Bryston SP3 Preamp-Processor

[James Tanner - Bryston]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRingsEE

...And I bet you do own some Bryston power amplifiers as well? ...McIntosh amps?

What 'bout subs?
...I know that you don't live too far from the Paradigm Reference Signature SUB 2 Subwoofer; ever consider a pair of those?

Hi - no Paradigm Subs but have heard them enough at dealers to respect them. As with most quality Subs the secret is placement.

Yes I do have a few Bryston pieces around the house

james

[LordoftheRingsEE]

I wasn't talkin' 'bout any Paradigm sub; but the Reference Signature SUB 2!
...A pair of them retails for a cool $18,000! ...That is Theee Subbb!

[James Tanner - Bryston]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRingsEE

I wasn't talkin' 'bout any Paradigm sub; but the Reference Signature SUB 2!
...A pair of them retails for a cool $18,000! ...That is Theee Subbb!

$18,000!!! - Gee's you can get a really good cartridge for that

james

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by James Tanner - Bryston

Well we each have to decide for ourselves of course but in my 3 setups at home I much prefer the non- EQ approach.

Right but, for that to be a real option, there should be a standard MCH digital loop so that one's choice of EQ (or not) would not encumber additional A/D/A steps.

Alternatively, one might provide a really nice parametric EQ for each channel and let the owner choose how or whether to use it.

[LordoftheRingsEE]

Kal gets a real good point here James.

* Do you own a turntable?

[James Tanner - Bryston]

Originally Posted by LordoftheRingsEE

Kal gets a real good point here James.

* Do you own a turntable?

Well I guess I lost that discussion!!!

Yes 3 tables - a Roksan a Thorens and a Rega

James

[LordoftheRingsEE]

Das OK, we always find the 'needle' at the end of the 'thread'.

[James Tanner - Bryston]

Originally Posted by James Tanner - Bryston

I have been asked a few times why no digital room correction on the Bryston SP-3 Processor.

The problem I see with Digital room correction through ‘EQ’ is that it totally screws up the direct sound vs the reflected sound coming from the speaker.

When you listen to a speaker in a room you are listening to what we call the ‘power response’ and you hear all the direct sound as well as the reflected sound mixed together. So the listening experience is a combination of all the direct and reflected sound waves in a given room with a given speaker. When you alter the ‘direct sound’ at the speaker using ‘EQ’ it totally changes the relationship between the direct and reflected sound and is a disaster when it comes to ‘time smear’. So the speaker designer has spent years attempting to get flat frequency and phase response from his speaker and we come along and force the speaker to do anything but accurate signal transfer. Also if you are going to use ‘EQ’ try and only ‘reduce’ the ‘peaks’ in the room and not ‘amplify’ the troughs. Amplifying the troughs can play havoc with your speaker drivers power handling.

A lot of these newer types of ‘EQ’ products try and average a group of curves taken from many different locations in the room as they are attempting to reduce the negative effects of the single listening chair dilemma. Having a single spot in the room which measures flat but everywhere else in the room measures like crap is not a good result in my opinion. I think you are much better off adjusting the speaker location and using proper room treatments. If all else fails maybe some ‘EQ’ can be used but I would recommend keeping the correction only for the very low bass frequencies and stay away from upper bass, mids and higher frequency ‘EQ’ where room affects are not an issue due to the shorter wavelengths involved. I am hopeful that we will see many more Subwoofers with built in room ‘EQ’ which would be the better solution in my opinion if you are forced to use room correction.

Also ‘Room Correction’ much like ‘Video’ is changing quickly and I wanted the SP-3 to be a long-term purchase for our customers so adding specific dedicated boxes as the current technologies develop to the SP-3 made more sense to me going forward rather than obsoleting some questionable feature in the SP-3.

Hope this helps.

James

James,

I have never asked for this, as I know it is irrelevant to the proper sounding setup in a listening environment, as you noted within…’proper speaker placement and room treatments’. A number of years ago I wrote an article, for most likely Residential Systems or Pro Sound News, where I setup a room as follows;

Lexicon MC-12, w/o room treatments…settings by ear, w/o treatment with Radio Shack meter, with room treatments, and finally with the $3600 AKG (4) mic room correction kit optioned by Harman. (fronts were most likely B&W 802 & rears were either B&W or Genelec 8030) The result, my ear was only off by 1dB from the meter (except the sub )…and the room, TREATED w/o room correction was FAR superior to the ‘corrected EQ’ room, w/o treatment. So your comment reflects my many tests.

Dr. D’Antonio might, if he had time, comment on this, but suffice to say, any studio, anywhere in the world, if properly designed, is treated to take advantage of said space, without need for EQ. DSP as we know maybe used in post but for different reasons. Dr. D., might give you the science behind it, as it relates to your comment within, but I think BRYSTON is proper in not using a pseudo room correction EQ.

By the way, Alan Parsons was recently quoted in a magazine as saying that Room treatment should be a primary consideration, as it is in the professional field, whereas in the consumer market, it is more of a ‘snake oil’ mystique of an esoteric labeled product.

Wayne

[James Tanner - Bryston]

From: David
Sent: April-24-12 1:30 PM
To: James Tanner
Subject: Re: Bryston SP-3 No Room Correction

Hi James

My input is I've spent countless hours finessing room EQ for home theatre using a few Pioneer Elite receivers.

For my room, I've worked out the best solutions for low frequency bass management as well as basic room eq for mid and upper frequencies. I've added and subtracted subs and done the measurements and tests all over again.

After countless hours and measurements finding the best sound, I turned it all off and now use none. No eq at all. It's just not needed.

David

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by James Tanner - Bryston

.....and the room, TREATED w/o room correction was FAR superior to the ‘corrected EQ’ room, w/o treatment. So your comment reflects my many tests.

I am not sure whom you are quoting here but let me point out that this is a red herring. No one will dispute this finding but it does not represent a cogent argument for or against anything.

There is no doubt that a properly designed and treated room is as close to optimum as possible. However, this demands the capacity to have/build a room of proper size and dimensions and the ability to properly treat it. Neither of these necessities can be assumed in domestic environments. Either the pocket book or the WAF (or both) stand in the way.

There is, also, no doubt that electronic roomEQ in a bad room that is devoid of any acoustic treatment is like putting a band-aid on a fractured limb. I have heard such roomEQ demos and, while the difference between raw and EQ-ed is apparent, a preference is not possible.

In the overwhelming majority of domestic situations, where the room is not designed, ab initio, for proper acoustics and complete acoustical treatment is limited (by cost and WAF), one can make a case for the improvements available with proper roomEQ. This is especially true below the critical (Schroeder) frequency where accommodating large bass traps can be a problem for many reasons. It is not an either/or situation.

Both of my listening rooms were in the homes as I bought them and both are acoustically-treated but to different degrees. In one, roomEQ has very little impact and is not really necessary while, in the other, it is almost essential.