My quest to conquer the SSP-800 Room EQ

[AV-OCD]

The choice of EQ filter type does not limt the ability to use averaging in the measurement process. For example, REW allows multiple measurements and averaging/weighting, from which the PEQ bands can be adjusted. However, it is true that REW does not use the same averaging method as Audyssey.

Hound -

How do you assign weighting when averaging in REW?

- Tim

[Srrndhound]

Hound -

How do you assign weighting when averaging in REW?

- Tim

I found this information in Post 2 at http://www.hometheatershack.com/foru...averaging.html

>>You can certainly use the Trace Offset adjustment to any of the responses, so that it changes the average. Remember to lock in the change with the Add offset to Data feature or the change won't affect the average.<<

Also see post #19 in the same thread for further info.

[AV-OCD]

Too funny. That's my thread over on HT Shack. :E

Small world.

My two forum names are hifisponge and AV-OCD.

[AV-OCD]

A simple way to get started with the SSP-800 EQ

OK, I dug up an old worksheet for plotting bass response that should let those of you curious about putting the EQ in the SSP-800 to use a chance to do it.

This is a relatively simple way to EQ the sub channel only.

First you will need to download these test tones.

http://www.realtraps.com/test-cd.zip

Then burn them to a cd or your iPod.

Each of the tracks include 9 tones that rise in frequency. For instance the first track goes from 10Hz to 19Hz. The second track from 20Hz to 29Hz and so on. Each tone is 10 seconds long, so to play a 22Hz tone you would go to the 20 second mark on the second track. Knowing this will come in handy when completing the worksheet since you won't be measuring every tone.

Measure the tones specified on the worksheet that you can download below. Use a Radio Shack SPL meter set to C weighting and slow response. The SPL meter has known deviations from flat response, so the worksheet has correction values built in.

http://www.mediafire.com/?nxmwt0ndlmq

The worksheet above has been completed with the work I did on my sub earlier tonight. It should give you some idea of what to expect and how the filters I chose helped correct the response. The biggest improvement made came from knocking down the big peak at 31Hz by a whopping 9dB. The other filters are fine tuning that you could probably choose not to do and still come out ahead.

To give you an example of my rationale for setting the filters, I'll use the filter I set for 31Hz.

I set the filter for -9 gain, a Q of 3 and a center frequency of 31Hz.

I chose the center frequency based on the peak in the graph in the worksheet. The -9 gain setting is based on the height of the peak relative to the level of response the surrounding the peak. A Q value of 3 at 31Hz has a width of 10Hz. So the filter will span the range of 26Hz to 36Hz. You'll see that these are the approximate frequencies at the base of the peak. Refer to the table below to help you chose the right Q value.

http://www.mediafire.com/?imhyjmiiw4m

Keep in mind that if you make any big cuts to the response, you may have to increase the overall level of the sub a bit to get the bass to sound strong enough. Listen to a wide selection of songs with good bass and adjust the sub level by ear until it sounds right. You may also want to increase or reduce the gain of the filters you've set to make it subjectively sound more even.

Let me know if you have any questions, or if you need any help setting filters.

- Tim

[Srrndhound]

Too funny. That's my thread over on HT Shack. :E

Small world.

My two forum names are hifisponge and AV-OCD.

Oh, so you were just checking to see if I was blowing smoke...


The subwoofer tuning method you describe is similar to Infinity's RABOS method. They facilitate it online, and can average three readings to determine the best EQ setting.

http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/technology/rabos.aspx?test=1&Language=ENG&Country=US&Region=USA

[AV-OCD]

Oh, so you were just checking to see if I was blowing smoke...


The subwoofer tuning method you describe is similar to Infinity's RABOS method. They facilitate it online, and can average three readings to determine the best EQ setting.

http://www.infinitysystems.com/home/...=US&Region=USA

No, no, I just wasn't completely confident that I understood brucek's answer. Trying to cross-reference your info with his. Bruce is rather short in his answers, so there is some interpretation involved.

[AV-OCD]

alebonau -

Good to see you over here. I remember you from the various Focal threads.

Hope your system is still treating you well.

- Tim

[alebonau]

alebonau -

Good to see you over here. I remember you from the various Focal threads.

Hope your system is still treating you well.

- Tim

Absolutely loving it Tim. added the sr1000be as side surrounds recently which are just divine. I remember you too as hifi-sponge over on avs been following your speaker upgrades of and on, looks like come together nicely :T

[Kal Rubinson]

OK, I dug up an old worksheet for plotting bass response that should let those of you curious about putting the EQ in the SSP-800 to use a chance to do it.

This is a relatively simple way to EQ the sub channel only. .................................................. .................................................. .................
.................................................. ..............................
Let me know if you have any questions, or if you need any help setting filters.

- Tim

This is a perfectly valid approach to setting filters for frequency/magnitude but it does not address room modes. If one uses tools like REW or XTZ, they will suggest filters for the time domain as well.

Kal

[Srrndhound]

This is a perfectly valid approach to setting filters for frequency/magnitude but it does not address room modes. If one uses tools like REW or XTZ, they will suggest filters for the time domain as well.

Kal

If the room mode is what causes the bass peak one measures, then EQ's out, how is it not addressing the room mode?

[AV-OCD]

This is a perfectly valid approach to setting filters for frequency/magnitude but it does not address room modes. If one uses tools like REW or XTZ, they will suggest filters for the time domain as well.

Kal

At least in my system, I've never seen a room resonance that didn't cause a peak in the FR, so I think you will end up addressing the time domain issues by addressing the FR peaks, especially the strongest one.

[AV-OCD]

This is a perfectly valid approach to setting filters for frequency/magnitude but it does not address room modes. If one uses tools like REW or XTZ, they will suggest filters for the time domain as well.

Kal

I have to admit, now that you mention it, I think an unseen issue with extended decay may explain one thing I encountered when setting the filters based on the worksheet. There is a slight dip in the response at roughly 63Hz in my room at my listening position, so I applied a +3dB filter at 63Hz. Yet when playing music, this small boost made the bass sound thumpy and out of balance, despite the the graph looking smoother because of it. I later removed the boost.

I know that I have a room resonance at 31Hz, and since 63Hz is almost an octave higher, there is a good chance that there is a resonance there too. By applying a boost at 63Hz I was feeding more energy into this room mode and making maters worse.

Does this sound plausible?

[Kal Rubinson]

If the room mode is what causes the bass peak one measures, then EQ's out, how is it not addressing the room mode?

No. If you reduce the magnitude of the peak you have not changed the decay time which, in the case of room modes, is longer than for other frequencies. Part of the problem is that, if you measure only magnitude, you do not have a way to distinguish simple amplitude variation from room effects.

Kal

[Kal Rubinson]

I have to admit, now that you mention it, I think an unseen issue with extended decay may explain one thing I encountered when setting the filters based on the worksheet. There is a slight dip in the response at roughly 63Hz in my room at my listening position, so I applied a +3dB filter at 63Hz. Yet when playing music, this small boost made the bass sound thumpy and out of balance, despite the the graph looking smoother because of it. I later removed the boost.

I know that I have a room resonance at 31Hz, and since 63Hz is almost an octave higher, there is a good chance that there is a resonance there too. By applying a boost at 63Hz I was feeding more energy into this room mode and making maters worse.

Does this sound plausible?

Very possibly. Another issue is that you need to measure at more than one location since the effect of modes varies greatly even with small changes in listening position.

See my review of the subPARC. It is a nice PEQ but I set its filters to correct the major room modes, rather than simply to flatten the FR. The latter was a byproduct.

Kal

[AV-OCD]

No. If you reduce the magnitude of the peak you have not changed the decay time which, in the case of room modes, is longer than for other frequencies. Part of the problem is that, if you measure only magnitude, you do not have a way to distinguish simple amplitude variation from room effects.

Kal

So how do you affect the decay? More of a notch filter?

[Kal Rubinson]

So how do you affect the decay? More of a notch filter?

Nope. You choose a filter with the same decay characteristic or as close as possible.

[Srrndhound]

Nope. You choose a filter with the same decay characteristic or as close as possible.

What kind of EQ filter has a decay characteristic? Are you referring to the 2nd-order filters Meridian uses in their room mode EQ system?

See my review of the subPARC. It is a nice PEQ but I set its filters to correct the major room modes, rather than simply to flatten the FR. The latter was a byproduct.

So...now you're saying it is in fact OK to use PEQ to address room modes. So maybe your point is not about the filter, but rather how one decides where and how much to apply?

[Srrndhound]

No. If you reduce the magnitude of the peak you have not changed the decay time which, in the case of room modes, is longer than for other frequencies. Part of the problem is that, if you measure only magnitude, you do not have a way to distinguish simple amplitude variation from room effects.

Kal

Harman will be disappointed to learn that their RABOS system does not address room modes, which they claim it does.

[AV-OCD]

Nope. You choose a filter with the same decay characteristic or as close as possible.

You lost me on that one. A filter with a decay characteristic? With PEQ, as far as I know you can set the gain and width, but not the decay.

[Gump]

Well, this little exchange has pretty much sealed the deal on me even attempting this mission. Looks like I'll be chunking out some coin to have this done professionally.... 8O

[beden1]

Well, this little exchange has pretty much sealed the deal on me even attempting this mission. Looks like I'll be chunking out some coin to have this done professionally.... 8O

You and me both! :B

[AV-OCD]

Gump & Benden1 -

You guys should at least try the bass eq procedure in post #49. As long as you only cut the peaks in the response, there is little chance that you would make matters worse, and you can always turn the EQ off if you don't like it. I can help you set your filters if you complete the worksheet and send it to me.

- Tim

[Kal Rubinson]

What kind of EQ filter has a decay characteristic? Are you referring to the 2nd-order filters Meridian uses in their room mode EQ system?

All filters have time characteristics; they are generally unavoidable. As with Meridian, choosing the filter with the complementary time characteristics as the mode being attacked is a way of using it to advantage.

So...now you're saying it is in fact OK to use PEQ to address room modes. So maybe your point is not about the filter, but rather how one decides where and how much to apply?

PEQs are not ideal but they are usable. They are limited in their number and variables compared to DSP filtering. Thus, what a professional can do with a PEQ is, similarly, limited although it will may be effective and useful.

Kal

[Srrndhound]

Kal,

Thanks for the clarification.

If one uses tools like REW or XTZ, they will suggest filters for the time domain as well.

Could you give more detail on how these programs suggest the filter parameters that ought to be applied? In your PARC article I thought XTZ defined frequency/Q/notch depth. Does it offer further filter parameters besides these?

[Gump]

Gump & Benden1 -

You guys should at least try the bass eq procedure in post #49. As long as you only cut the peaks in the response, there is little chance that you would make matters worse, and you can always turn the EQ off if you don't like it. I can help you set your filters if you complete the worksheet and send it to me.

- Tim

Tim,

Your posts are extremely informative and I really enjoy reading them and attempting to grasp a kernel or two of information that my technologically challenged ego can pretend to understand. It is very, VERY nice of you to take the time and trouble to try and help those of us less knowledgeable or experienced with the EQ tuning process.

I didn't want your efforts to go unrecognized, so thank you.

My room is untreated other than a fairly thick carpet and some heavy curtains on one side wall. As far as acoustically treating the room goes, to me the cheaper audio room treatments look, well, cheap! And, after the coin I just spent on the SSP-800, I don't expect a green light any time soon from you know who to agree with any large expenditures on more sophisticated room treatment options ala "Acoustic Cloud".

So, there's no doubt in my mind that my REL sub could use some EQ treatment to fine tune the bass response. Although my system sounds spectacular overall, some cd's/songs have a boominess to them that is obviously inaccurate. Others sound great.

In the quest for accuracy, I'm sure it's worthwhile to have the sub/room tuned properly via the PEQ. However, it always fascinates me that there is such a huge disparity in sound (especially bass) with different recordings and how they are produced.

I'm expecting a radioshack SPL meter in my Christmas stocking in a few weeks, so I'm sure I'll get the itch to try and tinker with the 800's EQ at that time. Between now and then I'll try to get a little better educated about the process. I'll also be following your thread closely and with interest.

Once again thanks for trying to help the rest of us out. It is appreciated.

Neil

[Kal Rubinson]

Kal,

Thanks for the clarification.

Could you give more detail on how these programs suggest the filter parameters that ought to be applied? In your PARC article I thought XTZ defined frequency/Q/notch depth. Does it offer further filter parameters besides these?

No but these will define the filter characteristics, including the order and configuration, to a great degree. If you run XTZ or REW, you will note that the suggested filters are not exactly those you would calculate looking only at the frequency/magnitude plots.

Kal

[AV-OCD]

Gump -

No problem on the offer to help. I really think that you can work towards EQing your sub channel with the worksheet I provided and a little back and forth in this thread.

So if you don't have an SPL meter currently, how did you set the channel levels in your 800?

- Tim

[Srrndhound]

...there's no doubt in my mind that my REL sub could use some EQ treatment to fine tune the bass response. Although my system sounds spectacular overall, some cd's/songs have a boominess to them that is obviously inaccurate. Others sound great.

In the quest for accuracy, I'm sure it's worthwhile to have the sub/room tuned properly via the PEQ. However, it always fascinates me that there is such a huge disparity in sound (especially bass) with different recordings and how they are produced.

I fully expect that once you EQ your sub, you will find improved uniformity across these CDs. Some of them may have content that excites the room modes more than the others, so removing these resonances will be noticeable not just within the context of the given CD being played, but how much better the system behaves with a wide range of content. Some of the need for "music vs movie" bass settings will also diminish. Maybe totally.

[sikoniko]

OK, I dug up an old worksheet for plotting bass response that should let those of you curious about putting the EQ in the SSP-800 to use a chance to do it.

This is a relatively simple way to EQ the sub channel only.

First you will need to download these test tones.

http://www.realtraps.com/test-cd.zip

Then burn them to a cd or your iPod.

Each of the tracks include 9 tones that rise in frequency. For instance the first track goes from 10Hz to 19Hz. The second track from 20Hz to 29Hz and so on. Each tone is 10 seconds long, so to play a 22Hz tone you would go to the 20 second mark on the second track. Knowing this will come in handy when completing the worksheet since you won't be measuring every tone.

Measure the tones specified on the worksheet that you can download below. Use a Radio Shack SPL meter set to C weighting and slow response. The SPL meter has known deviations from flat response, so the worksheet has correction values built in.

http://www.mediafire.com/?nxmwt0ndlmq

The worksheet above has been completed with the work I did on my sub earlier tonight. It should give you some idea of what to expect and how the filters I chose helped correct the response. The biggest improvement made came from knocking down the big peak at 31Hz by a whopping 9dB. The other filters are fine tuning that you could probably choose not to do and still come out ahead.

To give you an example of my rationale for setting the filters, I'll use the filter I set for 31Hz.

I set the filter for -9 gain, a Q of 3 and a center frequency of 31Hz.

I chose the center frequency based on the peak in the graph in the worksheet. The -9 gain setting is based on the height of the peak relative to the level of response the surrounding the peak. A Q value of 3 at 31Hz has a width of 10Hz. So the filter will span the range of 26Hz to 36Hz. You'll see that these are the approximate frequencies at the base of the peak. Refer to the table below to help you chose the right Q value.

http://www.mediafire.com/?imhyjmiiw4m

Keep in mind that if you make any big cuts to the response, you may have to increase the overall level of the sub a bit to get the bass to sound strong enough. Listen to a wide selection of songs with good bass and adjust the sub level by ear until it sounds right. You may also want to increase or reduce the gain of the filters you've set to make it subjectively sound more even.

Let me know if you have any questions, or if you need any help setting filters.

- Tim

I'll bite, but I'd like more information before I start.

1. What should the volume be on the SSP-800?
2. Do you gather the measurements from the same location you use a RS meter to calibrate the levels?
3. On your worksheet, what does RAW SPL and SPL (comp) mean?
4. Which fields to we populate? RAW or (comp)?
5. I'm assuming the filters are on the SUB channel? Does this change if you have 2 subs on one channel with a 'Y' Cable?
6. The filter section, is that your worksheet that you made the adjustments on prior to re-running the test above (in the orange section)?
7. If I want to "measure" my room, and use treatments first, how do I interpret this data on where to place treatments prior to messing with the EQ?

[sikoniko]

btw,

One of our 3 SoundAdvices closed their doors yesterday. I picked up 13 2x6ft panels to treat the room for $400 (they said they are normally $400 per panel, so I think I got a deal). I have 4 left and was wondering if it would be worthwhile to treat the ceiling and make my own "cloud" with them? The colors don't match the room (they are blue and my room is brown), and my wife is upset about that, so they will need to be re-uphosltered first, but if its worthwhile, I'd like to do it.

Since my front wall and back wall are the only 2 full walls (the sides have openings), I used 4 on each wall. It made a significant difference in taming the harshness.

[beden1]

btw,

Since my front wall and back wall are the only 2 full walls (the sides have openings), I used 4 on each wall. It made a significant difference in taming the harshness.

I'm wondering what is causing the "harshness" you are hearing?

I didn't know that wall treatments could help this issue? In the beginning stages of building my system with the 703s as my L/R fronts and an HTM1 center, I had what would be considered a harsh sound in the highs. I found that my receiver was the main culprit.

Adding a Classe amp for outboard power, and then replacing my CD player really cleared up most of this issue. Finally, adding a Classe pre-amp cleaned up any residuals, and replacing the fronts with 803Ds was the icing on the cake.

What I have to deal with now is trying to tame some reverb in my room, but other than that, the overall sound is smooth and sweet.

Your room and system already seems to be balanced, so I'm wondering what else may be the primary culprit?

[sikoniko]

I'm wondering what is causing the "harshness" you are hearing?

I didn't know that wall treatments could help this issue? In the beginning stages of building my system with the 703s as my L/R fronts and an HTM1 center, I had what would be considered a harsh sound in the highs. I found that my receiver was the main culprit.

Adding a Classe amp for outboard power, and then replacing my CD player really cleared up most of this issue. Finally, adding a Classe pre-amp cleaned up any residuals, and replacing the fronts with 803Ds was the icing on the cake.

What I have to deal with now is trying to tame some reverb in my room, but other than that, the overall sound is smooth and sweet.

Your room and system already seems to be balanced, so I'm wondering what else may be the primary culprit?

perhaps harshness is not the appropriate word?

I had a friend over who works at a local A/V store. his comment prior to the treatment was that he is hearing reflections in the room. after he pointed it out, and told me what to listen for, I agreed with him. After putting the treatment up, I noticed that the sound is more smooth and focused. It may seem unbelieveable to some... but it really sounded like my system got a significant upgrade (equal to spending say $5000 or more on equipment, if I were to quantify it).

My goals are to treat first. I wish to do as little manipulation to the signal as possible, and only as a last effort to overcome the obstacles in my room that can't be resolved any other way. Now that I have carpetted my room, I feel like the next logical step is treatment.

Its kind of unfortunate, but I passed up 10 ASC tube traps. I referred my friend to them and he got them for $350 out the door (yes, all 10!). I just don't have the room for 16in tubes in my room.

[Srrndhound]

Part of the problem is that, if you measure only magnitude, you do not have a way to distinguish simple amplitude variation from room effects.

What are the causes of simple amplitude variations that are not a result of room effects?

[wettou]

After putting the treatment up, I noticed that the sound is more smooth and focused. It may seem unbelieveable to some... but it really sounded like my system got a significant upgrade (equal to spending say $5000 or more on equipment, if I were to quantify it). My goals are to treat first. I wish to do as little manipulation to the signal as possible, and only as a last effort to overcome the obstacles in my room that can't be resolved any other way.

Yes, Yes, Yes, Treating the room first will be the best sound improvment ever rather than buyin $5000 cables

If you want to take it a step further check this out: http://www.rivesaudio.com/services/servframe1.html

and check out some of the rooms:http://www.rivesaudio.com/examples/frame.html

www.rivesaudio.com/files/spkr_plcmt.pdf

[AV-OCD]

I'll bite, but I'd like more information before I start.

1. What should the volume be on the SSP-800?
2. Do you gather the measurements from the same location you use a RS meter to calibrate the levels?
3. On your worksheet, what does RAW SPL and SPL (comp) mean?
4. Which fields to we populate? RAW or (comp)?
5. I'm assuming the filters are on the SUB channel? Does this change if you have 2 subs on one channel with a 'Y' Cable?
6. The filter section, is that your worksheet that you made the adjustments on prior to re-running the test above (in the orange section)?
7. If I want to "measure" my room, and use treatments first, how do I interpret this data on where to place treatments prior to messing with the EQ?

1. I'd start at around -20, but the goal is to set it so that all of the tones fall within the range of the graph. So as you measure the tones, if you notice that a group of them start to exceed the graph limit, adjust the volume down to bring them in range.
2. Take them at ear level at the primary listening position. Idealy, we should be taking several measurements in a small radius around the main seat and averaging them, but lets keep it simple for now and just stick with one.
3. RAW is the measurement reading you enter. The comp is a figure that compensates for the inaccuracies in the SPL meter. So even though you may measure just 75dB at 20Hz, the actual SPL will be around 83dB.
4. RAW only.
5. Yes, the filters you set will be on the sub channel only, and no the filters don't change because you have two subs on the same output. Idealy you should have each sub on their own channel and EQ them separately, unless the subs are stacked in the same spot. Having two subs complicates things because the two interact with one another. But again, for now, lets keep it simple and treat them like one.
6. Correct. After recording the measurements in the light green section, I reviewed the blue line on the graph for peaks. I set the filter center point, gain, and width based on the blue graph trace. After my filters were set and engaged, I recorded the test tones again which gave me the new values that I placed in the orange section. This data gave me the magenta line on the graph.
7. Hate to break it to ya, but unless you plan to install 5-10 foot deep bass traps, all of the readily available bass traps have little to no effect in the 80Hz to 20Hz range. For instance, a 30Hz tone (where my primary resonance is in my room) has a wavelength of 37 feet. To absorb even a 1/4 of that the bass trap would have to be roughly 9 feet deep. But to answer your question, you would measure the untreated room first and based on the results you would apply treatment to the room to address specific issues and possibly some broadband treatments to reduce the reverb time in the room. I can't advise you where to place the treatments. Though there are several givens, like treating the first reflection point and one of the end walls with absorptive panels and the other end with diffractive panels or nothing at all. Outside of that, you'll need to do a lot of studying on small room acoustics or hire a pro.

Cheers,

- Tim

[Kal Rubinson]

What are the causes of simple amplitude variations that are not a result of room effects?

Well, perhaps I should be more specific by saying that room effects are one source of an amplitude variation. So, we can distinguish between a reflection from a proximate boundary such as a sub near a floor and/or wall which encumbers no significant change in the time domain from the interactions of reflections due to other more distant boundaries which do. The former will simply increase magnitude of in-room output while the latter will result in long-term peaks and nulls.

[AV-OCD]

btw,

One of our 3 SoundAdvices closed their doors yesterday. I picked up 13 2x6ft panels to treat the room for $400 (they said they are normally $400 per panel, so I think I got a deal). I have 4 left and was wondering if it would be worthwhile to treat the ceiling and make my own "cloud" with them? The colors don't match the room (they are blue and my room is brown), and my wife is upset about that, so they will need to be re-uphosltered first, but if its worthwhile, I'd like to do it.

Since my front wall and back wall are the only 2 full walls (the sides have openings), I used 4 on each wall. It made a significant difference in taming the harshness.

I'm no expert, but you can overtreat a room. You want some reflections to achieve a spacious sound. You may even want to remove the panels from one end of your room. You typically don't want both ends to be absorptive. Look up "live end, dead end room treatment". My feeling is that treating the ceiling would be overkill if you have a carpeted floor. I treated my ceiling because I could not do the side walls.

[sikoniko]

I'm no expert, but you can overtreat a room. You want some reflections to achieve a spacious sound. You may even want to remove the panels from one end of your room. You typically don't want both ends to be absorptive. Look up "live end, dead end room treatment". My feeling is that treating the ceiling would be overkill if you have a carpeted floor. I treated my ceiling because I could not do the side walls.

putting panels behind the screen was an attempt to remove comb filtering caused by the dead spaced between the pulldown screen and the wall.

Im aware of absorption in the front, refraction in the rear. I hesitate to treat the ceiling, because I'm told vertically there is a 10 to 15 degree dispersion from the speaker, which would be somewhere on my back wall. Traditionally, refraction panels would go on the ceiling, but since my ceiling is only 8ft, I'm concerned about that as well.

I'm fairly confident I haven't over-treated. I'm going to upload these .mp3's into the sonos and run through the tests.

on a side note, its interesting how you noted -20 on the volume dial. I tend to use the other option. I'm guessing that would read 55 on my dial, since the system is calibrated at 75db.

[AV-OCD]

Niko -

I forgot to mention, you will likely have to adjust the dial on the SPL meter to capture all of the tones. I had to set the dial at 70 for the lowest bass, 80 for most of the range, and as high as 90 to capture the peak at 30Hz.

Good luck!

- Tim

[beden1]

5. Yes, the filters you set will be on the sub channel only, and no the filters don't change because you have two subs on the same output. Idealy you should have each sub on their own channel and EQ them separately, unless the subs are stacked in the same spot. Having two subs complicates things because the two interact with one another. But again, for now, lets keep it simple and treat them like one.

- Tim

You mention having subs on independent channels as a benefit? I'm not sure I follow this logic...can bass be in stereo, or is it non-directional?

I ask because in my setup, I have one SC-1250 amp driving two SC-15 sub woofers. The power in driving both subs seems very adequate. Since the SSP-800 has more than one sub/LFE in-put, would there be an additional benefit by adding another amp for the second sub woofer (each amp would then calibrate each sub woofer independently as opposed to considering both together)? Does the SSP-800 actually separate these LFE in-puts in stereo/multi-channel?

[sikoniko]

ok, here ya go...

010-019 57-69
020-029 69-79
030-039 75-83
040-049 83-86
050-059 86-90
060-069 76-90
070-079 64-67
080-089 67-82
090-099 66-83
100-109 68-82
110-119 82-84
120-129 63-82
130-139 71-79
140-149 78-85
150-159 83-85
160-169 82-83
170-179 82
180-189 67-82
190-199 65-82
200-209 79-83
210-219 71-78
220-229 56-77
230-239 67-77
240-249 58-77
250-259 78-83
260-269 83-87
270-279 82-87
280-289 84-86
290-300 86-89

only on one occasion did the number stay the same the whole time. I recorded the high number and the low number. not sure how to plug this in, as it looks like your chart doesn't have the full frequency range.

I hope I never have to hear those tones above 200Hz again. my ears hurt.

[sikoniko]

You mention having subs on independent channels as a benefit? I'm not sure I follow this logic...can bass be in stereo, or is it non-directional?

I ask because in my setup, I have one SC-1250 amp driving two SC-15 sub woofers. The power in driving both subs seems very adequate. Since the SSP-800 has more than one sub/LFE in-put, would there be an additional benefit by adding another amp for the second sub woofer (each amp would then calibrate each sub woofer independently as opposed to considering both together)? Does the SSP-800 actually separate these LFE in-puts in stereo/multi-channel?

you can use the AUX ports for multiple subs. either mono or stereo... when they fix the bug anyways.

[beden1]

you can use the AUX ports for multiple subs. either mono or stereo... when they fix the bug anyways.

When they fix the bug? Is there a problem with the SSP-800 LFE output as in the LFE bug that many other pre-pros/receivers have/had?

[sikoniko]

When they fix the bug? Is there a problem with the SSP-800 LFE output as in the LFE bug that many other pre-pros/receivers have/had?

no.. as in using the aux ports assigned as subs is not currently working.

[garak]

When they fix the bug? Is there a problem with the SSP-800 LFE output as in the LFE bug that many other pre-pros/receivers have/had?

The problem occurs when you try to configure the AUX channels as 2nd and 3rd subs. When configured as such, no sound comes out of the AUX channels.

However, the primary Sub channel works fine in all configurations. This is not the same as the LFE bug that other pre/pros have had.