Okay: 1. Yes, for a truly reference level sound reproduction system (which is of course, "not really necessary" itself so... ). Also, unless perhaps the listening space has been specially-designed from start to the give ideal results with only two LF sources. I don't know to what degree that's possible, but I'm sure we could come up with some things if we really wanted.
I prefer both mixing and playing back on speakers with LF response flat to 20 Hz.
I try to mix so the music will still sound good on a limited frequency response box, frequently turning off the sub, and even using a pair of 4" speakers while mastering to insure that the mix comes through.
There are nearly as many mixing and mastering philosophies as there are engineers, so frequency content is all over the place in modern recordings.
If your speakers are flat to 20 Hz, good mixes will sound good, poor mixes will sound poor.
If you feel like cutting hyped bass, or boosting LF on recordings with anemic bass, go ahead, but flat in room response is a good place to start.
Last edited:
Juhazi
Trying to help you here, not hang you.
Most of the tools you have use the same basic mathematical algorithms. FFTs. You have to acquire the sound. Even my calibrated specialty measurement mic drops like a rock below 20. You have to sent it through a mic preamp. As my mic is a condenser type, I guarantee it is going through at least one cap to keep the bias out of the preamp. My preamp is DC servo, so no way will it pass 10 Hz. It will CANCLE it. You have to do a analog to digital conversion. That has some issues. I admit I can't remember back that far in the Tektronics lectures on digital acquisition I took some 30 years ago, but I do remember that was a topic along with discussions of window size, sample size and window shape.
I am still suggesting you be skeptical of sub 20 Hz measurements without many thousands of euros in laboratory grade equipment. My experience with all of my PC based tools does nothing to change that. I also suggest if your room was as noisy as the relationships from 4K to 10 Hz are in your plots, you would be running screaming from the room. You must learn your test equipment. Think about it before you trust it.
Trying to help you here, not hang you.
Most of the tools you have use the same basic mathematical algorithms. FFTs. You have to acquire the sound. Even my calibrated specialty measurement mic drops like a rock below 20. You have to sent it through a mic preamp. As my mic is a condenser type, I guarantee it is going through at least one cap to keep the bias out of the preamp. My preamp is DC servo, so no way will it pass 10 Hz. It will CANCLE it. You have to do a analog to digital conversion. That has some issues. I admit I can't remember back that far in the Tektronics lectures on digital acquisition I took some 30 years ago, but I do remember that was a topic along with discussions of window size, sample size and window shape.
I am still suggesting you be skeptical of sub 20 Hz measurements without many thousands of euros in laboratory grade equipment. My experience with all of my PC based tools does nothing to change that. I also suggest if your room was as noisy as the relationships from 4K to 10 Hz are in your plots, you would be running screaming from the room. You must learn your test equipment. Think about it before you trust it.
"There are nearly as many mixing and mastering philosophies as there are engineers, so frequency content is all over the place in modern recordings."
Yet it is ironic that "purist" audiophiles shun the lowly tone control! Fortunately my trusty old Nak CA-5 has them, and I use them. For some reason , a lot of recordings seem to be a bit boosted in the 4K region, at least to my ears. Reading Toole, is could be the quality of many of the common monitor speakers out there. He was not especially kind to many of the "standard" ones.
Yet it is ironic that "purist" audiophiles shun the lowly tone control! Fortunately my trusty old Nak CA-5 has them, and I use them. For some reason , a lot of recordings seem to be a bit boosted in the 4K region, at least to my ears. Reading Toole, is could be the quality of many of the common monitor speakers out there. He was not especially kind to many of the "standard" ones.
Also don't forget the basic benefit of multi-driver loudspeakers. By using a sub, you remove the mid woofer from the burden of reproducing wide frequency range so the quality of the mid woofer reproduction is much better.
Many people cross their mid woofers around 300Hz (to the sub) even tho they are capable of 60-70Hz.
IMO, the question about sub (lets assume a 4-way) is not too different with the question whether 3 way is necessary or 2 way only will do. From this perspective we know the difficulty and price of integrating low frequency drivers. We also know that what is covered by the woofer in a 3-way is more critical than what is covered by the sub in a 4-way.
Of course, 3-way versus 2-way is probably more about limiting frequency range to be handled by each driver (to within their best ability), less about reaching the lowest notes. Subwoofer is usually the other way around.
Just listening to some of these classical organ pieces:
Amazon.com: Complete Organ Works 1: Saint-Saens, Bleicher: Music
The lowest organ notes are truly 'visceral' and it's very impressive to hear and feel them with the big speakers. However, if I play the same tracks with 4" woofers only, I feel I can actually hear more detail in the music and, amazingly, the bass still sounds adequately strong while being a bit less demanding on the ears. As someone said earlier, if I'd never heard the deepest bass, I wouldn't know to miss it.
In this case, I could happily listen to both 'versions' and enjoy them, depending on my mood, I think.
Amazon.com: Complete Organ Works 1: Saint-Saens, Bleicher: Music
The lowest organ notes are truly 'visceral' and it's very impressive to hear and feel them with the big speakers. However, if I play the same tracks with 4" woofers only, I feel I can actually hear more detail in the music and, amazingly, the bass still sounds adequately strong while being a bit less demanding on the ears. As someone said earlier, if I'd never heard the deepest bass, I wouldn't know to miss it.
In this case, I could happily listen to both 'versions' and enjoy them, depending on my mood, I think.
For me myself, a little boost or cut in a good system won't hurt, but MANUALLY equalizing based on music is really a headache. So it is not just an extra caps or carbon pot in the signal path.
About the 4K in a recording, its new for me. Quite strange as many speakers do the same thing.
As a recording engineer(movies and music), I have to agree with this wholeheartedly.
In order to take the burden off the shoulders of Juhazi and for to concur with the cautious skepticism of tvgeek and dumptruck, I will try to clarify some topics ref LF acoustic measurements (OT
).Sub 20Hz area is a world of it’s own.
Nature phenomena (think of wind blow and long distance thunders) produce a lot of energy sound waves there.
Man made noise too (think of the single case of building self resonance at 10Hz +/- 3-4Hz).
What a mic-amp-sound card records, is usually an underestimation of the actual acoustic case.
We can adjust (“calibrate”) our cheap recording system for more precise readings in this range. It takes knowledge (reading), care to details and a lot of time.
It would pay, if one is to cater for acoustic surveys, for performing live recordings or for investigating vibration issues (e.g. turntable resonance).
But for the subject of reproduction of pre-recorded music at home, it is IMHO a waste of resources.
George
PS. In a past activity of mine (pressure calibrators used in industry), even using primary standard –non electronics- apparatus with long response times, the very low frequency pressure variations due to ambient “noise” had to be addressed.
This problem was far more serious with secondary pressure calibrators (electronic pressure sensor systems) with their short response times. It had to be accounted for in order to establish the uncertainty budget for their "best measurement" certification report on the low pressure ranges.
Last edited:
It is not fruitful to compare naural/live sound output/spectrum of an acoustic instrument here. All isntruments resonate and have harmonics much more than their fundamentals. You can feel and hear them at live presentarions, and always the room/space contributes a lot too.
When we are reproducing music, we meet new challenges. In the recording/mixing/pressing stages most of content <25hz (or something like that) is high-passed off. There is nothing engraved on vinyl <30Hz.
But when we playt that record, the audio system and the listening room again start to (is excited to) make low "noise"
The behaviour of sound and speaker is different at modal Fq area (<150Hz usually). This is why I think it should be handled differently, with different positioning of the speakers for the lowest bass. When listening to music I get the best "sound" if the source material is high-passed / doesn't contain <30Hz at all. I might be missing something but I also avoid a lot of problems!
When we are reproducing music, we meet new challenges. In the recording/mixing/pressing stages most of content <25hz (or something like that) is high-passed off. There is nothing engraved on vinyl <30Hz.
But when we playt that record, the audio system and the listening room again start to (is excited to) make low "noise"
The behaviour of sound and speaker is different at modal Fq area (<150Hz usually). This is why I think it should be handled differently, with different positioning of the speakers for the lowest bass. When listening to music I get the best "sound" if the source material is high-passed / doesn't contain <30Hz at all. I might be missing something but I also avoid a lot of problems!
I must continue...
The adio system we are suing, most of of the speakers should be producing frequencies below our signal with minimal distorsion! Earl Geddes speaks strongly for this and I agree.
In principle bass reflex or other physically band-limited speakers are no-no! IB or huge closed woofers for the lowest bass for me, thank you! I am sorry to say that my present equipment does not fulfill my new criteria, but I have started a journey...
The adio system we are suing, most of of the speakers should be producing frequencies below our signal with minimal distorsion! Earl Geddes speaks strongly for this and I agree.
In principle bass reflex or other physically band-limited speakers are no-no! IB or huge closed woofers for the lowest bass for me, thank you! I am sorry to say that my present equipment does not fulfill my new criteria, but I have started a journey...
This is simply a sign that your speaker-room system isn't correctly set up. I agree that it's probably better to not reproduce very low frequencies if secondary priorities prevent setting up a decent listening room but please don't call this HiFi.
nothing new, thats how it have always been
maybe, maybe not
new knowledge and technology might have changed that 'issue'
I might say +1 to that.....but how can you know....
but now you mention IB
they were really hot a few years ago
but barely even mentioned these days
personally, I try to stay 'open minded', and be less categorical or 'bandlimited'
man, at times it almost sounds like there is some kind patent on low bass, and as if noone else have given it any thought at all
Guys, doesn't this discussion emphasize the undisclosed "bass in a room" problem?
Will there ever be a final solution? I doubt that. There are infinite number of rooms/listening environments and personal preferences.
What is my present "ideology and solution" is just that My present. I do not advice anybody to copy it but aren't we discussing the topic here?
Many people here have a professional level of education and experience of audio - I don't. I am just a hobbyist, but because of my academic education and general curiosity, I tend to think and process information in a systematical way: theory/measured data/analysis/conclusions. Then there might be some practical procedures. But I am also a bit crazy, because this is just a hobby - Sometimes I try something radical that doesn't suit my paradigm.
Will there ever be a final solution? I doubt that. There are infinite number of rooms/listening environments and personal preferences.
What is my present "ideology and solution" is just that My present. I do not advice anybody to copy it but aren't we discussing the topic here?
Many people here have a professional level of education and experience of audio - I don't. I am just a hobbyist, but because of my academic education and general curiosity, I tend to think and process information in a systematical way: theory/measured data/analysis/conclusions. Then there might be some practical procedures. But I am also a bit crazy, because this is just a hobby - Sometimes I try something radical that doesn't suit my paradigm.
sounds perfect to me...and not crazy at all
only problem is to find the right woofer would like to try a big mono sub with a Mach5 woofer It's a logical fallacy to think of sound reproduction as being subject to personal preference. Music production (creation) is, music reproduction is not.
Is there anybody seriously discussing that a TV or projection screen is subject to personal preference when it comes to calibration? There is exactly one way to get high fidelity. It's the same with audio reproduction. There's only one way to true HiFi.
The problem we're facing in music reproduction is the lack of proper standards which makes it virtually impossible to get calibration right because now there's a multitude of calibration targets. But make no mistake, there's only one way to do it right (for each recording).
Now does this allow for personal preference? Yes it does but don't conflate HiFi with personal preference ("I wish the guitar on Sgt. Pepper's would sound like what I have in mind.").
Is there anybody seriously discussing that a TV or projection screen is subject to personal preference when it comes to calibration? There is exactly one way to get high fidelity. It's the same with audio reproduction. There's only one way to true HiFi.
The problem we're facing in music reproduction is the lack of proper standards which makes it virtually impossible to get calibration right because now there's a multitude of calibration targets. But make no mistake, there's only one way to do it right (for each recording).
Now does this allow for personal preference? Yes it does but don't conflate HiFi with personal preference ("I wish the guitar on Sgt. Pepper's would sound like what I have in mind.").
oh, it will be there, one day
maybe sooner than you expect
just plug it in, and we all hear the same
basicly you don't even know the potential of the latest digital technology yet
I think its based on the known voice and tune machines , combined with new search engines, etc etc
computer software is very close to become intelligent
it will an excellent and perfect room eq
basicly its a bit like the old days turntable speed control
but now it can pick single tunes or instrument, and change only them
some of the same technology might have been used to convert black and white movies to color
way more advanced than the way you do eq now, wheer you still change the whole part of a certain frequency
tomorrow you will be able to change just one instrument playing that frequency, without effecting any other instruments
and I think its also able to recreate what have been lost or removed, and restore to original condition
so its pretty advanced recording studio technology right now, but will be simpler tomorrow
personally, I sure hope there will still be some room for other stuff, like building tube amps etc
... but being realistic, I doubt it 
maybe sooner than you expect
just plug it in, and we all hear the same
basicly you don't even know the potential of the latest digital technology yet
I think its based on the known voice and tune machines , combined with new search engines, etc etc
computer software is very close to become intelligent
it will an excellent and perfect room eq
basicly its a bit like the old days turntable speed control
but now it can pick single tunes or instrument, and change only them
some of the same technology might have been used to convert black and white movies to color
way more advanced than the way you do eq now, wheer you still change the whole part of a certain frequency
tomorrow you will be able to change just one instrument playing that frequency, without effecting any other instruments
and I think its also able to recreate what have been lost or removed, and restore to original condition
so its pretty advanced recording studio technology right now, but will be simpler tomorrow
personally, I sure hope there will still be some room for other stuff, like building tube amps etc
... but being realistic, I doubt it 
This seems to be pretty much what's going on. 2. I would consider wrong because it doesn't offer any type of qualification. 4 and 5 should be considered wrong as well because no main speaker will do that, unless we use 3 or 4 of them and position them around the room ala Geddes, which is imagine would make for a miserable experience as far as everything else in the spectrum.
Really, only 1, 3 and 6 are the only logical answers that don't require a person to make some type of patently false claim about their subjective listening or musical style preference being the only thing that should be considered.
With they types of music I listen to...everything from classical and jazz to heavy metal and hard dub step and electronics, not having proper powerful bass robs me of half the enjoyment I get out of a system.
I do occasionally listen to music sitting up here in the living room where I have a pair of medium sized speakers that can hit the high 30s, but if I really want to appreciate most music, I visit the media room downstairs and flick on the 18hz TH subs. I wouldn't trade em for anything and I'd suggest anyone interested in music that goes beyond chamber music and George Winston played at dinner levels to try it once in your life.
My journey to better bass started in november 2012. I have linked my project thread earlier, but a brief presentation here:
A slot-loaded 2x15" 470L closed sub
- room 2,7x3,6x2,6m plus a little more, area 10,2m2. low RT30s
- home theater set, main speakers are 6,5" SEAS coaxials in closed boxes
- new project is 15" Dayton DCS380-4 driver in 235L box, a pair set as PPSL configuration
I have been waiting for the drivers for 9 weeks now...
I have figured that this is as far as I can go in my room. I am sort of curious to hear this finally...
A slot-loaded 2x15" 470L closed sub
- room 2,7x3,6x2,6m plus a little more, area 10,2m2. low RT30s
- home theater set, main speakers are 6,5" SEAS coaxials in closed boxes
- new project is 15" Dayton DCS380-4 driver in 235L box, a pair set as PPSL configuration
I have been waiting for the drivers for 9 weeks now...
I have figured that this is as far as I can go in my room. I am sort of curious to hear this finally...
Attachments
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.