But I don't like the bass inside my head. The sound will be between my ears. It's similar to headphones. Sounds very unrealistic.
- Elias
Yes. Maybe not in yours but it is in mine.
This is also what Griesinger explains about bass externalisation, as without interaural fluctuations there will be inside the head locatedness.
Apparently there is no fluctuations in the nearfield bass since the sound remain inside my head.
I could add to my previous post the sometimes I got inside the head bass with a monopole bass as well. After moving to dipoles I don't recall it ever happened again.
It must be because the signal modulations are reproduced better with dipole bass so apparently the interaural fluctuations are introduced.
- Elias
It must be because the signal modulations are reproduced better with dipole bass so apparently the interaural fluctuations are introduced.
- Elias
How did the near field configuration look like?
Don't know what specific paper of Griesinger you're talking about but his stereo bass "installation" creates such "fluctuations" just at one or two single (!) frequencies. That should be the one and only reason for externalized bass?
And where is the left channel located ?
It sounds like you have very unsymmetrical system, which in itself can generate those fluctuations.
Like you suggested single mono bass behind the head. If you stop and think about it, and recalling that we are talking about near field so room effect is diminished, it will generate identical ear signals so the only change for perception is inside the head. If there would be reflections like in a natural sound field the bass will likely be externalised.
It also depends somehow on the signal as well. In some recordings there might be reverberation down to bass range which helps in this matter. I remember synthetic bass was the worse stuck inside the head all the time.
- Elias
Do a web seach on TL measurement (Transmission loss versus frequency) or STC measurement (sound transmission class, the single number rating of walls as a sound barrier). Since the transmission loss definition is power transmitted vs. power impinging on the wall the measurement and calculation is a little complicated.
The acoustical testing facility will have a large reverberent room that they will bisect by building the sample wall. Generally they will measure reverberation time on the noise source side and also on the receiving side, typically at 3 spots in each room. This will allow them to calculate the absorption present in each room. Knowing SPL and absorption they can calculate acoustic power in each room. That allows calculating the difference (in dB) or the ratio in powers which is the transmission loss.
The acoustics of each chamber is key. For example, if your neighbor has fairly dead acoustics in his room then the sound power that makes it into his space will not build up to as high a level as it would if his space is reverberent. So a wall rating isn't as simple as dB on one side vs dB on the other.
For the particular case of having standing waves in the transmitting room, then yes, transmission will be higher for frequencies where the pressure at the wall is maximised by the standing wave. I don't recall any acoustics texts going into that, but be aware that the industry is primarily concerned with voice frequency transmission and very low frequency measurements (below 125) are seldom given. This is changing slowly with the popularity of home theater.
There is lots of info on the web on wall construction to achieve a needed STC. Mass is key and many wall systems follow a mass, compliance, mass ideal with staggered studs or flexible straps to give decoupling between the inner and outter layer. Resonances are also an issue with TL heavily degraded by coincidence frequencies or panel resonances. An ideal limp mass barrier would have maximum TL in proportion to its mass, with a 6dB per Octave characteristic (higher at mid frequencies) and would be resonance free.
David S.
Dipole? Monopole? Listening distance? EQ?
We're talking about sound reproduction in acoustically small rooms not sound production - your own words.
It might be "Envelopment and Small Room Acoustics". Look at bottom of page 9 and 10, where he mentions in-the-head localization.
Yes, could be that, or one of the several of his papers which also mentions about this. I believe it is in his website.
Dipole, about 0.5m. Behringer
Do you believe the mixer/master engineer intended the bass to be inside the head ?
Thanks David,
I recently moved to a place where sound transmission to the neighbors is much more important, so I actually have been reading in. However, as you already pointed out most information regarding sound isolation concerns speech frequencies, while bass frequencies are actually much more problematic.
What do you think about the multi-sub approach and sound-transmission to the neighbors? In comparison to a single sub, multiple subs in general radiate more sound power for a given level at the listening position, so you might say there will be more transmission. On the other hand the extra power is used to cancel modes.
I recently moved to a place where sound transmission to the neighbors is much more important, so I actually have been reading in. However, as you already pointed out most information regarding sound isolation concerns speech frequencies, while bass frequencies are actually much more problematic.
What do you think about the multi-sub approach and sound-transmission to the neighbors? In comparison to a single sub, multiple subs in general radiate more sound power for a given level at the listening position, so you might say there will be more transmission. On the other hand the extra power is used to cancel modes.
Dipole, about 0.5m. Behringer
Single mono dipole? Orientation? What EQ settings did you apply?
Do you believe the mixer/master engineer intended the bass to be inside the head ?
Of course not and as I already said, I don't get in-head localization like you do. All I get is deep, clean, tight, fast, articulated, ultra-smooth bass - best signal modulation reproduction
Maybe you're running the sub too high? Or it produces too much noise/distortion.
Didn't you find the smoothness of the frequency response quite enjoyable?
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.