[TheCableMan]

Ok for any of you with .2 meaning a 5.2 o 7.2 system with two subs outs. Is this work it. Meaning are both of the subs controlled independently as in one sub is for front bass and the other would be for rear bass. Tried looking and could not find anything about it. Thanks in advance.

 

[hd_newbie]



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCableMan /forum/post/18178840


Ok for any of you with .2 meaning a 5.2 o 7.2 system with two subs outs. Is this work it. Meaning are both of the subs controlled independently as in one sub is for front bass and the other would be for rear bass. Tried looking and could not find anything about it. Thanks in advance.

Whether it is worth it depends on your room and the rest of the system. That being said, a second or even a third subwoofer will improve most rooms' low frequency response.


I have never heard a distinction between front and rear bass. Low Frequency Extension is by definition not localizable, so there should not be such a thing as front or rear bass.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Properly implemented there definitely can be advantages to multiple subwoofers.


Additionally, some receivers support multiple subwoofer outputs which can be individually EQd by room correction systems such as Audyssey, further adding to the potential benefits.


But there is also the added cost to consider of multiple subwoofers. A single well-place very high-quality subwoofer might be a better choice than two lesser subwoofers for instance.

 

[William]



Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles /forum/post/18179269


Properly implemented there definitely can be advantages to multiple subwoofers...

I would say the best way to use 2 (or more) subs is to have matching subs using the same source (.1 out with a Y or daisy chained) and have them setup as a virtual sub. This allows you to place the virtual sub in the best acoustical place even if it's in an "unapproved" place.

 

[bluesky636]



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCableMan /forum/post/18178840


Meaning are both of the subs controlled independently as in one sub is for front bass and the other would be for rear bass.

Regarding the question that you asked, the answer is "no".

 

[ChrisWiggles]



Quote:
Originally Posted by bluesky636 /forum/post/18180712


Regarding the question that you asked, the answer is "no".

You're right, but also not completely right. Sometimes with larger speaker systems the woofers are separate, or active crossovers are used etc, and it's difficult not to consider those separate subwoofers, sometimes used per-channel with each channel then run full-range.


For instance, a system with active fronts that have separate subwoofer enclosures for each L, R, and C, not an uncommon occurrence in high-cost theaters. I've done a couple systems like this, sometimes without a dedicated LFE subwoofer at all, and so it can be slightly more complex than just a pure subwoofer output distributed equally to multiple subwoofers. In this example you would actually not have any subwoofer output coming off the processor, everything would be run full-range, LFE distributed to the mains L and R, and the bass would be handled separately by external crossovers. And if you also had a similar situation with surrounds, you could conceivably consider those "rear" subwoofers I suppose.


Still, I do understand what you're saying, and this is probably over the head of the OP! I probably just made everything unnecessarily confusing...

Anyway, just rambling...

 

[sdurani]



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCableMan /forum/post/18178840


Meaning are both of the subs controlled independently as in one sub is for front bass and the other would be for rear bass.

I think Theta pre-pros may separate rear bass and front bass. I know older Denon flagship receivers used to do it: you could configure 2 subs as front/rear (bass filtered from all the front channels went to the front sub, bass filtered from all the surround channels went to the rear sub) or left/right (bass filtered from all the left channels went to the left sub, bass filtered from all the right channels went to the right sub). Recent Denon flagships have dropped the front/rear option, but still let you run left/right subs (plus a separate dedicated LFE sub). Lexicon's flagship processor has the same 3-sub configuration (left/right/LFE).

 

[penngray]



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCableMan /forum/post/18178840


Ok for any of you with .2 meaning a 5.2 o 7.2 system with two subs outs. Is this work it. Meaning are both of the subs controlled independently as in one sub is for front bass and the other would be for rear bass. Tried looking and could not find anything about it. Thanks in advance.

no such thing as .2 actually.


Its still just 7.1 and 5.1



You could have 4 sub outs in your equipment and its just .1. I run 4 subs in my room and its just .1, even if I EQ them all differently its all just .1


.1 is all about the content and not what any piece of equipment says it has.

 

[hd_newbie]



Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/18181022


I think Theta pre-pros may separate rear bass and front bass. I know older Denon flagship receivers used to do it: you could configure 2 subs as front/rear (bass filtered from all the front channels went to the front sub, bass filtered from all the surround channels went to the rear sub) or left/right (bass filtered from all the left channels went to the left sub, bass filtered from all the right channels went to the right sub). Recent Denon flagships have dropped the front/rear option, but still let you run left/right subs (plus a separate dedicated LFE sub). Lexicon's flagship processor has the same 3-sub configuration (left/right/LFE).

I am having a difficult time in envisioning the kind of benefits this flexibility would provide. Since a well-implemented LFE should not be localizable, what difference does it make whether it is left or right bass?

 

[sdurani]



Quote:
Originally Posted by hd_newbie /forum/post/18182450


I am having a difficult time in envisioning the kind of benefits this flexibility would provide. Since a well-implemented LFE should not be localizable, what difference does it make whether it is left or right bass?

Users may want to send derived bass (filtered from the main channels) to a smaller, tighter subwoofer that is a close sonic match to their main speakers while sending discrete bass (from the .1/LFE channel) to a larger, room shaking subwoofer. The derived bass sub(s) can be placed in the room for smoothest response while the discrete bass sub can be located where it gives the greatest output. You may not want to treat those two types of bass independently, but other do (so the option is useful to them).


Stereo bass is a separate (and more controvercial) issue, having to do with externalization and envelopment rather than localization (can't localize low frequencies). The theory is based on mono bass tending to image in your head while stereo bass sounds more like it's around you (closer to how bass sounds at live events). But, in order to hear the stereo bass effect, the low frequencies need to be uncorrelated during recording (or decorrelated during playback) and the subs need to be away from the listener's centre line (subs at the sides work best since they are furthest from the room median). Here is a research paper and corresponding lecture slides explaining the reproduction of spaciousness in the low frequencies (aka stereo bass).

 

[MLKstudios]

I'll get to those papers Sanjay. My understanding is, if you have small satellites, then you could split the low left and low right into the .2 subs. At the same time both would get the dedicated LFE channel mixed as one.


Is this wrong?

 

[sdurani]



Quote:
Originally Posted by MLKstudios /forum/post/18182946


My understanding is, if you have small satellites, then you could split the low left and low right into the .2 subs. At the same time both would get the dedicated LFE channel mixed as one.

Correct, and there's more than one way to accomplish that. For example, if you don't have a receiver or pre-pro that supports multiple independent subwoofer outputs, then you can: set the front L/R speakers to Large, set all the other speakers to Small, set the subwoofer to None.


Derived bass (from the other channels) and discrete bass (from the LFE channel) will all be sent to your L/R speaker outputs. You can then use the two subs to turn your small satellites into full range speakers, having the subs take over just where the speakers start rolling off.

Quote:
I'll get to those papers Sanjay.

They're mostly theory, but interesting nonetheless. Start with the slide show, since that quickly sums up the stereo bass concept. When reading the paper, go to the conclusion first (sums up the underlying theory) and then go back to the begining.

 

[Tulpa]



Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray /forum/post/18181719


no such thing as .2 actually.


Its still just 7.1 and 5.1



You could have 4 sub outs in your equipment and its just .1. I run 4 subs in my room and its just .1, even if I EQ them all differently its all just .1


.1 is all about the content and not what any piece of equipment says it has.

That's true, but the manufacturers of receivers have added to the confusion by marketing ".2" receivers. Onkyo, HK, and Yamaha all have them. Denon even offers a ".3" receiver. I suppose it can be justified by the number meaning the number of subwoofer preouts available, but it's still a bit misleading.

 

[SoundChex]



Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/18182735


Stereo bass is a separate (and more controversial) issue, having to do with externalization and envelopment rather than localization (can't localize low frequencies). The theory is based on mono bass tending to image in your head while stereo bass sounds more like it's around you (closer to how bass sounds at live events). But, in order to hear the stereo bass effect, the low frequencies need to be uncorrelated during recording (or decorrelated during playback) and the subs need to be away from the listener's center line (subs at the sides work best since they are furthest from the room median). Here is a research paper and corresponding lecture slides explaining the reproduction of spaciousness in the low frequencies (aka stereo bass).

We might conclude that the option for dual [Left/Right] LFE channels (".2") present in both SMPTE 428M and SMPTE 2036 (listings of 'allowable industry standard' speaker/channel names and positions) indicated a trend in that direction. However (to me, an industry 'outsider'), it seems more likely that SMPTE simply found it easier to just make provision for all speakers in Tomlinson Holman's 10.2 'demonstration theater' speaker layout (in SMPTE 428M), and for the 22.2 channel audio component of NHK's forthcoming SHV tv system (in SMPTE 2036).

 

[sivadselim]



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCableMan /forum/post/18178840


Ok for any of you with .2 meaning a 5.2 o 7.2 system with two subs outs. Is this work it. Meaning are both of the subs controlled independently as in one sub is for front bass and the other would be for rear bass. Tried looking and could not find anything about it. Thanks in advance.

My response in THIS relevant thread:

I think that for the time being you are going to find quite a bit of variation in how AVRs treat their dual sub outs. Some are simply going to treat them identically and using them will not be any different than using a Y-splitter. And at the other extreme will be those that allow complete and independent adjustment of the two outputs including separate EQ. And then there will be those that are in between those two extremes that may allow individual distance and/or level settings but not individual EQ capabilities.




And, yes, as I found out in that thread, there ARE some AVRs that allow dual sub outs to be assigned to "front and rear" or "left and right" bass. The Yamaha RX-Z9, as reported by StevenC56 in that thread, does indeed allow this sort of bass assignment to its dual sub outs.


I suspect, though, that as more become available, this will probably not be how most AVRs that feature completely independently adjustable multiple sub outs will operate. I would expect most to simply be monaural sub outs with independent level, time management, and EQ capability. No specific assignment of "front and rear" or "left and right" bass.

 

[penngray]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa /forum/post/18183497


That's true, but the manufacturers of receivers have added to the confusion by marketing ".2" receivers. Onkyo, HK, and Yamaha all have them. Denon even offers a ".3" receiver. I suppose it can be justified by the number meaning the number of subwoofer preouts available, but it's still a bit misleading.

I agree its misleading!

 

[sdurani]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa /forum/post/18183497


I suppose it can be justified by the number meaning the number of subwoofer preouts available...

Nothing more complicated (nor misleading) than that. If someone says they have a 7.2 speaker set-up or says they just bought a new 9.3 channel receiver, then they're not trying to mislead you about how many discrete channels are in a soundtrack. Is it really so difficult to view the X.x nomenclature in context?

 

[penngray]



Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/18190843


Nothing more complicated (nor misleading) than that. If someone says they have a 7.2 speaker set-up or says they just bought a new 9.3 channel receiver, then they're not trying to mislead you about how many discrete channels are in a soundtrack. Is it really so difficult to view the X.x nomenclature in context?

nope but people should know that there is no such thing as 7.2 content.


The number of subs you have or the number of sub out connections should never be refected in the .x value.


Should I say I have a .6 setup and .4 setup?

 

[bluesky636]



Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani /forum/post/18190843


Nothing more complicated (nor misleading) than that. If someone says they have a 7.2 speaker set-up or says they just bought a new 9.3 channel receiver, then they're not trying to mislead you about how many discrete channels are in a soundtrack. Is it really so difficult to view the X.x nomenclature in context?

A 5.1 system means the number of available speaker channels and the number of discrete channels that may be available in a soundtrack.


A 7.1 system means the number of available speaker channels and the number of discrete channels that may be available in a soundtrack.


A 9.3 system means the number of available speaker channels and ..... what?


That is where the context breaks down and causes unnecessary confusion in terminology.

 

[bluesky636]



Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray /forum/post/18190937


nope but people should know that there is no such thing as 7.2 content.


The number of subs you have or the number of sub out connections should never be refected in the .x value.


Should I say I have a .6 setup and .4 setup?

Concur 100%.