Saga conclusion: 800D3 vs 802D3

[trponhunter]

to expand a bit further on my previous post - I believe you should do everything possible to address the room issues passively. DSP is not a solution for a bad sounding room. However once you have exhausted this, using good DSP or EQ can do things precisely and specifically that cannot be done passively. In a system where you feel the bass is excellent, the use of good dsp can show you how much better and more precise you can still get things. In a specific instance like having bass peaks, such as what it sounds like in regards to the 800D3's, proper eq can very quickly correct the problem, while allowing the superiority of the better speaker to remain, and actually enhancing the resolution of the speaker by not allowing the bass peaks to cloud over the midrange higher umping frequency. No sense throwing the baby out with the bath water just because of a bass peak. If you have not had a really good a to b comparison of proper dsp, then it is hard to explain what it can really do. Long gone are the days of "hearing" the dsp - it really is transparent today.

I know this is a bit off topic on this post - but it relates to the difference between a better speaker, with lower distortion levels, increased output, lower frequency extension and higher resolution. If there is a bass issue in the room with the speaker, I am only suggesting an alternative to handling the problem while maintaining the other advantages of the speakers.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by RebelMan

That's a misconception. Engineers do not design to a given room size they design to a budget and target response (measured and audible). Why? Because the variable is too great, who's room shall it be yours or mine? It's also why companies (like Bryston) spend big bucks on anechoic chambers. And when listening is done the room is typically static. It is suggested (by the manufacturer), however, that if the speakers give too little or too much bass that boundary positioning can aid in response. Perhaps you have never heard of (heard) the Magico Minis? In a large room they were outstanding! Likewise, a pair of large floor standing Sonus fabers (I don't recall the model) in a relatively small room with a seating position near field defied all logic.

The size of the speaker is only a consideration when the footprint is of concern. Some people just don't have the room for larger monitors but they still desire the performance of one (meaning full-range). The physics of this does come into play as you say, and therefore there are limits to what smaller monitors can do without further assistance from the likes of a subwoofer for instance.

Those speakers you mention are the exception, not the rule, but it still stands that a small speaker will not be able to provide the same spl at low frequencies, which can be problematic in a large room.

My point re room size has to do with boundary reinforcement. But no, there's no misconception on my part because some of my friends are speaker designers and they definitely factor in some boundary reinforcement.

Here's some further info on the subject.

https://www.acousticfields.com/speak...-vs-room-size/

And FYI, room analysis software....https://www.roomeqwizard.com/

[RebelMan]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

I think that two channel setups need EQ more than do multichannel systems. It's just that MCH fans are more amenable to it.

I see your point but the science of it leans the other way. With multi-channel systems more sound waves are generated but with less amplitude. As such DSPs are more effective at fooling the brain in the time domain. With two channel systems less sound waves are generated but with more amplitude. As such DSPs are less effective at fooling the brain in the frequency domain. The effects, therefore, are more noticeable with the latter but not commensurately more favorable. The purist signal is still the best signal.

[trponhunter]

Deleted

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by RebelMan

I see your point but the science of it leans the other way. With multi-channel systems more sound waves are generated but with less amplitude. As such DSPs are more effective at fooling the brain in the time domain. With two channel systems less sound waves are generated but with more amplitude. As such DSPs are less effective at fooling the brain in the frequency domain. The effects, therefore, are more noticeable with the latter but not commensurately more favorable. The purist signal is still the best signal.

That is only one dimension of the issue. Another is that the additional directional sources at multiple positions tend to mask room influence better than two and impose another acoustic on the presentation.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by trponhunter

Respectfully disagree - effectively can't be done. No way to get true lower 20hz extension at the listening position when the speakers are located in the best location in the room where they have the best imaging and midrange resolution and lack of bass bumps.

With my 800D2's I do get a flat response down to 20Hz at the listening position but there's a 38Hz room mode that needs notching - which I'm able to do using a convolver wav created from real measurements. Of course this only works for ripped files played from a media player such as JRiver or Foobar etc.

I don't disagree with what you're saying but I know many people who feel that a satellite system fails the purist approach because the only way to implement it correctly is to perform time correction with a DSP. And of course time correction is only valid for the small region around the listening position.

Inevitably it comes down to choosing the compromise that you're happiest to live with.

[RebelMan]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

That is only one dimension of the issue. Another is that the additional directional sources at multiple positions tend to mask room influence better than two and impose another acoustic on the presentation.

Indeed, but there is a fine line between masking and smearing. There is also the rate of decay. It will decrease when additional point sources are added as residual energy from the ordered harmonics linger.

[RebelMan]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

Those speakers you mention are the exception, not the rule, but it still stands that a small speaker will not be able to provide the same spl at low frequencies, which can be problematic in a large room.

My point re room size has to do with boundary reinforcement. But no, there's no misconception on my part because some of my friends are speaker designers and they definitely factor in some boundary reinforcement.

Not at all the exception. The design was simply unbound by budgetary restrictions. There are others and more affordable too.

Speakers both large and small have their challenges. The point you are overlooking is that the room does not dictate their performance nor should it. The room influences the results but that can be manipulated actively (other than DSP) and/or passively. Factoring in gains using boundary conditions would not be part of a good design as the trade off leads to distortion. My walls may have a different coefficient of absorption and reflection.

And FYI, room analysis software....https://www.roomeqwizard.com/

Already have it but prefer the use of another.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by RebelMan

Not at all the exception. The design was simply unbound by budgetary restrictions. There are others and more affordable too.

Speakers both large and small have their challenges. The point you are overlooking is that the room does not dictate their performance nor should it. The room influences the results but that can be manipulated actively (other than DSP) and/or passively. Factoring in gains using boundary conditions would not be part of a good design as the trade off leads to distortion. My walls may have a different coefficient of absorption and reflection.

Already have it but prefer the use of another.

I think you're expressing a view which is not necessarily mainstream. For reasons I've mentioned the consensus is that large speakers and small rooms don't go well together.

The comment below best represents the mainstream opinion on the subject.

Originally Posted by Robert Harley

Match the Speaker to the Room
The deeper the loudspeaker’s bass extension and the more bass output it produces, the larger the room needed to realize great bass performance. Lots of very low bass will overload a small room, making it almost impossible to get smooth response. This fundamental fact is played out countless times at hi-fi shows as exhibitors fight to get a large full-range loudspeaker to work in a hotel room. If you choose too much speaker for your room, you’ll wage an uphill battle in getting good-sounding bass.

http://www.theabsolutesound.com/arti...ass-tas-197-1/

[RebelMan]

Originally Posted by Art Vandelay

I think you're expressing a view which is not necessarily mainstream. For reasons I've mentioned the consensus is that large speakers and small rooms don't go well together.

The comment below best represents the mainstream opinion on the subject.



http://www.theabsolutesound.com/arti...ass-tas-197-1/

I see how that may be but as you may know Einstein's views were not mainstream either.

I do not disagree with your position that speaker size should match/suit room size, in fact I support it but for very different reasons.

I don't deny that larger speakers have greater capacity to produce lower frequencies, that's their advantage over smaller ones. I also agree that they typically exhibit a more sensitive load and can generate a higher SPL. Where we diverge is on the equalities. If a small speaker and a large speaker of similar design and construction were driven to the same (reasonable) SPL where the union of each frequency response was flat, the results would be virtually indistinguishable. At the extreme lower end of the range this obviously would not hold true and is why a closer look at the room (construction, shape, contents) and its influences come into play.

As for RH's comments, there are assumptions to them. The kind of room, the kind of speaker the kind of system are assumed to be similar. As we all know there are variations to all of these but as a general rule of thumb he is correct. But if we follow the "mainstream" , as you put it, then we will never realize what is truly possible. The hotel rooms, in HR's example, are used as is and that can be a problem as he states. But I can tell you this with absolute certainty, a pair of 800D3 in Joey's room would sound spectacular. I know this because my room is similar in size and volume. I know this because I had a pair of 800's. I know this because I have done it! But as I stated, for him to realize the full potential he would need to look at the two big players. His first step getting there would have been to remove that carpet that kills low bass performance. Can you hear me now?