Sorry but that's nonsense. You have to have a look what the individual chassis can do.
Have a look here: https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...rxl75-8-vs-sb29nrx75-6-vs-sb29nrx75-8.402671/
The 12" goes to about 1kHz and is great up to 5-600Hz
The 10" has a smooth FR to at least 800Hz and I would only recommend to use it to 100Hz (for very high quality).
And SB23MFCL45-8 is a heavy membrane subwoofer but is actually not bad in the few 100hz area. Would be OK for a 3-way.
Respectfully, I must disagree. Notwithstanding 170hz catches the bottom of the male vocal rage, woofers are generally adept at their prescribed task. 65Hz @ 24db per octave relieves the woofer from excursion issues.
A decent pair of mains can adequately cover 99% the audio spectrum. Under no circumstances should one be able to hear a sub.
I don't have simulations I have several systems. The Garden System (2.1, 160hz) needs the sub. The HTPC (5.4, 90hz) needs is 1 of it's 4 subs. The Desktop System (2.1, 40Hz low-pass) doesn't need its sub. The Bedroom System (2.1, 50hz low-pass) doesn't need its sub.
Originally, the subwoofer's purpose was sound reinforcement = literally: sound below the woofer.
@Surtsey
I would suggest reading Floyd Toole's book as well as Earl Geddes findings on multi-sub systems and room modes.
65Hz is most definitely not enough for every system to limit the cone excursion.
Also, for the majority of 5-6 inch woofers, they start to significantly distort more below 90-130Hz.
Btw, subwoofer is just a name, you might also call it Bobby.
It's just a speaker system that is responsible for the low-end.
In a multi-sub system approach that MUST be a separate system from the mains, otherwise you can't correct room modes very well.
I would suggest reading Floyd Toole's book as well as Earl Geddes findings on multi-sub systems and room modes.
65Hz is most definitely not enough for every system to limit the cone excursion.
Also, for the majority of 5-6 inch woofers, they start to significantly distort more below 90-130Hz.
Btw, subwoofer is just a name, you might also call it Bobby.
It's just a speaker system that is responsible for the low-end.
In a multi-sub system approach that MUST be a separate system from the mains, otherwise you can't correct room modes very well.
Nonsense. Unless they are being over-driven every woofer is capable of these frequencies.
More nonsense. If sub-zero means below zero, sub-terrain mean below earth. logic dictates sub-woofer means? English language is complicated but it's not 'that' complicated. 'Bobby' is a proper noun.
Room modes is a fad taken from commercial and professional applications. In practical, domestic situations the issue largely irrelevant as the listeners don't move.
Again, no relevance to domestic sound systems. All 'theoretical' calculations are rendered useless when the sofa is moved, somebody opens the curtains, or the t/s parameters are altered by driver absorbing moisture due to the use of the tumble dryer!
When I installed sound systems in venues I could set near perfect sound reproduction . . . but then 'people' would turn up with their volume displacing bodies and their frequency absorbing clothing . . . ruining everything.
Alright ... just never touch a measurement microphone, you would learn a lot and probably would need to change some opinions ...
Nobody listens to sound using a microphone, that's a nerd, laboratory thing. People use their ears (microphones of varying qualities. Domestic sound systems are tuned to a SINGLE listening position. Professional sound systems must consider room modes because they need to cater to to every seat in the theatre.
I guess this guy must be living in a very strange place and universe were physics and acoustics all of a sudden don't apply anymore.....
Btw, microphones are just helpful tools so we can actually see what's going on in our room when it comes down to room modes.
That has absolutely zero to do with being a lab nerd.
Even at one single listening position you still will suffer from nulls and peaks.
The only exceptions are when your room is totally anechoic, or you're sitting outside or you live in a place where physics don't apply anymore.
Also, in addition to this, I am not always sitting at the same spot, plus other people also would like to hear great sound when listening to music.
Have you even read the books and literature mentioned before?
Or just general books of acoustics?
Also have you ever investigated and measured domestic rooms and listening positions?
Btw, microphones are just helpful tools so we can actually see what's going on in our room when it comes down to room modes.
That has absolutely zero to do with being a lab nerd.
Even at one single listening position you still will suffer from nulls and peaks.
The only exceptions are when your room is totally anechoic, or you're sitting outside or you live in a place where physics don't apply anymore.
Also, in addition to this, I am not always sitting at the same spot, plus other people also would like to hear great sound when listening to music.
Have you even read the books and literature mentioned before?
Or just general books of acoustics?
Also have you ever investigated and measured domestic rooms and listening positions?
Try at least to really read what Surtsey is writing. He is offering you insights into reality of acoustics.
Microphones are useful tools when used for their intended purposes. -Otherwise not.
I have to disagree about single listening positions, that cant be generalized.
A bummer was when my bookshelf had at least an extra octave if I was situated in my tiny toilet. No reason for measurements to figure that out.
Cheers!
Microphones are useful tools when used for their intended purposes. -Otherwise not.
I have to disagree about single listening positions, that cant be generalized.
A bummer was when my bookshelf had at least an extra octave if I was situated in my tiny toilet. No reason for measurements to figure that out.
Cheers!
Sorry, this is the epitome of nerdism. "I know all about sound," said the deaf guy, "I've read books on it.".
Ok, well in that case I have been working as a professional over 15 years, as well reading books about it.
Measured and listened to countless speakers as well as rooms.
So I do think I know a thing or two plus have the practical experience to connect with it.
Flaunting merits and experience makes a guy look less credible. Im sure you are b, so just a little tip.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Right, so people who just put a random bunch of bs out or their behind are credible?
Lol, what a joke. 😀 😀
Also calling that people flaunt their merits and playing it personally, is pretty disrespectful and doesn't show much social awareness.
Just a little tip.
Case closed.
Lol, what a joke. 😀 😀
Also calling that people flaunt their merits and playing it personally, is pretty disrespectful and doesn't show much social awareness.
Just a little tip.
Case closed.
No. Cause that was not what I said, and I didnt point out the flaunting to be disrespectful.
Cheers!
Cheers!
Not a subwoofer but I have been playing around on paper with a 2 way that doesn't really need one. PC speakers so near field. Some one on another thread mentioned using a high cross over frequency and not the 1khz I have so far come up with.. This person designs these for a living. The term sounds like a thorn in your ear was used. Go much higher. 😉 or I assume much lower.
I wonder if this is due to phase effects. As it turns out this is closely matched at the cross over centre freq but not either side of it. The higher frequency phase has a mild S like shape.
I wonder if this is due to phase effects. As it turns out this is closely matched at the cross over centre freq but not either side of it. The higher frequency phase has a mild S like shape.
@presscot My main interest in subwoofers is that they can be positioned in places unrelated to the main speakers (and distinction between left and right (i.e. stereo) is no longer important either). This is NOT about convenience, aesthetics or cutting corners; low frequencies can have lots of unfortunate room interaction, so the ability to place their source in more optimum places (or some even use multiple distributed subs) can sometimes be very beneficial. I've encountered resonance problems as high as 40hz or so (which a lot of main speakers will easily reach down to) so separating those frequencies out can be helpful.
It gets more difficult to integrate subwoofers as the crossover becomes higher. Partly because our hearing becomes more able to discern position/direction and even more subtle things. So at some point, in order to retain coherence you lose the key advantage of being able to position the low frequency drivers where you would like; they need to become close to the main speakers.
So for me crossing higher is of much less interest 'unless' there is good reason to do so (e.g. the mains being SPL/excursion/distortion limited at the low end). I'd prefer a multi-way speaker that could go as low as needed, with a proper crossover. But either way, I'd want quite careful integration, to use drivers that I knew the specifications of, in stereo, positioned within roughly 1/4 wavelength of the main's woofers, and probably to limit low end extension and SPL to whatever the room can tolerate with them in that position. Similar principles to making a multi-way speaker, with a separate cabinet for the low/sub woofers.
So I voted for 65hz just because it is IMO a safer bet for positioning, more likely that your subs will suit that kind of use (without distortion or early cone breakup) and probably simpler to get right without designing it like a multi-way. 170hz is a little higher than I'd be comfortable with except if the subs were placed by the speakers. But if your main speakers needed their help up to 170hz and if it worked for you and your room, then great.
It gets more difficult to integrate subwoofers as the crossover becomes higher. Partly because our hearing becomes more able to discern position/direction and even more subtle things. So at some point, in order to retain coherence you lose the key advantage of being able to position the low frequency drivers where you would like; they need to become close to the main speakers.
So for me crossing higher is of much less interest 'unless' there is good reason to do so (e.g. the mains being SPL/excursion/distortion limited at the low end). I'd prefer a multi-way speaker that could go as low as needed, with a proper crossover. But either way, I'd want quite careful integration, to use drivers that I knew the specifications of, in stereo, positioned within roughly 1/4 wavelength of the main's woofers, and probably to limit low end extension and SPL to whatever the room can tolerate with them in that position. Similar principles to making a multi-way speaker, with a separate cabinet for the low/sub woofers.
So I voted for 65hz just because it is IMO a safer bet for positioning, more likely that your subs will suit that kind of use (without distortion or early cone breakup) and probably simpler to get right without designing it like a multi-way. 170hz is a little higher than I'd be comfortable with except if the subs were placed by the speakers. But if your main speakers needed their help up to 170hz and if it worked for you and your room, then great.
Last edited:
^Only very few guys. I sang at a gathering where i almost could feel the guy behind me in the floor. He was lower than 2nd bass😄
Normal unmutated guys dont go to 80😊
Cheers!
Normal unmutated guys dont go to 80😊
Cheers!