The astounding new AS-EQ1 SubEQ goes on sale!

**Ed Mullen** · **04-20-09, 04:22 PM**

Quote:

markus76 wrote:

Ed,

I don't think looking at low frequency modal problems like that will yield optimal results. Even perfectly matched filter slopes for subwoofer and mains won't give you a flat frequency response in a real room due to a rooms unique modal behavior.
When you are trying to optimize for a single listening location you might get good results with EQs but when optimizing for a larger area, then EQs will fail. Only multiple low frequency sources (and/or absorption) can smooth spectral variance, but ALL low frequency sources have to be part of the calibration, i.e. (multiple) subwoofers AND mains.

Best, Markus

The vast (overwhelming) majority of loudspeakers on the market are not truly full range (and by that I mean capable of usable/clean/loud extension to ~20 Hz), and therefore have no business being set to Large in the AVR.

Setting a "full range" tower (which typically has a usable response to 35-40 Hz) to Large will result in several negative things: 1) the speaker will not play any source material below its usable lower extension limit, 2) THD and IMD will increase considerably when the (typical) 6-7" mid-bass driver is trying to reproduce loud source material in the 15-30 Hz octave, and 3) the AVR amp stage will reach its limits considerably earlier by dumping large amounts of current into the speaker trying to reproduce deep/loud source material, and will compress dynamics, distort/clip, and thermal-trip that much sooner. Bottom line, setting the speakers to Large in a HT application is ill-advised in virtually every scenario and application.

Even if the speakers are set to Large (again, a big mistake 99.9% of the time), an auto-EQ AVR will still discretely target a flat FR for each speaker channel, and discretely target a flat FR for the subwoofer channel. It does not look at the combined interactive/modal response of all (or even some) of the speakers and subwoofer at the same time.

If you want to call that an indictment/limitation/flaw of the current state-of-the-art of auto-EQ AVRs, that's certainly your prerogative. But don't single out the AS-EQ1 as a flawed product, because it does exactly what any auto-EQ AVR would do - it EQs the subwoofer for a flat response, it level matches the subwoofer with the front stage speakers, and it provides the correct subwoofer distance setting. And it does a better job of EQing a single subwoofer than any AVR can by virtue of its superior filter resolution and processing power, and it can also handle dual subwoofers (looking at the individual and combined responses), which no current AVR can do at all.

**markus76** · **04-20-09, 04:52 PM**

Ed,

I was not talking about running the speakers as "large" but about the frequency range at which subs and mains overlap and the modal region (everything <200–300Hz) as a whole.
And you're right, I was talking about "state-of-the-art" and not "state-of-the-art auto-EQs". Again, I didn't say that the AS-EQ1 is flawed, I said that excluding the mains from the system calibration is a mistake. Other boxes like the DSPeaker-Anti-Mode 8033 or JBLs BassQ have the same drawback.

Best, Markus

**Ed Mullen** · **04-20-09, 05:12 PM**

Quote:

markus76 wrote:

Ed,

I was not talking about running the speakers as "large" but about the frequency range at which subs and mains overlap and the modal region (everything <200–300Hz) as a whole.
And you're right, I was talking about "state-of-the-art" and not "state-of-the-art auto-EQs". Again, I didn't say that the AS-EQ1 is flawed, I said that excluding the mains from the system calibration is a mistake. Other boxes like the DSPeaker-Anti-Mode 8033 or JBLs BassQ have the same drawback.

Best, Markus

No argument here, Markus - I'm not aware of any auto-EQ product (integrated or stand-alone) which evaluates the combined interactive/modal response of some/all of the speakers and the subwoofer.

Since the subwoofer roll-off is fairly steep (24 dB/octave), and is typically crossed at 80-100 Hz, I would argue its impact on the in-room FR in the 200-300 Hz region is exceedingly minor and is swamped by that of the speaker channels.

The real issue is how the speaker and subwoofer interact below the selected crossover frequency. Depending on the design and F3 of the loudspeaker, its roll-off slope below the selected crossover frequency is anything but consistent and predictable. And this will cause FR and phase anomalies with the subwoofer. The newer AVRs with independent crossovers for each channel are actually a double-edged sword. Imagine (typically) seven different loudspeakers (mains, center, side surrounds, rear surrounds) all with different FRs, different acoustic F3 points, different high pass filter points, different roll-off profiles/slopes, and different locations in the room - all interacting with a single subwoofer. The chances of a phase/FR-correct crossover between any one given speaker and subwoofer are nil.

But, as I stated earlier, this sounds worse on paper than it does in reality. In reality, a flat FR at each channel and at the subwoofer, combined with common sense crossover frequencies for each channel, and proper level matching and distance settings, results in good sound quality and a seamless transition to the subwoofer. Does the entire concept represent one big compromise? Oh you betcha. Does that compromise truly manifest itself as bad sound - fortunately for HT enthusiasts, the answer is no.

**BigPines** · **04-20-09, 05:24 PM**

I'm glad that is settled. The bottom line is we don't live in a perfect world but the AS-EQ1 makes the world a little more perfect.

I can't wait to see some REW graphs to compare with the graphs coming out of the AS-EQ1. It will be interesting to see an independent measurement.

I think one of these things is in my future.

Mike

**markus76** · **04-20-09, 05:30 PM**

Ed,

correct, there's no "auto-EQ product (integrated or stand-alone) which evaluates the combined interactive/modal response of some/all of the speakers and the subwoofer"—I learned that the AS-EQ1 is no exception here. That's why I asked in the first place.

My hope was that finally someone managed to "do it right" as described in the Welti paper. Guess I have to wait some more time.
Thanks anyway for taking the time to answer my questions. I appreciate that.

Best, Markus

**Sonnie** · **04-20-09, 05:30 PM**

Quote:

BigPines wrote:

I'm glad that is settled. The bottom line is we don't live in a perfect world but the AS-EQ1 makes the world a little more perfect.

I can't wait to see some REW graphs to compare with the graphs coming out of the AS-EQ1. It will be interesting to see an independent measurement.

I think one of these things is in my future.

Mike

Amen!

**CharlieU** · **04-20-09, 07:15 PM**

Frankly, I want to see graphs from guys that have wives with low WAF. Wooden floors, subwoofer stuck in a corner behind the potted plant, couch flush against the back wall. They post pictures of their setup that you could have sworn were on the cover of Better Homes and Gardens. You know, the guys that paid big bucks for a sub and still haven't heard more than 2 or 3 specific frequencies yet.

Flatline the After graph for these folks and SVS won't be able to keep the EQ1 in stock.

BTW, I'm not one of those guys. My living room looks like a bass trap warehouse. I count on low lighting and the Feature Presentation to distract my guests.

**Ayreonaut** · **04-21-09, 10:02 AM**

Hey guys, I discovered this thread late!

This is a very exciting product that I've been looking forward to for quite some time. But like others, I wondered what advantages this product would offer over what I'm using now.

Ed Mullen said "...it does exactly what any auto-EQ AVR would do - it EQs the subwoofer for a flat response, it level matches the subwoofer with the front stage speakers, and it provides the correct subwoofer distance setting. And it does a better job of EQing a single subwoofer than any AVR can by virtue of its superior filter resolution and processing power, and it can also handle dual subwoofers..."

I'd been using the BFD for years before I got a Denon AVR-888 (2808) with Mult-EQ. I realized that the filter resolution was not equal to the XT or Pro versions and I experimented. I measured the subwoofer response at all of my seats, averaged the results and flattened the average with the BFD. Then I ran the receiver Mult-EQ on top of that. The difference is subtle, but I believe that it is better than Mult-EQ alone. Basically, I'm giving Mult-EQ a a helping hand by presenting it with a flatter response to tweak.

If you've got a BFD and a reciever with Mult-EQ, try it and let me know what you think. I'm satisfied with the results, but it does take a lot of know how to stack EQs this way. The AS-EQ1 is certainly much easier to use and may yield better results (or not). If I had two subs it would be a no-brainer!

**stevefish69** · **04-21-09, 01:05 PM**

Ed - I'm posting here as well as AV-Forums in a hope to get an answer.

I just got a chance to re-check the settiings manually using the Radioshack jobbie that was sent with the PCU and the internal tones sent out by the Audiolab. To set all channels to 75db i had to turn the gain on the back of the PCU back to 12 o'clock

I just reconnected the EQ1 to the comp and supplied Mic and re-set the channels using this with the gain at just over 9 o'clock and reading a few db hot. It's suggesting to set it at just under 9 to match exactly.

I can only assume that the Radioshack SPL meters are nearly 15db over the odds when reading bass frequencies generated by the AP. Does this mean that anyone with an un-corrected SPL meter will be running their Sub's super hot without realising it like i was doing for years.

I'll try and get my Digital Meter back from a mate at the weekend and see if i get the same results with this.

I think that now the Gain has been lowered by so much, that i'll take advantage of the extra headroom available and tune to 10Hz next time i can be bothered to run the EQ1 calibration again. I used to get a lot of port noise in 10Hz tune, but running 15db hotwould probably have been the sole cause of this.

**myc52002** · **04-25-09, 12:14 PM**

My unit is on order and I have read the manual. Can't wait for it! I have (2) PB12 Ultra/2 stacked on each other in the right front corner by experimentation. They still are not right but it was the best I could do. I know what they are capable of from a previous room that I could set them up correctly. Would it be best to run them through the unit as 1 sub unit (connection 1 in the manual) or because of the stacking still run them as 2 separate units for processing? i.e is there any advantage or reason to process them separately versus as a single unit.

Also, at one point they were separated to either side of the center channel next to the inside of each main speaker but I could never get them to sound anywhere near right due to room modes and my seating position which is fixed. Generally do you believe the unit will do a better job of integrating them overall as I have them positioned now or in my previous positioning? My opinion is more correction would be needed when they were separated to make them right but wonder if this unit actually prefers the separation more than co-located units.

**robbroy** · **04-25-09, 12:36 PM**

Quote:

myc52002 wrote:

My unit is on order and I have read the manual. Can't wait for it! I have (2) PB12 Ultra/2 stacked on each other in the right front corner by experimentation. They still are not right but it was the best I could do. I know what they are capable of from a previous room that I could set them up correctly. Would it be best to run them through the unit as 1 sub unit (connection 1 in the manual) or because of the stacking still run them as 2 separate units for processing? i.e is there any advantage or reason to process them separately versus as a single unit.

Also, at one point they were separated to either side of the center channel next to the inside of each main speaker but I could never get them to sound anywhere near right due to room modes and my seating position which is fixed. Generally do you believe the unit will do a better job of integrating them overall as I have them positioned now or in my previous positioning? My opinion is more correction would be needed when they were separated to make them right but wonder if this unit actually prefers the separation more than co-located units.

I would separate them and run as two subwoofers. There may be more correction, but that's what the unit is for (and common theory holds that separated subs will have more even response, so it should be less correction). If you keep them stacked, I would run them as one sub.

-Robb

**myc52002** · **04-25-09, 12:46 PM**

Thanks Robb. Seems I have found another issue. I have a Lexicon MC12 V5 Eq that uses a 4 mic system for setup yet this unit only has one mic input to integrate it properly. How am I supposed to hook it up in this setup? The lexicon manual says you can use only 1 mic but would degrade the accuracy and since I like what it has done with the overall freq response in the system I would not want to diminish that capability. Hmmm......

**oakboy37** · **04-26-09, 01:36 AM**

How would owners of older legacy processors be able to use this?

I have a Tag av32r NO 5.1 bypass so No multi channel inputs?

I don't really want to lose the tag sound, help?

**dougm1950** · **04-26-09, 11:06 AM**

Quote:

oakboy37 wrote:

How would owners of older legacy processors be able to use this?

I have a Tag av32r NO 5.1 bypass so No multi channel inputs?

I don't really want to lose the tag sound, help?

Based upon reading the manual, I would imagine there is no reason you can't just hook the Sat Out from the AS-EQ1 to the left input on a normal stereo analog input. Just remember to set the speakers to full range and disable any processing you may be performing on that input while calibrating.

**oakboy37** · **04-26-09, 11:12 AM**

That's what I was thinking/hoping!!

**oakboy37** · **04-27-09, 11:21 AM**

Anyone confirm this?

**oakboy37** · **04-28-09, 12:28 PM**

Well it is sitting in it's box, waiting,patiently,waiting......

**dougm1950** · **04-28-09, 02:26 PM**

Quote:

oakboy37 wrote:

Well it is sitting in it's box, waiting,patiently,waiting......

Are you waiting on confirmation regarding using a stereo input to calibrate, or you just like to tease yourself?

Hook it up and try it out. Really, what's the difference between using the Left (White) stereo input and the Left Front input on a Multi channel input? The only difference I've ever seen is that most Multichannel inputs don't do any Bass Management or digital processing so you don't have to set your speakers to Large or disable any DSP modes like you would on your Stereo inputs. Some AVR/Pre-pros have an "Analog Direct" mode that would perfectly emulate most 5.1 inputs.

**oakboy37** · **04-29-09, 12:39 AM**

Thanks a lot for that, I didn't want to take it out in case I had to return it!!

**BigPines** · **04-29-09, 09:03 AM**

Quote:

oakboy37 wrote:

Thanks a lot for that, I didn't want to take it out in case I had to return it!!

There should be no problem returning the unit as long as you are still within 30 days (or is it 60?)...anyway, there is a good return policy on the unit. Ed could clarify.

Mike

**MacDad2** · **05-01-09, 12:39 AM**

Ok, so let me first say that SVS is one of the finest companies I have dealt with period. So here is a question for Ed and others. In my media room I have B&W Nautilus 802's and the smaller nautilus as surround with 2 SVS PB12-Plus Subs.. I'm very happy, but like many I tweak and retweak my subs all the time. I use a Lexicon MC-12B V2.01 as a pre-amp.

So here is the question, I run my X-over in my MC12 very low, basically the subs are set at 80hz and the mains at 40hz, because well the mains are kick , good thing I wasn't married when I got them

What are the odds the new re-eq will be able to calibrate ie.. flatten out the dual subs ( in different areas of the room ) and integrate with the mains well? I listen to music and watch movies of course. Would I better off switching to a single PB13 Ultra?

Thanks,
Mac

**luckybeanbean** · **05-11-09, 11:45 PM**

Hi guys, I am an AS-EQ1 user in Hong Kong. I am using 2 PC13U, and had been using behringer1124p all along. After recieving and calibrating the AS-EQ1 yesterday (I hope correctly), I found that although it can generate a flat curve just like FBD, the level of bass seems reduced quite a lot when the movie scene has very large dynamic bass. Very obvious when playing War of the World cracking ground scene. AS-EQ1 has no bass output when the ground was cracking. Does the AS-EQ1 has some kind of protection mechanism when the scene is too hot? thanks.

**Rookie100fun** · **05-12-09, 08:20 AM**

Quote:

luckybeanbean wrote:

Hi guys, I am an AS-EQ1 user in Hong Kong. I am using 2 PC13U, and had been using behringer1124p all along. After recieving and calibrating the AS-EQ1 yesterday (I hope correctly), I found that although it can generate a flat curve just like FBD, the level of bass seems reduced quite a lot when the movie scene has very large dynamic bass. Very obvious when playing War of the World cracking ground scene. AS-EQ1 has no bass output when the ground was cracking. Does the AS-EQ1 has some kind of protection mechanism when the scene is too hot? thanks.

I am an user of AS-EQ1 in Hong Kong and using 2 PC13U as well.

I also noticed that when playing movie content with large dynamic bass, it seems that the level of bass is reduced by AS-EQ1. For example, when the plane lost control inside the movie, "Flight of Phoenix", two significant low frequency signal are supposed to be heard from the subwoofers. However, the second low frequency signal was gone when using AS-EQ1. It was just like the bass was cut off all in a sudden.

In addition to the above observation, I also find that the actual channel output level is not at 75 db after went through all the setup steps at AS-EQ1. I measured the actual channel output level by using the signal generated by my AVR with a sound level meter. The reading for most channels and the subwoofers are around 69db to 71db.

Although I got a flat curve from AS-EQ1, the above findings made me wonder if something went wrong or not.

Please advise.

Many thanks!

**JimP** · **05-12-09, 08:29 AM**

Just to cover all bases, check your phase settings to be sure that you're not cancelling each other.

If its not that, I'd turn up the subwoofer level setting in my preamp or receiver.

**Ed Mullen** · **05-12-09, 08:56 AM**

The AS-EQ1 has absolutely no (zero, zip, nada, zilch) limiters or compression circuits.

If you re-ran your auto-EQ as part of the set-up, your AVR may have set some/all of your speakers to Large (full-range). Check for this in your set-up menu and manually override back to Small with an appropriate crossover frequency (usually ~1/4-1/3 octave above the rated F3 of the speaker).

There is plenty of deep bass in the speaker channels on the FOTP crash scene - so if the speakers are not bass capable and they were set to full-range by the AVR, the bass will appear to be missing/spotty on certain scenes.

Also, double check all limiter or compression circuits in the AVR - THX Ultra/2, Midnight Mode, Dynamic Range Compression, Subwoofer Peak Level, etc. are all examples of features which can kill your bass.

Also check your LFE channel attenuation control, which is not the same as your subwoofer channel level. Usually the control range is from 0 to -10 (some AVRs even inexplicably allow the LFE channel to be shut-off completely), and this control should always be set to 0.

Advertisement