Why no Hsu?

[davef]

Wish I had time to link you several threads that would show evidence of this, including one from David F. himself. David started supported the "large" setting as early as the 340 classic, supported it more with the 340SE, and outright suggets it with the Sierra-1. He used to sell HSU subs, so when HSU wasn't specifically mentioned, I assume it applies.

I think there is some confusion here... I support the large setting when NOT using a subwoofer. I would never suggest setting speakers to full range when used together with a subwoofer. This would only lead to a doubling of certain frequencies and cancellation of others (comb filtering) -- it is completetly contrary to my design philosophy.

[davef]

Large or Small, if you own a pair of Sierra-1's and a Rythmik?

Sierra-1 would have to be better than even I imagine it to be before I'd go "small" with my SB12+ and, make no mistake, I can't wait to buy Sierra's.

Azanon,

Large setting = full range signal to loudspeakers, no subwoofer in use.

Small setting = limits bass extension being fed to the speakers when a subwoofer is in use. Allows for "flat" summation between the loudspeaker bass response and subwoofer bass response providing for proper integration between the two.

All those posts you have read from me or from others with regard to using speakers as "large", are in reference to people NOT using subwoofers.



I don't believe we have any customers using Sierra-1 as large when used together with a subwoofer (be that Hsu, Rythmik, SVS etc.) This configuration is not correct.

[azanon]

I think there is some confusion here... I support the large setting when NOT using a subwoofer. I would never suggest setting speakers to full range when used together with a subwoofer. This would only lead to a doubling of certain frequencies and cancellation of others (comb filtering) -- it is completetly contrary to my design philosophy.

Yes definitely some confusion - on two points here.

1. My understanding is that "Large" IS the only correct setting when you don't have a sub. I don't care how bad your frequency range is on your mains, if you don't have a sub, the small setting is just.... wrong. A speaker will play what it can and wont what it cant in the absence of a sub. No sense in making that a certainty with the small setting.

My point is I assumed you were saying something specific about Ascends instead of stating the obvious. Again, I don't want to get into linking old threads because its inherently antagonistic, but I was almost certain you started suggesting large for 340s because they could actually play low enough to warrant it without the sub's help and because of the inherent balance compromise that comes when two speakers (main + sub) are playing the same music within one frequency range.

2. Regarding full range w/sub,....

On my receiver (and most receivers that I'm aware of), if you set a specific main to large (aka full range), then the sub automatically will not play the low frequency range for whatever speaker(s) you have set to large. With my Marantz, you have to use a separate sub setting to FORCE the sub to play lows over the top of mains set to large. Yeah sure, no one who knows what they're doing does that unless maybe they just prefer to hear over-emphasized bass. MY point - I'm not claiming you ever suggested that. But you did, from my original interpretation, encourage Ascend listeners to use the large setting for the 340SE and Sierra-1, even if they owned a sub.

(edit) So you (now) don't have your Sierra-1's on large when you listen to music? I could have swore you said you prefer the Sierra-1's full range (large).

[ebh]

I think Dave's suggestion was you could use your 340SEs and more especially the Sierras full range if your sub was not up to the musicality of the speakers. So even if you have a sub for home theater, if its sound quality is not as good as your speakers, you could run them full range and get excellent quality (without using the sub). I never really loved my 340SEs full range, but the Sierras are very, very nice (without sub).

Many receivers do make it pretty easy to make the fronts large and keep the sub on, which is strange.

More related to the thread started by buddhadas, but some advantages of using a 2.1 configuration I would think would be the ability to separately address room issues with bass, such as with the 1-band PEQ on the Rythmik (plus doesn't the servo help create a flat response on its own?). Plus, you relieve the fronts from the task of having produce all frequencies (less amplifier load) and you get to dig as deep as the music will go.

Disadvantages in using a sub in my mind are getting good integration at the crossover point, and possibly having worse sound quality if your sub is not up to the task.

[azanon]

I think Dave's suggestion was you could use your 340SEs and more especially the Sierras full range if your sub was not up to the musicality of the speakers. So even if you have a sub for home theater, if its sound quality is not as good as your speakers, you could run them full range and get excellent quality (without using the sub). I never really loved my 340SEs full range, but the Sierras are very, very nice (without sub).

That was my understanding of his suggestion too. Again - my opinion - but if your sub is a VTF-2, I can almost guarantee you the recommendation would/should be "Sierra-1 = large". With a more competent sub like the one's he selling now..... maybe not so.

Many receivers do make it pretty easy to make the fronts large and keep the sub on, which is strange.

I'm not saying its not easy. Its just one setting for me too (sub set to large + sub). But if you leave that setting default, when you set a main to large, the sub simply won't play lows for that speaker below whatever the crossover point is.

[ebh]

That was my understanding of his suggestion too. Again - my opinion - but if your sub is a VTF-2, I can almost guarantee you the recommendation would/should be "Sierra-1 = large". With a more competent sub like the one's he selling now..... maybe not so.

Agreed. I think it would be a close question now with the Rythmik. In fact I bet with the Rythmik the advantages of having a sub would probably outweigh any disadvantages. I'm looking forward to finding out soon

I'm not saying its not easy. Its just one setting for me too (sub set to large + sub). But if you leave that setting default, when you set a main to large, the sub simply won't play lows for that speaker below whatever the crossover point is.

My understanding was this setting essentially disabled the crossover. Setting a main to large means no crossover, right? So the sub would be playing as high as its capable of, and the main speaker is receiving a full range signal. Or maybe the sub still has some sort of crossover on the upper limit, but the main is still getting the full range? In any event, you would be getting the bass frequencies from both the sub and the front speakers.

[azanon]

My understanding was this setting essentially disabled the crossover. Setting a main to large means no crossover, right? So the sub would be playing as high as its capable of, and the main speaker is receiving a full range signal.

Sorry, i started this confusion. Yes on first, no on second.

If a main is set to large, it will play 100% of the music for that channel, and the sub will play nothing from that channel. Again, the exception being if you set the sub setting to "large+sub" or whatever your receiver might call it. In the case of "large+sub", your sub will duplicate whatever sound the main is playing below the crossover point.

In any event, i use "small" for all of my speakers with 80hz crossover (340SE L/R, HTM-200 SE center, surrounds, SB12+ sub)

[ebh]

Sorry, i started this confusion. Yes on first, no on second.

If a main is set to large, it will play 100% of the music for that channel, and the sub will play nothing from that channel. Again, the exception being if you set the sub setting to "large+sub" or whatever your receiver might call it. In the case of "large+sub", your sub will duplicate whatever sound the main is playing below the crossover point.

whew, ok, i think we are all clear

[davef]

Yes definitely some confusion - on two points here.

1. My understanding is that "Large" IS the only correct setting when you don't have a sub. I don't care how bad your frequency range is on your mains, if you don't have a sub, the small setting is just.... wrong. A speaker will play what it can and wont what it cant in the absence of a sub. No sense in making that a certainty with the small setting.

This statement is 100% correct.

My point is I assumed you were saying something specific about Ascends instead of stating the obvious. Again, I don't want to get into linking old threads because its inherently antagonistic, but I was almost certain you started suggesting large for 340s because they could actually play low enough to warrant it without the sub's help and because of the inherent balance compromise that comes when two speakers (main + sub) are playing the same music within one frequency range.

When we switched over from 340 classics to 340 SE, I mentioned that now people *could* use the 340 SE as large because bass response and bass power handling was improved. It is assumed (by me and by most in this hobby) that when large is used, no sub is being used. We have customers that want to use the 340SE without subwoofers, thus resulting in the statement that the 340 SE could be used full range.

but I was almost certain you started suggesting large for 340s because they could actually play low enough to warrant it without the sub's help and because of the inherent balance compromise that comes when two speakers (main + sub) are playing the same music within one frequency range.

Again, I never suggested (nor would I) to use the 340 (or any loudspeaker) as large when used together WITH a subwoofer. The balance compromise you mentioned occurs when both the speakers and the subwoofer are playing the same frequency range. This occurs when using a subwoofer and setting the speakers to large. Your above statement suggests that I am in favor of this balance compromise, and as I mentioned -- my design philosophy for the past 26 years has always been for accurate frequency response and accurate phase.

On my receiver (and most receivers that I'm aware of), if you set a specific main to large (aka full range), then the sub automatically will not play the low frequency range for whatever speaker(s) you have set to large.

Entirely dependent on the receiver. In my experience, setting speakers to large simply sends the full range signal to the speaker, this is entirely independent of what low frequency information is sent to the subwoofer (sub still receives low frequency information)

if you set a specific main to large (aka full range), then the sub automatically will not play the low frequency range for whatever speaker(s) you have set to large.

In other words, on your receiver -- if you set a specific speaker to large, no signal from that particular channel is sent to the subwoofer? I don't believe this to be the case, but if it is, then no signal to the subwoofer equals no subwoofer in use which is equivalent of not having a subwoofer.

I think you might be assuming that if you set your speakers to large, then the receiver sends a full range signal to the speakers and because the speakers can only play down to a certain frequency, that the subwoofer will play only those frequencies that your speakers are not capable of reproducing. This is not how it works -- your receiver does not know what the capabilities of your speakers or subwoofer is.

The more critical matter is that by setting your speakers to small, the high-pass and low-pass "slope" (the rate at which the bass response of the speakers roll-off and the rate at which the upper range of the subwoofer rolls-off) precisely matches each other to allow for proper integration. When set to large, the receiver does not control the integration between speakers and sub.

But you did, from my original interpretation, encourage Ascend listeners to use the large setting for the 340SE and Sierra-1, even if they owned a sub.

Please take the time to point this out to me. My memory is not as good as it once was, but I am always very careful about what I post.

So you don't have your Sierra-1's on large when you listen to music? I could have swore you said you prefer the Sierra-1's full range (large).

Yes, I prefer the Sierra-1's on large but that is with no subwoofer, of which I have referenced in dozens of posts.

I apologize if you have drawn the wrong conclusions from both mine and others posts.

NO subwoofer = set speakers to large
With subwoofer = set speakers to small, use an 80 or 60Hz crossover point.

[davef]

but if your sub is a VTF-2, I can almost guarantee you the recommendation would/should be "Sierra-1 = large". With a more competent sub like the one's he selling now..... maybe not so.

If you mean by setting Sierra-1 to large that the subwoofer will be turned off entirely, than yes, I might recommend this setting.

To avoid confusion to others, it would be useful to not make the assumption that setting the receiver to "large" turns off the subwoofer. I suggest stating it in this manner, "speakers to large, subwoofer turned off" To myself and many others, speakers to large is interpreted to mean that the speakers are full range and the subwoofer remains active.

If speakers are set to large and subwoofer remains active, than I do not agree with your post.

When used together with any subwoofer, Sierra-1 = small. It is even more important with the Sierra-1 because the Sierra-1 has deep bass response so there would be more frequency overlap between the sub and speaker.

In this case, I recommend setting the crossover point as low as possible so that Sierra-1 is reproducing more of the low frequency range, perhaps from 50 or 60Hz on up and the Hsu sub is reproducing from 50 or 60Hz on down...