On other topics I remember (particularly the "stereolith" thread which I liked very much), but stereo bass as well in either config. mentioned?
If so, cool!
(..and yes, then I did miss it. )On other topics I remember (particularly the "stereolith" thread which I liked very much), but stereo bass as well in either config. mentioned?
If so, cool!
Oh your emphasis was on stereo - no I didn't do "near field stereo bass". I just tested near field mono bass. That alone would be an interesting topic for further investigations. Probably nothing this thread is about
Oh your emphasis was on stereo - no I didn't do "near field stereo bass". I just tested near field mono bass. That alone would be an interesting topic for further investigations. Probably nothing this thread is about
..yes, mono near-field I remember (..dipole I believe).
Mono bass near-field (behind the head) is something I've advocated as an alternative to Earl's distributed bass method (..largely because it's cheaper and requires less floor space). Not the same of course, particularly in that it's only good for the single listener, but when equalized it can sound as good (or even better) in that it often provides a more tactile sensation. I've done this in multiple "enclosure" formats, my favorite wasn't dipole - but rather a long folded transmission line with a low fs driver. (..dipole would be optimal for apartment living though.)
Griesinger states that monophonic bass without any ITD undulation results inside the head locatedness in a small room.
I have confirmed this in my room with monophonic bass with monopole speakers and, indeed, the bass is inside your head ! This is not good, not good at all.
- Elias
Exactly, music is not a steady state signal.
That's why I do my analysis in modulation domain, for example:
Elias Pekonen Home Page - Dipole Bass vs Monopole Bass
- Elias
Yes true. The hall sound is perceived during short pauses in music.
Constant steady state sinusoidal tone does not produce hall sound.
The perception goes in foreground and background streams, and reverberation is one of them.
Can I have a third choice?
With a truly steady state signal (say long term pink noise) the only thing the hall can contribute is strength or strength vs. frequency. RT, EDT, early/late ratios, IACC and other standard measures are all about how sound builds up and the decays between our two ears.
As I stated several times, yes, you would probably figure out you were in a warehouse, even with slowly varying music. Still, it is considerably less obvious with slow music than with dynamic music or, especially, voice.
David S
I was reading that with amusement because I did a gig about a week ago in a big, reverberant shed. 100'x100', concrete walls and floor, steel ceiling. Speakers in the center. Wow, it was live!
At one point I was playing a 1000 Hz tone. I stopped it. The sound did not stop! Then about 3 seconds later it died. Wild. You could punch the mute button on the console and nothing would happen for a few seconds - a strange feeling. We were all laughing and taking turns doing it.
Despite that, it was obvious that it was a large, diffuse sound-field, not a small room at all. I'm not sure where the clues lay, but it was obvious. Identifying it as a warehouse blindfolded might have been tough, however.
At one point I was playing a 1000 Hz tone. I stopped it. The sound did not stop! Then about 3 seconds later it died. Wild. You could punch the mute button on the console and nothing would happen for a few seconds - a strange feeling. We were all laughing and taking turns doing it.
Despite that, it was obvious that it was a large, diffuse sound-field, not a small room at all. I'm not sure where the clues lay, but it was obvious. Identifying it as a warehouse blindfolded might have been tough, however.
I don't get in-head localization nor have I heard such reports from others using multisub configurations.
How did your test look like?
Who else besides you disagrees? All current papers and solutions about low frequency optimization in acoustically small rooms use multiple subs driven by a summed signal.
I did not really notice in-head localization with the near field subs yesterday. I was playing lots of Massive Attack with meaty bass lines - the bass moved to the localization cues from the front. I must admit though, that I've never heard a room with high quality bass at high SPL, so I don't have that reference.
For my apartment dwelling, nearfield bass is a good compromise. It is hard to get to realistic SPL without being a nuisance, otherwise, and realistic SPL is important for the illusion as a whole. It passed the fiancee test. I showed her how we can turn it up in a 'bass cocoon' but have the bass disappear when you get up. We had a nice post work debrief with our favourite songs
Note that you have to be careful that there isn't any mechanical vibration giving away sub location at higher Hz.
This might not be appropriate for the thread, but an interesting device to try would be a pipe with mid bass drivers on both ends operating up to ~1000 Hz, behind the head. This could be responsible for bass and ITD, with HF HRTF content coming from front on. The result would be a combination of ambio and Watson. Perhaps such a setup has been suggested already.
For my apartment dwelling, nearfield bass is a good compromise. It is hard to get to realistic SPL without being a nuisance, otherwise, and realistic SPL is important for the illusion as a whole. It passed the fiancee test. I showed her how we can turn it up in a 'bass cocoon' but have the bass disappear when you get up. We had a nice post work debrief with our favourite songs
Note that you have to be careful that there isn't any mechanical vibration giving away sub location at higher Hz.
This might not be appropriate for the thread, but an interesting device to try would be a pipe with mid bass drivers on both ends operating up to ~1000 Hz, behind the head. This could be responsible for bass and ITD, with HF HRTF content coming from front on. The result would be a combination of ambio and Watson. Perhaps such a setup has been suggested already.
Last edited:
That's certainly true and I believe a multiple sub system is a big improvement over a single sub system.
However, I think Elias wanted to argue that your basic assumption, that we only hear the steady-state response at low frequencies, is wrong. I believe Blauert's "Spatial Hearing" should be of interest here. However, if I remember correctly, Toole states that below about 80 Hz there is no audible difference (in terms of locatedness) between mono and stereo bass.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong)
Last edited:
There seem to be three factors involved.
First, in the presence of modal effects found in acoustically small rooms, is it even possible to deliver appropriate spatial cues? Due to modes the level can drastically vary between left and right ear. This is further complicated by how the two sources of a stereo sub setup couple to the modal field. Such conditions make it nearly impossible to deliver spatial cues to the listening position.
Secondly, not everybody agrees that stereo bass even exists. From Toole "Sound reproduction":
Thirdly, stereo bass in (music) recordings is the exception and not the norm. So, why go to great lengths and find a solution to a problem that doesn't even exist?
Last edited:
Perhaps subs close to the listening position could do the trick, or perhaps a multiple sub system in which subs could act as either the source or as a cancellation device to minimize modes. But I agree that it is a very difficult problem.
Indeed (that's the quote from Toole I was referring to). Perhaps the frequency to which "stereo bass" can be heard varies considerably between subjects.
Good point. For me, with all factors considered, a multiple sub system is the best compromise.
It probably could in a one seat solution. But, would that remove the in-head localization Elias had? By the way, we still don't know what his test looked like.
It looks like a physically unsolvable problem in acoustically small rooms.
Perhaps. We don't know. The only person in these threads that constantly reports different perceptions than the norm is Elias. He can localize tweeters and gets in-head localization with a monopole subwoofer.
Reviving an old thread ...
The OP was a link to an article by John Watkinson. Here is a more recent piece published earlier this year which makes the case for greater IT involvement in loudspeaker design. As always, it's a stimulating read which opens up avenues for further reading.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Sorry, 'audiophiles', only IT will break the sound barrier ? The Register
The OP was a link to an article by John Watkinson. Here is a more recent piece published earlier this year which makes the case for greater IT involvement in loudspeaker design. As always, it's a stimulating read which opens up avenues for further reading.
We need to talk about SPEAKERS: Sorry, 'audiophiles', only IT will break the sound barrier ? The Register
For anyone curious about Watkinson's Legend speakers, there are some pics about half-way down this show report
https://sites.google.com/site/vinylivan/x-fi-audioshow/x-fi-2013
The show was 2013 so it looks like the Legend hasn't gone away yet.
https://sites.google.com/site/vinylivan/x-fi-audioshow/x-fi-2013
The show was 2013 so it looks like the Legend hasn't gone away yet.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.