[medium jim]

Please vote, but more importantly explain your reasoning. 

Thanks,
Jim

[roscoeiii]

Ohhhh good topic. I will need to think on this...

[JohnR]

Why does one have to be done first?

[medium jim]

Assuming that one has taken measurements, I would address the equalization to get your system as flat as possible, which to me will get your system sounding much better, especially if you did have some eq funkiness. 

Then you attack the room for reflections, diffusion to improve the imaging and note rise and decay.  However, if you have an overly live room, then I would say treat the room first.

Jim

[medium jim]

Why does one have to be done first?

JohnR:

In the optimum situation you could do both.  In the real world many of us (or me) can only afford to tackle one at a time.  Then there are some that feel one must be performed first as opposed to the other. 

Jim

[*Scotty*]

My vote would be none of the above. Buy a second sub before you spend any money on bass related room treatments.
Bass equalization or response flattening as well as suppression of resonant behavior below the Schroeder frequency comes along for the ride when you add a second sub.
Scotty

[medium jim]

My vote would be none of the above. Buy a second sub before you spend any money on bass related room treatments.
Bass equalization or response flattening as well as suppression of resonant behavior below the Schroeder frequency comes along for the ride when you add a second sub.
Scotty

Scotty:

I like your reasoning and added "None of the Above" as a voting option.
I knew there was a reason I bought two subs!
Jim

[satfrat]

If you're looking for optimum measurements, EQ should get you there faster but it doesn't guarantee audio nervosa in your listening environment IMHO. Room treatment can IMHO optimize the type of sound that you're looking for, be it a diffused sound that could back a small room sound more spacious or a large room that's echoing like crazy. So IMHO, it's room treatment, hands down cuz I'm listening to music with my ears, not with sound measuring equipment. But that's just me, YMMV. 

Cheers,
Robin

[satfrat]

Oh yeah btw, what's this topic title as written have to do with bass per say?  This is a better topic for the acoustic circle IMHO.

Cheers,
Robin

[medium jim]

Oh yeah btw, what's this topic title as written have to do with bass per say?  This is a better topic for the acoustic circle IMHO.

Cheers,
Robin

I would hope it was assumed because it was started in the Bass Circle.
Many thanks,
Jim

[jtwrace]

My vote would be none of the above. Buy a second sub before you spend any money on bass related room treatments.
Bass equalization or response flattening as well as suppression of resonant behavior below the Schroeder frequency comes along for the ride when you add a second sub.
Scotty

+1 but....
From my experience I'd say buy 3 or 4 total.  People will never know what they're missing unless they try it.  Oh and it MUST be setup properly with measurements.  Not just plop them down and twist some knobs.

[JLM]

My vote would be none of the above. Buy a second sub before you spend any money on bass related room treatments.
Bass equalization or response flattening as well as suppression of resonant behavior below the Schroeder frequency comes along for the ride when you add a second sub.
Scotty

+3  Bass in listening rooms act like waves traveling the length of a bath tub.  As kids you've probably played with the water to see how big of wave you can make and find out that at the right frequency standing waves double the peaks/valleys.  Bigger venues (arenas, concert halls) act like swimming pools where the waves are relatively too small to have the same effect.  This is laws of physics stuff, no point in arguing further. 

I've posted it before, but apart from a swarm (with all the equipment/wiring) here's an elegant one piece solution:

http://www.spatialcomputer.com/page9/page10/page10.html  (a freestanding sub at the back wall with microphone that listens and reacts against your system's bass response to acoustically remove the far wall of the room, now the room (bath tub) acts like a concert hall (swimming pool).

But I voted for treatment before EQ (have both being an excessive complusive audiophile).  For bass treatment is nearly impossible to be effective (must be HUGE) and "normal" residential rooms shouldn't need treatment at higher frequencies, but EQ can only be dialed in to a single listening position in the room.  (I use EQ to replace baffle step circuits in my purist single driver system.)

[bpape]

Treat the room and buy another sub are both options which lead to the same point, do whatever you can first before having to resort to EQ.  EQ is a band-aid (albeit sometimes a necessary one) that can introduce phase issues and can only be truly effective for one seat in a room.  EQ cannot fix modal nulls.  EQ cannot address decay time issues.    Why EQ first and then treat when you can likely minimize how much EQ is required if you treat first? 

Bryan

[JohnR]

Why EQ first and then treat when you can likely minimize how much EQ is required if you treat first? 

Hm, some reasons could be that a) it's a lot cheaper and b) it's easy enough to adjust and finetune as other things change.

No?

[bpape]

If only one chair, if you only want to address frequency (not time) and if you only want to address peaks and not modal nulls, sure.  Just seems backward to me.  The 3 biggest things that impact what you hear are your speakers, your room, and how you are set up in the room.  Hmmmm.  2 are the room.....

Now if you have a system that requires EQ due to driver non-linearity, then sure, EQ would be a necessary thing to do - still doesn't fix the room or the time domain though.

Bryan

[rodge827]

Treat the room and buy another sub are both options which lead to the same point, do whatever you can first before having to resort to EQ.  EQ is a band-aid (albeit sometimes a necessary one) that can introduce phase issues and can only be truly effective for one seat in a room.  EQ cannot fix modal nulls.  EQ cannot address decay time issues.    Why EQ first and then treat when you can likely minimize how much EQ is required if you treat first? 

Bryan

I chose EQ although I'm not referring to a traditional multi band type.

I'm referring to the Dspeaker Antimode Dual Core 2.0 ($1200.00). There is so much that this little unit does, like automatically correcting phase issues, correcting room nulls and has a 16 band EQ. You can adjust all bass frequencies from 0hz-500hz automatically and manualy then use the EQ to adjust to your liking. There are manual modes where if you want you can "fine tune" delays and EQ in real time, while watching it on either the on screen display or your computer. The only area where the D/C lacks is with slap echo issues, those you must take care of yourself.

I have only had the D/C for a month, and have only been mucking around with it for the last week or so. Work and some vacation time had me put the D/C on the back burner. There are many things that the D/C does and I have hardly scratched the surface of it's capabilities.

Some of you may be familiar with other Dspeaker Antimode products ( I had the 8033s), the Dual Core 2.0 is a completely different and animal, and picks up where those leave off.

So with an open mind I suggest that anyone interested in the D/C follow the link and read all about it. Reading the Owners Manual and FAQ's section helps to better get an idea as to what the D/C can do for your own unique system.

http://www.dspeaker.com/

I'm in S.Jersey, if some of you want to stop by for a listen please contact me and we'll set some thing up.

*Standard Disclaimer*

I'm not a dealer, not affiliated with Dspeaker, Just a happy owner,...

Chris   


 

 
 

[rollo]

  I'm with Scotty and JW on this. Multiple subs. My vote would be room treatment if anything at all.  I believe controlling phase and timeing is key to accurate tight Bass.
  Started with one added a second and the third just did the trick. When the boom and smear is gone the entire frequency range benifits. Just a clearer picture into the music. 



charles

[medium jim]

Hm, some reasons could be that a) it's a lot cheaper and b) it's easy enough to adjust and finetune as other things change.

No?

That's what I think too, eq is cost effective and the results are greater  initially. The advantage is it may minimize the amount of room treatment required.  The concept of multiple subs is fine in theory, but don't always smooth things out, especially if you have uncorrected eq issues.

Then ask yourself, how much will room treatments  affect the bottom octaves?


Jim

[jtwrace]

The concept of multiple subs is fine in theory, but don't always smooth things out, especially if you have uncorrected eq issues.

Not true.  Have you ever even tried it? 

[medium jim]

Not true.  Have you ever even tried it?

Jason:

I use two subs and have no complaints, especially after taking care of the eq. 

Jim