# Receiver - FBQ2496 - Amp connectin question



## musikpirate (Nov 13, 2009)

Hello all!

I bought a FBQ2496 to eq my subs today. I want to order all the cables to go with it but have a few questions on the connectsions. I appoligize if this has been covered already, if so, can you point me to the correct thread...

Equipment in question is: Pioneer Elite VSX-21TXH > FBQ2496 > Crown CE4000 > 2 subs (1 on each channel)

1. My receiver is RCA only output. Right now I have it going to an unbalanced 1/4" TR adapter into my amp. Can I just move that same cord/adapter to the input on the FBQ?

2. Can I run a single signal into the FBQ and output it via both L and R outputs? Or do I need to split it so I can input both channels? What would the selection on the BFD be for this, Stereo or Mono?

3. If I can run the input signal only into 1 channel and output both, then are each output channel eq'd seperately? or together? I would like to eq each sub seperately...

4. Since the input signal is unbalanced, does the output signal need to be unbalanced or can I use a balanced cable out of the FBQ to the amp?

I think thats it for now.

Thanks,
Joe


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Hey Joe,

You can use your RCA-1/4” cable between the receiver and FBQ. Since you want to EQ both subs separately (usually a bad idea, by the way), you’ll need a splitter for the receiver’s sub out to feed both channels of the FBQ (you can’t do separate EQ from one channel of the FBQ). From the FBQ to the amp you can use either balanced or unbalanced connection. Doesn’t matter which.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## musikpirate (Nov 13, 2009)

Excellent! thanks Wayne for the info. I will not eq them separately if that is better. Can you elaborate on that some more or link to a write up? I thought I read it was better to do it that way.


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Can’t readily point to another post, but the experience of others trying to separately EQ multiple subs has not been encouraging.

This is assuming the subs are in separate locations and each one is measuring a different response curve: What typically happens is that you get response smoothed out and looking good for each sub separately, but when you take a combined measurement, response is whacked. It seems to work much better to just EQ them as a single entity. After all, that’s what you’re hearing in the end: A single bass signal. You can’t tell that Sub A has a peak at 60 Hz and Sub B has a trough at 35 Hz when they’re all running at once. The only thing the ear perceives is the combined signal.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## musikpirate (Nov 13, 2009)

OK that makes sense. I still have a lot to learn!


----------



## Ovation123 (Mar 6, 2011)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Can’t readily point to another post, but the experience of others trying to separately EQ multiple subs has not been encouraging.
> 
> This is assuming the subs are in separate locations and each one is measuring a different response curve: What typically happens is that you get response smoothed out and looking good for each sub separately, but when you take a combined measurement, response is whacked. It seems to work much better to just EQ them as a single entity. After all, that’s what you’re hearing in the end: A single bass signal. You can’t tell that Sub A has a peak at 60 Hz and Sub B has a trough at 35 Hz when they’re all running at once. The only thing the ear perceives is the combined signal.
> 
> ...


Would this mean that adding any extra (decent) sub would improve performance over the single sub already in the room, even if placement options are less than ideal for a second one?


----------



## Wayne A. Pflughaupt (Apr 13, 2006)

Every case is going to be different because every room is different (especially if we’re talking about non-dedicated rooms – e.g. systems set up in places with open floor plans). 

Typically there are two reasons why people go with multiple subs. One is to get improved headroom – i.e. not to have them bottoming out during demanding passages. The second reason is to get smoother response over a larger area (i.e. decent performance in several seats vs. a single sweet spot w/ poor response everywhere else). 

However, it’s not a good idea to mix a capable sub with a low-performance sub, as you end up with overall response being “dumbed down” to that of the lesser, as seen in this case.

To answer your question about a second good sub in a less-than-optimal location, that’ll depend on what kind of response that location delivers. If it’s worse extension, you can end up with the “dumbed down” situation linked above. If it’s merely somewhat ragged response across a certain frequency range, the other sub could probably cover that. Good measurements are the key – that way you know for sure what you are (or aren’t) getting from additional subs.

Regards,
Wayne


----------



## Ovation123 (Mar 6, 2011)

Wayne A. Pflughaupt said:


> Every case is going to be different because every room is different (especially if we’re talking about non-dedicated rooms – e.g. systems set up in places with open floor plans).
> 
> Typically there are two reasons why people go with multiple subs. One is to get improved headroom – i.e. not to have them bottoming out during demanding passages. The second reason is to get smoother response over a larger area (i.e. decent performance in several seats vs. a single sweet spot w/ poor response everywhere else).
> 
> ...


Thanks for the clarification. At the moment, I have very good sound at the primary seat and 90% of the time I'm alone in the room. It's also a small room, so I don't really need more output. However, I'm always open to getting even better sound, so I'm trying to understand more about multiple subs.


----------



## follz (Feb 7, 2011)

Multiple subwoofers are always optimal if dialed in correctly, especially in larger spaces.


----------

