What contributes most to 3-Dimensionality of sound systems deliver?

fas42 · Sep 12, 2016

Bob, this is the show I went to over 10 years ago, http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/superfi/superfi.html, that got me back into the hifi game. The MBL layout, although not Xtreme in the speakers

, delivered a standard that said audio, in raw form, was getting interesting - slight issues, but the 3D aspect was well done.

NorthStar · Sep 12, 2016

I looked in that last picture but I didn't see you. :b

I believe that those MBL 101 X-Treme speakers, in the perfect acoustic room, would sound very 3-dimensional.
? http://www.theabsolutesound.com/art...-x-treme-omnidirectional-loudspeaker-tas-189/

fas42 · Sep 12, 2016

Bob, that's a good read - I particularly liked this bit:

The Precedence Effect is a psychoacoustic phenomenon whereby an acoustic signal arriving first at our ears suppresses our ability to hear any other signals, including echoes and reverberations that arrive up to about 40ms after the initial signal (provided that the delayed signals are not significantly louder than the initial signal). As Dr. Siegfried Linkwitz says on his fascinating Web site[SUP]1[/SUP]: “The ear/brain automatically relegates [these late-arriving signals] to the earlier learned acoustic behavior of the room and readily blankets that information and thereby the [sound of the] room itself.”

This is my experience too - the direct, first heard sound is all important; it "sets the stage" for how the mind interprets everything else coming in, including all the room reflections. Get the actual sound emerging from the drivers as "perfect" as possible, and you're set to go: the acoustic of the recording dominates, and the room disappears, no matter what sort of nasty, and unsympathetic wall, etc, surfaces there may be ...

Kal Rubinson · Sep 12, 2016

fas42 said:
Bob, that's a good read - I particularly liked this bit:

This is my experience too - the direct, first heard sound is all important; it "sets the stage" for how the mind interprets everything else coming in, including all the room reflections. Get the actual sound emerging from the drivers as "perfect" as possible, and you're set to go: the acoustic of the recording dominates, and the room disappears, no matter what sort of nasty, and unsympathetic wall, etc, surfaces there may be ...

The Precendence Effect applies primarily to source localization and less so to characterization. http://www.cns.bu.edu/~shinn/resources/pdfs/2013/2013_Precedence.pdf

fas42 · Sep 12, 2016

Kal Rubinson said:
The Precendence Effect applies primarily to source localization and less so to characterization. http://www.cns.bu.edu/~shinn/resources/pdfs/2013/2013_Precedence.pdf

Had a look at that paper, and it confirms what I thought the Effect was about. The direct, ie. from the speaker driver, information allows the brain to precisely localise where the sound appears to be coming from; that information, from the driver, includes the direct wavefront from the instrument or sound source to the microphone, and, all the echos, in the recording space, from those sound makers. So, the direct sound as seen by the microphone then becomes the direct sound as produced by the speaker driver: this precisely locates where the sound is originating, the subjective illusion of the image of the instrument, etc. On top of that, the microphone registers the echos of that instrument in the recording venue, or booth, etc, which then should be clearly reproduced by the speaker, and the brain in turn hears the direct sound of that part of the signal, the recorded reverberation - this then delivers the acoustic of the recording.

The point being, the echos in the listening space of the direct sound seen by the microphone are ignored by the brain, and also the listening room echos of the recorded echos are ignored - this is how one subjectively can be transported to the venue; the listening room echos "don't compute" to the mind of the listener, and so are discarded.

FrantzM · Sep 13, 2016

fas42 said:
Had a look at that paper, and it confirms what I thought the Effect was about. The direct, ie. from the speaker driver, information allows the brain to precisely localise where the sound appears to be coming from; that information, from the driver, includes the direct wavefront from the instrument or sound source to the microphone, and, all the echos, in the recording space, from those sound makers. So, the direct sound as seen by the microphone then becomes the direct sound as produced by the speaker driver: this precisely locates where the sound is originating, the subjective illusion of the image of the instrument, etc. On top of that, the microphone registers the echos of that instrument in the recording venue, or booth, etc, which then should be clearly reproduced by the speaker, and the brain in turn hears the direct sound of that part of the signal, the recorded reverberation - this then delivers the acoustic of the recording.

The point being, the echos in the listening space of the direct sound seen by the microphone are ignored by the brain, and also the listening room echos of the recorded echos are ignored - this is how one subjectively can be transported to the venue; the listening room echos "don't compute" to the mind of the listener, and so are discarded.

fas

That is not the point of the paper Kal referred to: The echoes are not ignored by the brain ... then again ...yours OTOH apparently does ...

Kal Rubinson · Sep 13, 2016

FrantzM said:
fas

That is not the point of the paper Kal referred to: The echoes are not ignored by the brain ... then again ...yours OTOH apparently does ...

Ahem, yes.

bonzo75 · Sep 13, 2016

Auro 3d MCH gives a much higher 3d feel than any 2-ch system I have heard. There is a different realism caused by a high end 2ch system that comes from better tone. But for things like chorals and orchestra, the imaging, concert hall depth, 3d sound, and low noise (caused mainly by the room corrections) is higher than that of 2-ch. In 2-ch, you will always know the distance from the speakers to your seats. Better systems will make it seem a bit deeper, but not as realistic as Auro 3d.

But then MCH will never be able to compete with the tone of a good 2-ch system, and if one further likes specific tones of horns or asymmetrical panels, the choice is between going that route or MCH. However basic MCH systems usually sound good unlike 2-ch systems, which, despite a lot of spend, take a lot of years and effort to get sounding right. MCH also corrects for the room easily, while most analog systems, despite expenses, are usually in poor rooms (only few people have really invested in a good room). That keeps many 2-ch systems lagging. Also MCH systems get into "complete" mode pretty fast, while 2-ch systems are usually in "transitory" mode at any point - just the nature of the hobby I guess.

The bass in an Auro 3d systems with 4 corrected subs will also outdo most except the best 2-ch speakers. Again, since most 2-ch guys don't believe in DRC (to keep the tonal purity), those who don't have good rooms (most) will not have that bass.

fas42 · Sep 13, 2016

FrantzM said:
fas

That is not the point of the paper Kal referred to: The echoes are not ignored by the brain ... then again ...yours OTOH apparently does ...

Yes, the paper does not state what I added in my post - what caught my eye is that it emphasised the importance of the direct sound, and I extrapolated on that. The paper also mentions that echos may degrade one's ability to accurately locate the true location of the object in some situations - my take on this is that if the direct sound is of high enough quality then this is one of those alternative situations where the room acoustics have much less ability to subjectively degrade the spatial information.

On rereading the paper the content is somewhat confusing, and contradictory - I would need to look at material that discusses the complete situation in much greater detail, to properly see how relevant it is ...

YashN · Sep 13, 2016

A lot of spatial and timbral information is encoded in the very short attack transients of sounds. Reverb tails also help.

morricab · Sep 13, 2016

I have done a lot of thinking about this subject because I have heard situations where a system that his otherwise quite nice sounding will have the perspective of being totally and utterly flat where the images seemed to be cardboard cutouts and the soundstage is glued to the plane of the speakers. What I have found is that there are quite a lot of loudspeakers that are quite capable of making nice wide/deep soundstages and 3d images and they seem to come in all sizes, shapes and technologies. For sure some did it a bit better than others, particularly dipole speakers are capable of generating (perhaps artificially) a deep cavernous soundstage that seems to give a nice visual perspective of a full orchestra and allows it to "fit" better in a room that is obviously too small for a full orchestra.

So, IMO, the loudspeaker is NOT the most important ingredient in giving good 3d image/soundstage/layering etc. Certainly it has little to do with frequency response as speakers that 3d image and soundstage well are all over the map in this regard and not only on-axis but off-axis as well and in the time/phase domain too, although, those that are time/phase coherent seem to be more capable than most that are not in the imaging/soundstaging game.

What about the room? I have personally been able to achieve astonishing 3d imaging and precise soundstage localization and depth in realtively small UNtreated rooms. Does treatment of a room help in this regard?? Maybe yes and maybe no. Overdamping a room might help with image precision but it might collapse soundstage. From my experience this is also NOT a deal breaker, although a room with a lot of glass will not leave the imaging and especially soundtaging unaffectded to some degree.

What about the source? The electronics in the source (DAC + analog output stage or phonostage) will have a serious impact on 3d imaging and soundstaging through the distortion they generate, which is NOT like the distortion that is generated by loudspeakers and/or reflections in a room. These distortions, particularly the high order harmonics, damage image 3dedness and soundstage depth by changing the balance of perception in high frequency information, for example. High order harmonics affect perception of loudness...adding these harmonics will give a perception that something is louder than something without them. Humans tell distance in part by the change in harmonic balance with distance, where highs drop off with distance more rapidly than lower frequencies. Now if you shift that balance towards louder high freuqencies then you get the perception that the distance is closer. THus soundstage and imaging 3d collapse to varying degrees.

What about amps and preamps? Big source of destruction to 3d imaging and soundstaging. Like the DAC and phonostage above, the preamp and amp can alter the perception of distance to the point of making the soundstage and image completely flat. The better the gear allows the signal to pass without adding these unwanted harmonics the better it will be with imaging and soundstaging.

I once did a review on preamps where one preamp, despite sounding quite good overall, was creating this horribly flat 2d image and soundstage. It was even perceptually disconcerting because the effect was so strong (and this was with my excellent Acoustat Spectra 2200s that can create an awesome soundstage and deep palpable 3d images when driven properly...even in my small room). No other preamp was this bad but there was good and there was great. Switching from my Sphinx Project 14 to KR Audio upped the ante even further, creating reach out and touch realism...same source, same speakers, same cables, same room.

I have heard this destruction of soundstage a number of times with different amps, preamps and sources. Speakers people thought were not so good come to life with really good gear and I have only seen one or two rooms that were so bad that we couldn't get a decent soundstage and image with good gear behind the speakers. But electronics can destroy with shocking regularity.

Power is also important...the degree to which I get good 3d imaging and soundstaging depends a lot on the quality of the power. Certain times of day are better than others and that is why I have put my sources on power regeneration. Amps I have found react very differently to power regenrators...even ones that should be able to handle the load and most of the time for the worse. I hear this even with my Class A monsters. This probably has to do with intermodulation of the power supply with the amplification circuitry.

NorthStar · Sep 13, 2016

Kal Rubinson said:
The Precendence Effect applies primarily to source localization and less so to characterization. http://www.cns.bu.edu/~shinn/resources/pdfs/2013/2013_Precedence.pdf

fas42 said:
Had a look at that paper, and it confirms what I thought the Effect was about. The direct, ie. from the speaker driver, information allows the brain to precisely localise where the sound appears to be coming from; that information, from the driver, includes the direct wavefront from the instrument or sound source to the microphone, and, all the echos, in the recording space, from those sound makers. So, the direct sound as seen by the microphone then becomes the direct sound as produced by the speaker driver: this precisely locates where the sound is originating, the subjective illusion of the image of the instrument, etc. On top of that, the microphone registers the echos of that instrument in the recording venue, or booth, etc, which then should be clearly reproduced by the speaker, and the brain in turn hears the direct sound of that part of the signal, the recorded reverberation - this then delivers the acoustic of the recording.

The point being, the echos in the listening space of the direct sound seen by the microphone are ignored by the brain, and also the listening room echos of the recorded echos are ignored - this is how one subjectively can be transported to the venue; the listening room echos "don't compute" to the mind of the listener, and so are discarded.

FrantzM said:
fas

That is not the point of the paper Kal referred to: The echoes are not ignored by the brain ... then again ...yours OTOH apparently does ...

Kal Rubinson said:
Ahem, yes.

fas42 said:
Yes, the paper does not state what I added in my post - what caught my eye is that it emphasised the importance of the direct sound, and I extrapolated on that. The paper also mentions that echos may degrade one's ability to accurately locate the true location of the object in some situations - my take on this is that if the direct sound is of high enough quality then this is one of those alternative situations where the room acoustics have much less ability to subjectively degrade the spatial information.

On rereading the paper the content is somewhat confusing, and contradictory - I would need to look at material that discusses the complete situation in much greater detail, to properly see how relevant it is ...

I have read in grand tranquility the exchanges above. And Frank, I truly believe that Frantz and Kal are correct...and they are.
You brought an excellent point though; the reverberations, or reflections captured in the music recording themselves...the ones captured live in concert halls or other live venues. We certainly don't want the listening room adding up more unnecessary reflections to the reproduction of our music recordings.

I did some research on this subject; direct and reflected sounds (echoes, reverbs...); mainly with two speakers stereo, in order to give us the best 3-dimensional illusion.
The review of the MBL 101 X-Treme loudspeaker system by Jonathan Valin in the Abso!ute Sound back in 2011 was indeed a great read.
The OP (caesar) started one of the best threads on one of our most passionate hobbies; the disappearance act, room and speakers, leaving only the holographic picture of the music band...its 3-D immersive illusion from the music recordings. Some music recordings excel better @ this than most. We cannot downplay that important equation of the total 'everything is important' ensemble.

Here are some excellent links:

• Direct Sound, Reflections and Directional Late ... | PDF file ? 3D Real-Time Auralization ...
• Early Reflections Thresholds For Virtual Sound Sources | PDF file ? Timbre reproduction, direct sound and a single reflection.
• Sound Reproduction | Best ? Good stuff.
• Room Optimized Stereophonic Reproduction ? More good stuff.
• Real-Diffuse Enveloping Sound Reproduction ? PDF file download.
• Room Reflections Assisted Spatial Soundfield Reproduction ? PDF file download.
• Multichannel Sound Reproduction Quality ... ? A $33 paper for non-AES members.
• Sound Reproduction | Science Direct ? By Floyd E. Toole

andromedaaudio · Sep 13, 2016

Big stiff non resonant woofers with a lot off extension without much roll off , increases the soundstage, off course the housing must be able to cope with the energy .

microstrip · Sep 13, 2016

morricab said:
I have done a lot of thinking about this subject because I have heard situations where a system that his otherwise quite nice sounding will have the perspective of being totally and utterly flat where the images seemed to be cardboard cutouts and the soundstage is glued to the plane of the speakers. What I have found is that there are quite a lot of loudspeakers that are quite capable of making nice wide/deep soundstages and 3d images and they seem to come in all sizes, shapes and technologies. For sure some did it a bit better than others, particularly dipole speakers are capable of generating (perhaps artificially) a deep cavernous soundstage that seems to give a nice visual perspective of a full orchestra and allows it to "fit" better in a room that is obviously too small for a full orchestra.

So, IMO, the loudspeaker is NOT the most important ingredient in giving good 3d image/soundstage/layering etc. Certainly it has little to do with frequency response as speakers that 3d image and soundstage well are all over the map in this regard and not only on-axis but off-axis as well and in the time/phase domain too, although, those that are time/phase coherent seem to be more capable than most that are not in the imaging/soundstaging game.

What about the room? I have personally been able to achieve astonishing 3d imaging and precise soundstage localization and depth in realtively small UNtreated rooms. Does treatment of a room help in this regard?? Maybe yes and maybe no. Overdamping a room might help with image precision but it might collapse soundstage. From my experience this is also NOT a deal breaker, although a room with a lot of glass will not leave the imaging and especially soundtaging unaffectded to some degree.

What about the source? The electronics in the source (DAC + analog output stage or phonostage) will have a serious impact on 3d imaging and soundstaging through the distortion they generate, which is NOT like the distortion that is generated by loudspeakers and/or reflections in a room. These distortions, particularly the high order harmonics, damage image 3dedness and soundstage depth by changing the balance of perception in high frequency information, for example. High order harmonics affect perception of loudness...adding these harmonics will give a perception that something is louder than something without them. Humans tell distance in part by the change in harmonic balance with distance, where highs drop off with distance more rapidly than lower frequencies. Now if you shift that balance towards louder high freuqencies then you get the perception that the distance is closer. THus soundstage and imaging 3d collapse to varying degrees.

What about amps and preamps? Big source of destruction to 3d imaging and soundstaging. Like the DAC and phonostage above, the preamp and amp can alter the perception of distance to the point of making the soundstage and image completely flat. The better the gear allows the signal to pass without adding these unwanted harmonics the better it will be with imaging and soundstaging.

I once did a review on preamps where one preamp, despite sounding quite good overall, was creating this horribly flat 2d image and soundstage. It was even perceptually disconcerting because the effect was so strong (and this was with my excellent Acoustat Spectra 2200s that can create an awesome soundstage and deep palpable 3d images when driven properly...even in my small room). No other preamp was this bad but there was good and there was great. Switching from my Sphinx Project 14 to KR Audio upped the ante even further, creating reach out and touch realism...same source, same speakers, same cables, same room.

I have heard this destruction of soundstage a number of times with different amps, preamps and sources. Speakers people thought were not so good come to life with really good gear and I have only seen one or two rooms that were so bad that we couldn't get a decent soundstage and image with good gear behind the speakers. But electronics can destroy with shocking regularity.

Power is also important...the degree to which I get good 3d imaging and soundstaging depends a lot on the quality of the power. Certain times of day are better than others and that is why I have put my sources on power regeneration. Amps I have found react very differently to power regenrators...even ones that should be able to handle the load and most of the time for the worse. I hear this even with my Class A monsters. This probably has to do with intermodulation of the power supply with the amplification circuitry.

Excellent points. People must remember that 3D is an illusion created within our brain using all the information that arrives at our ears - not just the classical intensity and phase patterns of the direct and reflected wave. Micro details supply also the information we need to "imagine" the 3D image, but they are often loss or hidden with the use of the wrong components any where in the chain.

Playing with the Quad ESL63 was a fascinating but sometimes frustrating affair in this aspect. Sometimes, in awkward rooms and positioning when used with some particular ancillaries they could have some of the best 3D I remember. Other times, used with the best components in good sound sounding rooms they sounded flat, imaged small and compressed.

NorthStar · Sep 13, 2016

bonzo75 said:
Auro 3d MCH gives a much higher 3d feel than any 2-ch system I have heard. There is a different realism caused by a high end 2ch system that comes from better tone. But for things like chorals and orchestra, the imaging, concert hall depth, 3d sound, and low noise (caused mainly by the room corrections) is higher than that of 2-ch. In 2-ch, you will always know the distance from the speakers to your seats. Better systems will make it seem a bit deeper, but not as realistic as Auro 3d.

But then MCH will never be able to compete with the tone of a good 2-ch system, and if one further likes specific tones of horns or asymmetrical panels, the choice is between going that route or MCH. However basic MCH systems usually sound good unlike 2-ch systems, which, despite a lot of spend, take a lot of years and effort to get sounding right. MCH also corrects for the room easily, while most analog systems, despite expenses, are usually in poor rooms (only few people have really invested in a good room). That keeps many 2-ch systems lagging. Also MCH systems get into "complete" mode pretty fast, while 2-ch systems are usually in "transitory" mode at any point - just the nature of the hobby I guess.

The bass in an Auro 3d systems with 4 corrected subs will also outdo most except the best 2-ch speakers. Again, since most 2-ch guys don't believe in DRC (to keep the tonal purity), those who don't have good rooms (most) will not have that bass.

I would love to have opinions from experts on that; members here who have witness both some of the best stereo and multichannel music setups in the world.
Be it from the best 3-D holographic stereo speakers dispersion pattern and from the best Auro-3D immersive multichannel setups.

My own theory: You can achieve the intended 3-Dimensional sound goal from both. Plus Live in some of the best concert halls.

To bring our favorite music played by our favorite musicians and singers in the comfort of our own rooms, and with the ultimate highest fidelity possible, is to live stress-free in a three-dimensional world short of being there. :b
When we assist to a great live jazz music band @ our local jazz club; we see the band playing and we dance to the music, and use our own body language to sensualize our gentle touches with our feminine partner. Short of hiring the band @ home; we'll always be missing 'everything is important' ingredients of real life. We'll remain inside an incomplete illusion of our imagination. Our brain will only have some of the fundamentals from music reproduction, 3D or not.

We are so preconditioned with only two speakers music listening since the first time stereo hi-fi came to our lives that our brain are frying in a pan trying to picture the unseen.
We never mention the picture/video of the music band/orchestra playing with our listening. We let our own imagination picture them. None wrong with that; some audiophiles close their eyes @ live music concerts, to let only the music immerse them in a 3D space...from the entire room and the front soundstage.

Another thing: DSP Room correction EQ. Purists dissent it with a grand passion, as it alters the perception through inferior and unnecessary 'pumping' processing.
Our brain and our room acoustic treatment is all we truly need to let our perfect audio electronics and mechanical electric loudspeakers to live our illusion untouched, virgin.
If we can do that fine, but how many can do?

Methinks that no matter how pure and how low the distortion of our gear (amplification of the audio signals) and speakers and sources; if not acoustically balanced in our rooms it won't cut the mustard. We are severely more affected by room's deficiencies than by audio component's flaws. IMO

That MBL 101 X-Treme sound reproduction system; I'd love to be able to afford.
The entire system with amplification, pre-amplification, and the best music sources (+ quality cables) is roughly half million dollars. ...And the room to go with it, of course.

And, I'd love to experiment with the new BANG & OLUFSEN's BeoLab 90 loudspeaker system. I am waiting to read Kal's own analysis.
They are much much more affordable too. They come with all the amplification built into them, plus plus plus.
_______

Regarding multichannel music/movie setup (Auro-3D, etc.); a state-of-the art home theater room hides all the speakers very elegantly.
And that same room can equally excel @ both movies projection (picture & sound) and music reproduction...all in a very 3-Dimensional quality sound.
There are many great ultra hi-end multichannel sound systems out there...TRINNOV and all that sort of jazz.

Question (1):
In a perfectly acoustically balanced/treated room, can we still gain from state-of-the-art room EQ?
...Like those MBL 101 X-Treme with their subwoofer towers. Or would it be a sacrilege? :b

Number 2:
Do we truly need two separate rooms for 3D music immersion...movies and music.
I know the answer here: Yes. :b

fas42 · Sep 13, 2016

microstrip said:
Excellent points. People must remember that 3D is an illusion created within our brain using all the information that arrives at our ears - not just the classical intensity and phase patterns of the direct and reflected wave. Micro details supply also the information we need to "imagine" the 3D image, but they are often loss or hidden with the use of the wrong components any where in the chain.

Playing with the Quad ESL63 was a fascinating but sometimes frustrating affair in this aspect. Sometimes, in awkward rooms and positioning when used with some particular ancillaries they could have some of the best 3D I remember. Other times, used with the best components in good sound sounding rooms they sounded flat, imaged small and compressed.

+1 ... except for me it's a system issue, always - there's almost no such thing as a "wrong" component, I've made it a challenge over the years to push any system I have input on to deliver competent, 3D sound, and it happens, every time, within the inherent limitations of the parts. I have almost zero interest in what a particular component is, what the brand and model is, it's merely part of a toolkit to extract quality sound from recordings - a means to an end.

If I was starting from scratch to create a system I would just acquire good quality gear having an excellent value for money factor, that appealed visually, and do all the under the bonnet fiddling necessary to ramp up the performance to the required level ...

fas42 · Sep 13, 2016

NorthStar said:
We certainly don't want the listening room adding up more unnecessary reflections to the reproduction of our music recordings.

Bob, I've been in the rooms of some serious audio dudes who had heavily treated the space. And they were awful places to be in, very unpleasant as a casual environment to experience - I couldn't wait to leave them! Yes, they made one focus on the music, and enhanced the sense of the presentation - so, they do work! But not my cup of tea ... a system in my book has to work "in the rough" - drop it down casually, in any environment, and it just conjures up "big" sound, music, every time. This can be done, and gives one the best of all worlds - it brings out the best in any recording, never fails to impress, and no excuses have to be made for the sound, ever ...

NorthStar · Sep 13, 2016

Frank, room acoustics also include dispersion, room lenses, flat and angled reflective surfaces.
Jonathan Valin mentioned in his review of the MBL 101 X-Treme that you don't want to make your room all absorbing dead.

Studio music recordings are mixed on a console with knobs and sliders from musicians playing inside booths from various parts of the world. Those are those.
But natural music recordings in true natural ambient and pleasant rooms for the ear canals we want to retain those precious attributes by the true music recording engineers, audiophile music recordings, not inferno discordance full of stress and dead on harmonics and dynamics...loudness war.

I agree; we want a balanced room. A mix of calculated absorption and dispersion. Just like when cooking a great meal in a chef cuisine/kitchen.

* I like the sound of a cello playing in my room; it fits with my walls and ceiling. It's 3D.
A piano is tougher...I find.

Kal Rubinson · Sep 13, 2016

bonzo75 said:
But then MCH will never be able to compete with the tone of a good 2-ch system, ........................

On what basis do you say that?

witchdoctor · Sep 13, 2016

The bass in an Auro 3d systems with 4 corrected subs will also outdo most except the best 2-ch speakers. Again, since most 2-ch guys don't believe in DRC (to keep the tonal purity), those who don't have good rooms (most) will not have that bass.[/QUOTE]

Adding more subs is an excellent idea, my Sunfire sub comes with a mic and its own EQ, no need to run audyssey. My second sub output runs the VOG channel in the Marantz 7702. I still have XLR connectors but I am scratching my head on how to connect 4 subs until I get a Datasat or a Trinnov.

What contributes most to 3-Dimensionality of sound systems deliver?

Addicted To Best

Member

Addicted To Best

Well-Known Member

Addicted To Best

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member

Well-Known Member

Member Sponsor

Addicted To Best

New Member

Well-Known Member

Member

VIP/Donor

VIP/Donor

Member

Addicted To Best

Addicted To Best

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads