|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
81.167.153.96
Hi !
i have come to the conclusion that to reproduce a very good bass (powerful and controlled) is indeed a challenge
When i listen to a piano or a bass in general on most home speakers there is always some kind of problem
Especially piano is an acid test. Very difficult to reproduce a realistic concert piano well recorded of course.
When i see set-ups with minimonitor (but also midimonitor) i wonder which kind of music they listen
Just out curiosity i would be interested to get some cases of speakers with a great bass.
I am referring at somethin still "human" like B&W 801 or similar size
Not monster like Infinity IRS or of the kind
Another question. Could powered sub a best approach to reproduce the range below 150 Hz ? above that i quite know what to do, but the bass ... that is very critical
Thanks a lot indeed.
Kind regards,
bg
Kind regards,
bg
Follow Ups:
My two cents. Y'all probably think I'm crazy.
The Audio Physic Step, which I have only had experience with the first model, render an amazing amount of tuneful, powerful bass for such a small speaker. I then paired them with a REL Strata II, great sound!
Many years ago I had great sound from an ADS PB 1500 and crossover with Boston Acoustics A40s.
Certainly not as a learned answer as many here, but both setups rendered great bass.
Dave
The best I ever heard was with Scaena speaker system, but that was about $65,000. Going down in price I like Revel. The Ultima is the next best I heard around the $15,000.
From Speakers I had:
1) B&W 801 III, they have excellent bass in both Tone and Impact. I once has someone over and we were listening to a Telarc record and he was able to identify the type of piano being played (Some very expensive Yamaha Piano).
I sold them and now have Revel F52's that's have Great Bass slam and tone.
No for really good bass tone my rebuilt Quad esl's reproduce the best quality bass tone of most speakers. But don't have impact you feel.
Hi and thanks for the reply
Very impressive system indeed.
3 woofers of huge size .. i cannot even image what kind of bass they can generate.
Also the build is amazing.
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg
"
"
Hi and very impressive indeed.
I wonder what do they use it for. Which application ?
I should have added compact speakers
I would like to keep size as compact as possible
I am looking to the sub+satellites solutions
Sub could be or active or passive.
Thanks for the interesting pictures.
Kind regards,
bg
Best bass under 100 Hz that I've had in my system was a pair of TAD TSC-1118SW subwoofers. crossed over at 65 Hz. 65-1000 Hz was handled by a pair of TAD TL-1603 with the TAD TD-4002 and TAD TH-4001 horn for 1000 Hz and above.
The TSC-1118SW were designed for TAD's high-end cinema systems, but they're extraordinarily high fidelity. Not only incredible bass slam, but amazing detail and definition.
I was an idiot to sell them!
However, the LF output—in quantity and quality—from my Meyer X-10 monitors is close. And they take up a lot less room.
Hi and thanks a lot for the interesting advice.
I see an impressive 220 lbs weight ! i wonder if it is for one speaker.
Clearly a particular speaker.
thanks again
Kind regards,
bg
Yes, that 220 lb. figure is for each cabinet. Wish I could at least get the specifications for the cabinet that TAD used for the TSC-1118SW, as occasionally a pair of TL-1801s does come on eBay.
Great pic! MTX does know a thing or two about Bass!
I also greatly value piano recordings as litmus tests of speaker fidelity.I often hear the kinds of problems with speaker playback that you (and others) have brought up.
Principally I hear problems with the crossover between the mid-range driver (woofer) and tweeter and also problems with break-up modes of the mid-range driver not being fully fixed by the crossover. These issues over-lay and color the sound of reproduced piano.
Yet I think the issue that you brought up...problems in the bass are not solvable by subwoofers (which typically function below 100 Hz). Moreover, as has been pointed out, most speakers, even minimontors can reproduce flat anechoic response down to below 100 Hz.
Edits: 12/02/14
Hi and thanks for the advice
It seems that more than i sub i need a real bass
A good pair of 12" woofers ... crossed to satellites.
I have seen something done for the Rogers ls3/5a (see picture)
A smart concept to follow ?
Kind regards,
bg
Above: Power (in-room) response curve of Focal Grande Utopia BE courtesy of Stereophile.I have experimented with subwoofers and have come to the conclusion that though they can enhance the sounds of explosions and dinosaur foot thumping (sounds occuring below 60 Hz), they don't do much to enhance the realism of recorded piano.
The problems that you have addressed must be happening at a higher frequency. The problems are exacerbated by the modern habit of mounting speakers on stands out near the middle of the room. What I am referring to is known as the "Allison Effect."
Duke discussed how room coupling produces "shelving bass boost" below the frequency at which bass reflections from the room's boundaries and the primary output of the woofer re-inforce each other.
Yet, just above the frequency of "shelving bass boost," there is a region where bass reflections from the room's boundaries and the primary output of the woofer (being out of phase) cancel each other, producing a deep null, a suckout.
The frequency of these nulls can be determined using the following formula:
Frequency of null = 1130 (velocity of sound)/distance (in feet) x .3 (quarter wave co-efficient).
Using this formula you can determine that given the dimensions of a standard room and the habit of mounting speakers on stands, away from boundaries, quarter-wave nulls usually occur in region of 250 Hz to 300 Hz.
A deep null, a suckout (of the speaker's in-room response) between 250 Hz to 300 Hz is particularly destructive of piano music and is the principal reason that the piano ends up sounding denuded and "miniaturized"...you are only hearing the piano's upper notes, it's bottom registers (overlapping with the null) are sucked out of the in-room response.
Furthermore, the primary wave-front of the woofer does not just interact with the reflections coming off the room's boundaries but in a stereo pair of speakers, each speaker's primary wave front will interact with that coming from the other speaker producing the same kind of "shelving bass boost" and quarter wave nulls. In effect, the half point of the distance between the speakers in a stereo pair acts as another boundary.
When the frequency of these boundary induced quarter wave cancellations overlaps, the resulting nulls can be both wide and deep, as can be seen in the linked page of power response measurements of various speakers (courtesy Stereophile).
The trick to minimizing the severity of quarter-wave cancellations is to make sure that the speakers are a different distance from each room boundary (and 1/2 the distance between the speakers) and that none of the distances are multiples of any other.
Edits: 12/02/14 12/02/14
"Duke discussed how room coupling produces "shelving bass boost" below the frequency at which bass reflections from the room's boundaries and the primary output of the woofer re-inforce each other."Yet, just above the frequency of "shelving bass boost," there is a region where bass reflections from the room's boundaries and the primary output of the woofer (being out of phase) cancel each other, producing a deep null, a suckout."
Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I was talking about a general trend due to boundary reinforcement, and of course that general trend is marred by peaks and dips. I can promise you that the anechoic curve of that Focal system exhibits neither the peaks nor the dips that the in-room curve does south of 150 Hz. If you mentally draw a straight line from about 150 Hz down to 20 Hz (which is probably down in the pressure zone), that's an indication of the general rising trend I was talking about (assuming the speaker isn't really +4 dB anechoic at 20 Hz!). The 100 Hz dip, and the 50 and 30 Hz peaks, are the sort of peak-and-dip pattern I was talking about.
The curve you show is one speaker in one location. Add three more in dissimilar locations (different distances to the room boundaries) and you have four dissimilar curves. Their sum will be significantly smoother than any one alone. Also, peaks and dips in the summed curve will be more numerous and closer together, so the ear/brain system's 1/3 octave averaging characteristic will probably work in our favor. And any significant remaining peaks in the response will tend to be global rather than local, and so are good candidates for correction via EQ.
(The dotted-line curve is the speaker with its internal subwoofer disconnected. It looks to me like the designers either had a much bigger room in mind, or under-estimated the effects of boundary reinforcement by about 4 dB. Or maybe they just wanted a big low end.)
In-room curves really do look as bad as that graph in your post shows. It is a fundamental acoustic problem of small rooms, and distributed multisubs with room-gain-complementary response curves would be an acoustic solution. In this case the dip at 100 Hz is centered north of the region typically covered by subs, so we may need to call on other techniques to address that issue (cough cough bipolar cough).
Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.
Duke
Me being a dealer makes you leery?? It gets worse... I'm a manufacturer too.
Edits: 12/02/14 12/02/14
Also, it's one of the only speakers that retains value in the long run.
Haven't heard the big JBL but it's another one that retains value.
Hi and thanks for the advice
I listened some years ago to a diy speaker with a big DC and was very good but also very big cabinet
I like the solution smal DC + woofer also
It could sound nicely
I have to study more.
Kind regards,
bg
You'll want two subwoofers if you are going to try that. Remember that bass is not truly omnidirectional above 80 hz or so.If you want to use subwoofers to handle bass duties as high as 150 hz, the best solution is to use two subwoofers. Place each subwoofer very close to the main speakers (directly underneath each main speaker, if possible) so that channel separation will be preserved.
The next best solution, if you are determined to go all the way up to 150 hz with a subwoofer, would be to place one single subwoofer directly in the center of the two main speakers (preferably at speaker height), so that any unidirectional bass will seem to be centered in the soundstage. Otherwise, your subwoofer will reveal itself as a separate sound source distinct from the main speakers.
Edits: 12/01/14 12/01/14
Hi and thanks for the precious advice
Actually this is what i have in mind .. 2 sub that in reality act as the entire bass, from 150 Hz.
From what i have learned with conventional transducers (no electrostatic, no planar no ribbons) the minimum number to cover the audio spectrum is 4.
1) low bass
2) mid bass
3) mid
4) high
So a 3 ways is a compromise in some ways.
Then i looked at some of the best 3 ways around that i have listened and liked a lot, like the Wilson Audio
I see that for the 3 ways they tend to use a 6"-7" mid cone crossed at around 150 and even 200 Hz
On other magazines i have noted that in order to get a good SPL without high distortion from a cone size is important
For instance if you want to reproduce 100dB/1m at 100 Hz with low distortion a 8" cone is needed.
Clearly this is completely out of reach for mini-monitor with 4"-5" woofers, that by the way can be very good down to 200 Hz
I would sacrifice the very low bass .. below 50 Hz
So the sub/woofers should reproduce from 50 to 150/200 depending on the satellites chosen.
A very nice solution for instance could be a nice pair of ls50 crossed at 200 Hz with woofer below.
That could be a very nice almost full range set-up.
But the choice for satellites is almost infinite.
Just grab the ones you like best.
Moreover the satellites should sound even better because taking out from them the very bass the distortion in the midrange should be decreased.
I guess. I have to try to be sure anyway.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 12/01/14
From what i have learned with conventional transducers (no electrostatic, no planar no ribbons) the minimum number to cover the audio spectrum is 4.
1) low bass
2) mid bass
3) mid
4) high
So a 3 ways is a compromise in some ways.
That may have been true a few decades ago, but modern drivers have the bandwidth to cover the full range with fewer drivers. Certainly a large 3-way speaker or a 2-way with a sub can cover the full 20-20k. I have large 2-way speakers in my HT that are flat from 35-20k (Dynaudio C2).
Then i looked at some of the best 3 ways around that i have listened and liked a lot, like the Wilson Audio
I see that for the 3 ways they tend to use a 6"-7" mid cone crossed at around 150 and even 200 Hz
On other magazines i have noted that in order to get a good SPL without high distortion from a cone size is important
For instance if you want to reproduce 100dB/1m at 100 Hz with low distortion a 8" cone is needed.
I think that 100db at 100Hz with low distortion is an unreasonable requirement for music listening in typical domestic rooms.
I would sacrifice the very low bass .. below 50 Hz
So the sub/woofers should reproduce from 50 to 150/200 depending on the satellites chosen.
A very nice solution for instance could be a nice pair of ls50 crossed at 200 Hz with woofer below.
That could be a very nice almost full range set-up.
But the choice for satellites is almost infinite.
Just grab the ones you like best.
Moreover the satellites should sound even better because taking out from them the very bass the distortion in the midrange should be decreased.
If you want to try such a high crossover, I think it is imperative to use two subwoofers in a stereo configuration (not dual-mono) with the subs placed symmetrically in the front of the room. Also, if you're not going to place the subwoofers right next to the speakers, e.g. because that location results in uneven bass response, then you really need to use a digital crossover with time delay correction. Take a look at what Lyngdorf is doing with the DP-1/BW-1 combination.
You have to pick the right subwoofers to make this idea work. Many subwoofers aren't designed to perform well above 100 Hz. And most don't maintain a flat response over 2-3 octaves, so equalization will probably be required.
You are mistaken in your calculations, among other things. As a matter of fact, most modern two-way speakers using small woofers have flat, in-room bass frequency response to well below 150 hz.Actually, I can't think of any modern speakers using with 5", 6", or 7" woofers that DO NOT produce flat bass frequency down to at least 80 hz, and many of them will in fact go appreciably lower than that before rolling off at a steep rate. Modern small speakers are designed this way because of the need to cross over to a subwoofer at around 80 hz, which is considered to be the cutoff point for omnidirectional bass.
It is true that most small "woofers" produce less distortion when they are not being pushed too far below 150 hz, but distortion is not the only issue to consider when trying to integrate multiple drivers. You'll notice that multi-way speakers with midbass drivers crossing over to woofers at 150 hz or higher are speakers that have all the drivers housed within the same cabinet, usually in very close physical proximity to each other. That way, the bass drivers can seamlessly integrate with each other and the ear is less likely to notice the transition points between drivers.
To repeat: If you are going to cross over to a subwoofer at higher than 80 hz, all of the the bass drivers in the system need to be in very close proximity to one another so that all of the sounds produced by each speaker seem to be coming from single points in space. If you are using standmount speakers with typical 5", 6", 7" inch bass drivers and you want to add a subwoofer, you MUST crossover to the sub at 80 hz or lower - unless you are able to position the subwoofer(s) very close to the main speakers. Since it is often impossible (or even undesirable) to position subwoofers very close to the main speakers, it is recommended that a crossover point no higher than 80 hz be used.
To test this theory you only have to listen. Try many different crossover points for yourself, and choose the one that produces the most seamless bass integration. Most likely, that crossover point you select will be much lower than 150 hz.
Edits: 12/02/14 12/02/14 12/02/14
Even 80Hz is arguably audible depeding on how steep the slope of the low pass xover is. I often find around 60Hz makes for a more seamless blend and most smallish speakers are still not struggling too hard at 60hz.
Hi and taken from the same magazine the curves for the Zingali Home Monitor 2.10
Much better
Kind regards,
bg
Keep in mind that these are frequency (anechoic) response curves created by measuring with the speakers away from all boundaries or in an anechoic chamber.
In reality speakers are used in rooms and thus what you actually hear are the frequency response +/- boundary reflections i.e. the in-room power response.
Power response curves are usually dramatically different than frequency response curves and are closer to what we actually hear when listening to speakers in a room.
A typical room is going to boost the low bass of the speaker (shelving bass boost) so the frequency response bass roll-off points can be mis-leading.
Hi and thank for the advice
but i seriously doubt that a minimonitor can give a realistic piano even in a normal room
The problem i think is that many like myself are used to small speakers
and we do not know what we are missing ... the real thing
Of course available space is often a constraint
Kind regards,
bg
A mini-monitor can actually give a realistic piano sound in a normal sized room but they will need (proper) boundary re-inforcement to do so.
One of my favorite record shops, Academy Music in Manhattan, has Harbeth mini-monitors sitting on a high book-shelf above the classical section. The speakers are sitting in close promimity to the ceiling. They sound superb with piano.
The (bass) re-inforcement of the ceiling boundary and the fact that the speakers are not placed equidistant from any two room boundaries helps the speakers in-room response to remain ideally flat and accurate. I hear no huge dips or peaks. Placed this way, the speakers sound faithful to the (piano) recording.
However, if you placed these same speakers on 3 foot high stands, 3 feet from the backwall and six feet from the ceiling you will get a 9 dB null at 113 Hz everywhere in the room and the piano will sound small and miniaturized.
Well this is interesting but difficult to get
and then there is the soundstage ... with speaker under the ceiling the perspective would be a little strange
A good size speaker could be easier to place in the room i guess
A speaker like the old Kef 105 is big but not impossible
or something similar size and concept
i like the head above the bass box concept a lot like in many famous speakers
Thanks for the advice
Kind regards,
bg
Stereo soundstaging is an illusion. It does not occur with live music and is not necessary to enjoy music. Moreover, the illusion does not occur in the far field or outside a single sweet spot in the room. Yet a piano can still sound like a piano in the far field. This is what other posters were describing with their next room analogy.
Your example of the large KEF speaker is an interesting one but that speaker must obey the same laws of physics that govern the behavior of the mini-monitor and the same placement rules apply.
Hi and i have another approach
Soundstage in a recording can even be created at the mixing desk i guess
But my point is another one
If there is a 3D effect, real or fake, i want to hear it
Because this means that the playback system is resolving also very fine details
It is a very good monitoring system
Of course if the piano in the recording is diffused i will hear it like it is in the recording
I have some test disks ... i know that they have depth and also layers in the depth
Not all the systems are able to give back this depth and layers
This has to do with resolving power
It is like a out of focus lens, not clean ...
I like terms like razor sharp, crystal clear ... and so on.
Then if the 3D effect is real or not is not important to me.
But i want to hear it all. And well.
Kind regards,
bg
Here are Stereophile's measurements for the KEF LS50. You'll notice that it has significant bass extension to well below 80 hz. Representative of typical bass performance for the small, high-quality, two-way loudspeakers of today...
Also look at the Soundstage measurements. Soundstage utilizes the NRC anechoic chamber, so their measurements understate bass output because they can't account for room gain. On the other hand, Stereophile's quasi-anechoic measurements overstate bass output due to the near field measurement technique. Real world performance tends to fall in between the two.
One thing you get from the chamber measurements is distortion, and as you can see from the Soundstage measurements the distortion is quite high at and below 100Hz at 90dB/2m. That suggests to me that this speaker is not really suitable for use in large rooms.
- Most modern, high-quality, two-way mini monitors will produce fairly flat bass response down to at least 80 hz, the maximum crossover point recommended when using a subwoofer...- If crossing over from the mains to the subwoofer at a point higher than 80 hz, where bass starts to become unidirectional, it is better to use two subwoofers (or one per speaker and each sub in close proximity to the main speaker) in order to preserve stereo separation and imaging. Otherwise (for example), you'll be listening to a bass or baritone vocalist recording and all of a sudden, the vocal imaging will switch from the 3' high level of the mains speakers down to the level of the floor where the subwoofer is located, as the singer traverses the lower depths of his vocal range.
Edits: 12/02/14 12/02/14
Genungo, you're basically on the right track, but your specifics are wrong.
The scientific literature shows that at about 80 Hz, we are able to discern the source direction of a sound. Given this, an 80 Hz crossover to a single sub is inappropriate for a stereo high fidelity system. 50 Hz is about the max for the crossover point.
However, as has been noted here by Duke and a couple of others, an even better solution is to have multiple subs in multiple locations. As an added bonus, you could put two of them toward the left side and two toward the right side, thus maintaining stereo separation and reducing the room issues while still being able to cross over at higher than 80 Hz.
:)
I understand that a crossover setting below 80 hz is often helpful because the rolloff rates of both subwoofers and mains speakers must meet and combine, effectively, at 80 hz or below. So, if the mains speaker start rolling of at 80 hz, we might need to set the sub crossover as low as 40 or 50 hz.My mains standmount speakers start rolling off about 80hz, and I've always found that using the 40 hz crossover setting on my subwoofers makes for the best sub/mains bass integration. I like to use the lowest possible subwoofer crossover setting combined with the highest possible subwoofer volume setting so that I get maximum grunt from way down below with less risk of excessive sub/mains overlap.
Edits: 12/02/14
Just to add another factor to the bass response of the LS50. It will get poorer(roll off sooner) the higher the volume. The lowest bass is primarily from the port. And the Soundstage measurements show the impedance rise from the port is lower than from the driver. That indicates the response of the port weakens before the response of the woofer at high inputs so there is less port reinforcement at high levels.
The problem is the port has to be larger but in a small box this can't be done.
Yes, the LS50, and many other speakers today with little woofers can reach down to 70, 60, 50, 40 or lower Hertz regions.
They can even do it with very low distortion.
What they CAN'T do is accurately reproduce the recording at those frequencies at 100 dB as measured from the listening seat.
Yes this is the point
We have 3 parameters: SPL, distortion and Frequency.
To get realistic SPLs, with low distortion at low frequency a big woofer is needed
If a piano is not enough let's use the Bach's "Toccata e fuga" and we will feel the difference
Kind regards,
bg
It doesn't matter what the parameters are if you cross over to the subwoofers at 150 hz or higher. If you do such a thing without placing those subwoofers within inches of the main speaker drivers, you are asking for trouble - worse sound, rather than better.
If you use two subs in a stereo configuration, I think there is more flexibility than you think.
The two subs need to be located in the front half of the room and placed symmetrically with respect to the listening position and speakers. And the two subs must be reasonably far apart so that if you draw a line from the listening position to one speaker and another line from the listening position to the corresponding sub, the angle between the lines should be no more than 10 deg in the horizontal plane. Futher, if the distance from the listening position to the sub is significantly greater or less than the distance from the listening position to the speaker, then time alignment is also required. Based on my own experience, I think if you follow these guidelines you will have no problems with imaging in the bass range.
The picture illustrates the two subwoofer placement options which work best in my downstairs room (please note the picture is only notional, things are not to scale). At one point in my system's evolution, I was using a 100 Hz 2nd order LPF on the subs and no HPF on the small standmount speakers, based on the idea that a minimal/low order crossover would give the best transient response across the bass range. I used multiple bands of parametric EQ and shelf filters on the subs only, in order to flatten the combined response of speaker + sub in the overlap region of 70-120 Hz and then cut the subs off quickly at 120 Hz.
With the subs in position 1 (next to the speakers), they suffered from a deep quarter wave null in the mid-bass caused by the front wall reflection, same as the main speakers do. With the subs in position 2 (near the front wall) they do not suffer from a mid-bass null, but time alignment is necessary due to the extra distance to the listening position. With capability for time alignment, the second position was objectively and subjectively superior, by more than a little bit, and even imaging of low frequency notes seemed better than in position 1. Without time alignment, an interference null is introduced with the subs in position 2 and the transient response suffers a bit, so it becomes a toss-up which position is better.
My experiments did not involve crossover frequencies as high as 150 Hz, but the same principles should apply. There are manufacturers who have used this approach with even higher crossover frequencies.
But I also have to admit that I'm not using that configuration any longer, and although I'd like to try again it probably won't be soon. My present components (network audio player and integrated amp) offer other sonic advantages that are more important to me now than optimizing subwoofer integration.
It is obvious that you were trying to deal with some unusually difficult acoustical problems. You did some unusual things in an effort to overcome those problems. The solutions adopted by you in the above scenario must have seemed necessary in the face of extraordinarily difficult acoustical problems, but those solutions are far from recommendable IMO.Because of the virtually insurmountable acoustical problems that you faced in your "almost square" listening room, you were forced to use solutions that are not typically recommended. I admire you for your toughness and persistence, but let's not pretend that what you were doing was something that should be considered in more typical circumstances.
That said, I do know the feeling...
I once had an "almost square room" and no matter what I did while attempting to overcome that acoustical problem, I could never get the bass to sound right. The dimensions of the room made it impossible to get truly decent sound. Unlike you, I finally gave up on the struggle by foregoing the idea of using loudspeakers in such a horrible room. After trying out some of the same "solutions" as you did, I finally put the speaker system in storage and broke out the headphone system...
"Ahhhhh! Much better now!" Best decision I ever made.
Sometimes, it's just not worth the struggle...
Edits: 12/04/14 12/04/14
I wasn't trying to draw a picture of my room. Like I said in the previous post, it's just a notional illustration of the two different placements. The real room is more complicated, not strictly rectangular or symmetric. Anyway, the experiments I was doing reflect the fact that I'm an engineer and enjoy that stuff more than they reflect any extraordinary room specific issues.
My current setup in that room uses conventional subs with a more conventional 70 Hz LPF setting and no digital XO, but that's mainly because I really like the sound of my current Linn-> Ayre-> WB combo and it doesn't allow for anything fancier.
Also, the specific placement tradeoffs I was investigating are not unique to my room, they exist in every listening room. No matter what speakers you use or what room you use them in, there will be quarter wavelength nulls which depend on distances from the drivers to the front wall, side wall, floor, and ceiling. In a small-medium sized room, a very typical audiophile speaker setup has the speakers located 2-3 feet from the side walls and 3-4 feet from the front wall (or possibly vice-versa for long wall placement). With this sort of placement, there are always going to be nulls in the bass and lower midrange, and the null due to the front wall reflection is going to be somewhere right in the middle of the bass. If you place subs right next to the speakers, their response will also have the same null.
These nulls don't depend on the squareness of the room, only the proximity of the speakers to room boundaries. A square room presents a problem with overlapping room modes though.
The whole point I was making is that it's not necessary and usually not recommended to place subwoofers right next to the speakers, because the best location for optimizing the mid & high frequency response and soundstaging is rarely the best location for optimizing the bass. This is true even with a high crossover. And there have been several high quality commercial loudspeaker systems designed to have separate independent bass modules with a crossover of 100 Hz or even higher, including Lyngdorf, NHT, Audio Kinesis, and GedLee. It is a perfectly valid approach.
Back in the days when vinyl recordings were the name of the game for most people, bass was summed to mono at 100 hz. So, it used to be more of an OK thing to use a subwoofer crossover point of 100 hz, because doing so would not necessarily degrade stereo imaging and soundstaging.Now flash forward to the digital age where the cutoff point has been lowered to 80 hz, which corresponds to the point at which bass begins to become omni-directional...
If you listen to modern recordings with a crossover point from mains to a subwoofer higher than 80 hz, you risk shutting out some of the stereo information encoded in your recordings (unless you use two subwoofers that are, preferably, in very close proximity to the associated main speakers).
You say that the placement of subwoofers very close to the main speakers is usually "not recommended" but that would mean that the majority of classically designed tower speakers are extremely compromised designs (from the standpoint of acoustics), since most of them have immovable subwoofers in very close proximity to the other drivers. Attempting to keep each of two subwoofers in close proximity to the two main speakers in a stereo system is certainly recommended and is always worth trying before other placement options are investigated, when crossover points approach 80 hz or higher.
If using only one subwoofer crossed over at 80 hz or higher I would try to center it in between the two main speakers and keep it about the same distance away from the listening seat as the main speakers. And possibly, close to same height as the main speakers too...
Omni-directional sound has a unique sound signature. The ears can sense the shift from omni to uni within the context of a stereo soundstage. 100 hz should represent *the extreme upper limit* for a subwoofer crossover point if you like to listen to modern stereo recordings. A crossover point of 150 hz or higher, as recommended by you, can of course be used but this practice should be viewed as being less than optimal. I don't think you'll find too many manufacturers designing systems with a subwoofer crossover point higher than 100 hz these days, and for good reason. No one wants to be FORCED to buy two subwoofers for their stereo system when one might possibly do.
BTW, I wasn't referring to your drawing when I noted that your listening room is square. You have described your listening room as being, basically, an acoustically compromised square in your system profile page. I therefore assumed that this was the room that contained the old "configuration" of yours, mentioned above. Frankly speaking, if your listening room is as problematic as you say it is it wouldn't surprise me that the kinds of sonic nuances I've been talking about here would not be easily noticed.
Edits: 12/05/14 12/05/14 12/05/14 12/05/14 12/05/14 12/05/14
Back in the days when vinyl recordings were the name of the game for most people, bass was summed to mono at 100 hz. So, it used to be more of an OK thing to use a subwoofer crossover point of 100 hz, because doing so would not necessarily degrade stereo imaging and soundstaging.
Now flash forward to the digital age where the cutoff point has been lowered to 80 hz, which corresponds to the point at which bass begins to become omni-directional...
If you listen to modern recordings with a crossover point from mains to a subwoofer higher than 80 hz, you risk shutting out some of the stereo information encoded in your recordings (unless you use two subwoofers that are, preferably, in very close proximity to the associated main speakers).
I agree. I am a big proponent of using multiple subwoofers in a stereo configuration, even with lower crossover frequencies. I currently use two in a stereo configuration in both of my systems, but in the past I've used up to 4 in the system (Geddes approach) with all 4 mono, or in two stereo pairs. I will never go back to using a single sub or a multiple mono configuration unless the crossover frequency is below 50Hz.
You bring up a good point about recordings because a lot of people say you should configure two subs as dual mono rather than stereo, to get more of the benefit of mode cancellation. But as you mentioned, a lot of bass content is already mono, either because it was mixed down to mono or just recorded mono and then panned dead center. For that bass content, there's no difference between dual mono and stereo sub configurations. But as you noted, there is also stereo content in the bass, and you need a stereo configuration to reproduce that.
You say that the placement of subwoofers very close to the main speakers is usually "not recommended" but that would mean that the majority of classically designed tower speakers are extremely compromised designs (from the standpoint of acoustics), since most of them have immovable subwoofers in very close proximity to the other drivers.
Sure they are compromised. There are tradeoffs with every approach. Unless you have a large, acoustically optimum room (either by luck or by design ala Mike Lavigne), full range speakers will almost always have more issues with peaks and nulls in the bass than a properly set up combination of small speakers + subs. But the tradeoff is that the designer of the full range speaker has presumably selected bass drivers that are a good sonic match, and a crossover that ensures a relatively seemless blend. Whereas it can be quite difficult to select subwoofers that are a good sonic match with small standmount speakers, and then optimize their placement, and possibly try different crossover slopes and EQ to blend them properly. I can't say that either design approach is better than the other because it depends on the room, and the speakers, and the experience and acoustics knowledge of the user.
Attempting to keep each of two subwoofers in close proximity to the two main speakers in a stereo system is certainly recommended and is always worth trying before other placement options are investigated, when crossover points approach 80 hz or higher.
I disagree. While placing the subs next to the main speakers may turn out to be the best placement for some systems & rooms, you really need to go through the effort of exploring all possible placements and finding the one that offers the most even response and optimizing the subwoofer settings and even consider eq on the subs. In most cases, especially in small to medium sized rooms, the location of the main speakers is usually not the best place for the subs. In my experience, side wall placement or front wall placement is usually better, but there are no absolutes.
When using only one subwoofer I try to place it about the same distance away from the listening seat as the main speakers, whenever possible.
I agree, especially if the crossover frequency is above 50 Hz. Below that it doesn't matter as the wavelengths are too long. Some would say it doesn't matter up to 80 Hz, but my experience indicates 50 Hz is the threshold for me. Also, if you can do time delay correction, then this isn't required.
Omni-directional sound has a unique sound signature. The ears can sense the shift from omni to uni within the context of a stereo soundstage. 100 hz should represent *the extreme upper limit* for a subwoofer crossover point if you like to listen to modern stereo recordings. A crossover point of 150 hz or higher, as recommended by you, can of course be used but this practice should be viewed as being less than optimal. I don't think you'll find too many manufacturers designing systems with a subwoofer crossover point higher than 100 hz these days, and for good reason. No one wants to be FORCED to buy two subwoofers for their stereo system when one might possibly do.
I don't *recommend* crossover points of 150 Hz or higher. I don't know where you're getting that. What I was saying is that using a crossover point of 150 Hz or higher is a valid design choice that can work if you follow certain design guidelines. And if properly implemented, it can have advantages (e.g. mounting woofers in an infinite baffle can eliminate the front wall 1/4 wavelength null). It's not common in domestic listening rooms because it's way harder to set up and requires knowledge of acoustics and measurement tools, but it is common in recording studios.
BTW, I wasn't referring to your drawing when I noted that your listening room is square. You have described your listening room as being, basically, an acoustically compromised square in your system profile page. I therefore assumed that this was the room that contained the old "configuration" of yours, mentioned above. Frankly speaking, if your listening room is as problematic as you say it is it wouldn't surprise me that the kinds of sonic nuances I've been talking about here would not be easily noticed.
The room is roughly 13x16', but it's not a simple shape which is why I didn't attempt to draw it. The primary acoustic problem caused by the shape is that the first order axial modes associated with the length and width of the room are close together at 35 Hz and 42 Hz. These modes are strong and close enough to interact. Without equalization, bass notes in that range boom. Since I prefer not to use equalization on the main speakers, full range speakers are out. And I need at least one band of PEQ on the subs.
However, like I said in my previous message, the issues I was raising relative to sub placement are not related to the shape of the room. They are only dependent on the location of the subs relative to room boundaries.
Well, it seems as if we actually agree with each other on most points.I will keep on trying to use the lowest possible crossover points, and I will always try to make use of physical alignments whenever possible.
OTOH, I realize that it's not always possible to keep things as simple as that. "As simple as possible, but no simpler" is my motto.
I've been pretty lucky so far in that I've rarely had to deal with an extremely difficult room. I can only hope it stays that way from now on.
Actually, I'd prefer headphones to a loudspeaker system that is dependent upon an obnoxious web of electronic remedies. That said, headphone systems will also become more complex over the next decade or two.
Headphone systems are indeed the future of audio, in large part because of the hassles involved in dealing with acoustical issues. I'm getting ready to meet the future head on.
Edits: 12/05/14 12/05/14
I have some older closed back cans I listen to when I'm working at the computer, Sony CD3000 and Audio-Technica A700 and an OK-sounding Grace 901 amp. One of the things I like best about headphone listening is the clean bass. But I miss the soundstage. Someday I expect to lose my office/spare bedroom to use as a kids bedroom, and then I'll probably let the downstairs system go and get a better headphone rig.
The slower decay times of bass from loudspeakers may actually help with pitch differentiation, at least according to one speaker designer I know of.
Headphone listening has definitely not reached the level of perfection that it is capable of reaching - especially with regards to soundstaging. But the next twenty years or so might change all of that...
Hi and i am not completely sure
I think it is important that all the frequencies arrive in the listening spot at the same time.
For instance ... i could put the bass cabinets frontally ... more or less under the screen
And the satellites quite separated pointing at the listening spot
but i have to delay the bass of course to get time alignment
Of course this is more complicated but i am studying a digital x-over now that should allow for this arrangement
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
I don't want to be in a room very long at 100 Db levels. That's incredibly loud.
Hi and sorry but i am not sure about this
I am attaching a graph taken from the italian magazine Audio Review where you see the SPL at 1 meter from the nice Kef ls50 with max 5% of IMD.
We can clearly see that at 60Hz the SPL (with IMD < 5%) is limited to 87dB/1 meter
I have noticed that these curves are generally related to the woofer size
Of course not all 5" woofer are equal but the SPL curve looks quite similar
Maybe 87dB at 1 meter is a lot i do not know for sure
But this is the graph ...
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 12/02/14
Beppe,
Sure the bass drops off when you are playing a little speaker at 110db! It is pretty normal for most speakers that the bass gives out before the rest...this is not meaningful in the real world where you might be listening at 85db...then Stereophile's measurements of the speaker make more sense.
I doubt you will hear 5% distortion at 60Hz or at worst it will start to blur things a bit. Remember music is not steady state (most of it at least is not) so you will rarely have significant bursts at 60Hz louder than 87db.
That being said I would go with a larger woofer monitor like my Reference 3as. They use an 8 1/4 inch woofer and don't even have a crossover on it! It rolls off nice and natural somewhere above 3Khz.
Hi and thanks and you are right.
But you also end saying " I would go with a larger woofer monitor "
Maybe i am wrong but a speaker like the ls50 cannot give a realistic reproduction of a full range piano
So it needs something in the bass ... a boost of the bass
To give back the body of the instruments i mean
Thanks again.
P.S. sorry for the late reply but i was out of town
Kind regards,
bg
The bass extension and SPL capability of small stand mounted speakers depends a lot on the size of the room and the placement of the speakers in the room.
At one extreme, if you're using the LS50s in a small room placed no more than 1m out from the front wall and listening at a distance of 2m, I'm certain they can produce clean bass down to 60Hz at reasonable listening levels (up to 85dB average at the listening position is what I mean by "reasonable"). On the other hand, if you place the LS50s in a big room 2m out from the wall and listen in the far field, you'll probably find their response starts to roll off below 100Hz and they struggle to produce clean output in the mid-bass at reasonable levels.
If you use the LS50s in a room that is too big for them, I suspect you will not be satisfied with their dynamics & scale even if you solve the bass problem by using a pair of subs with a high crossover frequency.
Hi and thanks and yes
I have alredy got the suggestion to place them under the ceiling
In this way i should get more bass
Not the easiest way i am afraid
I usually place speakers on the side of the display
When i get the sound perfectly centered on the screen i am done
So maybe a decent central sub is the best and easiest solution in the end
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
The KEF LS50 is a soundstaging champ, especially considering its price. Unless your room is small, I think you would prefer not to place them too close to room boundaries otherwise you'll lose soundstage depth and imaging precision.
Hi and thanks and sorry for the late reply
" The KEF LS50 is a soundstaging champ " and i am a soundstage addicted
And it would be nice to understand what makes a speaker a soundstaging champ, one of the most wonderful effect with stereo systems
But this would require a separate discussion
Staying in topic i understand that the room has a renforcing effect on the bass and i do not know exactly the measurement conditions for that graph but i do not think it was a anechoic chamber, i think a normal home listening room.
But to end i think that a nice full-scale piano recording tells a lot of things about the potential and bandwidth of a playback system.
The more realistic the piano the better the system, as always
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
"I have alredy got the suggestion to place them under the ceiling."
I can just imagine trying to hoist those big KEF's onto scaffolding to try to get them close to the ceiling. My back aches just thinking about it. Not what I was saying.
Rather, you can use (distance to) the room's boundaries to flatten the bass, lower mid-range response of any speaker by taking into account "the Allison Effect."
1. http://forums.musicplayer.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=693960
2. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/1995_articles/dec95/boundaryeffect.html
3. http://www.musicanddesign.com/Boundary_reflections.html
Most any modern standmount being made today (at least those that I'm aware of) will allow for crossover to a subwoofer at a much lower point than 80 hz. As you imply, one must consider the combined rolloff characteristics of both subwoofers and main speakers.
Any of my PPSL designs will do it.
I was at a friend's house last night listening to my latest PPSL effort (with quad 12's), I was stunned at how well they integrated with the mids and HF, and we compared a new JBL HF waveguide with their Be compression driver with the best EV horn and driver.
Hi and thanks for confirming the feasibility of the idea
I think an active crossover is absolutely needed because the cut on the satellites must be very sharp
Than the bass could be blended withe them with some tests to find the best result.
I tend to prefer closed box maybe with a bigger driver
any 15" woofer should be able to reach 200 Hz i think.
Then i am sure i would start to hear something realistic even for piano
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
A single pair of these 12's will reach 25hz in room, and be over 100dB/2.83V/1M.Two-way with 8 and round horn with JBL/BMS driver that might satisfy you.
Big EV stuff with JBL 4508 cinema boxes with Eminence Magnum drivers.
These JBL cinema waveguides (on top of the 4508 cinema boxes) with their Beryllium drivers sounded incredible!
Tri-amped with Nakamich Stasis on the HF, AB International on mids, and Crest on the low end.
Edits: 12/02/14
Hi and great creations indeed
I have no doubt that i could hear a very realistic piano from any of these
But i have learned some lessons:
1) bigger drivers are needed
2) professional speakers can be just perfect even for classical music
Actually the famous VOT where pro speakers in the end
Like also Klipsch ones.
Space is a big constraint in my case.
Only second to neighbours.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Size?
A sub might be a 2' cube, or smaller (if you can live with less efficiency).
The tops can be quite small if crossed above 100hz of so. I used to build a small 6-1/2" two-way with a Vifa waveguide tweeter. I played them for a friend in his 30' x 30' garage with two dual 15 PPSL in a single stack below 100hz, they could bring you to your knees (80W GAS Son of Ampzilla on the tops, 100W Sherwood receiver on the subs).
Hi and sorry for the late reply and very interesting as usual
This is indeed my idea in the end ... two nice satellites (cut off freq up to debate) above two bass boxes
Many Companies do this like Wilson Audio (love and dream about them) does with the Watt and Puppy speakers.
But about your design i strongly prefer front firing woofers like in the Puppy for instance
I could not explain why but i prefer this solution.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
The Wilson are fine for what they are (a friend of mine is a Wilson dealer).
PPSL has less distortion though, I have made units as small as two 8's (AudioPro made a dual 17cm unit).
Hi and thanks a lot again
More than the specific speaker i was referring to the direct firing woofers
Also just one 10" of very good quality could be enough in my case
I have come to the conclusion, based more on a feeling than on math, that to get the very low bass a big room is also needed
This is not my case ... hopefully in the future
As i said just one very good 10" per side under nice satellites should work fine adding some body to instruments
But front firing ... every time i listened to side firing woofers i did not like the effect at all
Or also woofers mounted horizontally leave me much perplexed like in the speakers depicted
Thanks a lot indeed again.
Kind regards,
bg
Sorry to reply to myself
The evidence is in the longevity of a concept
The Tannoy DC for instance is a very robust concept ... and it is longlasting (i would say even neverending)
A very good speaker of the past is still very wanted now, given that the transducer are still in good conditions of course
Thanks a lot to everyone for the extremely interesting and valuable advice.
Kind regards,
bg
The alnico Tannoy DC 12's from decades ago are quite good, I was a dealer for them.
The 10's sounded nasal, the 15's lacked the midrange detail the 12's had.
With a PPSL woofer they would sound quite good.
The PPSL launched the wave from the center of the front of the box, not the side, and the woofer frames are in the vertical plane (not horizontal like the KEF).
AudioPro, M&K, EAW, TAD, etc, make PP with front-mounted drivers, no slot. The slot allows the benefits of loweer distortion to extend higher in frequency by about an octave.
Hi and thank you very much again
But i have a simple question
What is bad in just a 12"-15" woofer in a box design ?
I understand i will not get the very low bass
But also the calculation should be very basic with the right design software
And there is always the equalization to gain a little more
Why study complicated designs ?
I like the cinema speakers ... they are very very basic in their design and they deliver
Maybe the problem is to be able to build the right cabinet with all the bracing and select the right driver
Why not keep things simple ?
When i see speakers like the Kef with woofers mounted horizontally (!!!???) ... why this ???
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 12/09/14
"What is bad in just a 12"-15" woofer in a box design ?"
Distortion.
"I understand i will not get the very low bass"
Incorrect.
"Why study complicated designs ?"
Less distortion.
"I like the cinema speakers ... they are very very basic in their design and they deliver"
See link to TAD cinema push-pull loudspeakers.
"Maybe the problem is to be able to build the right cabinet with all the bracing and select the right driver"
True, no matter what the design is.
"Why not keep things simple ?"
PPSL is very simple.
"When i see speakers like the Kef with woofers mounted horizontally (!!!???) ... why this ???"
Cosmetics, they wanted a narrow cabinet.
Hi ... found this in the Pioneer site about the bass speaker ...
" TSC-1118SW
The TSC-1118SW is a single 18" modular cinema subwoofer speaker system capable of delivering wall-shaking output with a frequency range extending down to 20Hz.
The volume and tuning technologies within the enclosure are designed to optimize low-end response for cinema applications.
The result is a cabinet that essentially exceeds the needed bandpass and allows for extended power bandwidth in ultra-low frequency. "
looks quite traditional to me ... maybe a bass reflex ?
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
It is a bass reflex design, the variant sometimes called "slot loaded."
Used to have a pair—was an idiot to sell them.
Hi again an thanks a lot for the precious advice
When i see this huge high quality cinema speakers i start to salivate
Wonderful ...
I will study the enclosure of these TAD ... strange indeed.
i cannot see clearly the cabinet
Anyway the bass box looks quite traditional ... isn't it ?The Kef for me are ridiculous ... the low section i mean
I ma sure that the rest instead is very beautiful and sound also gorgeous
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 12/11/14
I'd agree with those saying large woofers make for the best bass, I prefer a 15" woofer in a BR cab with the vent in front. I have an 18" cab + 2 x 10" with tweeter for my bass guitar, it can shake the house... :)
Hi and thanks a lot for the valuable suggestion
Yes i have understood the size issue.
I am completely convinced now. But i tend to prefer closed boxes a lot.
And maybe a DIY solution could be interesting.
I am only worried by the wood-work.
I could find something and try to stiffened it.
This is a very important aspect ... quality of cabinet.
That could break the sound really.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
just askin.
Hi and this is my next question
To get some advice for very nicely recorded piano pieces
I have here something but i need something very well recorded
A very realistic piano to check for realism that is what matters me most
It is impossibile to test the quality of a system with electronic instruments
But this question i will post in another section of course.
If you have any suggestion the credit card is already vibrating ...
Thanks a lot.
Kind regards,
bg
Try the Kissin recording of Pictures at an exhibition. The dynamics are wonderfully done. I use it often to see how well a system reproduces peaks.
NT
from the Linn 24 bits of xmas is a decent example.
I use a pro Beyma sm115k 15 inch woofer in a 125l bass reflex enclosure, with an active sub amp, crossing over at 50Hz, to complement the bass horns of my Klisch LaScala. Big advantage of (well chosen) pro woofers, with their big magnets and cloth surround, they are less prone to sound "slow" than a heavy cone with rubber surround, even if the latter ultimately would most likely reach a bit deeper.
Such a driver, even if you have some carpenter make the box for you, will cost you much, much less than same performance from a ready-made product...
Hi and thanks for the valuable advice
Actually i am looking also at the PA speakers that can be found around
The last octave would create problems with the neighbours i think
Kind regards,
bg
One man's "best bass" is another's "that's a piece of crap"...
Having said, I can say that the "best bass" that I have ever heard was a Hartley 24" subwoofer in a transmission-line cab between a pair of Sound Lab panels at my mentor's house. The bottom end out of that combo (can't remember the amp driving the Hartley) and the record playing (Mickey Hart's Dafos, and the track, "The Gates of Dafos") was enough to not only rattle us, but crack the plaster on the wall behind them!
YMMV.
Dman
Analog Junkie
Hi and that Hartley 24" subwoofer is huge indeed
I can believe that the bass was immense
I have no hopes to be able to place in my room
I have to stick with more human speakers.
But i understand the size does matter.
Kind regards,
bg
Wish I could remember which models the Sound Lab speakers were. They were huge, floor to ceiling jobs, driven by my Mentor's own tube amps- 150 watts, Class A SET, Dual mono monsters (four chassis- 2 audio only and 2 PSUs!)!
The source was one of the upper end Micro-Seiki 'tables (something-1500?), Fidelity Research Arm, and (IIRC) either a Monster or Ortofon MC. Preamp and step up were his own designs as well (all tube of course, even the MC stage).
The only other recording I heard on that system was a Virgil Fox record (Crystal Cathedral?). Bottom end down to 7hz. IIRC...
Dman
Analog Junkie
About 5 or 6 years ago at the late HPs home, the Scaena speakers with 2 18" woofers per side playing the volcano track on the Lost World CD. Everything was shaking, our guts could feel it, HP's favorite cup fell off a shelf and broke and 3 of us were waiting with bulging eyes waiting for flying woofers that luckily never came. It was loud. It was deep(below 20 Hz according to HP). But it was beautifully tight and controlled and defined. Show time with great fidelity. And nothing since then has come close.
Hi and thanks for the interesting experience
I would look at 12" or 15" PA sub to use with a pair of nice bookshelf
I will not get the last octave but much better than now for sure
Kind regards,
bg
Just remember, a LOT of PA "subwoofers" are in fact useless for real subwoofer duties. Most of them are tuned to give max SPL at frequencies from 45Hz to 100Hz.
A Beyma sm115k woofer is designed to reach lower than most 15inch pro woofers. There are some equivalent drivers from JBL but they're waaaaay more expensive. If you go Pro, you really need to be careful wich driver you choose!
By the way, the woofers of the Scaenas in the box have a resonance around 180 Hz, the box is acoustically small. The woofers are powered and equalized with a 12 Db/octave rising response. This makes for very tight bass because all of it is below resonance. But it requires huge amps and drivers that can take lots of continuous power. But the technique does allow a much smaller box than standard types of loadings. The older Pipedreams and some McIntosh speakers also used this technique.
They produce very clean, pure, low distortion bass over a relatively wide bandwidth. Aside from JL Audio, they are the only 12" sealed sub I've ever heard that can deliver real output at 20 Hz and even below without massive distortion. They also have very low group delay which supposedly provides good transient performance and musicality, although the audibility of group delay is debated. The standard F12 has a stiff metal cone driver which is better for HT. I have the F12G version which has a paper cone GR Research driver which is superior for music (at least in theory - I haven't compared the two).
The only drawback is that they are totally overkill for my 13x16' room and I have to place them away from walls and/or use equalization to control room gain, otherwise the low bass is excessive. They were more comfortable and flexible about placement when used in my larger living room.
I've always looked at the pictures with awe. The Rythmik subwoofers sure look good. Why do paper cones make better subwoofers for music? My present speaker uses aluminum diaphragms for all its drivers and it is the best sounding speaker for music I've ever owned.
Thanks,
John
I haven't heard the F12 with the Aluminum cone woofer, so I can only repeat the advice I got from Rythmik, which is to go with the GR driver for a music-only system. According to Rythmik, the GR (paper cone) driver offers better low level dynamics. It also has a more extended response at the top of the frequency range so it is a better choice if you're using higher crossover frequencies. I also read opinions from other Rythmik owners who think the GR driver has better transient response or sounds "faster".
The advantages of the GR driver are due to its low cone mass. The Al cone woofer is heavier, so it will be somewhat less efficient and require more NFB correction via the servo. But it's also stiffer, so it will remain pistonic at higher SPL than the paper driver.
Rythmik isn't making a general claim that paper drivers are better for music. Obviously, cone material is just one design consideration. But they do think that the F12G is their best sub for audiophiles.
I really like the looks of that aluminum cone, though. Oh, well. Such is life!
JE,
a REL subwoofer would be a very nice addition to those 3.7 loudspeakers!
Piano is often the instrument that crosses many a speaker off my list of contenders.
Hi and this is important.
So a good piano recording can tell many things of a system
The search is on .... i am looking for suggestions
I remember some Mark Levinson recordings of piano pieces
I have to check better
Thanks a lot
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 12/01/14
Someone suggested below that they like to hear the piano recording from another room. At Soundhounds where I bought my Audio Note J/SPe speakers a decade back I was listening to the AN E. Soundhounds has a partition in the center of their big entrance and I was playing piano music. A woman popped round and was shocked to not see an actual pianist. She herself being a concert pianist.
In Hong Kong I auditioned an AN E with Shindo/AN amps and the owner who used to own Wilson Audio is a concert pianist for the Chinese Orchestra and piano teacher.
The piano is practically THE reason I bought the AN E and before that the AN J.
This however doesn't mean they have the "deepest" bass response because they don't. If you want to play movie soundtracks at high levels and hear a tank knock down a building then I'd be looking at two large subwoofers. Some of those subs are jaw dropping pain inducing bass monsters. A whole lot of fun I must say. I could always add such beasts down the road but I can be involved in a movie without the sound effects so it's low priority and most music doesn't really need it. plus the whole integration issue...
...the room.Rooms impose significant peak-and-dip patterns on the woofer's output. These peak-and-dip patterns are a lot more drastic than the relatively minor differences between one good speaker system and another. While it's possible to change the patterns by moving speakers or listening position, it's not possible to eliminate them by placement alone.
It's possible to equalize away the peak-and-dip patterns in a small area, but then the response will actually be worse at other locations within the room.
One effective solution is to use multiple small subwoofers distributed asymmetrically around the room. Each will produce a different peak-and-dip pattern at any given listening position in the room, and the sum of these multiple dissimilar peak-and-dip patterns is far smoother than any one of them alone. So we have significantly smoother bass response not only in the sweet spot, but throughout the room. Credit to Earl Geddes for the idea, which I use with his permission.
Note that smooth bass = "fast" bass, because it is peaks in the response that make the bass sound "slow". I have customers reporting measured in-room response of +/- 3 dB across the bass region down to 20 Hz without EQ, so the technique works.
One other factor that should be taken into account is the general bass-boosting trend from boundary reinforcement. The effective angle into which the woofer radiates goes down as we go down in frequency because the distance to room boundaries starts to become a small enough fraction of a wavelength that the reflections add in-phase, until we get all the way down to the pressure zone. There is an argument for voicing the woofer system so that its native frequency response is approximately the inverse of this boundary-induced room gain. Sealed boxes generally come closer to this "room gain complementary" behavior than vented boxes do, but a vented box specifically designed for this comes even closer still.
Some people are skeptical of this approach, intuitively sensing that multiple subs = multiple arrival times = blurring of impact. This is not the case because the arrivals still occur within a much smaller fraction of a wavelength than our ears can resolve at low frequencies. The ear has poor time (and therefore phase) resolution at long wavelengths, but still has very good ability to tell when one sound is louder than another, so that's why this approach concentrates on the frequency response.
Aside from upper harmonic content, impact is largely a function of response smoothness (peaks sound like bloat) and woofer motor strength. When the response is smooth and the woofer(s) are strong, so is the impact. And often the combined motor strength of several small woofers is greater than the motor strength of a single uberwoofer.
I make no claims of "best", just that I think the above are valid answers to under-appreciated real-world effects which have a big impact on sound quality and ought to be addressed.
Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.
Duke
Me being a dealer makes you leery?? It gets worse... I'm a manufacturer too.
Edits: 11/30/14 11/30/14
Below 100 Hz, the elephant in the room is...
...the room.
I generally agree. For most aspects of bass performance, the room itself and the matching of the appropriate speaker to the room are the most important factors. I think the exceptions are bass dynamics/impact and extension, which are equally or more dependent on the speaker. But when it comes to bass frequency response, clarity, pitch definition, and transient response, I would take a lesser speaker in a better room than vice versa.
Rooms impose significant peak-and-dip patterns on the woofer's output. These peak-and-dip patterns are a lot more drastic than the relatively minor differences between one good speaker system and another. While it's possible to change the patterns by moving speakers or listening position, it's not possible to eliminate them by placement alone.
It's possible to equalize away the peak-and-dip patterns in a small area, but then the response will actually be worse at other locations within the room.
In my experience, applying equalization to reduce a peak associated with a room mode benefits all positions within the room to varying degrees. Same is true if you're applying equalization to reduce the effect of boundary reinforcement due to placement of a subwoofer close to a wall. You just want to be careful not to over-optimize for a single location at the sweet spot. It's better to base your corrections on an average from multiple measurements covering the listening area.
But if you're referring to using equalization to correct for a localized problem that is dependent on listening position, then yes I agree it will probably make things worse elsewhere. And I know never to use equalization to boost output in a cancellation null.
One effective solution is to use multiple small subwoofers distributed asymmetrically around the room. Each will produce a different peak-and-dip pattern at any given listening position in the room, and the sum of these multiple dissimilar peak-and-dip patterns is far smoother than any one of them alone. So we have significantly smoother bass response not only in the sweet spot, but throughout the room. Credit to Earl Geddes for the idea, which I use with his permission.
Note that smooth bass = "fast" bass, because it is peaks in the response that make the bass sound "slow". I have customers reporting measured in-room response of +/- 3 dB across the bass region down to 20 Hz without EQ, so the technique works.
I currently use 2 subwoofers in each of my systems, but I have tried using 3 and 4. Going from 2 subs to 4 subs did improve the frequency response in the range from 50-100 Hz, mainly 50-80 Hz because I set the LPF to 70-80 Hz. However, it did not help with the axial modes associated with the length and width of the room. In my downstairs listening room these modes produce strong resonances with long decay times at 35 Hz and 42 Hz, regardless of how many subs I use and where I place them. That's too low for bass trapping to be effective, so equalization is the only way to suppress them.
Another limitation of the Geddes approach is that it doesn't help to address floor to ceiling modes, unless you're willing to set the subs on stands of varying heights. I installed tuned panel traps on the ceiling to eliminate the peak due to the first order height axial mode.
So while I agree that the Geddes/LeJeune approach does work, I would say it's an effective tool of the trade that can complement or in some cases supplant other tools such as equalization or bass trapping. I still think the starting point should be appropriate speaker selection and optimized placement, followed by bass trapping to the degree permitted by space & decor limitations. And then the problems that remain can be dealt with via multiple subs, or equalization, or a combination of both.
Some people are skeptical of this approach, intuitively sensing that multiple subs = multiple arrival times = blurring of impact. This is not the case because the arrivals still occur within a much smaller fraction of a wavelength than our ears can resolve at low frequencies. The ear has poor time (and therefore phase) resolution at long wavelengths, but still has very good ability to tell when one sound is louder than another, so that's why this approach concentrates on the frequency response.
My experience is consistent with that.
However, I think a bigger concern is the ability to hear the location of the bass when higher crossover frequencies are used. With 4 subs placed around the room, and after setting their relative levels to be equal at the listening position using pink noise, and initially using an 80 Hz crossover, I found the bass range to be somewhat disjointed, with higher bass notes clearly placed within the front soundstage but lower bass notes coming forward and sounding unnaturally close to the listening position. It was less noticeable with a 70 Hz crossover, still less with 60 Hz, and not noticeable with a 50 Hz crossover. I suspect this would not have been an issue if I could have placed all 4 subs in the front half of the room, but doors, pathways, and obstacled prevented me from trying that.
In the end, I have settled on using 2 subs placed in the front 1/3 of the room, fairly extensive built-in room treatments, and parametric eq to address the lowest two room modes. But my downstairs listening room is a difficult space IMHO.
Hi and thanks a lot for the very informative answer
I understand that small rooms are critical
I will just try the sub solution
I have space constraints at present
But i will save this information for better times
I prefer sealed boxes in general even if bass reflex can go lower
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg
...maybe 15 years ago, my neighbor had original Wilson MAXX speakers driven by top of the line Krell electronics including big KR650 mono amps.
Hi and thanks for the reply, great speakers indeed
The bass is quite a challenge in normal flat
It will be a compromise for sure
Kind regards,
bg
it was at 'audio salon' in santa monica california. wilson alexias driven with constellation electronics. room extensively treated with Vicoustic Acoustic Treatments.
disarming performance by the whole system. at full concert loudness, individual instruments could be singled out from the dense instrumentation of a full orchestra. any instrument could be easily followed individually.
this has to be one of the very best audio demonstrations i have witnessed. the bass below 200Hz (the power range) was exemplary.
...regards...tr
it was not wilson alexias but Magico S3s. more than adequate extension to its specified 26Hz.
please exqueeze me for the faux pas.
...regards...tr
Big Wilsons @ Audio Research about 6 years ago. Not the XLF - but the model similar in size and number of drivers. Forget what model it was called back then. Very deep when called for, but also very fast and nimble if that makes any sense.
Thanks a lot and great speakers the Wilson
I heard them at a fair and like them a lot indeed
They were one version of the Watt and Puppy i think it is called
The puppy is a nice concept ... i should get more info about it
It could teach me something
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg
I will concur that the Piano is a point of contention for most systems.
The Piano is a 2-fold instrument, both, melodic & percussive.
I agree that a piano is hard to reproduce. The test for me is to go into an adjoining room and decide if it sounds like a piano is in the room. However not much of a piano's notes come through my subwoofer..
> The test for me is to go into an adjoining room and decide if it sounds like a piano is in the room.
I've done this and I know what you mean, but I'm not sure it proves anything. I want my speakers to sound like a piano when I'm sitting in my listening chair in from of my speakers. The Thiels impress me more this way than any other speaker I've owned and I think it is mostly due to their point source, linear phase midrange/tweeter. As far as deep bass is concerned, the low notes on a piano do exhibit much greater realism with my subwoofer engaged rather than turned off. Piano is one instrument that sounds awesome on the Thiels in conjunction with a subwoofer.
Best regards,
John Elison
Hi i think it depends on your main speakers
If you have for instance a pair of B6W 801 much of the piano will come through them i guess
I heard them and i like them very much indeed but they need also a big power amp to sing.
Kind regards,
bg
If it can play piano with no frequency null points or dead spots, that's how I judge a speaker. Also piano can have a nasty ringing effect if the speakers are poorly designed in the crossover. Comes out REAL easy.
The irony is I really don't care for piano.
charles
Hi and thanks a lot for the advice
I really have to select some great piano recordings then
They could be a great testing tool indeed
From what i have gathered here if i will get a only decent piano in my room i will be done. Just decent is what i am looking for.
" The irony is I really don't care for piano "
sorry but this i cannot believe
The piano is THE instrument ...
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 11/30/14
"...if i will get a only decent piano in my room i will be done."Hey Beppe, I "think" what you meant was a decent reproduction of the sound of a piano - or, maybe you meant a real piano! Either way, your comment reminded me of being back in music school. I knew a piano professor who bought a nine foot Steinway for his living room at home. His room was about the size of your room, or maybe a bit smaller!
Also, at the Institut de Hautes Etudes Musicales in Montreux, we had a Bosendorfer Imperial piano with the extra augmented fifth of keys - going down to the C below the A of a typical piano (97 keys instead of 88). I did some microphone comparisons of various instruments, including that piano. I still have the master tape, recorded on a Stellavox Sp7 at 15 ips 2-track. Unfortunately, it's on Ampex 407 tape, and being from 1974, it no doubt has sticky shed by now, so I'll have to bake it before playing it. I think I'll do that this Spring - my tape baking oven is feeling neglected!
:)
Edits: 12/01/14
Hi and yes i meant a speaker of normal size but able to give at least an idea of a real piano
A normal bookshelf cannot go that low .. but with a good sub i think that the feeling could be much more realistic
A big woofer per side is the solution i think
a real piano would be nice of course .. but i am not that good at music
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
My late wife had a Steinway B (7 foot model, one size smaller than a concert grand). I made a number of recordings of this piano over the years. When I got Snell Model A III speakers it was possible to record and playback this piano in our livingroom to a very high degree of accuracy, with one exception: the bottom three notes were not realistic. This wasn't much of a problem, because very little piano music uses these notes. Of course, the Snells were large floor standers, not bookshelfs.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Hi and very interesting
I will try to make some live recordings
I am sure i will find someone with a piano available for some test
That could be very telling.
Today very good digital recorders can be bought with little money.
Thanks for the advice.
Kind regards,
bg
The recordings I made used a pair of AKG C451 microphones and a two track Tandburg tape recorder that ran at 7.5 IPS. You can find these at my web site (studio recordings).
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
Hi and thanks a lot for the very interesting link
I will listen to them on my current set up and report
I am leaving soon for 2 days business trip
But i have all the weekend in front of me.
Thanks again for the kind and helpful advice.
Kind regards,
bg
Actually you can use almost any piano piece. Good, bad, what ever! Almost any piano recording will bring out the weaknesses of a system. As long as it uses a large range of octaves. Demonstrates speed, tightness, spikes, null zones, dynamics, imagine - geeze - the works!
charles
Hi and thanks for the advice
I am using the one in the picture currently
It seems very well recorded
It would be nice to have even simple recordings of piano sounds just to test the bandwidth of the system
I should find some friends with a piano and buy a portable recorder
Thanks again
Kind regards,
bg
Hi and thanks a lot for the very important confirmation
Just to stay on the topic my next move will be to select some very good piano recordings to use as a test for the systems
I understand that a real piano goes very low and with big power
I have heard a realistic piano from a pair of huge JBL monitors that i have no hope to place in my small room even if i had the money
But i am looking for a nice compromise
Maybe the solution bookshelves plus sub (i would prefer two anyway) is the more reasonable in the end
Thanks a lot for the advice
Kind regards,
bg
I think the best bass I've had was a properly aligned Dynaco A-25 woofer, the Seas 25F-EW woofer. Now it didn't go crazy low like 22hz. But it did go to 35Hz or so with no problems in the right cabinet.
But here is why I posted this woofer. It is THEE most musical and natural sounding woofer I have ever heard in that range. Just sounds like real music should sound like.
Being this is basically vintage I don't expect many to agree. Considering subs and other bass products available, the humble 10" woofer is but a memory.
charles
nt
.
Freak out...Far out...In out....
Hi and thanks a lot for the interesting suggestion
I looked in the web and found the woofer parameters and they are really interesting
A robust 10" should be a great option for a decent bass
Or some nice subs. I guess the best ones will be quite expensive.
But the sub seems a logical choice with a pair of nice bookshelves.
Kind regards,
bg
to be MUCH like the sound of quad 57s. i stacked twp pair of a25s and EQed them down to bring down the fat sound to flat sound. oh so nice but the a25s never imaged well. still, VERY nice bass, fast and tight.
...regards...tr
Vandersteen 5As.
In room equalization is a good and wonderful thing.
Small speakers are often impressive, but they remain small speakers.
Keeping your stand mounted speakers, I would suggest two small sub-woofers each one placed in a corner to start with.
In today's speaker market I would go with a good monitor subwoofer combo.
Simple and properly done sounds wonderful. VERY hard to better with a full multi driver speaker. After MANY decades of speaker building, buying, horse trading, etc.... My final speaker setup is:
Zaph Audio SR-71
Subwoofer with Keiger amp and 10" Dayton driver in a Paradigm box I salvaged.
I would research the Magnapan mini system. Looks interesting. But also look into kits Madisound offers. You will usually get high quality drivers and crossover parts. Much better than brand name speakers can offer for price point.
Hi and thanks a lot
It is indeed what i am thinking to do
I have to study the market more.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Most authoritive, defined, and satisfying bass I've heard in a "human" sized speaker.
But I haven't them all.
Check out the Thiel CS 3.7 model.
Hi and thanks for the kind suggestion
I read from Stereophile " a 10" woofer, and a 10" passive radiator "
and the woofer looks really serious. What a beast !
I can imagine a great bass indeed.
I read an article about the high quality of the Thiel speakers.
I liked them even if i had another budget in mind.
Great speakers. Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Another thought,
who could have thought of a passive radiator driver be integrated into the over-all speaker design? It is very impressive indeed!
Hi personally i would prefer just one very good active woofer in a closed box
Maybe i will lose something in the very bass but control is everything for me ... i like a very solid low end
But the actice driver looks really impressive indeed.
And the cabinet construction must be exceptional.
Great speakers.
Kind regards,
bg
My pleasure.
There are obviously different ways to measure woofers. The Thiel CS3.7 woofer measures 7.5-inches across the aluminum moving diaphragm. The hole in the half-inch thick aluminum front baffle is 9-inches in diameter and the speaker mounts to the inside face of the baffle. I suspect the frame of the raw driver might measure 10-inches across but it bolts to the inside of a 9-inch hole in the baffle. The bottom of the speaker enclosure is removable so the woofer and passive radiator can be installed from the inside.
Unfortunately, the Thiel CS3.7 speaker is no longer being manufactured. The people who bought out Thiel moved the factory headquarters from Lexington, KY to Nashville, TN and discontinued production of the CS3.7 speaker. It's really a shame because this is one of the best sounding speakers I have ever heard. I'm lucky to own them. I bought mine directly from the factory a few months before the company was sold.
Hi and yes they are gorgeous speakers indeed
I read an article mentioning how expensive were to build and the margin low
I am sure they must sound spectacular
I like the coaxial, the thick front baffle ... the metal drivers
You are lucky to own them.
Kind regards,
bg
I own Thiel CS3.7 speakers and they are exceptional speakers -- the best I have ever owned and some of the best I have ever heard. However, I wouldn't call them a speaker for deep bass. They were rated Class "A" by Stereophile with the caveat of restricted extreme low frequencies. At any rate, the Thiels in my listening room require a subwoofer to augment bass below 60-Hz.
My subwoofer is placed against a rear wall behind my listening position in such a manner that it's approximately the same distance from my ears as the Thiels in front. My subwoofer produces powerful response down to 30-Hz, which seems low enough for my purposes. I set its volume control to blend seamlessly with the Thiels and you don't even realize there's a subwoofer in the system. However, when I turn it off, the deep bass disappears. When it's turned on, all the music including the deep bass sounds like it's coming from the Thiels.
You can see my two black 12-inch powered subs in the picture below just to the right of the curtains in a backwards "L" configuration. One sub is on its side with the other standing on top of it.
Having to use a subwoofer for the lowest lows forces us into experimentation and discovery.
Properly set up dipole bass drivers, while harder to accommodate because of the required huge baffle shapes needed and because of the amount of space they require, really do sound good to my ears. They blend well with Magnepan dipole speakers, of course.
If you have a fairly big room to work with and you don't mind the imposing look of one (or possibly two) 15" drivers per channel, check out the Hawthorne Audio "Augie" woofers. The bigger, the better...
Hi and thanks a lot for the reply
I should have said better that my question is for normal size speakers
Something like B&W 801 that by the way were used also in recording studio
This is a very important endorsement in general
I live in a small flat but i would like to listen to a realistic piano sometimes ... not to an harpsichord without bottom frequencies.
Thanks a lot anyway.
Kind regards,
bg
... I'd rather work with subwoofers and smaller standmount speakers than with full range towers. With large towers in a small room, the placement options are too limited.
In a small room, you are forced to place your towers in or near the corners of the room. And in many small rooms, the corners are the worst place for your bass drivers to be. Smoothness of bass response is an important concern if you want realistic piano sound.
You will probably be using some EQ to help smooth the bass out, but EQ primarily deals with bass spikes while leaving the bass dips mostly unfixed. Subwoofers allow for so many more placement options than full range towers do, which is an especially important asset when your room is small and your goal is smooth bass integration.
What is the size room size?
Hi and thanks again for the valuable advice
My present room is about in feet 14*18*10
Maybe with this size very low bass is out of reach _ i read something about this but i did not understand well.
Yes size of the speakers is really and issue
Towers could be an option but usually they sport small woofers and i do not like side firing woofers at all
So it seems that sub-woofers can be the best solution
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Edits: 11/30/14
I am in a 15 x 12 room
Maggie 3.6's passively bi-amped with a pair of Berning ZH270 amps. -3db at 25hz. Piano sounds just great. The big difference in the bass was the Berning amps
Alan
I've heard similar. I used to own Maggie 1.6 speakers in a similar sized room and I always credited the superb bass quality to the dipole dispersion pattern. Dipole bass just sounds better.
I'd call your room "medium-sized" rather than "small". When a room is much smaller than approx. 10 X 15 X 8, subwoofers and standmounts become the smarter choice.
Since your room is medium-sized, one option to consider might be multiple small subwoofers placed at various points across the room, for smooth and deep bass across a large listening window. It's nice to hear piano sound that fills the room - wide and deep, rather than small and narrow...
Hi and thanks again
Honestly i was not thinking to the multiple subs solution
But i can understand the wide sound window they can provide
My idea is to send to the sub the range from 150 down and use a pair of nice bookshelfs above that
More a bass than a real sub (i think sub is only for very low freq usually below 60 ?)
Kind regards,
bg
You might want to use bipole subwoofers if you plan on stacking small bookshelf speakers on top of the subwoofers. Because of the opposing drivers, bipole subs cancel out their own cabinet vibrations. Which means, less mechanical interference with the bookshelf speakers on top.Unless you stack the bookshelf speakers on top of the subwoofers (or at least keep them very close to their subwoofers), crossing over at 150 hz might make bass info above 80 hz or so seem like a separate source of sound, audibly disconnected from the soundfield created by the main speakers.
Edits: 11/30/14 11/30/14
That's easy, JBL 2241 in 8 cubic foot enclosure.
At the request of the Moderators,
This space has been deleted
Hi and thanks for the interesting reply
I like very much indeed JBL woofers sound
I guess this is a DIY project ? What about a commercial unit ?
I am not that good at DIY.
Thanks anyway
Kind regards,
bg
JBLPro Cinema line
Check out the 4641
At the request of the Moderators,
This space has been deleted
Hi ! a 18" ?? this is big indeed !
Of course i love this big speakers. Sometimes i see some on the 2nd hand market coming from some cinemas ... they must be just terrifying in a home situation. In the exciting sense of course.
I have never had a speaker with a woofer bigger than 8" ... maybe this explains why i have never heard a realistic piano at home
I was thinking to something max 12"
I do not need the lowest bass just a robust honest bass
A 12" should be enough. One per channel in a sub.
I have to study the market sector.
Thanks again.
Kind regards,
bg
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: