Yeah, people have different tastes in bass. I like it not too fat because I listen to pretty much anything but classical and I need it compatible for all kinds of music. Additionally in the nearfield they are going to have a pretty good thump even without the subs. Just set up the subs by ear. It'll take a few days to dial them as you listen to different music and you'll know when you get it there. Don't sweat it.
Every Speaker has its own accoustic low-pass roll-off and a great crossover would take that in mind to achieve the perfect integration. there are multiple threads on this forum where you can read about how to figure out the best crossover frequency for your own speaker.
Hey everyone! First, I want to give a big thanks to everyone for helping me get this far-- there's an overwhelming amount of info online for integrating subs into a 2.2 system, both in general knowledge and program interface navigation for testing. The below is what I've learned through the...
www.audiosciencereview.com
The KEF LS50 Meta are a great speakers and I would get them over the R3 since the R3 is a tad outdated (although still great) design by now.
Audiolense XO is incredibly more powerful than REW, if you're going to spend time learning then it's better than you learn how to use Audiolense instead.
there is also another program called
acourate which the luminary
@mitchco has written a book on how to use
https://www.amazon.com/Accurate-Sound-Reproduction-Using-DSP-ebook/dp/B01FURPS40
Yeah, I'll pay more attention to the crossover frequency. I just read a bunch of posts where everybody seemed to think 80hz was the standard so I thought you just set it and forget it.
I'm curious though. I understand the design of the R3 is older, but what about its performance in terms of measurements do you think could be better? Looking at the measurements of the R3 vs the LS 50 Meta, they seemed similarish (with the R3 even getting slightly higher preference score for far field). I noticed the Meta had bit better vertical directivity but I think that's expected given the design.
My friend thinks Acourate while powerful, requires a lot of manual work and he decided we should both get Audiolense. Easier that way since we're both in the same boat and looking at the same software so we can work together.
REW: Free, basic filters.
Dirac: Has some automation but multi sub integration is lacking?
Audiolense: Pay out the nose for a single license when Dirac offers two! Also has some automation.
Acourate: Can do a lot, but there's a lot to do manually. There might be macros to help.
And so REW does normal EQ, IIR. And the more powerful tools do FIR which is supposed to improve 'impulse response'.
I'll do more required reading, though for today my brain has fried from reading the entire day.
Thanks for your time.