[medium jim]

Josh:

One of the compromises with Magnepan's is that off axis they are not too good.  On axis they're sublime.  My sole goal was to get my system as sweet as possible in the listening area.  My 2nd system is much better off axis, so it gets playing time when I have more than 2 over.

Jim

[poseidonsvoice]

Good luck...

Thanks, but I don't need it cause I've already done it. PM me for measurements and look at my systems page for details.

Best,
Anand.

[Rclark]

I regard Anand's opinion highly...

[josh358]

Josh:

One of the compromises with Magnepan's is that off axis they are not too good.  On axis they're sublime.  My sole goal was to get my system as sweet as possible in the listening area.  My 2nd system is much better off axis, so it gets playing time when I have more than 2 over.

Jim

Yeah, they're definitely "sweet spot" speakers, not great for partying. However, the fact that they dump 4.6 dB (IIRC) less sound into the room is one of the reasons they sound better. It's also easier on the neighbors. If I could have the ideal front channel speaker, it would be even more directional. I'm convinced at this point that room reflections are the largest problem in sound reproduction.

[medium jim]

Josh:

Definitely easier on the neighbors, I also concur that if you tame the 1st wave reflections that you are in decent shape.  This leads us to the subwoofer(s)...

Jim

[josh358]

I regard Anand's opinion highly...

Just wanted to say that it wasn't my intent to criticize anyone, in fact, my post wasn't a reply to Anand's, or to R. Clark's, it was written earlier and I ignored the new posts while you were typing warning. The article he posted was an excellent one.

That being said, while I admire Anand no end for doing this, I think I understand R. Clark's point as well. Effective trapping in the lower octaves is likely more than most people want to take on, or have the WAF for. This of course is something you have to judge for yourself after reading the article. There's no question that if you have the wherewithal to do it, it can have positive results. However, for sweet spot listening in an existing/non-dedicated room, I think that most will find placement, multiple subs, and EQ the most practical strategy, and, as I said, one should always use high resolution digital EQ below the Schroeder frequency, trapping or not.

IMO, EQ isn't really an option if high fidelity reproduction is the goal, unless you use a single or double plane wave bass array -- which is far superior to any of these techniques, since it completely eliminates room modes below the spatial Nyquist frequency.

[josh358]

Josh:

Definitely easier on the neighbors, I also concur that if you tame the 1st wave reflections that you are in decent shape.  This leads us to the subwoofer(s)...

Jim

Unfortunately, I think it requires more than taming just the first reflections, though they're the worst offenders. I don't really know how to get it right without planar surrounds and acoustical treatment that no one could use if he wanted to keep his wife (and, arguably, his sanity). The Rooze comes closer than anything else I've heard, because it multiplies the acoustical size of the room.

[Rclark]

Nobody's insulted, what I.meant was check out his system and links, he seems to know a lot.

[medium jim]

The real issue is what is going to get you the most results for the money....I'm with Josh and TJHUB, but I'm not saying that room treatments are not going to bear fruit, they do, just to what extent and at what cost...it comes down to priorities and how much money you have to spend. 

For me, EQ'ing my system was the most cost effective and then I worked on the acoustics. 

Jim

[medium jim]

.... with your well placed clutter?

The "Well Placed Clutter" was always there, go figure, just needed to relocate some of it!  The eq'ing via a High-Pass was a bigger improvement by far.  When you think about it, you need to flat line your system before you can figure out what Room Treatments are required!

Jim

[Rclark]

   legitimate questions.

Anyway. I listened to the Killers, Hot Fuss, an album I normally don't care for but there is phenomenal bass playing on that one, really shows off the sub. I am negotiating another pair of subs, hope to hear from the guy soon.

[jackman]

I'm glad the Epik subs are working out for you.  They are a local company (Woodstock, IL) and I think I met the owner, Chad, at an audio fest a long time ago, before Epik existed.  If it's the guy I recall, he's a good guy and very knowledgeable about subwoofers. 

The sub designs have changed a lot over the years.  Their early subs used single drivers that were beefy, with cast frames and huge magnets and the cabinets were very large and heavy.  They had pictures of the drivers and cabinets on the site and lots of stuff about making things in house.  The current subs seem to use more modest (inexpensive) stamped frame drivers, but they now have 2 drivers per cabinet and prices are very reasonable.  Don't know if one design is better than the other (single driver, dual driver, etc) but I'd be curious to know if they are still making their subwoofers (cabinets) in IL, or having them made by a third party in Asia. 

[jackman]

Yep, I saw that but the new subs say "designed" by Epik and I'm not sure if they actually make subs here.  I hope they do because it's what separates Epik from other companies.  $499 for a dual 12" woofer sub is a steal.  If it's made in IL, even better.

[Rclark]

From what I understand it's him and his wife I believe, and some other people, all hand built in IL. Pretty cool!

[JRace]

Rclark, need to settle down fella....actually I did make a rude graph on note paper...you are missing the point, if you have issues as shown on a graph, room treatments will not cure it...you need to cure it at the eq level first then move to acoustic treatments, otherwise you are putting the cart before the horse.  I don't know how many people need to tell you that before you comprehend.  Just for the record, Josh is one of the most respected in the industry and maybe you should consider what he said about the subject.  Not impuning Arand, who has built a killer system. 

Jim

Your saying to eq first, then do room  treatments last?
With all do respect That is actually ass-backwards.
Eq can only do so much ( not much in regards to time based issues). Get the room right first then focus on eq. If you want the easy way out your method is by far easier and cheaper. Not the best way however.

http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm

Finally, I'd like to reiterate a point I have made many times in my acoustics articles and web forum posts. The frequency response in domestic size rooms changes drastically over very small distances, even at low frequencies. Therefore, unlike bass traps that always improve all locations, any EQ that improves the response at one location is sure to make it worse elsewhere, even a few inches away.

http://blog.acousticfrontiers.com/whats-new/2011/6/3/hard-proof-that-equalization-kills-room-modes.html

Equalization should be thought of as the last component of the optimization process. First an appropriate acoustic design should be completed taking into account the use of the space (two channel listening room or home theater; number of seats; family room vs dedicated, etc), the radiation characteristics of the speakers and the number of subwoofers permitted. Once the design is complete installation of the acoustic treatment and equipment needs to take place. Next is the process of calibration, where the acoustical targets for the level of reflections, modal decay, frequency response and RT60 are confirmed by measurements and speaker placement, levels, delays, phase and crossover slopes adjusted. Finally comes equalization, when all other adjustments have been made.

[jtwrace]

Your saying to eq first, then do room  treatments last?
With all do respect That is actually ass-backwards.
Eq can only do so much ( not much in regards to time based issues). Get the room right first then focus on eq. If you want the easy way out your method is by far easier and cheaper. Not the best way however.

http://www.realtraps.com/art_audyssey.htm
http://blog.acousticfrontiers.com/whats-new/2011/6/3/hard-proof-that-equalization-kills-room-modes.html

Yep.  100%!

[josh358]

I agree that room treatments are ideal as a starting point, for several reasons, including the time domain issues you mentioned. However, the point that I think Jim has been trying to make and with which I agree, is that effective acoustical bass treatment can be some combination of difficult, space consuming, and marriage breaking. So as a matter of practicality, I believe that many are best served by positioning/multiple subs/EQ.

I don't think though that this should be considered some kind of either/or debate. What works best will depend on resources, circumstance, and goals, e.g., whether it's a "sweet spot" setup or has to accommodate multiple listeners, as in a home theater. Also whether the room can be purpose built -- it's really easy to build bass traps into new construction -- or partly demolished, whether you'd be better off spending the money elsewhere, etc. So I tend to think that the goal should be to describe some of the pros and cons of the various options so the OP can decide what works for him.

There's also the dipole magic approach, which consists of sitting the same distance from the rear wall as the dipole woofers are from the front. HP's rule of thirds is in part an example of this. In a rectangular room, this will create a passive SBA for free. I was able to do this in my old listening room and it works brilliantly. Here, I don't have enough space.

[josh358]

Yeah but we're not talking about WAF here, we're talking optimal accoustics. Forget WAF, I don't and won't have this to contend with. This is my listening space. Forget cost of treatments, diy is not expensive.

Well, as I said, it's what works for you. If you have the time to build and freedom to use traps, that's great, although IMO you still need EQ. I don't think anyone would argue that it isn't best to optimize the acoustics first.

[Rclark]

 Well I plan on using bass management as well, does this qualify? Can you recommend some good ones that can control several subs?

[josh358]

Well I plan on using bass management as well, does this qualify? Can you recommend some good ones that can control several subs?

A lot of people use the Behringer 2496. It has narrow band parametrics, not ideal, but OK.

I'd also consider the DSPeaker. It handles the measurements itself and was very highly reviewed in TAS and elsewhere. I haven't played with it myself.

The next level would be real room correction hardware like Audyssey Pro at the lower end and DEQX at the high end. The risk here is that you'll end up with an investment out of proportion to your MMG's. I mean, you reach the point where you can do more for the money. If you use a computer as your source, you can do real DSP correction with software for about $350 -- that's the way I'm going to go. For that, you'd need the REW-based measurement setup I mentioned. If you want a Behringer measurement mic for postage, just PM me, I have an old one, you can get it calibrated at Cross Spectrum for $55. However, the new calibrated one isn't much more expensive and the one I have doesn't have a case so you might want to spring for the new one.

Finally, a bit off topic but Wendell at Magenpan is currently very enthusiastic about the MMG + DWM combination. This isn't a sub but rather a woofer. He points out that midbass has more of an effect on bass quality than deep bass and I think most would agree. Most speakers are problematic in this region because of boundary effects. The MMG's have dips in the 100-200 Hz range and in my experience (I had MMG's for several years) that robs the music of its foundation. I think you'd still want a sub, but this is something you might want to consider as part of the mix.