AVS Forum banner

46141 - 46160 of 46375 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
That is the way I have my pair of G22s and you can totally do the same with the pair of G25HPs. In fact, place the amps facing inwards so you have easy access to amp controls.

View attachment 3038695 View attachment 3038696 View attachment 3038697 View attachment 3038698
Great photos! They help me clearly see your settings.

I notice you have the input set to Line In, with a high lowpass, PEQ off, and letting the AVR handle the crossover & phase. It seems like the same could be accomplished with using the LFE input.

1. What's your thought process behind using Line In vs LFE for AVR/HT use? Is there a tradeoff with using LFE in?
2. Also, wondering how you think about setting the setting the damping to mid. I know the tradeoff is more low bass output vs less ringing (more bass vs tighter bass). How did you arrive at "mid" for damping?

Thanks! My G22s arrive on Friday :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
620 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Nice FAQ write up!

Yup, I understood what's in your write up when I asked, but still don't see why @enricoclaudio would use Line In instead of LFE in this case.

First, by utilizing Line-In vs. LFE, you will get faster upper-frequency roll-off (similar to a low-pass filter). This can help improve SQ, providing a “cleaner” upper ULF sound signature (YMMV, as the best crossover frequency will vary with respect to your mains, i.e. L/R speakers, and their bass extension).
With the AVR handing crossovers, you'd get the same effect, depending on your chosen crossover frequency.

Second, Line-In goes through the crossover and phase adjust circuitry on the amp (among other things), while LFE does not. If you are not using an AVR, Line-In thereby gives you greater control over SQ.
Understood, but in this case, the AVR is handling crossover, phase, etc.

In the words of @Soulburner (post 36046): “The decision of LFE vs Line-In depends on your setup and usage. Some of us have preferred the steeper upper roll off associated with Line-In as it cuts the frequencies that are way above the crossover that may be localizable and not sound great coming from a sub. Others use the LFE input and don't notice the difference.”
Also handled if AVR is doing the crossover w/ LFE In. For mains and surrounds, you'd not cross over above 80hz or so. So no issue with localizable sounds coming from the subs.

The dedicated .1 LFE channel doesn't contain anything above 120hz and has no effect on perceived directionality. Even if it did, with multiple subs, it would sound as if it's coming from all around you, and the mix engineer knows that the sub(s) could be located anywhere so it's unlikely there will be anything there that needs to rely on directional queues.

In the words of @DonH50 (post 36051): “Line in allows you to cascade crossovers for more roll off (less highs in the sub, less lows in the mains) and access to more of the controls. However, most AVRs handle all that stuff automagically, so unless you know how to tweak things I'd just use LFE and let the AVR handle things at first. You can always change later, but most of us simply want our new toys to be playing away without hours of fiddling or weeks (plus) of learning. I would use LFE, set the crossover in the AVR to 80 Hz, and listen for a while.”
Yes, what @DonH50 says makes sense to me!

So wondering if there is some other tradeoff that made Enrico choose Line-In, considering he's letting the AVR (or possibly a miniDSP?) handle crossover, phase, etc anyway. It seems LFE in would be about the same--maybe a bit simpler as a default choice. (I'll be using Dirac Live Bass Control, which will handle the joint sub optimization, phase, x/o, levels, eq, etc)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
206 Posts
Great to know! so any tips on a knob setting for the bandwith/frequency?
 

·
Registered
I like big cones and I cannot lie !
Joined
·
1,354 Posts
Nice FAQ write up!

Yup, I understood what's in your write up when I asked, but still don't see why @enricoclaudio would use Line In instead of LFE in this case.



With the AVR handing crossovers, you'd get the same effect, depending on your chosen crossover frequency.



Understood, but in this case, the AVR is handling crossover, phase, etc.


Also handled if AVR is doing the crossover w/ LFE In. For mains and surrounds, you'd not cross over above 80hz or so. So no issue with localizable sounds coming from the subs.

The dedicated .1 LFE channel doesn't contain anything above 120hz and has no effect on perceived directionality. Even if it did, with multiple subs, it would sound as if it's coming from all around you, and the mix engineer knows that the sub(s) could be located anywhere so it's unlikely there will be anything there that needs to rely on directional queues.



Yes, what @DonH50 says makes sense to me!

So wondering if there is some other tradeoff that made Enrico choose Line-In, considering he's letting the AVR (or possibly a miniDSP?) handle crossover, phase, etc anyway. It seems LFE in would be about the same--maybe a bit simpler as a default choice. (I'll be using Dirac Live Bass Control, which will handle the joint sub optimization, phase, x/o, levels, eq, etc)

There is no wrong answer. Try both. I did, and I use "Line In". For whatever reason LFE needing more sub gain to hit the same output level is the difference I noticed. Does it matter? Probably not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: yourmando

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,720 Posts
My conclusion on a past 2.1 setup (dual subs though) was that Line In got me a steeper crossover slope that sounded better in that system.

My conclusion after a recent setup is similar however there is one caveat - if you use Line In you must use the same crossover in your AVR for all speakers. If you plan on doing, say, 60 Hz up front and 100 Hz on the surrounds, you need to use LFE In on the subs or they won't get the redirected bass between 60-100 from the surrounds. Well, they will but it will be attenuated.

Basically, if you tell the subs to filter everything above 60 Hz in this example, but the processor is sending bass from the surrounds to the subs...you see the problem. Therefore, I settled on 60 Hz with LFE in due to the new setup being a surround system.

We'll see if I stick with that once the FV15's get here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
990 Posts
If you are using line in, and the AVR for bass management, you would leave the crossover at max/highest cross point on the subs correct? Unless you wanted to mess with cascading crossovers, which I do not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
If you are using line in, and the AVR for bass management, you would leave the crossover at max/highest cross point on the subs correct? Unless you wanted to mess with cascading crossovers, which I do not.
Correct. To be precise, the crossover would be set to the max at 120hz, and the low pass would be set to "AVR/12"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
My conclusion on a past 2.1 setup (dual subs though) was that Line In got me a steeper crossover slope that sounded better in that system.

My conclusion after a recent setup is similar however there is one caveat - if you use Line In you must use the same crossover in your AVR for all speakers. If you plan on doing, say, 60 Hz up front and 100 Hz on the surrounds, you need to use LFE In on the subs or they won't get the redirected bass between 60-100 from the surrounds. Well, they will but it will be attenuated.

Basically, if you tell the subs to filter everything above 60 Hz in this example, but the processor is sending bass from the surrounds to the subs...you see the problem. Therefore, I settled on 60 Hz with LFE in due to the new setup being a surround system.

We'll see if I stick with that once the FV15's get here.
Makes sense that you were using a 2.1 setup when using Line In. Great point about being stuck with 1 crossover frequency if you set it in the subs. My crossover points will also likely be different for my tower mains and surrounds. Enrico handles this by setting low pas to 120hz and letting his processor/dsp handle the crossovers, etc. As @Deaf-Forever says, it leads to the same result.

Though I'm still left wondering why one would choose Line-In, not bypassing EQ, etc. But then letting the AVR/dsp handle all of that anyway. It seems LFE is the simplest way there, bypassing the same stuff by default.

I'm excited for you on those FV15s!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,720 Posts
If you are using line in, and the AVR for bass management, you would leave the crossover at max/highest cross point on the subs correct? Unless you wanted to mess with cascading crossovers, which I do not.
After previous discussions on this, it was determined that the crossover on the sub should be set to the same frequency or you could end up with a variable slope. Indeed my measurements showed that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,720 Posts
Though I'm still left wondering why one would choose Line-In, not bypassing EQ, etc. But then letting the AVR/dsp handle all of that anyway. It seems LFE is the simplest way there, bypassing the same stuff by default.
The other reason would be noise. If you put your ear to the driver, you can hear a faint sound using LFE In due to the greater bandwidth. I don't really think it's an issue though. It's still not audible from my seat. Otherwise, I'm not sure!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
The other reason would be noise. If you put your ear to the driver, you can hear a faint sound using LFE In due to the greater bandwidth. I don't really think it's an issue though. It's still not audible from my seat. Otherwise, I'm not sure!
Ah, good to know. I'll do a quick check of both inputs for noise when I get them. 1 or 2 of the subs will be near field--will see if I can hear any noise difference from the listening window.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
I stand corrected. Any benefit of PEQ on the sub itself when using a miniDSP?
I would say yes.

It was probably not the right/best way, but I used the PEQ on the Rythmik amps to boost a dip I had centered around 55htz. It was not the exact same settings on the controls for each sub, but in the end i was able to lift my dip about 3db before presenting to Audyssey. Post Audyssey, I then used the miniDSP EQ. Audy before miniDSP was at the suggestion of Soulburner and the results are posted a few pages back.

I know boosting with PEQ is generally less preferred to cutting but i tried to address my biggest problem with it and it seems to have benefited the end result.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,720 Posts
It was probably not the right/best way, but I used the PEQ on the Rythmik amps to boost a dip I had centered around 55htz. It was not the exact same settings on the controls for each sub, but in the end i was able to lift my dip about 3db before presenting to Audyssey. Post Audyssey, I then used the miniDSP EQ. Audy before miniDSP was at the suggestion of Soulburner and the results are posted a few pages back.
How are your results now that you've had more time to listen?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,030 Posts
Well, they definitely bring the rumble for movies. So much so the Mrs complained from the other side of the house yesterday. So that's good.

On the music side, I do seem do notice a bit less detail when listening critically, but I'm hesitant to make a direct comparison because there is likely further refining I can still do.

I will say this though, whoever it was that compared a ported Rythmik on high dampening to a sealed one on mid dampening was spot on from my impressions. At least that was my take away of my demo with FV18 aluminum cone @jsc79 's last year. From my experience with the PC FV18 so far, i'd say they are more comparable to the E15HP's on low dampening. Again, I think there is more improvement to be had with time and guidance so I'm optimistic there is better to come.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jsc79

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,905 Posts
You probably wouldn't want to use it at all if using a miniDSP. But folks like @darthray, who doesn't use a miniDSP, use it to tailor one specific frequency/narrow range. Most folks use it to get a boosted mid-bass chest-slam boost around 60 Hz.
And you are correct Sir:)

For the folks that do not know why, I don't use a miniDSP. Here's some of the reasons;
-I do not own a I-pad/tablet or even a smart phone, just a plain PC and a Flip Flop phone.
-Anything computer stuff related for program get me frustrated.
-Do not want to use any other cables, than my XLR for a balance signal.
-While there is one version of miniPSD, that can be use for a balance signal, it require to have some bare wires since it does not accept XLR connections;

The reason, I use the LFE input with my FV18's input. Than rely on my Audyssey XT-32 for calibration, and did added a 3dB boost at 60Hz with the PEQ, with the maximum bandwidth. And did work well for me, before with my previous Marantz AV7702mkII until it lost left front channel. While now, I got a new AV7705 and did a calibration last week. I am back to square one, for experimenting to use or not the PEQ.

Darth
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,720 Posts
Well, they definitely bring the rumble for movies. So much so the Mrs complained from the other side of the house yesterday. So that's good.

On the music side, I do seem do notice a bit less detail when listening critically, but I'm hesitant to make a direct comparison because there is likely further refining I can still do.

I will say this though, whoever it was that compared a ported Rythmik on high dampening to a sealed one on mid dampening was spot on from my impressions. At least that was my take away of my demo with FV18 aluminum cone @jsc79 's last year. From my experience with the PC FV18 so far, i'd say they are more comparable to the E15HP's on low dampening. Again, I think there is more improvement to be had with time and guidance so I'm optimistic there is better to come.
That makes sense because damping will change the low end response.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,382 Posts
Great photos! They help me clearly see your settings.

I notice you have the input set to Line In, with a high lowpass, PEQ off, and letting the AVR handle the crossover & phase. It seems like the same could be accomplished with using the LFE input.

1. What's your thought process behind using Line In vs LFE for AVR/HT use? Is there a tradeoff with using LFE in?
2. Also, wondering how you think about setting the setting the damping to mid. I know the tradeoff is more low bass output vs less ringing (more bass vs tighter bass). How did you arrive at "mid" for damping?

Thanks! My G22s arrive on Friday :)
I use LINE IN because it has less bandwidth than LFE IN so it has less background noise. Sometimes you can hear "male vocals" coming out of the subwoofer when using LFE IN. That does not happens when using LINE IN. Also, I get better integration with my mains when using LINE IN compared with LFE IN. I have my three subwoofer running through a miniDSP 2x4 HD, though. Regarding damping, that is mostly personal preference. I have always had and still have all my Rythmik subs in High Damping and lower Freq for everything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
I use LINE IN because it has less bandwidth than LFE IN so it has less background noise. Sometimes you can hear "male vocals" coming out of the subwoofer when using LFE IN. That does not happens when using LINE IN. Also, I get better integration with my mains when using LINE IN compared with LFE IN. I have my three subwoofer running through a miniDSP 2x4 HD, though. Regarding damping, that is mostly personal preference. I have always had and still have all my Rythmik subs in High Damping and lower Freq for everything.
Super helpful. Thank you! I was planning on using high damping as well. And you’ve convinced me to use the Line In input.
 
46141 - 46160 of 46375 Posts
Top