This is clearly about sound quality versus extra lower bass existence.
A classic example is the use of subwoofer with a bookself speaker. In most or all situations, the subwoofer integration will be a big mess. But we can see that most people will accept the mess for bass existence. Less people, but usually audiophiles, will accept no bass.
Speaker will never be perfect so there will always be compromises.
In a no compromise system, the mid should be in a separate enclosure. The bandwitdh should cover all range covered by instruments that make up music (otherwise the sound will be different with the one intended by musicians). The sound must be close to the best possible. And the last, unfortunately, it should be cost-no-object.
How to fulfill our needs with a given budget, thats a rare expertise.
I think I am coming at this from a slightly different angle: my version of 'no compromises' is the one that says we will use whichever 'topology' gives the best sound. If that happens to cost more, then so be it. But I have a suspicion that it won't cost more. Throwing money at an already-compromised system (small two way speaker) won't improve it. Going three way will be a big improvement, and could well cost less for better performance. Going active (my favorite hobby horse) will be another step up, and again could end up costing less - three small amps may be a lot easier to build than one super amp that has to cope with the load of a passive crossover.
Too many people are polishing turds for a hobby!
Don't know about the cost-no-object part. As a nation we've come up with some serious engineering blunders. More akin to not seeing the forest from the trees. The XB70 is a good example of the billions that can be spent just to be nixed. Had to be moved indoors to a controlled environment because of the corrosion issues eating it up. Still a very impressive design, it's just not practical to drop bombs at mach 3+ from 80k feet.
Yes there's a lot of yuck out there, but it is in the nature of being human to work with what we have. Seeing that all are a compromise in at least one way or another, defining what a turd is, is far more difficult. In many of the polishing cases, one must consider the "stranded on a desert island" paradigm.
I don't know what you would call them but they are not audiophiles. Music missing bass or anything else is not music.
It also doesn't have to be cost no object, that is audiophile IMHO. There are plenty of great systems out there where you don't need a second mortgage.
Rob🙂
In pro audio circles the term Audiophile is a derogatory term, riddled with their superfluous adjectives to describe what is happening. They will have no part if it. On the flipside defining an audiophile as you have is also incorrect. The lacking of on either end of the spectrum does not mean it's not music nor a non audiophile w*nker. The topic is fatigue, not what this person or that cannot live with or without in general. 🙂
Mike
It's fatiguing to hear the same people yammering about how bass can't be done right. It can be. Big speakers can be tuned for the room just like small ones, and subwoofer integration doesn't have to be a problem. This is DIY audio, not "what did the foolish guy who put K2s in a closet get for bass". We can retune the bass systems at will, use multisub, plug or damp the vents on the mains or subs, change box alignments, EQ, room treatment, etc.
And for some of us, it's very tiresome to listen to music without proper bass support. That's pertinent to this discussion and cannot be dismissed by "some others don't find it a problem". We're working in aggregate. I've done enough hifi and theater installs over the years to feel quite confident that systems with underperforming bass are used less and their owners less interested in listening to them. Your own examples have been in the context of hand clapping recordings and distributed sound/elevator music- where garnering interest and preventing boredom are a non-issue. Your version of fatigue within this context is more along the lines of "strident", where fatigue within a presumably reasonably high performing system may be much more related to "uninteresting".
If there was a notch in response between 1 and 2 kHz, would this be fatiguing? I think so.
If there was a notch in response between 100 and 200 Hz, would this be fatiguing? I think so.
Is it completely different to a 'notch' between 0 and 100 Hz?
If there was a notch in response between 100 and 200 Hz, would this be fatiguing? I think so.
Is it completely different to a 'notch' between 0 and 100 Hz?
BADMAN, You dislike as has been stated repeatedly, but really has no context with fatigue. Now if we were talking about distortions of such, not the lacking of that would be different.
If you would like to expand upon some technical reasons for such fine, but you never have. You have never once answered to any demand to back up your claims with anything but subjective like and dislikes.
and now we have another chiming in with the same arguement as has been mentioned previously. Hole in the middle for sure, but it was never stated such would not do such. Only at the extreme ends of our hearing range this is not a problem. It's not critical to how we as human evolved.
Please stop derailing the thread and stay on topic please.
If you would like to expand upon some technical reasons for such fine, but you never have. You have never once answered to any demand to back up your claims with anything but subjective like and dislikes.
and now we have another chiming in with the same arguement as has been mentioned previously. Hole in the middle for sure, but it was never stated such would not do such. Only at the extreme ends of our hearing range this is not a problem. It's not critical to how we as human evolved.
Please stop derailing the thread and stay on topic please.
Last edited:
In my own experiences peaks in the frequency response are substantially more fatiguing than notches.
I find notches are easily missed as long as there is output above AND below the notch and it also depends on its width and depth.
Lack of low bass is very annoying to me and it gets worse as the volume increases.
But then I'm a bit of a dub head and that is all about the bass line. Plus those reggae guys tend to use bass strings which produce very few harmonics. I've seen them use nylon-wound steel strings on stage which are super dull with almost no overtones.
I find notches are easily missed as long as there is output above AND below the notch and it also depends on its width and depth.
Lack of low bass is very annoying to me and it gets worse as the volume increases.
But then I'm a bit of a dub head and that is all about the bass line. Plus those reggae guys tend to use bass strings which produce very few harmonics. I've seen them use nylon-wound steel strings on stage which are super dull with almost no overtones.
I'm not the one claiming that hand claps are a reasonable basis by which to judge things. Nor am I claiming that in "most or all situations, the subwoofer integration will be a big mess".
Some voices have fundamentals below 100Hz and plenty of instruments do. I find having to mentally fill in the fundamental, based on the harmonics that ARE produced, very tiresome. Reconstructing things that aren't properly there, having to listen "through" a noise floor, high distortion, or whatnot are all sources of fatigue. Making your brain do the extra work to fix what is wrong, INCLUDING MISSING FUNDAMENTALS, is fatiguing.
You should take the time to completely quote what was being discussed. If you would stop taking everything out of context of what was actually stated in an attempt, not to prove your point but to discredit. Your slight of hand tactic implies dishonesty and subversion on your part.
Not to mention derailing this thread now for what the third time? In baseball you'ld be sent back to the dugout. Argue this on the field and you would be ejected from the game.
Perhaps you have something to say regarding my comments on having to "fill in" fundamentals, which is the crux of this issue, and drives the tiresome/fatiguing sound of thin systems lacking bass? (I'd add that a lack of spatial cues from bass is another problem here) Your post is entirely atopical.
Ok now we have something to go on. Spatial cues do not come from the low end of the spectrum as you are implying. They rest in the critical band of hearing much higher up in frequency. What lacks in bass is rooted in the wide range of the it's upper harmonics. For example a big fat woofer blows chucks and is nasty sounding in most cases as it has little to no physical upper range, it simply cannot go high enough. That fast bass must come from a driver which has a range of at least 2kHz, 5kHz is better regardless of where the driver is crossed over at.
Same is true of proper coverage of the fundamentals where a single driver should cover them all. This is where fullrange speakers excel. It's not the only reason, but is one of them. Is it absolutely necessary, no, does it help? Certainly, as long as it doesn't compromise the most important aspects. This is why some settle for less low bass, feeling it would be better with but only if it doesn't mar the rest of the range. While there are instruments that do hit the lower range, the typical speaker that sound is normally perceived as the second harmonic, not the fundamental. If the fundamental is simply at a lower level then it's not an issue many would rather avoid dealing with.
This is quite common when bass is incorrectly distributed in a room. How many so called HT systems being sold have a single sub? Without proper distribution of the bass it will cause a myriad of headaches for the listener, being totally different from one ear to the other and varies grossly whenever you move. The solution for the room modes can only be addressed with multiple sub placements about the room.
Reality: If you have enough amp, a modern amp, you can decide on your personal compromise which WILL be your speaker/room circuit. We are kidding ourselves otherwise.
Even first rate da conversion is 100 ala Schiit Modi. It *is* *Only* speaker/room unless you go looking for bad amplification and. D/A. Which some do unfortunately.
Even first rate da conversion is 100 ala Schiit Modi. It *is* *Only* speaker/room unless you go looking for bad amplification and. D/A. Which some do unfortunately.
That may be listener specific. I hear most of the spacial cues in the mid-bass. Without it, little to no space. Other people rely on other cues.
1.Get large clean flat efficient speakers, many to chose from.
2.Damp/treat/furnish your room properly with sonics as fiest priority.
3.Assert yourself or even rid yourself of anything that prohibits you from achieving 1 and 2 including false "audiophile" preconceptions and/or fatiguing nagging about big speakers, tell the nagee "size counts" Reclaim your soul. You have a right to your house too. Don't be one of those who fear common sense and instead go the easy route. Me married? Why certainly, several times.
2.Damp/treat/furnish your room properly with sonics as fiest priority.
3.Assert yourself or even rid yourself of anything that prohibits you from achieving 1 and 2 including false "audiophile" preconceptions and/or fatiguing nagging about big speakers, tell the nagee "size counts" Reclaim your soul. You have a right to your house too. Don't be one of those who fear common sense and instead go the easy route. Me married? Why certainly, several times.
I like it!
Off topic, but personally I am incapable of seeing a problem in large speakers. If I go round to someone's house and they have good, large speakers it doesn't say anything negative about that person. It says they are a person of taste, who is not embarrassed to make a feature of music in their living space and doesn't worry about losing a few cubic feet to it. People are only too happy to make a feature of their 60" plasma TV, so why not speakers?