Room modes: absortion, bass traps, Eq, speaker position... what really works? - Page 4 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Multi-Way

Multi-Way Conventional loudspeakers with crossovers

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 8th February 2013, 05:33 PM   #31
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Wesseling View Post
If you follow Ethan Winer on other forums, he has a deep understanding of this topic and helpful.. I read his comments with passion but watch some get scared away as he also sells treatments so could be taken as a sales pitch if he says you need more bass traps by I chuckle inside becasue I know he"s being honest and it's driven by passion..
Then you might also want to look into active absorption (e.g. CABS) which Ethan does not sell
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 06:11 PM   #32
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Courtice, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Then you might also want to look into active absorption (e.g. CABS) which Ethan does not sell
Well, my room is done

Point with Ethan is that When he says you need many bass traps to fix the bass problem to acceptable point then he is right based on my first hand experience..Fact that he sells them is only a problem for the ones that havent tried it yet.. But dosent really matter because they're easy to build and look nicer than his anyway..

If your talking about more active subwoofers to fix the problem common sense tells me that bass traps are better as long as you go all the way with the amount. I mean it takes a lot of bass trap around the room and in corners to have it work so with the complex propagation of waves It stands to reason that many active subs will be needed in a complex set-up.. Then you would have to look at the cost difference.. I certainly would listen to someones active absorbtion setup for curiousity

I would never use an EQ in a Hi End 2 channel system but I would for descrete sub with class D amp used in 5.1 because here adding foreign colour and noise wont matter much and more controlled and even response will be more important
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 06:20 PM   #33
AllenB is offline AllenB  Australia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Wesseling View Post
It stands to reason that many active subs will be needed in a complex set-up..
Two can give fairly good results when you know how to use them and if SPL is not a major factor these can be quite cheap and not that big.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 06:30 PM   #34
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Courtice, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by AllenB View Post
Two can give fairly good results when you know how to use them and if SPL is not a major factor these can be quite cheap and not that big.
I'm intrigued and be nice to have a weapon to help some people with they're room.

I'll look into this more
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 06:50 PM   #35
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
Its all about the amount of absorption. Bass traps end up having very little, so you need a lot of them. An active absorber can be many many times more effective so you would need less. Multiple subs and sound absorption are both try to achieve the same result. They just do it in different ways and one works better at some things and the other at other things. Best is a well damped room (LF only!) AND multiple subs. This achieves an ideal that no other solution can do.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 08:11 PM   #36
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Wesseling View Post
common sense tells me that bass traps are better
Instead of relying on common sense I trust real data more: Double Bass Array (DBA) - The modern bass concept!

Like Earl said, the best approach is to do both.
In my experience the frequency range around and above the Schröder frequency is an even bigger challenge. Here speaker directivity, passive absorption and excess-phase correction are probably the only viable options.
  Reply With Quote
Old 8th February 2013, 09:14 PM   #37
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
gedlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
At and above the Schroeder frequency? The only problems that I see there is due to floor and ceiling bounce. Take care of those and things are usually OK. Don't deal with those and yes this region will be the most problematic.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2013, 12:26 AM   #38
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Courtice, Ontario
[QUOTE=markus76;3361571]Instead of relying on common sense I trust real data more: Double Bass Array (DBA) - The modern bass concept!

The data looks great for the lower bass but he did say "I measured in different places with this configuration and the frequency response depended much more on the microphone's position" Wonder how much?

Again commom sense would suggest that matching the disrupted(caused by reflections) wave propagation, in order to cancel these irregularities accurately throughout the room, will be difficult.. With obsorbtion all the first arrival unreflected waves have to end up at the room surface boundaries (assuming no large objects in middle of room)where the absortion is placed and if done to the max you will greatly reduce reflections in the first place.. Yes it will take a lot of material(need the right stuff) and I believe aiming for complete absorption seems like a -get it over with- solution and you will find a Eureka moment that will be long lasting..

Not saying woofer approach is bad and wont give increased satisfaction as well...
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th February 2013, 07:40 AM   #39
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Wesseling View Post
The data looks great for the lower bass but he did say "I measured in different places with this configuration and the frequency response depended much more on the microphone's position" Wonder how much?
In that post he was talking about SBA not DBA so the point is moot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Wesseling View Post
Again commom sense would suggest that matching the disrupted(caused by reflections) wave propagation, in order to cancel these irregularities accurately throughout the room, will be difficult.
It's works remarkably well even with rater large deviations from the requirements. Alternative approaches and their effectiveness are described in the AES Convention Paper 8312, "Subjective Preference of Modal Control in Listening Rooms".
  Reply With Quote
Old 10th February 2013, 03:09 PM   #40
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Courtice, Ontario
"In that post he was talking about SBA not DBA so the point is moot."

OOPS! Sorry
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Simulating bass response with duct and speaker position ashok Multi-Way 15 17th August 2012 11:37 PM
Calling BudP - enabl vs room modes just a guy Full Range 14 26th August 2009 12:57 PM
Planar bass wave to take care of room modes ?? JinMTVT Subwoofers 12 4th October 2007 06:15 PM
DBA (dual bass arrays) and active bass traps capslock Subwoofers 3 20th August 2006 01:52 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:37 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2