Subs ...EQ'd none EQ'd
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 635
aficionado
|
OP
aficionado
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 635 |
Just wondering. Trying to decide now between the Martin Logan Depth I or SVS Plus or the EP500. The first two have built in PEQ. where as Axioms don't. IS it better to have a sub that has a built in EQ or just go with the A/V and whatever calibration it has ( Audessy, ARC )
With my receiver, it runs ARC and I have two separate settings one measurements are for movies and a second for music. I can also calibrate the music for 2 ch or 2.1. or 7.1. I have now a Blu ray for movies calibrated for movies and a separate for Blu-ray player for Music. I have a CD Player set for 2 ch music.
JUst like the thought that if I have the ML or SVS I can calibrate the subs LFE. and let the receiver calibrate for all speakers but the LFE. However, if I have Axioms EP500 then I would have to let the receiver and ARC do it all. Also, thinking of getting a EP500 and a PEQ and put this in the mix, kinda like having a built in PEQ for the sub. Even if just to play around
Anthem MRX520 M5HPv4 VP160HPv4 QS10v4
|
|
|
Re: Subs ...EQ'd none EQ'd
|
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 172
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2011
Posts: 172 |
I would let Audyssey handle it all. There is no advantage to having it on the subs also. In fact I believe having equalization on both is bad.
The best bang for for the buck for sub equalization is room placement. No amount of equalization on AVR or speakers can compensate for sub-optimal (pun intended) sub placement. Do the sub woofer crawl first and then let Audyssey do it's thing.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert.
|
|
|
Re: Subs ...EQ'd none EQ'd
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 635
aficionado
|
OP
aficionado
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 635 |
Yeh, wasn't sure ..... seems all the high end subs have it nowadays
Don't have Audessy, I have Anthem Reciever and use Anthem Room Correction
Anthem MRX520 M5HPv4 VP160HPv4 QS10v4
|
|
|
Re: Subs ...EQ'd none EQ'd
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,488
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 8,488 |
If ARC really does EQ down to ~20Hz, I'd let it handle the whole thing, which makes the PEQ in the sub redundant.
bibere usque ad hilaritatem
|
|
|
Re: Subs ...EQ'd none EQ'd
|
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,786
axiomite
|
axiomite
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,786 |
I would let Audyssey handle it all. There is no advantage to having it on the subs also. In fact I believe having equalization on both is bad. EQ of some sort on subs is a no brainer. Frequencies below 80hz will excite room modes giving you potentially large peaks and valleys. With a room that is 20x20x8 I have a huge 16 db peak centered around 56 Hz (relating to the 20' length & width, and a narrow deep valley (20+ db)in the low 70 Hz range. Cutting the 56 Hz peak a noticeably improved my bass.
Last edited by fredk; 05/07/13 11:05 PM.
Fred
------- Blujays1: Spending Fred's money one bottle at a time, no two... Oh crap!
|
|
|
Re: Subs ...EQ'd none EQ'd
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654
shareholder in the making
|
shareholder in the making
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 10,654 |
Troy, I use Audyssey with good results with my EP500, and expect that ARC would also give you good results. Use of a built-in sub EQ would be likely less effective in itself, and possibly counter-productive if used simultaneously.
-----------------------------------
Enjoy the music, not the equipment.
|
|
|
Re: Subs ...EQ'd none EQ'd
|
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 185
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 185 |
I have to agree with FREDK. The PEQ in my sub is used to smooth a large room related peak. My Denon based Audyssey correction is limited to + or - 12db. Having the sub PEQ just gives Audyssey an easier job to complete the correction. They are not counter-productive when used together. Bill
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics24,945
Posts442,489
Members15,617
|
Most Online2,082 Jan 22nd, 2020
|
|
0 members (),
1,092
guests, and
2
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|