diamonddupree, the Loki Mini
tone control
is very different than the MiniDSP in that the Loki keeps the signal in the analog realm while the MiniDSP uses a 24/96 digital sampling of the signal. The DSP route essentially offers what the Loki Mini provides but DSP has the advantages of using a software solution to how the signal is processed. That is, the frequency response of your speakers and subwoofer can be fine-tuned to a greater extent than with the Loki. But you can also get caught up in fine-tuning and lose sight of what you're trying to achieve. The advantages of the Loki is that the signal remains in the analog realm; perhaps more "pure" and easier to use for diagnostics. With the Loki I get an instantaneous response to how changing the roll off frequency affects the sound in my stereo room. It might be interesting to buy both and compare.
What is Floyd Toole saying about extra amplifier power and headroom?
I've been reading Floyd Toole's "Sound Reproduction The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms" and came across a passage that I wish he went into further detail about. It has to do with whether having amplifier headroom has any noticeable improvement in sq. He happens to be talking about getting the bass right in small rooms, but in doing so, he also touches on the use of a larger amp for extra headroom:
It's the last part ("useless headroom") that I'm curious about. I have notoriously hard-to-drive speakers (Magico Mini IIs). Although the recommended amplification is 50w - 200w, in my experience, that's a bit of an underestimation. I'm driving the Minis with a Musical Fidelity M6PRX, which is rated at 230w @ 8ohms. (The Minis are 4ohm.) The combination sounds excellent to my ears at low to moderate listening levels, but I notice a slight compression in the soundstage at higher levels. My listening room, while small, is fairly well treated with DIY panels made from Rockwool, sound-absorbent curtains, and thick carpeting. So I don't think I'm overloading the room. But I have wondered if an amp with far more power than what's suggested (more headroom) would drive the speakers with a little less effort.
Those of you familiar with Toole or with driving speakers with power to spare, what are your experiences? If I went with, say, a pair of monoblocks that drive 600w @ 4ohm, would the extra headroom address the compression I'm hearing at higher levels? Or am I wasting my time and, potentially, funds that would be better spent elsewhere?
Thanks!
Remedies for unacceptable situations typically included spending more money on a loudspeaker with a “better” woofer (without useful technical specifications, that was a lottery of another kind) and a bigger amplifier (for useless headroom ...
It's the last part ("useless headroom") that I'm curious about. I have notoriously hard-to-drive speakers (Magico Mini IIs). Although the recommended amplification is 50w - 200w, in my experience, that's a bit of an underestimation. I'm driving the Minis with a Musical Fidelity M6PRX, which is rated at 230w @ 8ohms. (The Minis are 4ohm.) The combination sounds excellent to my ears at low to moderate listening levels, but I notice a slight compression in the soundstage at higher levels. My listening room, while small, is fairly well treated with DIY panels made from Rockwool, sound-absorbent curtains, and thick carpeting. So I don't think I'm overloading the room. But I have wondered if an amp with far more power than what's suggested (more headroom) would drive the speakers with a little less effort.
Those of you familiar with Toole or with driving speakers with power to spare, what are your experiences? If I went with, say, a pair of monoblocks that drive 600w @ 4ohm, would the extra headroom address the compression I'm hearing at higher levels? Or am I wasting my time and, potentially, funds that would be better spent elsewhere?
Thanks!
Showing 3 responses by tketcham
diamonddupree , before you spend $3000 on an active crossover to experiment with sub integration, buy a $149 Schiit Loki Mini tone control. It’s a relatively cheap way to experiment with reducing the driver load on your Magico Mini II speakers. You may find that you just need to roll off the lowest frequencies using the Loki and raise the roll off frequency on your JL Audio sub. You did mention that the Magico Mini’s have great bass extension (for stand-mounts) but if it’s at the expense of the rest of the music the point is somewhat moot. The attenuation of the bass frequenciy range provided by the Loki may not be an ideal match for your speaker/sub pairing in your room but it will at least give you an idea of how the two interact. You might find that having the Fathom 110 provide more of the range of bass frequencies is a good thing. And may help in deciding on whether or not to purchase an expensive crossover unit like the CR-1.. For reference, I have stand-mount speakers similar to mapman and use two 10" sealed powered subwoofers in a 12’x20’ room. The subs are located at two different positions relative to the speakers. I have the Loki Mini tone control in-line between my preamp and a class D amp using one set of pre-outs and the subs are connected to the second set of pre-outs. I ended up rolling off the bass frequencies to the speakers by about 7dB and actually raising the roll off frequency on the subs to 90-100 Hz. Here’s a graph of the Loki’s tone control frequecies: https://i.imgur.com/XGDm140.png. Just a suggestion for an inexpensive way to experiment with your setup, not necessarily a final solution. Tom |
diamonddupree,
I wasn't aware that MiniDSP now samples up to 24/192. This changes everything! Actually, I've been considering purchasing a DSP setup to compare against the Loki Mini but was waiting until they could sample at the higher rate.
I've been recording LPs with a digital recorder at 24/192 and after cleaning the recording up a bit and applying some judicious normalization the sound is excellent. I think DSP correction could work really well after hearing what a digital recording of a LP can sound like. |