So in which applications have you been using the 2245H and 416-8B, respectively, that you think are optimal for each of these drivers?
I only used that JBL in professional audio applications. This was for large crowds, we are talking greater than 20,000 people for low bass reinforcement applications. If I was going to use that size speaker in a room I surely wouldn't need to add a sub to work beneath that size driver. You can get so much output and move so much air I don't see any reasonable reason to use it as a mid bass device.
My opinion of course.
My opinion of course.
I have to agree with Kindhornman and Dr. Geddes. The optimum solution for VLF are multiple subs scattered around the room ... there are papers that describe suggested locations for 3 to 4 subwoofers.
Since you're not trying to drive power into a room null, overall power requirements are greatly reduced. Put another way, less EQ and amplifier power is needed, which is always a good thing. In addition, more subs means that each individual one doesn't need to have as much amplifier power or absorb as much power in the voice coil. (Instead of sound, that's where more than 98% of the amplifier power ends up ... heating the voice coil.)
Long story short, four 10", 12", or 15" subs (widely spaced) are a technically better solution than monster 18" drivers (which are designed for prosound use in very large venues). In the below-50 Hz region, I'm not even sure they even need to be the same size.
This solution even works for fans of exotic amplifiers and Alnico magnets ... the problems in the below-50 Hz region are very different than the problems above that.
Since you're not trying to drive power into a room null, overall power requirements are greatly reduced. Put another way, less EQ and amplifier power is needed, which is always a good thing. In addition, more subs means that each individual one doesn't need to have as much amplifier power or absorb as much power in the voice coil. (Instead of sound, that's where more than 98% of the amplifier power ends up ... heating the voice coil.)
Long story short, four 10", 12", or 15" subs (widely spaced) are a technically better solution than monster 18" drivers (which are designed for prosound use in very large venues). In the below-50 Hz region, I'm not even sure they even need to be the same size.
This solution even works for fans of exotic amplifiers and Alnico magnets ... the problems in the below-50 Hz region are very different than the problems above that.
100% agree with you there Lynn. I've been to Dr. Geddes's house, so I have heard it first hand. I have also heard some 120k+ systems designed by "audiophile" acoustic companies that sounded terrible. Its not the money, it the brains that gives the best solution when it comes to acoustics of small rooms.
When it is a single reflection, say just from the tweeter and can be treated with modest absorption. This otherwise brightens the upper midrange in an objectionable way.
Yet I feel/suspect the second best way to do it would be to go for full ceiling illumination, ie full omni when the goal is to prevent drawing attention to a specific reflection. I don't think I'm about to try it to find out though.
For a single listener, that's not the case.
The best by far (for linearity) is with dipole near-field subs. (..at that distance - about a foot and a half away from the listener's head, you have a very linear response despite dipole cancellation).
You can also add further to your low freq. listening effects:
1. Tactile transducers, and
2. Extreme low freq. monaural (L+R) subs placed at each corner of the room and phase-manipulated to achieve a cross-section "null" at the listener's seat.
Last edited:
I'm not a fan of the distributed subs, and have made that clear enough over the years. Too diffuse foe me.
From my testing I seem to localize bass better than average, so don't take me as a baseline. Or a bass line.
From my testing I seem to localize bass better than average, so don't take me as a baseline. Or a bass line.
[help=]%[/help]
Pano, what do you use these files with? A hardware convolver or software to process music files with? Would some recordings possiblyt already have had this process included from the mastering desk?
Bill
Pano, what do you use these files with? A hardware convolver or software to process music files with? Would some recordings possiblyt already have had this process included from the mastering desk?
Bill
I used the 'flanking woofer' for a while, in one case mono and centred and up to 400-800Hz to iron out the rear wall. In this case it worked, I just couldn't live with the aesthetics of it.
Point being in response to Pano's noticed diffuse sound.
Also had good results with two subs within direct range of the mains and placed fairly near them.
Edit: Distributing the subs maybe affects a sealed room differently, I have entranceways in the rear of my room.
Point being in response to Pano's noticed diffuse sound.
Also had good results with two subs within direct range of the mains and placed fairly near them.
Edit: Distributing the subs maybe affects a sealed room differently, I have entranceways in the rear of my room.
Last edited:
Kinderhornman,
Thanks. My setup will do double duty for both music and HT so I need a separate sub solution (IB) to cover those lowest octave(s) (10-40) that the 2245H/416-8B cannot cover in a sealed configuration.
So given the pass band, I was hoping to hear from somebody with experience from both drivers on their different character in this range. I know for example you Khm said a couple of posts back that:
I also seem to remember that Lynn has said in this thread that he compared a JBL driver (2235H?) against a 416-8B and thought it sounded flat, boring and unengaging in comparison, no colour no sparkle etc.
It was a 2226H. Stiff surround, high Rms, low Qms.
IME, low Rms (relative to cone mass), i.e. low Fs/Qms (mechanical damping) is key to avoid that "flat, boring and unengaging" sound at low levels.
Marco
I was wondering the same thing... I do recognise the observation from Pano though, as I use room correction and damping panels to tame the room the sides definitely are a tiny bit brighter in balance than the (phantom) center. But not on every recording. On most material I listen to it is noticeable though.
I'll try Pano's file as soon as I have the house to myself for a moment (not today sadly).
I know it will be sacrilegious but a nice sounding driver back in the day was a guitar speaker really, the JBL D130 15". Those had a nice sparkle with the metallic center cap.
Shoot me but they did work for two way systems with a horn above long ago.
Shoot me but they did work for two way systems with a horn above long ago.
It's silly saying 18's are inferior to smaller drivers for deep bass. That was why I posted 18's work fine. Multiple bass drivers almost always work better than less bass drivers regardless of the size of the driver and it isn't just because the subs drive the room from different positions.
POOH,
I'm not saying that an 18" can't be used for producing bass, my argument is that if you are going to use a subwoofer like a couple of 10" speakers below the 18 then using an 18 from 50hz up to 700hz or thereabouts makes so little sense. If I was going to go to the trouble to use an 18" then I'm going to make it be the lowest speaker in the system, it is going to be the subwoofer. If I have to add mass to the 18" cone to do that then I would do it. I'd get that massive diaphragm to go down to 20hz if that was my ideal or I wouldn't use it. I'm sure there are a million other opinions but that is mine, I'm not going to use a subwoofer period with an 18, especially one that is much smaller to do that. This just becomes the silly zone. About as silly as having an all horn system with compression driver top end and then adding a small cone driver with whizzer cone to add some sparkle on the top!
I'm not saying that an 18" can't be used for producing bass, my argument is that if you are going to use a subwoofer like a couple of 10" speakers below the 18 then using an 18 from 50hz up to 700hz or thereabouts makes so little sense. If I was going to go to the trouble to use an 18" then I'm going to make it be the lowest speaker in the system, it is going to be the subwoofer. If I have to add mass to the 18" cone to do that then I would do it. I'd get that massive diaphragm to go down to 20hz if that was my ideal or I wouldn't use it. I'm sure there are a million other opinions but that is mine, I'm not going to use a subwoofer period with an 18, especially one that is much smaller to do that. This just becomes the silly zone. About as silly as having an all horn system with compression driver top end and then adding a small cone driver with whizzer cone to add some sparkle on the top!
I wasn't saying any of that. I was making the point that I'd rather have multiple subs of modest quality than one big uber sub. 18's are fine for subs, just that many of them gets big quick. I have 4 18's in my HT.
I use JRiver Media Center as my player, which has a built in convolver. Very easy to use. I think Foobar now comes with a convolver, too. If you need help finding it, just ask.
Don't know if some of this is used in mastering, but tons of things are, so you never know. I should probably start a thread about this.
