Does DSP belong in State of the Art Systems?

[Brucemck2]

IMO...If you currently like how your gear sounds in your room but you have never actually took the time or had an interest in measuring the room/gear to verify if what you are hearing isn't just a bunch of room anomalies "Enhancing" the sound of the musical content beyond what the original artist intended, then I think you are robbing yourself of hearing your system to its full potential.

But back to the DSP topic.

Assuming an ideal physical placement of the Speakers/Subs in the room....first and foremost (Is this even possible without measurements?), and then using only the physical controls on the Sub to "Dial it in" the rest of the way, you still wont have an ideal Phase, Time Aligned Sub with the Main speakers without the use of DSP.

Does the above matter? IME, Yes. Until I did this in my own system my feelings of the addition of Subs was that they made a nice difference only. But, after injecting DSP into the system, the Sub/Speaker integration went to unbelievable levels. I could never go back after hearing it.

You have to take the time to measure the room, view the results, make adjustments (either physically and/or via DSP FIR filter tweaks..etc), measure again, and again, and again...until you know everything is as good as it can be given the current equipment, room, budget and patience level/willingness to go through it all to find out. How important is the sound of music playing as best as possible in the room?

I feel, until someone does all of the above, then I find it odd how one can say that doing tweaks in the digital realm to a music stream via DSP before it even touches the DAC Input can be more destructive to the sound you hear compared to all the other likely room, placement issues you have lurking in the background which you are currently not aware of and how they are influencing what you are hearing.

I don't disagree that the use of DSP in a SOA system has drawbacks (especially when implemented incorrectly) but I consider any issues miniscule in the grand scheme compared to all the other benefits using DSP provides that are just not possible without it.

Tuning "By Ear" should still be included while playing with DSP but only tuning by ear on its own will only get you so far.

Agree 100%.

In reply to Analog Scott ...

The two rooms and systems were very different. My first dedicated room was designed by Russ Herschelman. We built a room within a room using a detached two car garage as the shell. There was extensive use of channels for the walls and ceiling with two layers of sheetrock of different dimensions. There was a false floor that was a foot high with channels that ran the length of the room that were tuned to various frequencies, with vent openings that could be adjusted. Most of the room treatments were RPG and approximately one third of the walls and ceilings were used. Speakers were Krell Lat2 with two Krell subwoofers. I also had custom built line arrays with Accuton mids and Fountek ribbons. The DSP was provided by early versions of Accourate and later a heavily modified Tact processor. (The analog stages were custom built, the clock and power supplies were heavily modified, etc. etc.) This was a combined analog (Basis, Graham, Koetsu, Aesthetix) and digital (Meridian 800) setup.

The second room was designed by Dennis Erskine and Keith Yates. There is extensive room treatment from RPG and custom bass absorbers built by Keith. The room was extensively modeled using fluid dynamics models which were then tested and confirmed in place via on-site measurements. Speakers were professional audio gear built into very specifically constructed baffle walls. There are five 18" subs in specific locations within the room. DSP processing is provided by Accourate and Trinnov. There is also a QSC unit that does processing below 100hz for the subs only. This is an all digital setup.

 

[Kjetil]

I’m sure your AD converter is just fine but I would caution against many claims about the DR and subsequent number of bits needed to accurately capture vinyl. Don’t cut off the lower end of the dynamic range at the top of the noise floor. That noise is part of the sound of vinyl. You want to capture it. Also the noise floor and the upper limits of level of vinyl varies with frequency. So average DR is deceptive. And headroom comes in handy.

Headroom comes in handy, especially in a phono amp where ticks and pops can lead to saturation.
I haven't looked closely at the specs of RME ADI-2 version with digital RIAA. I've noticed that the Pareks Audio Puffin is adequate, but as much as I would like those tuning possibilities I still think that I'm better off with the Cambridge Alva Duo. Less noise, more headroom.
I have been looking around for better spec ADCs, but haven't found any for the money I'm willing to pay.

 

[Hear Here]

Again, wrong. It is not "clearly" my opinion. It is a fact.

Very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very rarely will you ever get a flat, even bass response at your listening seat IF and WHEN your loudspeakers are properly positioned in the room for optimal sound stage and imaging.

99% of the time, this does not happen, hence the need for multiple subwoofers with any and all loudspeakers types and capabilities.

You can call it whatever you want, but in the end, it is the fact.

And no, DSP alone will not correct for it.

I think your need for subs is for different reasons. I believe you use panel speakers that deliver less than full bass and you need to supplement the main speakers with a sub or two to achieve a full-range sound.

This inevitably adds to the difficulty of setting up speakers for ideal sound (particularly as they are of different brands with different acoustic characteristics) and you have found that DSP offers the easiest (and seemingly best to you) way to achieve a reasonably flat response. For the reasons I described earlier, I disagree with the use of DSP unless you have used it solely for controlling the response from your subs and leave your main speakers to enjoy an unprocessed signal. Perhaps that's what you've done.

In my own system, the mid and top transducers receive an unprocessed signal while the bass has a built-in DSP that could be used for flattening the response. If I use Dirac or the other DSPs within my main amp, I loose a little top end sparkle because the signal passes a processor that does it no favours.

In my case the "subs" are part of the main speaker system physically. I would not like to place these bass transducers away from the mid and top for acoustic and aesthetic reasons.

 

[Kjetil]

In my own system, the mid and top transducers receive an unprocessed signal while the bass has a built-in DSP that could be used for flattening the response.

Your mids and tops are processed though. ASP'd as Siegfried Linkwitz would have said it.

 

[Atmasphere]

very easy. The entire bass region in both plots are north of 300 milliseconds across the board. Each plot has obvious resonances at different frequencies and the overhang that comes with them.
I’m not going to say these are bad measurements but hardly state of the art and nowhere near flat or near the 200 millisecond mark.

And no offense to Dr. Toole but given my experience I will go with other experts such as James Johnston, Edgar Choueiri and Ethan Winer on this one. We do have to pick our experts when experts disagree. Much respect for Dr. Toole but technology has advanced a great deal since his book came out. His opinions expressed in his book are now quite dated.

Not opinions. Fact rarely goes out of date; we still use Ohm's Law despite its antiquity.

Apparently you didn't see the video.

While I have respect for Ethan when it comes to matters digital, I've also found that in some cases he fails to cause his hand to move and actually make measurements. I cornered him a few years ago on exactly this issue WRT power cords. He claimed they made no difference, but I've found that simple measurements show that they do. He made his claims out of declaration without measurements; in essence doing the same thing for which he denigrates the 'subjective' camp.

If you were to search, you'll find two things: the delay in the bass isn't what you think it is to the ear (you're not thinking this one thru, the bass isn't delayed at all WRT the rest of the information coming from the main speakers), and that there are measurements out there. I didn't look that hard- it's not my job, nor is the burden of proof on me as this stuff has been cut and dried a long time. We've known how long bass frequency waveforms are for a very long time!!

Actually Ralph, while I generally agree… lets think about a finite number of bass frequency problem areas.
if one can magically suck out all the bass with absorbers, then there is only the power to push the bass out in the first place… and not power to try and overcome a null.

(If the room is reverberant, then the bass would build, and one may likely be able to really excite the room with very little power, in the same way that that a child on a swing and build a lot of amplitude.)

So removing the cancellation would generally make for a less power hungry system.

One can also get the decay to be shortened in time.

To use bass traps effectively, they need to move about the room, else they will only work near one wavelength. So they can be present and you'll still have big peaks and valleys.

Your second paragraph is where your comments fall apart. I agree with the rest. The room is reverberant at bass frequencies, but the bass does not build if a DBA is used, although when you use the DBA you do find that overall, you don't need much power to get the room right. That's because you ended the cancellation which can otherwise suck up infinite power.

 

[Analog Scott]

Not opinions. Fact rarely goes out of date; we still use Ohm's Law despite its antiquity.

We are talking about technology. Technology advances. Many of Toole’s conclusions are out of date.

Apparently you didn't see the video.

I saw the waterfall plots you cited. Apparently you posted them without reading what went into that room. Still waiting for one single shred of objective evidence from you to support your position. Begging the question by repeating your argument from authority is just a double logical fallacy

While I have respect for Ethan when it comes to matters digital, I've also found that in some cases he fails to cause his hand to move and actually make measurements. I cornered him a few years ago on exactly this issue WRT power cords. He claimed they made no difference, but I've found that simple measurements show that they do.
He made his claims out of declaration without measurements; in essence doing the same thing for which he denigrates the 'subjective' camp.

If you were to search, you'll find two things: the delay in the bass isn't what you think it is to the ear (you're not thinking this one thru, the bass isn't delayed at all WRT the rest of the information coming from the main speakers), and that there are measurements out there.

Ethan has done the measurements. But if you have better measurements that demonstrate power cords affect the signal in the audio signal path please show them. I am always open to newer better objective evidence. But so far you have yet to provide any evidence on anything yet. It’s becoming a pattern.
What about James Johnston and Edgar Choueiri? They are wrong too? You seem to have ignored those expert opinions

I didn't look that hard- it's not my job, nor is the burden of proof on me as this stuff has been cut and dried a long time. We've known how long bass frequency waveforms are for a very long time!!

Sorry but it’s your assertion, so it’s your burden of proof. And clearly you did look. You posted waterfall plots. They just didn’t support your position. Bottom line is you can’t find one waterfall plot from a room that doesn’t use bass traps and DSP with state of the art measurements because they don’t exist. No normal room that relies just on swarm bass arrays measure up. Them’s the facts. And like Ohm’s law, you can’t change those facts. New technologies, better results. It ain’t the 90s anymore.

To use bass traps effectively, they need to move about the room, else they will only work near one wavelength. So they can be present and you'll still have big peaks and valleys.

Nope. Room modes and room boundaries don’t move. So trap’s don’t need to move either. They just need to be designed and built to target the non moving bass issues of the non moving room. Again this is a fact that does not date. Effectively trap the bass and you reduce RT and effects of room modes.

Your second paragraph is where your comments fall apart. I agree with the rest. The room is reverberant at bass frequencies, but the bass does not build if a DBA is used, although when you use the DBA you do find that overall, you don't need much power to get the room right. That's because you ended the cancellation which can otherwise suck up infinite power.

Talk is cheap. Show me the evidence. Show me a waterfall plot of a swarm array or double bass array in a normal untreated room that has flat bass with a smooth decay of 60 db at or under 200 milliseconds. We can go round and round but no evidence…..no dice. And you can’t show evidence that does not exist. DBAs and swarm bass arrays in normal untreated rooms simply do not measure up to state of the art or anywhere near it.

 

[Atmasphere]

We are talking about technology. Technology advances. Many of Toole’s conclusions are out of date.

I saw the waterfall plots you cited. Apparently you posted them without reading what went into that room. Still waiting for one single shred of objective evidence from you to support your position. Begging the question by repeating your argument from authority is just a double logical fallacy


Ethan has done the measurements. But if you have better measurements that demonstrate power cords affect the signal in the audio signal path please show them. I am always open to newer better objective evidence. But so far you have yet to provide any evidence on anything yet. It’s becoming a pattern.
What about James Johnston and Edgar Choueiri? They are wrong too? You seem to have ignored those expert opinions




Sorry but it’s your assertion, so it’s your burden of proof. And clearly you did look. You posted waterfall plots. They just didn’t support your position. Bottom line is you can’t find one waterfall plot from a room that doesn’t use bass traps and DSP with state of the art measurements because they don’t exist. No normal room that relies just on swarm bass arrays measure up. Them’s the facts. And like Ohm’s law, you can’t change those facts. New technologies, better results. It ain’t the 90s anymore.

Nope. Room modes and room boundaries don’t move. So trap’s don’t need to move either. They just need to be designed and built to target the non moving bass issues of the non moving room. Again this is a fact that does not date. Effectively trap the bass and you reduce RT and effects of room modes.

Talk is cheap. Show me the evidence. Show me a waterfall plot of a swarm array or double bass array in a normal untreated room that has flat bass with a smooth decay of 60 db at or under 200 milliseconds. We can go round and round but no evidence…..no dice. And you can’t show evidence that does not exist. DBAs and swarm bass arrays in normal untreated rooms simply do not measure up to state of the art or anywhere near it.

Yes, I didn't look very hard. It wasn't worth it. But I did read the link which I posted. I put it up because it showed how the bass response was pretty well ruler flat.

Again fact doesn't go out of date. Physics just is.

I'm not familiar with James Johnston; perhaps you could provide a link since googling his name comes up with a lot of noise.

Nor was it my assertion, no more than yours. I was just pointing out what is, since this stuff has been well-known for a long time. I didn't come up with it...

What was the double logical fallacy??

Room modes do move with frequency. I hope this is not too hard to understand; rooms have fixed dimensions while bass notes vary. That rooms have various nodes is easy to measure.

Yup, talk is cheap. Show me the evidence (emphasis added). The problem you have here is cancellation. No DSP or set of bass traps can fix that (been there done that). If you know of a way it can, I'm open to hearing about it.

 

[Analog Scott]

Yes, I didn't look very hard. It wasn't worth it. But I did read the link which I posted. I put it up because it showed how the bass response was pretty well ruler flat.

Again fact doesn't go out of date. Physics just is.

I'm not familiar with James Johnston; perhaps you could provide a link since googling his name comes up with a lot of noise.

Nor was it my assertion, no more than yours. I was just pointing out what is, since this stuff has been well-known for a long time. I didn't come up with it...

What was the double logical fallacy??

Room modes do move with frequency. I hope this is not too hard to understand; rooms have fixed dimensions while bass notes vary. That rooms have various nodes is easy to measure.

Yup, talk is cheap. Show me the evidence (emphasis added). The problem you have here is cancellation. No DSP or set of bass traps can fix that (been there done that). If you know of a way it can, I'm open to hearing about it.

Since you probably won’t find it. The evidence you asked for. Real state of the art waterfall plots at the 53:00 point of the YouTube video “
Trinnov Waveforming Technology Explained with Arnaud Laborie

 

[Atmasphere]

Show you the evidence? Go to the Trinnov webpage and look up their Waveforming technology. Look at the waterfall plots and weep.
Once again you you have no such evidence because there is none. This is getting old. The evidence is clear. It doesn’t support your claim and that’s why you keep coming up empty.

So no double logical fallacy then.

Waveforming uses a distributed bass array. Its clearly shown in their diagrams. That's what you have when multiple subs are used as per their page. As I said earlier, DSP by itself doesn't work. But DSP used with a DBA as in this case does. I mentioned that earlier.

 

[Analog Scott]

So no double logical fallacy then.

Waveforming uses a distributed bass array. Its clearly shown in their diagrams. That's what you have when multiple subs are used as per their page. As I said earlier, DSP by itself doesn't work. But DSP used with a DBA as in this case does. I mentioned that earlier.

No it doesn’t. In fact they go to great lengths to explain why DBAs don’t work ironically and how their technology is different. And the Trinnov relies on their advanced proprietary DSP.

DSP

one more time

DSP

And they recommend using as much room treatment as possible.

FACTS

 

[Atmasphere]

No it doesn’t. In fact they go to great lengths to explain why DBAs don’t work ironically and how their technology is different. And the Trinnov relies on their advanced proprietary DSP.

DSP

one more time

DSP

And they recommend using as much room treatment as possible.

FACTS

Yes, facts. I'm sure they go through great lengths; if it walks like a DBA and quacks like a DBA its a DBA. I look on their page and see a DBA using DSP. I'm sure their DSP is quite advanced and proprietory. I'm sure it works great, and so are you. We seem to be in agreement.

Also, once you have the DBA and DSP in place, then the room treatment is worthwhile. I mentioned this earlier.

 

[Daverich4]

And if you went to the trouble of hunting for the best DAC you could buy, spending upwards of $10k on the DAC, are you seriously comfortable putting a DSP in your system AFTER that $10K DAC, when the DSP you bought costs anywhere between $200 to $1k and uses the cheapest DAC chipset available?

I use convolution filters created for me by Mitch Barnett. They are of course software based so there are no additional chipsets involved. They are in the system before the DAC, not after.

 

[Chops]

I think your need for subs is for different reasons. I believe you use panel speakers that deliver less than full bass and you need to supplement the main speakers with a sub or two to achieve a full-range sound.

In my case the "subs" are part of the main speaker system physically. I would not like to place these bass transducers away from the mid and top for acoustic and aesthetic reasons.

No matter what forum the two of us are in, you argue the same exact points that I always talk about, and every time, you're way off the mark. It's almost like you never really read anything I post.

Again, it does NOT matter if you have panel speakers that only go down to 40 Hz, stand mount monitors that only get you to 80 Hz, or large Wilson Audio or Magico loudspeakers that run flat down to 20 Hz. The goal of adding subwoofers to your system is NOT to extend the bass coming from the loudspeakers, but to TUNE THE ROOM to get a flat bass response at your listening position.

You position your loudspeakers to reproduce optimal sound staging and imaging, NOT for optimal bass performance. That goes for ANY loudspeaker on the planet, built-in subwoofers or not. The point being, those built-in subwoofers are NOT in the proper locations for a flat bass response in the room at your listening position.

I honestly do not know how I can explain this to you any simpler.

Go read offerings from Floyd Toole, Jim Smith, John Hunter, Duke LeJeune, etc, etc.

 

[Hear Here]

No matter what forum the two of us are in, you argue the same exact points that I always talk about, and every time, you're way off the mark. It's almost like you never really read anything I post.

To tell you the truth, I read posts and reply to them if I think I have something to say that either agrees with or challenges what I read, or may be of use to the poster. Often I seriously consider what people say and may well take up constructive suggestions with my own system. Indeed, I think that much of the finesse of my system has come about after reading credible suggestions posted on forums.

I don't usually take note of who has written any particular post, so I'm unaware that you and I have exchanged opinions here or on other forums. The advantage of this approach is that I have no axes to grind with any other member - it's what each post says that influences whether I reply and what I say. If you think I pick on you (I certainly don't) then I apologise, but from what you say, perhaps our approaches on how best to reproduce live music as accurately as possible (if that's in fact what you want to do) is very different. Sadly you live several thousands of miles away so I can't even invite you over for an evening of music listening - and perhaps a bit of argumentative banter!

You position your loudspeakers to reproduce optimal sound staging and imaging, NOT for optimal bass performance. That goes for ANY loudspeaker on the planet, built-in subwoofers or not. The point being, those built-in subwoofers are NOT in the proper locations for a flat bass response in the room at your listening position.

I simply don't agree with you. Does the conductor of an orchestra position bass players at locations other than where they are traditionally placed within an orchestra in order to "tune the auditorium" as you suggest, by implication, he should? Since stereophonic music was introduced into people's homes, high quality speakers have presented an uncanny ability to provide a realistic reproduction of an original performance from a well recorded source. Adding more bass speakers around the room does not improve matters any more than a conductor calling for more bass players to play in the wings of a concert hall would. Please challenge this comparison by logical argument if you disagree.

I am more than happy with the very realistic sound I hear from my speakers without subs and without DSP. I have worked hard to achieve this from a starting point of a highly reverberant semi-circular room with solid floors, low ceilings and acres of floor-to-ceiling glass. And this all achieved by means other than bunging subs into the room or changing the amp's frequency response output from flat to a lumpy one to compensate for either poor quality speakers, or poor room treatment, or poor speaker placement and adjustment. I will continue to send a flat signal to my speakers and rely on them to convert this electrical signal (as far as possible) to changes in air pressure that closely resembles those changes in air pressure that an orchestra or jazz combo create to entertain their listeners.

You mention Jim Smith. In past years he was US distributor of my brand of speaker and I have the greatest respect for his uncanny ability to get systems performing beyond their best. If he sets up a stereo system at an audio show, you can bet your boots he won't be hiding subs around the room or using DSP to hide any shortcomings in the system he is demonstrating. However he will still often be judged with Best Sound in Show without these artificial means.

 

[schlager]

Please challenge this comparison by logical argument if you disagree.

Pls don't confuse bass in an auditorium with bass in a living room.

 

[pjwd]

I explained in my prior post what is happening. Perhaps go back and do the math. If your room is 30 feet long, at 80Hz the waveform gets two iterations before hitting the rear wall- assuming that they started at the front wall, which they likely didn't. Two iterations isn't enough to allow you to know what the bass note is, only enough for you to know its there. If the bass notes are lower, the issue is magnified since the waveforms are so much longer.

You might want to watch this video of Dr Floyd Toole

You might also want to look into the writings of Dr. Earl Geddes.

If your room is long enough what you say might be true. But it has to be pretty long!

If 30 feet or less, your bass is 100% reverberant before you even know what the bass notes are. Physics doesn't change just because we don't believe it.

I watched the toole video.. he says digital or active crossovers are the future . I also wondered what his talk would have been like had he worked for acoustic treatment companies for 40 years rather than a speaker company.
Not denying that he and olive have done great work but it's not the whole story.
Phil

 

[sigbergaudio]

To tell you the truth, I read posts and reply to them if I think I have something to say that either agrees with or challenges what I read, or may be of use to the poster. Often I seriously consider what people say and may well take up constructive suggestions with my own system. Indeed, I think that much of the finesse of my system has come about after reading credible suggestions posted on forums.

I don't usually take note of who has written any particular post, so I'm unaware that you and I have exchanged opinions here or on other forums. The advantage of this approach is that I have no axes to grind with any other member - it's what each post says that influences whether I reply and what I say. If you think I pick on you (I certainly don't) then I apologise, but from what you say, perhaps our approaches on how best to reproduce live music as accurately as possible (if that's in fact what you want to do) is very different. Sadly you live several thousands of miles away so I can't even invite you over for an evening of music listening - and perhaps a bit of argumentative banter!

I simply don't agree with you. Does the conductor of an orchestra position bass players at locations other than where they are traditionally placed within an orchestra in order to "tune the auditorium" as you suggest, by implication, he should? Since stereophonic music was introduced into people's homes, high quality speakers have presented an uncanny ability to provide a realistic reproduction of an original performance from a well recorded source. Adding more bass speakers around the room does not improve matters any more than a conductor calling for more bass players to play in the wings of a concert hall would. Please challenge this comparison by logical argument if you disagree.

I am more than happy with the very realistic sound I hear from my speakers without subs and without DSP. I have worked hard to achieve this from a starting point of a highly reverberant semi-circular room with solid floors, low ceilings and acres of floor-to-ceiling glass. And this all achieved by means other than bunging subs into the room or changing the amp's frequency response output from flat to a lumpy one to compensate for either poor quality speakers, or poor room treatment, or poor speaker placement and adjustment. I will continue to send a flat signal to my speakers and rely on them to convert this electrical signal (as far as possible) to changes in air pressure that closely resembles those changes in air pressure that an orchestra or jazz combo create to entertain their listeners.

You mention Jim Smith. In past years he was US distributor of my brand of speaker and I have the greatest respect for his uncanny ability to get systems performing beyond their best. If he sets up a stereo system at an audio show, you can bet your boots he won't be hiding subs around the room or using DSP to hide any shortcomings in the system he is demonstrating. However he will still often be judged with Best Sound in Show without these artificial means.

Bass works very differently in a large hall, so this is not comparable. In general, comparing live and reproduced music is problematic for a number of reasons.

You are probably correct that your system sounds great without DSP and subwoofers. This isn't really proving anything. Whether you have an even bass response or not we won't know until you measure it and share it, but that may well be. It may also not be, but that doesn't have to mean the sound isn't enjoyable.

That your system sounds good without subwoofers and without DSP doesn't necessarily mean that a system WITH subwoofers and WITH DSP can't also sound good?

@Chops gives a good explanation of the benefits of subwoofers. In addition to his points, they will also add dynamic capacity to the system if the main speakers are high passed.

 

[Atmasphere]

I watched the toole video.. he says digital or active crossovers are the future . I also wondered what his talk would have been like had he worked for acoustic treatment companies for 40 years rather than a speaker company.
Not denying that he and olive have done great work but it's not the whole story.
Phil

-And Dr. Geddes, and yes, not the whole story.

 

[Chops]

To tell you the truth, I read posts and reply to them if I think I have something to say that either agrees with or challenges what I read, or may be of use to the poster. Often I seriously consider what people say and may well take up constructive suggestions with my own system. Indeed, I think that much of the finesse of my system has come about after reading credible suggestions posted on forums.


You mention Jim Smith. In past years he was US distributor of my brand of speaker and I have the greatest respect for his uncanny ability to get systems performing beyond their best. If he sets up a stereo system at an audio show, you can bet your boots he won't be hiding subs around the room or using DSP to hide any shortcomings in the system he is demonstrating. However he will still often be judged with Best Sound in Show without these artificial means.

I don't know how you can't remember our discussions (arguments, disagreements) in this or other forums. 99% of the time, it's the same exact subject matter as this one. And no, you "picking on me" never crossed my mind. I think you simply refuse to listen to other, even correct options (not opinions) for proper setup and tuning. That's your loss.

And as far as Jim Smith is concerned, you're once again incorrect. Jim uses a pair REL S-812 subwoofers in his own system, so... Not to mention he does the same with his clients systems if they have subs.

And speaking of Jim, I was reading his Stereophile articles a while back and discovered the way I have been setting up my systems over the years is the same exact way he sets up his and his clients systems. The same procedures in the same order. Go figure.

 

[Kingrex]

I will at some time try DSP with a Bass array of some type. I follow JR with Wally Tools. We talk quite often. He shares some of the success he has with setting up bass in people systems. I have friends who have hired him to come to their house to set up their bass. I have had him at my house to measure my system and help with my analog. Everything I have seen and heard says multiple bass cabinets with DSP managing them, and a technician that can use measurement tools to get the system close, then finish by ear, vastly improves the entire performance of the system.