# Would this work?



## Ovation123 (Mar 6, 2011)

Currently, my receiver does BM/TA on the MCH analogue inputs (via an A/D/A that I have found satisfactorily transparent, even with SACD and DVD-A, for a number of years). I am pretty sure that if I add a BFD or an Antimode 8033 to my current gear, either one will EQ my sub output from my DVD-A/SACD player via the MCH input. Furthermore, I believe, should I upgrade to a new receiver that has a MCH analogue input but does NOT do BM/TA on that input (which seems to be the case even for the company that made my receiver), I would still benefit from the EQ because the sub signal would simply be "passing through" the receiver (I would then rely on the less flexible, but still present, BM/TA settings in my player). 

Here is my question--assume I upgrade to a receiver that includes some form of room compensation software (Audyssey MultiEQ XT/XT32, Anthem's ARC or something else) AND I still wish to use the MCH analogue inputs on that receiver--can I place the EQ (BFD or Antimode) between the player's sub output and the MCH analogue input and still benefit from the EQ? I would let Audyssey or ARC or the other take care of the sub for all other sources, but in order to avoid a completely unEQ'd sub with the MCH analogue inputs, would my idea work?

(I really hope so because it would mean avoiding the additional expense--in the short to medium run, anyway--of also having to buy a DVD-A HDMI player in addition to a new receiver when I do upgrade AND I would be able to transfer the EQ device (BFD or Antimode) to my future living room 2.1 system if and when I upgrade my DVD-A player to an HDMI unit like an Oppo or a Marantz or something else)


----------



## mechman (Feb 8, 2007)

Hopefully someone will be able to help you out with this soon. :T


----------



## Ovation123 (Mar 6, 2011)

It could be that my explanation is not clear (was a rough day yesterday).

I'm currently trying to decide whether to go with a BFD or an Antimode. I know the former gives me more flexibility and is less expensive but, having read the review of the Antimode in here AND having used REW to measure my bass response, the ease of use of the Antimode (I have a response curve that I think it would be well suited to correct, based on what I've read in the review and about how the device works) is appealing to me (and the extra expense is not astronomical). Either way, one of these will be entering the system reasonably soon.

I will connect the EQ as follows--Sub pre-out > EQ > sub crossover bypass input (my sub has a number of RCA inputs and bypass is one of them). That is the classic set up, if I'm not mistaken.

I plan to upgrade my receiver within a year (probably sooner). Whichever one I get, it will have some sort of room compensation software (MCACC, Audyssey, YPAO, ARC, Trinnov, etc.). In my budget, none of my options includes applying such software to the MCH inputs. With MCACC and YPAO, I might choose to keep the EQ set up as above since I understand they don't tackle the lower frequencies as well as the other three. If I get one of the other three systems, I believe they will at least equal, if not better, the EQs I am contemplating, so I would let them take care of the sub for all sources--except MCH analogue. For that, I would then set up as follows: DVD-A player > EQ > sub input MCH analogue > receiver > sub pre-out > sub crossover bypass input.

If this is to work properly with output from the player, I presume the following must be true:

1) NO processing (including bass management) is happening at the MCH input--it is a straight analogue pass-through.

2) I will have to run measurements with signals coming out of the player (could prove tricky to get player, rather than receiver, to work nicely with REW and my laptop)

3) the EQ will only come into play for the DVD-A player.

Does this sound correct?


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I am certainly confused.

What is the receiver you currently have and does it have sub pre-out?

It sounds like maybe you want to go from the SACD/DVD-A player's sub pre-out to the EQ (Anti-mode or BFD) to the receiver Multi-Channel sub input, then the receiver sub pre-out to the sub?

I am not sure why you would not simply go from the receiver's sub pre-out to the EQ to the sub. The EQ would ideally be placed between the receiver and the sub.

If you get a receiver with Audyssey (or similar)... it will not effect the EQ as long as the EQ is connected to the sub pre-out of the receiver. I would see no benefit is connecting the EQ anywhere else in the chain.


----------



## Ovation123 (Mar 6, 2011)

Sonnie said:


> I am certainly confused.
> 
> What is the receiver you currently have and does it have sub pre-out?
> 
> ...


I currently have a 2004 model Integra DTR 6.4 receiver. It has a multichannel analogue input to which I have connected an SACD/DVD-A player. The Integra applies bass management and time alignment to the MCH input via an A/D conversion. This allows the receiver to apply the same crossover frequency and slope to the incoming signal that it applies to standard DD/DTS/etc. I do this because the settings for bass management and time alignment are more flexible than in the player. For SACD the crossover in the player is fixed at 80 hz, but with a 6/12 dB slope rather than the steeper--and, to me, better--12/24 dB crossover in the receiver. For DVD-A, the crossover in the player is fixed at 100 hz. Also, while the player applies speaker distance settings to the DVD-A output, it does NOT do so for SACD. I have A/B'd the system quite a bit and have long ago concluded that whatever ultimate sonic resolution I lose from digitizing the MCH analogue input so the receiver can do bass management and time alignment and both DVD-A AND SACD (with better, steeper crossover setting for bass to boot) is outweighed by the better sound resulting from proper bass management and time alignment. I've enjoyed that set up for a number of years.

One of the things that has bothered me, though, in my set up is the less than flat bass response. I've tried various solutions regarding placement and have, within my space constraints, found a liveable compromise. However, as I've come to learn more about EQ (both automatic and manual types), I've decided to improve my bass response with EQ. I had an R-DES (which I won in a contest at another forum some time ago) and finally set it up not too long ago. It is a cumbersome device to work with--especially before I discovered the wonderful REW programme--but I had managed to find decent settings and a decent response. Unfortunately, the R-DES appears to be defective as it introduced a distortion into the system (I posted about that at this forum a while back and the best explanation offered by your membership is that some sort of digital noise from the EQ is the problem). Apart from the distortion, the R-DES improved the bass response, so I know EQ is going to give me an improvement.

Knowing this, I decided to explore other options and settled on one of two possibilities (the BFD or the Antimode 8033), again thanks to the wealth of information at this site. In the immediate term, I will set up either one in the normal fashion--one cable from the sub to the EQ and one cable from the EQ to the subwoofer pre-out of my receiver. This will give me an EQ'd sub for all circumstances in my set up.

My question is about what to do when I upgrade my receiver. IF my next receiver had the same feature for the MCH inputs as my current receiver does, I would not have any concerns or questions. I would simply hook up my gear as it is now and I would have a properly EQ'd subwoofer in the system. The EQ'ing would either be from the BFD or Antimode (if I choose a receiver without any room compensation software) OR it would be done by the room compensation software (Audyssey or ARC or MCACC or YPAO or other).

Unfortunately, I know of only two devices that currently have the same feature as my receiver (digitizing the MCH input to provide bass management and time alignment): the top of the line Denon receiver (way over my budget) and Anthem pre-pros (also way over my budget). On every option I can afford, the MCH analogue input remains unprocessed--so, no EQ'd subwoofer for that input IF I rely on Audyssey, MCACC and the like. In that case, I would either have to listen to DVD-A without an EQ'd sub OR buy a new DVD-A player with HDMI (my PS3 is SACD capable via HDMI, so I'm covered for that format).

I don't want to buy another player if I can avoid it (at least not at the same time as I upgrade the receiver). But I also don't want to sacrifice an EQ'd sub (especially as an EQ'd sub is most needed with discrete MCH music) for DVD-A playback. I would like to try to keep the EQ (BFD or Antimode) "alive" for the DVD-A player without necessarily keeping it "alive" for the other inputs. Let me propose a hypothetical setup:

Let's say I buy the Marantz SR7005.


It has Audyssey MultiEQ XT (so it has an EQ for the subwoofer--no need for the BFD or Antimode for most sources)
It has a MCH analogue input (so I can keep my DVD-A player).
It does NOT digitize the input for bass management and other processing (so Audyssey is NOT working when I'm listening to my DVD-As)
I want to keep an EQ for my subwoofer for DVD-A playback
I do NOT want to use Audyssey AND another EQ (BFD or Antimode) simultaneously (so I cannot place the BFD or Antimode between the subwoofer and the receiver).
I place the BFD or Antimode between the DVD-A player's subwoofer pre-out and the SR7005's subwoofer pre-in (cable from player to EQ device, cable from EQ device to receiver).

IF this all works like I think it does, then the result should be as follows:

For everything BUT DVD-A playback via the MCH analogue input, Audyssey will EQ the sub.
For DVD-A playback, the BFD or Antimode will EQ the sub.
No matter what I listen to, the sub will be EQ'd (though not always in the same way).

I know that some people use Audyssey (or similar systems) WITH another EQ (BFD or other) and I suppose that is one way to do it. However, I don't think it is a good idea to have one EQ over another, which is why I was looking for a way to keep them both in the system without both of them working at the same time. Maybe I'm completely out to lunch (I'll definitely know once I have all the pieces in the room but if I can figure it out beforehand, it could influence my choice of upgraded receiver).


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I am not seeing any particular reason the EQ cannot be placed between the player and the receiver, but I agree you will have an issue with that when you upgrade receivers, if you continue to use the MCH inputs. I am surprised they are still putting MCH inputs on receivers. Either way, I believe the newer Audyssey and bass management of a newer receiver will probably be as good or better than your player. 

Also... there is absolutely nothing wrong with using Audyssey and a BFD simultaneously... I do it right now. My Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and Sub EQ HT is not enough to fix my response like I want it, so I have a BFD in the loop. We have been double eq'ing with the BFD for ten years with adjusted bands overlapping identical frequencies.


----------



## Ovation123 (Mar 6, 2011)

Sonnie said:


> I am not seeing any particular reason the EQ cannot be placed between the player and the receiver, but I agree you will have an issue with that when you upgrade receivers, if you continue to use the MCH inputs. I am surprised they are still putting MCH inputs on receivers. Either way, I believe the newer Audyssey and bass management of a newer receiver will probably be as good or better than your player.
> 
> Also... there is absolutely nothing wrong with using Audyssey and a BFD simultaneously... I do it right now. My Audyssey MultEQ XT32 and Sub EQ HT is not enough to fix my response like I want it, so I have a BFD in the loop. We have been double eq'ing with the BFD for ten years with adjusted bands overlapping identical frequencies.


Right now, I would put the EQ between the sub and receiver--I have no other form of EQ in my receiver. It is when I move to a new receiver that I will lose bass management for the MCH inputs, but gain EQ for every source other than the MCH input. That is why I want to put it between my player and the future receiver--to EQ the sub for that one source only. I did think about leaving the EQ in its "normal" place with the future receiver, but it would have to have a bypass mode that is easily engaged (haven't verified this for either BFD or Antimode) AND not cause a change in level output when in bypass (the R-DES, when in bypass, adds a 6dB boost to the sub across all frequencies--I would not want to have to deal with such an issue every time I want to play a DVD-A).

In any event, I'm looking forward to trying these possibilities out.


----------



## Ovation123 (Mar 6, 2011)

Got the Anti-Mode on the weekend (great price at the local audio show). Took about 10 mins. to unbox, connect, and run. First impressions: a good but not radical improvement (which is what I expected). Improvement is more marked for music than for film (though it is early days yet). Less boomy bass (easily checked with bypass switch). Ran Hotel California on DVD-A, Fleetwood Mac's The Chain and Gold Dust Woman on DVD-A and all of Diana Krall's The Girl in the Other Room in SACD (all MCH). Kick drums, electric bass and stand up acoustic bass all sound "cleaner". Haven't re-run REW yet but will do so soon. But it is doing something, and something right.

With film, I've only run a scene from LOTR on BD--the Balrog scene. Lots of low frequency material in that scene. Effect of 8033 more subtle than with music (the wide "hump" between 28-40hz measured with REW is not much of a distraction with such material and some might prefer it over the EQ'd version--perhaps I'll employ the "lift" feature for some movies, as desired).

Improvement as anticipated--notable but not magical. Ease of use--outstanding. I'm sure with a lot of effort I could get even better results with BFD (probably could improve with 8033 if I had room to play with sub placement--not possible for now) but I'm not sure how much better it would be (leaving aside the time involved--the 8033 review in here was compelling in its emphasis on time saving and the need for experience to do better with BFD).

Tweakers would likely be bored with the 8033 but I'm pretty happy.


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

I would definitely like to see some before and after REW graphs.

Glad you at least got some improvement accomplished... :T


----------



## Ovation123 (Mar 6, 2011)

Sonnie said:


> I would definitely like to see some before and after REW graphs.
> 
> Glad you at least got some improvement accomplished... :T


Could be a little while as I'll be traveling a lot this month but I'll be sure to post them at some point. Even if a new receiver makes the 8033 unnecessary for most sources, it's going to be used with my DVD-A player for a long time to come.


----------

