Ten and 12 Hz content was mentioned in the AES paper because it WAS intended to be heard/felt. The content below the audio band is felt, it hits you in the chest, the floor shakes, and the windows rattle. It adds a sense of realism. Just because there are a limited number of recordings that require such low frequency capability is no reason to discount it for an ultimate system.
Any well recorded action movie with explosions, crashes or whatever will have more impact on a system that goes below 20 Hz.
The subject of the AES paper that I mentioned was the low frequency requirements for "modern" subwoofers.
I showed real examples from real DVDs. So I don't think I'm discussing idealized cases here.
And no, I'm not talking about perfect. Optimum is good enough this time
By the way, what "optimum" is your current optimization algorithm trying to achieve? Only smallest seat-to-seat variation or smooth frequency response or linear frequency response or any combination of the three?
There is a human, me, in the algorithms iteration loop so it is whatever combination of those parameters that I see work best. It's not completely automated at this point. That would be a lot more programming, more than I am up for I am affraid.
I glanced at that.
The audio video disconnect came about historicaly as the two thing were considerd seperate and distinct - they were back then. They didn't mix in design, manuafacturing, etc. Now they are inseperable and mostly controlled from the video end and the "classic" audio people were out of the loop. I was shocked when I investigated MP3 and found than none of the AES people that I knew were involved at all. It was basically a bunch of SMPTE engineers who knew audio, not the traditional AES guru's. DOLBY was involved and Ray Dolby was an AES guy who I have know for years through them, so the AES was not completely out of the loop. But yes, video and audio have been seperate things for a long time.
Its probably about six weeks. Shorter than it was but longer than I'd like.
I don't recal where that was either, but I can refresh.
Assemble the cabinets, fill the holes and seams - Bondo or wood dowels. Then prime with Bins. I first prime with raw shellac by brush since this usually gets absorbed 100%. Then I spray on Bins, the stinky white stuff, Sand, spray, etc. until the finish is smooth. Then I spray on two coats of my satin black, which I mix myself, but any spray color will work. Don't even think about a gloss finish unles you have that expertise. It won't work. A flat and/or textured paint has the best coverage and comes out the best for a novice.
The quality I've seen via the client box surpasses that of the internet streams, for whatever reason.
But you're right, it sure ain't 1080.
I don't think this is it, it is too early, however it might be of interest:
Edit: I have the paper in my library but don't have the time to search for it;
this might actually be it since I search on subwoofer at the AES site and this
seems to be the best match from what I remember. I posted a reference to
the Bass list 10 or 15 years ago in case anyone here remembers it.
AES E-Library: Subwoofer Performance for Accurate Reproduction of Music
"Subwoofer Performance for Accurate Reproduction of Music"
JAES Volume 36 Issue 6 pp. 443-456; June 1988
"The spectra and the maximum output levels for accurately reproducing low-frequency musical signals are determined from published research and new measurements. Analysis of commercial recordings shows substantial musical information in the octave from 32 to 16 Hz and some down to 12 Hz. Psychoacoustic data are used to establish to what degree errors (such as total harmonic distortion, FM distortion, modulation noise, and bandwidth limits) are perceptible. Criteria are set for proper subwoofer performance at peak sound pressure levels of 110 dB."
Last edited:
For now, I'll say that is it, you can see from the abstract that it DOES support my opinion. Certainly, not 12 Hz for every system but for some ultimate systems with an emphasis on bass.
Yes, the paper exists, I've not looked at it in 10 to 15 years as I already said. I will try to search my library when I have some free time; I'm fully over-loaded with a new work project at the moment.
There are over 400 hits if you search on subwoofer at the AES site:
http://www.aes.org/e-lib/
Pete Basel
Last edited:
Sure, its not that any situation is going to be a disaster, its just that some are better than others. For example, the screen on the TV will reflect and thats a VER, but no matter what speakers you use this will happen. More so with non-directional ones. My speakers are away from the wall about two feet, one foot is OK, two is better. What I would do is hang as heavy a drape - even double - as possible behind the speakers and TV. I find wall refections from behind the speakers quite objectionable. Maybe this is why I don't like dipoles. I mean if you have twelve feet behind the speakers then it doesn't matter, but who has that?
Ok, I'll get the first paper. Would appreciate if you could find the other one.
I don't deny that there's low frequency content below 20 Hz but from all I know I have to doubt that it's there by purpose.
The lowest note of a pipe organ is 16 Hz. If you ever heard "Also sprach Zarathustra" live then you know that 16 Hz is not a note, it has no pitch. The perception is more like the earth is shacking (that was probably the intention). So, what's the use of deeper bass? More shacking? Look at the equal loudness curves. To get the same loudness of a 1 kHz sound at 16 Hz you'll need to raise the level a whopping 40 dB. That's a power increase of factor 10000.
If you need all that shacking, it's more reasonable to get one of those seat shakers. Olive provides some interesting insights at Audio Musings by Sean Olive: The Effect of Whole-body Vibrations on Preferred Bass Equalizations of Automotive Audio Systems
Those guys obsessing about low frequency reproduction remind me of dB drag racing. That's not about accurate sound reproduction - that's little boys with their little toys.
Best, Markus
Last edited:
I would even argue this is what these speakers are made for. I have the Nathans in a very similar 2.1 setup and have yet to find a better sounding home theater.
Best, Markus
Are you going to buy this paper or do you have the CD? I have about 30 years of the AES Journal here but not the CD.
I'm aware of the Equal Level Loudness contour curves; studied them in the Audio Engineering course and project work that I did.
The relative level is not important, what is - is how much level is required to be felt and shake the room.
I actually find that it feels like the air is being sucked out of the room at times, LOL!
This is with two 14" cube subwoofers and 1000W driving them - nothing extreme.
It is all a matter of your goals, sure perhaps it is easier to do with bass shakers, but some don't want to modify their furniture.
Enough with the analogies to car sound dB races, not what I'm into.
Last edited:
Having heard Tom's system I can tell you that he is in the Bass Extrema camp. I found his system extremely unpleasant as a result. He, being used to extremes, finds mine lacking. Mine measures about 3 dB above flat (there he goes with that objective data stuff again
) at 20 Hz, slight boost, nothing extreme. Tom's must be + 10 dB at this frequency. It was unlistenable, just like pop concerts in Asia.Markus wrote about the Nathans in his HT.
I finally looked at them and see they have the same driver as the Abbeys and Summas. And they are smaller which works better in my limited space.
Where do the Nathans xover at?.....1K, 1.5K? How are they on male voices, chesty or clean?
Do they go lower than 100hz?
Are there any reviews of the Nathans?
I don't expect perfection at Nathans price, just enjoyable non-boxy HT and music.
Could the Nathans be built with the Xover and board separate from the cabinet, so wires for from HF and LF come out the back? Less vibrations and blurriness for the Xover. Having done this on over 5 speakers it has worked well every time. Not night and day, just cleaner sound for almost no money.
Since space is a constraint for me could 2 or 3 subwoofers be next to each other (touching?) under the TV? Kind of a subwoofer speakerbar about a 1 or 2 feet from the back wall. Or would that turn them into a boom box?
Thanks
I finally looked at them and see they have the same driver as the Abbeys and Summas. And they are smaller which works better in my limited space.
Where do the Nathans xover at?.....1K, 1.5K? How are they on male voices, chesty or clean?
Do they go lower than 100hz?
Are there any reviews of the Nathans?
I don't expect perfection at Nathans price, just enjoyable non-boxy HT and music.
Could the Nathans be built with the Xover and board separate from the cabinet, so wires for from HF and LF come out the back? Less vibrations and blurriness for the Xover. Having done this on over 5 speakers it has worked well every time. Not night and day, just cleaner sound for almost no money.
Since space is a constraint for me could 2 or 3 subwoofers be next to each other (touching?) under the TV? Kind of a subwoofer speakerbar about a 1 or 2 feet from the back wall. Or would that turn them into a boom box?
Thanks
Having heard Tom's system I can tell you that he is in the Bass Extrema camp. I found his system extremely unpleasant as a result. He, being used to extremes, finds mine lacking. Mine measures about 3 dB above flat (there he goes with that objective data stuff again
Tom Nousaine is also on written record as poo-pooing the audibility of absolute polarity.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.