Sub for Everest DD66000.

[ivica]

Did I ever mention the M2?

Set up the DD65000, DD66000 or DD67000 in a similar fashion and there will be no shortage of bottom end.

It is all in the balance between the midrange and the bass.

The Everest systems have serious potential.

Hi 4313B,

May be I do not uderstand your words, but I can imagine that almost Any decent speaker can be equalised to become respectable FR response, especially if power DSP support and multi channal amplifiers are applied. The problem can be the sound character of such system.

From my point of view, I woud not expect from multy-thousands U$D spekers would need additional sub-bass drivers, or enhanced DSP in order to produce acceptable sound reproduction.

I wonder what can be get from say old 43xx family speakers if DSP ,with FIR filters and time delay compensation including 4 chan.amlifiers being applied.

regards
ivica

[Mr. Widget]

...but I can imagine that almost Any decent speaker can be equalised to become respectable FR response, especially if power DSP support and multi channal amplifiers are applied. The problem can be the sound character of such system.

From reading your posts I know you have a lot of theoretical experience, but I can tell you from "real world" experience that speaker systems have sonic signatures and characteristics that can not be equalized away... even with sophisticated DSPs that can also control the time domain in multiway applications. That being said you will never confuse an M2 and 4350 even if they have identical on axis FR responses.

Now regarding 4313B's comment, I believe what he was suggesting was that the pair of 1501AL woofers in the DD66000 can beautifully reach deep down into the subterranean regions, but it does require DSP to make that happen.


Widget

[Mr. Widget]

From my point of view, I woud not expect from multy-thousands U$D spekers would need additional sub-bass drivers, or enhanced DSP in order to produce acceptable sound reproduction.

And a lot of other people have said this... as you know every speaker system is built on choosing compromises and the design team of this speaker chose to limit the deepest bass to accomplish what they thought were the best set of compromises.


Widget

[DynaMax]

Dear 4313B

Spot on! Thank you - I agree 100%.

And to all you other readers:

My home Everest EX system (bass boost filter, Cross-over, dual 18"/channel) are the "salt and pepper" the Everest definitely needs when played in larger rooms than average japanese apartments..

The problem are - and the reason for me to jump on this thread - the company behind the Everest rather than the Everest itself or the brilliant people who developed it.

They simply left project Everest half done when leaving the clients who happens to live in large houses with out the opportunity to buy a matching LF system for the Everest.

Everest are - sorry, don't get me wrong - some kind of P.A. system. Consider the Everest as a "MF+HF" speaker, suitable for small and medium sized rooms, and tell me where to find the matching LF system for those of us who want's to play the system under the conditions of a very large room/free air?

Back to salt and pepper vs. 60.000 dollar speakers; Imagine yourself seated on a five star restaurant, your 200$ dinner just arrived, the taste is not what you expected, you ask the waiter for salt and pepper, and he tells you "sorry sir, we don't offer that".

Got my point?

Thats why I made the Everest EX system. I was forced to so by Harman management who decided it must be this way. And I did what I did in love to my speakers.. I guess many others had trashed the speakers rather than starting developing a DESIGN matching LF system as I did. Think about the many potential Everest buyers who walked out of my door because they were disappointed about the poor LF, and multiply these figures with the amount of Everest dealers around the globe? Got my point? They had for sure (some of them) bought the system if a matching LF system were availible.

In the eighties Harman management decided the JBL B-360 and the B-460 option for those who suffers from bass. In 2009 Harman management decided to flush out many passionated employees and business partners. One of them was me. Are the new people - replacing me and the many others who were wiped out - doing better? I guess not.

For 7 years we have had access to the brilliant Everest system, but no access to adjust with a little salt and pepper in shape of a top-shelf design matching LF system for the Everest. The Array 1500 and the S1S-EX simply don't match the Everest, the first in performance the last in appearance..

Know you all know why I decided to enter this thread the way I did, and everybody are welcome to try me out by stepping by and listen to my Everest with and without "salt and pepper".

A little teaser; during this spring I had a visit from a Harman distributor (I won't mention his name with out his permission), who just arrived from C.E.S + a visit at Northridge. At Northridge he auditioned the Everest DD67000 + ML53 etc., costing a billion dollars, with Greg Timbers i Think,..

I asked if he wanted to listen to my system, and this was before I got the special build electronics I got today, but just with an OEM crossover+bass eq).

"shortly" he answered, as he was on his way out of my door behind his schedule; I played a Patrcia Barber track and some Pink Floyd live concert "shine on you crazy diamond" intro with Synt. bass effect. Both tracks with and without my Extensions. After a few minutes listen to each track he locked at me searching for words, dwelled a minute for choosing his words, gave up, and said; "this is sounding better than what I heard in the JBL showroom at Northridge ..".

Somebody should tell the Harman management to listen a little more to the crowd before kicking peoples ass out of the company, spend a little more time listening to music on the products from where they get their paychecks, instead of focus on figures from low-end-gear mass production.

I don't think the VW makes money at their Bugatti cars at all, but they get tons of attention, and thousands of people buying their Audi cars as they can't effort the Bugatti. But this doesn't mean their are lots of limitations for the Bugatti buyers. There are no limits. And so with the Everest buyers. No limits wanted. Heavy bass EXtensions wanted!

Have a good weekend.

Henrik, DynaMax

[BMWCCA]

If you really ever consider to purchase DD66000 or DD67000 - an 60K$ investment i guess ( I don't know DD67000 retail in the US - can anybody tell me?), do your self a favor; spend 1.000 Us$ in an air plane ticket US-Copenhagen-return, I will pay for your overnight stay, and come and listen to my DD66000 with and with out my dual 18" EXtensions.

M2 is another issue; I was to a M2 demo by the JBL Pro distributor this summer; impressive YES FOR SURE - but my own system outcompetes the M2 in some aspects and the M2 outcompetes the DD66000 in other aspects. I think it is wrong to compare those two speaker designs at all, taken into consideration the M2 is controlled by the BBX/Crown electronics opposite the passive DD66000.

Thanks for the offer! I doubt I'll ever be in a position to take you up on it but I appreciate it and, if I ever find myself in Copenhagen, I will certainly look you up!

Slightly used DD6600 seem to be available here currently for asking prices under $20,000. At this rate I should be able to pick some up for about what I paid for my 4345s in about five-years!

I have nothing against the M2 creating musical magic through active electronics and Crown amps. I use active crossovers, EQ, and Crown amps with my 4345 now. Pretty much just after the best reproduction of music, whatever it takes.

[jblnut]

I would love to be able to read a thread a few days after it has been posted, but 4313B insists on deleting his posts the same day he creates them. WTF is UP with that ? Enough already - post or don't but leave your comments around so that others can follow a thread in some kind of logical fashion !


jblnut

[ivica]

[RIGHT]And a lot of other people have said this... as you know every speaker system is built on choosing compromises and the design team of this speaker chose to limit the deepest bass to accomplish what they thought were the best set of compromises.


Widget

Hi Mr.Widget,

As an engineer myself, I understand the meaning of the words"engineering compromises", but here talking about DD66k speakers, I wonder why Mr.GT. had not used one driver like 2269 instead of the one 1501, as a "helper bass driver", and so the lower LF reproduction would be solved. May be some of the forum member has such opportunity to ask Mr.GT, personally. From his answer I believe we can learn something new.

regards
ivica

[ivica]

......

Now regarding 4313B's comment, I believe what he was suggesting was that the pair of 1501AL woofers in the DD66000 can beautifully reach deep down into the subterranean regions, but it does require DSP to make that happen.


Widget

Hi Mr.Widget,

Yes, I have understood our forum member '4313B' that with a kind of EQ, DD66k can be improved, almost the same he has suggested for M2 by "shelfing" midbass and VF sction.

regards
ivica

[4313B]

I would love to be able to read a thread a few days after it has been posted, but 4313B insists on deleting his posts the same day he creates them. WTF is UP with that ? Enough already - post or don't but leave your comments around so that others can follow a thread in some kind of logical fashion !

I realized that my comments added nothing of value to the thread so why mess up a perfectly good thread with them. I don't see where it is a problem.

Yes, I have understood our forum member '4313B' that with a kind of EQ, DD66k can be improved, almost the same he has suggested for M2 by "shelfing" midbass and VF sction.

I did not suggest anything for the M2. My latest comments were misunderstood and have been removed so as not to confuse anyone.

[ivica]

I realized that my comments added nothing of value to the thread so why mess up a perfectly good thread with them. I don't see where it is a problem.I did not suggest anything for the M2. My latest comments were misunderstood and have been removed so as not to confuse anyone.

Hi 4313B,

I am sorry if I do not understand yours words correctly:

"unfortunately it seems to ME that OUR forum moderator totally changed my post

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...l=1#post366707

where I reply to 4313B post BEFORE he had decided to remove his post , I can not reference what was the point ... But fortunately some older post can give some "ideas"


but in Your post:

http://www.audioheritage.org/vbullet...l=1#post362755

"...Someone posted an article awhile back with respect to midrange balance in a loudspeaker and how it can make or break a system. All I have to say in response to that is, start with something like the -8 dB HP shelf filter used on the 2216Nd in the M2. JBL starts it around 135 Hz. I've done similar with the K2 and E2 (after removing the stock passive networks) and the results are fantastic. The bass and midrange clean right up. The bottom end, even with the "bass shy" K2, gets real serious without being overblown. The amount of cut will vary with each system as will the frequency, slope and Q, put the principle is the same..."

I have understood that some kind of EQ ( about as said: -8dB HP shelf) is applied in M2 in the mid-bass region in order to suppress too strong 2216ND response in that region. So I understand that JBL prefer to suppers mid-bas not to 'enhance' bass "shortage" in lower bass region.
So a kind of enhancing some thing can be realize by directly enhancing the desired region , or by suppressing the rest, or part of the rest.

regards
ivica

[ivica]

I realized that my comments added nothing of value to the thread so why mess up a perfectly good thread with them. I don't see where it is a problem.

I did not suggest anything for the M2. My latest comments were misunderstood and have been removed so as not to confuse anyone.

Hi 4313B,

I can understand that from time to time our words can be misinterpreted or misunderstood from the most, or just a few of the readers (or listeners) but I think it would be more correct to remain the post, for the others who were referencing or had replied on such post. Now, we have a situation that someone is "talking about" some kid of ghost.

From the most of your post I have learned much, from your knowledge and large amount of experience, and I think that all of your post are valuable to remain unchanged on the AH-forum.

Regards
ivica

[DynaMax]

Hi 4313B

I really agree with Mr. IVICA. By removing your post you left my replies were I comments on your post, making no sense.

Especially your post explaining your thoughts about decisions made from the design-team behind E2, by referring to adding "salt and pepper" was a very nice post. I also learned a lot from reading your many post during time, thank you so much, and please continue to share your valuable knowledge.

But when that is said, I think it is absolutely not fair to this tread, that you deleted vital parts of the discussion.

Bring the post back in if you wanna keep faith amongst readers.

Hi Widget and Hi IVICA

This is not about adding an extension to the frequency range of the Everest II, for sure thats possible. I tried it all ready. More about this - below..*

I don't question the limitations of the choosen Everest design from a technical view of point, but from a sales person view of point which 4313B actually was very nice to comments in his post. The post he later removed, and which I want him to bring back in the discussion.

* As mentioned from Widget an Eq. addition to the E2 low-end will compensate for the early roll-off, but according to my experiences that won't do it all the way.

Reason: Human hearing are non linear - most sensible at the midrange, less sensible at the very low and very high frequencies.

Fact: human ears need 20Hz reproduced at 90dB before you actually can start hearing the 20Hz, opposite 1000Hz at 90dB. 1000 Hz at 90dB is pretty hard to the ears long term listening.

This means (in my system =very large room = minimum LF room gain at listening position), that I need + 15-18db at 20-25Hz with music content from great church organs before I feel the experience are "authentic". The same with an live track recording of an Pink Floyd open air concert, listening to the synth.bass effects at 30-50Hz. 30-50Hz needs around a 12dB boost before it starts sounding "authentic". Actually the wanted output is almost impossible to hear from the E2 (but can be measured 15-20dB below midrange), and it will need tremendous amount of Eq. before it "feels" right.

Conclusion: Off course you can add this extension to the E2 by DSP Eq., it works fine on the older soft-rock albums like Pink Ployd, but then shift record and play a track with modern electronic music with tons of LF (Try the swiss due "Yello" or some US made Hip-Hop..), and then try turn up loud… Result: you will see AL1501 woofers pumping more than they like ..

It's a simple matter of surface area.

The E2 are an brilliant performer the way it is -when suported by some somekind of LF system.!

It's is very funny to read from this "Lansing Heritage" that allmost all E2 owners/writers (Mr. Widget and Greg Timbers included) do have and LF system in use with their E2.. like the Array 1500 or the Revel B120.. And why?

But for those of us who lives in large houses and prefer to listen to the Church organ or the electric rock the way it is to experience this live, a serious LF system similar to a dual 18" P.A. system is needed. Do the math your selves: If 1000Hz are reproduced at 90dB and you want "ear flat" experience between 30-40Hz, you need a boost at around 9-12dB from "measuring flat" response. Then imagine turning up louder: This won't happen without a lot of distortion if a single Revel B120 are the source.

And if you wan't the same effortless sound as from the rest of the E2, LOTS of surface are preferred rather than lots of cone movement .. Thats why dual 18" pr. channel are the only serious solution to supplement the E2.

Kind regards
Henrik, DynaMax

[Mr. Widget]

* As mentioned from Widget an Eq. addition to the E2 low-end will compensate for the early roll-off, but according to my experiences that won't do it all the way.

Reason: Human hearing are non linear - most sensible at the midrange, less sensible at the very low and very high frequencies.

Fact: human ears need 20Hz reproduced at 90dB before you actually can start hearing the 20Hz, opposite 1000Hz at 90dB. 1000 Hz at 90dB is pretty hard to the ears long term listening.

This means (in my system =very large room = minimum LF room gain at listening position), that I need + 15-18db at 20-25Hz with music content from great church organs before I feel the experience are "authentic". The same with an live track recording of an Pink Floyd open air concert, listening to the synth.bass effects at 30-50Hz. 30-50Hz needs around a 12dB boost before it starts sounding "authentic". Actually the wanted output is almost impossible to hear from the E2 (but can be measured 15-20dB below midrange), and it will need tremendous amount of Eq. before it "feels" right.

I think I know where you are coming from. In my previous home I had zero LF gain and essentially measured an anechoic chamber's LF response in my various systems. This was great in that the low end tended to be quite "tight", but it required significant augmentation if deep bass was desired. I believe this must be your situation.

In my current far more typical listening room, there is enough bass gain that I have the DD66000s strapping bars set to the least amount of LF as possible and have included a single Revel B112 to add back the bits below about 30-35 Hz... as you suggest, for music like Pink Floyd there is actually very little VLF info, it is really only on contemporary music that the sub comes on at all.

Once again, I think listening preference and listening rooms account for much of our different experiences here. I have little need to play over 95-99 dB... and in my room there is a bump in the 80Hz-100Hz region that I'd love to tame with DSP and am waiting for technology to allow me to do that without sacrificing other aspects of the system. Is the M2 there now? I'm not sure. If I had access to a DSP that I liked, I would pull down the bump that my room creates and augment the VLF that I am confident the DD66000s can reproduce with more accuracy than by adding any additional drivers... at the levels I require of the system.


Widget

[DynaMax]

Mr. Widget wrote:

I think I know where you are coming from. In my previous home I had zero LF gain and essentially measured an anechoic chamber's LF response in my various systems. This was great in that the low end tended to be quite "tight", but it required significant augmentation if deep bass was desired. I believe this must be your situation.

Thats exactly my listening conditions, as well as I guess that a small percentage of Everest owners world wide are facing the same challenges as me, if they - like me - are fortunate to live in large rooms with their audio toys. Listening to my Everest during such "anechoic" circumstances are pretty much similar to getting a cold shower if you expected hot water from the tap..

I want to appologize for the way I expressed my self at my first reply to this thread if somebody feel I was too brutal against Harman management. But try understand how disappointing it is to get disappointed when unpacking your all-time 60.000 $ dream speaker, then finding out they cannot reproduce basic LF fundamentals despite huge LF surface, especially if you are able to switch back to the old dusty 250Ti, and then you get what you missed from the billion dollars dreams speakers..

The reason to my criticism of the Harman managing department (who I guess are telling the design team what to build - and not to build), are that they DID NOT decide doing a dedicated LF system for the Everest. I repeat my self; LF solutions was offered 30 years ago by the B-380/B-460 in combination with the necessary BX-63 cross-over/boost filter. If G.T managed to design that system back then, I think he will be even better in designing a similar system with todays technologies. It's all about getting the green light from management..

My Everest EX prototype system (see picture below), are actually inspired from the B-460/BX-63 as I was happy to own this system quite some times ago.

And the reason to go that way are the advantanges by going fully analog (= no time delay vs. digital sub control), and the controller can easily be plugged in from a pre-amps pre-out = no DSP interrouption of the sensible HF signal.

Last thing:

When my Everest are released from the heavy job with LF reproduction by getting electronic crossed over at 45-60Hz (4' order), one actually can hear the benefits in the upper bass/low mid freq. where the Al1501 driver meets the 4". And the Al1501 blends even better with the 4" Be when I am doing electronic crosing over from bass to horn driver.

Se picture of my system below.

All in all I have elevated the full range listening experiences by a far margin from basic "factory" by adding my LF system + active drive of the E2

Kind regards

Henrik, DynaMax

[speakerdave]

Nice room!