I did not say the opposit... do not put in my mouth words I haven't said, we talked of speed. If something moves we can sanely think it has a mvt...an amplitude as you says it. And btw I am not sure it is a discussion. Just facts not opinion. I am out of some stoicism here as my explosive buddy. It is science and I agree to be wrong again if it is...seems it is not or prove it by a demonstration and not illustrations. But here that is very not interresting , I think the discussion about bass is way more interresting...
Last edited:
Yes, i think so...with a couple of caveats.
First one is up to what SPL does the speaker's FR stay linear? Linear for both average SPL, and for very short transient's peak SPL.
Across the entire spectrum, particularly the bottom end where it is usually first to fail.
Most anyone can hear when linearity is grossly exceeded......harshness, tonal shifts, loss of clarity and definition, on and on the problems...
Although below the gross stage, I wonder how many folks hear/realize that the incremental sound degradation as volume increases, is from pushing past system linearity for transient headroom.
Second caveat, is good old phase, and it's impact on the impulse response like tmuikku, wesayso, and others have been talking.
This one's effect on transients is harder to hear/recognize, because it's rather uncommon, (particularly as SPL increases.)
But ime/imo, the less the phase rotation/group delay a speaker has, the cleaner and stronger the transients. For me, it's become easier to hear and appreciate, the more i've experienced it.
So what additional data?
Maximum linear SPL....(Genelec specs for a home/studio example, and Fulcrum Acoustics for a proaudio ex)
And phase traces. Impulse works too....but phase is simpler and more direct imo..
Bottom line, full-range flat mag and at least smooth phase minimal rotations, that maintain linearity for whatever desired SPL with headroom needed for transients....is the ticket to "FAST" anything and everything 20-20k lol
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ds/genelec-8030c-studio-monitor-review.14795/
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/kef-ls50-meta-review-speaker.25574/
There was also a great model from Revel, something like M106 or F106. Or maybe M16? I didn't pay much attention since you can't get Revel products around these parts.
On a lower budget, Emotive B1+ is great: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...a-airmotiv-b1-review-bookshelf-speaker.22366/
Some of these speakers have also been measured by Erin.
One thing they all have in common is limited base capability. For ideal system they all need a sub, so you could say it's still a 3-way, but it's not how 99% of the 3-way speakers would be divided, the crossover points are different and deep bass capability of a small monitor with a dedicated sub is way better than most 3-way boxes.
agreed
once you start to notice excellent transients in some speakers, it becomes easy to spot speakers that are lacking in transients (what i mistakenly call speed)
According to the theory of Dr. Geddes, "a sub" is no sub. Things start to "gel" once you have about 3 separate sources that play bass.
And believe me, he's quite right about that. It is so simple to say one only needs a 2 way plus a sub, if you weren't in a room...
This theory isn't the only one to explain the need for multiple bass sources, even JBL/Harman has it's own version of this...
2 Floor standing 3 ways (which are bass capable) and a sub would make a lot more sense, for someone that takes his/her music/bass reproduction that seriously.
or 2 ways, combined with 3 subs, that "should" work too
.
I'm not saying anyone or everyone needs this. But if one does get a bit more serious about it all, the above are good recipe's to get you going.
And it probably hasn't crossed the OP's mind to think of it like this... It al depends on how far one is willing to go.
Some background:
or https://mehlau.net/audio/multisub_geddes/ and many more examples here on the forum...
It won't be for everyone and I'll probably get replies that claim or say it's really not needed etc. my speakers have plenty of bass...
It all depends...
And believe me, he's quite right about that. It is so simple to say one only needs a 2 way plus a sub, if you weren't in a room...
This theory isn't the only one to explain the need for multiple bass sources, even JBL/Harman has it's own version of this...
2 Floor standing 3 ways (which are bass capable) and a sub would make a lot more sense, for someone that takes his/her music/bass reproduction that seriously.
or 2 ways, combined with 3 subs, that "should" work too
.I'm not saying anyone or everyone needs this. But if one does get a bit more serious about it all, the above are good recipe's to get you going.
And it probably hasn't crossed the OP's mind to think of it like this... It al depends on how far one is willing to go.
Some background:
or https://mehlau.net/audio/multisub_geddes/ and many more examples here on the forum...
It won't be for everyone and I'll probably get replies that claim or say it's really not needed etc. my speakers have plenty of bass...
It all depends...
I highly recommend the Piccolo kit from Meniscus Audio. Particularly if you are looking for an outstanding, clear high end and great imaging. If a lot of bass is your goal instead, then this one is not the best choice.
Here is a link to the write up, and it is a subjective one. There are no measurent links as far as I know.
http://meniscus.lightningbasehosted.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Piccolo-Write-up.pdf
As far as I am aware distributed subs are the only practical way to get high quality low frequency sound (< 80 Hz) in the home. The key problem they address is absorbing the substantial amount of sound required to control the low frequency room response. The enormous sizes required to do this with passive absorbers isn't practical in most homes. The smaller but still significantly sized absorbers to control the room response from 80Hz to the Schroeder frequency are more practical.
If one doesn't control the room response then the room will boom raising the perceived level plus it will tend to sound a bit unpleasant inhibiting any desire to raise the level to hear more detail. I suspect this is a factor in some people being content with small 2 ways for main speakers.
Hi wesayso, ......well, i may get stoned for this.....According to the theory of Dr. Geddes, "a sub" is no sub. Things start to "gel" once you have about 3 separate sources that play bass.
And believe me, he's quite right about that. It is so simple to say one only needs a 2 way plus a sub, if you weren't in a room...
This theory isn't the only one to explain the need for multiple bass sources, even JBL/Harman has it's own version of this...
2 Floor standing 3 ways (which are bass capable) and a sub would make a lot more sense, for someone that takes his/her music/bass reproduction that seriously.
or 2 ways, combined with 3 subs, that "should" work too
I'm not saying anyone or everyone needs this. But if one does get a bit more serious about it all, the above are good recipe's to get you going.
And it probably hasn't crossed the OP's mind to think of it like this... It al depends on how far one is willing to go.
Some background:
or https://mehlau.net/audio/multisub_geddes/ and many more examples here on the forum...
It won't be for everyone and I'll probably get replies that claim or say it's really not needed etc. my speakers have plenty of bass...
It all depends...
In the context of what makes for best transient response, multiple subs aren't the ticket ime/imo.
I've yet to hear anything that equals the transient response of a single strong speaker/sub combo outdoors.
Indoors, my opinion is a single speaker/sub is still the best option for hearing best achievable transient response.
(Although that obviously has a price, when it comes vs stereo.)
I think more subs simply make for a smoother, more rounded sound.
Great for tones, even good for imparting tactile sensations.
Not so great for transients, not so good for punch.
I think you are right about this, plus the fact that some people, myself included, really don't even want a lot of bass to begin with.
There seems to be a feeling here that eveyone wants and should have a lot of bass. But that, unfortunetly, is not the reality. Very strong bass actually annoys me. I don't like it.
So I'm very content to listen to Classical music on my 2-ways and forego the very low end. Maybe I'll try to add a subwoofer at some time just to hear the difference, but I'm in no big hurry to do it.
Last edited:
Hurry up classicalfan:
https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...owered-subwoofer-black/1.html#!specifications
https://www.accessories4less.com/ma...owered-subwoofer-black/1.html#!specifications
Out of interest, does your measuring position have much impact on impulse response? My intuition is that at the long wavelengths involved, once delays are configured appropriately for one position you could "go and sit on the other sofa" without things falling apart, but there would be some small impact. Haven't done the sums though.
If anyone's interested I think a useful exercise to help test how the ear perceives this is to download a free bit of music production software. Get a bass drum sample and split it into HF transient and LF pulse on separate channels. Then delay one with respect to the other while listening through good headphones. Phase differences are very very noticeable to me in this context, whereas for things like explosions in films etc my brain seems far less fussy and I wouldn't be able to discern in an A/B test.
Last edited:
Thanks, but if I do decide to add a subwoofer it will be a quality kit. Not a $129 commercially made product with a cheap $10 driver, if it even costs that much. No thanks.
Last edited:
Hi Ron, we both know anything can be made perfect to a spot. And made pretty dang excellent/good over a fairly wide spot.
That said, i don't think any of our measurement programs can really capture the difference in the sound of one sub, vs two or more, when both setups are optimally tuned to same mic position.
All of the programs I've used, REW, ARTA, Smaart, and APL_TDA...... have to integrate all the per-frequency, same-time arrivals that hit the mic.
They have to get to a single impulse or single complex freq response just to do the Fourier and Hilbert math. The arrival vectors to the two ears ear are necessarily thrown out, with a single mic, and software that has to net to a lumped impulse / frequency response.
Hope that made sense.... (btw, have you tried APL_TDA RT (real time) ?
In a way, I've been trying to do as you suggest with my 3 channel LCR project. All 3 channels are identical with subs, and I've been playing with DSP to get the subs working smoothly together in the room.
Still haven't gotten up to the transient response of any of the 3 channels running alone in mono, but the overall pleasantness of the stereo or 3 channel spacious sure is nice. Especially so with 3 ch dialed to improve it's presence and transient response....I'm trying to get the best of both worlds, a mono center with a stereo sound stage.
What I really want to try for a single vs multiple sub test , is kinda the reverse of an often seen LCR setup, where the center channel doesn't have a sub.
I want to drop the subs on L&R, and just use the center sub. (Any one of the three subs can carry the whole load alone.)
Problem is, my current xover point is too high/steep, and L&R both sound thin without their subs. But it's easy to hear the single subs improved transient impact. Gonna go shallow slope high pass to L&R ,and see what center sub only does...
Hell bells, i did a brief blastout demo of the single center stack in mono for some live sound guys. The bass drop in the middle of Lindsey Stirling's Crystallize, blew empty coke cans off a table at about 4-5 m distance.
Multiple subs would have just pushed the cans around in a circle or something, ....mixed up vectors, haha.Hey folks ....Sorry to let transient response cause me to get excited and make such a swerve.....
I thought about that, but a) you need to design the main speakers with a proper subwoofer section, not the typical 3-way XO points; and b) are the main speakers in a typical smallish room far enough apart to act as two separate subs?
If I were to go this route (and I might), I would design subs as stands for the speakers, so that they can look like solid floor-standers, but there's no need for the sub to be "glued" into the speakers. And then I would probably still get better results by repositioning the subs.
Also, you'd need an AVR with the corresponding number of independent subwoofer outs (more than one), and those are expensive. Or a miniDSP.
I had planned ahead to get good results along a 3 seat couch. Before starting to work on the low end I've made measurements to see what could be done. Due to the long wavelength involved it is quite forgiving. The more sources that are involved, the less the 'room' determines the outcome. It has the impact one expects from real drum sound, but it doesn't trigger the room anomalies. What I like about having the low end in order is that it's really a great atmosphere creator. The impact and feel helps too in the total amusement factor. I wouldn't want to be without.
I think when @classicalfan would hear what's possible with multiple (at least 3 bass sources) subwoofers/bass sources , he would/could feel different on this subject as well. One single sub doing bass isn't going to give you the same 'even' response over a larger area. The room would dominate the outcome. Even with as much EQ you can throw at it.
I've only used APL_TDA as a demo, recording an in-room result.
In a way, I've been trying to do as you suggest with my 3 channel LCR project. All 3 channels are identical with subs, and I've been playing with DSP to get the subs working smoothly together in the room.
Still haven't gotten up to the transient response of any of the 3 channels running alone in mono, but the overall pleasantness of the stereo or 3 channel spacious sure is nice. Especially so with 3 ch dialed to improve it's presence and transient response....I'm trying to get the best of both worlds, a mono center with a stereo sound stage.
What I really want to try for a single vs multiple sub test , is kinda the reverse of an often seen LCR setup, where the center channel doesn't have a sub.
I want to drop the subs on L&R, and just use the center sub. (Any one of the three subs can carry the whole load alone.)
Problem is, my current xover point is too high/steep, and L&R both sound thin without their subs. But it's easy to hear the single subs improved transient impact. Gonna go shallow slope high pass to L&R ,and see what center sub only does...
Hell bells, i did a brief blastout demo of the single center stack in mono for some live sound guys. The bass drop in the middle of Lindsey Stirling's Crystallize, blew empty coke cans off a table at about 4-5 m distance.
Hey folks ....Sorry to let transient response cause me to get excited and make such a swerve.....
It depends on how one is able to do it I guess, maybe a bit of luck thrown in. I went for an excellent single seat and great couch result. Balancing everything is hard and it sure takes time. But time I was willing to invest. It isn't punishment to listen to songs. Lots of experiments can be done on the PC first, to get more time listening than measuring.
For starters, I do have all the sources at the same end of the room and at similar distances, so it's all directed at the listening position and fires (still in Stereo) at the couch. It (left right) really sums + 6 dB at the sweet spot. Whats needed for the subs is differing positions in relation to the room boundaries. Have you tried a single or double bass array? I would love to do that. It has about all the needed requirements.
The reason this works for me is because it's making use of my relatively small room. I have the arrays working along with the subs(*). The arrays are 2.25 m. tall and help produce bass to spread the bass sources (I know you don't believe in this method of using EQ down low, but it does work and stays well within limits). This helps to spread the positions in height. Each sub should be in a different location. One in a corner, one half way along the long wall etc. One or two at a different height etc. The arrays are dialed down compared to the subs. They don't work on the lowest octave either, the subs handle that part way better. They work where they still work best, where the room adds to their output and they are dialed back where the room counters their output. They are all this close to the front wall for a reason.The subs fill in the gaps, much like I was able to do between the left array and the right array in the not so distant past. This way, trough planning and using the room as an advantage, I get way more out of the complete package than many would consider possible. And well within the limits of each driver that is part of it. The arrays have less volume displacement capabilities than the subwoofers, so they carry a load that is in balance with that fact. Without room gain, it would fall apart.
Most people will probably find it hard to believe, but this system can do the 85-90 dB on average and still hold up well at the peaks too, that are present in our dynamic music. (you know, songs with a dynamic range of about 15 instead of 6) I aimed for the ability to do 105 dB at 1m over as large a frequency band as possible (for music use). Every song I play has been scanned in advance for dynamic range and plays at the same average level. I don't ever feel the need to be louder than that. I would get different speakers for a party outside.
I may at times listen at lower levels at times (but that doesn't even happen that often
). Planning ahead what one wants to (or be able to) do helps to get the right mix of ingredients. All amps are way more capable than the speakers can handle. The worst signal firing at a speaker is a clipping amp.I've worked on this (as a hobby) to improve the results continuously over time, learning from mistakes. But also learning to really make use of what one has and optimizing that over time. Staging and imaging varies with the song content and can easily be up to 180 degree, way past the speaker placement, having the center voice "hover" slightly in front of you. If it's in the song. Due to the room treatment, the song determines the imaging, not the room.
I've had many visitors, a few forum members have shared their impression, those stories are linked in the first post of my thread. Most have heard the version without subs though and still they were impressed what could be achieved (due to my relatively small room
). Without the room to help out, none of it would have been remotely possible. The room size matters in what it needs, but if I would have had a bigger room, I would have had more space to get bigger (sub)drivers. I won't blow coke cans off of a table at 4 meters, but I have bass that I can feel and it certainly isn't sloppy. The transient we hear isn't the low notes. Those notes we mostly feel, the hear part that gives it "snap" is in the harmonics... No overhang or having fast and even decay, that should help. Sometimes you need a bit of luck with the room. I have firm brick walls all around, but it has an inner shell (with damping behind) behind the speakers and on side walls.
One exception on bass output: for Home Theatre I dial things down a bit and restrict the output of the lower octave to protect my subs. In music I haven't run into any trouble and can let it run lower. It starts to slowly back off at 30 Hz, but due to using an in-room measured curve the frequency curve at 20 Hz is louder than at say 3 KHz. The loudest song I have found over the years used to get me in trouble. These days I make sure it isn't a problem.
I think when @classicalfan would hear what's possible with (at least 3 bass sources) subwoofers, he would feel different. One single sub doing bass isn't going to give you the same even response over a large area.
The song: A Perfect Circle - Lullaby
Part of that particular song in a frequency analysis.
The bass part is a slow pumping atmosphere in this song. Not something that hits hard. The timing of 'feeling and hearing' makes for the most fun experience i.m.h.o.
That is the part that produces the smile on my face. Somehow people always flinch and look up when the bongo's hit on Hotel California, the live version from Hell Freezes Over. They don't expect it to sound that close and lively. But even simpler songs get new meaning with low bass. Feeling is very much part of listening.
We hear with our entire body.
(*) Without the arrays I wouldn't be able to get as clean results at lower frequencies. I had to choose between using them for these low notes or optimizing for midrange by not letting them play low. Listening extensively to each setup, I chose to have them lift the parts where they do so with the help of the room. It smooths out bass performance in-room while not taxing them too much. Straightening phase and using linear phase EQ plus room treatments could be considered the tools that allow me to do so. All done by measuring in-room at listening position. Many things can go wrong with that, so it took me an awful lot of time (learning) to get it right. It surely isn't as simple as drawing up your favorite room curve
.Hope it's not too long winded, this is my take...
Last edited:
Indeed, those are concerns. In a way, symmetry is your enemy at these lower notes, while it may be welcome at the higher notes to have that symmetry left/right.
The position differences, from each sub to a room boundary is what makes it work. One sub being a meter from the floor, another in a corner, and the third half way a long wall. All having different relations to the room, which makes the average outcome more in balance. I would consider using DSP mandatory for it to succeed. But a lot of active subs these days have tools, most certainly the sub amps available these days, like those made by Hypex (Fusion line).
I'm well aware that my setup is strange and different from most, all DSP done with the PC. It is an ongoing playground for me to enjoy this hobby. I've only once build speakers, subs and ambient channels. Most in this hobby build new speakers every once in a while. I puzzled on a concept that could work and am dedicated to get the most out of it. Whatever I can come up with, I'll try.
Oh, you're the person with the line array! I've seen your room photos in a different thread. First of all - amazing room, very good looking, I love everything about it. Including the fact that it's not huge, i. e. like most rooms I have access to, not like the U. S. mansions And second, I have tried reading one of your threads, the one about phantom center image, if I'm not mistaken? I was amazed by how deep and technical the discussion was, I couldn't keep up. Respect for digging in and applying science.
Found your line array thread, very interested, but it's also way over my head
And second, I have tried reading one of your threads, the one about phantom center image, if I'm not mistaken? I was amazed by how deep and technical the discussion was, I couldn't keep up. Respect for digging in and applying science.Found your line array thread, very interested, but it's also way over my head
Last edited: