In thinking about subwoofers to get for a large future listening space
(30' x 30'). So far there seems to be a lot of great options for smaller
subs for music.. such as the rel s812. Now my main focus will be music
but I do plan to do some home theater on the system and I do enjoy subs
that reach low and have strong but clear sub-bass. Would a large sealed
sub still be able to provide clean tight bass that digs low and thus
satisfy both duties. Can it ever match the speed and precision of a pair
or more of rel 812s? Something like PSA S7201 or Captivator RS2?
A realize a smaller sub has a smaller moving mass and thus for a given
level of power would be faster than a bigger sub with a bigger moving
mass (driver mass). But a large sub would have to move less to achieve
the same SPL and would reach lower.
What I'd like to know is whether a 4 smaller sub DBA has diminishing returns over dual larger higher powered subs when room correction is employed. I've got a treated room but still have difficulties taming the lowest frequency suck outs from SBIR. One sub is a non-starter but could 2 subs smooth the room response enough that after room correction I'm 90% there.
Understand a smoother response from 4 subs before cal puts less stress on the filtering algorithm, but audio is full of compromises. I've only got a 3-5 dB suckout near 50hz after cal with mains alone.
What about this new Live Dirac Bass Control module with AI optimization for mag/phase on each sub for best room response at the LP and integration with mains? Seems technology could go along ways towards whittling down a 4 sub DBA to a dual setup for a very close level of performance. Catch is it appears Bass Control Module is only available in AVRs where a multichannel dac is needed.
Has anyone directly compared Rel offerings to JTR, PSA or Rhythmik and specifically to the 18 inch subs of the last 3 companies to smaller rel subs? What was the difference in speed and resolution in the bass?
Must make my acquaintance with bass columns, as you should with horn subs, be they Tapped Horns of Front Loaded Horns - if you haven’t already.
I agree with you here. My first real system had a Jensen imperial sub a a pair of Imperial horns. LOL A local lumber company sold the cut lumber from 1" marine ply, and the drivers were optional. You could build your own or they would do it for a small fortune. Took most of my earnings from my after school job for over a year.. I built those things and lined them with shag carpet of all things.. tamed them right down...
Met a guy named Brian C had a little start up company called VMPS he was the guy that told me about the shag carpet...
Took 2 pick up loads to move 3 speakers and 4 strong fellas to lift the sub..
Those three speakers were ran on a pair of 20s and a 30 watt mono block kit, 2 C-4s, all Mac gear.. Had Altec XOs. They would fill a whole indoor basketball court, with ease... and did.. HS dances...
I think I had a whoppin' 850.00 dollars in that system. I know I tripled my money, 4 years later or so. late 70s.
I been making bass for a long long time.. it's one of my personal favorites...BIG bass, low distortion...
I also like a 15" active, firing up, with a single 18" HE alu passive.. firing forward paired, then face to face, 6 feet apart.. kids call it "in da chamber".. It will concuss if your not careful. 130-140 db..Nose bleed material.. 2 12k behringers.. to run that set up..3500 watts per voice coil 1800.00 total with amps, 2496 OXO, drivers, MDF, Ply, thick FG batting, and finish. 140 db.. when you face the actives, 120 with the passives face to face. Source is a 10 dollar broken G3 smartphone..2 20 amp breakers, too. It can trip 15s when its heated up..and were breakin' glass, in the lab...
Big bass is easy. Great bass.. can be really tough with boundaries involved...
... column can have a much larger volume, like 8-12 cf. or more. It’s easier to tune to a given room, and the roll off is much quicker mechanically. It’s much more controlled, like an infinite baffle, but can go very low, without the ever present noise from ports.
I friend of mine has spoken very highly of a set-up he’s heard a number of times that comprises bass columns (not IB). Some day I’ll have to hear them - I’m sure they hold great potential and coupling to-the-room capabilities, and with multiple drivers should have a nice amount of headroom.
Port noise can be a problem, and mostly is, but given enough capacity (i.e.: sheer radiation area and number of cabs) can be practically avoided, unless +120dB levels are your daily cup of tea. I prefer horn subs (make that 20 cf. per horn for a tune just above 20Hz), and while they’re less than easy to integrate in one’s listening space the coupling of the driver to the air (via the horn) is a vital part in them sounding the present and effortless way they do. Tapped horns, that I use, are also bandwidth limited, so knowing what you’re dealing with is paramount. Moreover the want for extension comes at the cost of sensitivity and adds size tremendously, so for me the "sweet spot" sits with a tune between 20-25Hz for a 20 cf. volume and 97dB sensitivity. In-room and corner-loaded a pair of them can output ~130dB’s, and this (i.e.: SPL envelope) is not trivial re: headroom.
What you don’t face with horn subs is port, or rather mouth noise. Theoretically I guess you could provoke mouth noise, but at that point the more dire urgency is that of dealing with blurry vision, structural instability and a desire to leave the building.
Columns are just better, but they are not usually partner pleasers and they cost more to build, The units I’ve seen and built can be very heavy, 3-500 lbs. BUT you get what you pay for, when it comes to bass.
Whether columns are truly better- to my ears, that is - remains to be heard, and I don’t agree paying large sums of money will necessarily grant you bass heaven. You get what you’re willing to house size-wise, and the effort and sense you’re willing to invest with design choice and implementation. Going the DIY-route (which is mandatory in the first place, I guess) this mayn’t be excessively expensive, certainly not compared to the über-offerings from the likes of JL Audio and a few others. The material quantity needed for bass columns I’m sure would not be cheap, though.
Just because there is a lot of it, and it’s everywhere, doesn’t qualify it as good bass. I’ve heard a lot of that over the last couple of years, now all of a sudden it’s the big craze. walk on subs through a room. LOL
What I don’t see is the blending, between low mids, MB, Bass and Sub ALL are very important to address, not just squat and grunt out a sub/bass unit, like a pile of dung.. Geezzz. That’s "a way" though.. for sure..
Different ways to skin your cat. I’d agree an open mind with regard to bass augmentation isn’t always the most prevalent mindset on this forum now that the DBA approach in particular has taken hold on a sought consensus. Must make my acquaintance with bass columns, as you should with horn subs, be they Tapped Horns of Front Loaded Horns - if you haven’t already.
4 12s and 1 15" active, can be tuned with a single 15 passive.
I'm saying 4 ea 12" active drivers, and 1 15" active driver, can be tuned with a single 15" passive radiator, without over excursion of the passive. The reason, column can have a much larger volume, like 8-12 cf. or more. It's easier to tune to a given room, and the roll off is much quicker mechanically. It's much more controlled, like an infinite baffle, but can go very low, without the ever present noise from ports.
Columns are just better, but they are not usually partner pleasers and they cost more to build, The units I've seen and built can be very heavy, 3-500 lbs. BUT you get what you pay for, when it comes to bass.
Just because there is a lot of it, and it's everywhere, doesn't qualify it as good bass. I've heard a lot of that over the last couple of years, now all of a sudden it's the big craze. walk on subs through a room. LOL
What I don't see is the blending, between low mids, MB, Bass and Sub ALL are very important to address, not just squat and grunt out a sub/bass unit, like a pile of dung.. Geezzz. That's "a way" though.. for sure..
@oldhvymec: Why is the rule of thumb, 2 to 1 with a Passive radiator, system? Not so. 4 12s and 1 15" active, can be tuned with a single 15 passive. Just need a larger enclosure, that's the problem enclosures are way too small, and way too short. Big BASS big enclosure.. about a ton or so will do..4 500 pounders rubber lined. Yea...
Not sure what you mean but my little 12" kills my 15/15 passive in every way. I'm guessing its the much newer technology.
You can do this with the AK Swarm and Debra DBA passive subs, front firing but terminals on the bottom and controls on the amp/control unit.member hleeid has a Swarm in his small office with 1 sub on the floor and 3 on shelves near the ceiling and firing toward it. He’s stated it saved a lot of floor space and sounds very good. He posted fairly recently on this thread.
One still works better than most pairs of lowriders, The Taller, The Better,
Good yes, great NO
Someone saying a BDA is not that great compared to Columns,
millercarbon, what was said is, "most pairs of lowriders", (24" or shorter). good yes, great no... A little different "than not that great"
Bass columns, not sub columns, apples, oranges, (I’m trying to shorten the response honest) I should have explained my setups clearer.
I have a pair of 300 lb mid riders 12 cf boxes 65" tall. They work better than most lowriders. But the are not subs, They are Bass columns. SAT (Stack and Test), There are a couple more setups here with multi MB, and taller cabinets.
Most of the systems I’ve heard over the last year or so, use multi lowriders, normally used as subs, 60-100 and below. Omnidirectional. Bass columns are NOT. Bass columns are Very directional Up to 250 hz and down, usually 80-150 <
I've see, subs stacked also, they sound better to me, too.
I think I understand how most are using DBA/Swarm. I like ALL the bass in a its own structure. Something I learned from Mr. Bass Brian C. He used 3 columns, powered br Dayton SA1000s, 20 years ago. lowers distortion, a lot...Especially on Sub/Bass/Mid Bass couplers using phase plugs. 20% distortion in the bass region is very common (non servo), not in my system, closer to 5%. Very little vibration issues with my planars monitors, again lowering distortion. with narrower baffles. and separate cabinets.
Maybe that's why the Tekton subs work so well. DBA stands for distributed bass array. DBA says nothing about what or where, only that the bass is distributed among many drivers in different locations. One of the early papers even discusses four subs stacked on atop the other. Two Tekton subs is 8 woofers is more than my 5 is totally a DBA. Someone saying a BDA is not that great compared to Columns, when two columns is a DBA, is only showing they don't quite get the concept of a DBA.
More is always better. Been saying that about a hundred times now.
I haven’t heard all the DBA/Swarm setup, But I do know the best bass systems I’ve heard were Columns. This may sound like a 70-80s design but still the most accurate and detailed system was again Bass columns. Whether infinite baffle, sealed accelerometer servo system, multi driver and size, passive radiator tuning, OB servo system with step baffle amps. ALL were a column style.
I’ve heard a few swarm systems NOW over the last year or so...
Good yes, great NO
But columns at this point in time for me is still KING, and have been for 20+ years.
A pair of 4-8 drivers per side is a good place to start. They actually take up less floor space, but cover FAR more ground evenly, in any application, including HT. I’ve heard as many as 4 in a system. perfection... One still works better than most pairs of lowriders, The Taller, The Better,
I know omnidirectional, NOT above 80, most pure BASS columns are 80-150 or <. Above 70-80 hz they get pretty directional. and very stereoish..(is that a word?)
Ay but what do I know, I made one out of an underground concrete vault, I got off a job site. a shop sub... 20 cubic foot interior, yea I know how to make BASS, really I do.. 2 18 inch PA 104s. City block of bass with that thing.
Despite our differences of opinion on certain specific audio subjects we’ve previously had, overall it seems to me that our system perspectives, preferences, goals and journeys may be more similar than different. I believe the metaphor of an audio journey we all take is very descriptive and accurate. We all begin at a certain point, with a system that reflects our lack of knowledge, experience and $ at that specific point in time. Looking at our systems at today’s specific point in time, our current systems almost certainly are very different than our initial systems. However, our current systems still generally reflect our current, or recent, levels of accumulated knowledge, experience and $, just as our initial audio systems did. How did we get from there to here? I believe it’s exactly the result of what you stated: ”Well, I guess when I see something that catches my interest on this exciting journey of ours, and that speaks to the accumulated and randomly selected bits and pieces of info that enters one’s mind (and one deems important, for whatever reason), I go for it- no matter the consensus or gist among audiophiles.” Well, what do you know?, we’ve both been following very similar paths on our audio journeys, following our own personal levels of accumulated knowledge, experience, preferences and goals. But we both wound up having unique but very different systems? Excellent, that’s exactly how our audio journeys are meant to evolve, with no two being identical but all reflecting our personal preferences I would describe my overall system goal is the sound qualities you’d experience listening to live blues, jazz or rock music at a smaller venue with good acoustics. I enjoy the experience of hearing music played live and in person, especially the full range sound from deepest bass to highest treble, the power of bass notes that can be felt as well as heard and the powerful dynamics of musical instruments and human voices when heard live in person. I’ve found that the lack of powerful, seemingly effortless and unlimited bass and bass dynamics are the best indicator that you’re listening to reproduced music from a recording rather than actual live music. The power and dynamics of higher pitched instruments and voices are, of course, also important in conveying the perception that you’re listening to live music. It’s just that using my Magnepan 3.7i main speakers, I’v found it relatively easy to get the mid and treble frequencies sounding tonally accurate, with live sounding impact, dynamics and holographic imaging. I’ve found getting the bass sounding right, however, is much more difficult in most rooms than getting the rest of the audible spectrum sounding right. I understand the valid reasons for this reality but won’t digress to describe them in detail right now. Fortunately, The AK Debra 4-sub DBA system has proven to be an excellent complement to the 3.7i speakers in my system. My main speakers reproduce bass in a very similar manner to how they reproduce the rest of the audio spectrum, fast, smooth, detailed and coherently, but they only have a rated bass extension of 35 Hz. I run them full range and run the 4 subs in mono mode with a crossover frequency of 40 Hz. This extends my system’s bass down to 20 Hz and the speed, smoothness and detail of the bass results in a seamless overall sound integration with the 3.7l main speakers. This all has resulted in my being very satisfied with my current system. I’ve really been enjoying the perception of the musicians performing live in my room or being present at the venue at a live performance. depending on the recording played. Thank you for your kind invitation for a demo of your horn system if I’m ever near your home in Scandinavia. I’d love to do so but, unfortunately, I don’t get up near your neighborhood too often. Of course, if you ever find yourself in the American Midwest near Indiana, you’re always welcome to drop my my place for a demo, too.
Thanks for your detailed response. I now have a much better understanding of your system preferences, priorities and goals. I looked at your system pic and description on your profile page and admire the unique and independent path you decided to take on your personal audio journey. Your system certainly looks unique, interesting, beautiful and impressive, I’d love to hear it, or a similar one, in action sometime. You’re obviously telling the truth about the size and weight of TH subs. I like the looks of your subs and main speakers but, if I was to switch to THs in my system and living room, my wife would likely be chasing me around our house with a large frying pan targeted at my head. I have a limited understanding of the appeal of horn speakers, their efficiency, sound qualities, dynamics and ease even at very high SPLs. The first pair of speakers I purchased as an adult in about 1979, was a brand new pair of the original Klipsch Heresy speakers, in unfinished birch wood to save some money, for exactly $300/pair. I really enjoyed those speakers during college with a TT, 40 watt ss Yamaha CR640 receiver and no sub. I still regret not knowing enough about audio at that time to at least try using a tube amp with them. Now I use 1,200 watt class D monoblock amps with a pair of inefficient planar-magnetic speakers and 4 subs. Oh well.
Thanks, Tim
Tim, thanks for your kind words, and apologies (on my part as well) for the delayed response. I looked at your current system via your profile, and I find it to be an impressive looking (and by all accounts -sounding) set-up. In many ways I imagine those Magnepan’s of yours to be speakers I’d enjoy. I take it they are very coherent, tonally rather accurate while yielding great scale and commendable dynamics (micro as well as macro)? Not to mention being highly resolved and presenting a huge soundstage? How would you describe their sound, and what about it in particular do you like? Your DBA sub set-up is likely a splendid augmentation as well. And that’s one great TV set you got there (I have the older LG OLED 65" B8 variant).
"Unique" and "independent" - even "beautiful;" your words flatter me. Well, I guess when I see something that catches my interest on this exciting journey of ours, and that speaks to the accumulated and randomly selected bits and pieces of info that enters one’s mind (and one deems important, for whatever reason), I go for it - not matter the consensus or gist among audiophiles. For some years now I’ve become progressively interested in the overall "presentation" of sound - that is, what’s the shape, if you would, of the "radiation bubble" (a phrase coined, I believe, by Tom Danley) that meets the listener: is it, preferably, homogeneous and of a whole, smooth sphere-like piece; is it more lumpy or diffuse even; of an oval shape, circular, or something else? Discerning the shape of said presentation is rather instantaneous, but it says a great deal about a pair of speakers ability to cohere (not least auditioned via mono recordings) and have the sound of each of the driver elements form into what would more or less successfully emulate a point source. This is certainly what I’m working towards with my own set-up, and I believe to be on the right path here, both with what I have now and perhaps even more so with the next "rocket stage" (not to be confused with rocket science) I’m on to.
Another hobby horse of mine is headroom, as you already know, and this is achieved more effectively with high efficiency designs - horns, certainly. It’s particularly important where bass goes as loads of energy can be released here, and many underestimate the sheer power and volume needed in the lower frequency spectrum (another recent thread on these pages brings this up). It’s not about overpowering the presentation with bass running the balance overly hot, but simply accommodating proper bass energy that’s effortlessly available at most any desired SPL. Anchoring the sound this way I find to be utterly important, and tapped horns are a great way to wring out the most of a given driver with minimal stored energy in this enclosure type and relieving the driver effectively; the tapped horn itself does the heavy lifting. Should you ever come to Scandinavia you’re most welcome to visit and have my set-up demoed.
Oh, the Heresy’s. Haven’t they been around for close to 60 years now? Never heard them, but I imagine they are very lively and entertaining speakers, musical even. Perhaps you’ll come full circle at some point with high efficiency speakers yet again, although at the risk of seeing that frying pan come into frightful use :)
@noble100 if you are willing to invest some time learning REW, I think it would really help you understand what is happening in your room. I have experimented with the software but I need to invest more time. The friend that suggested I buy my current sub-woofers offered to measure and set them up for me.
After my friend setup a flat response curve I learned that my ears do not hear the same as a microphone. I adjusted my response to what sounded good to my ear. I did save my previous measurements so that I can always return to a relatively flat response. Now that I have adjusted I am curious how my measurements have changed.
It sounds like your setup is well thought out. I use an OPPO 103 in the basement system. My pre-amplifier has a home theater equalization setting. It also offers settings for 2 channel or multi-channel music. I can save sub bass adjustments according to the various settings (cinema, music, Dolby etc). When I select the music or cinema modes my bass settings are loaded.
Good luck with your measurements, I hope you find audio bliss.
No problem with the delay, I usually just check for new responses on threads once a day, no hurry. I’ve heard about the mini-DSP previously but the benefit of retrieving more recorded bass information from recordings is new to me. I’d be very interested in hearing a high quality system using multiple subsonic subs and a mini-DSP playing both music and HT source material. I think I’d need to experience the increased bass extension in person to determine whether updating my bass system would be worth time, effort and expense involved, which would include 4 new subsonic subs, the mini-DSP and learning how to properly use it. I’m currently torn because I’m fairly certain I would enjoy the added bass extension, likely perceiving it as being even more realistic and palpable than my current system which I perceive as having near sota bass response even though the bass extension is limited to 20 Hz. There’s also the advantage of how convenient my current system is to operate and it’s overall simplicity. I just use an Oppo 205 Blu-ray player as a 5.1 Audio surround processor, with surround output channels run direct to separate amps and speakers for HT. And a separate preamp with ht passthru for music. The 4-sub bass system, with a separate sub amp/control unit that has settings for xover frequency, volume and phase, switches automatically between the summed bass on music and the LFE bass on HT based on the preamp input I select. This is very convenient because the settings on the sub amp/control unit don’t require changing for either music or HT, they remain constant with a xover of 40 Hz, volume at just under 50% and all subs in-phase. It’s basically set and forget. I’m concerned this won’t be true with the addition of a mini-DSP. I completely agree with you about the benefits of getting my room measured. However, I was considering buying a good mic, downloading REW to my laptop and doing the measurements myself. I thought this would be a good method of learning the details of room measurements and gaining experience in understanding the relationship between objective measured room response and my subjective perceptions of the sound in my own room and system. Thanks for all the very useful info.
@noble100, I apologize for the delay in replying to this
thread. The Mini-Dsp helps optimize the information on ANY audio format.
It can be used in a variety of ways, one of which is optimizing up to four
sub-woofers. If using the Mini-Dsp for sub-woofers you can adjust the timing, volume,
delay and more for each sub-woofer individually. Separate adjustments for each sub-woofer would
also require a separate amplifier channel for each sub.
If you want to further optimize your system, In My Humble
Opinion, the first thing to do is measure your in room response, or after the
health scare is over, have someone else measure it for you. During the
measurement phase, use one speaker as a timing reference and correctly time all
of your speakers to work together. In my room, correct timing made a big
difference.
After measurements and timing adjustments, if you still want
to improve your system, I suggest doing some reading on the Mini-Dsp and consider
using it to optimize what you already have. I believe most enthusiast change
speakers without ever hearing them at their best. Once/If you reach the limit
of what your speakers can do, then consider replacements.
Another option available after the health scare is to find
someone near you with different speakers, that will demo their system for
you. Listening to someone else’s room and equipment is a great way to make new
friends and hear something different. If you like what you hear then you can decide if and how to implement the changes in your room.
Thanks for your detailed response. I now have a much better understanding of your system preferences, priorities and goals. I looked at your system pic and description on your profile page and admire the unique and independent path you decided to take on your personal audio journey. Your system certainly looks unique, interesting, beautiful and impressive, I'd love to hear it, or a similar one, in action sometime. You're obviously telling the truth about the size and weight of TH subs. I like the looks of your subs and main speakers but, if I was to switch to THs in my system and living room, my wife would likely be chasing me around our house with a large frying pan targeted at my head. I have a limited understanding of the appeal of horn speakers, their efficiency, sound qualities, dynamics and ease even at very high SPLs. The first pair of speakers I purchased as an adult in about 1979, was a brand new pair of the original Klipsch Heresy speakers, in unfinished birch wood to save some money, for exactly $300/pair. I really enjoyed those speakers during college with a TT, 40 watt ss Yamaha CR640 receiver and no sub. I still regret not knowing enough about audio at that time to at least try using a tube amp with them. Now I use 1,200 watt class D monoblock amps with a pair of inefficient planar-magnetic speakers and 4 subs. Oh well.
I think our disagreements and differences expressed on this thread can be boiled down to a difference in preferences and priorities. I could go into detail but I believe it basically comes down to both of your top priorities seeming to be the optimum bass extension of your sub systems for HT Bluray 4K Ultra HD audio performance and my top priority being the optimum bass quality of my sub system for 2-ch stereo music hi-res digital music file audio performance. I think both are enjoyable and worthy goals. But why can’t we have both?
Even though I fully acknowledge the impact <20Hz reproduction can have and that there’s plenty of source material to support it, not least watching movies via Blu-ray’s and UHD’s, as I’ve stated earlier I’ve chosen to consciously forego infrasonics in my own set-up. This is due to the nature imposed by design limits mostly, in addition to practical considerations in regards to sheer size; tapped horns, my preferred bass principle, are bandwidth limited to covering about 2 to 2 1/2 octaves cleanly (some would say 1 1/2 to 2 octaves, but it depends on the specific TH design and its weighted parameters within the given fold/expansion/compression ratio), and therefore a lower tune will at the same time "eat away" of the upper range that can be achieved. For those not in the need of a cross-over frequency above 50-60Hz here, 15Hz honest extension (or even lower in-room) can be had from tapped horns the likes of which count Josh Ricci’s monstrous Gjallarhorn V2, the Danley DTS-10 or lilmike’s LilWrecker. Apart from upper range limitations naturally imposed on these designs there’s also size to consider as they climb upwards of 30 cubic feet in volume, not to mention the added weight that follows. Moreover, a lower tune with tapped comes at the cost of sensitivity, though relative to direct radiating designs they are typically still more efficient even when tuned rather low. My MicroWrecker’s have a ~23Hz tune @97dB sensitivity that gives clean extension upwards to about or just below 100Hz, and with a 78Hz lowpass in my system to the mains (36dB/octave Linkwitz-Riley) no irregularities from the upper band of the MW’s interfere in the presentation. Highpassing the mains above some 70Hz has advantages in relieving them more effectively, but the exact cross-over frequency is one to be found with careful listening. A highpass at 20Hz (4th order Butterworth) protects the bass drivers of the MW’s downwards as they unload below the tune (in domestic use mostly to reduce theoretical distortion rather than over-excursion), and so 20Hz is pretty much the "hard deck." With the pair of MW’s this translates to +125dB’s SPL envelope and honest 20-25Hz reproduction. Some may regard such SPL capabilities in domestic environments as insane, but when faced with the effortless reproduction they deliver at any SPL one would care for, even having impact down to 60-70dB’s, it makes perfect sense.
So, my preference and priorities revolve around attaining the bass that best integrates with my mains as well as acquiring prodigious amounts of headroom, and this requires going the (tapped) horn route with massive physical size to follow, as well as bandwidth limitations to consider. Infrasonics make a difference, for sure, but I’d rather attain optimum integration and overall bass presentation, to my liking, and sacrifice <20Hz with the given tapped horn design. Choices, and compromises.. (sorry for lengthy elaboration above).
I've always built my systems based on the assumption that bass content on virtually all music and HT source material (LPs, CDs, SACDs, DVD and Bluray, digital files, etc.) only had bass extension down to 20 Hz since any recorded bass below 20 Hz was generally filtered out at the mixing stage. I've been almost certain this assumption was correct and the complete story until you and phusis informed me that a group of AVS forum members had figured out a method, using a mini-DSP, that allows the retrieval of any bass content still existing on numerous specific Bluray and DVD discs that's below 20 Hz. This was the first I was aware this was even possible on certain discs, so I wanted to thank both of you for bringing this to my attention. As I stated, I'm very satisfied with my current system's bass performance on both music and HT even though it's currently restricted to only 20 Hz in bass extension. However, I am curious about experiencing how I would perceive even further bass extension in my room and system. I understand I would need to upgrade my current Audio Kinesis Debra 4-sub distributed bass array system, or at least the existing four 4 ohm passive subs with 10" aluminum long-throw drivers it uses, along with adding a mini-DSP unit to realize high quality deep bass below 20 Hz. Even then, I understand this deeper bass would only accessible on certain HT Bluray and DVDs. I think whether I decide to proceed depends on your answer to the following question:
Does the mini-DSP also allow retrieval of deeper bass content on audio only discs such as CDs and SACDs?
@noble100 I agree the priorities of any system can be very different. The priorities of the person mixing the music or sound track also come into play. The bottom line is we each spend our time, and hard earned money where it matters to us most.
The question of destroying consumer subs and sound bars is the entire reason behind the BEQ thread linked earlier. Someone discovered that some film companies were reducing low bass content in blu-rays and DVD to prevent damaging consumer equipment.
That makes sense. But if you have invested the time and money to have a system capable of sub 20 Hz performance you can get that filtered information back using BEQ.
I did not plan on having a system capable of ultra low frequencies. The sub-woofers I bought were available less than 30 minutes away. I thought it was a great opportunity to own a pair of world class sub-woofers, so I made the purchase.
I do not believe I am lacking in quality or quantity. I have added some screen shots of my room measurements to my profile. I will try and add some pictures soon. The next thing on my wish list is some room treatments.
I think our disagreements and differences expressed on this thread can be boiled down to a difference in preferences and priorities. I could go into detail but I believe it basically comes down to both of your top priorities seeming to be the optimum bass extension of your sub systems for HT Bluray 4K Ultra HD audio performance and my top priority being the optimum bass quality of my sub system for 2-ch stereo music hi-res digital music file audio performance. I think both are enjoyable and worthy goals. But why can't we have both?
It's my understanding that current direct to hi-res digital recording technology is capable of recording deep bass content below 20 Hz on both digital music files and 4K Ultra HD Bluray discs. Given the factual limits of human hearing, of course, it would make little sense to record this deep bass as discrete stereo channels and the bass below 80 Hz would be summed to mono during the mixing stage for both music and HT audio recordings. I think this would be a big step forward in the quality of the listening experiences involved with both music and HT audio. This would just require consumers possessing high quality subs capable of reproducing such deep bass frequencies, including my upgrading my 4 subs to ones of higher quality capable of reproducing bass frequencies accurately down to single digits. Of course this would probably also destroy most regular consumer subs and sound bars that couldn't handle single digit bass frequencies, but that's a reasonable sacrifice, right?
As enthusiast enamored with our equipment, in our room, in our opinion we have to be careful not to be closed minded. I do not believe most enthusiast start with a great system. Great systems usually evolve over time. Most enthusiast come to a forum seeking advice and/or to learn from other people’s knowledge and experience.
We read, research, hear, or hear about a new way of doing things and we explore the new information. If we are open minded our joy of the hobby and our systems are improved. If we are determined to be closed minded, we do not grow. If we are determined to be closed minded we miss out on possible system improvements.
If we insist our way is “The” only way we hinder/limit our own growth. If we openly criticize equipment and experiences with no credible experiences we could possibly hinder the growth of others. In those cases we should always remember to include “In My Opinion/Experience” etc.
I read more than I post. I try not to criticize anyone’s personal preference of speakers etc. I have heard multi-subwoofer setups. I actually considered purchasing a SWARM setup. I have experimented with a third subwoofer in my room. I have also experienced sub-woofer systems capable of Ultra Low Frequencies (ULF). I am very happy with my system but I am also very aware it can be improved.
None of our systems are perfect. None of us know everything. None of us should attempt to invalidate the experience of someone else based on our own experience. The goal should always be to learn more/understand more. The goal should always be to improve and increase our enjoyment of music and the music playback systems. Some have forgotten this, others never knew it.
Very well put (indeed above quoted post of yours should be a "sticker" on these pages), and I'm not saying this as someone necessarily complying in my actions with what you point out. I just know of it to be a commendable approach, and one to strive for.
"The turning point for the 16-Ultra Series subwoofers involved several key innovations. The first was an 8-inch edge wound voice coil, the largest ever deployed in a consumer subwoofer. The massive voice coil girth allows the woofer to exert complete control over the 16-inch Ultra driver and remain accurate and distortion-free with pinpoint speed in transients, even at reference playback levels. Four of the heaviest toroidal ferrite magnets ever used in a subwoofer generate unprecedented levels of magnetic force and machined motor elements produce astounding levels of low frequency output with minimal distortion. The cone material consists of a premium fiberglass resin composite that moves extreme amounts of air and sonic energy without ever flexing or losing control."
Wow check this out from SVS... they seem to believe in the big subwoofers = potentially more distortion due to lack of control principle.
"Acoustically, subwoofers with 15-, 18- and 20-inch drivers are more susceptible to boominess and distortion compared to subwoofers with 10-, 12- or 13-inch drivers because the pistonic movement of such a large surface area is harder to control. Poorly designed big subwoofer drivers with inadequate motors don’t produce accurate bass and struggle to start and stop on a dime. This results in low frequency output that can sound smeared, boomy or bloated and detract from the convincingness of an audio experience.
It’s even possible for a subwoofer with a 10- or 12-inch driver to outperform a subwoofer with a larger driver if the motor magnets in the smaller subwoofer can generate greater force and exert better control over the driver. It’s also the reason why a subwoofer’s driver size can be overrated when determining the overall performance. Put simply, a big driver is harder to control, and offers no guarantee of greater SPLs or deeper bass than a small subwoofer." https://www.svsound.com/blogs/svs/strengths-and-pitfalls-of-big-subwoofer-drivers
Back to the original question... In my room, using large sub-woofers, I can select two channel operation and be enveloped by music so much that I forget I am not listening in multi-channel mode.
The cannon shots from
the famous Telarc 1812 Overture are at 8Hz.
The 64-foot pipe on the world's largest organs have a frequency of 8Hz, the lowest note on a
double bass is 41Hz, and the
fundamental frequency of the tuba is 16Hz.
We sorted through about 75 tracks using Adobe Audition. Audition allows us to look at the spectral content
of a track quickly to find out how low it extends. We’ve included spectral
content charts for each track that shows frequency along the vertical scale,
time across the horizontal scale and amplitude shown as color intensity from
black through purple and orange.... (continued)
The monologue
introduction to “Boom Boom Pow” by will.i.am builds to a crescendo from the
45-second mark, peaking with infrasonic information from :50 to 1:03. Content
during this time extends solidly down to 7 Hz. There is another drop at 2:18,
and the section from 3:13 to 3:42 contains a lot of infrasonic content. If your
system is up to the challenge, this track has it all: a solid conventional bass line and enough content below20Hz to make any true basshead happy!
Another all-time-classic
classical recording is Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture. This recording is known for
its jaw-dropping cannon blasts at the end. When played back on a vinyl record,
all but the very best turntable configurations will result in the needle
jumping out of the track as the cannons go off. The first five cannon blasts
appear at 12:36 into the track. The second and most impressive group begins at
14:41, with the blast at 14:55 containing low-frequency energy that extends
down to nearly DC levels. Call it one to two Hertz if you want – it makes no
difference.
As enthusiast enamored with our equipment, in our
room, in our opinion we have to be careful not to be closed minded. I do not
believe most enthusiast start with a great system. Great systems usually evolve
over time. Most enthusiast come to a forum seeking advice and/or to learn from
other people’s knowledge and experience.
We read, research, hear, or hear about a new way of doing
things and we explore the new information. If we are open minded our joy of the
hobby and our systems are improved. If we are determined to be closed minded,
we do not grow. If we are determined to be closed minded we miss out on
possible system improvements.
If we insist our way is “The” only way we hinder/limit
our own growth. If we openly criticize equipment and experiences with no credible
experiences we could possibly hinder the growth of others. In those cases we
should always remember to include “In My Opinion/Experience” etc.
I read more than I post. I try not
to criticize anyone’s personal preference of speakers etc. I have heard
multi-subwoofer setups. I actually considered purchasing a SWARM setup. I have
experimented with a third subwoofer in my room. I have also experienced
sub-woofer systems capable of Ultra Low Frequencies (ULF). I am very happy with
my system but I am also very aware it can be improved.
None
of our systems are perfect. None of us know everything. None of us should
attempt to invalidate the experience of someone else based on our own
experience. The goal should always be to learn more/understand more. The goal
should always be to improve and increase our enjoyment of music and the music
playback systems. Some have forgotten this, others never knew it.
Oh, he’s right all right. You simply disagree. That doesn’t make him wrong. In this case it makes you wrong.
Let's hone in and focus on what's addressed here with a few excerpts of noble100's:
... your apparent endorsement of employing subs with larger woofers and in quantities beyond 4 subs to reproduce bass well below 20 Hz and even further improve bass performance, both surprises and somewhat confuses me. It's my understanding that reproduced bass tones below 20 Hz are not audible, mainly just vibrate things around the room including parts of our bodies, there are very few musical instruments that produce bass below 20 Hz with pipe organs being the only ones I'm aware of and there being virtually no commercially available music recordings containing bass frequencies below 20 Hz. I prefer bass that sounds and feels natural like when music is played, heard and felt live in person at smaller venues, not like over-amplified arena rock bass. What am I misunderstanding about music bass below 20Hz?
..and in a later post:
... My main point, which I believe you likely agree with, is that it makes little sense to have an audio system capable of bass down to 6 Hz if there’s no HT or music content that contains bass that deep. Are you sure you’re not listening and feeling bass that’s going down to 20 Hz and just thinking it’s going down to 6 Hz? In my room, even bass down to only 20 Hz sounds and feels very deep with powerful impact and realism on both HT and music. I don’t perceive I’m missing a thing.
And that's just it: "I don’t perceive I’m missing a thing.," because he wouldn't know otherwise having no had the actual experience of the impact <20Hz can have. And that's OK if it weren't for the fact that theory trumps experience here, not in the sense of being in the right about it, but by letting theory have its say to presume he's right, when he's not in this case; experience, it seems, is irrelevant, and yet it would tell him, and you, that a rigid 20Hz barrier (or what's "audible") isn't the final word in bass extension. Not to mention the importance of headroom which is a "neat" takeaway with bigger subs, but getting through with that is futile when most would believe what they have is "enough."
Probably your shoddy reasoning led you astray. Just look at what you wrote:
Duke’s (and Earl Geddes’) findings on this are by all accounts scientifically sound and very well thought out, but the whole concept, through your promoting it not least, revolves from a mindset of rigidity and reductionism that fails to give leeway to views, and not least experience of opposing nature.
Well, yeah, it takes feelings and "views" out of the equation. That is kind of the whole point of science and logic. You could look it up.
You conveniently left out 'experience,' which forms a view. It tells me a thing about you in particular; it's not that you can't listen (or so I presume), but rather that your reliance on theory (or "science and logic," as you so put it) won't get you to where experience could challenge your assumptions on audio.
Only, why bother? The beauty of science and logic is anyone can learn to use them. They work very different from what you do, twisting words around trying to score rhetorical points. But unlike your word games they do in fact actually work.
My "word games" are simply trying to express the importance of letting experience (i.e.: listening) have its say, as per above. It's not that I'm oblivious to science and logic, I'm just weary of having it dictate what I'm hearing.
Oh, he’s right all right. You simply disagree. That doesn’t make him wrong. In this case it makes you wrong.
Probably your shoddy reasoning led you astray. Just look at what you wrote:
Duke’s (and Earl Geddes’) findings on this are by all accounts scientifically sound and very well thought out, but the whole concept, through your promoting it not least, revolves from a mindset of rigidity and reductionism that fails to give leeway to views, and not least experience of opposing nature.
Well, yeah, it takes feelings and "views" out of the equation. That is kind of the whole point of science and logic. You could look it up.
Only, why bother? The beauty of science and logic is anyone can learn to use them. They work very different from what you do, twisting words around trying to score rhetorical points. But unlike your word games they do in fact actually work.
I had stated: "I’m fairly certain that 4K Ultra HD Bluray discs and streaming videos don’t contain any audio content below 20 Hz. " I believe my statement is generally correct ..
No, you are generally wrong in this specific instance. Why do you maintain to be "generally correct" when you admit the following (and is faced with facts/empirical evidence to prove otherwise):
.. but I’m willing to concede the fact that there is recorded sub 20 Hz bass existing on numerous 4K Bluray discs if individuals are willing to invest the time, effort and equipment required to retrieve and play it back. I’m not interested in doing so but I understand there are other HT enthusiasts that enjoy plumbing the bass depths of their HT systems.
The "time, effort and equipment required to retrieve and play it back" is one to be invested in any endeavor regarding sub(s) implementation, in fact the only difference here is acquiring subs that dig below 20Hz (and having sufficient power). Have your DBA set-up if you so prefer (in your case that’s a rhetorical question), find the proper (bigger) subs to delve into infrasonics, and voila. To boot: as poster @jwmorris referred to there’s the added bonus with bigger subs of having more headroom.
Phusis, your link on your last post to a Spotify site, that you stated lists music recordings containing bass below 20 Hz, did not work and connect me to this list. Can you please correct this and repost the link?
Let’s forward this to @jwmorris as the proper recipient.
You do realize that you conflated several separate but related bass issues when you stated ""This is tangential to your former examples of arguments in the vein of "there’s no stereo information in the bass, neither recorded nor perceived; symmetrical placement of subs is moot (at a not specified cross-over frequency)" etc., and it goes to show what you’d like to feel better about while trying to convince others into believing as well. Sorry to be blunt about this.", right?
What I pointed out with named examples was to expose and emphasize the nature of your argument, irrespective of the particularities brought up. You often seek to wrap up matters in a nice bundle of absolutes, or would certainly like to get to where (a fresh example) "anything below 20Hz is hogwash because we can’t ’hear it,’ and moreover there’s not really any source material to support it," because that’s what you’ve gotten into your head. It’s convenient even, and while we’re at it let’s try and have everyone else agree on it.
You conflated the separate issues of whether there are any music recordings in any format that contain bass below 20 Hz with whether this deep bass is recorded in stereo and whether individuals would be capable of perceiving the deep bass as stereo even if the bass below 20 Hz actually was recorded in stereo. My point is that all the following conditions have to be met for you to be correct about the viability of achieving true stereo deep bass in your system: ..
Again, as examples not intended to necessarily strike on a relation between them, going on from here is redundant. We have been confronted with yours and poster @millercarbon’s views in particular on the prowess of the DBA sub set-up ad nauseam (and you’ve learned of my views a couple times as well), and we get it. Duke’s (and Earl Geddes’) findings on this are by all accounts scientifically sound and very well thought out, but the whole concept, through your promoting it not least, revolves from a mindset of rigidity and reductionism that fails to give leeway to views, and not least experience of opposing nature.
For this conversation then, let’s focus on the latest subject for you to preferably shave into the size you deem fitting: <20Hz reproduction (and that it, to you, doesn’t amount to anything, in truth because your lack of experience here and theory-laden approach keeps you from knowing about it), which also naturally caters to and reverts our attention to the OP’s inquiry, whether big subs are viable for 2-channel music (and HT).
Hello millercarbon, You know we both completely agree, based on personal experience, about how exceptionally effective the 4-sub DBAs are in virtually any room and with any pair of main speakers. The topic on this thread had switched a bit and was recently about whether anyone knew of any commercially available music recordings that contained bass below 20 Hz. Phusis then posted some comments that raised the issue again about whether or not deep bass under 80 Hz was recorded in true stereo and whether individuals can localize bass below 80 Hz even if the music was actually recorded in true stereo bass. I think we both know how extremely rare it is for anyone being able to identify a single music recording that's commercially available with any bass content below 20 Hz and that, even if one is proven to exist, I think the odds that the bass was also recorded in true stereo below 80 Hz and not summed to mono, is lroughly zero. My current concern is that we're veering away from the main subject the OP, smodtactical, is concerned with. His main concern seems to be how he can achieve very good bass response in his future very large 30'x30' room for music that will also perform very well for HT use. Can he achieve this using large subs or will it require smaller, sealed subs to perform very well, especially on music. Smodtactical, please correct me if I didn't summarize your main concerns correctly. My suggestion is that you'll likely find it easier to get very good bass performance in your future large room than it would be in a smaller room. This belief is mainly based on the fact that bass soundwaves are omnidirectional, are physically much longer and behave much differently in any given room than midrange and treble soundwaves behave. Midrange/treble soundwaves are highly directional, physically much shorter and, therefore, behave much differently in any given room than bass soundwaves do. In smaller sized rooms,I've found it's best to get the bass sounding right in the room first and then optimally position the main speakers in the room, in relation to the designated listening seat, for midrange/treble and imaging performance. 'm not certain this approach works as well in larger rooms but I don't see why it wouldn't. In theory, I believe it should be easier. Smodtactical, I think you have several options to get the bass right in your future room. But I realize I'll need to more specifically need to understand your goals and budget to best tailor the options I'm thinking about to your requirements. Generally, I'd like to know if your priority is quality or cost and how important convenience is to you in terms of setup and use. My options all consist of a minimum of 2 subs. I know that 2 subs will perform about twice as well as a single and 4 subs about twice as well as 2. Here are some of the general options I'm currently considering for your room:
1. Start with a pair of Captivator RS2 or similar large subs and position them each optimally in your room using the crawl method. If you only use a pair of subs, the optimum positioning of each sub is very important and unlikely to consist of just positioning one by each of your main speakers. You'll need to be open to placing each sub sequentially in your room where the bass sounds the best to you at your listening seat and not where they conveniently fit in your room. This could require rearranging furniture and other room décor. A variation on any of these options is to add a 3rd and even 4th sub to to create what's called a distributed bass array (DBA) system. The advantages of a DBA system are that the bass will have increased bass power and bass dynamics capacity when the content calls for it since the bass is cumulative, each sub will be operating well below its limits for lower distortion, the bass will be perceived as smoother, faster, more detailed, even better integrated with the main speakers and this high quality bass will be perceived throughout the entire room, not just at the designated listening seat.
2. Start with a pair of smaller REL 812S subs optimally positioned using the crawl method. If this is deficient in any way, you could add a 3rd and even 4th 812S sub until it meets your requirements. I believe using smaller and less expensive subs as additional subs might work almost as well as additional 812S subs. I also believe the 812S subs have the very convenient advantage of offering wireless connections.
3. Start with a pair of Syzygy SLF870 subs as a less costly option. These are newer subs that have received very good reviews and are also offer wireless connections. I believe the guy who started this company formerly worked for REL. Here's a link to their site:
4. Buy a complete 4-sub DBA system for about $3K total, such as the Audio Kinesis Swarm or Debra bass system. This is what I use in my smaller 23'x16' room and it works spectacularly well. I know these are designed to provide high quality bass performance similar to being in a bigger room, but I think this system would work at least as well in a larger room such as yours. However, I'd suggest contacting Duke or James Romeyn at AK to make sure they agree. Here's a review of the Swarm in The Absolute Sound that I found gives a very accurate description of the bass performance level to expect:
Everything Tim posted is right, especially this one bit here:
You will not be able to localize any of the deep bass coming from any of your subs but you'll still perceive the deep bass as stereo, with the deep bass seeming to originate from the proper instrument in the sound stage image illusion.
This seems almost contradictory. But it is true. Emphatically.
My system https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/8367 is set up with 2 Dayton amps and I have tested all possible setup combinations- including stereo and mono. There is no difference running stereo vs mono. In fact just about everything else makes a difference EXCEPT stereo/mono.
Yet this is emphatically NOT to say the bass does not SEEM to be in stereo.
There is a whole recording angle involved here I'm not even going into. Just read the comments I have made and the comment Mike posted after his visit. The bass comes from everywhere and nowhere, and is perfectly integrated with the sound stage.
Recording after recording the bass with my DBA has all the character and imaging as everything else from the midrange on up- whether or not the subs are run stereo or mono.
Trust me on this- not only do the subs disappear, but when you get it right all the speakers and the whole freaking room disappears.
phusis: "This is tangential to your former examples of arguments in the vein of "there’s no stereo information in the bass, neither recorded nor perceived; symmetrical placement of subs is moot (at a not specified cross-over frequency)" etc., and it goes to show what you’d like to feel better about while trying to convince others into believing as well. Sorry to be blunt about this."
I think it's best if we consider these as separate issues:
1. Recorded 4K Ultra Hd Bluray bass content.
I had stated: "I’m fairly certain that 4K Ultra HD Bluray discs and streaming videos don’t contain any audio content below 20 Hz. " I believe my statement is generally correct but I'm willing to concede the fact that there is recorded sub 20 Hz bass existing on numerous 4K Bluray discs if individuals are willing to invest the time, effort and equipment required to retrieve and play it back. I'm not interested in doing so but I understand there are other HT enthusiasts that enjoy plumbing the bass depths of their HT systems.
2. Recorded stereo music content.
Acoustic scientists have proven that humans cannot localize, which means to determine where a sound is coming from, bass frequency tones below about 80 Hz but are increasingly adept at localizing tones as the frequency of the tone increases from about 80 Hz up to the human audible high frequency limit of about 20,000 Hz. Recording engineers, of course, were aware of these facts and are the reason virtually all of them have been summing all the bass below about 100 Hz to mono on their master recording mixes for all music content formats for the past 60-70 years. This means there's no recorded stereo bass information on music content on Phusis, your link on your last post to a Spotify site, that you stated lists music recordings containing bass below 20 Hz, did not work and connect me to this list. Can you please correct this and repost the link? You do realize that you conflated several separate but related bass issues when you stated ""This is tangential to your former examples of arguments in the vein of "there’s no stereo information in the bass, neither recorded nor perceived; symmetrical placement of subs is moot (at a not specified cross-over frequency)" etc., and it goes to show what you’d like to feel better about while trying to convince others into believing as well. Sorry to be blunt about this.", right? You conflated the separate issues of whether there are any music recordings in any format that contain bass below 20 Hz with whether this deep bass is recorded in stereo and whether individuals would be capable of perceiving the deep bass as stereo even if the bass below 20 Hz actually was recorded in stereo. My point is that all the following conditions have to be met for you to be correct about the viability of achieving true stereo deep bass in your system:
1. At least a single commercially available music recording with bass content below 20 Hz has to exist.
2. This deep bass must be recorded in stereo.
3. A left and right channel sub needs to be setup, and
4. You need to be able to localize bass frequency tones below 80 Hz.
Pending the validity of your Spotify list, I don't currently believe any of these conditions have been yet met. Fortunately however, none of this matters if you do the following:
1. Play any music recording with bass content down to 20 Hz. 2. This bass must be summed to mono as the overwhelming majority of commercially available recordings already are. 3. All your subs are run in mono mode and positioned in the room for optimum bass response at your listening seat.
4. You will not be able to localize any of the deep bass coming from any of your subs but you'll still perceive the deep bass as stereo, with the deep bass seeming to originate from the proper instrument in the sound stage image illusion. This is possible because the fundamental deep bass tones down to 20 Hz and under 80 Hz, which we cannot localize, are being reproduced by the subs in mono. But the deep bass harmonics or overtones of the deep bass fundamental tones which reach above the 80 Hz threshold, which we can localize, are being reproduced by your main speakers in stereo. You'll be able to perceive the deep bass as stereo bass because our amazing brains are able to associate the bass harmonics or overtones coming from your main stereo speakers with the much deeper bass fundamental tones coming from your subs. It all works like a charm and works with any recording whether the bass extends below 20 Hz and recorded in stereo or not. For example, the double bass will be perceived as being positioned at the front left of the sound stage image and the drums will be perceived as being positioned at the rear center of the sound stage image with solid and stable image illusions.
@phusis is absolutely correct. There is content below 20Hz and each individual must decide tor themselves if that content is worth pursuing.
@noble100 It is true some movies are released with bass filtered content. There is a group of enthusiast that have created a way to measure each movie, and display the average and maximum level of content at each frequency. They then found a way to use a mini-dsp to restore the filtered content. https://www.avsforum.com/forum/113-subwoofers-bass-transducers/2995212-bass-eq-filtered-movies.html
The 1960 VW Karmann Ghia came with a 36 HP engine. The top speed was 72 MPH. The top speed of a BMW 528 xi is 155 MPH. Both cars cars can drive 70 MPH, but the driving experience will be very different. The BMW will reach speeds that are seen in daily use with extreme ease and comfort.
The same applies to speakers. You may be able to get a speaker to play at 30 HZ but if it is struggling to do so, distortion goes up and the sound is affected. That is the reason we have sub-woofers, they take over where our main speakers are challenged. A large sub-woofer, with a numerically lower frequency limit can take playing ability one step beyond a sub-woofer limited to 20 Hz. A sub-woofer that can play clear, distortion free, sound at reasonable levels below 20 Hz is completely at ease at with content above 20 Hz, that difference can be heard.
I use Vandersteen speakers in my multi-channel system. I use Innersound Eros in my office system. I will try and get some system information up this week. I also plan on trying to show my system measurements as well but if I show you mine, you have to show me yours (system measurements that is...).
...I’m fairly certain that 4K Ultra HD Bluray discs and streaming videos don’t contain any audio content below 20 Hz. I’m virtually 100% certain that no commercially available stereo music content, whether issued on LP, CD, SACD or Hi-Res digital file, contains any audio music content below 20 Hz because not one of the numerous individuals, that I’ve asked to identify a single specific example of a stereo music recording with bass below 20 Hz, has been able to do so. I’ve even searched for a single example myself without any luck. Can you name a single example? Anybody reading this thread know of a single example?
This is tangential to your former examples of arguments in the vein of "there’s no stereo information in the bass, neither recorded nor perceived; symmetrical placement of subs is moot (at a not specified cross-over frequency)" etc., and it goes to show what you’d like to feel better about while trying to convince others into believing as well. Sorry to be blunt about this.
Let’s make this clear once and for all: there IS content below 20 Hz en masse certainly as found on Blu-ray’s and UHD’s (look over at highdefdigest.com and their Blu-ray/UHD reviews, where there are occasional bass charts to prove there’re numerous examples of titles with infrasonic information into the single digits), and while I’ve seen no similar documentation on whether CD’s contain information below 20Hz I know of several individuals who have a music collection to strongly benefit from sub systems capable of much below 20Hz reproduction (compared to "just" having honest capabilities down to 20Hz), which is at least indicative of source material actually containing information in these "nether regions." Head over to the AVSForum and see with your own eyes the sub set-ups these people have in their homes, and ask them whether <20Hz reproduction matters. Visit databass.com and ask the same. The answer, I promise you, while be quite unanimous. People may not all agree on the priority of attaining infrasonics (and the compromises potentially involved here), but most won’t deny that frequencies down to ~10Hz (below that to truly matter requires rather massive radiation area and power to make a difference) are perceivable/felt, and can have a big impact on the experience. The proof is IN THE EATING of the pudding, but there’s documentation to back it up as well - should you feel inclined.
My main point, which I believe you likely agree with, is that it makes little sense to have an audio system capable of bass down to 6 Hz if there’s no HT or music content that contains bass that deep. Are you sure you’re not listening and feeling bass that’s going down to 20 Hz and just thinking it’s going down to 6 Hz? In my room, even bass down to only 20 Hz sounds and feels very deep with powerful impact and realism on both HT and music. I don’t perceive I’m missing a thing.
With my own sub set-up I’ve consciously chosen to forego <20Hz because I favor bass reproduced from horns, tapped horns at that (this requires of you to actually buy into that bass isn’t just bass, be that via distributed arrays or not), and while infrasonics can be had with bass horns they simply end up being ginormous (so, a practical consideration), or with tapped horns in particular it means giving up extension in the upper frequency range, eating away sensitivity (though it’ll stay higher than any typical direct radiation sub) while continuing to have the physical size grow into behemoths when seeking an ever lower tune. When in my tapped horn subs the drivers move just a couple of millimeters with content down to 20Hz, I don’t feel I’m missing anything either - indeed it’s a visceral, awesome experience that shakes the air. I absolutely agree with you on the sufficiency felt here, although it’s not only about mere extension but also, and importantly about how these frequencies are reproduced.
However, I’ve heard what <20Hz can do when reproduced forcefully, and it adds a dimension difficult to describe other than it has emotional impact (as @jwmorris expressed above) and can also lead to a sense of unease and even intimidation. It makes a difference in particular with Blu-ray’s/UHD’s, and while I’m a movie buff and know of what I’m missing with my choice of sub system, I feel I gain sonically where it matters mostly to my ears, which is from ~20Hz on up.
I just wanted to respond to a few of your statements on your last post:
"Oh, by the way, my in room response is +/- 3 db from 100 to 6 Hz." and "There are frequencies below 20Hz used in some of today’s music".
Your profile has no system details and I’m wondering if you could list the main speakers and subs you use in your system? It seems like you use your system for both stereo music and HT playback, just as I do. Your stated in-room bass response of +/- 3 db from 100 to 6 Hz is impressive. My Audio Kinesis Debra 4-sub distributed bass array system only has a bass response of +/- 3 db from 100 to 20 Hz. However, I’m fairly certain that 4K Ultra HD Bluray discs and streaming videos don’t contain any audio content below 20 Hz. I’m virtually 100% certain that no commercially available stereo music content, whether issued on LP, CD, SACD or Hi-Res digital file, contains any audio music content below 20 Hz because not one of the numerous individuals, that I’ve asked to identify a single specific example of a stereo music recording with bass below 20 Hz, has been able to do so. I’ve even searched for a single example myself without any luck. Can you name a single example? Anybody reading this thread know of a single example? My main point, which I believe you likely agree with, is that it makes little sense to have an audio system capable of bass down to 6 Hz if there’s no HT or music content that contains bass that deep. Are you sure you’re not listening and feeling bass that’s going down to 20 Hz and just thinking it’s going down to 6 Hz? In my room, even bass down to only 20 Hz sounds and feels very deep with powerful impact and realism on both HT and music. I don’t perceive I’m missing a thing.
Smodtactical, The subs I bought were being sold used, locally. A friend who had listened to my system before suggested I needed large sub-woofers. That same friend told me these were available. I listened the first day without purchasing, after that I could not get them out of my mind.
The S2 is my first sealed sub-woofer and I must admit, they took some getting used too. I never realized it but I like/am used to distortion. These subs are so different than what I have ever heard before. They are tuneful, effortless, and can send you running for the remote. I know it is a cliche but I am hearing things in familiar movies and music I did not realize were there.
The JTR 4000 promises to be a pretty amazing sub-woofer. The JTR 2400 would probably be easier to place and is also special.
My advice is don't spend any money yet. Research as much as you can (Google is your friend here), give appropriate weight to opinions that have actually heard the speakers in question, and listen for yourself.
John I like your approach. I infact may go dual RS2s as well. But I might go ported just to maximize the low end extension especially for movies with the captivator 4000.
Or sealed S7201 or ported TV42Ipal. But I think im settled on going for big subs. Another approach would be 4x 18 spread around my space for a smoother response.
You don't know what you are missing until you experience it.
Frequencies below 20Hz add realism when watching movies. In real life if a train rolls by, or there is a gun shot or explosion, there are frequencies you feel. The sensation added by low level deep frequencies can contribute to emotion during movies. The ability to reproduce those frequencies is a good thing.
There are frequencies below 20Hz used in some of today's music.
Smodtactical, the best advice you have received is to listen. When things settle down from the virus, find as many listening opportunities as you can. Continue to do research here and other sites.
The construction of your room matters (concrete or suspended floor etc.) Your preference for bass matters. Some people love sealed subs, others do not.
I have two JTR S2 subwoofers in a 14x29x8 room. I use a mini-dsp to adjust the subs. There are times I have caught myself thinking, wow, I paid all that money for these subs and I can't even hear them. Then the music or sound track calls for it and I get a big smile across my face. These subs are special.
You are planning a large room, bass requires displacement of air. Larger drivers move more air.
I am in SC. You are welcome to come listen when things are safer. Oh, by the way, my in room response is +/- 3 db from 100 to 6 Hz. I have also added a BOSS platform as detailed in The Hideaway Theater thread on another forum. Large sub-woofers can be great!
I have never employed 4 to 12 15" woofers in my room or systems in different configurations of large drivers reaching down well below 20 Hz. I've only employed a maximum of 4 10" woofers/subs in a single optimized configuration, that reach down to 20 Hz, but not likely much deeper, and were included in the Audio Kinesis Debra 4-sub distributed bass array (DBA) system I've been utilizing in my room and systems for the past 5 years. Since employing the AK Debra 4-sub DBA system, however, I have become very familiar in experiencing and enjoying very high quality bass performance that you very aptly describe as having the qualities of "gradations of power, dynamics, smoothness, ease, tonality, etc." I would only suggest adding speed, accuracy, detail and naturalness to your list. But your apparent endorsement of employing subs with larger woofers and in quantities beyond 4 subs to reproduce bass well below 20 Hz and even further improve bass performance, both surprises and somewhat confuses me. It's my understanding that reproduced bass tones below 20 Hz are not audible, mainly just vibrate things around the room including parts of our bodies, there are very few musical instruments that produce bass below 20 Hz with pipe organs being the only ones I'm aware of and there being virtually no commercially available music recordings containing bass frequencies below 20 Hz. I prefer bass that sounds and feels natural like when music is played, heard and felt live in person at smaller venues, not like over-amplified arena rock bass. What am I misunderstanding about music bass below 20Hz?
Legacy Audio XTREME XD Subs in use. See my review at Dagogo.com
I have at times used from 4 to 12 15" woofers employed in systems. It's fascinating to hear the gradations of power, dynamics, smoothness, ease, tonality, etc. that occurs in different configurations of large drivers reaching down well below 20Hz.
I don’t know about big Subwoofers, but my two little JL Audio Dominion D108 Subs certainly pack a punch and filled a big room quite nicely with my Goldenear Triton 5’s. They’re powerful little Subs.
I have my V801's crossovers set at 100hz and as I said before they disappear when playing. It could also just be the synergy with my almost vintage
Miller & Kreisel
MPS 2510 passive studio monitors with 2 midrange woofers and 3 tweeters each speaker. I'm gonna set the sub that's farthest away at 80hz and listen for awhile.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
