No it comes from my PhD in Acoustics, my thesis on the low frequency response of small rooms and my nearly 50 years of experience.
Since you clearly are out to "win" by taking everything that I say to the extreme, rather than trying to actually understand what I am saying, I will cease to argue with you.
That kind of silliness only convinces people that you've never actually experienced high-fidelity upper bass in a small room.
Try it, and get back to us.
Hé gentlemen, in our jungle we listen to the sing of the birds ! 
Wow... I have been putting one more 1 hom cement resistor in serie with the 12 homs//1 uF used at the beginning of the tweeter crossover on my Lynfield 400L... the cut is 2600 hz. It's incredible, my hope was to paddle a slighty highlight in the (maybe) 5000 hz but the result is mostly more impact in mid bass & bass (the impacts) and more details in this area ! It's without a doubt better !
Yes two cement resistor in serie and no lake of details (the opposite in fact) ! Is it possible than a brand waste a filter in relation to an other which is the flag ship (same drivers in two box ? Lynfield 500L) ? Want to try more: 2 homs ! By ading more tha 1 uf, for example 12 hom// 2 uf, what is the effect : the bump is bigger after 2600 hz ? I want first play with resistor and after with thi cap value because moodding the rest of the passive filter is too difficult for me (the 2 selfs of the fourfth order tweeter crossover).
The mid bass is not only bigger or louder (minimal change), there are more powerfull impacts (big change).
Please, if I paddle with resistor in serie a tweeter: is there problem of phase with the two side of the crossovers mid/tweeter ? Same with the //1 uF if increased ?
Wow... I have been putting one more 1 hom cement resistor in serie with the 12 homs//1 uF used at the beginning of the tweeter crossover on my Lynfield 400L... the cut is 2600 hz. It's incredible, my hope was to paddle a slighty highlight in the (maybe) 5000 hz but the result is mostly more impact in mid bass & bass (the impacts) and more details in this area ! It's without a doubt better !
Yes two cement resistor in serie and no lake of details (the opposite in fact) ! Is it possible than a brand waste a filter in relation to an other which is the flag ship (same drivers in two box ? Lynfield 500L) ? Want to try more: 2 homs ! By ading more tha 1 uf, for example 12 hom// 2 uf, what is the effect : the bump is bigger after 2600 hz ? I want first play with resistor and after with thi cap value because moodding the rest of the passive filter is too difficult for me (the 2 selfs of the fourfth order tweeter crossover).
The mid bass is not only bigger or louder (minimal change), there are more powerfull impacts (big change).
Please, if I paddle with resistor in serie a tweeter: is there problem of phase with the two side of the crossovers mid/tweeter ? Same with the //1 uF if increased ?
Last edited:
Your credentials were clear before this post.
However, while what you propose might be ideal, it is far from practical for most people.
I take a practical approach.
Steve/bluewizard
Oddly I would speculate that a very large majority of people get by just fine with a couple of good high quality front Speakers and no subs, as opposed to the very few people who have who knows what in front, and multiple Subwoofers.
I know what I hear, and I know within my working budget I have the best I can, and ... no Sub.
Steve/bluewizard
You make a false dichotomy, and one that's entirely besides the point.
Let me rewrite your key sentence just a little to expose your "logic" for the nonsense it is:
Oddly I would speculate that a very large majority of people get by just fine with horses and buggies cubes as opposed to the very few people who had the resources to buy a car in the 1910s.
Oddly I would speculate that a very large majority of people get by just fine with Bose cubes as opposed to the very few people who have high quality speakers in front, and multiple Subwoofers.
And you can't know what it's clear from your posts you haven't heard. Again, try actually high-fidelity bass and get back to us.
No, your re-write would be false. It is a simply numbers game, there are far far more people who don't have multiple Sub than there are those who do have multiple Sub. Simply as that, and that vast majority who don't have multiple Sub are very happy with the results they get from their systems.
Next, Bose Cubes are NOT full-range speakers even by the weakest standard of the term. Clearly since I am only using large floorstanding speakers, I am talking about reasonably full range speakers.
Keep in mind, I never said Multiple Subs won't work, though you have not clarified exactly what you mean by multiple Subs, I simply said it was not necessary, and I said it is not physically or financially practical for most people in most rooms.
Further, I am not dictating the actions of other people as you seem to be doing. I am simply stating my personal preference. Before I would dump thousands into multiple Subs (whatever that means in practical terms), I would just dump that money into better full range front speakers. That is my choice. That is my preference. You can not agree, but you simply can't say it is wrong.
Now, were I in a position to build a dedicated Home Cinema room, I would consider TWO Subs at the front, but for completely different reasons than you are stating. Further, in addition to the Home Cinema, I would have a main stereo music system in another room, and it simply would not have a subwoofers.
Just because I don't like your idea, doesn't mean it is wrong or even that I think it is wrong, it simply means I have different priorities and preferences in my system.
The fanaticism with which you push your idea is not winning you any converts. In fact, the more fanatically you push the concept, the less I believe it.
And exactly what does High-Fidelity Bass mean? If what I hear reproduces the bass instrument with stunning clarity and life-like sound quality, then I would say that is High-Fidelity, and I have heard many speakers that don't need Sub, yet get that job done nicely.
There is an old saying - Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Which was then humorously converted to - Don't put all your begs in one ask it.
That seems to be what you and Gedlee are doing, you seem to be putting the full weight of the quality and character of the sound in one tiny narrow band of frequencies. You seem to be giving very narrow to no weight to stunningly clear midrange or crisp detailed highs.
Trust me there are many many things I want from a pair of speakers, long before I ever even remotely consider the possibility of multiple Subs. Even if I consider that possibility, I'm certainly going to consider other areas where that same amount of money could potentially deliver more of what I want and need from a system.
Back to the original point, there are massively greater numbers of people quite content with two high quality front speakers, than there are people with multiple Subs in music systems. You are probably outnumbered by a ratio of easily 10,000 (or more) to 1.
Steve/bluewizard
Next, Bose Cubes are NOT full-range speakers even by the weakest standard of the term. Clearly since I am only using large floorstanding speakers, I am talking about reasonably full range speakers.
Keep in mind, I never said Multiple Subs won't work, though you have not clarified exactly what you mean by multiple Subs, I simply said it was not necessary, and I said it is not physically or financially practical for most people in most rooms.
Further, I am not dictating the actions of other people as you seem to be doing. I am simply stating my personal preference. Before I would dump thousands into multiple Subs (whatever that means in practical terms), I would just dump that money into better full range front speakers. That is my choice. That is my preference. You can not agree, but you simply can't say it is wrong.
Now, were I in a position to build a dedicated Home Cinema room, I would consider TWO Subs at the front, but for completely different reasons than you are stating. Further, in addition to the Home Cinema, I would have a main stereo music system in another room, and it simply would not have a subwoofers.
Just because I don't like your idea, doesn't mean it is wrong or even that I think it is wrong, it simply means I have different priorities and preferences in my system.
The fanaticism with which you push your idea is not winning you any converts. In fact, the more fanatically you push the concept, the less I believe it.
And exactly what does High-Fidelity Bass mean? If what I hear reproduces the bass instrument with stunning clarity and life-like sound quality, then I would say that is High-Fidelity, and I have heard many speakers that don't need Sub, yet get that job done nicely.
There is an old saying - Don't put all your eggs in one basket. Which was then humorously converted to - Don't put all your begs in one ask it.
That seems to be what you and Gedlee are doing, you seem to be putting the full weight of the quality and character of the sound in one tiny narrow band of frequencies. You seem to be giving very narrow to no weight to stunningly clear midrange or crisp detailed highs.
Trust me there are many many things I want from a pair of speakers, long before I ever even remotely consider the possibility of multiple Subs. Even if I consider that possibility, I'm certainly going to consider other areas where that same amount of money could potentially deliver more of what I want and need from a system.
Back to the original point, there are massively greater numbers of people quite content with two high quality front speakers, than there are people with multiple Subs in music systems. You are probably outnumbered by a ratio of easily 10,000 (or more) to 1.
Steve/bluewizard
Last edited:
Encore a french : Gilles Millot (leedh psyche II...remember!) :Leedh C - Enceinte Leedh C - Acoustical Beauty :its last... Holy cow...where are the subs ! (I don't heard it yet !)
Um, that was kinda the point.
"Happy with the result they get from their systems" ≠ high fidelity reproduction. And your phrase probably applies to most Bose cube owners, too, which again shows how utterly lacking your "logic" is here. Really, you should start by thinking better. Higher quality of thought makes better arguments.
And you are simply wrong on every single phrase in those two sentences, assuming the goal is high-fidelity reproduction of music. If the goal is simply some amorphous "satisfied," then whatever, who cares. Get a Bose cube and learn to love it!
Please learn to read carefully. I never wrote your approach was "wrong." I don't know you, I don't have to suffer through listening to your system (which, given the quality of your thoughts here, I would not expect to meet my expectations), so why should I care? I wrote that using just 2 stereo full-range speakers results in low fidelity upper bass reproduction in a typically-sized domestic living room. That was objectively shown through measurements in the link I provided above.
If one's room is the size of the Musikverein, the modal region is much lower, and full-range speakers can work wonders. (As long as they can play loudly enough to fill the space!) But in a typical small room, low-fidelity. Period.
And if someone willfully choses low-fidelity, good for him/her.
Smooth, even frequency response, preferably over an area that at least allows a seated listener to shift around a bit. Take care of that, and everything else (timing, ringing, etc.) follows.
Which, again, just tells me that you haven't actually heard high-fidelity bass in a small room.
That's absurd and it's nonsense. Those traits are simply out of the scope of a discussion of bass in a small room.
(And for the record, I don't want colorations such as "stunningly clear midrange" or "crisp detailed highs." I want what's on the recording. If the recording is mush, the reproduction should be likewise mush.)
And there are massively greater numbers of people quite content with Bose cubes, than with two high quality front speakers. So what?
Last edited:
Of course, the correct formula for simple 1-dimension axial room modes is:
F=C/2x, where x is the dimension of interest.
C is ~565 for dimensions in feet, and about 172 for dimensions in meters.
So you need to divide the frequencies BlueWizard posted in half - and also note that there are resonances at multiples of these frequencies as well
The full formula for all modes in a shoebox room is C/2*sqrt((a/L)^2+(b/W)^2+(c/H)^2)
a, b and c are non-negative integers. L,W, H are length width and height.
These modal resonances predominate at frequencies below the schroeder frequency.
So the 8 foot dimension gives a resonance at ~70Hz. Note that the resonance is only fully excited if the source is on the floor or ceiling (or within perhaps 1/6 wavelength.) If the source is midway between floor and ceiling the mode is not excited at all.
F=C/2x, where x is the dimension of interest.
C is ~565 for dimensions in feet, and about 172 for dimensions in meters.
So you need to divide the frequencies BlueWizard posted in half - and also note that there are resonances at multiples of these frequencies as well
The full formula for all modes in a shoebox room is C/2*sqrt((a/L)^2+(b/W)^2+(c/H)^2)
a, b and c are non-negative integers. L,W, H are length width and height.
These modal resonances predominate at frequencies below the schroeder frequency.
So the 8 foot dimension gives a resonance at ~70Hz. Note that the resonance is only fully excited if the source is on the floor or ceiling (or within perhaps 1/6 wavelength.) If the source is midway between floor and ceiling the mode is not excited at all.
oops - I should have posted
F = C/(2L) or (C/2)/L - thus C/2 = 565 for feet and 172 for meters
So 565/L gives the lowest axial mode F for a dimension of length L in feet.
I think this kind of change, if it is small, is important enough to do. There will be some change in phase. It shouldn't be enough to be a problem.
The wave reaches both ways across the room in one cycle at (f). One way per cycle (2f). Two thirds per cycle = three cycles both ways (3f).
thank you AllenB (and Steve and Ron E for the mathematics),
AllenB, I continue the adventure with treble in the acoustical filter for tweeter thread... that is interesting is the attenuation in treble add impacts in mid bass, I was waiting for maybe more bass presence but not more drums impact in mid-bass region (and medium with harmonics : my mid begin at 125 hz).
yesterday i have a look at Stereophile about the fhz curve of the maggies 3.6... very interesting : its a dipping curve between the bass and the treble ! and it is said to be transparent... I love this hobby ! 30 years of try, understand near nothing but I love it !
AllenB, I continue the adventure with treble in the acoustical filter for tweeter thread... that is interesting is the attenuation in treble add impacts in mid bass, I was waiting for maybe more bass presence but not more drums impact in mid-bass region (and medium with harmonics : my mid begin at 125 hz).
yesterday i have a look at Stereophile about the fhz curve of the maggies 3.6... very interesting : its a dipping curve between the bass and the treble ! and it is said to be transparent... I love this hobby ! 30 years of try, understand near nothing but I love it !
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.