too much base since upgrade !

[kusum65]

Just upgraded my arcam 72 to a 192 and got a problem. The base has changed dramatically and with some recordings it engulfs the midrange. Ive got 601s in a small room and it took me a while to find the ideal room placement but i thought id cracked it and now this. With dance beats the base bounces around all over the room and withlow base sounds it sounds like a sub woofer turned to high. My question is does any one know a b&w speaker that might be better in my small enclosure?

[Relentless]

How about some room treatments?

[kusum65]

I live in a rented property so it would have to be cheap and easy! Were oyu thinking base traps?

[GregLett]

I second the room treatment post.dou you have a lot of furniture in the room?

[beden1]

Or, make the LFE adjustments with your processor.

[WI Rotel]

Turn the bass control down!

[wettou]

Just upgraded my arcam 72 to a 192 and got a problem. The base has changed dramatically and with some recordings it engulfs the midrange. Ive got 601s in a small room and it took me a while to find the ideal room placement but i thought id cracked it and now this. With dance beats the base bounces around all over the room and withlow base sounds it sounds like a sub woofer turned to high. My question is does any one know a b&w speaker that might be better in my small enclosure?

How big is your room? I love the 805 and wished B&W came out with 805D. It sounds like you have room mode problems, so do I with a JL Audio Fathom F113

[dknightd]

Just upgraded my arcam 72 to a 192 and got a problem. The base has changed dramatically and with some recordings it engulfs the midrange. Ive got 601s in a small room and it took me a while to find the ideal room placement but i thought id cracked it and now this. With dance beats the base bounces around all over the room and withlow base sounds it sounds like a sub woofer turned to high. My question is does any one know a b&w speaker that might be better in my small enclosure?

I'm not sure why changing the arcam would make so much difference.
Did you change anything else at the same time?

[WI Rotel]

I'm not sure why changing the arcam would make so much difference.
Did you change anything else at the same time?

I had the same question! :T

[Relentless]

I live in a rented property so it would have to be cheap and easy! Were oyu thinking base traps?

gik acoustics

[sg2]

Hi,

I suggest (as usual) using a parametric equalizer as this is the only solution to your boomy bass problems, which in 99% of the cases I've seen, come from room resonance and not from speakers, amps, cables & all the usual idiophile bullshit.

There's only one way out of room mode problems (<200 Hz) in the context of domestic music playback (do some googling), and this is parametric equalization, as no in room dampening material will have the adequate size to dampen a room mode (since that size would be half the room dimensions, this is math speaking, not me).

Note, on the other hand, that dampening material and furniture is the only way out of higher frequency standing waves and reverberation, which are the most common cause for "bright" systems (it cannot be electronically cancelled in an efficient way). But as the thickness of the absorber is an inverse function of the wave length, it is perfectly OK to try & tame a system's brightness with an inch of curtains or carpet etc.

When I got my 802D's in my room, replacing (otherly very good) smaller speakers, I could not bear the boomy bass coming out of an otherly unchanged system. I quickly understood that this was just down to the fact that the 802D's having a capacity to produce output at lower hertz, they were exciting the main room mode at 31 Hz while my previous speakers wouldn't.

The only way out (again) is to use a parametric equalizer to tame the resonant frequencies before the signal arrives at the speaker, where you finely set for each parametric filter, its central F, width, and attenuation. We are talking well below 200 Hz, so spare me comments about "loss of dynamics, resolution etc".

Since doing that I'm perfectly happy with the bass.

I am always surprised how little popular this approach is, while from a child's physic degree it's easy to understand that its the only one which makes sense to get controlled bass in a room with finite size. This problem being (again) totally independant of speakers, amps cables etc.

Refreshing still, is that the usual idiophile lament about "loss of dynamics, resolution etc". due to equalisation, used to come from the same people now harassing Classé to integrate room equalization in the SSP800... just because a decisive advance is being made in all the modern processors on earth, and that is... to use parametric filters in the DSP processing, to offer room equalization. So what has been seen for years as the utmost evil signal degradation, is now a must...

Whatever one says or thinks, for basic physical reasons, there cannot be any high fidelity in room full range music reproduction without room eq, it's worthless spending any $ in a system which will produce +25 dB on room modes. I'm laughing on the floor for real when I read about people forking several thousand $ in amp, speaker or even wire with amlitude/frequency linearity to be within +/- 0.1 dB, yet rejecting room eq !

Regards,
--
Stéphane

[WI Rotel]

Hi,

I suggest (as usual) using a parametric equalizer as this is the only solution to your boomy bass problems, which in 99% of the cases I've seen, come from room resonance and not from speakers, amps, cables & all the usual idiophile bullshit.

There's only one way out of room mode problems (<200 Hz) in the context of domestic music playback (do some googling), and this is parametric equalization, as no in room dampening material will have the adequate size to dampen a room mode (since that size would be half the room dimensions, this is math speaking, not me).

Note, on the other hand, that dampening material and furniture is the only way out of higher frequency standing waves and reverberation, which are the most common cause for "bright" systems (it cannot be electronically cancelled in an efficient way). But as the thickness of the absorber is an inverse function of the wave length, it is perfectly OK to try & tame a system's brightness with an inch of curtains or carpet etc.

When I got my 802D's in my room, replacing (otherly very good) smaller speakers, I could not bear the boomy bass coming out of an otherly unchanged system. I quickly understood that this was just down to the fact that the 802D's having a capacity to produce output at lower hertz, they were exciting the main room mode at 31 Hz while my previous speakers wouldn't.

The only way out (again) is to use a parametric equalizer to tame the resonant frequencies before the signal arrives at the speaker, where you finely set for each parametric filter, its central F, width, and attenuation. We are talking well below 200 Hz, so spare me comments about "loss of dynamics, resolution etc".

Since doing that I'm perfectly happy with the bass.

I am always surprised how little popular this approach is, while from a child's physic degree it's easy to understand that its the only one which makes sense to get controlled bass in a room with finite size. This problem being (again) totally independant of speakers, amps cables etc.

Refreshing still, is that the usual idiophile lament about "loss of dynamics, resolution etc". due to equalisation, used to come from the same people now harassing Classé to integrate room equalization in the SSP800... just because a decisive advance is being made in all the modern processors on earth, and that is... to use parametric filters in the DSP processing, to offer room equalization. So what has been seen for years as the utmost evil signal degradation, is now a must...

Whatever one says or thinks, for basic physical reasons, there cannot be any high fidelity in room full range music reproduction without room eq, it's worthless spending any $ in a system which will produce +25 dB on room modes. I'm laughing on the floor for real when I read about people forking several thousand $ in amp, speaker or even wire with amlitude/frequency linearity to be within +/- 0.1 dB, yet rejecting room eq !

Regards,
--
Stéphane

I don't know if they even exist anymore. In the old times essentially everybody had one. However, they have almost entirely disappeared since the advent of surround. However, all components still have 2 level "equalizers", the tone controls. They are a crude tool, but a tool none the less.

[sg2]

Hi,

I'm not talking about graphic equalizers (the kind of which had many aligned fader buttons) or any form of tone controls.

Parametric equalizers are a totally different beast, targeted at accurate and fine taming of amplitude/frequency response (typically room modes). A typical parametric equalizer filter will attenuate 30 Hz +/-3.5 by 8.5 dB, with a gaussian curve. You may shift the central frequency and width of each individual filter in 0.1 Hz steps, and amplitude in 0.1 dB.

Such systems have not vanished at all, on the opposite there are many solutions, from the cheap (yet perfectly adequate for domestic hifi) Behringer DEQ2496, a very popular solution among the people who understand room modes, or DBX driveracks, up to higher end systems like TACT, AUDYSSEY, ACCUPHASE.

Parametric equalization was once really hard to implement using analog components, because it was then almost impossible to selectively modify the amplitude of a given frequency without introducing heavy phase shift, as a consequence of using capacitors or solenoids to implement those filters. Typical of those analog parametric equalizers is the well known and uber expensive Cello box.

This phase shift is precisely the reason why equalizers have been evilized for so long, because when you shift the phase of fractions of the bandwidth, you destroy the timbre, and you make a cello (the instrument) sound like a saw. This is true and justified, I never found a really neutral analog parametric equalizer, whatever the price.

Thanks to the massive computing power of ubiquitous and cheap DSP's, it is now trivial to implement almost phase-neutral parametric equalization (using smart combinations of FIR/IIR filters, which are canonical signal processing calculations).

This is exactly what you find in embedded Audissey software, or in a Behringer or TACT or LYNGDORF box, or in the popular DRC PC software, or in any digital parametric equalizer.

It is the ideal, perfectly capable, simple and only solution to room mode resonance problems.

I assert the above with visible conviction (I guess ) but trust me, years of thoughts have gone into that topic.

Regards,
--
Stéphane

[WI Rotel]

Hi,

I'm not talking about graphic equalizers (the kind of which had many aligned fader buttons) or any form of tone controls.

Parametric equalizers are a totally different beast, targeted at accurate and fine taming of amplitude/frequency response (typically room modes). A typical parametric equalizer filter will attenuate 30 Hz +/-3.5 by 8.5 dB, with a gaussian curve. You may shift the central frequency and width of each individual filter in 0.1 Hz steps, and amplitude in 0.1 dB.

Such systems have not vanished at all, on the opposite there are many solutions, from the cheap (yet perfectly adequate for domestic hifi) Behringer DEQ2496, a very popular solution among the people who understand room modes, or DBX driveracks, up to higher end systems like TACT, AUDYSSEY, ACCUPHASE.

Parametric equalization was once really hard to implement using analog components, because it was then almost impossible to selectively modify the amplitude of a given frequency without introducing heavy phase shift, as a consequence of using capacitors or solenoids to implement those filters. Typical of those analog parametric equalizers is the well known and uber expensive Cello box.

This phase shift is precisely the reason why equalizers have been evilized for so long, because when you shift the phase of fractions of the bandwidth, you destroy the timbre, and you make a cello (the instrument) sound like a saw. This is true and justified, I never found a really neutral analog parametric equalizer, whatever the price.

Thanks to the massive computing power of ubiquitous and cheap DSP's, it is now trivial to implement almost phase-neutral parametric equalization (using smart combinations of FIR/IIR filters, which are canonical signal processing calculations).

This is exactly what you find in embedded Audissey software, or in a Behringer or TACT or LYNGDORF box, or in the popular DRC PC software, or in any digital parametric equalizer.

It is the ideal, perfectly capable, simple and only solution to room mode resonance problems.

I assert the above with visible conviction (I guess ) but trust me, years of thoughts have gone into that topic.

Regards,
--
Stéphane

Parametrics are not new either and were also quite popular in the 70's and 80's for home applications . A popular home brand in those days was "Audio Control" they offered 3 and five band parametrics. Both stand alone parametric and linear types essentially don't exist for the "home" market and essentially none of the major home audio manufacturers sell them. For some systems (some receivers and all in one's) they are part of the auto EQ programs.
As you have well pointed, they are easily available from the proffesional market. However, most equalizers, of both types sold for proffesional use are for live and PA types of applications, thus, they are not truely "hiFI" they might add hiss or background noise that is fine for that type of app but would ruin a home hifi system. The studio quality ones can be very pricey. :T

BTW I answered my own previous question from before :lol: Standalones have disappeared but they are part and parcel of auto EQ programs which most audio fans, including me, dislike thoroughly! :W

[sg2]

Hi WI Rotel,

I (gently, friendly and respectfully) dare to totally disagree with your statements :

- there are plenty of cheap solutions for parametric equalization, usable in the home hifi application (the Behringer one being wide spread),

- the idea that studio stuff is of lower quality than hifi, while often encountered in such fora, demonstrates total lack of knowledge about mastering requirements, and pro audio world at large,

- the analog section of digital parametric equalizers owes nothing at all to the "hifi" analog electronics - FYI, the Behringer DEQ A/D and D/A sections are made from the finest AKM chips, which you find in the Transporter, in almost all Accuphase D/A converters, in most Meridian boxes etc. As such it carries no "hiss", "hum" or any other evil "non hifi grade" signal degradation

- pro audio boxes are cheap because noone in the pro audio world would pay for snake oil

- the right place for a digital parametric equalizer (set with 3 to 5 sub-200 Hz notches taming your main room modes) is before D/A and volume control. This is because the algorithms have to work on the full signal dynamics (there is no sense in computing FFT's and inverse FFT's on 3 bits out of 24), and as they work in the digital domain, if your signal is analog somewhere upstream, then it will necessarily go through A/D, then EQ, then D/A, which I'll admit is suboptimal.

The only component chain that is critic-proof is thus : transport (CD or streaming device like Slimdevice's or Sonos or computer) -D-> EQ -D-> DAQ -A-> volume -a-> amp.

This means several things :

- you should not insert the EQ in an analog signal. Signal has to be all digital upstream.

- if you do, it has to be before volume control. After volume control, the filter computations will be fed with very few bits of their dynamics, thus creating/magnifying artifacts and errors, and I won't dispute that this may be audible

- for this reason, you cannot insert the EQ between a pre and an amp (as it will A/D and D/A, and on top of that, it will act on a fraction of the dynamics). For this very reason, the standalone Audissey box makes no sense at all for me as they advertise that it should precisely be inserted between pre and amp (see http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer/index.html, the last figure), I wonder how they can sell that for >$2.000 and would love to see their answer to this argument.

- you may use the EQ's embedded D/A if it is of equal or better quality than the ones downstream (separate DAC, or in-pre DAC etc). FYI, the cheap AKM-based D/A section has always gathered stunning measurement and hearing results, with better than 110 dB S/N ratio, very good linearity and low jitter, which tops many audiophile (thus overexpensive) DAC's.

I welcome factual counterpoints, as this discussion is imho essential for real hifi in domestic applications. Considering your global reproduction chain, your room may account for 50% of the perceived sound, your speakers for 40%, and the rest of the items for the remaining 10%. It is thusly fundamental to at least try to address the room side of things, and in the very low frequency domain, for simple physical reasons, electronic processing is the only way.

Kal, if you read me, and having seen that you are starting to acknowledge the importance of room equalization, please ask John Atkinson to review a cheap pro equalizer like the DEQ2496 in the context of room equalization, including its D/A performance

If you can "hear the sound of a cable", then your aural sensitivity is definately able to benefit from taming 20 to 30 dB resonances due to the geometry of your room

Regards,
--
Stéphane

[WI Rotel]

Hi WI Rotel,

I (gently, friendly and respectfully) dare to totally disagree with your statements :

- there are plenty of cheap solutions for parametric equalization, usable in the home hifi application (the Behringer one being wide spread),

- the idea that studio stuff is of lower quality than hifi, while often encountered in such fora, demonstrates total lack of knowledge about mastering requirements, and pro audio world at large,

- the analog section of digital parametric equalizers owes nothing at all to the "hifi" analog electronics - FYI, the Behringer DEQ A/D and D/A sections are made from the finest AKM chips, which you find in the Transporter, in almost all Accuphase D/A converters, in most Meridian boxes etc. As such it carries no "hiss", "hum" or any other evil "non hifi grade" signal degradation

- pro audio boxes are cheap because noone in the pro audio world would pay for snake oil

- the right place for a digital parametric equalizer (set with 3 to 5 sub-200 Hz notches taming your main room modes) is before D/A and volume control. This is because the algorithms have to work on the full signal dynamics (there is no sense in computing FFT's and inverse FFT's on 3 bits out of 24), and as they work in the digital domain, if your signal is analog somewhere upstream, then it will necessarily go through A/D, then EQ, then D/A, which I'll admit is suboptimal.

The only component chain that is critic-proof is thus : transport (CD or streaming device like Slimdevice's or Sonos or computer) -D-> EQ -D-> DAQ -A-> volume -a-> amp.

This means several things :

- you should not insert the EQ in an analog signal. Signal has to be all digital upstream.

- if you do, it has to be before volume control. After volume control, the filter computations will be fed with very few bits of their dynamics, thus creating/magnifying artifacts and errors, and I won't dispute that this may be audible

- for this reason, you cannot insert the EQ between a pre and an amp (as it will A/D and D/A, and on top of that, it will act on a fraction of the dynamics). For this very reason, the standalone Audissey box makes no sense at all for me as they advertise that it should precisely be inserted between pre and amp (see http://www.audyssey.com/soundequalizer/index.html, the last figure), I wonder how they can sell that for >$2.000 and would love to see their answer to this argument.

- you may use the EQ's embedded D/A if it is of equal or better quality than the ones downstream (separate DAC, or in-pre DAC etc). FYI, the cheap AKM-based D/A section has always gathered stunning measurement and hearing results, with better than 110 dB S/N ratio, very good linearity and low jitter, which tops many audiophile (thus overexpensive) DAC's.

I welcome factual counterpoints, as this discussion is imho essential for real hifi in domestic applications. Considering your global reproduction chain, your room may account for 50% of the perceived sound, your speakers for 40%, and the rest of the items for the remaining 10%. It is thusly fundamental to at least try to address the room side of things, and in the very low frequency domain, for simple physical reasons, electronic processing is the only way.

Kal, if you read me, and having seen that you are starting to acknowledge the importance of room equalization, please ask John Atkinson to review a cheap pro equalizer like the DEQ2496 in the context of room equalization, including its D/A performance

If you can "hear the sound of a cable", then your aural sensitivity is definately able to benefit from taming 20 to 30 dB resonances due to the geometry of your room

Regards,
--
Stéphane

We don't disagree at all :T so no offense is taken.
Parametrics are great, specifically for adjusting room acoustics (thats why I wonder why they have mostly disappeared). The issue is the paucity of manufacturers. It used to be that every stereo manufacturer made one type or another. Now the selection is very limited. Your also entirely correct that there are pro audio components that are as good or better than "audiophile" goods, but price can be a limiting a factor, the old home equalizers were cheap (and analog) you could easily buy one for $200-350. As you I completely agree that anyone aside from a recording studio that pays 2000 dollars for one is a complete dummy! So we dont disagree at all my "issue" is that there is not a good variety of equipment for the home enthusiast.

My guess is that the advent of surround has made equalizers less critical. Since in surround the variables are different, delay and relative loudness, plus the lower registers are now handled by the LFE, the overall tonal balance is less of an issue or its simply way too complicated to mess with it! Furthermore since surround is predominantly a video arena with a more limited need for full range harmonics (particularly for the surrounds) its less of a problem to begin with.

[dknightd]

A parametric equalizer, or other DRC can be useful. But I wouldn't use one till after you have treated the room as much as possible. It is amazing what some broad band absorbers placed in as many corners as possible can do. You do not need to take half the room volume and try to absorb everything before it reflects the first time - simple corner treatments that might absorb only 20-30% below 200hz can be very beneficial. If you want to get fancy you could design helmholtz absorbers to take out the primary room modes, but you'd still need broadband absorbers. The advantage of treating the room first is that room treatments can help with both dips and peaks, and work through out the room. I would not recommend using DRC to address a room null, and DRC can only get the right response in one spot in the room.

I still do not understand how changing the Cd player had so much effect on the OP's sound. . .

I'm interested in trying some DRC software - bonus points if it can take the output from iTunes on a mac, and modify it before it gets sent out the Macs digital output. But I'm interested in all possibilities - I' think that a computer based solution might be better and more flexible than a dedicated hardware solution.

[sg2]

Hi,

I have tried several computer-based software approaches for room EQ, mainly DRC/brutefir, and the inguz plugin for Squeezecenter.

They are both way too complicated to put at work.

A basic Behringer DEQ2496 or FBQ1124 does the same work, better, faster, easier and cheaper on top of that.

Regards,
--
Stéphane

[Tasmon]

For the sub I use the Velodyne peq. One of the best purchases I made when it came to improving the sound of my B&W sub. This particular peq would not help in situation above but I have to agree with sq2 observations and statements. I have no problem taming my low frequency exited room modes electronically, it sounds better. I would rather have a lesser of a sub with flat frequency response in my room rather than a more expensive sub that I was unable to manipulate frequency response as it interacted within it’s real room environment.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_4/velodyne-sms1-digital-drive-sub-manager-12-2005-part-1.html

[sg2]

Hi,

You have got it absolutely right.

The SMS1 is the equivalent of an FBQ1124, ie a param EQ dedicated to LF (<200 Hz).

It does exactly the same thing, to which it adds a low pass filter, which indeed makes it only suitable for sub EQ.

Regards,
--
Stéphane