Linus's Home theater.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, comander said:

Auto calibration is perfectly fine for measuring the distance and levels needed. Same for crossovers. It's not perfect but it does automatically take into consideration things like reflections. If a decent auto cal gives you different distances from your expectations it likely means you need to improve speaker positioning and/or room treatment. 

The problem with those calibrations on the cheap stuff is the mic used it really bad and the processing and calculations aren't very good. You can run the calibration like 5 times and get result sufficiently different it becomes a problem. I agree it's fine for distances but not for setting up anything EQ related, hard pass on that for me.

[Shike]

First post, but love HT/audio so decided to post here first.  Rather than just the HT I'm going to list all rigs:

 

My apartment livingroom:

 

 

The audio for the home theater consists of:

 

• 4x JBL Professional AC26
• 1x JBL Professional AC28 (Center Channel)
• Target Audio Stands (sand filled) front - Gator Frameworks in back with Skrim
• 2x DIY Peerless/Tymphany 18" subwoofers
• Marantz AV7701 Pre-Pro
• Emotiva UPA-700 Amplifier
• Crown XLi1500 for subwoofers
• MiniDSP 2x4
• Software of Note: AudioMulch with various VSTs, Jriver, Tuneblade
• TV - Some 55" LG with IPS, fuck if I know off the top of my head.

All audio comes from my PC using Voicemeeter Potato virtual loopback via Audiomulch.  First I used MSO (multi-sub optimizer) to equalize both subwoofers through the 2x4 independently using a calibrated UMIK-1.  The second requirement was global EQ, using REW focusing on MLP per Harman's AutoEQ study instead of multiseat correction I utilized PEQ VSTs within Audiomulch.  This results in roughly a 1dB/octove roll-off from low to highs.  I then also have various other VSTs including Waves for different RT upmixing, dynamic range compression for night listening, etc. to get it dialed how I like best (Dolby and DTS suck for this when it comes from non-bitstreamed sources).  Crossover is set to 80hz as traditionally standard - though I have the PC doing crossover and bass management so it can add a lowpass to prevent localization and a highpass to prevent any potential bottoming out of my subs. 

 

I tried using DIRAC as well but ended up getting similar results on my own so didn't really see the benefit outside of it being faster, especially since I prefer minimum latency configuration.

 

The setup is perfectly capable of Dolby reference levels for home, though I never dare run it that high in regular use.  Nonetheless I get effortless room filling sound.

 

Used lots of "audiophile" speakers but honestly the right PA speakers - if you go in with the proper mindset - can run circles around a lot of them when you understand the problems involved.  For example most people that complain about poor sounding subwoofers typically have ones with design defects or haven't worked to properly integrate them into the room and with the speakers - assuming the room itself isn't a massive issue alone requiring multi-sub coverage which is always beneficial.

 

My PC setup is more subdued:

 

• 4x NHT SuperZero XU
• 1x Dayton 12" HF (early make) - 300W Bash sealed
• Denon E200 AVR (doesn't need anything fancy really)
• V-Can Amp and NuForce DAC (not really used anymore)
• AKG K550 and Audio-Technica ATH-AD700 headphones

 

For those ready to scream that the speakers are next to each other, this was intended since I'm using Ambiophonics.  Similar to Polk SDA or Carver's Sonic Holography without the downsides this uses recursive ambiophonic crosstalk elimination.  The close placement reduces combing artifacts from ye olde' stereo triangle allowing for 160 degree soundstage per "ambiopole" - effectively I'm only missing 20 degrees to my very left and very right in this configuration.  And since it's run through Audiomulch there's also correction and other nice VSTs to use . . . say dynamic range expansion and compression which is handy in games like certain "gamer" headsets have for advantages . . . cough

 

 

The bedroom and reading nook:

 

• NHT C3 Pair (bedroom)
• Dana 630i Pair (SB Acoustics drivers) (nook)
• All using sand filled VTI stands
• Audiosource Amp 100
• Cambridge DacMagic (original)
• Cheap Asus netbook of some make
• O2 Amp and some old Grado SR-60 for night listening if needed
• Amazon Fire with gApps to act as control point
• Russound speaker selector for bedroom/nook speaker selection

 

PC is used as audio renderer/end-point for all audio save the TV (which is routed to a simple selector switch, other selection being PC/DAC).  PC is running EqualizerAPO and a VST (Waves MaxxBass) which uses harmonics to extend perceived bass response another octave out (cheating I know).  The PC also has TuneAero and Bubble Open Home Server installed.  Primary PC has Tuneblade installed and also a web driven interface.  I can effectively use the "tune" system for whole home synced audio or use BubbleUPN and open home for individual renderer use.  Use a Russound selector to bounce between the NHT and Dana's without surprise jumps in level.

 

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, comander said:

With all that said, even the best speakers won't be "perfect" if there's no room correction/EQ. Sound reflects off walls. Speakers usually have ports on them and port noise is a thing. EQ and room treatment matter for keeping reflections in check. It's a band-aid. It helps.

There is no such thing as "perfect" and you don't have to do room correction, this isn't a must unless it's actually a problem otherwise I'd still fall back to less is best and don't do anything to your audio source unless you have to. Having all the options in the world doesn't mean you should actually fiddle with them. EQ etc are 100% necessary in outdoor venues and indoor stadiums, even concert halls, but in most people's houses that don't have very odd ball shaped rooms the need is actually very low.

 

Anyone in and with skin in the game when it comes to EQ is obviously going to say and recommend to do it, I as someone with zero skin in the game that just likes to listen to good audio equipment only care about the end result and have no reason to advocate for adding in or doing any extra. Such is why I will always start with pure untouched, move the speakers in the room or their direction first, slightly move furniture or similar methods before going anywhere near signal processing.

 

Unless something is audibly a problem or you don't like something about it then there is no reason to "correct it". Audio isn't any different to photos/images, once you mess with it you can never get back to how it was (or sort of because you aren't actually modifying the source data but you get the point, I hope), quality is always lost and it's only a matter of how much depending on how good the equipment you are using is. This is still true with digital audio formats and digital processors, it's not "just 0's and 1's" (it is but is isn't heh, at least not that simple).

 

EQ's, DSP's etc etc = more harm than good basically every time I've listened to anyone or any calibration system do it, my opinion on that will be quite hard to change because I've never come across anything good when implemented in home or in reference listening room/studios and I've listened to a hell of a lot of stuff. Had enough trust with the audio shop owner that he was lending equipment to take home and try out and give feedback on.

 

5 hours ago, comander said:

The mics are cheap though the AVRs that include them are themselves calibrated to work with those mics. If the guy I know who worked on one of the major EQ systems is to be trusted, he said that the $3 microphones, with the factory presets  on the AVR, come within striking distance of a $10,000 reference mic. I'm sure the cruddy mic included isn't super responsive though - so it'd be a terrible idea to use it for audio recording. 

That is mostly the case yes, however a single mic with questionable pickup angle and questionable logic in correction recommendations that can't consistently come back to the same result changing nothing cannot and should not be trusted. The newer stuff that has mics on each speaker for the calibration now that does work very well as each mic and source of data massively helps reduce error and come to a much better recommendation. So it guess it really depends on that thing the most for me.

 

I'd still pull out/borrow a very good multiple weighting meter and use this calibration CD over anything else http://linkwitzlab.com/burst-cd.htm, along with subjective listening. Even without a high quality meter I'd recommend that CD.

 

5 hours ago, comander said:

And it's cheaper than spending $100k to build out and sound treat a large room and another 100k on top tier gear. 

Definitely don't have to spend anything like that and my comments actually apply to even the more reasonable every person stuff, there's a lot of good things out there now that sound great without doing anything to them at all.

 

Heck if you are even slightly handy you can build a pair of these http://linkwitzlab.com/Pluto/Pluto-2.1.htm, I have. They can go down to 40Hz only being 3dB down compared to 80Hz and higher. You cannot however drive them at very loud sound levels as woofer starts to distort, expected due to the design. 85dB-90dB is fine though, louder is not.

 

Above said they aren't nearly as good as the Martin Logan Aeon I's but I don't think it's exactly "fair" to compare speakers you can build for a few hundred dollars to ones that at the time of purchase were $7.5k.

[leadeater]

39 minutes ago, Shike said:

2x DIY Peerless/Tymphany 18" subwoofers

Very nice, anyone that knows to buy Peerless knows their subwoofer stuff 

[Shike]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Very nice, anyone that knows to buy Peerless knows their subwoofer stuff 

Personally I'd love some OoP JBL drivers, they had crazy xmech capability which is important in subwoofers IME.  Even some of Dayton's offerings in pro-land are becoming really enticing.

 

Basically the subs are my spin on an affordable JBL S1S-EX.  Same tuning, similar xmax, but the JBL likely has higher xmech while I imagine the Peerless will hit its limits around 14mm based on reasonable estimates.  For the $75/per on sale though I don't think I can ask for a lot and can always drop in higher capability ones down the road keeping the same tuning (24-25hz).  I did use one port larger port rather than three smaller (diameter is 6") and a slightly different cabinet shape (just a hint smaller for my ideal display mount height).  Helps with port noise though so possibly an improvement.

 

Drivers are FSL-1830R06-08, found Here

 

Quote

There is no such thing as "perfect" and you don't have to do room correction, this isn't a must unless it's actually a problem otherwise I'd still fall back to less is best and don't do anything to your audio source unless you have to. Having all the options in the world doesn't mean you should actually fiddle with them. EQ etc are 100% necessary in outdoor venues and indoor stadiums, even concert halls, but in most people's houses that don't have very odd ball shaped rooms the need is actually very low.

I'm going to hop in and disagree on this.  Calibration is required for really good integration IME.  Anyone that uses a subwoofer in their system should at least use an EQ when integrating through the crossover section.  Even more so if using a ported or passive radiator design in a standard living space.  Due to their extended FR they tend to excite lower room modes which is often the reason they're called "muddy/slow".  By eliminating the modes (easily done as bass is minimum phase anyway) one can significantly improve sound.

 

In fact going dual subwoofer with independent equalization is superior in performance to any bass trap in terms of evening out and improving bass response.  Toole, GedLee, Sean Olive, Et al. have proven that repeatedly.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Shike said:

Personally I'd love some OoP JBL drivers, they had crazy xmech capability which is important in subwoofers IME.  Even some of Dayton's offerings in pro-land are becoming really enticing.

 

Basically the subs are my spin on an affordable JBL S1S-EX.  Same tuning, similar xmax, but the JBL likely has higher xmech while I imagine the Peerless will hit its limits around 14mm based on reasonable estimates.  For the $75/per on sale though I don't think I can ask for a lot and can always drop in higher capability ones down the road keeping the same tuning (24-25hz).  I did use one port larger port rather than three smaller (diameter is 6") and a slightly different cabinet shape (just a hint smaller for my ideal display mount height).  Helps with port noise though so possibly an improvement.

 

Drivers are FSL-1830R06-08, found Here

18" is larger than I would personally go with in home but I've been eying up getting a 12" XXLS for along time though. There are newer better options since then, I'd consider 15" but I still come back to the overall size issue. SDF-375F75PR01-04 & STW-350F188PR01-04 seem like good 15" options but I haven't done any research other than spec sheet browsing right now.

 

My round to it has been very long on the upgrading the 12" driver to something much better, hasn't come around yet.

 

I have two subs, 1 Martin Logan Grotto 10" that is an active sub, can be fun to push slightly on the driver and feel it push back to correct . The other is a non ported 12" made with some w/e driver and a subwoofer processor kit I forget what it is and it's been modified by me to filter out almost everything above 40Hz. It's not a digital processor so it was done with a good old soldering iron, don't ask what/how I modified it it's been far to long (ahh 15-20 years??).

 

1 hour ago, Shike said:

I'm going to hop in and disagree on this.  Calibration is required for really good integration IME.  Anyone that uses a subwoofer in their system should at least use an EQ when integrating through the crossover section.  Even more so if using a ported or passive radiator design in a standard living space.  Due to their extended FR they tend to excite lower room modes which is often the reason they're called "muddy/slow".  By eliminating the modes (easily done as bass is minimum phase anyway) one can significantly improve sound.

 

In fact going dual subwoofer with independent equalization is superior in performance to any bass trap in terms of evening out and improving bass response.  Toole, GedLee, Sean Olive, Et al. have proven that repeatedly.

I'd point you to here for why and how room correction is actually easily and effectively done with any EQ at all https://www.linkwitzlab.com/rooms.htm. I'd also do a quick background check on Siegfried Linkwitz so you can get a feel for if you want to trust him or not.

 

Also I'd like to more accurately stipulate my opinion on EQ, my comments apply more broadly on that and have at more to do with above 100Hz and above subwoofer integration. For why again refer to given link. In any case from what I gather looking at what you have you are not using the EQ in an AVR so my comment applies even less to your setup  

 

Quote

Much has been written in the popular and professional audio press about the acoustic treatment of rooms. The purpose of such treatment is to allow us to hear more of the loudspeaker and less of the room. I am convinced that a properly designed sound system can perform well in a great variety of rooms and requires only a minimum of room treatment if any at all.

 

To understand this claim let's look at the typical acoustic behavior of domestic size listening rooms, which have linear dimensions that are small compared to the 17 m wavelength of a 20 Hz bass tone, but are acoustically large when compared to a 200 Hz or 1.7 m wavelength midrange tone (G1 on the piano keyboard). 

Below 200 Hz the acoustics of different locations in the room are dominated by discrete resonances. Above 200 Hz these resonances become so tightly packed in frequency and space that the room behaves quite uniformly and is best described by its reverberation time RT60 (Ref. 1).

 

Room treatment can be very effective above 200 Hz, but the same result may be obtained more aesthetically with ordinary furnishings, wall decoration, rugs on the floor and the variety of stuff we like to surround ourselves with. How much treatment is needed, or how short the reverberation time should be, depends on the polar radiation characteristics of the loudspeaker. For my open baffle speaker designs a room becomes too dead when its RT60 falls below 500 ms.

 

Quote

The numbers in tables D5 and D6 are for hypothetical rooms and based on a very simple rigid rectangular room model. Though the numbers look precise they should only be taken as trend indicators. Note the relatively narrow range from 99 Hz to 200 Hz covered by the Schroeder frequency for the different rooms and absorptions. Below this frequency specific room modes can dominate, down to the 1st mode. Above that frequency the mode density becomes so high that a room is better described statistically by its reverberation time. For the typical home  listening rooms with relatively large objects and different materials in them, reverberation time usually changes with frequency regions and is not as solid a descriptor as for concert halls. Below the first room mode the sound level becomes independent of location in the room and is a function of the lumped mechanical properties of the room. Similar to the modal region the level can be attenuated or amplified depending on wall surface flexures and leaky openings. The room adds to and subtracts from the loudspeaker's direct sound to varying degrees and in a very complex manner over the whole frequency range of the speaker. Thus the tables can only show trends above the Schroeder frequency.  

 

Spoiler

Sorry I just can't not make this joke, "I see you're a fan of Junk But Loud". Couldn't help myself lol. No I don't actually think JBL only makes junk.

 

L-acoustic fan myself so you know where/why that joke comes from, nothing like a bit of brand mud slinging haha.

 

[Shike]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

18" is larger than I would personally go with in home but I've been eye up getting a 12" XXLS for along time though.

When bass management is in use there really is no replacement for displacement.

 

Quote

I'd point you to here for why and how room correction is actually easily and effectively done with any EQ at all https://www.linkwitzlab.com/rooms.htm. I'd also do a quick background check on Siegfried Linkwitz so you can get a feel for if you want to trust him or not.

I'm well aware of Linkwitz and his designs/views - some of which I agree and disagree with.

 

Quote

Also I'd like to more accurately stipulate my opinion on EQ, my comments apply more broadly on that and have at more to do with above 100Hz and above subwoofer integration. For why again refer to given link. In any case from what I gather looking at what you have you are not using the EQ in an AVR so my comment applies even less to your setup  

Personally I'm all in favor of full-range equalization all around - the important thing being that as you increase in frequency you use lower Q filters.  For my setup for example full-range EQ is pretty necessary.  There's tons of speakers over the board that could benefit helping reduce/eliminate some real issues with a hint of EQ.

 

DIRAC for example uses full-range and you don't hear complaints of degraded sound quality.  The important part is to not excite resonances or impact something narrow enough that it is highly placement sensitive and instead works more towards subtle speaker correction as it increases in frequency as you get more direct sound than reflections at that point.  The fear of full-range EQ anymore seems quite silly to me, especially considering some speakers are built with DSP correction in mind entirely - even in home listening.

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, comander said:

You mentioned newer speakers with mics on each speaker (e.g. Sony HT-A9) work a bit better... DIRAC, Audyssey, YPAO, etc. all suggest measuring from different locations. Similarly - https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/google-nest-audio-spinorama-and-measurements.16464/ DSP can do some magic in well designed speakers. 

Measuring from multiple locations isn't the same thing as multiple mics, just an important difference in my opinion on that.

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, Shike said:

especially considering some speakers are built with DSP correction in mind entirely - even in home listening.

I have no problem with DSP's, I just don't think it's necessary to use or add any more than required and when you have speakers that have DSP's in them themselves why would you use an external DSP rather than correct the issue directly at the speaker with it's own DSP.

[Shike]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I have no problem with DSP's, I just don't think it's necessary to use or add any more than required and when you have speakers that have DSP's in them themselves why would you use an external DSP rather than correct the issue directly at the speaker with it's own DSP.

I'm not saying to double up either.

 

Let's take a marvel of engineering like the Beolab 90 (yes yes, I know B&O has sucked for years - they actually put R&D in this one).  The speaker was designed for active in room correction.

 

The point I'm making is the even cutting edge speakers can benefit from DSP, some being designed with it in mind.

 

Most speakers are instead passive so having a DSP in the chain is another tool in the toolbox that I find vary rarely isn't beneficial somewhere in any setup assuming it's of adequate quality.  The fact is you've shown aversion to DSP/EQ/Calibration.  Plenty of setups benefit from even above 100hz correction, typically pulling highs down a bit to get rid of a showroom FR like Klipsch/B&W for example, to even out the transition range from room to direct sound say up to 440hz for certain designs like Revel.

 

It doesn't take an odd room or even a bad speaker to benefit.

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, Shike said:

Most speakers are instead passive so having a DSP in the chain is another tool in the toolbox that I find vary rarely isn't beneficial somewhere in any setup assuming it's of adequate quality.  The fact is you've shown aversion to DSP/EQ/Calibration.

My aversion is specifically targeted at home AVRs where adequate quality is exceedingly rare. In general yes I prefer to try and fix things in the physical realm but I won't knock any equipment I know to be good. I know I've said it's bad to generalize but with the number of AVRs that legitimately have been bad when it comes to EQ and room correction my default in regards to those is distrust rather than trust and that still applies to $6k Denon or Marantz because they haven't been much good in the past either.

 

That said I haven't used a new AVR in a good 5-8 years and the largest improvements being made is at the lower end of the spectrum so it could have greatly improved.

[Shike]

Just now, leadeater said:

My aversion is specifically targeted at home AVRs where adequate quality is exceedingly rare. In general yes I prefer to try and fix things in the physical realm but I won't knock any equipment I know to be good. I know I've said it's bad to generalize but with the number of AVRs that legitimately have been bad my default in regards to those is distrust rather than just and that still applies to $6k Denon's or Marantz because they haven't been much good in the past either.

 

That said I haven't used a new AVR in a good 5-8 years and the largest improvements being made is at the lower end of the spectrum so it could have greatly improved.

 

The later versions of Audyssey that focus on bass correction and have significantly more filters are "decent" - IIRC some have settings that basically disregard higher frequencies which is a help for a stripped down version though don't quote me on that.

 

The real news is there are now versions that with a $20 app purchase allows you to use a custom curve of your choice through your phone.  This means you can check baseline response first then put in how you want Audyssey to handle it.  Weighting still focuses on bass first and best effort as you go towards direct sound.

 

I will say DIRAC though is effectively end-game for most that want quick and good.  It gave me roughly the same results as by hand did at a fraction of the time.  They also used mixed filtering in normal mode to account for phase shifts.  Personally I don't think the shifts are important but either way, good results.  I could easily recommend DIRAC for just about any home deployment and expect some degree of improvement.

[leadeater]

14 minutes ago, Shike said:

Let's take a marvel of engineering like the Beolab 90 (yes yes, I know B&O has sucked for years - they actually put R&D in this one).  The speaker was designed for active in room correction.

They are surprisingly forthcoming with what speakers/drivers they are using, in the past I sometimes had to press quite hard to get a brand to say what was actually being used.

 

Quote

7 x 1” Scan-Speak Illuminator tweeters
7 x 4.5” Scan-Speak Illuminator midranges
3 x 10” Scan-Speak Discovery woofers
1 x 13” Scan-Speak Revelator woofer

 

I much appreciate been given as much information about a product without have to dig, nice 

[Shike]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They are surprisingly forthcoming with what speakers/drivers they are using, in the past I sometimes had to press quite hard to get a brand to say what was actually being used.

 

 

I much appreciate been given as much information about a product without have to dig, nice 

If you think that's nice, you should see their white papers which basically covered the entire design process.  They even measure heat on the drivers to adjust for thermal compression in real time after sampling a crap ton of them at different temperatures.

[King_PIN]

I'm pretty disappointed in the gear tbh.  He's building a dedicated theater room and went with standard type speakers.  

He could have went with so much better like speakers from JTR, Seaton Sound, Danley, QSC and JBL.  What he has there are toys for a home theater.  

[dalekphalm]

11 hours ago, King_PIN said:

I'm pretty disappointed in the gear tbh.  He's building a dedicated theater room and went with standard type speakers.  

He could have went with so much better like speakers from JTR, Seaton Sound, Danley, QSC and JBL.  What he has there are toys for a home theater.  

Not every home theatre needs to have the most badass speakers. If they sound good, and he's enjoying the setup, that's the primary factor.

[King_PIN]

7 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Not every home theatre needs to have the most badass speakers. If they sound good, and he's enjoying the setup, that's the primary factor.

Sure but the premise of doing things right the first time especially if you can afford it applies here.  

Home theater is all about dynamics, impact and headroom.  Those speakers have none of that.  

I am not saying they aren't decent for music or for an all round system for the average person but they are not made for a dedicated "theater" room.  

Why would he be looking at quarter million dollar tv's and then a sound system like this boggles my mind.  

He'd be better off with a front end like mine consisting of the Klipsch RP8000F's and 504 center.  At least they have some dynamics and are capable.  

The dual 8" woofers on the Ultra's will be useless when crossed over to the subs and you're left with a front end consisting of 6.5" drivers.  Relying on a subwoofer leaves a big hole in the mid bass where the "impact" comes from.  

I would guess that he has never been in a room with speakers designed solely for a home theater as most people haven't.  The design and approach is a totally different animal.  

 

All weather tires are decent in the snow and in the summer but not particularly great for either season.  Same applies here.  

[Shike]

6 hours ago, King_PIN said:

The dual 8" woofers on the Ultra's will be useless when crossed over to the subs and you're left with a front end consisting of 6.5" drivers.  Relying on a subwoofer leaves a big hole in the mid bass where the "impact" comes from.

 

Seriously, that's not true at all.  I was underwhelmed by the system too but you don't need to stretch the truth on this one.  There will be no "hole" - the only way you'd get a hole is if the speakers themselves did not reach to if not a bit past the xover point.  The subwoofers will mate perfectly fine here.  In addition the reason to utilize subwoofer and crossovers is because you care about output capability and dynamics.  HT subwoofers will typically have significantly higher output capabilities due to size and throw.

[King_PIN]

5 hours ago, Shike said:

 

Seriously, that's not true at all.  I was underwhelmed by the system too but you don't need to stretch the truth on this one.  There will be no "hole" - the only way you'd get a hole is if the speakers themselves did not reach to if not a bit past the xover point.  The subwoofers will mate perfectly fine here.  In addition the reason to utilize subwoofer and crossovers is because you care about output capability and dynamics.  HT subwoofers will typically have significantly higher output capabilities due to size and throw.

Ok you won't have a hole but you are still going to be lacking mid bass.  Subs will work from 15hz-80hz and then what?  Those small drivers are not going to have a strong mid bass.  Maybe my meaning of subs from DIY'ing for years is different than most.  

[Shike]

1 hour ago, King_PIN said:

Ok you won't have a hole but you are still going to be lacking mid bass.

Incorrect - the bandwidth will be filled and should be at a sufficiently high SPL to maintain Dolby home reference levels.

Quote

Subs will work from 15hz-80hz and then what?  Those small drivers are not going to have a strong mid bass. 

The two 8" drivers if not terrible should work perfectly well at xover on up to their next xover point.  For example, let's say they have ~6mm xmax (hardly out of line and possibly low).  Without any efficiency added by porting, room reinforcement, or the assistance of the xover roll-off they alone would be capable of 113dB at 80hz 1M.  As frequency increases so does their SPL capability in general.  I easily expect the towers will maintain Dolby home reference levels if used within that xover from 12' away easily if not further - I'd be more concerned with the tweeters than woofers TBH.

 

Quote

Maybe my meaning of subs from DIY'ing for years is different than most.

You're not the only one that DIY's their subs, if you look earlier I'm using two Peerless 18" Pro drivers for subs in well sized cabs and have built a quite a few others over the years.

[CptnReflex]

On 11/27/2021 at 7:23 PM, JCBiggs said:

Just watched Linus and crew set up his new svs prime surround.  I have heard those and they are nice speakers but not very sensitive.   they sound good with enough power though.    Each tower is 250 watt rated at 8 ohms. The 8500 avr only has 150 watts per channel. (pretty sure its considerably less with all channels driven)     The primes are bi amp capable though,  so my  suggestion is to bi-amp them with the Denon...or..even better... use the denon preouts and get a class d (crown xls2002 has enough power).    They should sound much cleaner, and with proper power will make music listening very fun.    im thinking that setup is going to have some clipping issues.

 

What kind of gear are others running?  I'm using klipsch 8000s and a crown 1502 (much more senstive than the svs's)  with a denon avr.

 

 

On 12/1/2021 at 6:57 AM, King_PIN said:

Ok you won't have a hole but you are still going to be lacking mid bass.  Subs will work from 15hz-80hz and then what?  Those small drivers are not going to have a strong mid bass.  Maybe my meaning of subs from DIY'ing for years is different than most.  

 

Hi kingpin good to see ya again

 

Just going to add that while my focals don't get super loud, they do have very good midbass punch down to 40hz with single 6.5 inch woofers and passive radiators. 

 

Paired with a sub in a small room that is, there isn't much of a gap here for my needs

 

But my standards are much lower than others in this regard as well. My NHT super one original while they sound good with a sub, they really do lack midbass punch and would never cut it for heavy use imo being the same size woofers in a sealed box, only going down to 70 hz. Worlds apart there, but also neither speaker set would be good for home theater use per say for a full sized theater and the super ones cost me 50 bucks used, I have them in my tiny bedroom paired with a small infinity sub and it works great for that