Subwoofer crossovers


I want to use my 2 JL113's with my 2 channel as well as my surround sound system. The JL's do not have an LFE input only L&R inputs. I think I need a crossover for the 2 channel system that I can shut down via remote so only the setting in the surround sound processor control the sub in theater mode. I use the right inputs for 2 channel stereo & the left inputs in a T configuration for mono with the surround system but the settings for 2 channel restrict the sub too much I think. I would like two differant crossover settings.
Any ideas or am I making this harder than it is.
Thanks for your input.
hevac1
The posts in this thread suggest you folks are knowledgable about bass management. It seems as though SACD discs output as DSD from my Sony XA5400ES or Oppo BDP-93 to my Cary Cinema 11a lack bass management. The subs are not invoked. OTOH, HDCD discs from the BDP-93 do invoke the subs. I read one of Kal Rubinson's remarks to suggest DSD might not carry bass management information. Do I need to output LPCM to get the subs to fire? Is it endemic to DSD or is it a problem with the Cinema 11a? I'm trying to understand this.

db
In case it's relevant to my previous post, the sub output from the Cinema 11a goes through a Velodyne SMS-1 to a pair of HGS-15s using XLR connectors. The 11a has movie and music modes. I use 80 Hz crossover to the mains for movies and 60 Hz or none for music.

db
You cannot apply bass management in either the Oppo or the Cary when playing in DSD Direct mode. However, when you play a 5.1 SACD you should still get information on your subs (this is the .1 channel), because this information is present on your source and does not require bass management to reproduce. When playing a stereo SACD (or a 4.0 or 5.0 SACD), you will not get any bass on the sub and need to convert to PCM if you want to use the subs. Try both modes and see if the benefits of bass management outweigh the loss in resolution of converting to DSD. Some have reporting no such loss exists, in which case PCM conversion is always preferable. To my ears the loss is substantial. IF you play a 5.1 SACD and you get no output on the subs something is wrong in your setup.
I'll take the other side of Brad's argument.

Unless you're using full-range room EQ (ala Audyssey), the most audible of the passive-treatment resistive, room induced, problems occur between +/- 60hz and +/- 110hz in most rooms (IME, anyway). Bassbusters are great, but their effectiveness starts to diminish below 100hz, and is generally, entirely gone by +/- 70hz, IME.

If you're using subs, you can address these thorny problems with careful placement of the subs and/or deciated subwoofer EQ (SVS or Velodyne). Either way, the subs need to be the source of the output in this mid/upper bass range if they're going to the tool used to fix the problem. This means the subs need to roll off fairly high: somewhere north of 75hz in every room I've set up.

This usually makes a good "hand-off" to unfiltered mains impossible, unless the mains have no bass at all. Something like the Sunfire Ribbon Monitor might work, but most high-end mains have sufficient bass to relegate the sub-woofer to deepest bass only. You can't run the subs high enough to fix the nasty problem that subs are best suited to fix - unless you low cut the main speakers.

That's a mistake IMO. I know many, many folks prefer to eliminate an active x-over, but at 80hz, I find that even a modest cost unit like the NHT x-2 is very, very hard to detect. Of course, this "undetectability" depends both on the system in question and the listener in question, but I've A/B'd the X-2 in some very high end chains and, with suitable program material (i.e. no bass at all), I can't hear the difference. Also, of course, YMMV, on that one.

It's entirely possible that a truly crappy low cut for the mains like that in the Velodyne SMS-1 may be a different story. I'd agree that decent active x-over is important. But, shy of that, I believe that any deterioration introduced by a decent active x-over is (IMHO) likely to be swamped by the benefits of crossing the subs out higher in frequency than is usually possible when the mains are run full-range.

A lot of people note that there are also benefits to relieving certain mains of the heavy lifting in the mid/upper bass, as well, but - IMO- that's just a little icing on the cake.

Just the other side of the coin.

Marty
Marty, not an unreasonable argument, but keep in mind that by crossing over to your subs at say 100Hz in order to get typical room modes in range of the EQ you apply on the subs, you are not only running the mains through an active filter. You are also turning your full range system into a satellite sub system.

I had a dialogue with a guy who was doing just that (basically using Avalon Eidolons as satellites!), and advised against it. He has since gone another direction I believe. It all depends on your room. If you have some horrific boomy modes the satellite + EQ'ed sub approach may sound better, but in a half decent room it probably won't.

There are a few alternatives though. Use the Rives Parc 3 band analog EQ unit (<300Hz) in the mains signal part. I had one of those for a while but never used it. The second option is to get a speaker with separate woofer cabinet and monitor, get an external cross-over, bi-amp them and apply EQ only to the woofer cabinet. In fact, the Vandersteens do just that out of the box. Their woofer cabinet is active and has build in EQ. The Salk Soundscapes would allow you to do that to, as do verity audios (you need to get the external cross-over). I toyed with this idea, but after measuring my room in REW and finding out my mode aroun 100 hz was less than 10db I decided not to bother.