Add 2nd subwoofer 5.1 -> 5.2 system?

[whoareyou]

I have 8 channel DAC. I use JRiver and wish to add 2nd subwoofer to 5.1 multichannel system and trying to understand how to best accomplish.

I plan to use Jriver default mapping (5.1 in 7.1 container) which is mapped by JR as follows:
:
1 FL
2 FR
3 C
4 SW
5 BL (will be 2nd SW)
6 BR (will be unused)
7 SR
8 SL

These channels correspond 1-1 with my DAC's output channels (AL channels 0 - 7)

I plan to use JRiver / DAC channel 5 for the 2nd subwoofer (copy SW channel 4 to channel 5)

In Audiolense I plan to select 5.2 configuration, which splits two subwoofers 50/50 between two channels.

Then in AL measurement I need to map the channels on my DAC as follows to provide proper routing via AL?

So to confirm, this would give me the following channel configuration between JRiver / Audiolense / DAC channel mapping?

JRiver AL
1 FL 0
2 FR 1
3 C 2
4 SWL 3
5 SWR 4
6 BR (Not used)
7 SL 6
8 SR 7


Also a question about playback format routing matrix. Are you supposed to be able to change the Speaker's ID from this UI? Any UI change results in 1.00 being displayed as the ID, so I'm not sure how you are supposed to use the ID in this UI.

Thanks

 

[jrobbins50]

Use the drop down in the playback format and select 5.1 so you can spread the signal between the two subs. JCR

 

[whoareyou]

Thanks for reply. I think I confused my question by including image for a 2nd question (changing channel ID in AL UI). that probably should have been separate thread.

The matrix I had planned to use is this with the 50/50 split for SW:

Do you know if the channel mapping between JRiver and AL is the right approach?

Thanks

 

[jrobbins50]

Looks right to me. Try it and see! JCR

 

[juicehifi]

I have 8 channel DAC. I use JRiver and wish to add 2nd subwoofer to 5.1 multichannel system and trying to understand how to best accomplish.

I plan to use Jriver default mapping (5.1 in 7.1 container) which is mapped by JR as follows:
:
1 FL
2 FR
3 C
4 SW
5 BL (will be 2nd SW)
6 BR (will be unused)
7 SR
8 SL

These channels correspond 1-1 with my DAC's output channels (AL channels 0 - 7)

I plan to use JRiver / DAC channel 5 for the 2nd subwoofer (copy SW channel 4 to channel 5)

In Audiolense I plan to select 5.2 configuration, which splits two subwoofers 50/50 between two channels.
View attachment 50080

Then in AL measurement I need to map the channels on my DAC as follows to provide proper routing via AL?
View attachment 50081

So to confirm, this would give me the following channel configuration between JRiver / Audiolense / DAC channel mapping?

JRiver AL
1 FL 0
2 FR 1
3 C 2
4 SWL 3
5 SWR 4
6 BR (Not used)
7 SL 6
8 SR 7


Also a question about playback format routing matrix. Are you supposed to be able to change the Speaker's ID from this UI? Any UI change results in 1.00 being displayed as the ID, so I'm not sure how you are supposed to use the ID in this UI.


View attachment 50082

Thanks

You will get quite a few more corrections. Every bass offloading Wil have its own correction filters here. 4 extra I think.

If you do manual config you need to read the config files generated and understand them.

 

[whoareyou]

You will get quite a few more corrections. Every bass offloading Wil have its own correction filters here. 4 extra I think.

Should be trying all this out fairly soon but I am a bit surprised by your comment about the 4 extra filters. With my current 5.1 setup I have 11 paths, which I thought represented 1 filter for each speaker and 1 filter for each SW offload.
Based on how the number paths worked for that configuration, I thought I'd end up with 13 paths for 5.2 config, i.e. One additional filter for the 2nd subwoofer and then one additional for the center channel being distributed to 2 subwoofers (5,6 above).

If you do manual config you need to read the config files generated and understand them.

I use JRiver so I was not planning on any manual configuration (hopefully that just works)

Is there a better way to set this up?
I saw a post somewhere that had subs running in parallel as one speaker (w/o crossover). If the subs are configured in this manner does that decrease the number of corrections?

 

[juicehifi]

Yes, that sounds about right. I was respondingin in the context of the channel configuration you described.

 

[whoareyou]

This all worked out pretty much as expected although I am sorting through a rough impulse simulation that requires very high correction amounts to make it look just ok. It sounds very good, but the high correction number has me a bit perplexed.