PDA

View Full Version : Room EQ with Behringer DEQ2496 and 4333's



kevf
07-26-2005, 08:06 PM
I'm playing with my newly acquired toy, the Behringer Ultracurve Pro DEQ2496, and trying to EQ my listening room (24"x30" basement).

Initially, I measured a huge peak of 15db on my left channel around 16kHz. This is with the speakers toe'ed in to the listening position.

I tried moving the speakers around and it quickly became obvious that even a few inches movement of speaker make huge (and I mean HUGE) differences on the RTA. Getting rid of the toe in seems to have flattened the above mentioned peak somewhat.

So it looks like I have some work ahead trying different speaker placements.

In the meantime, I have a couple of questions:
1. I've built "cab extensions" that the 4333's sit on so that the 2405 is now at ear level. I'm now second guessing this move as I have a feeling the peak mentioned above is exaggerated (if not caused) by having the HF at ear level. Are the 4333's meant to sit that high?

2.The DEQ2496 has an Auto EQ feature where it calculates the EQ required to flatten the room. It sends pink noise to BOTH channels and then it EQ the LEFT. Then it sends pink noise, again to BOTH channel and EQ the right. I'm not certain this makes sense as I would think its better to send pink noise through LEFT only when it EQ the LEFT (and pink noise to RIGHT only when it EQ the right). What is the proper procedure to EQ a room?

Thanks guys
Kevin

BTW, my problem was first mentioned in this thread, but I didn't want to highjack that thread anymore :D
http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=6666

Robh3606
07-26-2005, 08:47 PM
Hello, Kevin

1. I've built "cab extensions" that the 4333's sit on so that the 2405 is now at ear level. I'm now second guessing this move as I have a feeling the peak mentioned above is exaggerated (if not caused) by having the HF at ear level. Are the 4333's meant to sit that high?

I did the same things on my 4344 clones to get the 2405 up at ear level. The 2405 has a very narrow verticle patern above 15k so you need to have them up there. It also helps to get those 15's up off the floor a bit. The bottom line is what works best overall. If you have issues with the lowend from being up then you have to decide which works best for you in your room. With me up on short stands work well on both ends so it's a no brainer.

"I'm not certain this makes sense as I would think its better to send pink noise through LEFT only when it EQ the LEFT (and pink noise to RIGHT only when it EQ the right). What is the proper procedure to EQ a room?'

Get a test disk like the Delos HT disk that has the requiste L/R bands and run in RTA mode to see what you get. I run left and right, check the match betweeen the speakers through the midrange + say 200Hz up to say 8K and then look at the overall balance with both channels. That's what I do and It has worked well. Watch any boost in the auto EQ. I use cut only EQ's. Remember 6dB Equals 4X the power and reduces your headroom accordingly.

Rob:)

Zilch
07-27-2005, 12:52 AM
As context, my UltraCurve firmware is V1.2B.

I raised the AutoEQ issue when I first started using it. Just tried it again to confirm:

DEQ2496 has two operating modes, "Stereo Link" and "Dual Mono" selected via the "Utility" menu. In "Stereo Link," left and right channels are handled simultaneously, including AutoEQ. Only one GEQ curve is generated, and that is applied to both channels. You've got to be very careful about the placement and aiming of the microphone to get a good result; phase cancellations from the two speakers playing simultaneously will mess it up.

Just watch the RTA while you move the mic slightly playing pink noise. You must find the "sweet spot" between the acoustic centers for it to work well, and having the mic centered some distance (e.g., the listening position) in front of the speakers makes the task easier. I assume you know how to turn the pink noise on and set its level from the I/O menu. Took me a while to find that.

In "Dual Mono" mode, as you describe, separate GEQ curves are generated for Left vs. Right channels. You choose which one AEQ is working on from page 2 when you're setting up each run. You have to turn off the other channel manually. I do it by unplugging the opposite output cable on the back of the unit.

I just tried it again allowing both channels to play during the process. As logic would dictate, it generates bogus results results that way. I've been meaning to track this down with Behringer, but never found the time to do it. For a while, I thought it was smart enough to know what noise was being sent to each channel at any point in time, and used that to sort out the data. It certainly didn't work that way here tonight.

For this, I also find the "sweet spot" with both channels playing and then leave the mic stationary while AEQ does its thing on each individually. It can take as long as 10 minutes for each AEQ process to go to completion in the "slow" mode. I start it on "fast" and switch it sucessively to "mid" and "slow" as the process progresses. Then, I get out of the sound field for the duration, watching for the "action" to stop on page 3 before hitting "Done." Afterwards, you can edit the two curves in GEQ.

For me, it's primarily a research tool. I've got a bunch of different curves for different setups saved in the memory. I forget what they're for soon after saving them. Seems no two setups are ever the same here.... :p

Mike Caldwell
07-27-2005, 07:27 AM
Hello
In the end I would your ears to make the final EQ adjustments. No microphone and simple RTA is ever going to "hear" the same as your ears do, there are simply too many variables involved in the process. You have two ears/microphones built into the sides of your head spaced apart by about 6 inches or so. The time difference of a sound arriving at one ear and the other is what gives the ability to hear depth and width or the imaging of sound and the precived frequency response. One single microphone simply can not do all of that. There are a few high end measurement systems using multiple mics that can do a fairly close job of telling us what our ears are hearing. Many times in the pro sound world someone will set their system up using SMART or similar product and them do the final tweak by ear and saying test 1 2 into a microphone.
Like was mentioned before if using the auto EQ watch out for excessive boost being applied in it's attempt to get a perfectly flat response, primalry in the low end if it tries to make a speaker flat to 20hz that is only able to go down to 45hz (or what ever frequency) with out blowing up!

My thoughts
Mike Caldwell

kevf
07-27-2005, 08:53 AM
"You have to turn off the other channel manually. I do it by unplugging the opposite output cable on the back of the unit."

I just find it very odd that I have resort to unplugging one channel manually when EQ'ing the other channel. I did email Behringer and they told me that its not a bug, and that's how its suppose to work - pink noise will be generated for BOTH channels while the unit EQ one channel. Being new at this, I thought maybe someone in the group will confirm whether this is the standard procedure. From the responses so far, it doesn't sound like it.

As far as "trusting my ears", yes, I plan to eventually fine tune it by ear and not trust the AutoEQ completely. But with different recordings/time of day/mood/bad memory etc, I find it really hard to "trust my ears" a lot of times!! What I'm finding is that this unit is a great help in identifying problem areas. And its a lot of fun to play with all those functions :D.

Kevin

boputnam
07-27-2005, 09:12 AM
You have to turn off the other channel manually. I do it by unplugging the opposite output cable on the back of the unit.Some days, you just gotta LOVE Zilch!! :yes: Took the words right outa my fingers.

I do the same thing at FOH - although there is no Behringer gear anywhere within sharpshooter distance. :scold:

Just fade out one channel, point the mic, adjust. Repeat for other side.

speakerdave
07-27-2005, 09:49 AM
Not that I really know anything about it, but it seems to me pink noise in two channels is better because the speakers are never played singly. Both speakers create the sound field in the room, and the interactions between the speakers are part of it as are the individual characteristics of the speakers and their locations. Pink noise in one speaker at a time will correct one speaker in the room. Using the two speaker method the first correction is probably over-correction, but it includes a mirror image of the anomalies of the other speaker and its position so that when that is corrected the room modes of both speakers in the whole sound field are addressed. In each subsequent change of channels the process is refined.

David

stevem
07-27-2005, 09:58 AM
As far as "trusting my ears", yes, I plan to eventually fine tune it by ear and not trust the AutoEQ completely. But with different recordings/time of day/mood/bad memory etc, I find it really hard to "trust my ears" a lot of times!! What I'm finding is that this unit is a great help in identifying problem areas. And its a lot of fun to play with all those functions :D.

Kevin

I get the best results when both the measurements and my ears tend to agree, so I always look for a correlation between the two.

boputnam
07-27-2005, 10:17 AM
...it seems to me pink noise in two channels is better because the speakers are never played singly. Both speakers create the sound field in the room, and the interactions between the speakers are part of it as are the individual characteristics of the speakers and their locations. True. But each individual channel / speaker cabinet / stack will likely be positioned in a quasi unique position creating it's own unique acoustical reaction with the room / setting - particularly if one is tucked into a corner and the other is not. :blink:

I merely reported "industry convention" wherein each channel is operated singly and it's unique room affects analyzed. That is the point of having a two-channel EQ. Once each side is done, adjusting to "taste" is NOP.

Regardless, do it however floats your boat! :smthsail:

Robh3606
07-27-2005, 10:20 AM
"I get the best results when both the measurements and my ears tend to agree, so I always look for a correlation between the two."

Hello Steve

Great point you use both and they should agree.

Hello Speakerdave

"Not that I really know anything about it, but it seems to me pink noise in two channels is better because the speakers are never played singly. Both speakers create the sound field in the room, and the interactions between the speakers are part of it as are the individual characteristics of the speakers and their locations."

You really need to do both. You look at each on its own. Get them dialed in and compare the individual curves to match them as best you can. Then look at the summed curve with both. You need to "see" what each speaker is doing as well as the summed response. Without looking at each individual you have peaks or nulls unique to each that need adjustments that are unique for each channel. My speakers are not symetrical in my room so they require different curves to flatten them out.

The ear may be the final tool but you can spend weeks chassing your tail without measurement equipment. It saves you lots of time and typically there is good corelation between what you measure and what you hear as Steve pointed out. There is also a large window that sounds good. Without measurement equipment you can spend lots of time doing set-ups by ear and still not get it right where it all comes together. When you do get it "right" you will know it. The balance will be great, you won't be running for the EQ with every recording, your imaging will be good and you will just find yourself listening to the music not the speakers.

Rob:)

Mike Caldwell
07-27-2005, 12:15 PM
I do the same thing at FOH - although there is no Behringer gear anywhere within sharpshooter distance. :scold:


I like to keep Behringer gear at such a distance that a GPS guided cruise missile would not be able to hit it, that way there is no chance of contamination or cross breeding with the rest of my equipment!

Mike Caldwell

boputnam
07-27-2005, 12:33 PM
I like to keep Behringer gear at such a distance that a GPS guided cruise missile would not be able to hit it, that way there is no chance of contamination or cross breeding with the rest of my equipment!:rotfl:

Me too. And I tried a few just to make sure there was no value to be found. :barf:

johnaec
07-27-2005, 12:37 PM
While maybe not top-of-the-line, it seems like most of Behringer's problems stem from reliability issues. They may hold up somewhat better in a home environment. I'm using DBX stuff myself, ('no experience with Behringer, other than what I've read in sound forums, etc...).

John

Mike Caldwell
07-27-2005, 01:03 PM
When mixing a friends band on their PA it sounded better when the Behringer comp that was inserted on the vocal sub group was pulled! Normally I like a little compression on the vocals but in this case it was better without, the Behringer sucked the life out of vocal the instant it started doing any amount of compression. He has now since upgraded to a Drawmer comp. Reliability is a big concern with any of the "B" equipment. The sound quality or lack of is there, get past the blink lights and the wiz bang features and listen close and then remove the unit from the signal path, not just hitting the bypass switch but hardwire past the unit. Hitting bypass in most cases still leaves a fair amout of active components in the signal path. The lack of reliablity and sound quality comes from using the absolute cheapest components available. Many of the Behringer products are design rip offs of quality equipment and they have the law suites to prove it.
Every time you pass signal through a piece of equipment it gets degraded reguardless of the quality of the equipment, good well designed equipment has far less degragation than a piece of well.... not so good equipment. The degragation adds up with every pass through a piece of processing equipment.

Mike Caldwell

boputnam
07-27-2005, 01:21 PM
1) it sounded better when the Behringer comp that was inserted on the vocal sub group was pulled! :yes:
2) the Behringer sucked the life out of (the) vocal the instant it started doing any amount of compression. :yes:
3) The lack of reliablity and sound quality comes from using the absolute cheapest components available. Many of the Behringer products are design rip offs of quality equipment and they have the law suits to prove it. :yes:
4) Every time you pass signal through a piece of equipment it gets degraded regaurdless of the quality of the equipment... The degragation adds up with every pass through a piece of processing equipment.:yes:

It's ALL about the filters, man. If one really listens, you will know. My wifey - and a few other friends - who claim to "not know anything" about pro audio, can hear the difference. They maybe cannot describe what they hear, but they know what works and what grates. They know, Behringer sucks.

Zilch
07-27-2005, 01:40 PM
Hitting bypass in most cases still leaves a fair amout of active components in the signal path.The UltraCurve has an alternate bypass. You turn it off, and a deenergized relay apparently shorts inputs and outputs together.

Pretty easy to assess it's "contribution" using this function. :p

Mr. Widget
07-27-2005, 01:42 PM
The UltraCurve has an alternate bypass. You turn it off, and a deenergized relay apparently shorts inputs and outputs together.

Pretty easy to assess it's "contribution" using this function. :p

As I recall the unit's sound improves once that bypass is selected too!;)


Widget

Zilch
07-27-2005, 01:47 PM
YO, Widget!

What's your take on L/R equalization with both speakers playing concurrently?

[I recall you having a definite opinion on this.... :p ]

Mr. Widget
07-27-2005, 01:52 PM
YO, Widget!

What's your take on L/R equalization with both speakers playing concurrently?

[I recall you having a definite opinion on this.... :p ]

Nothing special.

I agree with the textbook rules. You must do each channel independently. The interchannel cancellations and room mode peaks will make any measurements taken with both channels running simultaneously virtually meaningless.

Widget

Mr. Widget
07-27-2005, 01:53 PM
A friend has taken a digital Behringer crossover and replaced the inexpensive DACs and removed all of it's analog circuitry and has made it quite listenable. I'll try to get a list of the mods and post them. His cash outlay was not extreme and the results are comparable with my considerably more expensive DEQX... it doesn't have all of the DEQX's features, but it is an affordable way to get most of the way there.

Widget

Akira
07-28-2005, 09:55 AM
while eq can do wonders, i really feel this is step two, because you are breaking rule #3 in audio. "correct physical problems physically; correct electronic problems electronically. this is one of the first things they teach you when you study sound engineering.
you have a large room, why not treat it. room treatment does not mean dead; a dead room sounds DEAD. portable baffels which you can move around can offer flexability and really open up your eyes (or ears) to what is going on, as well as ad some esthetics if done right. a few well placed angles can also make an important difference. i suppose i'm biased towards studio acoustics, but i think they are the ultimate listening environment and a cool "studio like" room also has a high WAF. it sounds to me like you have a live ceiling or floor or both, coupled with low height. height is the achellies heel of a good sounding room and the only thing you can do about it with limited success is to have a small amount of dampening on the ceiling (and or floor) to counteract the first reflection. btw, this will only work for HF content. although you say this is not a good option, if you have room to spare, i would build it out with an angled wall at the correct acoustical position and flush mount the speakers. this is a huge pay off which other forum members tend to ignore...but then again i am very biased in this direction.
p.s. i agree with the general negative reviews about behringer, but how well does the RTA section work and what do they cost. i only want an RTA and would never leave it in the chain, especially as an equalizer. i use third octave klarke teknic's, with 24db brooke siren cross overs.

boputnam
07-28-2005, 10:30 AM
...i use third octave klarke teknik's... :thmbsup:

:hmm: btw, is that your desk?

kevf
07-28-2005, 06:35 PM
Thanks for all your suggestions. Despite moving the 4333 all over the room, it doesn't appear I can get rid of that nasty peak (its always between 10kHz and 16kHz). Thank god I had put wheels on those cab extensions I built.

Akira, I'll take your suggestions on room treatment and start looking into diy solutions. BTW, the ceiling is not too low (8.5"), drywalled ceiling and carpeted floor. Just curious, how big do you think a baffle would need to be if one was to flush mount the speakers to a "fake wall"? Have you've ever seen the Klipsch Cornerhorns that came with its own fake corners?



p.s. i agree with the general negative reviews about behringer, but how well does the RTA section work and what do they cost.



I see that you are also in Toronto. They sell them at a few places in town for $460CAD, not including the mic. I ran across an used one for $320CAD with the mic. Since this is my first time using a RTA, can't really give you a good answer on how well it works. But I did some research on the net and the unit seems to be very well received.

Steve Schell
07-29-2005, 02:46 AM
My experience so far has been that equalization can improve a system's sound quite a lot, but with limitations. The problems that can be dealt with are errors in the frequency response of the speaker systems used, and probably variations in the directivity of the various drivers in the near to mid field. Ken Pachkowsky has EQed his Westlake monitors with 1/3rd octave measurements and corresponding corrections with 1/3rd octave equalizers. He was nice enough to switch the EQs in and out for me, and the sound was dramatically better with the correction.

Some rooms with live acoustics tend to recycle and build up midrange energy, and EQ attenuation can tame this. I would prefer to tame it with room treatment as a better option.

The worst problems that our relatively small listening rooms with their parallel walls create are standing waves at low frequencies. This can create peaks and dips of 20dB or more at our listening chairs. EQ does little to help; if you are sitting in a 20dB hole at 100Hz., boosting that frequency will pile up energy where it was already exaggerated, muddying up the overall sound, but it won't help at the positions of standing wave cancellation.

In the case of a sharp peak of high frequency, I would check the response of the h.f. driver very close up first, with the mic an inch from a cone driver, or at the mouth of a horn. If it shows up there, the driver or horn is at fault. If not, I would attempt to treat any nearby reflective surfaces such as baffle surfaces, edges, or nearby walls. If a reflection recombines in phase at the listening position, it will create a peak at that frequency.

Akira
08-02-2005, 09:13 AM
:thmbsup:

:hmm: btw, is that your desk?
yeh, that's my console, now wrapped up in plastic in my basement. while shania twain still records in a 20mil. room, everyone else records on their mac! thus, a lot of great studio monitors for sale...the mid sized installation has gone the way of the dinosaur.
:(

Akira
08-02-2005, 09:24 AM
Thanks for all your suggestions. Despite moving the 4333 all over the room, it doesn't appear I can get rid of that nasty peak (its always between 10kHz and 16kHz). Thank god I had put wheels on those cab extensions I built.

Akira, I'll take your suggestions on room treatment and start looking into diy solutions. BTW, the ceiling is not too low (8.5"), drywalled ceiling and carpeted floor. Just curious, how big do you think a baffle would need to be if one was to flush mount the speakers to a "fake wall"?

you have really got everyone stumped on this one...i've never heard of a peak so intense at that range 16K! it almost sounds like you have an open circuit on the top end, but you say you have reversed the boxes????
to build your wall out, you would loose the depth of your boxes, or slightly less since the wall is angled slightly. the speaker would sit 1" to 2"s proud of the wall. the advantage is it would also be positioned at the right height and slightly tilted angle. (also good for HF reflection) to me this should be a solveable problem...you have a lot to work with and your ceiling height is not bad, but drywall on the top is definitely a problem.
p.s. since your in T.O. also, i'd be happy to come look at your room. i'm kind of jelous of the C.A. crowd who can just jump in the car and audition other forum member's rigs.

speakerdave
08-02-2005, 10:27 AM
. . . i'm kind of jelous of the C.A. crowd who can just jump in the car and audition other forum member's rigs.
Yeah, it's nice. Good weather too! We think of you guys out there surrounded by Zenith Allegro's and walking through snow. If you get out this way, let us know.

David

kevf
08-02-2005, 07:59 PM
Ah...found the problem...

Forgot to mention that I also had a TDM active 2-way crossover that I picked up on the cheap and was in the chain (HF to 4333, LF to sub1500). I had swapped speakers and amps to eliminate hardware problem, but for some stupid reason, it didn't occur to me to check the active crossover.

Anyway, tonight I removed active crossover (and the sub1500) and that peak at 16khz is gone! Now I know why I got that TDM crossover so cheap http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/images/smilies/banghead.gif

As you can see, the responses are still far from flat but its not ugly (well, not that ugly...)

Pics below are left channel, then right.

kevf
08-02-2005, 08:02 PM
Oops..left channel again:

Mike Caldwell
08-03-2005, 05:33 AM
Hello
I use many of the TDM crossovers in my live sound production systems both the 2-way models 24CX2 and the 3-way models 24CX3, they also make a 2-way 4 channel model the 24CX4. All of the later TDM crossovers have a switch for each channel called "CD boost / CD EQ" that is not for if your using the crossovers and playing music from CD's compact disc through them. CD in this case means constant directivity for use with constant directivity high frequency horns such as the JBL 2380, 2385 and others. All constant directivity "CD" horns require a high frequency boost applied for the horn to operate and sound like it was designed to. This pre EQ is normally applied at the crossover analog or digital. You can get more info on the TDM crossover at http://www.tdmaudio.com (http://www.tdmaudio.com/) TDM's were and still are considered considered to be at the same quality of the BSS analog crossovers, the BSS's do have a fancier looking front panel audio quality is the same in my opinion. New TDM's are not cheap but with many systems going to DSP good used deals can be found. Below is a graph from the TDM website shown the frequency response with the CD EQ applied to a high frequency output. I would check the switches on the back of the crossover they are the recessed type that you will need a small screwdriver a to push the switch, pushed in the EQ is on and in the out position it is off. In between the two channels is a switch the converts the crossover to a 3-way mono unit. If you have an older TDM unit I think the switches are located inside in the form of a jumper link. All of mine are the newer style. If the CD EQ switches are not the problem double check how you are going from the balenced XLR outputs to what I am assuming is a unbalanced RCA type of input. (Let me know the type of amps you are using) One last thought...TDM crossovers can be fitted with a wide range of optional cards for limiting, time alignment delay and parametric output EQ maybe yours has an option card installed. My guess is the CD EQ switch.

Mike Caldwell

I like the way TDM spelled directivity ...and I thought my spelling was really bad!

Zilch
08-03-2005, 11:40 AM
I betcha Mike is right and the CD boost is "On."

Your RTA curves look quite good. I need to get a tripod. You've upped the standard.

The response is good, too. :p A couple of knob twiddles will tune the right one better, maybe. Around here, I'd be callin' them "DONE!"

You can ignore everything below 200 Hz. Reading the bass requires a different setup....

kevf
08-03-2005, 07:05 PM
Good grief, is there ANYTHING that the collective wisdom of this board does not know?? Dammit, the CD boost was on in the left channel!!

I'm truly fortunate and grateful to be part of this board. Not only the knowledge, but the willingness to help are just amazing :blah:

The 4333's are now singing better than ever :applaud:. Thanks again.

Kevin

Mike Caldwell
08-03-2005, 08:01 PM
Hello
Glad to help! TDM equipment is great stuff it was or still is a small company where a things were hand assembeled one at a time , the comapny has recently gone through a ownership change so what happens will be anyones guess. I had a glitch with one of my 24CX3's about four years ago and I called the company it sounded more like calling your next door neighbor and the TDM of TDM himself answered the phone Tim D. Miller. They also have some very nice 1/3 octave EQ's. I'll have eight TDM crossovers in operation at one time when my larger system is out for a show. I have bought up a few (quite a few to be exact) to keep as extras in both 2-way and 3-way versions when I would see a good one selling for a good price.. Something to keep an look out for because the used resell price is very low is Fender crossovers they were built by TDM for Fender for a few years once you see one you can tell it's a TDM, same style controls and layout only the knobs are red and greay instead of blue and grey. There kind of a sleeper as no one really thinks of Fender as a serious audio equipment company just guitars and amps. When I was talking to "Tim" on the phone about other products they had built he mentioned on the Fender branded crossovers they wanted a output muting circut added to them, he suggested removing it not liking what it did to signal path. They are FET switches two per output they look like a small black plastic cased transistor on each leg of the output XLR connectors. I had a Fender/TDM crossover on one of my monitor mixes for a while and did that mod to it. I later changed it out to same crossover TDM branded just so everything looked the same in the rack, I know.... I know but that's just me!
I still have it in my spares pile. As I have said before one day I will go with DSP's and when I do I will still carry a TDM for a backup.
What frequency are you crossing out of your subs at?

Mike Caldwell

kevf
08-04-2005, 05:21 PM
Mike,
I have the TDM 24CX2 which I believe is the current model as it has all the switches at the back instead of on the PCB. Hard to believe, I paid $55 for it. It does look very well built, and I think it sounds fine (except for that left channel thingy ;) ).

I have a pair of sub1500's, but have only managed to build one cab (2 cubic feet sealed) so far. So I'm summing the LF with the TDM to one sub1500, crossing at 100hz. You know what, its hard to see how one needs TWO sub1500 in a home setting. I can rattle the drywall pretty good already.

I'd like to pick up another TDM at some point to try bi-amping my 4333. So much to do...:D

Mike Caldwell
08-05-2005, 05:27 AM
Hello
$55 was a great deal!!!!
If you are not already you can do the low frequency summing internally
by moving and adding a couple of jumpers. That would work better than if your doing it by using an external y type of cable. You can download the manual from the TDM website and it show the jumper configuration to do that. I would try crossing over lower down at 80hz, that's as low as the 24cx2 will go.
Let me know

Mike Caldwell

boputnam
08-05-2005, 07:47 AM
Good grief, is there ANYTHING that the collective wisdom of this board does not know?? Dammit, the CD boost was on in the left channel!!Hey, Kevin...

One of the BEST things about this place, is when people finding help report what they find - that way we learn whether our experiences are worth sharing!! Your finding that CD boost "on" was a huge confirmation for those that know the unit (not me...). Thanks for that - now even those lurking here have that knowledge, too!

:coolness:

And...


...I later changed it out to same crossover TDM branded just so everything looked the same in the rack, I know.... I know but that's just me!:rotfl:

kevf
08-05-2005, 07:52 PM
Hello
If you are not already you can do the low frequency summing internally
by moving and adding a couple of jumpers. That would work better than if your doing it by using an external y type of cable. You can download the manual from the TDM website and it show the jumper configuration to do that. I would try crossing over lower down at 80hz, that's as low as the 24cx2 will go.
Let me know

Mike Caldwell

Hi Mike,
yes, I followed the TDM manual and soldered a wire on the board to use its summing function. Seems to work well.

Mmm..I just looked at the responses of the 4333s without the sub1500 again (a couple of posts back). I suppose crossing at 80hz may work better as the 2 cu ft box will then need less eq. Will give that a shot. Thanks for pointing that out.

Kevin