Make my HT better please! (1 Viewer)

[Brent_S]

Let me offer a bit of a different view here.

First, Lance is on the right track regarding power. Don't let cabinet size or number of drivers confuse the reality of physics. DefTech rates the 2004TL at 92dB. Assuming they're following industry norms, that means 92dB from 1 watt at 1m. Double the power gets you +3dB, so you only need 8 watts to get to 101dB...from one speaker!! Sound does drop off with distance, hence the need for a bit more than 20ish watts to hit reference level in the real world. But, you should get the picture by now. More drivers might give you more power handling, but it doesn't have to create a "need" for more power.

Sound & Vision did a bench test on the 5200ES. While it's not great in the all channels driven test, that's not a condition that has happened with real world soundtracks, yet.

I would suggest trying a different configuration before adding a separate amp. You have all of the ingredients for a fine sounding system.

I can't find a manual or any real details on the 2004TLs, but I gather they have at least a line level LFE in for the subwoofer section and possibly a full range line level in as well...not exactly sure what the difference would be. I would get a splitter and run line level from the 5200ES's sub out to the 2004TLs (experiment with LFE and full range input for best sound) and Dynamo. Then configure all mains for small with an 80Hz crossover. This will take the bass load off of the Sony's amps...even though the 2004TLs have built in subwoofer amps, by running all channels as "large", the Sony's still trying to provide power into the subwoofer frequencies. When you run only speaker level to the 2004s, the 2004's crossover simply uses high resistance to bring the bass frequency signal back down to line level voltage before feeding it into the sub amp...just like the hi-lo converters from your car audio days. You'll get a cleaner signal by sending line level to the sub amps from the start.

DefTech has also been shown to be rather optimistic with their frequency specs when independently measured...BP6's with 6.5" woofers will not produce useful output in the mid 20's as claimed...it's that physics thing again. Regardless of their tower cabinets, those are "small" speakers in any system with a decent subwoofer. Sound&Vision still has some bench tests for the BP7002. On paper, it should be even more capable than the 2004TL. Unfortunately, in a max output test, Nousaine measured only 83dB at 32Hz when held to a 10% distortion limit. I'm sure it will play louder, but distortion will sky rocket.

You don't mention how you set your system up. That's the first place to start. Get an SPL meter from Radio Shack so you can properly calibrate all channels. This will also allow you to find out how loud you're really listening. I personally find 100ish dB peaks to be plenty loud; for movie playback that's about -15dB below Reference. If you check the OSHA charts, they recommend 100dB exposure be limited to less than 2 hours per day. Protect your hearing, once you lose it, it doesn't come back.

Once you get an SPL meter, you can also download Room EQ Wizard from HomeTheaterShack and take some room measurements. This would allow you to find out if you're getting any bass cancellation from running three subs. I will also allow you to find out if you're sitting in a null, among other useful tidbits.

BiPoloar speakers should inherently sound "big". You might also try expremimenting with different distances to the rear wall and angle. If the rear wave can't get out into the room, you've defeated the purpose and voicing that DefTech gave them.

-Brent

 

[Brett DiMichele]

Great post!

Here is a question though, "How" precisely is efficiency rated on any speaker? Do you build out the speaker, put it in an anechoic chamber and feed it a 2000Hz sine wave and say, ok it produced 92DB with 1 watt and 1 meter. Does that tell the whole story? Or do you test a speaker from it's lower FR limit to it's upper FR limit, using sine wave tones at each notch, and then average it out?

I am asking because it will require more power to produce the mid bass and low frequency tones than it will to produce higher frequency tones, right?

So if something is rated at 92Db 1W 1M does that mean it's going to sound "Dynamic" on 20 watts of power?

Thanks in advance,

 

[Brent_S]

Ideally, it's just as you said. Place the speaker in an anechoic chamber or outdoors and run a frequency sweep with a 1 watt input. Then average the SPL over the published +/- 3dB bandwidth of the speaker.

Some manufacturers are more forthcoming than others with how the measurement was arrived at. Either PSB or Paradigm actually publishes both in room and anechoic sensitivty ratings. Of course, that opens up the question of what does "in room" mean; distance to boundaries, etc. DefTech (sorry Martin, I actually do like the BP models I've heard) doesn't specify tolerances or how measurements are achieved and objective measurements have proven some of their claims to be rather out there. Like those 7002s that claim a 15Hz cutoff (no tolerance, but industry standard is +/- 3dB) when Nousaine put their f3 at 35Hz and sensitivity at 89dB (92dB claimed).

Bass doesn't require more power just because it's bass. A 15" woofer with an 89dB sensitivity will measure 89dB from 1 watt at 30Hz, just like an 89dB tweeter fed 1 watt at 5000Hz. The "power demand" of the bass region comes from the way we hear (Fletcher-Munson curve) and the spectral distribution of sound frequencies.

We're less sensitive to bass frequencies so they have to be recorded and played back louder to be perceived at the same level as midrange content...the lower you go, the more boost is needed. If you listen to a 1Khz tone at 60dB, a 30hz tone would need to be played at 80dB to be perceived as the same volume. That 20dB would require nearly 128x the power assuming the drivers had equal sensitivity.

Similarly, typical sound content has more information in the lower octaves. I found a link once that tried to break down the percentage of content per octave, but I can't seem to find it again. Memory says that it claimed >60% of music's power demand was below 600Hz, but don't quote me on that. I did find this site where he took a few specific songs and broke their power demands down into 3KHz. For The Talking Heads and Dianna Krall, the

 

[Brett DiMichele]

Brent,

Thanks for the in depth response!

Compressed sources probably are the biggest contributor to why some music on my system sounds extremely dynamic and others do not. Some audio just sounds so darn good, and others, meh... And I suspect it's hard to get everything to sound good on any system even the most high end gear is only going to reproduce the source it's fed, so garbage in is definitely garbage out.

I agree with you about the Def Tech's, especially on the low end, I believe that DT was a bit overzealous with the low frequency spec. From what I recall when Nousaine tested my mains (it's been years since I read the review) my F3 was 38Hz at 89Db. There is no getting around physics, a separate sub that is built right and positioned right is going to outperform these mains.

I still waiver on is it just better to run the mains as small and use the external sub, or run these type of mains as large and use an external sub.

I know that a well mated pair of bookshelfs and sub will sound fantastic and full. I have a whole separate system in my bedroom, while no where near high end, it's very decent and it sounds very good with music. (it's also in a bit smaller of an area too).

 

[werty7777]

First let me say..... WOW! You all continue to impress me and I'm very greatful for the help!

I checked out the review on the 5200 (the link posted) and found it pretty interesting. I think it was kind of mixed huh? So riddle me this, if the receiver puts out 66 watts with 6 channels driven wouldn't it, in theory, put out a little less with 7 driven? And with the review mentioned I can assume that with an amp actually pushing say 150 WPC all driven I would receive an increase in sound and definitely sound quality at high volumes? I read your posts 3 or 4 times just trying to get a handle on it and I get it. But I wonder why if everything is rated at 1 watt then why would say some martin logan electrostatic speakers want 200 watts to really make them sing?

The 2004's have LFE as well as a high level input. At first had it hooked up only via the high level inputs. As a result I was very disappointed with the bass output (obviously.) Though the sub still drives this way it seems that relies on the receiver to push them. I read what you posted on that and they are just plain bad. I went ahead and changed it so the LFE output on the Dynamo is feeding the 2004's. I used a splitter and interconnects at the output of the Dynamo the feed the 2004's. The sound is so much better. I've seen other post about adjusting the 2004's cut off the 50 hz and letting the dynamo pick up from there down. The bass I'm really happy with but even if I wanted to try I couldn't because the 2004's have no control for that and the receiver isn't even close to that smart. Right? Maybe I'm just starting to dislike my receiver more as I type but I can't change all fronts to small unless I set all 7 speakers to small. This doesn't seem to matter with any speaker with the exception of the center. It really kills the sound on the CLR 2000. Let me clarify. To my ears I like the lower freqs that the center can produce when in large mode and it makes it basically impossible for me to switch the fronts to small.

I'm not really smart on system set up so that may be another problem. I just used the auto cal mic to set up. Wrong? Not sure how I would use the SPL meter to even set it up. Any sites I can check out? Also, what is sitting in a null?

I have experimented with the distance from the wall and think I found the sweet spot but at this point maybe I have it all set up wrong so the speakers may need need moved after all. The only thing is I can't seem to get rear surrounds to ever seem loud enough regardless of where I place them in comparison to the rear wall.

Question on the dB and watts now. If 7 speakers all rated at 92 dB and 200 watts RMS are being driven with a clean 200 watt amp what would the actual dB be from these speakers? Obviously it wouldn't be 92dBx7 and it would probably depend on various other things like room size and room dampening. But it would have to sound better than 66 watts driving the same 7 speakers right?

When I'm listening music loud in 2 channel plus sub mode it doesn't sound that good at all. Is it me pushing the speakers to the end of their capabilities or the receiver not being big enough to power them thus the distortion kills them? I knew you guys are going to kill me for bringing up car audio again but it is my only real audio experience. Sorry! If I would put a good amp pushing 175 RMS watts on a speaker capable of only 150 RMS I wouldn't be able to turn the gain on the amp past 1/2 or maybe 3/5 and as a result I wouldn't make the amp distort thus resulting in killer sound from the speaker. Does this thinking equate to anything in HT?

Thanks again everyone! If anyone needs pics of my set up to help I can send them as well.

 

[Brent_S]

Louder != better sound quality.

In stereo mode, the Sony clipped at 142 wpc into 8 ohms.

To play a barely noticeable 3dB louder you'll need a 300 watt amp (technically 284). While we can differentiate 1dB increments under lab settings comparing pure tones, with music in a real world environment, our smallest perceptible increment increases to 3dB.

In surround mode, *if* you listened to a source that was full scale into all channels simultaneously, you would only get 70ish watts to each speaker...a limititation of the power supply, kind of like trying to take two showers in your house at the same time. However, since all channels driven doesn't happen, any given channel probably has 100+ watts availble when needed.

Personally, I think you'd be able to tell if you were driving the 5200 into distortion. If you over drive it, it'll shut down to protect itself. Another example. My living room is probably north of 6,000 ft^3 of acoustic load by the time you take into account the two story foyer where one wall should be. My living room receiver is a lowly Pioneer 516 ($100 Black Friday Special). I've measured peak SPL readings of 105dB at the seats, 14' from the L/R mains. The maximum rate power draw of that Pioneer is only 360 watts. Assuming 70% efficiency for class A/B, there's only about 240 watts left available from the amp section...so 5 channels driven would be about 50 watts a channel at most.

Worst case with no room. A single 92dB/1w/1m speaker driven by 200 watts would produce...
92@1/95@2/98@4/101@8/104@16/107@32/110@64/113@128/116@256.
So call one speaker 115dB @ 1m with 200 watts. Each doubling of speaker cone area with the same signal & power will increase SPL by 6dB so 7 would be capable of just over 127dB. Can you hear me now?

Auto setup routines are getting better, but they're not infallible. An SPL meter with the internal test tones or even the THX Optimizer routine on a DVD will allow you to make sure all speakers are playing back at the same level at the prime listening location. You should also use a tape measure to make sure the auto setup routine got the speaker distances correct...distance sets the appropriate delay from each speaker. Weird room acoustics are more likely to trick an auto setup routine than an SPL meter and your ear.

You'd undoubtedbly think a separate amp sounds better. It's the way we're wired. The real question is, can you tell a difference in a blind test?

You've really got to decide what you think is missing. Is it sound quality, SPL, or both. You can't judge sound quality using a compressd music source like Rhapsody, IMO. You would be doing yourself a favor by investing in a SPL meter for both system calibration and determing how loud you're currently listening. People are different, but most will agree that 100dB is plenty loud...you have to shout to talk over it.

I still don't understand how you're configured. Are you daisy chaining the low level connections from the 5200ES to the Dynamo than then to the 2004s? Which crossover is handling the bass management in that case...the 5200 or the Dynamo?

I really think you should try running the LFE direct from the 5200 to each LFE input, not daisy chain. Set the Dynamo to bypass its internal crossover if you can, otherwise turn it all the way up. Then set all speakers to small in the Sony and crossover to 80-100Hz.

-Brent

 

[Brent_S]

Didn't address your M-L question earlier.

Human nature being what is is, we'll always pick louder as better unless it's grossly distorted. Bottom line physics of SPL is doubling the power only gets you +3dB, half the power loses -3dB. An M-L is just as bound by that as any other type of speaker. However, M-Ls are generally less efficient and more difficult to drive than a conventional speaker...both conditions requiring a higher power rated amp to achieve similar results.

Just randomly checking a couple of their models, they're spec'd to drop as low as 1 ohm at some frequencies. Lower impedance draws more wattage, which requires a healthier amp to keep up. Most receivers will quickly go into protection mode if asked for any decent volume with an impedance load like that.

M-L also "cheats" a bit. They rate their efficiency at 2.83 volts, not 1 watt. 2.83 volts into 8 ohms = 1 watt. 2.83 volts into 4 ohms is 2 watts. For example, the Vantage is rated at 92dB/2.83v and a 4 ohm nominal load...that would really be 89dB if converted to watts. The more they stretch or round the nominal rating up to 4 ohms, the lower the 1 watt sensitivty gets while becoming harder for an amp to drive.

-Brent

 

[LanceJ]

oops forgot about this thread!

Sounds good to me (heck I forgot some companies sold three channels amps!

).

BTW: be careful when running your receiver with its bass management activated i.e. when running any speaker(s) as "small". Because if the receiver's crossover is set at 80Hz and the Definitive's internal crossover (for the midbass to subwoofer system) is set at say 50Hz - whether the speaker level input or the line level input is used - then the bass between 80Hz and 50Hz will be missing. ----> The DTs' manual must say something about this issue.

Also, I am 99% sure I read on DT's site a couple months ago their preferred way to connect an A/V receiver to their powered towers was by using speaker level input *only* and the speakers set to "large" (remember, it is the LFE or .1 channel that contains the reaaaaally low stuff - in my experience the fronts and center just contain more upper-bass oriented frequencies). And of course the subwoofer choice set to "no" to make sure the LFE channel's signal is mixed with the front main channels' signal. I know what Brent means about those hi-level gizmos sold for car audio (usually used for adding power amps to head units with no preouts), but I am sure DT uses high quality versions, if that is what they use at all because I really don't know. And by doing this you'll avoid the hair pulling issue of having the receiver plus the DT's sub level controls to mess with while trying to calibrate your system.*

I am starting to think you really just might not be a good candicate for bipolar speakers i.e. their sound is too "nebulous". Plus for me anyway, using them for HT is not all that great because their sound is SO spread out it can interfere with location cues i.e. your eyes see one thing, but the speakers make it seem the action is occurring somewhere else.



* BTW if you want to get really precise while calibrating, I believe many receivers now include a level control specifically for the LFE channel. Let me repeat that: the LFE channel, not the subwoofer channel. These are not the same things.

That's because the "subwoofer" level control on most receivers I know of affects the level of the added-together bass redirected from all the satellites when set to "small" and the LFE channel all at one time. On the other hand, the level control for the LFE channel affects only the LFE signal level - the .1 channel - from a dvd, cable box or other similar source. This is handy for systems where no sub is used (sub choice set to "no") and UNpowered front mains handle that redirected LFE bass and the woofers are being overwhelmed by the powerful LFE-sourced bass that many modern action movies include (I ran my own HT system this way for 4 years and have personal experience with flapping/banging woofers! ). ---> But read your receiver's manual first before you try anything like this because my own receiver has no such control, so I am just throwing out untested ideas here.

 

[Brett DiMichele]

I think he needs a set of my 8.5' tall Line arrays and 300 WPC Monoblocks

 

[LanceJ]

Forgot to add this last night, er this morning when I wrote the above post.

If anyone wants to hear a high quality MP3 stream check out these two college radio stations, both of which play a huge array of music that few modern commercial stations would ever touch - i.e. music made with imagination and originality - and both offer a 256kbps stream option:

KTRU - Rice University/Houston TX

FYI: on my moldy-oldy Windows ME computer, I have to click on the Real Audio option to hear the 256 stream (I think Real Player is a resource hog), since IIRC the "MP3 hi-fi" option uses Winamp but Winamp no longer offers a player for ME.*

WPRB - Princeton University/Princeton, New Jersey.

Choose Windows Media Player or Realplayer option.

Plus these stations have actual human DJs that usually know something about the music they are playing - amazing! ---> many commercial stations use recorded DJ announcements controlled by a computer.



* before I accidently deleted it last summer, Winamp's "Lite" player was awesome, a player built with just enough code to do the important stuff and that's it. My computer barely knew it was there.

 

[werty7777]

Okay all,
I know I've been off of here for a while but the military is a demanding adventure at times if you know what I mean. Just figured something out tonight though when I purchased my Logitech Harmony One today. Through shear dumb luck I have discovered a problem with my system. Apparently ATT U-Verse does not output 5.1 sound via the HDMI out. This only happens when you connect the optical audio wire. Sounds absolutely stupid to me!!!!! It's getting late so I will get into deeper tomorrow I guess but for tonight I went backwards in the wire technology realm and ditched the HDMI for Component video and optical audio. Crazy world!

 

[werty7777]

Wow, I feel dumb! Anyway I have the U-Verse setup "correctly" now. I have trained the the receiver to use the TV/SAT button to accept the HDMI for the video and the optical from the U-Verse for the audio. It sounds so much freaking better. I'm no longer relying on my receiver to make 7.1 sound out of 2 channel. Now it broadcasts 5.1 that the receiver makes 7.1 at a much better result. I suppose it only does this on HD channels but that doesn't matter being I only watch HD. It's a 73". In SD, god don't get started on that.

Next, I found out that the 5200ES doesn't upconvert when it's feed via HDMI. Only S Video, composite, and component upconvert. I never found this in the owners manual. I found it in a review from ultimateavmag.com. Providing they are right.

I've upgraded a little as well. I just scored a Harmony One remote from CC for 125 bucks. Pretty nice remote. Seems to be working as described so far. Also I replaced my Sony 5 disc DVD player (that I forgot to mention in the original post) with a Sony BD player. The S350. I got that beast for 99 bucks at a Navy Exchange on the clearance shelf. Missing the remote but SCORE!!!

So for the next question, I'm happy as a pig in slop that I was able to name the input on my receiver since I'm not using the HDMI input for U-Verse anymore. You cannot change the name of the HDMI inputs for whatever reason on the receiver only the TV/SAT, MD/DAT, etc inputs. So the question is what do you lose by using the optical input for the PS3 and BD player versus only the HDMI cable via the HDMI inputs? Is the optical out on the PS3 and BD player the same sound output as the HDMI?

Brent S,
You mentioned a THX optimizer. What is that and where can I find that? I bought an "optimizer" for the picture side of the house. It was nothing more than a contrast, tint, brightness, etc tuner for the TV via a DVD. I'm still to get the SPL meter as I haven't had alot of time. Glad I actually get the explanation of the wattage increase in comparison the dBs now!!! Thanks!!!! As far as the LFE config, the wire comes out of the receiver into the Dynamo. The Dynamo has an LFE out. From the Dynamo LFE out I have a splitter. From the splitter I'm feeding each 2004TL via the audio interconnects. As far as crossovers go, the 5200ES I believe is set at 30 Hz? I honestly forget. But, the Dynamo when fed via the LFE input its crossover will not be used. So the receiver would control the Dynamo and the the Dynamo's controls would do nothing. The Dynamo's controls only work when fed through the L/R channels when operating in 2 channel stereo mode (basically). So the Dynamo has no control on the output line of the LFE as well. As a result, to the best of my knowledge, the built in crossover of the 2004TL's control the low freqs once the signal hits them. There is a huge difference when I use the LFE's on the speakers as opposed to only using the line level inputs. The line level with the LFE sounds so much better!

Lance J,
I don't know the bitrate of my connection with U-verse either. I hear that bitrate is everything. I will try the the U-Verse forums to see if I can figure it out.
Even when I set the speakers to small I can still go in and adjust the crossover cut off in 10 Hz intervals so I don't think the 80 to 50 thing is a problem. I actually have the fronts set at large with the the crossover set at it's lowest point already.
My 5200ES only has a subwoofer output and no "LFE" output. But I really am overly happy with bass output so I don't think that this is an issue. I wasn't aware there was a seperate LFE and sub on some receivers so thanks for that info!

In conclusion, I don't know if everything is still the best possible way to do it and I still have the couple questions mentioned above. Thanks for all help and hope to continue to get the pro's help here.

For all U-Verse customers there is a forum called U-Talk which for U-Verse problems and/or solutions. I wish someone would told me about it.

 

[Brent_S]

The THX Optimizer routines are found on every THX certified DVD, such as "The Incredibles". I haven't checked for it, but Indiana Jones 4 is a THX certified Blu-ray so the optimizer patterns shoudl be there as well.

SP/DIF optical/coax cannot carry the latest lossless audio from Blu-ray. You need to use HDMI to have enough bandwidth. The question then becomes "can you hear a difference between lossless and lossy?". While you'll find much religious fervor in the same vein as DD vs. DTS if you search the forums, these self proclaimd "golden ears" did a true blind test between various lossless and lossy codecs and found the results to be small to nonexistent depending on the lossy bitrate used. There are a few true discrete 7.1 Blu-ray discs out there. Using optical/coax would limit you to 5.1 which the Sony would then matrix back to 7.1 while HDMI would carry the 7.1 mix as encoded on the disc.

You should double check your U-Verse box settings. I find it hard to believe that it won't output a DD 5.1 bitstream via HDMI if it will carry 2 channel audio. Usually audio via HDMI is on or off. You're not connecting the box -> TV -> receiver are you? That route would probably kill the DD signal and downres it to 2 channel since the TV can't output 5.1.

Tongue in cheek: why would you want the Sony to "upconvert" HDMI? What's format would you convert it to? Upconverting/transcoding is the process of going from composite->s-vid->component->HDMI. Upscaling is changing the resolution from 720x480 -> 1280x720 -> 1920x1080, etc. Even if the Sony would upscale, unless it's using an ABT or Reon video processor, you're likely better off letting the display do the scaling to its native resolution.

-Brent

 

[werty7777]

Easy day on the THX optimizer thing. I wasn't even aware of that on DVD or BD honestly. Thanks.

I also get the optical audio thing as well. That's what I thought would happen. I know most disc don't come with 7.1 sound and don't know if I could tell the difference. I may walk down that road to give that a try.

The U-Verse box has basically no options for anything with the exception of output resolution. Here's a U-Talk link that describes unhappy people talking about it.

HDMI 5.1 surround sound. - Equipment - U-talk Peer-to-Peer Forums

I'm basically taking that as gospel on the subject. As stupid as it seems.

The 5200ES manual describes it as converting the resolution. So I went with upconvert versus upscale. If that makes sense. It's on page 88 and 89 of the owners manual. What I was trying to get at regardless of calling it the wrong thing is that the receiver has a Faroudja chip in it. If I'm feeding the receiver a 480p pic via HDMI it will not use the Faroudja chip to attempt to make it a 1080P pic. I realize that the chip is not some super miracle worker but has to do a little to improve the pic.

The reciever has 3 HDMI in and 1 out. So I use the 3 ins for the U-Verse box, the PS3, and the BD player. And of course the 1 out goes to the TV. That's the way I have it set up. I still think a may go to monoprice and pick up a few more optical cables to try and use the HDMI for video and optical for the audio and give that a try.

 

[werty7777]

Oh and the alledged bit rate in 25.8 MBPS per house. But also alledgedly it only uses a max of 8 per HD channel. I'm not smart enough to tell you anything else. LOL!

 

[Brent_S]

According to that thread, you are correct. Some quick Googling found other sites also discussing the lack of 5.1 via HDMI. Couldn't tell for sure if it applied to both Moto and Cisco boxes, though...most threads only mentioned the Moto U-verse box.

Since we (in the HT world sense) are making up words, there's no right definition of upconversion. I like using upconversion to apply to composite->s-vid->component->HDMI transcoding since it's a process of converting from one physical transport to another. This is also how Onkyo uses it.

That leaves upscaling for what you're referring to. You can change resolution (scale) without changing physical carrier.

Regardless of terminology, you missed my point. Your display likely has a better scaler in it than the 5200, even if it would scale HDMI signals. All fixed pixel displays *must* scale the input signal to their native resolution to display it; they can't change their resolution to match the signal like a CRT display could. So, your display is scaling that 480p signal to 1080p.

-Brent

 

[serraniruben]

Hi ,
I like the open and wide soundstage of a planars speakers,
Can you try Marttin Logans, Magnepans?
Rubén