: REW.zip

Since I'm trying this without fully understanding what I'm doing or why, there's no such thing as a silly question
I think I have time reference. I mean, I selected "Use loopback as timing reference" in REW, but no idea if that's enough or if there's anything else I'm supposed to do.. The txt exports of the graphs mention this:

Quote:
* Measurement data measured by REW V5,19
* Source: Microphone (Umik-1 Gain: 18dB , MICROPHONE (Master Volume), R, volume: 0,250
* Format: 256k Log Swept Sine, 1 sweep at -12,0 dBFS Using a loopback as a timing reference
* Dated: 23-jul-2019 21:37:13
* REW Settings:
* C-weighting compensation: Off
* Target level: 75.0 dB
* Note: ; Delay 0,000±0,167 ms (0 mm, 0,00 in) relative to Loopback
* Measurement: jul 23 21:37:13
* Smoothing: None
* Frequency Step: 0.36621094 Hz
* Start Frequency: 13.916016 Hz
Bnaan is offline  
post #1687 of 1708 Old 07-24-2019, 12:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
AV_mike's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 593
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 241 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnaan View Post
Yes, both disabled. Initially I had DynEQ enabled, but for the last measurements I disabled it.


Apparently I didn't save the REW results after optimization so I'll have to redo it. But this is the mdat file containing the 4 before sweeps: Attachment 2594062

Since I'm trying this without fully understanding what I'm doing or why, there's no such thing as a silly question
I think I have time reference. I mean, I selected "Use loopback as timing reference" in REW, but no idea if that's enough or if there's anything else I'm supposed to do.. The txt exports of the graphs mention this:
Okay - "use loopback as timing reference" would require that you actually provide a hardwired audio loopback signal for REW to use as its timing reference - very doubtful that you have that in place.
Instead select "use acoustic timing reference" - then select select HDMI 1 (left channel) as the timing reference output. This will send a short high frequency chirp through your left speaker, just before the main measurement sweep begins - that will give REW a stable timing reference.
To test the subwoofers individually - configure two 2x4HD configurations, one with the Marty enabled, the other with the SVS enabled. You can then select each config with a suitable remote control setup to operate the 2x4HD. In REW, use HDMI 4 to output sweeps to only the subwoofer that you have selected. In your AVR, look for an LFE setting or "LPF of LFE" and set it as high as it will go - usually 250Hz. That will allow plenty of sweep capability.
If you repeat all your sweeps with this configuration you should have good data to feed to MSO - and good data in means good data out - many of us can testify that MSO works, and its predictions are very close to what is actually achieved.
As a check that your timing reference is really working - run a sweep from other channels whose physical distance from the mic is different to the left channel, and then look at the impulse responses - they will move relative to each other due to the distance changes, and this converts directly into timing differences (your AVR may compensate for these differences, but REW is normally more accurate than the adjustments available within normal AVRs).

Regards, Mike.
richardsim7 and Bnaan like this.

System: Pioneer KRP-500M, Lumagen Mini3D, Denon AVR-4520 (custom modified to allow use of >>>), miniDSP DDRC88BM, Oppo 103EU, Sky+HD DRX895, Humax HDR-FOX-T2 (x2), Apple ATV3
Bowers & Wilkins CM8 (left & right) - CMC2 (centre) - Kef HTS3001SE Surrounds, miniDSP 2x4HD, SVS SB13 Ultra, SVS SB2000 (x2) <<< Perfectly blended by MSO
AV_mike is offline  
post #1688 of 1708 Old 07-24-2019, 03:42 PM
Member
 
mcb61's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: West Oz (Au)
Posts: 38
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnaan View Post

Since I'm trying this without fully understanding what I'm doing or why, there's no such thing as a silly question


In addition to the response from AV Mike, have a look at this guide - https://www.minidsp.com/applications...-sub-optimizer. You may find it helpful. Obviously, disregard the 88A specific steps. I found it useful when I first started with MSO.
mcb61 is offline  
post #1689 of 1708 Old 07-26-2019, 07:41 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by AV_mike View Post
...

Regards, Mike.
Holy ****, that was the problem! Thank you, I'm so glad you asked about the timing reference..
The result is amazing now. I ended with 2 optimized configurations, one with polarity inversion on the 2nd sub and one without.

Without polarity inversion:
Click image for larger version

Name:	Optimized1.png
Views:	33
Size:	25.0 KB
ID:	2594864

With polarity inversion:
Click image for larger version

Name:	Optimized2.png
Views:	32
Size:	22.6 KB
ID:	2594866

Both much better than what I had before, but I'm not sure which one would be considered better?
AV_mike, magicj1 and richardsim7 like this.
Bnaan is offline  
post #1690 of 1708 Old 07-26-2019, 12:35 PM
Member
 
flyers10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Hope this is right area to ask this. I have an old Klipsch KSW-12 sub in storage. Currently using 2 PSA v1510df subs with both located up front. Would adding the klipsch near field (could fit it between the sofa and right side surround) give me some extra tactile response nearfield or would it reduce the output of the PSA's and be a bad idea?
flyers10 is offline  
post #1691 of 1708 Old 07-26-2019, 02:56 PM
Deep Sea Sound
 
dgage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 3,590
Mentioned: 219 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1786 Post(s)
Liked: 1706
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyers10 View Post
Hope this is right area to ask this. I have an old Klipsch KSW-12 sub in storage. Currently using 2 PSA v1510df subs with both located up front. Would adding the klipsch near field (could fit it between the sofa and right side surround) give me some extra tactile response nearfield or would it reduce the output of the PSA's and be a bad idea?
The only concern I have with the KSW-12 is it only has 105 continuous watts. Even near-field, I’m not sure it would provide much tactility. However, if you want to spend some time working with it and learning the MSA software, the only thing you’ll lose is time in trying it out. And it might surprise you. But with a pair of ported 15s up front, I would say a (more powerful) 12” sub is probably a good pairing near-field.

Another option is the so-called BOSS platform option discussed on AVS. You essentially install a couple subs free-air attached to the bottom of your seating. Might be a good use of your Klipsch to try this option out as well.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...a-drivers.html

David Gage
Deep Sea Sound
"You don't listen to our subs, you EXPERIENCE them!"
dgage is offline  
post #1692 of 1708 Old 07-26-2019, 03:41 PM
AVS Forum Addicted Member
 
Alan P's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 11,521
Mentioned: 104 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6222 Post(s)
Liked: 5518
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bnaan View Post
Holy ****, that was the problem! Thank you, I'm so glad you asked about the timing reference..
The result is amazing now. I ended with 2 optimized configurations, one with polarity inversion on the 2nd sub and one without.

Without polarity inversion:
Attachment 2594864

With polarity inversion:
Attachment 2594866

Both much better than what I had before, but I'm not sure which one would be considered better?
Hard to tell just how good the response is when the graphs are set to a linear frequency axis. All graphs should be posted logarithmic. Hit the Freq. Axis button in the upper right to toggle between the two.
Alan P is offline  
post #1693 of 1708 Old 07-27-2019, 10:47 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 41
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan P View Post
Hard to tell just how good the response is when the graphs are set to a linear frequency axis. All graphs should be posted logarithmic. Hit the Freq. Axis button in the upper right to toggle between the two.
Ahh okay, didn't know that. What makes it so different and harder to interpret when using linear?
Log graphs:
Click image for larger version

Name:	Optimized1.png
Views:	26
Size:	27.5 KB
ID:	2595280
Click image for larger version

Name:	Optimized2.png
Views:	21
Size:	26.5 KB
ID:	2595278
Bnaan is offline  
post #1694 of 1708 Old 07-27-2019, 02:12 PM
Member
 
flyers10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 146
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 118 Post(s)
Liked: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by dgage View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyers10 View Post
Hope this is right area to ask this. I have an old Klipsch KSW-12 sub in storage. Currently using 2 PSA v1510df subs with both located up front. Would adding the klipsch near field (could fit it between the sofa and right side surround) give me some extra tactile response nearfield or would it reduce the output of the PSA's and be a bad idea?
The only concern I have with the KSW-12 is it only has 105 continuous watts. Even near-field, I&#226;€&#x2122;&#xfe0f;m not sure it would provide much tactility. However, if you want to spend some time working with it and learning the MSA software, the only thing you&#226;€&#x2122;&#xfe0f;ll lose is time in trying it out. And it might surprise you. But with a pair of ported 15s up front, I would say a (more powerful) 12&#226;€ sub is probably a good pairing near-field.

Another option is the so-called BOSS platform option discussed on AVS. You essentially install a couple subs free-air attached to the bottom of your seating. Might be a good use of your Klipsch to try this option out as well.

https://www.avsforum.com/forum/155-d...a-drivers.html
Yea not sure if the cost of a umik and miniDSP is worth trying to integrate it in. I have considered some Dayton transducers or butt kickers.
flyers10 is offline  
post #1695 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 01:36 PM
Newbie
 
dfly17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Delay block question.

Is there a way to setup mso delay blocks so that no additional delays are calculated for the avr? My avr presently has a 7ms delay on the sub channel and does not allow delay adjustment after room correction. I am also considering just time aligning subs after room correction or running room correction with subs disabled and then running mso afterwards. Running a sub on each main channel with 4 subs on sub channel. Subs on the main are the same. 2 of the subs on the sub channel are the same. Nightmare I know.
dfly17 is offline  
post #1696 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 02:17 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,522
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfly17 View Post
Is there a way to setup mso delay blocks so that no additional delays are calculated for the avr? My avr presently has a 7ms delay on the sub channel and does not allow delay adjustment after room correction.
If you are using a "subs + mains" configuration, use no shared delay blocks. Then, after optimization, instead of using the final delays and AVR distance change at the very end of the filter report, use the raw delay values listed for the delay blocks themselves (e.g FL3, FL13 etc.) These are different from the delays at the end of the filter report because they assume no change to AVR distance (if there are no shared delay blocks). It says "for reference only" for these delays, but at the time I didn't envision people using MSO in this way without an available AVR distance adjustment. But these are indeed the delays you'd use when no AVR distance adjustment is available.

The reason the AVR distance adjustment is assumed by MSO is that MSO originally came out before the miniDSP HD versions, so most users were limited to a maximum of 7.5 msec of delay. I wanted to absorb as much excess delay as possible into AVR distance adjustments. Here's an example of using the raw data for one specific delay block:

Code:
FL13: Delay Block
Parameter "Delay (msec)" = 7.19238
Tunable? yes
Minimum allowable val = 0
Maximum allowable val = 15
This delay value is an intermediate calculation for reference only.
For final delay values, see "Final gain and delay/distance settings" at end of report.
If you use a sub-only configuration, then no change will be made to the AVR distance and you can use the delay values listed at the end of the filter report.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfly17 View Post
I am also considering just time aligning subs after room correction or running room correction with subs disabled and then running mso afterwards.
That sounds reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dfly17 View Post
Running a sub on each main channel with 4 subs on sub channel. Subs on the main are the same. 2 of the subs on the sub channel are the same. Nightmare I know.
I'm not exactly sure what this means.

Last edited by andyc56; 08-14-2019 at 02:32 PM.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1697 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 03:22 PM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,944
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1485 Post(s)
Liked: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfly17 View Post
Running a sub on each main channel with 4 subs on sub channel. Subs on the main are the same. 2 of the subs on the sub channel are the same. Nightmare I know.
That’s 9 subs?

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater
pepar is online now  
post #1698 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 04:11 PM
Newbie
 
dfly17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Dear andyc56,


Roger that. I&#160; believe you reply answered my question.&#160; Thank you sir.&#160; P.S. the part of the post you didn't understand was my failed attempt to explain my present setup.&#160; A sub is connected to each left and right main using high inputs and 4 various subs connected to the avr sub out for a total of 6.&#160; I will run room correction with avr sub out disabled, enable avr sub out, and run mso using sub only config.&#160; That's the plan at least and I hope it makes better since now.&#160; Thanks again.&#160;


dfly17
dfly17 is offline  
post #1699 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 04:58 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,522
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfly17 View Post
Roger that. I&#160; believe you reply answered my question.&#160; Thank you sir.&#160; P.S. the part of the post you didn't understand was my failed attempt to explain my present setup.&#160; A sub is connected to each left and right main using high inputs and 4 various subs connected to the avr sub out for a total of 6.&#160; I will run room correction with avr sub out disabled, enable avr sub out, and run mso using sub only config.&#160; That's the plan at least and I hope it makes better since now.&#160; Thanks again.&#160;
It appears that you posted this using some sort of mobile app or mobile browser that has been causing problems with the forum, and that AVS's owners still haven't fixed (the "&#160;" problem). It's been the subject of a bug report elsewhere on the site. For future posts, you might want to post using whatever method you used for your first post.

So, in addition to four subs on the AVR sub out, it looks like you're using two subs, with speaker-level inputs, on left and right channels. Is that right? Do these inputs get summed to mono internally to the subs? MSO is designed under the assumption of a mono signal into the subs that gets split into individual channels in a DSP box... or the functional equivalent of that. It's not clear to me whether your setup would meet this requirement. Also, you don't mention whether you're using a DSP box for the four subs on your AVR sub out. If you aren't, there's likely not much that MSO can do to improve performance. It's worth looking at the MSO system hardware requirements, repeated below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSO System Hardware Requirements
A multi-channel DSP device or equivalent software using IIR filters, such as a Behringer DCX2496 or a miniDSP device or similar is assumed to be present in your system. All the subs must be driven by a mono signal derived from the sum of the signals to the main speakers, as is the case with traditional bass management used by AV receivers and preamp-processors in home theater applications. This mono signal must be split as is done internally to the DCX2496 and miniDSP 2x4 devices, and separate EQ, delay and level adjustments provided for each sub individually. Some two-channel and even multi-channel systems operate the subs in stereo mode. For such systems, MSO is not an appropriate tool for optimization and its use will likely cause unpredictable results.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1700 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 05:47 PM
Newbie
 
dfly17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
The 2 subs connected by high level inputs are integrated as part of each main speaker. The avr will see the left main and sub as one speaker and the right main and sub as one speaker. The other 4 usbs will be connected to the mini dsp 2x4.
dfly17 is offline  
post #1701 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 05:56 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,522
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by andyc56 View Post
So, in addition to four subs on the AVR sub out, it looks like you're using two subs, with speaker-level inputs, on left and right channels. Is that right? Do these inputs get summed to mono internally to the subs? MSO is designed under the assumption of a mono signal into the subs that gets split into individual channels in a DSP box... or the functional equivalent of that.
The more I think about this, the more confused I get. If you're using speaker-level inputs from Left and Right channels to the two corresponding subs, then the crossover is internal to the sub itself - or there is at least an internal low-pass going to these subs. But if this is so, then if you want redirected bass from the main channels to the subs connected to the AVR sub out, then you'd have to set Left and Right speakers to Small in the AVR. But if you do that, the left and right channels will be high-passed, thus in effect disabling the subs connected directly to Left and Right. If you set Left and Right to large, you get no redirected bass from those channels to the sub out, only the LFE channel. Maybe you intended to use one of those "LFE + mains" (Denon) or "double bass" (Onkyo) modes so that you still get redirected bass even when the corresponding main speakers are set to Large?

It could be that I'm still misunderstanding your setup. I don't want you to put lots of effort into a setup that may be incompatible with MSO, but the devil is in the details as they say.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1702 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 06:00 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,522
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfly17 View Post
The 2 subs connected by high level inputs are integrated as part of each main speaker. The avr will see the left main and sub as one speaker and the right main and sub as one speaker. The other 4 usbs will be connected to the mini dsp 2x4.
Ah. I posted above just before I saw this. I'd recommend that you energize Left and Right simultaneously in REW when you do your measurements then.

I think Gene DellaSala of Audioholics has a similar setup.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1703 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 06:09 PM
Newbie
 
dfly17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
2nd thought. Will let just let the avr room correct all speakers first and let mso optimize the results of the avr sub channel.
dfly17 is offline  
post #1704 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 06:10 PM
Newbie
 
dfly17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfly17 View Post
2nd thought. Will let just let the avr room correct all speakers first and let mso optimize the results of the avr sub channel.
Will do andyc56.
dfly17 is offline  
post #1705 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 06:14 PM
Newbie
 
dfly17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by pepar View Post
That’s 9 subs?
4 x 10". 2 x 15"
dfly17 is offline  
post #1706 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 06:22 PM
AVS Forum Special Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,522
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 664
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfly17 View Post
2nd thought. Will let just let the avr room correct all speakers first and let mso optimize the results of the avr sub channel.
Hmm. That still leaves in question the integration of of the "sub out subs" and the "main subs". I assume the main subs go pretty deep, say 40 Hz or lower anechoically. But if you have, say, an 80 Hz LPF on the "sub out subs", you'll have this overlap region of 40-80 Hz in which the integration of the two sets of subs is not addressed by MSO. It's kind of a puzzler.
richardsim7 likes this.
andyc56 is online now  
post #1707 of 1708 Old 08-14-2019, 10:22 PM
Newbie
 
dfly17's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 7
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
I hear you. The avr is a7.1 system and can run mains + LFE. I now plan to disconnect main subs and run room eq. Then run mso on the 4 sub outs. Lucky for me, the main subs were low cost 100 watts rms.
dfly17 is offline  
post #1708 of 1708 Old 08-15-2019, 07:29 AM
Wireless member
 
pepar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: On the beach in Quintana Roo
Posts: 26,944
Mentioned: 17 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1485 Post(s)
Liked: 898
Have you tried LESS subs and driving them from a single AVR sub/lfe output letting bass management handle the individual channels' bass frequencies? Honestly, I have trouble considering 10" drivers as being SUBwoofers. Also, their placements, if they are physically co-located with the mains, might not be favorable wrt room modes.

Just my $0.04.

Jeff

"The future is already here, it's just not evenly distributed." W. Gibson

"I like the future, I'm in it." F. Theater
pepar is online now  
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