|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Bass Reproduction in Audio System posted by Frantzm on May 24, 2003 at 11:59:45:
Subs are difficult at best to integrate with dipole radiators.Also, in most classical music, and live works such a jazz, blues and others, their are phase cues even in the lowest of faithful bass reproduction, that suggests stereo reproduction. Unrealistic, is when you have tympani and concert bass drum on opposing channels and their phase interaction provides realism that a single sub could never match, as the single woofer cone cannot travel in two directions at the same time.
Their is talk about dipole subwoofers that do mate, however, I would personally prefer subs be always used in stereo if you find sutable candidates.
I was most stunned when I played some programme through watt/puppys that I knew contained stong 22hZ and 19hZ tones (pipe organ) and they were inaudible. Certainly you are correct that loudspeakers in that range should at least let you know when those frequencies are in the programme. When I record live pipe organs, a single sub will cancel in many areas where stereo subs will not, due to the interaction and timing of the reproduction and recording.
For me, I have plenty of live recordings that easily reach below 20hZ but 16hZ is the lowest fundamental I can reproduce with authority in my system and I am pleased with extention to that point. Anything below that simply wastes power with this system.
Audio AsylumŽ Signature line: Hearing is believing.
Follow Ups:
Hi Rob,I am pretty new in here and need some advise . Maybe too simplistic for you. I recently auditioned the KEF Q7 & Q5 speakers paired with the Yam RXV 1300 receiver. The Q7 was obviously better with LF response having a racetrack type of a cone. So bass sounded great.
The receiver has a 80Hz cross over. So I'm wondering if a sub woof is used for audio CDs / stereo the Bass benefits should be seen on the sub woof in which case a speaker with mid range should be OK. What do you suggest ? I am trying to buy the best yet save money on few features and divert that to something else that I will anyway need.
Thanks.
Rags
I personally see no real high fidelity benefit from a single sub in stereophonic reproduction. If you have loudspeakers that cannot reach the lows below about 60hZ, then a single sub will give more extention with them. The Kefs look like they would do fine without the sub. or subs.The caveat:
A single sub woofer system is intended for theater useage in the 5.1 configuration where the mono signal is especially mixed for single subwoofer useage. On SACD useage for the Sub, it really should be a full range speaker for the sub channel. Reason being, I have heard full range mixed within the sub channel.
Plenty of pop music is mixed with mono bass and therefore a single sub on that style of mixing will do fine providing:
A. It mates well with the other speakers and room
B. You take time to find the proper balance once "A" has been rightfully established.
C. That it is a temporary solution until you go with stereo subwoofers.For home theater, a single sub is fine.
For high fidelity 2 channel useage, either stereo subs, or none at all.
The Kent speakers look as though they would give good musical satisfaction without the use of subs.
If you can, separate your system into two modes.
High fidelity useage for 2 channel.
Home theater.Thats how I would approach the situation anyway.
I have separate rooms and separate systems, plus the professional room.
Boy are you dead on.I'd love to extend the LF on my Dunlavy SC-IVs, but to do so properly I feel requires two REVEL-B15s and perhaps a Tact 2.2x
While sticking my 15" TL sub in adds extension, the phase problems generally aren't worth it. (Unless it's Pink, Dr. Dre or such nonsense...)
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: