There's that, and the lower SPL requirement permits smaller (less expensive) subs as well. OTOH having it (them) out in the middle of the room poses its own problems . . . this is perhaps a case for "under the coffee table" or even "under the seat" subs. Should not be a problem for "sound effects", but integrating with the mains for the best music reproduction might be a bit more difficult . . .
Based on what Markus has shown this solution is a good one for many situations, but it isn't a solution for them all. I would say that in a small apartment situation like yours and Markus's it is ideal. For me, not at all. I do not discount that everyone cannot do what I do, but my interest is in the ultimate, not the compromise (within reason, of course, I too have a budget, although that is seldom the limiting factor. Still there is no sense in just wasting money on things that actually don't improve anything.)
I don't have a near field setup to measure.
I was talking about your room. You've said "I would not expect any significant audible difference from a near field and far field setups if done correctly." I would expect your room is set up correctly. So why not show some in-room measurements that would give us an idea of what can be expected from a properly set up multisub configuration?
Early means less than 30 milliseconds, and has nothing to do with wave length. I think people look st low.freqs the wrong way. That "reflection" of a LF that adds5 ft to the reflected path does not sound like the original with a slight delay like HF sound it just adds to the original with a phase difference. Ie 100 hz would subtract from the original. This is how room modes work. It takes 5 ms for a crest to come out of the speaker.
Markus - I'm not dumb, I knew exactly what you meant. I am not opposed to showing data from my room, but I still don't have any. I did post data from a clients room, you saw that.
Someday I will take some data, but it is just such a hassle lugging in all the equipment and wiring it up. I just don't have the energy for all that. Its a hassle because everything is installed and it all has to be pulled apart to insert the signals etc. to do the tests. I am sure its not difficult for you, but it is fairly difficult for me.
I setup my subs about seven years ago. They are not up to what I could do today with a miniDSP. If I am going to pull it all apart I will do it right. But that means completely rewiring the subs. Someday.
In case you haven't noticed, twiddling with "my gear" is not my thing. I like programming, listening to music, watching movies, etc. I loath setting up measurements and I have to do that periodically for the speakers. I get so tired by doing that, that the idea of lugging it all down into my theater, tearing it all apart, making tons of measurements, putting it all back together again ... it makes me nauseous.
I agree completely. I do not think that people "get" how LF sound in a room works. They continue to imagine this wave moving about the room and then some time later a reflection arrives at the listener. They fail to grasp that the reflection and the direct sound differ by only a few degrees of the wave. The ear does not yet even know that there is a frequency present before the reflections arrive. This is one reason why there is absolutely no similarity between the way a small room works at LFs and how it works at higher frequencies.
Yeah... my "other" hobby...
Here's an 8 1/2# emerald chunk I found last week in North carolina
John L.
Right up out of the red clay, aye John
I-77's road bed is rich in gold too
Find any calcified wood yet?
Almost
Actually... it was a pegmatite in the Spruce Pine district
John L.
Right up out of the red clay, aye John
I-77's road bed is rich in gold too
Find any calcified wood yet?
Actually... it was a pegmatite in the Spruce Pine district
John L.
There are two common terms that often get mixed up: "near field" and "direct field". The "near field is indeed given in terms of wavelengths (inversely if I recall carrectly) and things closer to a source than about one wavelength can be very different than farther away. The "direct field" is that field that is dominated by the direct sound of the source, i.e. the environment contributes very little. The "direct field" is not highly dependent on the wavelength, but more so on the characteristics of the room.
Markus calls his subs "near field" when in fact the characteristic he is looking for (suppression of room modes) is actually a characteristic of the "direct field". In his case the two are basically synonymous so it doesn't matter, but that is in fact more coincidental than deliberate.
Perhaps Markus should correct his terminology.
Markus calls his subs "near field" when in fact the characteristic he is looking for (suppression of room modes) is actually a characteristic of the "direct field". In his case the two are basically synonymous so it doesn't matter, but that is in fact more coincidental than deliberate.
Perhaps Markus should correct his terminology.
^
Isn't that just quibbling over semantics? The direct field exists even in a concert hall. It's just burried under reflections. Near field is used as you describe it. It is also used in mixing where it describes a setup that has the speakers placed very close.
But if it helps the discussion then I'll call it differently. What terminology should I use?
Isn't that just quibbling over semantics? The direct field exists even in a concert hall. It's just burried under reflections. Near field is used as you describe it. It is also used in mixing where it describes a setup that has the speakers placed very close.
But if it helps the discussion then I'll call it differently. What terminology should I use?
Markus
I said that in your case it was semantic, but if you want to be accurate call them "Direct Field subs". Then there is no ambiguity.
Clearly there was confusion or the question would not have come up.
I would say that the "mixing" situation you describe is also ambiguous and not what is meant. It should be "direct field". When the sound reinforcement "array" guys use "near field" they mean "near field", not "direct field". Whenever you mean something that is not frequency dependent then it cannot be "near field".
Words matter - (spalling not so much)
I said that in your case it was semantic, but if you want to be accurate call them "Direct Field subs". Then there is no ambiguity.
Clearly there was confusion or the question would not have come up.
I would say that the "mixing" situation you describe is also ambiguous and not what is meant. It should be "direct field". When the sound reinforcement "array" guys use "near field" they mean "near field", not "direct field". Whenever you mean something that is not frequency dependent then it cannot be "near field".
Words matter - (spalling not so much)
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.