Sub for LFE only w/Sierra-1

[Tushar]

Hi. I was curious if there is any advantage of setting receiver to have sub only handle LFE below LFE cross-over rather than have the Sierra-1's cross to the sub.

I have Sierra-1's and Hsu VTF-3 and Denon AVR-988.

What will I lose, what (if anything) do I gain?

[scape]

I personally use LFE+Main(LR) on my denon 1909, with my 170's at large and sub @ 80hz. I think it is more of the same in what your asking about, personally I'd suggest the amp like the 988 make the decision, rather than a sub. if it is not just any sub... what sub is it?

[curtis]

I personally use LFE+Main(LR) on my denon 1909, with my 170's at large and sub @ 80hz. I think it is more of the same in what your asking about, personally I'd suggest the amp like the 988 make the decision, rather than a sub. if it is not just any sub... what sub is it?
Set to "large"? That means you are sending the full signal to the 170's. Try setting them to small. You will free the 170's from attempting to do the stuff below the crossover.

[curtis]

Hi. I was curious if there is any advantage of setting receiver to have sub only handle LFE below LFE cross-over rather than have the Sierra-1's cross to the sub.

I have Sierra-1's and Hsu VTF-3 and Denon AVR-988.

What will I lose, what (if anything) do I gain?
The only way to know what you will lose is if you try it. Personally, I set my Sierras to small, and cross them over to the subs at 60hz.

[scape]

Set to "large"? That means you are sending the full signal to the 170's. Try setting them to small. You will free the 170's from attempting to do the stuff below the crossover.

i'll try the small setting and 80 or 100hz xo; to be honest they have sounded fantastic so far and my receiver seemed to have chosen them as large, but I'll see if there is any improvement.

[ironmike86]

Should be a big improvement for the 170se. They are doing alot of the work the sub should be

[DougMac]

You will free the 170's from attempting to do the stuff below the crossover.
I tried a recommendation I read on another forum that sounds almost counter-intuitive. To get more bass, I set the bass on the receiver to -2 and adjusted the volume on my SVS PB12-NSD higher to compensate. My 340's actually sound better. I'll have to get around to measuring, but I think it solved a hump around the crossover frequency. The sub sounds smoother and seems to go deeper. I can't remember if my mains are set to large or small, I'll have to check.

This experience reinforces the notion that rules are great to get you in the ballbark, but nothing beats experimentation and listening.

Doug

[scape]

I tried a recommendation I read on another forum that sounds almost counter-intuitive. To get more bass, I set the bass on the receiver to -2 and adjusted the volume on my SVS PB12-NSD higher to compensate. My 340's actually sound better. I'll have to get around to measuring, but I think it solved a hump around the crossover frequency. The sub sounds smoother and seems to go deeper. I can't remember if my mains are set to large or small, I'll have to check.

This experience reinforces the notion that rules are great to get you in the ballbark, but nothing beats experimentation and listening.

Doug

I agree

I set the 170s to small @ 80hz and heard minor improvements, mostly in clarity; however, it is so subjective that I'm not sure how much has actually improved. what I do notice is an overall cleanup in bass, probably due to not having double bass, but a side effect of lower bass spl and slightly less impact.
at 200$ for the sub, I thought about buying a second one and simply stacking the 170 on top of each. the spl would increase a little and the overall feel might improve further by having better placements. i still suffer from the lack of deep bass though, the sub drops off rather quickly after what seems like 35-40hz, but is pretty solid down to that level-- at 25hz it must be -10db at least. overall I'm very happy, the bass is there and is not intrusive nor boomy and for music it sounds surprisingly well. retrospectively thinking, I probably should have just went with a different speaker ;D but hey that's life!

[ironmike86]

No a better sub would have made a big difference.
One little 170se speaker is almost as much $$ as your sub. So IMO isntead of buying another $200 sub?? Which kind? Buy a better one.

[curtis]

I agree with Mike...and better sub would make a big difference. Not one that necesssarily has more output or plays deeper, although the better subs will have those characteristics, but a better sub will have better overall sound quality too.

[millerwill]

The only way to know what you will lose is if you try it. Personally, I set my Sierras to small, and cross them over to the subs at 60hz.

I've been thinking about the question of 60 vs 80 Hz for the x-over of my L/C/R Sierra's with my sub (SVS PB10, in a medium-small room, ~ 2000 cu ft). Will the Sierra's produce better, clearer sound in the 60 - 80 Hz region than the sub, or vice-versa? (AVR is Onkyo 805, with Audyssey eq.) I will of course try this out to see what it sounds like, but I'm away from home for several months and just wondering what the more-experienced persons here thought about it.

[scape]

I've been thinking about the question of 60 vs 80 Hz for the x-over of my L/C/R Sierra's with my sub (SVS PB10, in a medium-small room, ~ 2000 cu ft). Will the Sierra's produce better, clearer sound in the 60 - 80 Hz region than the sub, or vice-versa? (AVR is Onkyo 805, with Audyssey eq.) I will of course try this out to see what it sounds like, but I'm away from home for several months and just wondering what the more-experienced persons here thought about it.

the sierra's look like they go down to 60hz no problem, though at 85db, I have a feeling it will sound much clearer than utilizing your sub at 80hz, even though it may run a bit more efficient at high volumes in that range, whose to say about all that. i messed around with my settings (albeit none of the same electronics) and came up with 90hz xo as a decent middle ground, though recently the bass is a tad overdone in some media (i think the sub finally wore in to a looser level) and may need to recalibrate the speakers or move the crossover to a lower setting.

the only way to tell is to test it, every room is different, as are most electronics and even the smallest changes can have a large impact.

[robruffo]

Do not ever cross above 80hrz, simply because above that sound is localizeable, and you will experience sound that "should" be coming from the mains actually emitting from the sub instead.

[DougMac]

Do not ever cross above 80hrz, simply because above that sound is localizeable, and you will experience sound that "should" be coming from the mains actually emitting from the sub instead.
This is generally good information, but things aren't quite so cut and dried. THX is responsible for the 80hz crossover point. It came from studies of listeners. 80hz was chosen because that's the frequency that no one in their research could localize sound at 80 hz or lower. For some subjects the threshold was higher, even above 120hz. I looked for, but cannot find a distribution curve.

I think it varies from situation to situation. It could be that because of the room and your hearing, you can't localize anything under 100hz. If you can show that through listening and there are advantages to setting the crossover at 100hz instead of 80 hz, then there'd be no reason not to.

Doug