# Large or Small ?



## sonata31 (Jun 2, 2006)

My Yamaha RX-V2500 is configured like this :
Front : large
Center : large
Surround : large
Surround back : large
Sub : none

The bass are send to front

My sub is connected with the front via a DCX2496

Is this a good choice for center, surround and surround back ?


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*



> Is the good choice for center, surround and surround back ?


Best to turn on the sub output (you have it set to none- use SWFR) and set all your speakers to small so the lower frequencies will be sent to the subwoofer.

brucek


----------



## sonata31 (Jun 2, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*



brucek said:


> Best to turn on the sub output (you have it set to none- use SWFR) and set all your speakers to small so the lower frequencies will be sent to the subwoofer.
> 
> brucek


My connections are :

Ampli Yam (used like pre-ampli) --> DCX2496 --> DEQ2496 --> Ampli --> Front
|------------------------|------------|--------------------> DEQ2496 --------------> Sub
|------------------------|---------------------------------> DEQ2496 --> Ampli --> Centre
|------------------------|---------------------------------> DEQ2496 --> Ampli --> Surrounds
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------> Surrounds back

This for use my sub in Hi-Fi (mode stereo pure direct on the Yam)


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I can comment.

You are using a DCX bass management system presumably because you don't like the bass management provided by the Yamaha receiver? The Yamaha is likely a fixed crossover at 90Hz, so it's not hard to imagine why you don't like it.

I don't personally see the need for the DEQ with any speaker other than the subwoofer. Equalization on mains, surrounds etc doesn't gain you much. Any equalization for those speakers should be carried out with room treatment. The best the DEQ can do there is add noise. If you're looking for the best possible mains direct pure signal, then don't insert a device like the DEQ into the chain. Its best service would be for the sub alone to remove room resonance.

Why not set all your speakers to small except the mains (large) and set the LFE/SUB to Main. That way all bass would be redirected to the main signal, which you then bass manage with the DCX. I would only use the DEQ on the sub...

brucek


----------



## sonata31 (Jun 2, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*



brucek said:


> I'm not sure I understand your question, but I can comment.
> 
> You are using a DCX bass management system presumably because you don't like the bass management provided by the Yamaha receiver? The Yamaha is likely a fixed crossover at 90Hz, so it's not hard to imagine why you don't like it.


I can choose the fixed crossover between 40Hz and 200Hz, but I do not use in my configuration



> I don't personally see the need for the DEQ with any speaker other than the subwoofer. Equalization on mains, surrounds etc doesn't gain you much. Any equalization for those speakers should be carried out with room treatment. The best the DEQ can do there is add noise. If you're looking for the best possible mains direct pure signal, then don't insert a device like the DEQ into the chain. Its best service would be for the sub alone to remove room resonance.


Some tests show an improvement on the others speakers, especially on the mains. Room treatment is not possible, because WAF :no: , it's not a dedicated room



> Why not set all your speakers to small except the mains (large) and set the LFE/SUB to Main. That way all bass would be redirected to the main signal, which you then bass manage with the DCX. I would only use the DEQ on the sub...


Is it the good choice, in this configuration ? SMALL better than LARGE ?

Thank You for your response


----------



## lcaillo (May 2, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*

The advantages of the small setting are that you are not wasting power at frequencies that your mains cannot produce, that phasing problems between the sub and mains are easier to manage, and the crossover region is easier to equalize. If you have enough power on the mains so that you never stretch the amps with low freqs, the speakers can handle deep bass without distortion, and the sub is placed near the mains, it might be ok to avoid the filters in the Yamaha, but rarely are these conditions all met sufficiently that it is advantageous to set to large. Even very good speakers have increased distortion in the mid bass region when trying to produce deep bass that is present in HT program material.

Also, brucek, with all due respect, your comments on EQ of the mains assume a lot. Some speakers and installs can definitely benefit from equalization. I agree with your view in most cases, but to make such sweeping generalizations in this field almost always results in wrong conclusions for some systems. I certainly prefer not to have to screw with filters on anything but the subs, but one cannot always use the best speakers, place them in optimal locations, nor treat the room adequately to eliminate the need for some equalization.


----------



## sonata31 (Jun 2, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*

To summarize on the Yam :

Front : large
Centre : small
Surround :small
Surround back : small

Bass Out : Front

Is it good ?


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*



> Some speakers and installs can definitely benefit from equalization.


Yeah, fair enough. My limited experience with EQ on mains is that the filters only solve problems at very narrow seating positions. Move a little bit and it's worse than leaving it alone. This is not usually the case (in my experience) with filtering room modes out of a sub. The only filters that seem to solve at mains higher frequencies are large sweeping filters that are better described at tone control. I never like to see a device inserted into the 'pristine' mains chain. It will be a noisier signal after being ADC/DAC's by two Behringer devices. 

brucek


----------



## sonata31 (Jun 2, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*



sonata31 said:


> To summarize on the Yam :
> 
> Front : large
> Centre : small
> ...


?


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*

I probably shouldn't comment as I'll admit that I did get a little lost in the thread..

But, I'd set everything to small if you've got a sub, even the mains. 

Even if your mains can handle the lower frequencies, cutting off the lower frequencies will put less strain on your speakers and, theoretically of course, make them sound better in the range they do playback.

Of course, if after you do that and sound horrible, I'd change it back. :bigsmile: 

JCD


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*

Well you could try it both ways (mains set to large and then set to small) and see which sounded best and which gave you the smoothest response in the low end... via REW measurements. REW will tell you which has the smoother response, then see if your ears agree.


----------



## sonata31 (Jun 2, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*

Ok, tests tomorrow

But mains only in large, otherwise where to send the low frequencies ?


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*



> Front : large
> Centre : small
> Surround :small
> Surround back : small
> ...


Yes, given the setup you have.

brucek


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*



sonata31 said:


> Ok, tests tomorrow
> 
> But mains only in large, otherwise where to send the low frequencies ?


Yeah... in your case as it is. However, I would try using the sub on the sub out of the receiver too. You can still run it through the DCX. That way you can try the Large setting for your mains too. Take measurements both ways and see which looks/sounds better.

Am I missing something with that sub-out not being used? Couldn't you simply set that x-over to 200Hz and feed it to the DCX? Maybe I don't understand how the DCX works.


----------



## sonata31 (Jun 2, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*



Sonnie said:


> Yeah... in your case as it is. However, I would try using the sub on the sub out of the receiver too. You can still run it through the DCX. That way you can try the Large setting for your mains too. Take measurements both ways and see which looks/sounds better.
> 
> Am I missing something with that sub-out not being used? Couldn't you simply set that x-over to 200Hz and feed it to the DCX? Maybe I don't understand how the DCX works.


I can't use the sub on the sub out, because in mode "pure direct" of the Yam, only the mains are supplied, no signal to the sub out


----------



## brucek (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*



> I can't use the sub on the sub out, because in mode "pure direct" of the Yam, only the mains are supplied, no signal to the sub out


And this was the point I was originally trying to bring to light. My point was that if you are attempting to get as pure a stereo two channel signal as possible (and there's a lot of merit in that quest), then it's counter-productive to insert two ADC/DAC devices in that chain. You've defeated the 'purity' of that signal by digitizing it too much.

brucek


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*



sonata31 said:


> I can't use the sub on the sub out, because in mode "pure direct" of the Yam, only the mains are supplied, no signal to the sub out


Ahh... now I follow you. brucek does make a good point about the additional devices.

What specifically is "Pure Direct" bypassing to make it "pure"?


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*

Also, read this thread about the dramatic improvement of crossing over the mains.

You might be better off (or just as well off) not using Pure Direct, but using the sub-out with the DCX and taking the DEQ off the mains. No Pure Direct or added DEQ impurities... pick your poison.


----------



## Otto (May 18, 2006)

*Re: LARGE or SMALL ?*



ilovemacintosh said:


> A small setup is more convenient.


Much easier to transport if you move around much...


----------

