Some questions about bass integration and XOs (Oris Horns)

by Rooze ⌂ @, Wisc USA, Tuesday, December 18, 2007, 22:46 (3682 days ago)

Hello all,

I was hoping someone might help with a couple setup issues, I've trawled the archives but can't find a solution.

I'm using Fostex 208E in Oris 150, there are two stacked Oris per side (John Kalinowski design).
I have large bass towers with Fostex 16" drivers, sealed enclosure.

Firstly, does anyone know what the efficiency is of the horn towers in this arrangement? - I've read opinions online varying from 100 - 110db

My issues with this system have always been concerning crossovers and integration of the bass. In the past week I bought a Lyngdorf TDAi 2200 amp which offers some amazing flexibility but brings its own problems along too!

The TDAi offers a 2-way XO, a digital 200w amp, DAC, and room correction. I have it set using the inbuilt amp driving my bass towers, and line-outs to control Cary 2A3 driving the horn towers. I have the XO set at 155hz 1/8 Linkwitz. I haven't messed with the various filter options. When I set the highpass at 155 the bass integration is seamless, but the sound loses out in the presence region (which seems odd). Vocals become recessed, instruments lose their dynamic feel, string sound softer etc. This doesn't make sense to me, since I'm cutting the horns below 155 and I wouldn't have thought that would have much sonic impact on what appears to be the midrange frequencies. (Can anyone help me understand this please?) When I set the main horn towers as passthrough so they're running full range, the sound becomes more dynamic, the presence is there, but the bass becomes soft and poorly defined. It sounds like a phase issue but supposedly the Lyngdorf takes care of any time alignment and phase issues with it's room correction DSP?
So how do others run their horns, do you use highpass filters or run them fullrange and have overlap through a broader frequency range with the bass drivers?
What can you suggest to improve bass integration -

Thanks for any insights

Rooze

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by GC, Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 12:37 (3682 days ago) @ Rooze

Hi Rooze

Even my bid here is of no value to you?...I think you have a problem with your filter slopes not providing you correct phase. Maybe you have a polarity problem as well. If, try first to swift polarity on the bass-secton or the horn-section, but only on one of them. Both channels of course.
Listen...and what do you hear now?

If this is even worsening your findings. Then swift back again and look for someone who can meassure your output amplitudes from the bass and the horns.
There might very well be an *out of any order* to be found.

Cross-overs not cutomized for your system is no good.

But look in this direction for gaining more. :grin:

GC

Tags:
0

Avatar

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by PeterSt. ⌂ @, Netherlands, Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 13:45 (3682 days ago) @ Rooze

Rooze,

At first I would have said the same as GC, and the only thing to really learn from it, is that you shouldn't mess with these things when you're not experienced on it. Well, since GC now told my story, here's another one I had in mind :

Assuming that the Xover by itself is okay (which it IMO would not with 1/8 Lw), there's two effects that might trick you :

1. Masking
2. Influencing.

Both phenomena are just interpretations from myself and how I perceive things; No science here !

Ad 1.
When more bass is added, highs get masked from it. So you could say the highs become more "muffled" from it.

Ad 2.
When more bass is added, the waves coming from it, will be influencing the high waves physically. You could say that the highs ride on the bass waves, which btw physically would be true in the source material like an LP or even digital data.

In all cases (adding) bass influences the high tones.

Furthermore, and this is what GC said/implied, a means of filter (depending on that means) will or will not change phase. Thus, when polarity between bass/high originally is ok, the filter may change the polarity of one of them, implying that you must switch +/- of one of them (either).
When 24L/R is in there, it might be best to start with that one. Also, on the matter of steepness of the rolloff, think on the slower rolloff requiering much more from the driver (e.g. if the mid really stops at 155, you might need to set the xover at well over 200 with 1/8 -> you can do the math on it, with an octave scale at frequencies in front of you).

2c Peter.

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by GC, Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 15:04 (3682 days ago) @ PeterSt.
edited by GC, Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 15:42

Rooze read this thread in "board view". It is some hove esier to summarize overviewing the whole matter.

Peter: I agree a lot with your way to put it. Many important things can be derived from your post.

If it matters, if it helps you Rooze, if what I had in mind to address to you has any relevance I will let you judge.

But actually I am fooling around on a Serbian platform because I love my Swings so much. Not only because they are the best loudspeakers on earth for me, but further because I know they are based on very intelligent approaches dealing with the speakers way of letting you into the reality musical world.

What Bert did to acheive it will remain within his brain, but what I can tell you, he took care of something, had his own approach to "the art of building a loudspeaker" and Bert alowed me to look over his shoulders and borrowed my ears from time to time to judge his results. I'm greatfull to Bert for using my ears as a judge, not that I had any votes being better than many others who also listened to the Swings during their creation.

Bert seems to know what most people don't know IMO. He keep it close to him, as I would do the same in his trousers. He is for the moment the only one who is out there with a commercial speaker that to the end is made correct and some more on top of that which can only be about what that Bert knows.

If you have the energy and time you can dial these two links where I'm raving about somthing that I know also Bert knows and Peter knows.

It is a story about a dear passed away friend of mine and another story wich is maybe only relevant for my Serbian fellowmen over here.

To dive in deep you have to open the links to a legend who actually told the world what to look for. Open them, take your time in there, but in there you find what could be your problem.

http://hifi-forumi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7248 (The legend) :read:
http://hifi-forumi.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7192 (The GC saying hello to that forum) :wacko:

Enjoy

GC

Edited: The link inside my (The legend) named http://www.duelundaudio.com/downloads/Articles_Steen_Duelund/duelund-filter.pdf
seems to be dead? And it is dead here as well. Pitty.

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by Don Reid, Rural Northwest Georgia, USA, Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 18:01 (3681 days ago) @ Rooze
edited by unknown, Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 19:49

Hi Rooze,

I too use a digital crossover, the DEQX PDC 2.6P, and contrary to the opinions of some of my esteemed fellow BD-Design Forum members it is possible for an intelligent person willing to learn, engage in listening tests after trying various settings and to simply be persistent to arrive at an excellent arrangment. I have achieved remarkably good results. Don't give up on your original plan too quickly.

I have Oris 150 horns driven by AER MD3s. The bass is provided by the bass horns of a pair of Klipschorns. I use a nomimal crossover frequency of 160 Hz with rolloff slopes of 96dB/octave for the low pass and 78 dB/octave for the high pass. The difference in rolloffs is, of course, to take into account the accoustic rolloff of the Oris horns.

I am not familiar with your Lyngdorf, and reading the manufacturer's website wasn't very informative, but with the DEQX a very seamless, musically satisfying, transparent crossover is very possible.

Good Luck,
Don Reid

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by GC, Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 18:35 (3681 days ago) @ Don Reid

Don...you are oh so right. Of course there are other ways than passive filtering. Excellent ways.

My adressing to the problem were of pure analouge nature. :yes:

The digital x-overing can easily be mixed with analogue filtered or natural roll off or any mix of it. Just what is important is to make the speaker drivers act like a pistion. Like a real point source fullranger tries to do.

The ways we come to it can be many. :grin:

Good comment from you addressing Rooze problem. :good:

GC

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by madprofessor ⌂, 27777 Ganderkesee, Germany, Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 22:22 (3681 days ago) @ Rooze

Hallo Rooze!
Another aspect to the problems You mention, is following: Even if You would use a very steep x-over - lets say a 1000dB slope, even than, the bass system would produce some harmonics, which could be, depending on several facts, well be in the midrange, beiGCg only 20dB lower than the Signal from the midrange-units.
So the first question is, how many Harmonics produces Your bass-system ( simply switch off the amp for Your Lowthers and You´ll hear!)
Next question is, what does an active x-over to Your pulse response! You should look at the output of the x-over with a scope and feed the input with a square-wave. I´m sure, with room-correction and all that, there´s not much left of the squae-shape!
I myself use a passive x-over with quite good results.
Of course I read also the other postings - the facts mentioned there, are of course also relevant, erspecially the phase-situation.
Best regards
Stephan

Tags:
0

Avatar

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by Bert @, Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 23:11 (3681 days ago) @ Rooze

Hello Rooze,

Digital correcting things is something I never liked and never will like unless I have a very wrong system that "needs" artificial surgery to get some balance out of it.

Just the idea of molesting the digital data (or even worse if it is translating analog data into digital and then start molesting even further). :grazy:

On normal DAC's oversampling is doing things most friendly and that is already something I do not like as it changes the original recording into something else.

For good sound you'll need correct working speakers which can perfectly be filtered in a passive analog way (if you know what you are doing that is...).

If you need/want to EQ your room then the best way is to add another bass system (one or 2 channels) and let those correct the peaks of your room by anti-phase signals doing the opposite your room is doing. This way the main system can stay clean from digital distortion.

I simply hate those advertisements claming their digital EQ to be the perfect solution which they are not and never will be, the only thing these try to do, while adding their own signature, is to correct faults created by wrong designed, tuned and placed systems. :fool:

Spend more time to optimise those systems first so that you'll need less drastic medicine to cure the remaining problems (if any serious ones are left to cure!)

Okay, that said, back to the topic.

I'm using Fostex 208E in Oris 150, there are two stacked Oris per side
(John Kalinowski design).

I have large bass towers with Fostex 16" drivers, sealed enclosure.

No problem here, should work well together, even better if they are properly time aligned and in your situation (d 'Apolito) this also means the height of the bass driver. :yes:

Firstly, does anyone know what the efficiency is of the horn towers in
this arrangement? - I've read opinions online varying from 100 - 110db

I would expect the normal average sensitivity of the "naked" driver plus approximately 12dB (6dB from the horn and another 6dB because of using two drivers/horns per channel).

...set the main horn towers as pass-through so they're running full range, the
sound becomes more dynamic, the presence is there, but the bass becomes
soft and poorly defined. It sounds like a phase issue but supposedly the
Lyngdorf takes care of any time alignment and phase issues with it's room
correction DSP?

Not using a digital filter/EQ for the horns gives you back the speed, clarity, presence and dynamics....less usually brings more!!

So how do others run their horns, do you use high pass filters or run them
full range and have overlap through a broader frequency range with the bass
drivers?

For my system I do not use any digital device to correct things except for the subwoofer (used only for frequencies below 30Hz and correcting a boost at 35Hz).

I would kick out the digital "master" for the horns and make a normal passive filter for those (12,18 or 24dB). Just copy the slopes and curve you've created with the digits as you seem to like the result in that area...

You can then use the digits to optimise the bass towards the horns (delay, EQ) without touching the horns!

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by madprofessor ⌂, 27777 Ganderkesee, Germany, Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 23:21 (3681 days ago) @ Bert

Hallo Bert!
I agree very much, with the stuff You wrote!
Especially using a separate System for low frequency - room- compensation.

If you need/want to EQ your room then the best way is to add another bass system (one or 2 channels) and let those correct the peaks of your room by anti-phase signals doing the opposite your room is doing. This way the main system can stay clean from digital distortion.

I use a 38 cm Kevlar Focal System in a 200 l enclosure, driven by a solid state amp and a modified Velodyne SMS-1 x-over - just to compensate room modes arround 40-60 Ht and to add a tiny bit low bass between 25 and 20 Hz

Best regards
Stephan

Tags:
0

Avatar

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by Bert @, Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 23:27 (3681 days ago) @ madprofessor

Hi Stephan,

I use a 38 cm Kevlar Focal System in a 200 l enclosure, driven by a solid
state amp and a modified Velodyne SMS-1 x-over - just to compensate room
modes arround 40-60 Ht and to add a tiny bit low bass between 25 and 20
Hz

Yep, that is one way to do things! :ok:

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by GC, Wednesday, December 19, 2007, 23:37 (3681 days ago) @ Bert

Which made my comment to Don look as if I would disagree with you Bert. :no:

In our little real (everybodies) world the analogue way counts. IMO.

That digital filtering is a spin off of recording-studio gear and PA set-ups where it in it's own world of multiplum of bits resolution an high rated DA-conversion is less harmless to sound. Because they maybe are not looking for the same parameters for SQ as we do.

Any digital approach combined or not combined with analogue filtering can achieve piston behaviours, but maybe not good sound for audiophiles. :prankster:

Personally I would not dare yet to touch a digital approach with my humble domain of handeling it. In the digital world it's no different than the harrasment camera makers are doing with our digital photoes. Huh... said the grand old man who took the digital path here and left my 6x7 format films.
(Almost off topic)

On topic
GC:cool:

Tags:
0

Avatar

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by Bert @, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 00:07 (3681 days ago) @ GC

Which made my comment to Don look as if I would disagree with you Bert.

Do not dare to disagree...! :lol:

Personally I would not dare yet to touch a digital approach with my humble
domain of handeling it.

Off topic: Same here, as long I can still hear major differences between software players (all being bitperfect!!) while using the same external DAC and the same data stored on the HDD then I simply know that adding extra digital things in the signal path will always do something wrong with jitter as main problem.

Positive things can be created within the digital domain for sure but if it is doing more things wrong trying to cure a problem which can be addressed differently (analog!) then the compromise pretending to be a simple solution is not accepted by me...

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by GC, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 00:21 (3681 days ago) @ Bert

Which made my comment to Don look as if I would disagree with you Bert.


Do not dare to disagree...! :lol:

Personally I would not dare yet to touch a digital approach with my

humble

domain of handeling it.


Off topic: Same here, as long I can still hear major differences
between software players (all being bitperfect!!) while using the same
external DAC and the same data stored on the HDD then I simply know that
adding extra digital things in the signal path will always do something
wrong with jitter as main problem.

Positive things can be created within the digital domain for sure but if
it is doing more things wrong trying to cure a problem which can be
addressed differently (analog!) then the compromise pretending to be a
simple solution is not accepted by me...

Bert

Period :rolleyes:

I think you Rooze got quite some feed back here....eih?

Now back to your system and start tweaking it in. :good:

Good night from studio Belgrade..


GC :sleepy:

And some places comes [image] which make me think wishing everybody here a Merry Christmas. I'll go and see how Canada looks like.

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by Don Reid, Rural Northwest Georgia, USA, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 01:24 (3681 days ago) @ Bert
edited by unknown, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 04:41

Hey Bert,

I beg to differ with your opinion regarding digital crossovers, room correction, time alignment, phase correction, etc. The first time we discussed the efficacy and sonics of the DEQX you stated that you had only listened to it once, that being in a system at the Rocky Mountain Audio Fair. Have you ever taken time to give it a relaxed listen in a carefully aligned arrangment in a system featuring your own speakers?

I have corresponded on another forum and by e-mail with the two installers who set up the system with the DEQX at RMAF. They told me that thirty-six hours before the show opened they had never seen a DEQX or any of its documentation. The learning curve on this very complex component and its PC software is far too steep for that to provide sufficient time for a proper job to be done. It took me two weeks, and I'm a frigging genius.

The follow is an excerpt from the posts from back in 2005 which may be reached by the link provided below.

" I recently installed a DEQX PDC-2.6 digital processor/crossover in my system. It was a chore for me to learn how to install it. Speakers are AER MD3s in Oris 150 horns and the bass corner horns of Klipschorns. The DEQX (pronounced DECKS) allows me to program a linear phase, 160 Hz crossover with the high pass to the Oris 150s rolled off at 78 dB/octave and the low pass to the Klipschorn bass bins rolled off at 96 dB/octave. The diaphragms of the AER drivers are about six feet in front of the 15" woofers in the Klipsch. The DEQX time aligns them to within 1/8", or less than one-one hundredth thousandth of a second. Passes the WE tap dance test. Calibration and calculation of correction filters similarly correct speaker phase and frequency response,room resonances, etc.
The AER MD3s in Oris 150 horns coupled to Klipsch corner horn woofers were, before the DEQX, splendid speakers in many ways. They were not imaging champs. I hadn't ever expected them to be. Installing the DEQX was a revelation. My beloved horns now imagine better than any speaker I've owned, a considerable number, with the exception of a pair of floor to ceiling full range electrostatics I owned up until 1988.

The image not only retains its three dimensionality and verisimiltude to outside of the Oris horns but even through and outside the side walls which are quite near the Oris. It just blows my mind. The image has good depth and height and precise localization of voices or instruments is at least pretty good.

I never had any idea how well my horns could image before the DEQX. Those who have never tried it or a similar digital crossover, phase, time, frequency response, room correction processor might be very surprised to find out how well their speakers can image. I sure was.

Since this is a response to a question about amplifiers and imaging I'll mention that I use a pair of Cary Audio Design 2A3 SET monoblocks (5 watts/ch.) on the 112dB/W/m sensitive AER drivers in the Oris horns and a highly modified New York Audio Laboratories Moscode 600 tube/ss hybrid amps (300 watts/ch.) on the 104dB/W/m sensitive Klipsch bass corner horns. My patch cords and speaker wire are mostly DIY of my own design."

This post, the RMAF installers responses, etc. may be perused beginning at: http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hug&n=82193&highlight=Don+Reid+and+DE...

The DEQX features 32-bit, floating-point, 240-MFLOPS sustained processing with dual SHARC DSPs and has 96/192kHz generation 24-bit ADC (2 channel) /DAC (6 channel) converters. A digital signal input directly into the DEQX from a good quality disc player with no down conversion needed and then manipulated as desired before being converted to analog and input directly into the power amplifier (or even taking a digital output from the DEQX directly into a digital amplifier) for each driver with no fallible coils or capacitors intervening in the signal between amp and driver is superior to the analog alternative. Remember the best sounding capacitor of all is no capacitor at all. I do not have the physics and psychoacoustic sophistication to understand all the technical specifics involved, but at the time I originally calibrated the DEQX to function with the Oris 150s and Klipsch bass horns I had remarkably good hearing as tested by a professional audiooligist and over forty years of very careful listening as an audiophile and musical performer (piano, saxophones, oboe and kazoo) and over thirty years experience building loudspeakers, usually of my own design.

Unless you listen only to LPs and analog tapes you obviously have some fondness for digital audio. Why, if you find 1s and 0s capable of storing and recreating a musically satisfying sound, is it such a stretch to think that with the use of a PC, a good calibrated microphone, a good set of ears and thoughtful listening and diligent effort that a digital signal could could not be crossed over, phase and time corrected, etc. without the sort of degradation you describe being the inevitable result.

Dear Stephan (aka: madprofessor), I don't know what sort of pulse response the DEQX has, but I have e-mailed an inquiry to the manufacturer. I will apprise you of any response.

Bye Y'all,
Don Reid

P.S. I hope the forum members have an appreciation of self deprecatory humor.

Tags:
0

Avatar

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by PeterSt. ⌂ @, Netherlands, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 03:16 (3681 days ago) @ Don Reid
edited by unknown, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 03:31

Oh dear ... This is an extraordinary thread ...
My contribution was in the area of 2c anyway, and I'm not sure I can add much to it. But in this special case I have this special urge ...

This morning, my response began with ... no response. Personally I found it too difficult to elaborate on things while
a. I don't know everything about it anyway;
b. I could harm feelings of any normal human being exploiting his newly bought device (especially when on this forum).

What you see happening in this thread, is that GC kind of exactly said what I wanted to say early this morning, I then added to that a tad of a-diplomacy, GC thought "what the h*ck, let's give it all as long as I did not say it myself", Don luckily being on the good side again, next GC acting as the sincere diplomat, Stephan being in the best middle of all, and then Bert ... well, Bert who did not want to give his genuin answers all day thought "maybe now ? " ...

So there you are Rooze, you bought a wrong device. :lol:.
But is that so ?

People on this forum generally agree, or if not are very polite and full with diplomacy (ok, I am the only one who should look in the dictionary for that). On the other hand, this all *is* about the best advices, right ?

So Rooze, I don't think you bought a wrong device. But for me it would be too complex to handle. Why ? well, because IMHO Bert is right ...
However, this is all about things being so complex that a 100 pages may be needed to spit it all out, and since today it would end with doubtful conclusions anyway, your miles may vary ...
I'll try to give one example :

Don, this post is connected to yours anyway, so this is for you. And because you did not buy your DEQX yesterday but long ago, and because you exploited it to your best in your situation (which probably just *is* best), together with that you are very capable of defending yourself which you did in advance, here is my reason in brief not to be able to use the DEQX :

First, please, have Bert's response in mind. Generally that applies to me, or maybe to me especially, thinking of my preciously cooked software player, its main goal being outputting Stephan's square waves since they are in the source anyway. So indeed, when they are there, we "need" to hear them;
The last thing we'd want (or I anyway) is that beautiful sines come from it, which will happen with any oversampling. Now :

The first thing which will happen with any DAC that can process more than 24 bits (actually 23 I think) is that squares will be oversampled into sines just because any such DAC ... well ... oversamples. It's just the nature of any DAC being capable of handling 32 bits (dive into sigma/delta if you like). So at this stage, all is destroyed.

Then in digital more things can go wrong than we can ever imagine, but with very much insight and experience we can avoid some (known) anomalies.
The DEQX does a wonderful job I think. That is, if you'd accept an additional A/D stage, and are the coincidental believer of it's D/A being better than whatever it is you had choosen before the DEQX came in. E.g. when my TwinDAC+ is my TwinDAC+, it is so because I choose it for a DAC that suits me. Now why would any random digital device, coincidentally *needing* a D/A stage be, be as good as my before choosen DAC ? Chances are virtually zero, but it could be ...
Of course I don't need to tell anyone that this is not solved by letting the DEQX output analoguely, put an ADC in there, so I can connect my precious DAC again. No ...
Of course this is the same topic as the previous, which ended with "all is destroyed", but now for another reason.

Since all is about the net result, I hear your echo Don : but you could connect it directly to a digital amp and gain there (btw, the Lyngdorf is one).
Well, in that case the problem becomes worse, because now the previous topic applies to my carefully choosen amp as well. And did we not just spent a year or so in search for "the" amplifier ? and weren't that just the digital beasts (though not exactly the digital amp you refer to) and did they not all fail to our (!) ears for one point or the other ? So again no ...

But you can gain on the digital input of the DEQX !! :grin:
Oh dear ... (yes, I started this post with this) ...
The DEQX - and this is one of the many pitfalls one can fall in - processes with the number of bits it's fed with. So now there's my preciously chosen CD player, but it outputs in 16 bits only. Oh boy ... So much for 32 bit float.
Now the damage is really done. :cool:

Ah, but this can be avoided by using analogue-in. Then it all works again !
Yeah, well, one could state that my dear DAC then can output the squares again, but it's not much useful, right ? the additional A/D stage needed then would also not do good to my sound. And in the end my squares have become sines again anyway ...


With this litte one page out of 100, I tried to give the example of one device which just won't get connected in my system. As I said, it still would be without conclusions. Why ? well, because it *still* could be so that for the net result the sound from it is better. Just because of all the good things that might come from it. So, net.
But mind you, the second 10 pages now just start. These pages would be about active vs. passive crossovers. About impedance influences and what would be better / more natural. And all the elements at the passive side that would destroy but ... and so on and so on.


So there you go Rooze. Another response that does not bring you much more than background data. What applies to the DEQX, not necessarily applies all to your Lyngdorf. But the main part does.
When you use a CD player, or software player you like very much, and that coincidentally outputs beautiful sines (coincidentally because you just never wondered :satisfied:), near all *my* reasons not to go such a route, have vanished. Or the other way around, when you listen to much to people in here (including me) and throw out the processor, what would be the need if you liked - and kept such a player anyway ?

In the very end it is about some insight. Insight so one can grasp a bit of knowledge here and there, and then decide for his own situation and best application. Audio is full of knowitalls, while at the same time I myself am very sure that we're just at the beginning of it all.

Peter

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by robmatthew @, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 05:11 (3681 days ago) @ PeterSt.

I really was not going to enter this, but I was an early adopter of the DEQX. I bought one of the first DEQX units to come into the US through Andre Perreault of E-Speakers. I have had three others since then including the latest fully loaded with both balanced and digital outputs. I have built and tested literally dozens of speakers over the last several years using the DEQX. I agree with Don Reid that there is a real learning curve, but once you know what you are doing, setting up speakers becomes almost automatic.

On the other hand, a poorly measured and corrected DEQX system can sound dull or just plain "wrong." You really do need to spend some time learning how to measure and correct your system or you can really make a mess.

Now,I never wanted the DEQX to work! I always wanted to believe that straight analogue and/or minimal processing would always be better. I really do not like complicated systems but they always seem to sound better, IMO.

With the DEQX you do not need to add A/D conversions. You feed it directly from the digital out of your CD transport, nor do you need to use the built-in DACs of the DEQX if you get the digital output version. I feed mine right into Monarchy Audio 24 bit DAC's. Of course, SACD and vinyl require A/D conversion but that is done at 24/96 so the sound is very good. BTW, I am certainly not an expert like some others here, but I think the value of the powerful SHARC processor is to handle the huge amount of computations necessary to correct phase, delay and amplitude response of a three way system. Also, there is plenty of power to handle future high bit rate inputs.

Finally, I have to say that my DEQX corrected systems always sound better than they do without the unit. That includes both my ORIS 150/Klipsch Belle/ Velodyne DD-18 system and my Supravox OB field coil system.

I am not in any way being negative about systems which are LC based. For years I used passive LC filters in front of my amps or built into the amps for their required frequency ranges. I can only say that in my setup and experience they do not sound as good as the DEQX unit that I use now. I have very good measurement equipment for FFT analyses which I use for traditional network development since I do think that one can waste a lot of time attepting to tune a system by ear. Much of that work could be accomplished in a relatively short time if one would measure first.

Please accept my comments as one person's experience, although I do agree with Don Reid.

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by Shanko @, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 08:48 (3681 days ago) @ robmatthew

I also agree with Don. I am right now in the process of buying a DEQX, having used one on demonstration for a week.

It is clear from my exposure to the unit so far that it is the answer for me, for now. I wouldn't be buying it if I didn't have a dealer here who knows the unit inside out and is happy to put in the time making it work properly and training me on the use of it.

It is one hell of a machine. There are major discoveries and serious fun to be had with it. And probably this is only the beginning. Dogmatic rejection of anything is likely to be as wrong in this pursuit as any other, but I would humbly suggest that closing your mind to this sort of cutting edge DSP is particularly risky. This is from someone who never would have expected to ever again spend significant money on a solid state digital anything..:cool:

David

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by GC, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 09:12 (3681 days ago) @ robmatthew
edited by GC, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 10:09

Dear all kind contributors...I'm not in Canada yet.:grin: And it looks to be pretty cold up there....Brrrrrr... and this could result in this: :idea: or this: :dntknw:

So the warmth I find in this thread makes me to get out of it due to Holiday is just starting..no I am banging my fist into the table, that I diplomatically can say that either way of means, approach of digi or analogue can create a *Piston* speaker. Period. It can.

It is not for me to say which of the approaches is the right way, and maybe I could even accept both having tried both, which I didn't, but only know that there are basic rules out there that sustain my Piston Preach.

If no 'Piston' is to be found in your speakers after any attempts done just to throw in drivers in any set-up...I believe it does not matter what **** we apply to distribute frequencies, equalize them, manipulate them in the time domaine, we caNot believe anyhow that the final result is really what was intended by the recording it self.

And the recouding itself, namely our source for playback, has certainly it's own problems to deal with, having all of us to believe this is real instruments we should listen to.

My point in all this is just to come to the speaker itself, the final audio device in the playback chain that delivers all what's behind it the sound you should trust and recognize as music.

So this was about "How shall I integrate my gear to my set-up of speakers so they would shine"(Rooze), wasn't it about that mainly?

Hency my contribution here. For my agenda I don't give a **** about how it's done, just it's done. If a DEQX is a way it's not for me to say. I know how the anologue world works and I'm blind for what digital manipulation can do to the sound except for what Peter points out at latest post. I heard that digital manipulation can make quite some (word not known) disasters to the sound. That's why I keep my fingers out of it. I dare not to do the trial as some of you really thinks does'nt matter because you made it work for you and maybe it does'nt matter?

Room correction from that camp I heard on several occassions. Huh..that gave me a headache after 10 minutes. Sorry it just did.

Have fun guys adding more to this topic. I can maybe only learn here...:grin:

GC :holiday:

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by unknown, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 11:51 (3681 days ago) @ Rooze

Well I suppose I should throw my hat in the ring, as I am using the Tact 2.2X to integrate my Hedlund horns (DX4s) with BD15s in 'reference' cabinets.

The Hedlunds give a presentation I really love, and I spent many happy months moving them round my room to try and optimise the sound. I eventually settled on near field listening.

The integration of the BD15s followed the same story, but this time there was much more to it, namely tuning of the passive crossover, speaker positioning, room interactions, BD15 to Hedlund interactions, phase interactions etc. God did I wish I had Bert here to work his magic:wink:

I had a system that was very good but did not excite me.

Then I tried the Tact 2.2X. I pushed the bass cabinets back into the corners to exploit room boundaries and spent a couple of weeks getting the sound perfected. At long last the system came alive. The bass is free of bloom and runs seamlessly into the Hedlund frequencies. Voices are locked centre stage and as realistic as I have ever heard on my system. Sound stage is big and the system now just plays music.

With the advent of XXHighend, the system has continued to reveal and exploit all of Peters iterative improvements. So even if square waves are turned into sines I still love it. I think I am one of those fortunate souls that has difficulty in detecting problems with phase, time alignment etc, but perhaps when my system plays music properly then these things are just right:grin:

I cant picture going back to the sound before the Tact, but I have an open mind about Nosdacs and will eventually try one.

For me, any system is about compromises. The Tact 2.2X brings far more to the party than it removes.:good:

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by GC, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 12:41 (3681 days ago) @ unknown
edited by GC, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 14:37

I think I am one of those fortunate
souls that has difficulty in detecting problems with phase, time alignment
etc, but perhaps when my system plays music properly then these things are
just right:grin:


Hi Chris

Congrats with your system bringing you so much joy. :ok:

If you don't think you are fortunate enough being granted a brain by God and leaving you alone not being able to detect timealignment and phase-disorder, then it would have been God ho did that to you.
We can all hear it. You too.

But maybe we caNot find words for eventual disorder in this respect, because the brain don't know what it is that is causing the disorder. It can only hear the disorder. And that is about somthing is wrong in my sound, lack of transperency, no details or too many of them, kick and harmony and so on....
We look for what's causing bad sound and many times we look in the wrong direction. I must buy a new and better amp, DAC, loudspeakers, cables oh boy whatever attempt to cure it. But my point is that almost anything can be forced to order if the ingredients of disorder is not related to s'h'i't drivers.

But say if you took 2 sets of exact similar speakers, one showing perfect timealignment and phase order and the other system just were tuned out to be disordered: You would hear that God gave you a brain that can detect it.

And after this you would know exactly which words to use when you detect disorder again.

How to cope with it I addressed in one of my first posts here.

GC :grin:

Allowe me to quote Duelund ideas about what a brain is:


The brain. (A most complicated part)
At first I most emphasise that we are human beings. We have
developed a language and an enormous capacity of memory. We can
remember. That capacity alone is what differentiates us from the
animals. But more important, the simple fact that we have survived the
harsh nature as animals, despite our as single individual very low
probability of surveillance, tells that we further must have developed
our sense of hearing. Remember that half the time of your existence is
in the dark and further in sleep.
When you listen, the brain sorts in the signals, building up an
understandable picture of the event, based on recognition of sound and
reflections built up from early childhood if it can. The result of this
selection is what you seem to hear.
Listening to reproduced sound and the recorded overtones and
reflections are mixed by distortion or disturbed in phase, the brain
can't detect them correctly and therefore they will be interpreted as
sound formed around the instruments, whereby the sound stage
becomes flat.
If the amount of low level information is lesser disturbed, then the
brain will detect it as filling the room between the artists, the walls and
the ceiling as reverberation and hopefully some of it as overtones
attached to the single instrument. You can now detect a room, but still
it is attached to the sound of the instruments, as if the artists turn their
back to you. The instruments become like reflected sounds supplied
with some sort of distortion, hard for the brain to interpret, why it puts
that on the instruments, and they at some notes sound a bit distorted.
GCB! Sometimes it helps turning the absolute phase.
First when all information are reproduced sufficiently correct, the
brain can do its job, to separate the instruments from the sounds from
the surroundings. Listen for the silence between the sound and its
echoes.
The needed information for a good perception is normally present in
many recordings, but can be very troublesome to dig out.
That production of discs and records vary so much in quality, is an
other story. But let us communicate to find good labels and discs, easy
for the brain to understand.
The brain tries to make sense in the tiny sound of noise and
wrongdoing, and will try to interpret them as parts of it all. If they
can't be translated as overtones or reverberation, what they often will
be, we'll hear them as distortion. So even if you think, you have a big
sound of reverberation, it doesn't mean that it is in order. To find out if
it is, you should listen for the silence between the primary sound (the
artist) and the secondary sound (the reverberation), clearly heard on
recording of classical music or recordings from a church.
A phenomenon, you further have to take in consideration, which the
brain can detect, is the absolute phase. It can be heard as distortion or
as an unsettled picture of sound.

continues in the next post

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by GC, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 12:42 (3681 days ago) @ GC

The quote continues:

This phasing must be correct, else you will not be able to judge the

correctness of the reproduced signal at all.
The absolute phase differs from disc to disc and can furthermore differ
in one take from instrument to instrument, believe it or not.
All needed by the recording should according to Richard Heyser be a
single clap of a pair of hands. In that clap all necessary information for
later improvements of the recording are present. As it is now, you are
the judge. There are no help to find anywhere, than in your brains
capacity to distinguish between over- and under-pressure. It would be
wonderful if someone could develop a device that could tell us this
absolute phase from the signal itself. It should be possible, as
transients have a tendency to generate a low frequency unbalance,
which could be used for that purpose.
Try to change the absolute phase, playing a recording made in a
church. If you can't hear the difference, something is very wrong
somewhere in your equipment.
This absolute phase has also to be correct, all the way from the main
outlet through cables and components to the loudspeakers.
This goes for power source, the one you can feel with your fingertips
on the cabinets, and equally important, cable direction must be correct.
Why? I don't know for sure.
A bet would be that it is a question of treatment of distortion slightly
different for the positive and negative half caused by net polar diodeeffect
between the crystals and the facts that high and low level aren’t
treated equally. To make it even more complicated the direction is
further dependent of the frequency the wire is carrying. When it is
used for digital transfer, you can’t be sure that the direction is the same
as for analogue transfer.
Should you be the owner of a single-end amplifier you even have an
absolute phasing between that and your loudspeaker to complicate it
all.
The brain, the near future, and some thoughts.
In this chapter I will try to give an explanation of how I think the brain
works with sound. It must be understood that our hearing is the latest
of our senses to be developed and that it is the most important one for
our surveillance, as it out of our 5 senses is the only one always turned
on. Even when you are unconscious it still works. You can’t react on
its information, but they will be stored no matter what.
Our nerve system has a reaction time at about one tenth of a second.
In this little time the brain interprets the information received, before
they are presented for your conscious mind.
From the information it somehow builds expectations of what to come,
to verify rhythm and melody in music or concentrate on speech,
whereby it suppresses disturbing sounds. It so to say reduces and sorts
in the amount of information received from the ear nerves to
concentrate on, what it expects to come – to listen for.
But there is also a short cut, always open for transients and some
unexpected silent sounds. These serve as a signal of danger, to zoom
into and especially listen for in the sounds treated by the brain. These
specific sounds serve in the same time as a trigger signal for

production of adrenaline - surely a reminiscence from our wild life.
The silent sounds are of great importance. Just remember, how scaring
tiny sounds in silence could be from childhood in the dark.
These silent sounds are even stranger - how can we distinguish them
from other more noisy sounds? Simply because they are not expected.
They are out of order so to say.
If you are a trained listener, you often feel these signals more than you
hear them, you get warm or irritated - the adrenaline productions is
raised. A fact you are not consciously aware of.
By use of these signals, the brain can, so to say, look into the future
(1/10 of a second or more) and simultaneously use them in the sort of
the sound received. It if necessary even can clear the working area
from which the conscious mind is fed, prepared with all capacity to
recognise the echoes of these trigger signatures. Some information is
thereby left untreated – masked - and so to say not heard. This is
strange but true. Further it can listen for these recognisable echoes
deep into the noise around us. (Up to -20 dB below the level of noise.
Experienced in space communication).
The brain does more than that. Based on music or sound received, it
somehow builds expectations for further development.
When in a piece of music, unknown to you, a wrong key is struck, or
your loudspeaker colours one tone, you react. Why? You know neither
the piece nor the specific instrument.
Should it be a Steinway grand, its resonant character doesn’t bother.
Modern music, where the development can be hard to predict, is of
most music lovers heard as noise.
A tone from a clarinet, sampled and used for the rest of a keyboard,
sounds wrong except from the sampled one - again how can we know?
I'm sure that our perception of sound is heavily based on predictions.
Are they right you feel good, and starts singing along. Are they too
often very wrong you get irritated.
Pianists, to get the music more tense, earlier used a playing technique
where the rhythm was changed just a little bit, called rubato. -
Disturbance of expectation.
Before we continue, I must emphasise, that sound happens in the run
of time - that you can't freeze it, as you can with a picture.
All that really matters, are the brain and its tremendous work in the
dimension of time, with that enormous amount of time-distorted
information.
I really get more and more impressed of its capacity. That our hearing
Never rests even if you are unconscious, and that it is the last of our
senses to be developed, tells the importance of that sense in particular.
It is well known that closing your eyes and open your mouth will
improve your hearing capacity - you look foolish but what ever.
Anything that helps you understand the event better, should be
judged as good no matter, what measurements say.
It is e.g.. well known, that distortion distributed in the right manner
makes sounds more realistic, than with no distortion. Does air distort?
Is that distortion part of our expectations?
It is also well known that a loudspeaker with linear frequency

response sounds wrong, compared to one with mild decaying level
towards the upper end.
But beware! There are traps of simplicity and emotional taste for the
brain within to rest.
To understand, what I mean, think on pictures, painted contra
photographs, or photos with low contra high resolution, graphics to
pictures with a myriad of grey tones. What do you prefer?
You should of course prefer that with a myriad of grey tones following
logic, and none of the others. But all the different ways of reproduction
can be used, for you to see the subject. The principal question remains,
if this analogy can be used for our hearing - which does the brain use?
I would guess the last two in combination. Graphics for instant
recognition and gradually within parts of a second adding more and
more detail much like a painting is started from raw sketch to the end
result. In this work many hear it as right that the reproduction is
marked with a multitude of resonance. Much the same as the intensity
of colour on the TV is chosen too high. No matter how pleasant it may
seem – it is wrong.
Our brain only needs few seconds of sound, to manipulate with the
signals building a kind of basic understanding of the sound received,
and expectations of, what to come. This ability creates by itself traps at
listening, as the brain will try to glamorise it all, it's an active part,
especially experienced with musicians, who as critical listeners often
are of no use.

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by unknown, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 13:42 (3681 days ago) @ GC

Thanks GC, very interesting article. It reinforces the fact that the best measure of any system is the extent to which we enjoy it.

This phrase sums it up for me.

"I'm sure that our perception of sound is heavily based on predictions.
Are they right you feel good, and starts singing along. Are they too
often very wrong you get irritated. " :drinks:

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by GC, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 14:18 (3681 days ago) @ unknown

"I'm sure that our perception of sound is heavily based on predictions.
Are they right you feel good, and starts singing along. Are they too
often very wrong you get irritated. " :drinks:


Or get totally drunk. Then a least it is predictable what happens :swoon:


Cheers Chris :drinks:

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by madprofessor ⌂, 27777 Ganderkesee, Germany, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 18:28 (3680 days ago) @ GC

Just another aspect about digital gear in general:
I think everybody agrees, that there are sonic differences between top-class solid state preamplifiers. Which means, that they are maybe very good, but still have faults, if you look for the absolute optimum. Electronically, there is not much about a preamplifier: Input switching, the äquivalent of two op-amps ( integrated, or discrete, maybe more if there is a balanced/unbalanced conversion) and volume control. Of course the case, connectors and power supply.
Good preamps cost easily above 10 k $ or €. Even if you cut off half the price for a shiny case and a well reputated "name" - a good preamplifier is expensive and even than does some alterations to the signal.
Now if You place some digital equipment in the signal path - it will, on the analouge side have more than two op-amps (input to A/D, I/V conversion and output) - alone that, will degrade the signal to some extent.
Than normally, these digital units are well below the mentioned 10 k of a preamp. So there will be a minor case, connectors and powersupply.
Even, if the digital side works absolutely flawless, there will be losses.
So I try to avoid those digital units in the signal path.
Of course in a special setup it can be an improvement, if the digital side is doing more advantage, than the analouge loss, it´s still a benefit.
So it depends very much on the specific set-up you have.
Best regards
Stephan

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by GC, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 21:54 (3680 days ago) @ madprofessor

Dear Stephan

There are losses all along the way. This is maybe not more than we can understand from a logical point of view as you put it.

May I just point at where the greatest loss is? The speakers and then the michrophone that tries to capture the soup of what takes place as it "sees" it. Mind also the sound masters that cope with setting up those MF.
What are they doing those microphones? What can check it? However it's out of our control. :shame:


It seems to me still that if we put effort enough into our analogue gear it is however what 'anomalities' within the digital domain that has the biggest impact on sound quality for the time being.

Believe me, if you choose the two favourit amps of yours a-b'ing against each other, you will find lesser differences here than just a simple comparation between two different players SW thrown into a Bil Gates OS.

At least this is my guess, no sorry my statement..until I get wiser at least. :grin:

GC

Tags:
0

Some questions about bass integration and XOs

by GC, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 22:44 (3680 days ago) @ GC
edited by GC, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 23:12

GC: Hello it's me
GC : Hi again pal

Seems I'm either skizo or just like to talk to myself?

Hm..but I just in way discovered important missing text in my post:

The weakest point is the speakers! DuNo it is!

Yes, but how is this? Logically we caNot detect what our gear or the beforesaid michrophones are doing. We can meassure it by other means, but that does not mean we can *hear* it. It's electrones (AC) in there deep under.
The same counts for internal data mess or harmony in the digital domain: We caNot hear it before it hits our ears through the loudspeakers.
Loudspeakers then becomes sort of a reference for understanding what is in the electronical world and what is in digitized world.

So only two places we hear anything (Except for singing cardriges and tubeamp trafoes):

1) Either to go to a concert and listen.

2) Or listen to your gear through the speakers *you* have.

And those speakers has to be rather truthfull, fidel, and very refined to make point 1) = point 2) - the listening room.

So where this topic started it in a way also ends, for me at least. The speakers are the only tools we should concern most about. If they caNot tell you what you heard in the concert hall (exclude our sources being non-perfect here)then those speakers are the main problem if we assume our gear and source pic-ups are rather OK.

This was my point from the beginning in this very interesting and most pleasent exchange of opinions. :heart:

GC

Tags:
0

Avatar

Topic closed...

by Bert @, Thursday, December 20, 2007, 23:16 (3680 days ago) @ Rooze

...it is too "interesting" to hide it under a topic where it does not belong.

Bert

--
BD-Design - Only the Best!

Tags:
0

RSS Feed of thread