Multiple Small Subs - Geddes Approach - Page 140 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Loudspeakers > Subwoofers

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 21st January 2011, 12:38 PM   #1391
gedlee is offline gedlee  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Novi, Michigan
My experience is that at the very lowest frequencies placement has almost no effect. Certainly small movements have none. I have a problematic mode in my room at about 30 Hz. There were no feasible locations that I tried that had any real effect. But as you allude to, all rooms and setups are different.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 04:53 PM   #1392
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by gedlee View Post
My experience is that at the very lowest frequencies placement has almost no effect. Certainly small movements have none. I have a problematic mode in my room at about 30 Hz. There were no feasible locations that I tried that had any real effect. But as you allude to, all rooms and setups are different.
My experience is exactly the opposite. Perceived bass response in the lowest audible octave is very sensitive to speaker placement especially for the dual 12" side firing AR9. A few inches can make a lot of difference. Floyd Toole did a lot of research and his results are summarized on Harman International's web site. They recommend 4 subwoofers all located either in the room corners or at the center of the room walls. They claim this produces the most uniform bass response.

My experience is that not only do most loudspeakers begin to falloff in output at a fairly high frequency but the relatively short dimensions of most rooms in homes causes the room cutoff frequency to be fairly high. Substantial boost to the electrical signal within the capabilites of the driver are required to compensate for that or the lowest octave just won't be heard. When the system is flat to the limit of the lowest octave, gain is so high that much very low frequency noise on many CDs that would be inaudible on lesser systems become very annoying. It is surprising how many CDs have this problem. A LF filter is very useful in these circumstances. Also acoustic feedback becomes a serious problem for every turntable I've tried including the well isolated Empire 698.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 06:32 PM   #1393
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Salt Lake
The Geddes Aproach alluded to in the title of this thread is intended to maximize the size of the "sweet spot" in a Home Theater setup. While your points are valid, I have yet to see a turntable in a HT.
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 08:42 PM   #1394
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
In the attached acoustic measurement, the orange trace is with two subs playing: a corner Klipschorn and a giant OB midwall (Stephens 150W, around 1960, has a resonance at 20 Hz).

The darker trace is with the OB off.

The addition of the OB, perhaps just by luck, results in flatter levels esp. at 20, 40, 55, and 110 Hz.

Taken with REW software, 1/6 8ave smoothing, Radio Shack meter correction, one mic location at listening location.

My impression is that diverse mix-and-match of auxiliary woofers is good policy.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg klipschhorn but no giant ob stephens2.jpg (37.9 KB, 399 views)
__________________
Dennesen ESL tweets, Dayton-Wright ESL (110-3200Hz), mixed-bass Klipschorn (35-110), and giant OB using 1960's Stephens woofer (18-35); Behringer DSP. HiFi aspirations since 1956
  Reply With Quote
Old 21st January 2011, 09:02 PM   #1395
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentoronto View Post
In the attached acoustic measurement ... Taken with REW software, 1/6 8ave smoothing
Much too coarse. If you want to show performance at low frequencies then frequency resolution should be 1 Hz, i.e. smoothing 1/24 octave or better. Showing the response up to 150-200 Hz is sufficient.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2011, 12:24 AM   #1396
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentoronto View Post
In the attached acoustic measurement, the orange trace is with two subs playing: a corner Klipschorn and a giant OB midwall (Stephens 150W, around 1960, has a resonance at 20 Hz).

The darker trace is with the OB off.

The addition of the OB, perhaps just by luck, results in flatter levels esp. at 20, 40, 55, and 110 Hz.

Taken with REW software, 1/6 8ave smoothing, Radio Shack meter correction, one mic location at listening location.

My impression is that diverse mix-and-match of auxiliary woofers is good policy.
One problem with this type of measurement is how much of the output is doubling and how much is actually fundimental bass. Despite Klipschorn's huge size, I'd expect that below about 35 hz, its response would fall off a cliff. AR1W by contrast is designed for a system F3 of 42hz with a 12 db per octave slope. At 30 hz, it's about 5% THD, still very respectable. Its relatively gradual slope makes it equalizable. How does AR1W compare to the Klipschorn within AR1W's power handling capacity? I'd expect it would do better especially when equalized. What's your opinion?
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2011, 12:24 PM   #1397
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by markus76 View Post
Much too coarse. If you want to show performance at low frequencies then frequency resolution should be 1 Hz, i.e. smoothing 1/24 octave or better. Showing the response up to 150-200 Hz is sufficient.
Too coarse? Smoothing is there to create a picture that illuminates some issue not to "hear by eye."* But, attached are unsmoothed curves. I patiently await learning from Markus what the earlier, 1/6 smoothed curves may have concealed (and what insights are now revealed to him) by unsmoothing the curves, apropos this discussion.

The longer curves were presented to foster (and illustrate) the matching of the with-Stephens and without-Stephens curves.

Soundminded points out,
Quote:
"One problem with this type of measurement is how much of the output is doubling and how much is actually fundimental bass. Despite Klipschorn's huge size, I'd expect that below about 35 hz, its response would fall off a cliff. AR1W by contrast is designed for a system F3 of 42hz with a 12 db per octave slope. At 30 hz, it's about 5% THD, still very respectable. Its relatively gradual slope makes it equalizable. How does AR1W compare to the Klipschorn within AR1W's power handling capacity? I'd expect it would do better especially when equalized. What's your opinion?"
Traces were made at pretty low levels like 70-80 dB and so no doubling likely. But as the level goes up, chotchkas in the room do start to jiggle. On the other hand, you can see the levels are well above the noise floor. I don't want to over-sell the enduring significance of these quick and crude little curves. They illustrate one point suitably and that is all. That is what good experiments do.

Yes, the Klipschorn (the bass unit of which is not terrible "huge") does "fall off a cliff"... exactly as my curve shows. But I was quite surprised at how much oomph there is low down. And even more surprised at the low bass of the OB!!! I sure don't know what is going on when I look at the response below 20 Hz.

Only Klipsch and Stephens in light trace. The dark trace is only Klipschorn. No AR-1. I haven't done measurements with the AR-1 and my new REW software. But the AR-1 with a bump around 42 Hz is a great, full-sounding woofer. I've been arguing that except for fans of earthquake movies, there's not much on recordings much lower and few speakers make organ music (esp. Saint-Saens 3rd Sym) sound as good as the AR-1 with the 12-Hz driver.

The curves have EQ so they don't represent any kind of natural response of those speakers. Also, as mentioned previously, the RS meter correction (LF only) is present. They do represent the very salutary effect of adding a second, profoundly different woofer to the ear-location results.

*Evaluating by eyeball the terrible visual effects (but trivial aural effects) of comb filters is an example of that fallacy.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg no Stephens no smooth 2.jpg (61.8 KB, 347 views)
__________________
Dennesen ESL tweets, Dayton-Wright ESL (110-3200Hz), mixed-bass Klipschorn (35-110), and giant OB using 1960's Stephens woofer (18-35); Behringer DSP. HiFi aspirations since 1956

Last edited by bentoronto; 22nd January 2011 at 12:39 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2011, 01:33 PM   #1398
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Switzerland
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentoronto View Post
Too coarse? Smoothing is there to create a picture that illuminates some issue not to "hear by eye."* But, attached are unsmoothed curves. I patiently await learning from Markus what the earlier, 1/6 smoothed curves may have concealed (and what insights are now revealed to him) by unsmoothing the curves, apropos this discussion.
What's the frequency resolution of the unsmoothed data?

Modes can have a very high Q so our eyes need to be able to see what our ears hear, hence 1/24 resolution is needed.

In your graph there's a huge 25 Hz wide "hole" around 50 Hz which I would fix. These kind of holes are tricky because something that cannot be heard can't sound bad. Beside of that, this another example why measurements are vital in order to improve sound reproduction.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2011, 02:24 PM   #1399
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentoronto View Post
Too coarse? Smoothing is there to create a picture that illuminates some issue not to "hear by eye."* But, attached are unsmoothed curves. I patiently await learning from Markus what the earlier, 1/6 smoothed curves may have concealed (and what insights are now revealed to him) by unsmoothing the curves, apropos this discussion.

The longer curves were presented to foster (and illustrate) the matching of the with-Stephens and without-Stephens curves.

Soundminded points out,

Traces were made at pretty low levels like 70-80 dB and so no doubling likely. But as the level goes up, chotchkas in the room do start to jiggle. On the other hand, you can see the levels are well above the noise floor. I don't want to over-sell the enduring significance of these quick and crude little curves. They illustrate one point suitably and that is all. That is what good experiments do.

Yes, the Klipschorn (the bass unit of which is not terrible "huge") does "fall off a cliff"... exactly as my curve shows. But I was quite surprised at how much oomph there is low down. And even more surprised at the low bass of the OB!!! I sure don't know what is going on when I look at the response below 20 Hz.

Only Klipsch and Stephens in light trace. The dark trace is only Klipschorn. No AR-1. I haven't done measurements with the AR-1 and my new REW software. But the AR-1 with a bump around 42 Hz is a great, full-sounding woofer. I've been arguing that except for fans of earthquake movies, there's not much on recordings much lower and few speakers make organ music (esp. Saint-Saens 3rd Sym) sound as good as the AR-1 with the 12-Hz driver.

The curves have EQ so they don't represent any kind of natural response of those speakers. Also, as mentioned previously, the RS meter correction (LF only) is present. They do represent the very salutary effect of adding a second, profoundly different woofer to the ear-location results.

*Evaluating by eyeball the terrible visual effects (but trivial aural effects) of comb filters is an example of that fallacy.
As you are probably aware, the history of Acoustic Research and the AR1W woofer is about Edgar Villchur who could not sell his idea to anyone, other manufacturers of the time said it wouldn't work. He went into production himself and around 1956 the NY Audio League, the predecessor of AES took 4 AR1s to Riverside Church in NYC where they held a live versus recorded demo against an Aolean Skinner pipe organ. I think they used 150 watt Western Electric amplifiers. This very successful demo proved the superiority of the AR woofer design leaving no doubt. It was the king of the hill for a long time in LF reproduction. The late 1970s/early 1980s Teledyne AR9 (there is a later speaker called AR9 which is not the same) uses a later variant (different materials but the same design and nearly identical performance) of the 12 in AR woofer. Two per 4 cubic foot tower with an F3 of 28 hz. And it does do earthquakes. It can also shatter windows, rattle floors, walls, and loosen fillings in your teeth. It is interesting and surprising to me that all these years later, restored speakers of this type will still give the best on the market a run for their money. The new Dayton dual 12" side firing drivers looks promising. With a built in 1000 watt amplifier for $1000 or less it seems like a bargain. A pair of those would probably do well compared to anyone's speakers.
  Reply With Quote
Old 22nd January 2011, 03:35 PM   #1400
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Toronto and Delray Beach, FL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soundminded View Post
snip It was the king of the hill for a long time in LF reproduction. The late 1970s/early 1980s Teledyne AR9 (there is a later speaker called AR9 which is not the same) uses a later variant (different materials but the same design and nearly identical performance) of the 12 in AR woofer. Two per 4 cubic foot tower with an F3 of 28 hz. And it does do earthquakes. It can also shatter windows, rattle floors, walls, and loosen fillings in your teeth. snip
I share Soundminded's appreciation for this 65 year old concept. I remain puzzled that you can't buy a 12-Hz woofer. How come? The AR-1s seem durable, ahem, ahem. There's no woofer enclosure concept that makes much sense to me or is without profound (I repeat, "profound") shortcomings except a sealed box or a large horn with a sealed box behind the driver.
__________________
Dennesen ESL tweets, Dayton-Wright ESL (110-3200Hz), mixed-bass Klipschorn (35-110), and giant OB using 1960's Stephens woofer (18-35); Behringer DSP. HiFi aspirations since 1956
  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



New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 09:10 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