I compared the two and chose the MX5000. I owned a 10-year-old M&K sub that seemed to bottom out during very intese bass passages (for DVD). I went to my dealer and told him I wanted a sub that I would never have to upgrade. He showed me the 350 and the 5000 and told me I could not go wrong with either. I listened and did not hear much of a difference in qulity of sound but I definitely liked the "feeling" the 5000. When I left, I started looking on the internet and found a 6-month-old MX-5000 mkII for $1100 which was far below the best price my dealer could give me on the 350. The beauty is, there was 9 1/2 years left on the warranty which was transfered to my name. I will not have to upgrade, but I will add another one some day.
-
Get an exclusive sneak peek into our new project. >>> Click Here
M&k MX-350THX vs MX-5000THX MKII
Has anybody compared these two subwoofers. I plan to purchase one of these subs, but I want to know if the MX-5000 is worth the extra money.
------------------
DOOOOOH!
[This message has been edited by evilhomer! (edited 12-02-2000).]
Has anybody compared these two subwoofers. I plan to purchase one of these subs, but I want to know if the MX-5000 is worth the extra money.
------------------
DOOOOOH!
[This message has been edited by evilhomer! (edited 12-02-2000).]
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Michael:
How did you place the two MX-350THX? How is your system configured? How do you like the 700's? Do you use the 700's for discrete rear surround, and if you do how does it sound?
Thanks in advance for all the info. I decided to buy the MX-350THX ans save the 1000 bucks. I plan to save more money and buy onother subwoofer just like you.
------------------
DOOOOOH!
How did you place the two MX-350THX? How is your system configured? How do you like the 700's? Do you use the 700's for discrete rear surround, and if you do how does it sound?
Thanks in advance for all the info. I decided to buy the MX-350THX ans save the 1000 bucks. I plan to save more money and buy onother subwoofer just like you.
------------------
DOOOOOH!
Saving $1000 with the 350 is certainly a viable option..but if your long term scenario includes twin 350s...then you should factor that price into your choice. A single 5000 should be fairly close to dual 350s...maybe within 1-3dB.
How big is your room, and how loud do you like to listen to music and film?
A more cost effective solution could be dual HSU TN20s with one of the HSU 500w amps.
TV
Saving $1000 with the 350 is certainly a viable option..but if your long term scenario includes twin 350s...then you should factor that price into your choice. A single 5000 should be fairly close to dual 350s...maybe within 1-3dB.
How big is your room, and how loud do you like to listen to music and film?
A more cost effective solution could be dual HSU TN20s with one of the HSU 500w amps.
TV
Michael:
Thank you for all the info. I am planing to set up my home theater almost like yours. The difference is that I was planing to use the MX-350 for the LFE only, then use 4 smaller subs (like the MX-700 and hooked it up just like yours. With the mains and surrounds each getting a sub to get discrete bass, full range respond from the four speakers.
Is there any advantages in having the processor send the LFE to the front mains like you do?
Do you lose any of the LFE signal when you do this?
Do you get different results from DD and DTS soundtracks?
------------------
DOOOOOH!
[This message has been edited by evilhomer! (edited 12-08-2000).]
Thank you for all the info. I am planing to set up my home theater almost like yours. The difference is that I was planing to use the MX-350 for the LFE only, then use 4 smaller subs (like the MX-700 and hooked it up just like yours. With the mains and surrounds each getting a sub to get discrete bass, full range respond from the four speakers.
Is there any advantages in having the processor send the LFE to the front mains like you do?
Do you lose any of the LFE signal when you do this?
Do you get different results from DD and DTS soundtracks?
------------------
DOOOOOH!
[This message has been edited by evilhomer! (edited 12-08-2000).]
>>>TV:
Please refer to my first paragraph. The two individuals I talked to who worked for M&K were in the marketing department and the other was an engineer. In my first paragraph, I am talking about one MX-5000 and one MX-350.
<<<
Ok, I think I was replying to another individual...not sure though. Threads sometimes get hard to follow...probably my mistake.
>>>I am planing to set up my home theater almost like yours. The difference is that I was planing to use the MX-350 for the LFE only, then use 4 smaller subs (like the MX-700 and hooked it up just like yours. With the mains and surrounds each getting a sub to get discrete bass, full range respond from the four speakers.<<<
Most likely, the worst case scenario for smooth bass at a variety of listening positions. Generally,a single point source producing all the bass works best.
TV
>>>TV:
Please refer to my first paragraph. The two individuals I talked to who worked for M&K were in the marketing department and the other was an engineer. In my first paragraph, I am talking about one MX-5000 and one MX-350.
<<<
Ok, I think I was replying to another individual...not sure though. Threads sometimes get hard to follow...probably my mistake.
>>>I am planing to set up my home theater almost like yours. The difference is that I was planing to use the MX-350 for the LFE only, then use 4 smaller subs (like the MX-700 and hooked it up just like yours. With the mains and surrounds each getting a sub to get discrete bass, full range respond from the four speakers.<<<
Most likely, the worst case scenario for smooth bass at a variety of listening positions. Generally,a single point source producing all the bass works best.
TV
>>>TV:
I think you have been brainwashed by THX into believing that putting all the bass of the five channels and the LFE into one sub gives you the best sound.<<<
Depends what is considered *best* I suppose. For me, *best* would be synonymous will the *flattest/lowest/loudest/cleanest* bass over a VARIETY of listening positions within a typical HT room.
My POV is based upon many hours of personal experiments(some of which have been documented on the internet on other forums btw)and the extensive works of Tom Nousaine and Floyd Toole.
>>> I am sure that there are many people on this forum that disagree with you.<<<
That's nothing new...thats how Steve B. and I actually met...
>>> Dolby Labs. even lists the sub as optional. I am sure that people at Lexicon and other manufacturers will also disagree with you. Lexicon includes a special parameter called bass enhanced which redirects bass info to the surround speakers (they recommend you use full range speakers or a sat/sub combination).<<<
I'm quite familiar with the BE algorithms in the newer lex software. I extensively measured it's performance a long time ago...18 months ago now if memory serves(may-99 i think?). I also made my measurements public...posting them on the internet as I saw fit...as well as sending my data to various interested parties. As far as i know...I was the first (independent) individual to actually make an attempt to objectively verify the *phase games* lexicon is playing...and how these games work in a real world situation.
Since this time...I've made extensive(and quite exhaustive!) measurements of the BE using various configurations.
I've probably tried at least 20 different configs...and measured most.
The BE is MOST effective when your main woof is limiting the dynamics of your audio. If you want *reference* capability...and your subwoofer can handle 125dB/20hz....then using side woofs can actually degrade the audio. IMO--it's most effective when
a)music is the source
b)your main woof is limiting dynamics.
For DVD/LD...with a killer main woof already in place...the BE function isn't anything to worry too much about. For some scenes...it works great...for others...it degrades the impact.(more or less hit/miss imo)
>>>Also if you haven't yet I recommend you purchase the Widescreen Review's- The Essential Subwoofer Buyers Guide, and read the article by Richard Hardesty. <<<
Is there anything in particular you'd like me to comment on in the WSR?
>>>The only reason to send all the bass info to the sub should be if you only have small speakers that can't handle the bass. Small speakers came around because they cost less and are easy to have in a small room. This is what THX sells!. THX also states that sending the bass info to the sub will improve the sound of the speaker because it does not have to produce this low frequencies, and the amplifier will have more power to run the other frequencies producing better sound. Having full range speakers that are bi-amplified, or a sat/sub combination for the fronts and surrounds will do the same trick. This will deliver better sound than cramming all the bass into one sub. This will poroduce the best surround sound because you are getting full frequency respond all around you. <<<
This paragraph is filled with inaccurate comments...I'll touch on each...
1) bass response will be DICTATED by room modes. By having full range speakers reproduce the bass for each channel...you're limited to a single placement option for each speaker...so that speaker's bass response will be at the mercy of whatever room modes it may be exciting---or NOT exciting at that position.
2)your above scenario seems to imply that simply *bi-ampping* will somehow allow them to produce lotsa clean bass all the way down to 20-25hz. Are there full range speakers capable of reproducing 20hz at 105dB//cleanly? Sure...if you want to spend 25+k on five large speakers...and then still get WORSE bass response because the speakers are placed to *image* and offer higher frequency directional cues rather then for best bass response.
3)full range surrounds aren't needed with proper use of bass-management options. You wont be able to localize clean bass below 80hz...with source material.
One point source(corner loaded of course) will usually provide the flattest/deepest/cleanest bass in most rooms.
and thanks for the text on the BE faeture in your next post...it's very informative. But as I've said...I'm using a MC-1 now...and probably measure a different variation on it's *BE* configuration weekly. It's a nice function to tweak with...but it's not some sort of cure all panacea that overwhelms typical room induced bass issues.
TV
>>>TV:
I think you have been brainwashed by THX into believing that putting all the bass of the five channels and the LFE into one sub gives you the best sound.<<<
Depends what is considered *best* I suppose. For me, *best* would be synonymous will the *flattest/lowest/loudest/cleanest* bass over a VARIETY of listening positions within a typical HT room.
My POV is based upon many hours of personal experiments(some of which have been documented on the internet on other forums btw)and the extensive works of Tom Nousaine and Floyd Toole.
>>> I am sure that there are many people on this forum that disagree with you.<<<
That's nothing new...thats how Steve B. and I actually met...
>>> Dolby Labs. even lists the sub as optional. I am sure that people at Lexicon and other manufacturers will also disagree with you. Lexicon includes a special parameter called bass enhanced which redirects bass info to the surround speakers (they recommend you use full range speakers or a sat/sub combination).<<<
I'm quite familiar with the BE algorithms in the newer lex software. I extensively measured it's performance a long time ago...18 months ago now if memory serves(may-99 i think?). I also made my measurements public...posting them on the internet as I saw fit...as well as sending my data to various interested parties. As far as i know...I was the first (independent) individual to actually make an attempt to objectively verify the *phase games* lexicon is playing...and how these games work in a real world situation.
Since this time...I've made extensive(and quite exhaustive!) measurements of the BE using various configurations.
I've probably tried at least 20 different configs...and measured most.
The BE is MOST effective when your main woof is limiting the dynamics of your audio. If you want *reference* capability...and your subwoofer can handle 125dB/20hz....then using side woofs can actually degrade the audio. IMO--it's most effective when
a)music is the source
b)your main woof is limiting dynamics.
For DVD/LD...with a killer main woof already in place...the BE function isn't anything to worry too much about. For some scenes...it works great...for others...it degrades the impact.(more or less hit/miss imo)
>>>Also if you haven't yet I recommend you purchase the Widescreen Review's- The Essential Subwoofer Buyers Guide, and read the article by Richard Hardesty. <<<
Is there anything in particular you'd like me to comment on in the WSR?
>>>The only reason to send all the bass info to the sub should be if you only have small speakers that can't handle the bass. Small speakers came around because they cost less and are easy to have in a small room. This is what THX sells!. THX also states that sending the bass info to the sub will improve the sound of the speaker because it does not have to produce this low frequencies, and the amplifier will have more power to run the other frequencies producing better sound. Having full range speakers that are bi-amplified, or a sat/sub combination for the fronts and surrounds will do the same trick. This will deliver better sound than cramming all the bass into one sub. This will poroduce the best surround sound because you are getting full frequency respond all around you. <<<
This paragraph is filled with inaccurate comments...I'll touch on each...
1) bass response will be DICTATED by room modes. By having full range speakers reproduce the bass for each channel...you're limited to a single placement option for each speaker...so that speaker's bass response will be at the mercy of whatever room modes it may be exciting---or NOT exciting at that position.
2)your above scenario seems to imply that simply *bi-ampping* will somehow allow them to produce lotsa clean bass all the way down to 20-25hz. Are there full range speakers capable of reproducing 20hz at 105dB//cleanly? Sure...if you want to spend 25+k on five large speakers...and then still get WORSE bass response because the speakers are placed to *image* and offer higher frequency directional cues rather then for best bass response.
3)full range surrounds aren't needed with proper use of bass-management options. You wont be able to localize clean bass below 80hz...with source material.
One point source(corner loaded of course) will usually provide the flattest/deepest/cleanest bass in most rooms.
and thanks for the text on the BE faeture in your next post...it's very informative. But as I've said...I'm using a MC-1 now...and probably measure a different variation on it's *BE* configuration weekly. It's a nice function to tweak with...but it's not some sort of cure all panacea that overwhelms typical room induced bass issues.
TV
TV:
Like Homer Simpson would say: Why you little! JUST KIDDING!
Why do you think that so many people disagree with what is the best configuration for home theater? Many people seem to disagree specially when it comes to bass management and the number of subwoofers for optimal sound. Do you think the one sub set up gives you the best fidelity (which is what I am trying to achieve) for music and movies. Why do you think a lot of people recommend multiple subs?
Btw what do you think of using THX Re-equalization,timbre matching, and decorelation on surround sound?
do you think it improves the sound?
"""Is there anything in particular you'd like me to comment on in the WSR?"""
Can you comment on the article in the essential subwoofer guide on subwoofer fundamentals by Richard Hardesty.
In his article he say "A subwoofer for each main speaker, crossed over from a full-range signal to that specific channel sounds much better than summed bass from the subwoofer output on a processor/controller even when the equal number of subwoofers are used in each case.(some testers claim that mono bass is better, based on their simplistic measurements. They're dead wrong!)
And I know that interpreting measurements (particularly from subwoofers) is highly subjective and if the tester relies solely on there instruments he can came up with a measurement that "proves" his preconceptions (which are frequently misconceptions)"
And then he also wrote " I know that two widely spaced subwoofers will improve the quality of bass everywhere in the room (and eliminate most, if not all, of the standing wave problems).... Four subwoofers in four different locations, sounds better yet. (Editor Gary Reber uses six powered subwoofers in his primary home reference system and there are six in the Polk Super Signature Reference theater system at WR'S Production offices!)"
In another paragraph he says "here is an experiment you can perform for yourself. Visit a specialty dealer and have them demonstrate a complete system with a single, properly subwoofer. Have the sales person turn off all the speakers and replay the same material. see if you can tell where the bass is coming from. If you can, you need stereo subwoofers."
The he ads "I know that the traditional idea of standing waves is not completely correct when applied to smaller spaces,... (Did you ever hear anyone talk about standing waves in a car)"
And finally"...I'm just a magazine writer now (although I have tweaked over 10,000 audio systems in real homes). So I'll give you some advice based on personal experience and you can try it. If it works you will have better bass for free (almost)"
TV don't get mad at me I am just the messenger. This is the information that I have recieved. I am just trying to get as much info on HT so I can get the best results. I am new at this, and I do not claim to know everything. I also do not have any reaserch documented in any forum. I also do not know who those two people you mentioned are. I thought that 5.1 surround was supposed to be six discret channels ( five of them full-range), and that the sub was only for the LFE. This is why I reasoned that having a speaker/sub combo for the L,R,LS,RS is a good idea, and most of the information I have been geting supports that. I am always opened to information and new ideas and your opinions are welcomed. To me High Fidelity is the most important thing!
I have also read one article on etow.com that recommended two/three subwoofers. They even give you advice on how to place two sub. Can you comment on this? Here are the links:
http://www.etown.com/columns/feature...articleID=1710 and http://www.etown.com/columns/feature...articleID=1711
TV don't have a cow man.
------------------
DOOOOOH!
[This message has been edited by evilhomer! (edited 12-10-2000).]
Like Homer Simpson would say: Why you little! JUST KIDDING!
Why do you think that so many people disagree with what is the best configuration for home theater? Many people seem to disagree specially when it comes to bass management and the number of subwoofers for optimal sound. Do you think the one sub set up gives you the best fidelity (which is what I am trying to achieve) for music and movies. Why do you think a lot of people recommend multiple subs?
Btw what do you think of using THX Re-equalization,timbre matching, and decorelation on surround sound?
do you think it improves the sound?
"""Is there anything in particular you'd like me to comment on in the WSR?"""
Can you comment on the article in the essential subwoofer guide on subwoofer fundamentals by Richard Hardesty.
In his article he say "A subwoofer for each main speaker, crossed over from a full-range signal to that specific channel sounds much better than summed bass from the subwoofer output on a processor/controller even when the equal number of subwoofers are used in each case.(some testers claim that mono bass is better, based on their simplistic measurements. They're dead wrong!)
And I know that interpreting measurements (particularly from subwoofers) is highly subjective and if the tester relies solely on there instruments he can came up with a measurement that "proves" his preconceptions (which are frequently misconceptions)"
And then he also wrote " I know that two widely spaced subwoofers will improve the quality of bass everywhere in the room (and eliminate most, if not all, of the standing wave problems).... Four subwoofers in four different locations, sounds better yet. (Editor Gary Reber uses six powered subwoofers in his primary home reference system and there are six in the Polk Super Signature Reference theater system at WR'S Production offices!)"
In another paragraph he says "here is an experiment you can perform for yourself. Visit a specialty dealer and have them demonstrate a complete system with a single, properly subwoofer. Have the sales person turn off all the speakers and replay the same material. see if you can tell where the bass is coming from. If you can, you need stereo subwoofers."
The he ads "I know that the traditional idea of standing waves is not completely correct when applied to smaller spaces,... (Did you ever hear anyone talk about standing waves in a car)"
And finally"...I'm just a magazine writer now (although I have tweaked over 10,000 audio systems in real homes). So I'll give you some advice based on personal experience and you can try it. If it works you will have better bass for free (almost)"
TV don't get mad at me I am just the messenger. This is the information that I have recieved. I am just trying to get as much info on HT so I can get the best results. I am new at this, and I do not claim to know everything. I also do not have any reaserch documented in any forum. I also do not know who those two people you mentioned are. I thought that 5.1 surround was supposed to be six discret channels ( five of them full-range), and that the sub was only for the LFE. This is why I reasoned that having a speaker/sub combo for the L,R,LS,RS is a good idea, and most of the information I have been geting supports that. I am always opened to information and new ideas and your opinions are welcomed. To me High Fidelity is the most important thing!
I have also read one article on etow.com that recommended two/three subwoofers. They even give you advice on how to place two sub. Can you comment on this? Here are the links:
http://www.etown.com/columns/feature...articleID=1710 and http://www.etown.com/columns/feature...articleID=1711
TV don't have a cow man.
------------------
DOOOOOH!
[This message has been edited by evilhomer! (edited 12-10-2000).]
"Most likely, the worst case scenario for smooth bass at a variety of listening positions. Generally,a single point source producing all the bass works best"
TV:
I think you have been brainwashed by THX into believing that putting all the bass of the five channels and the LFE into one sub gives you the best sound. I am sure that there are many people on this forum that disagree with you. Dolby Labs. even lists the sub as optional. I am sure that people at Lexicon and other manufacturers will also disagree with you. Lexicon includes a special parameter called bass enhanced which redirects bass info to the surround speakers (they recommend you use full range speakers or a sat/sub combination). Also if you haven't yet I recommend you purchase the Widescreen Review's- The Essential Subwoofer Buyers Guide, and read the article by Richard Hardesty.
The only reason to send all the bass info to the sub should be if you only have small speakers that can't handle the bass. Small speakers came around because they cost less and are easy to have in a small room. This is what THX sells!. THX also states that sending the bass info to the sub will improve the sound of the speaker because it does not have to produce this low frequencies, and the amplifier will have more power to run the other frequencies producing better sound. Having full range speakers that are bi-amplified, or a sat/sub combination for the fronts and surrounds will do the same trick. This will deliver better sound than cramming all the bass into one sub. This will poroduce the best surround sound because you are getting full frequency respond all around you.
------------------
DOOOOOH!
"Most likely, the worst case scenario for smooth bass at a variety of listening positions. Generally,a single point source producing all the bass works best"
TV:
I think you have been brainwashed by THX into believing that putting all the bass of the five channels and the LFE into one sub gives you the best sound. I am sure that there are many people on this forum that disagree with you. Dolby Labs. even lists the sub as optional. I am sure that people at Lexicon and other manufacturers will also disagree with you. Lexicon includes a special parameter called bass enhanced which redirects bass info to the surround speakers (they recommend you use full range speakers or a sat/sub combination). Also if you haven't yet I recommend you purchase the Widescreen Review's- The Essential Subwoofer Buyers Guide, and read the article by Richard Hardesty.
The only reason to send all the bass info to the sub should be if you only have small speakers that can't handle the bass. Small speakers came around because they cost less and are easy to have in a small room. This is what THX sells!. THX also states that sending the bass info to the sub will improve the sound of the speaker because it does not have to produce this low frequencies, and the amplifier will have more power to run the other frequencies producing better sound. Having full range speakers that are bi-amplified, or a sat/sub combination for the fronts and surrounds will do the same trick. This will deliver better sound than cramming all the bass into one sub. This will poroduce the best surround sound because you are getting full frequency respond all around you.
------------------
DOOOOOH!
>>>Why do you think that so many people disagree with what is the best configuration for home theater? Many people seem to disagree specially when it comes to bass management and the number of subwoofers for optimal sound. Do you think the one sub set up gives you the best fidelity (which is what I am trying to achieve) for music and movies. Why do you think a lot of people recommend multiple subs? <<<
A lot of people recommend a lot of things.
If they're not showing you repeatable/documented objective data on the subject...then it's not significant imo.
>>>Btw what do you think of using THX Re-equalization,timbre matching, and decorelation on surround sound?
do you think it improves the sound?<<<
I always use logic7/vocal enhance to 3dB(for film)...never messed with the THX guidelines much.
>>>Also can you comment on the article in the essential subwoofer guide article on subwoofer fundamentals by Richard Hardesty.
In his article he say "A subwoofer for each main speaker, crossed over from a full-range signal to that specific channel sounds much better than summed bass from the subwoofer output on a processor/controller even when the equal number of subwoofers are used in each case.(some testers claim that mono bass is better, based on their simplistic measurements. They're dead wrong!)<<<
Well, he calls objective data already gathered on the topic *simplistic* but can't offer the slightest bit of his own data in rebuttle? Kinda lame in my book.
>>>And I know that interpreting measurements (particularly from subwoofers) is highly subjective and if the tester relies solely on there instruments he can came up with a measurement that "proves" his preconceptions (which are frequently misconceptions)"<<<
How could you *subjectively* interpret a response curve, or a THD/SPL/HZ chart? Typical WSR...lotsa huffin and puffin...but nothing to actually sink your teeth into(objective data)
>>>And then he also wrote " I know that two widely spaced subwoofers will improve the quality of bass everywhere in the room (and eliminate most, if not all, of the standing wave problems).... Four subwoofers in four different locations, sounds better yet. (Editor Gary Reber uses six powered subwoofers in his primary home reference system and there are six in the Polk Super Signature Reference theater system at WR'S Production offices!)" <<<
Well then! Since he *knows* this...I guess it must be true?
Show me.
Nousaine compared multiple woofs in multiple positions in various studies over the years...and unlike WSR...Tom Nousaine always supplies the data he's gathered for peer review.
>>>In another paragraph he says "here is an experiment you can perform for yourself. Visit a specialty dealer and have them demonstrate a complete system with a single, properly subwoofer. Have the sales person turn off all the speakers and replay the same material. see if you can tell where the bass is coming from. If you can, you need stereo subwoofers."<<<
please.
>>>The he ads "I know that the traditional idea of standing waves is not completely correct when applied to smaller spaces,... (Did you ever hear anyone talk about standing waves in a car)"<<<
there are no standing waves under the lowest mode in a given room/car cabin.
>>>And finally"...I'm just a magazine writer now (although I have tweaked over 10,000 audio systems in real homes). So I'll give you some advice based on personal experience and you can try it. If it works you will have better bass for free (almost)" <<<
Ok, he's tweak 10,000 systems...and apparently many of them included mulitple subs then? in this case---it would be EASY to document the objective advantages to multiple woofs scattered about a room...let's all hold our breath.
on't get mad at me I am just the messenger. This is the information that I have recieved. I am just trying to get as much info on HT so I can get the best results. I am new at this, and I do not have any reasrch documented in any forum. I also do not know who those two people you mentioned are. I thought that 5.1 surround was supposed to be six discret channels ( five of them full-range), and that the sub was only for the LFE. This is why I reasoned that having a speaker/sub combo for the L,R,LS,RS is a good idea, and most of the information I have been geting supports that. I am always opened to information and new ideas and your opinions are welcomed.<<<
I'm not mad,sorry if i came off that way. If you want some interesting reading on low frequency acoustics...go to the local library and search for TOM NOUSAINE,FLOYD TOOLE,and DON KEELE.
You could also measure you own room...if you had a RS SPL meter and a pc nearby?
www.spectraplus.com
>>>ave also read one article on etow.com that recommended two/three subwoofers. They even give you advice on how to palce two sub. Can you comment on this? Here are the links: http://www.etown.com/columns/feature...articleID=1710 and http://www.etown.com/columns/feature...articleID=1711 <<<
Did they provide response data of the woofs at various seats?
If not...it's not worth a look. Everydaysomeone has a *better* idea on how to setup a subwoofer(or 6) in your HT. If the idea is worth anything, it will almost always be accompanied by objective data comapring the *idea* to various alternatives.
TV
>>>Why do you think that so many people disagree with what is the best configuration for home theater? Many people seem to disagree specially when it comes to bass management and the number of subwoofers for optimal sound. Do you think the one sub set up gives you the best fidelity (which is what I am trying to achieve) for music and movies. Why do you think a lot of people recommend multiple subs? <<<
A lot of people recommend a lot of things.
If they're not showing you repeatable/documented objective data on the subject...then it's not significant imo.
>>>Btw what do you think of using THX Re-equalization,timbre matching, and decorelation on surround sound?
do you think it improves the sound?<<<
I always use logic7/vocal enhance to 3dB(for film)...never messed with the THX guidelines much.
>>>Also can you comment on the article in the essential subwoofer guide article on subwoofer fundamentals by Richard Hardesty.
In his article he say "A subwoofer for each main speaker, crossed over from a full-range signal to that specific channel sounds much better than summed bass from the subwoofer output on a processor/controller even when the equal number of subwoofers are used in each case.(some testers claim that mono bass is better, based on their simplistic measurements. They're dead wrong!)<<<
Well, he calls objective data already gathered on the topic *simplistic* but can't offer the slightest bit of his own data in rebuttle? Kinda lame in my book.
>>>And I know that interpreting measurements (particularly from subwoofers) is highly subjective and if the tester relies solely on there instruments he can came up with a measurement that "proves" his preconceptions (which are frequently misconceptions)"<<<
How could you *subjectively* interpret a response curve, or a THD/SPL/HZ chart? Typical WSR...lotsa huffin and puffin...but nothing to actually sink your teeth into(objective data)
>>>And then he also wrote " I know that two widely spaced subwoofers will improve the quality of bass everywhere in the room (and eliminate most, if not all, of the standing wave problems).... Four subwoofers in four different locations, sounds better yet. (Editor Gary Reber uses six powered subwoofers in his primary home reference system and there are six in the Polk Super Signature Reference theater system at WR'S Production offices!)" <<<
Well then! Since he *knows* this...I guess it must be true?
Show me.
Nousaine compared multiple woofs in multiple positions in various studies over the years...and unlike WSR...Tom Nousaine always supplies the data he's gathered for peer review.
>>>In another paragraph he says "here is an experiment you can perform for yourself. Visit a specialty dealer and have them demonstrate a complete system with a single, properly subwoofer. Have the sales person turn off all the speakers and replay the same material. see if you can tell where the bass is coming from. If you can, you need stereo subwoofers."<<<
please.
>>>The he ads "I know that the traditional idea of standing waves is not completely correct when applied to smaller spaces,... (Did you ever hear anyone talk about standing waves in a car)"<<<
there are no standing waves under the lowest mode in a given room/car cabin.
>>>And finally"...I'm just a magazine writer now (although I have tweaked over 10,000 audio systems in real homes). So I'll give you some advice based on personal experience and you can try it. If it works you will have better bass for free (almost)" <<<
Ok, he's tweak 10,000 systems...and apparently many of them included mulitple subs then? in this case---it would be EASY to document the objective advantages to multiple woofs scattered about a room...let's all hold our breath.
on't get mad at me I am just the messenger. This is the information that I have recieved. I am just trying to get as much info on HT so I can get the best results. I am new at this, and I do not have any reasrch documented in any forum. I also do not know who those two people you mentioned are. I thought that 5.1 surround was supposed to be six discret channels ( five of them full-range), and that the sub was only for the LFE. This is why I reasoned that having a speaker/sub combo for the L,R,LS,RS is a good idea, and most of the information I have been geting supports that. I am always opened to information and new ideas and your opinions are welcomed.<<<
I'm not mad,sorry if i came off that way. If you want some interesting reading on low frequency acoustics...go to the local library and search for TOM NOUSAINE,FLOYD TOOLE,and DON KEELE.
You could also measure you own room...if you had a RS SPL meter and a pc nearby?
www.spectraplus.com
>>>ave also read one article on etow.com that recommended two/three subwoofers. They even give you advice on how to palce two sub. Can you comment on this? Here are the links: http://www.etown.com/columns/feature...articleID=1710 and http://www.etown.com/columns/feature...articleID=1711 <<<
Did they provide response data of the woofs at various seats?
If not...it's not worth a look. Everydaysomeone has a *better* idea on how to setup a subwoofer(or 6) in your HT. If the idea is worth anything, it will almost always be accompanied by objective data comapring the *idea* to various alternatives.
TV
MichaelW:
Thank you for all the info.
By the way Can you comment on the M&K MX-700
------------------
DOOOOOH!
Thank you for all the info.
By the way Can you comment on the M&K MX-700
------------------
DOOOOOH!
>>>I also believe that two subs help to smooth out room response by canceling some standing waves. At least it helped to smooth out the response in my room. It did not make it flat by any stretch of the imagination but did help to smooth it out.<<<
Anything is possible.
>>>You should try to pick up a copy of WSR Subwoofer Buyer’s Guide there is some data mixed in with the opinions. I found it very useful and informative. If you could give some specific examples of the articles you were speaking about, I would be very interested in reading them. I have a lot of old copies of Stereophile, SGHT, WSR and HT magazines.<<<
as far as I know...none of these contain the type of information I'd recommend when researching low frequency acoustics in a typical HT environment.
Look for Toole,Nousaine and Keele...generally not the *names* you'll see in mags like 'stereophile'...
I have the wsr guide...I agree,some good info. I just don't agree with everything in it.
TV
>>>I also believe that two subs help to smooth out room response by canceling some standing waves. At least it helped to smooth out the response in my room. It did not make it flat by any stretch of the imagination but did help to smooth it out.<<<
Anything is possible.
>>>You should try to pick up a copy of WSR Subwoofer Buyer’s Guide there is some data mixed in with the opinions. I found it very useful and informative. If you could give some specific examples of the articles you were speaking about, I would be very interested in reading them. I have a lot of old copies of Stereophile, SGHT, WSR and HT magazines.<<<
as far as I know...none of these contain the type of information I'd recommend when researching low frequency acoustics in a typical HT environment.
Look for Toole,Nousaine and Keele...generally not the *names* you'll see in mags like 'stereophile'...
I have the wsr guide...I agree,some good info. I just don't agree with everything in it.
TV
>>>Where would you recommend looking for these names? In books, magazines, technical journals. Could you be a little more specific?
Mike<<<
Some of Toole's work is available on the internet at the HK site...much of the stuff from Keele,Nousaine(and even Homlinson) can be found in AUDIO and STEREO REVIEW mags dating back many years.(speaker builder has a lot of *good* info too) otherwise, you can pick up a lot of good reading at the AES site.
TV
>>>Where would you recommend looking for these names? In books, magazines, technical journals. Could you be a little more specific?
Mike<<<
Some of Toole's work is available on the internet at the HK site...much of the stuff from Keele,Nousaine(and even Homlinson) can be found in AUDIO and STEREO REVIEW mags dating back many years.(speaker builder has a lot of *good* info too) otherwise, you can pick up a lot of good reading at the AES site.
TV
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
AVS Forum
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
WilliamR
961 Replies
BASSAHOLIC
529 Replies
bass addict
401 Replies
Recommended Communities
