Unfortunately the radiation pattern from the concentric tweeter in the Uni-Q approach is not the best for off-axis response, owing to the curvature of the underlying cone.
I am somewhat bemused by many's insistence that deeeep bass is so necessary for realism - I have yet to hear a system where the 'magic' disappears when those big, bad, deep frequencies go away, 
. IME, what happens when a system is in the zone is that the mind effectively manufactures whatever deepness is required to fill the harmonic structure, the sound is balanced, subjectively.
Over the years I used a number of organ pieces for checking out setups, and a basic bookshelf will deliver all the majesty and sense of spatial fullness if working well - comparing the same pieces on an intelligently constructed system with all bass in place, with no excesses, delivered a comparable listening experience. What those organ pieces have demonstrated in "incompetent" systems is the inability of those chains to deliver the tremendous harmonic richness and depth in the sound - you get a thin, starved presentation, with thundering bass trying to compensate for the lacking elsewhere.
. IME, what happens when a system is in the zone is that the mind effectively manufactures whatever deepness is required to fill the harmonic structure, the sound is balanced, subjectively.Over the years I used a number of organ pieces for checking out setups, and a basic bookshelf will deliver all the majesty and sense of spatial fullness if working well - comparing the same pieces on an intelligently constructed system with all bass in place, with no excesses, delivered a comparable listening experience. What those organ pieces have demonstrated in "incompetent" systems is the inability of those chains to deliver the tremendous harmonic richness and depth in the sound - you get a thin, starved presentation, with thundering bass trying to compensate for the lacking elsewhere.
Last edited:
Esperado,
I am talking only in absolute terms here. It just isn't possible to reach the true ideal of time alignment of the disparate devices. It is hard enough to mach the radiation patterns at the crossover point let alone across the entire band. As Brad has just noted even the Uni-Q coaxial device is a problem as the cone profile is affecting the radiation pattern of the two devices.
Now if you ask me my personal opinion I don't think it is as important as people want to make it, it is not necessary at the level that Richard is trying to achieve here and he is obviously ignoring the reality of the situation and grasping at a theoretical bogey-man. I think you approach of correcting impedance and having phase match at crossover are more important that chasing a solution to a problem that has no mathematical solution. The physics of distributed devices makes it impossible except as I say at one point in space and only in a very narrow band even at that.
Dsp may get us closer than we could have ever done before with an active analog system but it can still not change the physical distance between the centers of the devices.
I am talking only in absolute terms here. It just isn't possible to reach the true ideal of time alignment of the disparate devices. It is hard enough to mach the radiation patterns at the crossover point let alone across the entire band. As Brad has just noted even the Uni-Q coaxial device is a problem as the cone profile is affecting the radiation pattern of the two devices.
Now if you ask me my personal opinion I don't think it is as important as people want to make it, it is not necessary at the level that Richard is trying to achieve here and he is obviously ignoring the reality of the situation and grasping at a theoretical bogey-man. I think you approach of correcting impedance and having phase match at crossover are more important that chasing a solution to a problem that has no mathematical solution. The physics of distributed devices makes it impossible except as I say at one point in space and only in a very narrow band even at that.
Dsp may get us closer than we could have ever done before with an active analog system but it can still not change the physical distance between the centers of the devices.
Frank,
I hate it when we agree!
I have to agree with you that a speaker that is not 18" diameter can in-fact produce the lowest octave if designed to do that. Can an 8" or 10" produce the spl level of that 18", no, but it doesn't say it can't produce a 20hz fundamental if that is the object. So you trade spl level for now large 18" cones with 15" cones and whatever is making the mids and highs and now you have a problem with this huge distance between centers of all the devices. There is no best solution only a set of compromises you have to choose between.
I hate it when we agree!
I have to agree with you that a speaker that is not 18" diameter can in-fact produce the lowest octave if designed to do that. Can an 8" or 10" produce the spl level of that 18", no, but it doesn't say it can't produce a 20hz fundamental if that is the object. So you trade spl level for now large 18" cones with 15" cones and whatever is making the mids and highs and now you have a problem with this huge distance between centers of all the devices. There is no best solution only a set of compromises you have to choose between.
A nice showpiece for me on organ is the Toccata from Widor's 5th Symphony, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtj300j129k, at full bore. Every molecule of air in the house should be throbbing and pulsating from the energy in this piece, and the frame of the house should feel like it's trembling from the bass note runs - an exultant experience when it all works.
Steven, you do realise that your membership of the Objectivists Society could in danger of being reviewed, if you say things like that too often ...
Steven, you do realise that your membership of the Objectivists Society could in danger of being reviewed, if you say things like that too often ...
IME, what makes the bass work subjectively is not the alignment of any part of the spectrum, or distances between centres of drivers, but the level of distortion of the waveform from the bass instrument as delivered to the drivers. A system of mine can have miserable, useless bass - no sense of anything worthwhile happening in that area at all - until I get the chain sorted for cleanness of signal. Nothing has altered in the sense that is being talked about here, yet the result delivered is the sense of intense, powerful bass notes which nicely underpin the structure of the music - they stand clear of the mix, but also blend and form part of the whole, just as it is in real life.
Last edited:
I am somewhat bemused by many's insistence that deeeep bass is so necessary for realism - I have yet to hear a system where the 'magic' disappears when those big, bad, deep frequencies go away,
I have both 45hz -3db bookshelves and the 26hz -3db sub hooked to the
sub out / L-R out.
I can switch either , phase either to compare. Listening to the kettle drums
with the stereo pair (only) has no loss of "magic" ? But you simply do not
hear the full instrument that plainly has <30hz content.
When A/B'ed it is apparent.
To not produce part of the signal would always detract from "realism".
On the opposite end of the spectrum , why not make for a sharp cutoff
>12K , would that effect realism ?
The "mind" ??? why have to imagine content that is already there - sounds like gobbledygook ? Get a damn sub !
PS - the content is still there on the bookshelves , but at >-12db @ 30hz.
OS
Trouble is, lowest the tympani goes is about 70Hz - Range (music) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ! The subjective impression may be that a looow note is happening, but that is not the reality! The intense kick of the drum hit is actually much higher in frequency, which means a normal speaker has no trouble reproducing it, provided the whole chain is working properly !!
The key word is "feel" - if you go into the actual space where a real organ is operating then there is a very definite "feel" to the overall quality of the sound, how it comes across to one's hearing. Most systems pull back on being able to deliver that quality, which is not about raw volume! Subjectively, the impression should be that the sound is intense, not loud, and there is a very clear difference - the latter is just show off, but the former is deeply pleasurable, satisfying - what makes music such a powerful means of delivering emotional impact. Many systems are just twittering, background music vehicles, which is not the point ...
jc - What's that reference number pointing towards ?
I looked back and its not a post on this thread. If you can pass along a reference to that paper that would be great.
My 82CM "kettle" tympani was tuned to A (27/55hz) most are "D1"
@36hz.
Tuba , bass viol , organ , piano .... maybe not often, but sometimes
(<40hz).
Rock kicks can go down to 40hz , too. But most are 50hz.
5 string electric basses .... 31.5hz .
Seems to be enough out there to justify accurate 25-45hz reproduction.
"part time realism" ?? without.
OS
Sorry, that doesn't compute; this, https://www.vsl.co.at/en/Timpani/Range, explains a bit more about it - D2 is where the action is, 73Hz; C2 to get 65Hz.
16.3 Hz, our friend the organ, but hardly all of them. That's what I heard reproduced at Toole's and wanted to run for the door jamb, if I hadn't known that it was a CD.
I've heard that many pipe organs fake the lowest octave(s) and use an audio system instead. What are we trying to reproduce then?
32" .... the dealers state C1 as lowest , I suppose you can have them tuned
to order.
PS - just looked up some highend symphony suppiers - WOW $$$$ big bux.
The 27hz one I heard must be bigger than 32" ?? Special " mountain king"
edition
OS
A former friend got an Ahlborn-Galanti synthesized pipe organ for his home (see Ahlborn-Galanti Organs). He was disappointed that the SPL didn't nearly blow his windows out, and in the midst of a tantrum said "If I had wanted a clavichord I'd have gotten a clavichord!!!"
I can tell you it was quite a sufficiency of level.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.