Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems Interesting Discussion 861v6 v ADA

@Joelc
no need to include an already long post as a quote in your reply. It's a killer to scroll through on a phone

best

Yeah and I can't edit what you quoted I did add a comment to the bottom to recap the variable output thing as well (to make it complete) but that was after you quoted it.

I can summerize the whole thing in 3 words. Don't mix brands.

I have send you a PM.

Of course I have all channels going into the QSC. Not just the subs. Also I have 4 subs. The rear two are on one output channel of the QSC and the two rear subs are on another output.
Ken

I actually run 5 subs off the single sub output from 861. Getting them to work in a satifactory manner required many, many hours of level and location tweaking. In my case, the subs reflect different design choices which complicates things. But it can be done!

So that does solve a bunch of timing problems (not all of them). But then you do have a "QSC system" with an ADA or 861 as a source. It's just that the ADA is willing to play along more than the 861 but (in my own humble opinion neither is ideal). I'm also curious why ADA would be crossed over at 80hz (I assume that was posted by you) and not let the QSC do all bass management since it knows and can handle multiple subs.

Sorry a lot of mis information posted here leading to wrong speculation of problems. No matter how you slice it. 4 subs with a Meridian box is a slippery slope. And I do put my money where my mouth is and you'll see I have no subs for very good reason. Only sub I ever would add is an LFE sub. If I want more slam I get bigger speakers. If I had a massive room I'd put a sub on each channel as I described above. Taking the SEPERATE low frequencies from each channel, lumping them together with the seperate LFE channel, throwing away the Meridian DACS and then splitting them out again just seems the wrong way to go about it. And you seemed to prove that with your disatisfaction.

Not saying it can't be done. I'm just saying it's very very hard. And I don't think running everying or just subs through a QSC sounds like the best thing to do to solve it. I'd rather have less bass than wrong bass. And there are only so many days in a year. Running large speakers is a lazy way out (and only works up to certain size rooms).

Curious what you did do, if you still use MRC, if you compensated for distances, if you ran subs equal distance or adjusted for that etc. what does cross overs etc.

I can not think of a single valid reason to do this. Ofcourse I do not know your precise (861) config, so maybe you want to elaborate? As you already stated yourself, it is very difficult to get it right, and I personally doubt that you will ever get it really right.

There is much to gain from running multiple subs, each on their own PEQ, off a single Meridian sub output. Multiple subs, well implemented, sound terrific. That being said, it's not easy to implement them well. (In my case I run two subs off the single M sub output, and use a QSC to get them properly time aligned and frequency/phase aligned.) With the proper measurement equipment speaker distances are then set to compensate for the QSC's latency.

There is also much to gain from adding PEQ after the Meridian, if properly implemented. I understand the theory of the incremental A/D and then D/A stages being harmful, but that has to be put in the context of the gains that can be made. In my case I use a heavily modified balanced Audyssey Pro (it does not handle the subs) rather than MRC, and it makes a noticeable improvement. I have heard another system that puts a heavily modified Tact in between an Audio Research preamp and top of the line VTL amps, and it too generated a material improvement.

I don't believe I am running either a "QSC system" or an "Audyssey" system. I can easily hear the differences between processors, with the gains from the 861v4 to v6 being staggering (IMO).

That some might prefer an ADA or an 861 should not surprise anyone. But that's not necessarily because of the processing used downstream of the device. The virtues of "chain purity" are greatly overestimated, again IMO.

Ahhh, from Brucemck2 another supporter in use EQ after the pre/pro camp...all I can say is that I really hope that I can get my cntact to chime in...

It sounds like you know what you are doing/talking about. It also sounds like you are only running the subs through the PEQ and not all channels and you properly accounted for the latancy back at the Meridian. I think you can get away with A to D - D to A for sub channels. But running all channels (as some folks are and I'm not sure from your post if you are or are not), no way (again in my opinion you now have a PEQ Branded system if you do). We'll have to agree to disagree in that regard. Doing 2 subs is orders of magnitude easier than 4 or 5 too. I think there are better ways to do multiple subs that have less negative effects.

Evdberg:

I appreciate the two PM's that you have snet me on this issue but because the above post is in the public domain I feel compelled to ask, also in the public domain, whether or not you are certain that this room was setup and calibrated by Mr. Erskine...the reason that I ask is that it is my understanding from AVS and elsewhere:

i) Mr. Erskine did design the room;
ii) Mr. Erskine did not build the room [i.e. this was done by local builders]; and
iii) Mr. Erskine did not setup or calibrate the equipment [i.e. this was done by local calibrators].

The reason that I ask -- and I believe this to be a significant point -- is that to the extent that the room was built and calibrated by others than Mr. Erskine it is not fair to comment on his work.

With that said, I am still interested in the debate and discussion as to what are the pros and cons of the various EQ schemes being discussed...