Planar Speaker Asylum

Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.

Return to Planar Speaker Asylum

Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Any tips for integrating dual subs with Magnepan .7s?

173.52.72.66
Posted on September 19, 2016 at 04:42:45
zomax
Audiophile

Posts: 277
Location: NYC
Joined: May 5, 2006
 Picked up a matching second sub (Energy s.82) for cheap over the weekend. Right now I am running them from my Rogue Pharoah integrated amp's variable output (RCA). I haven't done extensive listening yet, but on the couple tracks I played I did not notice any lag between subs and the Maggies. However, I'm wondering if speaker level connections would be better. Any thoughts?

The crossover is not clearly defined, but it varies from 50 to 100Hz. I have it at app. 60Hz currently.

As for placement, I'm somewhat limited by power outlets and other room factors, so they are behind and somewhat outside each Maggie.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
also any suggestions for music with stereo low frequencies? /nt, posted on September 19, 2016 at 04:51:02
zomax
Audiophile

Posts: 277
Location: NYC
Joined: May 5, 2006
 nt

 

RE: Any tips for integrating dual subs with Magnepan .7s?, posted on September 19, 2016 at 08:16:16
BigguyinATL
Manufacturer

Posts: 3475
Joined: April 10, 2002
 I found with my MMG's that placing the subs on the side walls - more or less at the dipole "null" point helped with integration and allowed a higher crossover point. I actually can run my subs in stereo and mono in my set-up. When using my receiver's LFE I run them in Mono. When I bypass the receiver using my Oppo's analog or playing records they run in stereo.

Some recordings do have stereo information in the bass - I have some software that let's me see the stereo even with my high crossover point 85-90Hz I don't really notice on almost all material I listen to.

I do think it is important to use measurements to set the sub-levels correctly. Using tones or band limited pink noise and you ears is OK - it's just easier using a good unweighted sound level meter. Lucky, I have access to my employers B&K 2270 hand-held sound analyzer.

I have used Goldwave to create band limited pink noise and warble tone wav files..

"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius

 

Yes, get Jim Smith's book, posted on September 19, 2016 at 09:38:39
M3 lover
Audiophile

Posts: 6604
Location: SW Mich
Joined: May 29, 2005
Contributor
  Since: July 4, 2007
 "Get Better Sound" for answers to both your questions.

"The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing, if you can fake that you've got it made." Groucho

 

RE: also any suggestions for music with stereo low frequencies? /nt, posted on September 19, 2016 at 20:29:08
hahax@verizon.net
Audiophile

Posts: 4310
Location: New Jersey
Joined: March 22, 2006
 Depends on what you mean by low frequencies. At least the first two octaves are non-directional. Your ear can separate them but it's the directionality of the harmonics that gives you the clues.

 

RE: Any tips for integrating dual subs with Magnepan .7s?, posted on September 20, 2016 at 09:07:30
grantv
Manufacturer

Posts: 7729
Location: B.C.
Joined: January 15, 2002
 Try the subs on the side walls but ahead of the panels, closer to you. Also experiment with them being at slightly different distances, one perhaps 3' in front, the other maybe just 1'. This allows the subs to work on different nulls in the room.
Line level usually works best, but either should be fine (depends greatly on the subs in question, my REL subs for example recommend high level connections).
60Hz is probably a good point, experiment up and down from there though. Use a frequency sweep CD (plenty out there) and sound level meter (Radio Shack) to quicken up that process, then fine tune to your ears.
Power outlet limitation = extension cord. :)

 

RE:Viewing adjusting the Stereo content of a signal when mastering, posted on September 20, 2016 at 11:24:51
BigguyinATL
Manufacturer

Posts: 3475
Joined: April 10, 2002
 here is a good example - I use this tool when remastering my digital recorded albums. I notice that the stereo width can be offset as the anti-skating force is misaligned depending on the position of the needle in the record. Also it is fun to experiment with broadening the width a bit. When comparing a CD from master tape - versus a Record, My Denon 103D & Ortofon 2M Red (on my Grace 704/TD125 and Grado P mount Red (on my Technics SL10) all regularly have 10 or more dB less spread.

Some will argue a little separation is enough, but I am totally amazed at how different recordings are mastered in the this view - even more that in dynamics. (a typical CD and its vinyl pressing offer similar dynamics - generally poor.


"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius

 

Thanks everybody, posted on September 21, 2016 at 04:14:37
zomax
Audiophile

Posts: 277
Location: NYC
Joined: May 5, 2006
 I will try some of the positioning suggestions, though I only have one sidewall to play with since the other sidewall is a staircase.

 

RE:Viewing adjusting the Stereo content of a signal when mastering, posted on September 21, 2016 at 05:49:45
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
 Have you tried a cartridge known for better spatial performance like say a Denon 304? Or one of the later Technics 205C (mk 3 or 4) with OEM or Jeico SAS?

 

RE:Viewing adjusting the Stereo content of a signal when mastering, posted on September 21, 2016 at 09:49:26
BigguyinATL
Manufacturer

Posts: 3475
Joined: April 10, 2002
 I actually thing I got the best separation - though measured at a different time and place (though on the Grace Thorens) with my MicroAcoustics 530mp - but no my current stable of cartridges include the above and a Grado.

All of the cartridges do throw a nice spacial image for my on my modest sound system.

What is most interesting aspect is that when looking at the recorded signals there are magnitude variance in records and producers - looking at the vectorscope, a measureable difference in some CD's vs LP's is seen - the cartridge and turntable differences are modest.

It would be educational to make a recording on a current high end turntable.

I actually think you hit on a great idea... that a vectorscope analysis of a specific track and section (say a 10 second sample) would be and interesting way to assess difference in Cartridge, Arm, Table combinations.
"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius

 

RE:Viewing adjusting the Stereo content of a signal when mastering, posted on September 21, 2016 at 11:55:20
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
 Are you talking about L-R vs L+R scope pic? Put into some vector form?

How do CD and LP differ in this regard?

 

RE: Any tips for integrating dual subs with Magnepan .7s?, posted on September 21, 2016 at 17:06:54
russ69
Audiophile

Posts: 951
Joined: December 13, 2009
 What works best for me (and I have used a lot of different set-ups) is to have dual subs inside and further back than your panels. I also like driving them at speaker level running the panels full range. I'm assuming your panels are 4 or more feet from the front wall with about 6 feet being preferred.

 

RE:Viewing adjusting the Stereo content of a signal when mastering, posted on September 23, 2016 at 07:55:35
BigguyinATL
Manufacturer

Posts: 3475
Joined: April 10, 2002
 Watch the video or link here. But essentiially yes. http://help.izotope.com/docs/ozone/pages/meters_vectorscope.htm


on and AAD CD Analog Tape tracks, Analog Mixdown/Master the differences were noticeable on a couple different Album/Song combos'
SuperTramp CoC. "Rudy" for for example assessing the whole track showed a wider spread in the CD master than in the Phono - though the software allows to to break the imaging information down in frequency bands, too!

This is where you can look to see if there are differences (stereo) in the low frequencies of a signal - and in my case also look for balance differences.

When "Remastering" it frees you from relying on the producers' choices for the presentation.

I use OZONE and RX primarily to fix errors in the vinyl transfer, reduce noise in the recording, and restore dynamics.

The latter is a lot less intrusive (and more flexibile) than my old dbx 3BX expander


"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius

 

RE:Viewing adjusting the Stereo content of a signal when mastering, posted on September 23, 2016 at 13:29:16
Satie
Audiophile

Posts: 5426
Joined: July 6, 2002
 Does the dynamic editing produce the same kind of pumping artifacts the DBX units did?

The problem I have with the digital image steering or soundstage editing is that localization is largely a matter of transients on the order of 10s of microsecs (not millisec) and requires some resolution into the single microsec range to preserve. We localize these to within 0.5 degrees while we localize sine waves only to 5-15 degrees in the lateral arc. Those can be represented effectively at 24/96 with some loss of info. and more completely with 24/192. But only DSD and double DSD really capture the short transients entirely.

My experience is that imaging off LP retains all this short transient info so images and the soundstage differ widely from one recording to the next of the standard orchestral layout in different recording spaces, while they image in a rather tight range on CD and vary in only a relatively small way from one recording to the next. The LP and CD versions of the same orchestral recording also don't image in the same locations with the LP generally preserving more depth and lateral placement variance among instruments. Though I have only few recs to compare, since recordings that are duplicated on both CD and LP as I generally try to avoid duplication in my collection.

How would you address that in using the software? The equivalent rate for capturing the short transients with some resolution in PCM is double DXD..

 

I'd recommend 1st order for the dipoles, posted on September 23, 2016 at 17:25:23
Timbo in Oz
Audiophile

Posts: 23221
Location: Canberra - in the ACT - SE Australia
Joined: January 30, 2002
 3rd for the subs, if possible. 4th is usual for sub's LP filters.




Warmest

Tim Bailey

Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger


 

RE:Viewing adjusting the Stereo content of a signal when mastering, posted on September 28, 2016 at 06:29:21
BigguyinATL
Manufacturer

Posts: 3475
Joined: April 10, 2002
 "Does the dynamic editing produce the same kind of pumping artifacts the DBX units did?"

I used the 3BX because it did a fairly decent job by breaking the analog processing into three different frequency bands. With Ozone, you have a lot of control over four different user adjustable bands - and you can take a sample and immediately hear with and without. Of course, you can use settings that have unwanted effects, but, especially with impulses, the restoration of an extra 5-15dB of dynamics is much more realistic.

"The problem I have with the digital image steering or soundstage editing is that localization is largely a matter of transients on the order of 10s of microsecs (not millisec) and requires some resolution into the single microsec range to preserve. We localize these to within 0.5 degrees while we localize sine waves only to 5-15 degrees in the lateral arc. Those can be represented effectively at 24/96 with some loss of info. and more completely with 24/192. But only DSD and double DSD really capture the short transients entirely. "

I work in 24/96 most of the time. I'll upsample a CD to that setting and my vinyl recordings are made at 24/96 most of the time. Transients that are broadband are important, whether you can localized them to 5 or one degree is really a factor of a lot of things (System and Room response, first reflection echo level (low is good) and first reflection frequency deviation from initial arrival, for instance. As you state resolution for tones are less precise - mainly though because of the nature of signal of the tone - with an intermitant tone, as we find in music, having a sin(x)/x envelope so that the frequency content doesn't have the bandwidth to cover the mid frequency and high frequency wavelengths to excite phase (timing) and diffraction (frequency) based localization cues to the brain.

You are right - and this fact is often ignored by audiophiles - that the Spatial qualities vary dramatically from recording to recording - usually a result of the choices made by the producer/engineer. But the differences you notice in LP vs CD can be caused by a number of artifacts. Remember your brain is trying to reconstruct a form of reality from the "un-real" acoustic signals that make up the recording - as well as added artifacts caused by digital mastering (44.1kHz, dithering techniques) and your system and room responses.



"The hardest thing of all is to find a black cat in a dark room, especially if there is no cat" - Confucius

 

Page processed in 0.024 seconds.

[ Top Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]