Room correction preamps

[Tumara Baap]

I am of the school of thought that sonic differences between most
competently made receivers, amps and pre-amps have a piddling impact on
final sound quality. As such, I've felt channeling excessive disposable
income to such gear instead of better loudspeakers is unwise. But a handful
of higher end preamps now offer parametric equalizers for room resonances
that cannot fixed any other way. Hence my growing interest in them. Granted
my current Rane PE 17 equalizer does a splendid job of tackling the dominant
room resonance, but it handles only material south of 80Hz from the sub out
jack. For rectangular rooms, there may be two more room modes lurking
between 80 and 200 Hz. Getting a full on Rane THX parametric ensemble for
all channels is not only unwieldy, but drives up the cost so much that I
might as well pitch in for a nice Anthem or B&K preamp. Any suggestions on
which preamp does a really solid job in the room correction department?
Price ceiling is three grand, putting processors like TacT well out of my
league.
Tumara Baap

[Mike McKelvy]

Why not try one of the EQ's from the page below or find similar ones.
Very reasonable prices compared to RANE. RANE also make graphic
digital EQ's that might also serve your needs.

http://www.zzounds.com/cat--Live-Sound-Signal-Processors--2749

[Rui Pedro Mendes Salgueiro]

Tumara Baap > wrote:
> I am of the school of thought that sonic differences between most
> competently made receivers, amps and pre-amps have a piddling impact on
> final sound quality.

If that is the case, you could buy a multichannel receiver with automatic
room correction. For instance:

Yamaha RX-V750 (~$400 online) with YPAO (Yamaha Parametric Room Acoustic
Optimizer):

http://www.yamaha-service.de/service-download/owners_manual/audio/Rxv_serie/RXV750/RX-V750_english.pdf

Pioneer calls the equivalent feature "Automatic Multi-Channel Acoustic
Calibration System (MCACC)". It is available, for instance, on the
Pioneer VSX-55TXi (~$930 online):

http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/product/detail/0,,2076_4155_2046362,00.html

You can use such a receiver as a full amplifier (100 W RMS per channel
or more), or only as a preamplifier.

--
http://www.mat.uc.pt/~rps/

..pt is Portugal| `Whom the gods love die young'-Menander (342-292 BC)
Europe | Villeneuve 50-82, Toivonen 56-86, Senna 60-94

[Robert Morein]

"Tumara Baap" > wrote in message
...
> I am of the school of thought that sonic differences between most
> competently made receivers, amps and pre-amps have a piddling impact on
> final sound quality. As such, I've felt channeling excessive disposable
> income to such gear instead of better loudspeakers is unwise. But a
handful
> of higher end preamps now offer parametric equalizers for room resonances
> that cannot fixed any other way. Hence my growing interest in them.
Granted
> my current Rane PE 17 equalizer does a splendid job of tackling the
dominant
> room resonance, but it handles only material south of 80Hz from the sub
out
> jack. For rectangular rooms, there may be two more room modes lurking
> between 80 and 200 Hz. Getting a full on Rane THX parametric ensemble for
> all channels is not only unwieldy, but drives up the cost so much that I
> might as well pitch in for a nice Anthem or B&K preamp. Any suggestions on
> which preamp does a really solid job in the room correction department?
> Price ceiling is three grand, putting processors like TacT well out of my
> league.
> Tumara Baap
>
I have a bunch of equalizers of all kinds, parametric, paragraphic, and
multiband.
My experience, which I think coincides with modern acoustic theory, is that
above the bass region, equalizers do not provide satisfactory solutions to
room response. IF the room has been optimally treated, it is then worthwhile
to attempt further improvement by use of an equalizer.

The reason equalizers do not work as primary room-correction tools is that
the ear perceives direct and reflected sound in different manners.
Correction of reflected sound by an equalizer results in aberrations in the
direct sound, which are more objectionable than the original problem.

[Howard Ferstler]

Robert Morein wrote:

> I have a bunch of equalizers of all kinds, parametric, paragraphic, and
> multiband.
> My experience, which I think coincides with modern acoustic theory, is that
> above the bass region, equalizers do not provide satisfactory solutions to
> room response. IF the room has been optimally treated, it is then worthwhile
> to attempt further improvement by use of an equalizer.
>
> The reason equalizers do not work as primary room-correction tools is that
> the ear perceives direct and reflected sound in different manners.
> Correction of reflected sound by an equalizer results in aberrations in the
> direct sound, which are more objectionable than the original problem.

Yep. If you correct the reverberant-field response the
direct-field response may be skewed.

How well you can balance these conflicting artifacts will
depend upon the broad-bandwidth radiation pattern of the
speakers. For the most part, wide-dispersion jobs that have
the reverberant field dominate will have better luck with
equalization than narrower-dispersion jobs that will have
the direct field sometimes competing with the reverberant
field. With such systems, the "critical distance" moves back
and forth between the speaker and the listener as the
frequency changes. With wider-dispersion jobs that "critical
distance" remains fairly stabilized over a broad frequency
range (well out in front of the listener), and so
equalization can be consistent and helpful, even at midrange
and treble frequencies.

However, even with more conventional speakers moderate
corrections are probably no big, bad deal. If larger ones
are required, the best option would be to get better
speakers or relocate the existing ones to more optimal
locations.

Howard Ferstler

[Robert Morein]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Robert Morein wrote:
[snip]
>
Notice how this blabbermouth can turn the truth on its head.

What garbage:

> How well you can balance these conflicting artifacts will
> depend upon the broad-bandwidth radiation pattern of the
> speakers. For the most part, wide-dispersion jobs that have
> the reverberant field dominate will have better luck with
> equalization than narrower-dispersion jobs that will have
> the direct field sometimes competing with the reverberant
> field. With such systems, the "critical distance" moves back
> and forth between the speaker and the listener as the
> frequency changes. With wider-dispersion jobs that "critical
> distance" remains fairly stabilized over a broad frequency
> range (well out in front of the listener), and so
> equalization can be consistent and helpful, even at midrange
> and treble frequencies.
>
> However, even with more conventional speakers moderate
> corrections are probably no big, bad deal. If larger ones
> are required, the best option would be to get better
> speakers or relocate the existing ones to more optimal
> locations.
>
> Howard Ferstler

[Robert Morein]

"Tumara Baap" > wrote in message
...
> I am of the school of thought that sonic differences between most
> competently made receivers, amps and pre-amps have a piddling impact on
> final sound quality. As such, I've felt channeling excessive disposable
> income to such gear instead of better loudspeakers is unwise. But a
handful
> of higher end preamps now offer parametric equalizers for room resonances
> that cannot fixed any other way. Hence my growing interest in them.
Granted
> my current Rane PE 17 equalizer does a splendid job of tackling the
dominant
> room resonance, but it handles only material south of 80Hz from the sub
out
> jack. For rectangular rooms, there may be two more room modes lurking
> between 80 and 200 Hz. Getting a full on Rane THX parametric ensemble for
> all channels is not only unwieldy, but drives up the cost so much that I
> might as well pitch in for a nice Anthem or B&K preamp. Any suggestions on
> which preamp does a really solid job in the room correction department?
> Price ceiling is three grand, putting processors like TacT well out of my
> league.
> Tumara Baap
>
If you want to explore the theory, the Sony TA-E1000ESD is one of the
forgotten bargains of audio.
It does everything you want.

[Howard Ferstler]

Robert Morein wrote:
>
> "Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Robert Morein wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> Notice how this blabbermouth can turn the truth on its head.
>
> What garbage:
>
> > How well you can balance these conflicting artifacts will
> > depend upon the broad-bandwidth radiation pattern of the
> > speakers. For the most part, wide-dispersion jobs that have
> > the reverberant field dominate will have better luck with
> > equalization than narrower-dispersion jobs that will have
> > the direct field sometimes competing with the reverberant
> > field. With such systems, the "critical distance" moves back
> > and forth between the speaker and the listener as the
> > frequency changes. With wider-dispersion jobs that "critical
> > distance" remains fairly stabilized over a broad frequency
> > range (well out in front of the listener), and so
> > equalization can be consistent and helpful, even at midrange
> > and treble frequencies.
> >
> > However, even with more conventional speakers moderate
> > corrections are probably no big, bad deal. If larger ones
> > are required, the best option would be to get better
> > speakers or relocate the existing ones to more optimal
> > locations.

Do you even know what the "critical distance" is, meathead?

Howard Ferstler

[Sander deWaal]

Howard Ferstler > said:

>Do you even know what the "critical distance" is, meathead?


When one's behind a Scion Xa or Xb, yes.
As far away as possible, lest the aged driver push the braking pedal a
bit too eagerly ;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

[Howard Ferstler]

Sander deWaal wrote:
>
> Howard Ferstler > said:
>
> >Do you even know what the "critical distance" is, meathead?

> When one's behind a Scion Xa or Xb, yes.
> As far away as possible, lest the aged driver push the braking pedal a
> bit too eagerly ;-)

I am not often amused by what I read here, but your comment
did the trick. You got me again, tweako.

Howard Ferstler

[Ruud Broens]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
: Sander deWaal wrote:
: >
: > Howard Ferstler > said:
: >
: > >Do you even know what the "critical distance" is, meathead?
:
: > When one's behind a Scion Xa or Xb, yes.
: > As far away as possible, lest the aged driver push the braking pedal a
: > bit too eagerly ;-)
:
: I am not often amused by what I read here, but your comment
: did the trick. You got me again, tweako.
:
: Howard Ferstler

We're seldom amused by what you write, Ferstler-tweako, so ?
You didn't get it, again;-)
Rudy

[Howard Ferstler]

Ruud Broens wrote:

> We're seldom amused by what you write, Ferstler-tweako,

I certainly hope so. If I thought that you fact-deprived
audio lunkheads were being entertained by what I write here
and elsewhere, instead of being infuriated, I would be
demoralized.

Howard Ferstler

[George M. Middius]

Brother Horace the Demoralized muttered:

> > We're seldom amused by what you write, Ferstler-tweako,
>
> I certainly hope so. If I thought that you fact-deprived
> audio lunkheads were being entertained by what I write here
> and elsewhere, instead of being infuriated, I would be
> demoralized.

How quickly you forget. Paula! Where are you, Paula?

[Clyde Slick]

"Howard Ferstler" > wrote in message
...
> Ruud Broens wrote:
>
>> We're seldom amused by what you write, Ferstler-tweako,
>
> I certainly hope so. If I thought that you fact-deprived
> audio lunkheads were being entertained by what I write here
> and elsewhere, instead of being infuriated, I would be
> demoralized.
>


Of course you are entertaining! After all, you are a first
class professional audio clown. Haw, haw , haw!!!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[Tumara Baap]

The emergence of room correction in receivers is certainly very exciting,
and was news to me.

However, there is something to be said about marked differences in the
quality of this technology. Is it possible from just a single position
microphone reading, to discern between room resonances and artifacts arising
from interference of sound waves from multiple points (several loudspeakers
or even reflected sound). What of the folly of trying to compensate for
dips?...the more amplifier boost applied, the greater the cancellation at
the dip point. Or what of the controversial practice of trying to EQ sound
above 200 Hz? To boot, many of the receiver PEQ's don't permit manual
override.
A room correction article at http://www.meridian-audio.com/lib_pap.htm
touches on just about everything the Yamaha receivers do wrong. Not that
I'll ever plunk down dineros for a Meridian, but it is an interesting read
for anyone curious on room correction.
Tumara Baap



On 4/5/05 7:05 AM, in article , "Rui Pedro
Mendes Salgueiro" > wrote:

> If that is the case, you could buy a multichannel receiver with automatic
> room correction. For instance:
>
> Yamaha RX-V750 (~$400 online) with YPAO (Yamaha Parametric Room Acoustic
> Optimizer):
>
> http://www.yamaha-service.de/service-download/owners_manual/audio/Rxv_serie/RX
> V750/RX-V750_english.pdf
>
> Pioneer calls the equivalent feature "Automatic Multi-Channel Acoustic
> Calibration System (MCACC)". It is available, for instance, on the
> Pioneer VSX-55TXi (~$930 online):
>
> http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/pna/product/detail/0,,2076_4155_2046362,00.h
> tml
>
> You can use such a receiver as a full amplifier (100 W RMS per channel
> or more), or only as a preamplifier.