| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | ||
| age | ||
| visits | member for | 6 months |
| seen | Dec 19 '12 at 16:25 | |
| stats | profile views | 1 |
|
Dec 20 |
awarded | Student |
|
Dec 18 |
awarded | Quorum |
|
Dec 18 |
comment |
Does setting “full-range speakers” duplicate the lower frequencies? In other words, given that the full frequency range could be equally duplicated across all channels, why would you not want to just let every speaker receive the full frequency range? Won't they just not be able to play frequencies below their range, and those frequencies just won't be heard? |
|
Dec 18 |
comment |
Does setting “full-range speakers” duplicate the lower frequencies? :) I do have a nice sub that handles it nicely. But, apparently these speakers have a bit of lower range ability. I'm wondering if there's any reason not to let them have access to the full frequency range of signal -- as long as the signal is duplicated, and the subwoofer gets it as well? |
|
Dec 18 |
comment |
Does setting “full-range speakers” duplicate the lower frequencies? Would there ever be any kind of benefit to setting a full-range speaker to "small" (or a case where someone might want to)? It looks like my B2's might be considered full-range. I'm wondering if there'd be a reason why I'd not want to let them cover the lows of their frequency range, instead letting the sub handle it. (Why wouldn't someone want a speaker to cover its entire range of frequency, given that the subwoofer could also receive the same range to duplicate) |
|
Dec 18 |
asked | Does setting “full-range speakers” duplicate the lower frequencies? |
|
Dec 18 |
asked | Why is 2.0 louder than 5.1? |