I was told i was to be a Beta Tester for Dirac Lives PC based product so quit persuing Acourate. Unfortunately, Dirac LIve appears to have dropped the ball!
So no progress
Room Correction for 2 Channel?
- Thread starter audioguy
- Start date
I was told i was to be a Beta Tester for Dirac Lives PC based product so quit persuing Acourate. Unfortunately, Dirac LIve appears to have dropped the ball!
So no progress
Play-Mate on the Audio Asylum has been using Acourate, I'm sure he'd be delighted to answer any questions:
http://tinyurl.com/7poeddk
I am actually in the process of moving away from two channel. As I stated elsewhere on this forum, two channel music played back in some of the multichannel options on my SSP is far more representative of a real musical performance than the very best two channel system I have ever heard. I know that goes against the grain of the purist approach, but I figured out a long, long time ago, that 2 speakers, no matter how terrific they were in the very best room would never come close to the real thing. It has just taken me awhile to get to the position of not caring what other people think about how I listen to music. That, in itself, was quite freeing. Now I'm just waiting for someone to release a well done, high end multichannel piece that will give me that. Lexicon announced the product and then changed their mind.
In the meantime, I will use what I have and enjoy the music.
In the meantime, I will use what I have and enjoy the music.
You know, I've felt the same way for years. I think it was J. Gordon Holt who used to invite audiophiles into a room and demonstrate surround, and in every case they preferred the surround. I remember a demo a manufacturer -- I think it was Sony -- gave at AES some years ago in which people were asked to vote between 192 stereo and 96 surround and almost everyone present agreed that the surround was better. It was a no brainer, an improvement that was obvious vs. an improvement that you had to strain to hear.
The question is, how do you do it in practice. There seems to be a void between home theater multichannel and two channel high end. And there's a shortage of source material as well.
I've been looking at ambiophonics as an alternative, but I'm still not sure whether it will fly. Ever time I've tried it, I've been impressed but also bothered by the artifacts. I'm not sure at this point whether these are just intrinsic to practical crosstalk cancellation (they do have to play some tricks to get it to work) or whether they resulted from my lashed-together experimental setup.
Audioguy
I understand where you coming from. We tend to forget that "Stereo" was never meant to be 2 channels. it was what the technology of those times allowed (at most 3 -channels) but stereo, etymoligically means solid, all arround. The higheest form of "Stereo" is surround sound. But ... and that is the big but to me at this point. In term of spatial presentation, 2-ch is lacking sorely and we have to construct the dimensionality in our audiophile mind... Surround does not need so much brain power to present a "space", a venue where the music or the perfromance has taken place or is virtually constructed to take place.
But ..again another "but" it seems to me that tonally, present day 2-ch recordings are above what I have heard from the (admitedly) few surround/MC pieces I have heard on various systems, including some all out surround assaults.. there seem to be a lack of truly great MC recordings. Most of the recording that I have are in 2-ch anyway save from the few 3-ch SACD I have from Mercury ... the Blu Ray concert and some SACD...
back to the OP which is that of Room Correction for 2-ch (or MC?
) . I am less at ease with the notion than I was few years or months ago. It seems to me that we don't really know what should be the better EQ curve to apply at the listening position. I am all for "preferences" but my engineer mind tend to go for a less elusive and shifting ground. Our preferences are too unreliable, shifty and variable. Even when we suscribe to a given curve or type of FR, I know for example that in most cases a flat FR at the listening position translates in a light , treble-heavy sound... I also know that for the bass, it is best to have a good FR in a given volume rather than a perfect (whatever type you subscribe to) curve at a single position.. Our ears seem to sum up these various responses , even if we were to hold our head in a visegrip .. There is something going on . I am certain those who are working in the field are trying to figure it our and likely some audiophiles may have stumbled over that fact while trying to optimize their systems with the use of Room correction software.
The terms Room Correction , EQ and Speaker Equalization or Optimization are used interchangeably and this leads to confusion. They are not the same thing. Of all of these I believe that drivers correction and crossover are the most important.. maybe much more so than"Room Correction" and for that the digital realm holds the promise. I don't know what out there works the best but I know one could correct driver behavior with the wonderful and unfortunately departed Sigtech could do that and i know the DeQX is good at that and so does taCt to a lesser extent. The results in all cases I have heard the Sigtech ( Quad ESl 63, Spendor BC something and Duntech Soverign) were spectacular .. The speakers became much better . I wonder what such an approach would bring to today's best speakers?
We need to research Room EQ a little more for now I am on the fences ...
I understand where you coming from. We tend to forget that "Stereo" was never meant to be 2 channels. it was what the technology of those times allowed (at most 3 -channels) but stereo, etymoligically means solid, all arround. The higheest form of "Stereo" is surround sound. But ... and that is the big but to me at this point. In term of spatial presentation, 2-ch is lacking sorely and we have to construct the dimensionality in our audiophile mind... Surround does not need so much brain power to present a "space", a venue where the music or the perfromance has taken place or is virtually constructed to take place.
But ..again another "but" it seems to me that tonally, present day 2-ch recordings are above what I have heard from the (admitedly) few surround/MC pieces I have heard on various systems, including some all out surround assaults.. there seem to be a lack of truly great MC recordings. Most of the recording that I have are in 2-ch anyway save from the few 3-ch SACD I have from Mercury ... the Blu Ray concert and some SACD...
back to the OP which is that of Room Correction for 2-ch (or MC?
) . I am less at ease with the notion than I was few years or months ago. It seems to me that we don't really know what should be the better EQ curve to apply at the listening position. I am all for "preferences" but my engineer mind tend to go for a less elusive and shifting ground. Our preferences are too unreliable, shifty and variable. Even when we suscribe to a given curve or type of FR, I know for example that in most cases a flat FR at the listening position translates in a light , treble-heavy sound... I also know that for the bass, it is best to have a good FR in a given volume rather than a perfect (whatever type you subscribe to) curve at a single position.. Our ears seem to sum up these various responses , even if we were to hold our head in a visegrip .. There is something going on . I am certain those who are working in the field are trying to figure it our and likely some audiophiles may have stumbled over that fact while trying to optimize their systems with the use of Room correction software.The terms Room Correction , EQ and Speaker Equalization or Optimization are used interchangeably and this leads to confusion. They are not the same thing. Of all of these I believe that drivers correction and crossover are the most important.. maybe much more so than"Room Correction" and for that the digital realm holds the promise. I don't know what out there works the best but I know one could correct driver behavior with the wonderful and unfortunately departed Sigtech could do that and i know the DeQX is good at that and so does taCt to a lesser extent. The results in all cases I have heard the Sigtech ( Quad ESl 63, Spendor BC something and Duntech Soverign) were spectacular .. The speakers became much better . I wonder what such an approach would bring to today's best speakers?
We need to research Room EQ a little more for now I am on the fences ...
At the moment, there is no available SSP that does what I want that is also considered "high-end". I was hoping for the Lexicon but that product was trashed. That said, with whatever the shortcomings of my Integra 80.2 are, the surround experience through it provides MUCH more realism than trying a number of high end two channel preamps. Actually, no contest. And while others have had less than great experiences with Audyssey, mine has been quite favorable (Audyssey Pro). When all speakers are of the same brand/type and all are set to have close to identical time and frequency based responses at the LP, the sense of envelopment is even more enhanced.
Bu that's just me and my guess would be that few who post on this forum would agree (with maybe the exception of Kal). In fact, I resisted it for about the last 5 years when I was tempted to try it. (And I have been into two channel for about 50 years !!) Another forum member (Craig John) was in Atlanta on business and got me to try it. I experimented and really began to appreciate what it could do.
Once I had spent a few days with different kinds of two channel music played in some of these new multichannel surround formats, there was really no going back.
Bu that's just me and my guess would be that few who post on this forum would agree (with maybe the exception of Kal). In fact, I resisted it for about the last 5 years when I was tempted to try it. (And I have been into two channel for about 50 years !!) Another forum member (Craig John) was in Atlanta on business and got me to try it. I experimented and really began to appreciate what it could do.
Once I had spent a few days with different kinds of two channel music played in some of these new multichannel surround formats, there was really no going back.
Frantz,
One of the points that's been made in favor of surround is that two-channel stereo can't accurately reproduce the tonality of a wide range of performances, even when a recording is made with simple mic techniques. The top/bottom balance of a flat speaker will sound right with small ensemble works, but 2-4 dB too hot with works recorded in a larger hall. This I think is because cardioid mics reject hall ambiance. (On top of that, most recordings are made with the mics too close, either at the front of the stage or closer to the instruments, but that's a problem of technique rather than technology). It's said that including a higher level of hall ambiance would make the recording sound too wet on a two-channel system. Surround solves this problem naturally by allowing the reproduction of natural levels of ambiance, whether appropriate to a small or large venue.
Another problem that apparently bedevils two-channel stereo is response aberrations in the midrange caused by interference between the two speakers when playing mono signals. This again is something that can be ameliorated with surround, in this case, by using a center channel. But, after the mix, it can't be fixed with EQ, since it's position dependent (and Toole argues vociferously and I think correctly that it shouldn't be fixed in the mix because the resulting recording wouldn't work with center channel).
The ambiophonics guys also say that two-channel stereo has exaggerated bass because the two speakers reinforce one another at lower frequencies, but are phased randomly at higher ones. This would be another position-dependent effect that can't be EQ'd out after the mix. (It may be that the effect occurs but is masked by the other ones -- if anything, accurate reproduction seems to require a bit of a boost in the upper bass/lower treble, I'm not sure why, as well as the aforesaid HF rolloff from large venue recordings and the de facto rolloff of limited tweeter dispersion.)
I think there may be other effects as well, such as consequences of the inaccurate HRTF. But the impression I get is that finding a single EQ curve that works with two channel stereo wouldn't be possible even if recordings were more accurate than they are. I think there may be something to be said for the DEQX approach of correcting the drivers and equalizing the room only below the Schroeder frequency. Even there, I wonder if equalizing the drivers for flat on-axis response using a gated nearfield measurement is always going to give you optimal results, since power response matters as well. In some cases, equalizing on-axis response could result in significantly worse in-room response . . .
One of the points that's been made in favor of surround is that two-channel stereo can't accurately reproduce the tonality of a wide range of performances, even when a recording is made with simple mic techniques. The top/bottom balance of a flat speaker will sound right with small ensemble works, but 2-4 dB too hot with works recorded in a larger hall. This I think is because cardioid mics reject hall ambiance. (On top of that, most recordings are made with the mics too close, either at the front of the stage or closer to the instruments, but that's a problem of technique rather than technology). It's said that including a higher level of hall ambiance would make the recording sound too wet on a two-channel system. Surround solves this problem naturally by allowing the reproduction of natural levels of ambiance, whether appropriate to a small or large venue.
Another problem that apparently bedevils two-channel stereo is response aberrations in the midrange caused by interference between the two speakers when playing mono signals. This again is something that can be ameliorated with surround, in this case, by using a center channel. But, after the mix, it can't be fixed with EQ, since it's position dependent (and Toole argues vociferously and I think correctly that it shouldn't be fixed in the mix because the resulting recording wouldn't work with center channel).
The ambiophonics guys also say that two-channel stereo has exaggerated bass because the two speakers reinforce one another at lower frequencies, but are phased randomly at higher ones. This would be another position-dependent effect that can't be EQ'd out after the mix. (It may be that the effect occurs but is masked by the other ones -- if anything, accurate reproduction seems to require a bit of a boost in the upper bass/lower treble, I'm not sure why, as well as the aforesaid HF rolloff from large venue recordings and the de facto rolloff of limited tweeter dispersion.)
I think there may be other effects as well, such as consequences of the inaccurate HRTF. But the impression I get is that finding a single EQ curve that works with two channel stereo wouldn't be possible even if recordings were more accurate than they are. I think there may be something to be said for the DEQX approach of correcting the drivers and equalizing the room only below the Schroeder frequency. Even there, I wonder if equalizing the drivers for flat on-axis response using a gated nearfield measurement is always going to give you optimal results, since power response matters as well. In some cases, equalizing on-axis response could result in significantly worse in-room response . . .
Frantz: I agree with you on Preference versus Reference - sort of. That said, let me lay some foundation for my point of view.
I have been attending live performances (season tickets to Atlanta Symphony, Row G, 2 seats left of center so I can see pianist hands, for 25 years). And outdoor concerts (Chastain Park) on and off for 35 years. Occasionally live jazz, etc. I have NEVER been fooled (except for brief moments with small ensemble or jazz quartet recordings) that I have ever been listening to a live session with 2 channels. And I started this hobby in the 60's. So my position from the get-go has been that home sound reproduction systems, regardless of their quality (and I have heard some incredible two channel systems), have never been nor will ever be anything more than that - sound reproduction systems - with only two channels.
My first attempt was to use the 3 channels (center derived from left and right down about 3 to 5 dbs) to see if that made more sense. This was in the mid 70's with Klipsch Corner Horms and LaScalla Center. The technique for deriving the center channel wasn't perfect so I went back to 2 channels.
I tried the 70's attempts at multichannel (quad, etc) and while fun, those were not better but just different than 2 channel for trying to get closer to a live event.
My first "ah ha" moment came when, in the 90’s, I owned an SSP by Meridian. They had some kind of surround processing mode (don’t recall the name) that did a wonderful job of creating a more believable sound field from 2 channels. My Theta Casablanca SSP had something (I think it was Circle Surround) that was interesting as well. As I stated elsewhere, part of my reluctance to dive into that kind of listening was pride. (REAL audiophiles only listen to music in 2 channels – and I don’t want others to think that I am not a REAL audiophile). Fortunately, with age I care less about what others may think. (quite freeing, actually).
But up until VERY recently, I had kept my 2 channel and movie systems logically disconnected. But, then I tried some of the options on my Integra and was won over.
Summary: In my opinion, what I want to do in my listening room is to give the allusion that I am listening to live (not recorded) music. FOR ME, 2 channels don’t even get close so I am willing to take a hit (compromise) on some aspects of the reproduction chain so that I improve the allusion.
Back to preferences versus reference: Given my personal opinion that I am in the “allusion business” in my listening room, sometimes preference wins. One of the many beauties of the TacT (and I would now suggest that the TacT 2.2XP is better in all respects to my much loved SigTechs) , is the ability to have multiple memories set up with different target curves. Frantz said:
As I have stated multiple times, the Integra 80.2 is not the end-all, be-all SSP. It had an MSRP of $2300 !!!!! But until I personally hear a released product that has most of what I want: (multiple memories, time based EQ, no multiple A2D and D2A conversions, a good choice and implementation of surround processing modes, and doesn't cost near $30,000) I will keep what I have.
While others may disagree, but as I stated on another thread, we ALL listen with preference. Just go read the thread on WBF on Is There An Absolute Sound.
I have been attending live performances (season tickets to Atlanta Symphony, Row G, 2 seats left of center so I can see pianist hands, for 25 years). And outdoor concerts (Chastain Park) on and off for 35 years. Occasionally live jazz, etc. I have NEVER been fooled (except for brief moments with small ensemble or jazz quartet recordings) that I have ever been listening to a live session with 2 channels. And I started this hobby in the 60's. So my position from the get-go has been that home sound reproduction systems, regardless of their quality (and I have heard some incredible two channel systems), have never been nor will ever be anything more than that - sound reproduction systems - with only two channels.
My first attempt was to use the 3 channels (center derived from left and right down about 3 to 5 dbs) to see if that made more sense. This was in the mid 70's with Klipsch Corner Horms and LaScalla Center. The technique for deriving the center channel wasn't perfect so I went back to 2 channels.
I tried the 70's attempts at multichannel (quad, etc) and while fun, those were not better but just different than 2 channel for trying to get closer to a live event.
My first "ah ha" moment came when, in the 90’s, I owned an SSP by Meridian. They had some kind of surround processing mode (don’t recall the name) that did a wonderful job of creating a more believable sound field from 2 channels. My Theta Casablanca SSP had something (I think it was Circle Surround) that was interesting as well. As I stated elsewhere, part of my reluctance to dive into that kind of listening was pride. (REAL audiophiles only listen to music in 2 channels – and I don’t want others to think that I am not a REAL audiophile). Fortunately, with age I care less about what others may think. (quite freeing, actually).
But up until VERY recently, I had kept my 2 channel and movie systems logically disconnected. But, then I tried some of the options on my Integra and was won over.
Summary: In my opinion, what I want to do in my listening room is to give the allusion that I am listening to live (not recorded) music. FOR ME, 2 channels don’t even get close so I am willing to take a hit (compromise) on some aspects of the reproduction chain so that I improve the allusion.
Back to preferences versus reference: Given my personal opinion that I am in the “allusion business” in my listening room, sometimes preference wins. One of the many beauties of the TacT (and I would now suggest that the TacT 2.2XP is better in all respects to my much loved SigTechs) , is the ability to have multiple memories set up with different target curves. Frantz said:
Totally agreed. For example, Many of the 70’s rock albums are very poorly recorded, some with rather anemic bass. Not a problem: I can instantly switch to another memory (move away form “reference”) and get what I believe to be a sound more like (preference) what was happening during the recording session. Unfortunately, the Integra does not support multiple target curves so am still waiting for someone to step up (with time based room correction) and implement that feature.
As I have stated multiple times, the Integra 80.2 is not the end-all, be-all SSP. It had an MSRP of $2300 !!!!! But until I personally hear a released product that has most of what I want: (multiple memories, time based EQ, no multiple A2D and D2A conversions, a good choice and implementation of surround processing modes, and doesn't cost near $30,000) I will keep what I have.
While others may disagree, but as I stated on another thread, we ALL listen with preference. Just go read the thread on WBF on Is There An Absolute Sound.
Last edited:
I have Maggies, so I'm curious about what Audyssey Pro does with them. Unlike with TacT, I've heard some positive reports, but not from very reliable sources.
I'm wondering too about the Anthems, according to KR unlike Audyssey Pro they allow you to set the upper range on the room EQ so that you can correct only the bass. I'm thinking that that might help to circumvent the dipole confusion.
I have been trying to fill that gap for years: http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/854/index.html
Actually, the TacT will allow you to control belwo where you correct, but the 2.2XP is not multichannel. Then you move into the higher stakes game with the TacT TCS MK III. Until I made the switch, I was using a 2.2XP for my 2 channel preamp. It and my recently purchased DAC will be going on Audiogon soon I guess !
And doing a great job of it, I think, you've been my main source of information on what's out there.
Hi
I have some self-made bass-traps and other passive acoustic panels in my room, but I also use active DRC.
I measure my room/speakers interaction for each channel separately with freeware Room EQ Wizard and export Filter Impulse Reponse files. Then I load them into free VST convolution plugins called LiquidSonics Reverberate LE (VST EQ plugins can be used as well for this purpose). I use Foobar2000 software player in my PC.
I don't have an expensive microphone. I just borrow it occasionally it from my friend, he's got a microphone which came with a Denon receiver.
All these helps a lot with room issues. And it's free
None of my "audiophile" friends have any interest in room correction and don't understand what I do. When I try to explain to them, they just give a blank stare. They much prefer to talk about cable differences
I have some self-made bass-traps and other passive acoustic panels in my room, but I also use active DRC.
I measure my room/speakers interaction for each channel separately with freeware Room EQ Wizard and export Filter Impulse Reponse files. Then I load them into free VST convolution plugins called LiquidSonics Reverberate LE (VST EQ plugins can be used as well for this purpose). I use Foobar2000 software player in my PC.
I don't have an expensive microphone. I just borrow it occasionally it from my friend, he's got a microphone which came with a Denon receiver.
All these helps a lot with room issues. And it's free
None of my "audiophile" friends have any interest in room correction and don't understand what I do. When I try to explain to them, they just give a blank stare. They much prefer to talk about cable differences
Hi
I have some self-made bass-traps and other passive acoustic panels in my room, but I also use active DRC.
I measure my room/speakers interaction for each channel separately with freeware Room EQ Wizard and export Filter Impulse Reponse files. Then I load them into free VST convolution plugins called LiquidSonics Reverberate LE (VST EQ plugins can be used as well for this purpose). I use Foobar2000 software player in my PC.
I don't have an expensive microphone. I just borrow it occasionally it from my friend, he's got a microphone which came with a Denon receiver.
All these helps a lot with room issues. And it's free
None of my "audiophile" friends have any interest in room correction and don't understand what I do. When I try to explain to them, they just give a blank stare. They much prefer to talk about cable differences
I can't for the life of me understand why so many audiophiles are resistant to room correction, multichannel, and even tone controls. They seem to want to do everything using the technology of 1980.
Check out these calibrated Behringers, and the Dayton Audios, they're really cheap:
http://www.cross-spectrum.com/measurement/calibrated_behringer.html
Even cheaper, you can get the Dayton Audio without the just an on-axis calibration curve for only $48 at Parts Express.
Hi
I have some self-made bass-traps and other passive acoustic panels in my room, but I also use active DRC.
I measure my room/speakers interaction for each channel separately with freeware Room EQ Wizard and export Filter Impulse Reponse files. Then I load them into free VST convolution plugins called LiquidSonics Reverberate LE (VST EQ plugins can be used as well for this purpose). I use Foobar2000 software player in my PC.
I don't have an expensive microphone. I just borrow it occasionally it from my friend, he's got a microphone which came with a Denon receiver.
All these helps a lot with room issues. And it's free
None of my "audiophile" friends have any interest in room correction and don't understand what I do. When I try to explain to them, they just give a blank stare. They much prefer to talk about cable differences
Very, very good. That your friends don't get it is no surprise. That is what I said in the first post of this thread.
But be careful with:
They much prefer to talk about cable differences
You will offend a lot of people here (not me)
I had a funny episode with one of them: he used to have a disc (CD) which he claimed was "the best-sounding" CD in his collection and how he was "very familiar with it". It was his reference disk which he always took along when he visited his friends and evaluated their audio systems and cables, etc. and gave his judgements.
When he came to me, after he listened to my system and gave his "expert's opinion", the first thing I did was taking this CD of his, ripping a couple of tracks from it and checking them in SoundForge. It turned out to be a fake audio-cd made of mp3 files (everything above 16 kHz was non-existent).
So much for the opinions of people who claim that they "can hear how DRC destroys the purity of the sound signal"... I just wonder how they learn NOT TO NOTICE booming peaks +20 dB in untreated rooms / uncorrected systems... When I switch off, for testing purposes, my DRC VST-chain in Foobar, I feel that I lose about 20-30% of sonic information in music. Bass resonances become mushroom-like nuclear explosions, in the shadows of which midrange loses any chance to be heard properly...
What is the latest TacT RCS version.
Latest TacT TCS version?
And what are the main differences between those two categories (RCS & TCS)?
... The number of channels? ... And the sophistication (complexity of their algorithms)?
Thank you, :b
Bob
Latest TacT TCS version?
And what are the main differences between those two categories (RCS & TCS)?
... The number of channels? ... And the sophistication (complexity of their algorithms)?
Thank you, :b
Bob
I had a funny episode with one of them: he used to have a disc (CD) which he claimed was "the best-sounding" CD in his collection and how he was "very familiar with it". It was his reference disk which he always took along when he visited his friends and evaluated their audio systems and cables, etc. and gave his judgements.
When he came to me, after he listened to my system and gave his "expert's opinion", the first thing I did was taking this CD of his, ripping a couple of tracks from it and checking them in SoundForge. It turned out to be a fake audio-cd made of mp3 files (everything above 16 kHz was non-existent).
So much for the opinions of people who claim that they "can hear how DRC destroys the purity of the sound signal"... I just wonder how they learn NOT TO NOTICE booming peaks +20 dB in untreated rooms / uncorrected systems... When I switch off, for testing purposes, my DRC VST-chain in Foobar, I feel that I lose about 20-30% of sonic information in music. Bass resonances become mushroom-like nuclear explosions, in the shadows of which midrange loses any chance to be heard properly...
Iron (you don't mind me shortening your name?)
One of the funniest post I have read this morning ... I am not (yet) entirely convinced by DRC for reasons I will post on later but would like to understand what you're curently doing with Foobar and you PC .. Very interesting..
I am with you when people claim they can hear things that are .1 db down but fail to recognize 20 dB peaks (at various frequencies) in their rooms ...
Welcome and Please post more often.
RCS is a 2 channel system with up to two subs (hence the 2.2 nomenclature). It can be a 2.0, 2.1 (my configuration) or 2.2. TCS stands for Theater Control System, and, as the name implies, can control a full complement of speakers/subs and decode the latest CODECS from Bluray discs (no video pass through).
The 2.2 system, while not intuitive when you take it out of the box, is learn-able. TCS is much more sophisticated (and hence, complicated). You can do channel mapping, have as many subs as your heart desires (almost), sophisticated crossover management and of course, room correction on all channels. Not for the faint of heart but, with patience, can yield great results. The room correction algorithms are the same.
In fact, it is the same software. You just tell it what product you have. I had a TCS Mk III for a while but decided to go in another direction. I still do have and continue to use my TacT 2.2XP. Not only do you get room correction, but you get 9 memories that can contain different target curves (great for "fixing" old 70's rock CD's), different crossover designs, etc. Very nice product.
And it does a spectacular job of integrating subs to mains. I recently took my system to a friend who has Magicos that are pulled way out in the room (for imaging purposes). But when you do that you give up some low end. So we used his not perfect HT subs for bass, crossed them over pretty low (maybe 40hz) and, bingo, amazing sound. Spent no time deciding crossover slope over even carefully selecting the best crossover point. We just wanted to get a sense of what would it sound like. 5 minutes and he had a full range system flat to 10hz !!!
If he were to get a TacT he then gets to spend the rest of his natural born life diddling
(since we know all real audiophiles love to "diddle" and the TacT has about 40 trillion diddling options).Similar threads
