Hi,
My first experience with good quality audio system, about 20 years ago, was an Aiwa Mini HiFi audio system, which had two 4th order bandpass cabinets, each containing a subwoofer, mid range driver and a tweeter, which I call '2.2'. I instantly fell in love with it. I was a kid. Fast forward two decades, I simply do not get satisfaction from popularly and locally available 5.1 audio systems. I'd like to find out why the market forgot the blissful audio the former could deliver, and opted for inferior ones we see today.
Today, there is not a single product of this [2.2] type available. Everyone wants 5.1 in the local market. I want to understand why people have so much obsession towards 5/7 channels for midrange and only 1 for low range.
Most people listen to music from youtube, spotify, etc which are just two channels. Whats the point in having 5/7 speakers? I think two good speakers like in the olden days would give more satisfaction!
What do you think are the reasons for this shift?
To my mind, these are some possibilities:
1. Multiple small speakers are better than one large speaker: I agree with this, but its impact on home audio feels less profound. But this theory is more relevant for high power/volume public address systems. I understand that its quite irritating to sit right in front of the stage where they keep that large speaker facing towards you, playing at insane loudness so that people at the back could hear.
2. Bass is more omnidirectional: This is likely a prominent espousing reason for the shift from multiple full spectrum drivers to one bass driver and multiple midrange drivers. The reasoning being that you cant distinguish where the bass is coming from. But since when did all of the general public start having PhD in acoustics ? Or is it that the manufacturers pushed it rather ? We have two ears. I feel we should make just the two of them happy in the most efficient way. So it makes sense to have a two speaker system placed appropriately to satisfy the senses.
3. Preference over compact designs: Space is premium. Everyone likes it small. Higher frequencies doesn't really need much space, so manufacturers started compromising bass for smaller designs. One cant defy physics. For good bass, you NEED enough volume. The majority of the people decided to trade soulful audio for space constraints, and the manufacturers went with the people's preference... That saddens me.
4. Design of good cabinets for subwoofers are complicated: Even the subwoofers you get today are mostly sealed enclosure type. I hardly see a 4th or higher order bandpass cabinets these days in the market. Their exuberance cannot be matched by a sealed enclosure system!
Do you think this reasoning makes sense? Are there other possible reasons for the market shift?
Would the diyaudio folks here prefer a "x.x" or a "x.1", for home audio purpose ?
My first experience with good quality audio system, about 20 years ago, was an Aiwa Mini HiFi audio system, which had two 4th order bandpass cabinets, each containing a subwoofer, mid range driver and a tweeter, which I call '2.2'. I instantly fell in love with it. I was a kid. Fast forward two decades, I simply do not get satisfaction from popularly and locally available 5.1 audio systems. I'd like to find out why the market forgot the blissful audio the former could deliver, and opted for inferior ones we see today.
Today, there is not a single product of this [2.2] type available. Everyone wants 5.1 in the local market. I want to understand why people have so much obsession towards 5/7 channels for midrange and only 1 for low range.
Most people listen to music from youtube, spotify, etc which are just two channels. Whats the point in having 5/7 speakers? I think two good speakers like in the olden days would give more satisfaction!
What do you think are the reasons for this shift?
To my mind, these are some possibilities:
1. Multiple small speakers are better than one large speaker: I agree with this, but its impact on home audio feels less profound. But this theory is more relevant for high power/volume public address systems. I understand that its quite irritating to sit right in front of the stage where they keep that large speaker facing towards you, playing at insane loudness so that people at the back could hear.
2. Bass is more omnidirectional: This is likely a prominent espousing reason for the shift from multiple full spectrum drivers to one bass driver and multiple midrange drivers. The reasoning being that you cant distinguish where the bass is coming from. But since when did all of the general public start having PhD in acoustics ? Or is it that the manufacturers pushed it rather ? We have two ears. I feel we should make just the two of them happy in the most efficient way. So it makes sense to have a two speaker system placed appropriately to satisfy the senses.
3. Preference over compact designs: Space is premium. Everyone likes it small. Higher frequencies doesn't really need much space, so manufacturers started compromising bass for smaller designs. One cant defy physics. For good bass, you NEED enough volume. The majority of the people decided to trade soulful audio for space constraints, and the manufacturers went with the people's preference... That saddens me.
4. Design of good cabinets for subwoofers are complicated: Even the subwoofers you get today are mostly sealed enclosure type. I hardly see a 4th or higher order bandpass cabinets these days in the market. Their exuberance cannot be matched by a sealed enclosure system!
Do you think this reasoning makes sense? Are there other possible reasons for the market shift?
Would the diyaudio folks here prefer a "x.x" or a "x.1", for home audio purpose ?
They don't nor do they need to. They cannot hear a difference between two low freq sources and one, so why should hifi makers provide extra circuits and speakers that are not needed?
I used to restore old jukeboxes among other things, and even in the 1950s we had jukeboxes with a single low freq driver and smaller drivers for left and right upper freqs. You have two ears, and yet at low freq, they cannot locate sound source.
I do not know, but it seems like you might be looking at bookshelf integrated systems. If you want a snorting stereo system, then buy a preamp, but a power amp, buy some speakers. All that is out there at any level of performance you might want.
Five speakers? Well, two of them are for the rears, they help give a full sound. A concert puts you awash in a field of sound. Two speakers only up front is like listening to a concert through a doorway.
I believe we have similar tastes in acoustics... maybe because I hooked in 25ish years ago with a similar setup.
After that, and until I moved to a different country, I built my own two subs to accommodate the two passed down 3way customs. (As a teen or something)
Maybe we are “bassheads”? Hehe (in a good way)
I would love to ...but I think where I live now... 2 subs would mean a police visit
Doesn't it improve the sound pressure level felt at the listener? It surely would mean better experience. Although you say people cannot feel the difference between two low freq sources, my experience with single low freq sources has been disappointing. Not because I can feel the difference, but partly due to poorly designed enclosure systems available locally, and the inability to generate true low frequency sounds because most of the locally available ones are designed for use in cars, which has a higher Fs.
Bookshelf seems to the one I would prefer. The bookshelf type speakers sold in India on amazon, are actually 2.0's, like these: Edifier India
All Speakers
It is not just about the subs, it has quite a lot to do with the right speakers being matched with the right cabinets, which is hard to come by. Simply retro fitting amps wont do justice IMO. A well made two full range bookshelf system with 6 inch sub each can sound better than a 5.1 with 12 inch sealed enclosure sub, since I've experienced it. I'm surprised, is it just me who feels this way ?
It doesnt have to be a snorting stereo, as I'm not a fan of loud noise. Good distortion free bass the system can produce at a lower volume is what I look for.
In the part of the world where I come from, never have I ever heard someone purchase an original DVD or Blu Ray disk to play it in the home theater. Everyone plays music from either youtube, mp3 files, or a bluetooth stream. All these sources have just two channels. In this situation, is there a point in having the extra rear channels ? Does a midrange driver at the rear make a difference when there is no surround source ? It might just be playing what the front channels are playing, isnt it?
I believe we have similar tastes in acoustics... maybe because I hooked in 25ish years ago with a similar setup.
After that, and until I moved to a different country, I built my own two subs to accommodate the two passed down 3way customs. (As a teen or something)
Maybe we are “bassheads”? Hehe (in a good way)
I would love to ...but I think where I live now... 2 subs would mean a police visit
I feel you! We're definitely bassheads! Glad to know I'm not alone!
If you don't feel the single source has enough output, it sounds to me like you need a stronger source, rather than adding a second one. If your speaker experience is based upon poor designs, then don't blame the number of source points for it. By the way I didn't say anything about feeling sound, what I said was that our ears cannot locate the source of low frequencies. That is why we often have a single subwoofer feed from a stereo system.
In pro audio, I have powered subwoofers, and many of them have "stereo" inputs, that cull the bottom and pass the rest along. But inside the unit, the left and right bottom end are mixed together into a single mono amp signal.
Can a good 6" system sound better than a bad 12"? I have no doubt. Can a 6" system sound as good and convincing as a GOOD 12"? That would be the test.
In pro audio, I have powered subwoofers, and many of them have "stereo" inputs, that cull the bottom and pass the rest along. But inside the unit, the left and right bottom end are mixed together into a single mono amp signal.
Can a good 6" system sound better than a bad 12"? I have no doubt. Can a 6" system sound as good and convincing as a GOOD 12"? That would be the test.
People buy what they are sold. Product Designers decide what to sell.
Many midranges is useful for Movies and Games. You want the T-Rex offscreen left to sound like it is way left. Then the star says "Let's get out of here!" and that should come from the mouth on screen, not spread all over. Then a helicopter coming in from behind the audience, and generally random speaker placement in real living rooms.... 5 or 7 midranges does the job without critical acoustical thought.
If you only listen to Stereo, this argument is weak.
Bass is VERY synergistic with minimum number of bass boxes. Put your two bass boxes close together and you gain 3dB of acoustic efficiency. Now omit the middle wall and use one driver of 1.4X diameter. You use slightly less board, about the same amount of magnet, but HALF the parts, nearly doubling production on the same factory lines.
And the one box may be easier to find a place for, since it really can go "anywhere" (assuming cutoff is low).
The most natural bass is a sealed box. High-order bandpass "exuberance" may be lumpy fake-bass. But you may have to spend hours in the concert-hall to be aware of the difference. And certainly I have had much fun with lumpy bass.
Many midranges is useful for Movies and Games. You want the T-Rex offscreen left to sound like it is way left. Then the star says "Let's get out of here!" and that should come from the mouth on screen, not spread all over. Then a helicopter coming in from behind the audience, and generally random speaker placement in real living rooms.... 5 or 7 midranges does the job without critical acoustical thought.
If you only listen to Stereo, this argument is weak.
Bass is VERY synergistic with minimum number of bass boxes. Put your two bass boxes close together and you gain 3dB of acoustic efficiency. Now omit the middle wall and use one driver of 1.4X diameter. You use slightly less board, about the same amount of magnet, but HALF the parts, nearly doubling production on the same factory lines.
And the one box may be easier to find a place for, since it really can go "anywhere" (assuming cutoff is low).
The most natural bass is a sealed box. High-order bandpass "exuberance" may be lumpy fake-bass. But you may have to spend hours in the concert-hall to be aware of the difference. And certainly I have had much fun with lumpy bass.
Are you sure that system you heard had active stereo bass (to justify calling it 2.2)? It could have been 2.1, but with the same "0.1" signal feeding two separate subs. It could also have been a regular 2.0, with passive xo.
I describe my system as 2.2 in that it has 2 full range signals (for stereo), and 2 stereo active low passed signals for the bass.
More reasons for the manufacturer to favor simple single box. For the same sub, a ported cabinet can give 10dB SPL increase, as apparent from YouTube which is why I would not want a sealed enclosure design. Thanks for sharing the insight.
Technically, one possible benefit I can think of, with multiple subs is that if one can optimally place them, then the base can be evenly distributed, helping to reduce the effects of room resonance.
This page also substantiates that full range stereo is a better choice Q. Is there any advantage to using two subwoofers? |
Last edited:
I believe its a true 2.2 in that respect. From the service manual, the amp block which has an LPF attached, has two separate channels.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.