You are not logged in. Please login or register.
RME User Forum → ADI-2 & 2/4 Pro series, ADI-2 DAC series → How useful is the ADI-2 pro fs r as digital crossover?
I have read that you can use phone outputs independently such as for your subwoofers but how well does that actually work?
Not sure if i am doing to go for digital crossover but it's a nice option to have, can it be used for a linkwitz transform?
Of course using the phone output like that is somewhat of an ugly solution but i am not aware of any better alternative on the market.
2 way x-over can be done, but is neither very comfortable, nor very flexible.
And - no Linkwitz-Riley characteristics in sight.
I have developed another approach that uses one stereo output only, and the parametric equalizer, with much better results.
Look here for a full setup guide for both options:
two stereo outputs - or one single stereo output, I suggest to try this one first.
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 12#p155312
The single channel version works around the problem of sluggish bass due to the unavoidable phase and time shifts around the x-over frequency.
2 way x-over can be done, but is neither very comfortable, nor very flexible.
And - no Linkwitz-Riley characteristics in sight.I have developed another approach that uses one stereo output only, and the parametric equalizer, with much better results.
Look here for a full setup guide for both options:
two stereo outputs - or one single stereo output, I suggest to try this one first.
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 12#p155312The single channel version works around the problem of sluggish bass due to the unavoidable phase and time shifts around the x-over frequency.
Does not seem like a particularly good solution.
I feel like this is a general issue with the ADI-2 pro fs r, it does a lot of things but it often does not do them properly. The Signal to Noise ratio is also not the best (9 db less than the topping 90SE) but in practice it's very hard to utilize even the 120 dB S/N ratio the adi-2 pro fs r offers.
But i am not aware of any good alternative ADC to the adi-2 pro fs r.
KaiS wrote:2 way x-over can be done, but is neither very comfortable, nor very flexible.
And - no Linkwitz-Riley characteristics in sight.
...
Look here for a full setup guide for both options:https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 12#p155312
The single channel version works around the problem of sluggish bass due to the unavoidable phase and time shifts around the x-over frequency.
Does not seem like a particularly good solution.
I feel like this is a general issue with the ADI-2 pro fs r, it does a lot of things but it often does not do them properly. The Signal to Noise ratio is also not the best (9 db less than the topping 90SE) but in practice it's very hard to utilize even the 120 dB S/N ratio the adi-2 pro fs r offers.
But i am not aware of any good alternative ADC to the adi-2 pro fs r.
Or you can look ar it the other way round:
You can use ADI-2 Pro for things that it was never meant to do, opposed to any simple single DAC without DSP.
And Vinyl disc has a signal to noise ratio of 60 dB at best, this is 1000 times more noise than ADI-2, literally!
Maybe S/N ratio isn‘t the most important parameter to define audio quality.
Or you can look ar it the other way round:
You can use ADI-2 Pro for things that it was never meant to do, opposed to any simple single DAC without DSP.
The issue is that if you then run into severe limitations then that extra feature/usecase doesn't add much value.
And Vinyl disc has a signal to noise ratio of 60 dB at best, this is 1000 times more noise than ADI-2, literally!
Maybe S/N ratio isn‘t the most important parameter to define audio quality.
The reason why vinyl often sound better is largely/only due to better mastering (the CD master is often destroyed in the loudness war). For a lot of music even 8 bits would be enough.
Does vinyl even contain any usable frequencies above 20 Khz ?
KaiS wrote:Or you can look ar it the other way round:
You can use ADI-2 Pro for things that it was never meant to do, opposed to any simple single DAC without DSP.
The issue is that if you then run into severe limitations then that extra feature/usecase doesn't add much value.
And Vinyl disc has a signal to noise ratio of 60 dB at best, this is 1000 times more noise than ADI-2, literally!
Maybe S/N ratio isn‘t the most important parameter to define audio quality.The reason why vinyl often sound better is largely/only due to better mastering (the CD master is often destroyed in the loudness war). For a lot of music even 8 bits would be enough.
Does vinyl even contain any usable frequencies above 20 Khz ?
There are always limits, even a dedicated x-over can only do so much, e.g.
I suggest, once you have your ADI-2 give my proposal a try.
I do this kind of stuff on a professional base and know what I‘m talking about.
Don‘t underestimate vinyl.
Most “AAA” (all analog recording chain) contains significant amounts of signal above 20 kHz.
The typical DJ pickups don’t read that, but current MC pickups with MicroRidge needles can reproduce up to 100 kHz.
In my experience the mastering differs more between different releases over the years than different media.
In the early time of CD I did A/B comparison between Vinyl and CD quite often, and usually the mastering was the same.
But you’re right, current releases of Vinyl are all over the place, often remasters from more or less original master tapes (in more or less good condition) or whatever is available.
I you want to do crossover, then use RME UC, UCX, UCX II, UFX, UFX II or UFX+.
It depends how many channels you need.
I use RME UFX and UFX II for a 2x4channel crossover with ditial FIR Filters desinged by acourate nad running on acourateconvolver (FIR convolver). Needs 8 channels poweramps (any combination form monoblocks to mltichannel may work depending on power you need.
Very flexible and top soundquality.
I feel like this is a general issue with the ADI-2 pro fs r, it does a lot of things but it often does not do them properly.
As I take personal offense on that statement - which things are these and how to do them 'properly'?
The ADI was never designed to replace crossovers, so that one is invalid. Next?
The Signal to Noise ratio is also not the best (9 db less than the topping 90SE)
Our 4-stage hardware reference level feature compensates that. And provides useful features like intentionally limiting the max output level.
vintologi wrote:I feel like this is a general issue with the ADI-2 pro fs r, it does a lot of things but it often does not do them properly.
As I take personal offense on that statement - which things are these and how to do them 'properly'?
The ADI was never designed to replace crossovers, so that one is invalid. Next?
What matters is the final result, not intent. Of course not having a digital crossover option at all (like the 90SE) is even worse (if you might want to use that).
vintologi wrote:The Signal to Noise ratio is also not the best (9 db less than the topping 90SE)
Our 4-stage hardware reference level feature compensates that. And provides useful features like intentionally limiting the max output level.
Actually it doesn't. It's at max output you will be most likely to hear any of the noise generated from the DAC (would require a very silent room, etc).
I you want to do crossover, then use RME UC, UCX, UCX II, UFX, UFX II or UFX+.
It depends how many channels you need.I use RME UFX and UFX II for a 2x4channel crossover with ditial FIR Filters desinged by acourate nad running on acourateconvolver (FIR convolver). Needs 8 channels poweramps (any combination form monoblocks to mltichannel may work depending on power you need.
Very flexible and top soundquality.
Aren't all this limited to 24/192
I am not 100% convinced that will always be transparent (logically it should but people were thinking the same about CD quality).
MC wrote:vintologi wrote:The Signal to Noise ratio is also not the best (9 db less than the topping 90SE)
Our 4-stage hardware reference level feature compensates that. And provides useful features like intentionally limiting the max output level.
Actually it doesn't. It's at max output you will be most likely to hear any of the noise generated from the DAC (would require a very silent room, etc).
Assumed you’re still able to hear signals at 0 dB SPL (threshold of hearing for a young, completely healthy ear):
Once you play music at that setting, the resulting 123 dB SPL (level of a jet plane) will either:
• blow your speakers,
• or, within 5 minutes, permanently damages your ears in a way that you are no longer capable of hearing the noise 
To say it the other way round:
If you don’t hear noise there is no noise problem.
Nobody ever complained about noise from ADI-2, not that I know.
vintologi wrote:MC wrote:Our 4-stage hardware reference level feature compensates that. And provides useful features like intentionally limiting the max output level.
Actually it doesn't. It's at max output you will be most likely to hear any of the noise generated from the DAC (would require a very silent room, etc).
Assumed you’re still able to hear signals at 0 dB SPL (threshold of hearing for a young, completely healthy ear):
Once you play music at that setting, the resulting 123 dB SPL (level of a jet plane) will either:
• blow your speakers,
• or, within 5 minutes, permanently damages your ears in a way that you are no longer capable of hearing the noise
What about low frequency temporary peak? (like the cannon in 1812 overture).
To say it the other way round:
If you don’t hear noise there is no noise problem.
Nobody ever complained about noise from ADI-2, not that I know.
How many of these tested in a completely quiet room (<0 dB) and with 24-bit music with S/N ratio above 120 dB ?
As MC has mentioned, when comparing specs, you must not ignore the 4 switching reference levels of the ADI-2 products.
However it appears you did...
> How many of these tested in a completely quiet room (<0 dB) and with 24-bit music with S/N ratio above 120 dB ?
Your posts get more ridiculous by the hour. I'm out here.
As MC has mentioned, when comparing specs, you must not ignore the 4 switching reference levels of the ADI-2 products.
However it appears you did...
It doesn't help when you 'need' high S/N ratio the most (at max volume).
I can see some scenarios where the noise would become audible (not normal music obviously) such as having low frequency sound (such as 0.1hz) at very high levels.
badboygolf16v wrote:As MC has mentioned, when comparing specs, you must not ignore the 4 switching reference levels of the ADI-2 products.
However it appears you did...
It doesn't help when you 'need' high S/N ratio the most (at max volume).
I can see some scenarios where the noise would become audible (not normal music obviously) such as having low frequency sound (such as 0.1hz) at very high levels.
Which speaker in the world would reproduce 0.1 Hz, at any significant level?
On more advanced amps, like the ADI-2 0.1 Hz triggers the DC protection anyway.
Sidenote:
I have no problem at my place, through ADI-2, reproducing the famous 1979 Telarc recording of 1812 Overture, which made lesser vinyl needles jump out of the groove (not mine):
https://www.stereophile.com/content/rec … 2-overture
Even at levels way beyond of comfortable, there’s no noise.
My studio room’s noise level is below measurable, -4 dBA SPL.
Focussing too much on figures can distract from the essential, specially if the figures are already way better than what practically counts.
Plus, you even need to understand what the figures represent in relationship to the remaining equipment.
E.g.: did you know that every acoustic transducer produces modulation noise when running, much more than ADI-2’s -123 dB?
It’s called Rub&Buzz and can be found in specsheets of pro audio speakers.
What counts for me:
ADI-2 Pro alone can do a lot of things that I would need more than one device /software to do the same, and it does that with absolutely no compromise “Pro” quality and flexibility.
What else could I ask for?
My thumbs up. Given
vintologi wrote:badboygolf16v wrote:As MC has mentioned, when comparing specs, you must not ignore the 4 switching reference levels of the ADI-2 products.
However it appears you did...
It doesn't help when you 'need' high S/N ratio the most (at max volume).
I can see some scenarios where the noise would become audible (not normal music obviously) such as having low frequency sound (such as 0.1hz) at very high levels.
Which speaker in the world would reproduce 0.1 Hz, at any significant level?
On more advanced amps, like the ADI-2
No a good amp will go all the way down to DC.
As for reproducing 0.1hz: you would need to rely on room gain or use fans.
Sidenote:
I have no problem at my place, through ADI-2, reproducing the famous 1979 Telarc recording of 1812 Overture, which made lesser vinyl needles jump out of the groove (not mine):
https://www.stereophile.com/content/rec … 2-overtureEven at levels way beyond of comfortable, there’s no noise.
My studio room’s noise level is below measurable, -4 dBA SPL.
Focussing too much on figures can distract from the essential, specially if the figures are already way better than what practically counts.
Plus, you even need to understand what the figures represent in relationship to the remaining equipment.
Is there even any reasonably priced amplifier that even matches the 120 dB S/N ratio the ADI-2 pro is offering?
One way to test dac/amplifier noise is to test with a silent track at max volume so see if you can hear any noise
E.g.: did you know that every acoustic transducer produces modulation noise when running, much more than ADI-2’s -123 dB?
It’s called Rub&Buzz and can be found in specsheets of pro audio speakers.
You mean noise other than distortion fron non-linearities? that's new to me.
What counts for me:
ADI-2 Pro alone can do a lot of things that I would need more than one device /software to do the same, and it does that with absolutely no compromise “Pro” quality and flexibility.
What else could I ask for?
A more powerful DSP would be very useful (such as Linkwitz transform for subwoofers).
Linkwitz transform is just a specially shaped EQ curve and can already be done in ADI-2.
It‘s nothing magical and doesn‘t extend the power capability of a given sub by a single dB.
It does NOT take into account any room effects, so there are better ways to equalize and room integrate a sub.
Measurements are mandatory.
Linkwitz transform
https://sound-au.com/linkwitz-transform.htm
Q: how does it work?
A: It works by creating a precise equalisation curve to compensate for any peaking or rolling off that the driver is encountering. By doing this, a new Fc and Qtc can be assigned to that system.
Actually it is a simulation because you cannot physically change the Fc and Qtc of a closed system without actually making the box bigger or smaller or putting stuffing in the box and making it appear bigger.
If you have an iDevice, for 20 bucks you can get the App AudioTools by Andrew Smith:
https://apps.apple.com/de/app/audiotools/id325307477
A professional, full fledged and calibrated suite of measurement tools to calibrate your room.
Much better than any theoretical approach.
If you have an iDevice, for 20 bucks you can get the App AudioTools by Andrew Smith:
https://apps.apple.com/de/app/audiotools/id325307477A professional, full fledged and calibrated suite of measurement tools to calibrate your room.
Much better than any theoretical approach.
I do not use apple products.
Also it's misleading to call it "room correction", it's more like "room and speaker correction" but you cannot actually correct for the room in general, just one area of the room (that you calibrate for).
KaiS wrote:If you have an iDevice, for 20 bucks you can get the App AudioTools by Andrew Smith:
https://apps.apple.com/de/app/audiotools/id325307477A professional, full fledged and calibrated suite of measurement tools to calibrate your room.
Much better than any theoretical approach.
I do not use apple products.
Also it's misleading to call it "room correction", it's more like "room and speaker correction" but you cannot actually correct for the room in general, just one area of the room (that you calibrate for).
Depends on how far you go.
When I do my job as studio acoustician EVERYTHING is under consideration, not just plain EQ.
Starting with defining room dimensions, damping, speaker placement, x-over parameters, ... , EQ as last resort.
The goal always is to get a good response across as large as possible areas of the room, not only a single sweet spot.
Audio production is a collaboration of numerous people, a single listening sweet spot isn’t sufficient.
Opposed to that privat, music listeners are usually limited in their options.
EQ calibrating the main listening position using inexpensive measurement tools is a large step forward for most.
If one has an iPhone the mentioned app gives access to a calibrated system at a price below even the cheapest measurement mic.
vintologi wrote:KaiS wrote:If you have an iDevice, for 20 bucks you can get the App AudioTools by Andrew Smith:
https://apps.apple.com/de/app/audiotools/id325307477A professional, full fledged and calibrated suite of measurement tools to calibrate your room.
Much better than any theoretical approach.
I do not use apple products.
Also it's misleading to call it "room correction", it's more like "room and speaker correction" but you cannot actually correct for the room in general, just one area of the room (that you calibrate for).
Depends on how far you go.
When I do my job as studio acoustician EVERYTHING is under consideration, not just plain EQ.
Starting with defining room dimensions, damping, speaker placement, x-over parameters, ... , EQ as last resort.
The goal always is to get a good response across as large as possible areas of the room, not only a single sweet spot.
Audio production is a collaboration of numerous people, a single listening sweet spot isn’t sufficient.Opposed to that privat, music listeners are usually limited in their options.
EQ calibrating the main listening position using inexpensive measurement tools is a large step forward for most.
If one has an iPhone the mentioned app gives access to a calibrated system at a price below even the cheapest measurement mic.
I will probably buy a professional microphone, etc.
the ADI-2 pro fs r does have a decent ADC .
I will probably buy a professional microphone, etc.
the ADI-2 pro fs r does have a decent ADC .
Sure, if you want to record with it.
There are nice mic-pre options with phantom power from RME, available for reasonable prices.
ADI-2 Pro’s inputs are line level.
Funny enough:
I’ve successfully directly connected externally powered measurement mic’s like the Bruel&Kjaer 2619 + 4165.
With the mic’s 50 mV/Pa you get ca. 116 dB SPL for 0 dBFS (utilizing ADI-2 +6 dB internal gain, @ Ref. Level -4 dBu), a usable sensitivity for measurements.
Even ADI-2 Pro’s self-noise stays well below the one from the measurement mic in this configuration.
Same way you could built a very sophisticated recording set around the comparably sensitive Bruel&Kjaer / DPA 4003 mic with it’s dedicated 130 V supply.
https://www.pro-sound.com/p/dpa-4003-om … -volt.html
If you have an iDevice, for 20 bucks you can get the App AudioTools by Andrew Smith:
https://apps.apple.com/de/app/audiotools/id325307477A professional, full fledged and calibrated suite of measurement tools to calibrate your room.
Much better than any theoretical approach.
Hello @KaiS
This is interesting. Do you use it with the inbuilt microphone in the iDevice or with an external? If the later, which microphone can you recommend?
Best Regards
KaiS wrote:If you have an iDevice, for 20 bucks you can get the App AudioTools by Andrew Smith:
https://apps.apple.com/de/app/audiotools/id325307477A professional, full fledged and calibrated suite of measurement tools to calibrate your room.
Much better than any theoretical approach.
Hello @KaiS
This is interesting. Do you use it with the inbuilt microphone in the iDevice or with an external? If the later, which microphone can you recommend?Best Regards
AudioTools contains mic calibrations for each iDevice model.
I do own, and for some purposes do use, a variety of highly professional measurement mics (priced beyond 2 K$).
According to my own comparisons, AudioTools frequency response calibration is accurate within 1 dB in the range that counts, 20 Hz up to 10 kHz.
Above even the high end measurement mic‘s have deviations of several dB that need to be individually calibrated.
Little positional changes during measurements show more deviation than this.
So AudioTools’ accuracy has a margin for typical home use like speaker/room corrections.
Absolute level calibration is again within about +/-1 dB.
Therefore, if I don‘t need special characteristics mics, in fact I do use AudioTools with the iDevices built in mic‘s.
Practically I often like to use AudioTools wireless, where one iDevice (iPhone) serves as microphone, a 2nd one (iPad) does the measurement, with wireless interconnect.
Thank you @KaiS for answering my question.
I did some web research and found out that Audio Tools actually recommends an mic called iTestMic2
But, after your post, I will try to use it with the mic in my iPhone. At least to begin with. I just need some data to see if I can improve anything with the PEQ.
Wow.
Know what you do before inserting XO's randomly! Phase Related FR anomalies are commonplace as a result, and you will go absolutely bonkers trying to fix it.
What are we trying to accomplish here anyway? Sub/Mains integration, etc?
Consider the Speaker Alignment (Sealed? Ported?) before dropping XOs on them. Weird Results are surely forthcoming!
Oh!! Megabuck Microphones for Room measurements? No!!
An inexpensive Mini-DSP " UMik" or Behringer ECM8000 is more than enough. We don't need 0.0000000001 db resolution for this. C'mon!
Ok ...
Curt
Wow.
Know what you do before inserting XO's randomly! Phase Related FR anomalies are commonplace as a result, and you will go absolutely bonkers trying to fix it.
What are we trying to accomplish here anyway? Sub/Mains integration, etc?
Consider the Speaker Alignment (Sealed? Ported?) before dropping XOs on them. Weird Results are surely forthcoming!
Oh!! Megabuck Microphones for Room measurements? No!!
An inexpensive Mini-DSP " UMik" or Behringer ECM8000 is more than enough. We don't need 0.0000000001 db resolution for this. C'mon!
Maybe you read my posting again.
I DON’T advocate to use “Megabuck Microphones for Room measurements”. I just have them as part of my job.
Use the iDevices internal mic instead, for 20 bucks (for the app) and you’re up and running on professional level.
This can’t be beaten by any extra mic you buy.
What does it help to “know your speaker construction”?
It’s the result that counts, but without measurement the result will always be poor, a theoretical approach will lead you nowhere.
Measurement is the way to know your speaker’s capabilities, to determine best speaker placement and x-over frequencies, phase align main and sub, correct room anomalies etc.
Nobody mentioned Speaker Construction. The "Alignment" of the Speaker (Ported vs Sealed) has a profound impact below F3, and gets even more so when we start overlaying XO filters on top.
We can all do as we choose, but creating bizarre new anomalies in an effort to fix another distortion is counter productive.
* On inexpensive Mics for measurements, my Son, and I have gone to the depths of Cheap, and actually used a "My Little Princess" Children's USB Sing-Along Mic for some measurements because that's all he had at the moment.
Not exactly Lab-Accuracy, but we could still see the overall (read: Messy) acoustic landscape of the Room, etc. In a Pinch, it worked. Mostly. 
Curt
Nobody mentioned Speaker Construction. The "Alignment" of the Speaker (Ported vs Sealed) has a profound impact below F3, and gets even more so when we start overlaying XO filters on top.
We can all do as we choose, but creating bizarre new anomalies in an effort to fix another distortion is counter productive.
Typical subwoofer x-over frequencies are usually distant enough from “F3” (lower limit frequency, 3 dB drop).
Taking a simple frequency response measurement usually tells all about a speaker’s usable range.
Same, a measurement immediately shows how all components work together, included the much more important room acoustics.
The x-over setting can be used to compensate room anomalies too, then.
Yesterday it took me 10 min and just my iPhone to set up a sub/satellite configuration for a great result.
This sub has continuously variable volume, x-over frequency AND phase, making the setup easy.
I have to admit I’m experienced in this and know what does what, but just interactively “turning the knobs” until the response curve looks straight is in the realm of everyone.
Trying to look overly deep into the background might scare less technical minded people from even trying to do it right.
Quite often subs are setup as “boom-boxes”, because people don’t know that, with a minor effort, they can get 1000% better results.
For Clarity KaiS,
We're not concerned with the Sub's F3. Rather, It's the Mains/Satellite's F3, and trying to get the Sub/Satellite to "Snuggle Up" and play well together where problems often come into the picture. As most any Sub from this Century has an adjustable Lo-Pass filter, it becomes a bit less cumbersome to simply run the Sub up to the Mains (measured) F3, select an appropriate Low Pass "Slope" 12db/oct to match a Sealed Main, or 24db/oct to pair with a Ported Main. Level-match, and Call it a Day. That's not a terribly complicated program, and really should be reasonably well understood before anyone starts Twiddling Knobs.
Have you ever looked at the Radio EQ settings in a Rental Car? That should provide ample evidence that certain Audio Fundamentals are not widely understood, and bear mentioning in a discussion such as this.
The measurement tools we have now are nothing short of amazing, and Light Years more advanced than what we used decades ago. In the end however, they only provide us with data. We need a basic grasp of how to interpret that data, and some idea of how we might improve upon a problem area. Just sayin!....
Happy Sunday!
Curt
... simply run the Sub up to the Mains (measured) F3, select an appropriate Low Pass "Slope" 12db/oct to match a Sealed Main, or 24db/oct to pair with a Ported Main. Level-match, and Call it a Day.
Running the mains unfiltered down to their lower frequency limit gives away a lot of the advantage a subwoofer can provide.
This means feeding signals into the mains they cannot cleanly reproduce, while compromising the remaining range.
Mains cutoff frequency should be same or higher than their lower -3 dB point.
Then all the mentioned “problems” won’t appear.
Look here for a method how to configure a sub when using ADI-2.
There’s even a “sub parallel to mains” approach (case 1) that doesn’t need a mains x-over and yields remarkable results:
It depends on the Mains. A inadequate monitor that struggles with any amount of LF content wouldn't be in my room to begin with. Or in such case it were, High Passing would then be the lesser of Evils I would agree. But that's all. Else, with a more capable Monitor I am convinced now that the less we "fix" them the better off we are, and simply let the Subs extend the low end. The end result are Mains that appear to have gotten much larger, and Subs that are seemingly not even there. That's a Cool Trick, and no clever connection scheme is needed.
Not my First Rodeo.
Curt
... simply let the Subs extend the low end...
Without high-passing the mains, you exactly open up the can of worms you were talking about, above.
Now I do understand why you mentioned it.
Specially, but not only, with ported designed mains the huge phase deviations AND the slow impulse response between f3 and the port frequency can make it very hard to integrate a sub with good results.
You may be lucky, but usually they simply don‘t work hand in hand.
There is an exception, and that‘s a variation of my:
https://forum.rme-audio.de/viewtopic.ph … 12#p155312
(case 1):
The sub is at least 6 dB louder than the mains, maybe because the mains roll off early, or for a matter of taste.
In this case the sub dominates the bass, and masks all problems that could arise from mixing mains’+sub’s bass.
Well, I suppose that no matter how complicated we choose to make it (or not), the REAL Challenge isn't all the fun, and added electronics, but rather the need to carefully position Subs/Mains, and Seating to have any hope of a good result. Our Rooms in general were NOT designed to be Listened to.
If your Speakers are falling apart with anything more aggressive than a Tambourine...none of above applies. See your Retailer.
Try as we might, Small Room Acoustics can be a struggle, and while "Experts" all claim to have Sensational Rooms with the Acoustics of a Classic Concert Hall, a majority do not. I've been to more than One "experts" house only to be mortified by the Muzzy, Disorganized Crap I heard, and also to Homes where the very un-spectacular gear sounded Amazing!
Combining Quality HiFi, and a Living Space IS often a challenge, and that's a Statement of Fact. Wives, Decor, and simple Practicality are always major factors. XOs, etc will address none of the above. Because I absolutely LOVE Loudspeakers, I endure the challenges. It's very Rewarding to hear a life-like Vocal, or a plausible Kick Drum in the middle of the room.
We are still Free to do as we choose, and I choose not to fix problems I don't have. So much easier.
Best,
Curt
Late Edit:
Kai...surely you've experienced the "Trade Show Darling" Speakers that Wowed the Masses with their ability to reproduce "Flute & Triangle Duets", or float a Ghostly, Miniature Vocalist in space...but nothing else. To this end is why I'm so insistent on a capable Main Speaker that is merely augmented (not placed on Life Support) by the Sub(s)
RME User Forum → ADI-2 & 2/4 Pro series, ADI-2 DAC series → How useful is the ADI-2 pro fs r as digital crossover?
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.