[jsher]

Jim - I'm impressed with the level of care and attention you give to your speakers and customers and hope to listen to your speakers but first wanted your feedback about which model(s) might best match my needs.

My listening room is 21'x13x8', my front speakers are set up along one of the shorter walls about 13 feet from my listening area and the room is enclosed except for an open doorway in a corner opposite the front speakers. I am using the room for both two-channel and home theatre, both with a sub.

I have a wide range of musical tastes but probably listen most to jazz followed by classic rock, classical, pop and folk. Volume is usually at a moderate level though at times I like to crank it up.

I have a Velodyne DD-15 sub which I really enjoy and have matched it up with monitors on the theory that I could fine tune the bass response to my room accoustics and then independently place the monitors to maximize the sound stage, detail and precision.

What are your suggestions?

BTW, I'm not too far away - I live in London, Ontario, a couple of hours from Detroit.
- Jonathan

[jsalk]

Jonathan -

Sorry for the delayed response, but for some reason I did not see your post.

Naturally, my first response would be to recommend the HT3's or the new V3's.  But since you indicate you will be using a sub with the speakers, you might want to consider the HT1's, HT2's or QW's.  If it was stictly jazz and classical, I would opt for the QW's.  But when you add classic rock to the mix, the HT2's may be a better choice, expecially since they are more sensitive.  And it may be easier to integrate with a sub than the QW's which have a very shallow roll-off on the bottom end.

In the end, you really can't go wrong with any of these speakers and I wouldn't hesitate recommending any of them.

I know this is probably not the specific answer you were looking for, but all of them would work well for you.

By the way, you are welcome to pay us a visit any time.

- Jim

[Brucemck]

jsher ....

HT2's supplemented with good subs are amazing speakers.

My room isn't that far off yours - 18L x 13W x 12H - and the HT2s have no problem fully energizing the space.

[ctviggen]

The shallow roll off means that the QW is still producing output at some low frequency, which means that you have to integrate the output of the QW with the sub(s).  For instance, if the QW had a perfect filter applied to it such that the QW did not produce frequencies below, say 40Hz, and the sub produced only frequencies below 40 Hz, then it would be relatively easy (at least in theory) to integrate the two, since the frequency ranges do not overlap.  On the other hand, if the QW is producing a large amount of output at, say, 20 Hz, then there will be two sources of 20 Hz:  the QW and the sub.  If the phase of the two aren't aligned, then you'll get strange types of intereference (low output at your seat, for instance, but large output elsewhere).  If the phases perfectly align, you'll be able to get even output (ignoring room effects), but this means that you'll need to dial in phase and amplitude of the subwoofer.

[miklorsmith]

I have Zu Definition Pros, which are different speakers no doubt, controlled by a TacT 2.2XP which allows instantaneous XO adjustments between the main array (front) and subs (back).  I have found the most seamless transition to be a first order XO on the main speakers and second order on the subwoofers.  Having a little bit of shared response, to my ears, really facilitates the illusion that one speaker is doing it all.

However, this is a case of stereo subwoofers placed more-or-less coincidently with the mains.  Where one subwoofer is used or stereo subs are placed away from the mains, I could see where phase effects would be most undesirable.  Having subwoofers with continuous phase adjustment instead of a 0 degree/180 degree switch would appear to give the most flexibility in optimizing the XO properties, IMO.

[ctviggen]

Well, I used to run my system with subs that overlapped the mains (run full range), so I can attest that it's possible to get this to work.  It's just a bit harder.

[DMurphy]

I take it there is no way to adjust the QW's LF response.


I don't see much point in getting the QW if you're going to use a sub full time.  The whole idea of the QW was to give you something resembling a 3-way, but with two drivers and a fairly simple crossover.  If you then deliberately roll off the bass to integrate with a sub, you will have paid all that money for a larger cabinet for no real reason.  I would the think the HT1 would make more sense, spelled $en$e. The H2 would come into the picture mainly if you wanted the greater power handling and sensitivity of a dual woofer design.  I won't comment on the one-vs-two sub question, except to say that I've done it both ways and couldn't hear much difference in my room. 

[miklorsmith]

There are possible localization issues at work too - the higher up your subs go the harder it will be to get them completely out of the way.  Depending on the main speaker's output level down to its low-threshold, you may wish to run the sub to 50 hz or 60 hz or 70 hz or 80 hz.  It's a series of compromises that will have a lot to do with how much energy the mains can give down low.

Example, my mains are rated flat-ish down to 40 hz.  However, for much of the music I listen to I like a little more oomph from 40 hz to 80 hz, the "power zone".  The subs can put out a LOT more power with much more composure, so I elevate the XO.  In some situations this could cause problems with localizing the sub(s).

SO, what I'm saying I guess is even in a stereo sub configuration and especially with a mono sub system there is some advantage to allowing the mains to go strong down low.

[WEEZ]

Dennis Murphy's advice is spot on...(actually, the QW would probably eliminate the need for a sub in a 13X21 room..)

[jsalk]

BrianM -

I'll try to answer, but the topic is a little more complicated than a simple answer might do your questions justice.

I understand that the QW's extended bass could/would make a sub redundant...

No necessarily.  The TL cabinet in the QW's allow the woofer to play lower (by exciting air in the TL cavity) than it would in a normal ported cabinet.  The driver starts falling off at basically the same frequency as in a ported cabinet, but it falls off much more gradually.  The effective bottom end is highly dependent on room placements, room modes, etc.  So you end up with usable bass in the 30's, but it may be down quite a bit.  If you want flat response in the 30's, a sub would probably be required.

But the QW's will have a VERY gradual fall-off of bass response while the sub will have a rather sharp slope on the top end in comparison.  So, without some sort of signal processing (via TacT, DEQX, Behringer, or similar), it will be difficult to get the two to mate with resulting flat response (not to mention phase relationships).

but, and I'm sure this is a dumb question, why does it always seem to be 50Hz that's the magic cutoff frequency?  If QWs play down to 35Hz why can't a sub cut out right there instead?  (It's not like I've done zero reading on this stuff, but I hadn't come across that particular answer yet.)

If you want flat response, you need to have the crossover to the sub set high enough so that it fills the area where the mains start falling off.  50Hz is roughly the area where the driver starts falling off.

Here is a FR plot I simulated based on Dave Ellis' 1801 cabinet.  So this is roughly how your 1801 W18 response will look:



As you notice, the F3 is just under 40Hz, but the falloff begins at about 50Hz.  Keep in mind that at the -3db point, the output is half of the output at 0db.  As you can see, the response starts to fall off around 50Hz (your "magic cut-off frequency').

With the QW's, the fall-off begins at roughly the same place, but falls off MUCH more gradually.  Since the top end of a normal subwoofer plate amp fall off much more steeply, it would be more difficult to smoothly integrate the two slopes.

I hope this makes sense.

Jim's building me some 1801s, so this is a topic I'm trying to bone up on.

By the way, I shot sealer on your cabinets yesterday and they are turning out stunningly.  I'm still waiting for Dave to send the kit, but we're making great progress!

And I have one other question: what does speaker sensitivity have to do with the type of music you listen to? HT2s are better for classic rock because they're more sensitive?

Sorry I confused you.  Sensitivity has nothing to do with the type of music you listen to.  I just thought I'd mention it because it is one advantage of the HT2 design.  As for why they would be better for classic rock, that is a matter of personal preference.  They seem to have just a little more mid-bass presence that some people would prefer to hear with rock music. This is just a matter of personal taste and is why I made the comment. 

Why does 2 mids make a speaker more sensitive anyway?

You basically have two woofers pushing twice the air.  In theory, you should gain 6db with an MTM design over an MT design.

What is the sound difference between the HT2 and the QW? Just bass? Ok that was more than 1 question...

That is an extremely difficult question to answer.  It is not just bass.  An MTM design sounds slightly different than a TL design.  Every listener will have a different interpretation.  My personal observation is that the QW will sound very smooth and balanced.  This is what I would prefer for classical or jazz.  The MTM design seems to have a little more mid-bass punch (for lack of a better term) that I would prefer if listening to rock music.  But we are splitting hairs here.  Either speaker would work very well with any type of music.  The original question related to my recommendation (which may be different than Dennis Murphy's or anyone else's) and I gave it based on my personal preferences.

I hope this all makes sense.

- Jim