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.
@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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@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.
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..
... 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.
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...
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?
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.
Understand a smoother response from 4 subs before cal puts less stress on the filtering algorithm,
No that's missing the point. Equalizing or getting flat response is only part of the problem. Another equally important factor is smooth bass is fast articulate bass.
That's because bass energy is in the room whether its measured flat at your EQ location or anywhere else. To get flat bass with EQ always requires turning it up somewhere. Even if its not EQ'd louder still there's extra bass energy somewhere in the room for the simple fact that's the way bass works- there's always reinforcement somewhere, cancellation somewhere else. Nulls and sickouts aren't a problem. Reinforcement is, because that extra bass energy hangs around taking time to dissipate which until it does results in muddy bass. This probably more than anything else is why DBA bass is so exceptionally fast and articulate.
More subs is diminishing returns only because once you have reduced one set of really big modes to two smaller ones they're half as big. Then form 2 to 4 half as big again. To cut them in half again means doubling to 8 which as Duke says is grounds for divorce. But I went from 4 to 5 and it sure did not seem like diminishing returns to me. In any case the returns are relative to DBA not EQ, which is apples and oranges.
Thanks miller. Exactly right.
Just because the response is smooth at the LP doesn't mean ringing is occurring with long decay times from peaky modes at other locations in the room. Only DBA can fix that.
For all the RF EE's, that like time domain codes modeling electromagnetic cavity modes where highly resonant cavities require sampling long durations of time to get the response right, where as low Q /broadband antennas and cavities can be accurately characterized by a quick impulse.
Has anyone directly compared Rel offerings to JTR, PSA or Rhythmik
I have a REL S5/SHO and a Rythmik F12SE in my system. They both cycle low enough and are loud enough for my needs which is 2 ch. audio. The main difference between them is the notes reproduced by the REL have noticeably more sustain and a longer decay than the Rythmik.
Some people really like the longer sustain and decay because it gives the bass a thicker, richer feel. Some people despise the longer sustain and decay because it can mask punch and detail.
This is by no means an absolute, but here's my experience. I had dual JL Audio F110 v2 subs and replaced them with a single JL Audio F112 v2. It wasn't close to my ears, as I preferred the single, bigger F112 v2. I recently sold dual REL Carbon Limited subs and replaced them with dual REL G1 mkII subs. For a couple of days I only had one REL G1 mkII, but once again I preferred the single larger subwoofer over dual smaller subs. Bigger subs pressurize my room better, open the soundstage, provides more detail, and space between instruments. We often talk about adding subwoofers to improve bass, but good subwoofers improve everything across the entire audio spectrum.
I agree with millercarbon and brotw, DBAs excel at providing very fast, smooth, detailed bass throughout the entire room, not just at a designated LP. The bass is also capable of being as powerful and dynamic as the music or HT content calls for because there's 4 of them operating in mono as a collective group. Based on my experience utilizing a 4-sub Audio Kinesis Debra DBA system for the past 5 years, the main benefit is the perception that there is a complete absence of bass peaks, dips, nulls, muddiness, boominess and ringing. I consider the bass quality as near state of the art in my room/system and cannot identify any actual bass deficencies. As I understand it, the benefits of utilizing multiple subs begin to be realized with the deployment of 2 subs in a given room, especially when both subs are optimally and precisely positioned in relation to the LP. It's also very important that the volume, crossover frequency and phase controls are optimally set on each sub for these benefits to be realized. Based on my prior usage of 2 self-amplified subs in my room/system, I would describe these benefits as the beginning of realizing the benefits of using a 4-sub DBA system. The bass begins to sound faster, smoother, more detailed, more powerful and dynamic, better blended with the main speakers and very good overall. My experience transitioning to 4 subs resulted in even further improvements in all of these bass qualities and the overall bass quality improved from very good to what I consider near state of the art. To answer brotw's question about whether one can attain an approximation of a DBA's bass quality performance utilizing just 2 higher powered subs with room correction, therefore, I believe the answer is a qualified yes, depending on whether an individual is satisfied having this high quality bass restricted to a single designated LP in the room. However, I'm less convinced of the positive effects of room correction hardware/software and room treatments on overall in-room bass performance. Of course, this could be the result of never utilizing room correction, and only recently utilizing room treatments, in any of my own multi-sub room/system configurations. I was concerned about adding bass room treatments recommended by GIK after a room analysis, 2 stacked TriTrap bass traps in all 4 corners and some other 5.5" thick bass trap panels spread about, but they've had no negative bass effects in my room. As to room correction hardware/software, I suspect that having ruler flat bass response in a room may not sound as good as we might expect. So brotw, my best answer to your question is a definite...... maybe.
I suspect that having ruler flat bass response in a room may not sound as good as we might expect
Thanks for the sharing Tim. I believe room correction has the benefit of improving the tonality of the rooms bass response at the LP. Of all the speakers and amps that have made their way through my listening room, not one did not benefit from dsp. Music sounded more coherent and live with tighter bass and imaging every time I flipped on the Dirac filter. The mixed phase filters are great, and perhaps they are correcting the speaker crossovers and room all in one.
That being said, dsp is no silver bullet. Can't fix reflection points nor extended decay from a "lumpy" single sub bass response, only DBA appears to do that.
One area of interest include using room correction to help integrate dual subs better after level and phase matching to the mains at the crossover frequency. Another curiousity is seeing if using bass management in my newly acquired Parasound P5 produces better sound by unloading my tube integrated LM508ia from sub 50-80Hz duty driving Tekton DI's and simultaneously reducing the SBIR effect from the mains below 50Hz. That falls into the "to high pass or not" category.
Xovers like the JL CR-1 potentially disturb the pristine signal coming out of really nice preamp, then again, the same is said of dsp. I have neither so I'll dip my toes in the water with the P5 which allows funds for a pair of good subs.
brotw: " I believe room correction has the benefit of improving the tonality of the rooms bass response at the LP. Of all the speakers and amps that have made their way through my listening room, not one did not benefit from dsp. Music sounded more coherent and live with tighter bass and imaging every time I flipped on the Dirac filter. The mixed phase filters are great, and perhaps they are correcting the speaker crossovers and room all in one. "
Hello brotw,
I think it’s best that I just accept your claim as fact that room correction/DSP/Dirac have had positive effects on your systems. I also realize individuals are unlikely to improve their system’s performance without having the sense to learn from the experiences of others and taking the initiative to actually audition the promising suggestions in their own systems. However, I’m a bit confused about exactly what component you’ve been utilizing in your systems that contains DSP/Dirac filtering capability, can you let us know? My prior preamp was the Parasound Halo P5 with bass management, so I am very familiar with that unit. Imho, it’s a good preamp with a very neutral sonic signature. I now use a Levinson 326S preamp in my system. I didn’t see a purpose in having 3 bass management systems, one with controls on the back of the P5, one incorporated into my Oppo 205 Bluray/CD/SACD player and the one with controls on the front of my AK Debra 4-sub amp/control unit. I also liked the improved tonal quality and more 3 dimensional sound stage I perceived with the 326S in my system. However, I think the P5’s bass managent could prove very useful in your system, especially if used to reduce the bass duties of your Line Magnetic 508ia SET tube class A 48w/ch integrated amp. I believe your best solution is utilizing a pair of good quality self-amplified subs in your room. You could connect both subs to your P5, set the P5’s bass management controls so that all bass frequencies below about 60 Hz are sent to the subs and all frequencies at or above about 60 Hz are sent to your 508ia. I think this would likely eliminate your 3-5db suckout near 50 Hz and improve the midrange, treble and stereo imaging performance of your 508ia and main speakers combination. You could then optimize the overall system performance and balance by making small adjustments to the low and high pass crossover frequency control settings on the P5 by ear and preferences. For best results, I recommend precisely locating each sub in your room, and in relation to your LP, sequentially utilizing the ’sub crawl method’. You can google it for details.
But if you have a DBA, then when you apply the room correction it'll work a lot better!
Yes, all things being equal, the more subs the merrier.
I think it’s best that I just accept your claim as fact that room correction/DSP/Dirac have had positive effects on your systems.
Tim - I'm using Dirac live on PC. Sound quality improved a good deal with the SOtM txusb-exp card, RUR, and curious cable feeding a Schiit Gungnir. The W4S dac-2 when paired with Dirac was too sharp/forward and when paired with class D amp - unbearable. Now the sound is more tame. Using 244 panels and tritraps from GIK which helped out mostly above 80 hz.
I've always been a bit skeptical and suppose somehow the dsp is ruining something. When swapping new amps, speakers and preamps, the unique sonic characteristics of new components have always shown through even after calibration. It's not too unlike the DBA decay effect where certain sonic characteristics do not reside with the initial CW signal. Send a CW signal through a system, and each component imparts it's unique harmonics and noise. Speakers especially retain their flavor from inert to lively cabinets and drivers, both of which will impart higher order harmonics from a CW signal during cal, but it is only the CW signal that is phase and mag corrected at that instance in time. The broadband response to the CW excitation remains and is uncorrected. I'll probably always periodically test feeding the Dirac device and then the dac directly too make sure I'm not leaving something on the table.
The P5 so far sounds as you say, neutral, and likely has a better attenuator than the LM508 integrated. Inevitably it is just a stepping stone. Wanted to spend $3000 on a higher quality preamp but figured the P5 with dual subs for similar price would make more of an impact.
Wanted to revisit this thread. I am getting arguments from the guys on our sonic visions discord about how only bassheads like subs and its like added ketchup to some kind of gourmet food. My question is this: Is it possible for someone who enjoys high fidelity music (someone who enjoys music with good imaging, soundstage, dynamics, microdetails etc.... who is not simply looking to rock out and bob there head aggressively to the music as the ground shakes) to enjoy a system with well integrated subwoofers more than one without them?
Adding subwoofers is so much more than bass. Adding subwoofers to my system has improved spacing and detail across the audio spectrum. To my ears it makes listening to music more enjoyable and I will never have 2- channel without subwoofers again. The great thing is I don’t know that my subs are on, until I turn them off.
smodtacticalOP Are big subwoofers viable for 2 channel music?
For movie, theater and HT big 15" subs are great.
But for 2ch hiend stereo system for music I find smaller faster drivers twin 8" or 10" are more precisely controlled and faster they mate up to your high quality mains better. I use two active subs L & R, with twin servo 8" drivers in each, they are next to my mains, and get fed from the L & R outputs of the preamp, the system sounds like it's just designed as a whole.
Yes, I have Vandersteen TreoCT ( no subs ) and 7’s with built in push pull subs and 11 band asymmetric EQ ( more cut than boost ) on a great deal of music the sub is clearly not needed. However the ability to high pass and separately amplify your main speakers and the sonic benefit of doing so cannot be overstated. Also you can swarm any sub and derive benefits from EQ below 120 hz. Note I said music above, Home Theatre is a different animal.
The distinction between music and Home Theatre reproduction as it applies to subs is notably expressed here. I used to run previous, smaller sub set-ups much hotter (like +5dB's) when watching movies - as an act of compensation, I'm now aware - vs. when listening to music only. Since I started using a pair of much bigger (20 cf.) tapped horn subs in my system there's no gain-differentiation needed with music vs. HT. Music isn't overpowered by a sluggish bass but is instead more naturally present and organically integrated, while movies have all the visceral force and impact, even potentially intimidating in nature, to truly make the experience felt.
Well-integrating subs IS about pursuing High Fidelity in its truer sense and certainly not like "added ketchup to some kind of gourmet food," but rather about making the intend of gourmet food taste gourmet in the first place. This applies to both music and HT reproduction; when the capacity is properly at hand you won't need "compensation" gain-wise in an HT-system, and it complements music as well.
phusis: "Well-integrating subs IS about pursuing High Fidelity in its truer sense and certainly not like "added ketchup to some kind of gourmet food," but rather about making the intend of gourmet food taste gourmet in the first place. This applies to both music and HT reproduction; when the capacity is properly at hand you won't need "compensation" gain-wise in an HT-system, and it complements music as well."
I completely agree with phusis. High fidelity reproduction of the bottom two octaves of bass on music recordings, through the incorporation of 2 or more optimally positioned and configured subs in a system, is one of the most effective methods available to obtain near state of the art bass performance that is powerful, fast, smooth, dynamic, articulate, realistic. seamlessly integrated with the main speakers with a sense of effortlessness and naturalness in virtually any room and with any pair of main speakers. Those dismissing the effectiveness of the scientifically proven method of utilizing multiple subs in a room/system(see the works of Dr. Earl Geddes, Dr. Floyd Toole and Todd Welki for details) as analogous to pouring ketchup on gourmet food or other tropes, are simply proclaiming their complete lack of knowledge and experience with this method. For those lacking knowledge and experience concerning the effectiveness of multiple subs, I suggest gaining knowledge through online research, gaining experience by auditioning multiple sub bass systems and determining the concept's effectiveness for yourself.
I have not experimented with the SWARM concept but did hear Duke's room at an RMAF (remember when we used to have those :-) a few years back an he definitely had good sound and balanced low end.. I have experimented with subs for two-channel music and surround as I have those two formats integrated into my current main system. What is current working for me is a pair of Seaton Submersives (active dual opposed 15 inch drivers). They do not have any form of crossover for the model I have. I use a DBX PA-2 drive rack which is a DSP that I use for he low pass crossover (many choices of crossover type), PEQ and RTA. I run my main speakers fully range and bring on the subs where they start falling off. I use an RTA app on my iphone that gives me 1/3 octave RTA measurements. The DBX PA-II has an iPad app so you can control all the settings remotely. It also has a large number of user configurable presets..so I can have a setting for each speaker I might bring into the system. The cool thing is you can play with all these settings easily from the listening postion. I stream a pink noise track, look at the RTA on my iphone and play around with crossover points, slopes, gains, etc while I am listening.. I like to play around with the crossover slope types while playing music with real bass (like Dire Straits - Six Blade Knife) and listen to the impact of making changes. Do I end up with something that is perfect....no., but I do end up with something I like. I also strongly agree that subs is not just about adding bass it can transform the spatial aspects of a performance. For surround I have an XLR switch box going to the two subs...so in surround mode Iet the Surround Pre control all aspects of the subs by routing around the DBX PA2
It seems like you have figured how to integrate your pair of subs very well into your system. You may not have experimented with the Swarm concept yet but you certainly have experimented with the multiple sub concept and now have valuable personal experience with its benefits. Congrats on your adventurous spirit and bass system!
I just had a mind blowing listening session. Utterly incredible resolution, imaging, spaciousness, holography. Just hard to believe things can sound much better. I don’t think my system is far off from the magico m2. And I was listening to organ music... it was great. I could sense the space and power of organ, the scale. (This is on NS5000)
BUT THEN... I turned on my dual 18s. HOLY SHITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT. The soundstage grew enormously. The organ became life like in its scale... it was simply real now. I closed my eyes and I was in a massive church. The subwoofers helped capture the shape of the space and the visceral low growls as the organist played low. For the rest of my session I left my subs on (crossed at about 50-55 hz) and I realized today that I simply love subwoofers and there is no way around it. The weight, gravity and power.. scale in every song i played was mind blowing. And keep in mind the NS5000 is flat to about 25 hz so it does bass very well but the boost in the low end just adds so much to the music. The bass didn’t seem bloated or boomy either to me. It was powerful and fast still. I am sure better and maybe smaller subs might do speed better but the way my system sounds. I could absolutely live with it for life. Only thing I want to do in my new listening room is get another 2x 18s.. and im thinking sealed. Then when ill do is cross the dual 18s at maybe 60 hz and then cross my dual 18 ported at 40 hz so they can fill out the low end and provide an even bass response in the room.
I am just a subwoofer bass guy... I can’t get away from that. I am reminded by my sonja 1.3 demo how i was really disappointed by the bass. It was just utterly lacking. Other audiophiles might not like the sound in my room and prefer the Sonja bass but I love this sound. And rather than spend $500k on Goebel divin majestics... why not spend a bit more on more subwoofers... youll get all the power, impact, scale of the big goebels for a fraction of the price! I think more affordable speakers and a proper sub array is a much smarter option than dishing out millions on speakers that may give you similar bass performance and maybe not even similar. Subwoofers are the key for me for incredible low end and saving money while I am at it!
Lot of my audiophile friends criticize my love of subwoofers... at the end of the day we all have different tastes and this is mine. I doubt ill ever give up my subs. They are amazing.
What I been saying for over a year now. And Tim. And everyone with a DBA. Two more will be even better. What matters most with subs is how many, not which ones.
Millercarbon I am 100% on board with DBA. So you think mixing ported for lower frequency and sealed for higher frequencies makes sense? Also I have 2 subs connected via RCA from my preamp. How would I connect another two? Also do you like Denis Foleys approach of having the various subwoofers are different levels vertically? He feels then you get a more even vertical response in the room.
Subwoofers have just too many advantages. 1. You can choose the size and specs to get the best speed, power character you want. 2. Can place them in the ideal position which is usually not near the main towers 3. You can cross them so you get the right FR that you want or right effect you want... play with phase as well, delay and dial them in perfectly 4. You can have multiple in an array so you get an even response in a room 5. You can do vertical array by either stacking in a tower or just have them at different heights at different positions in the room like Denis Foley recommends for a great vertical component to the bass and vertical even-ness
Great article here talking about subwoofer speed. "
Smaller woofers sound faster than larger woofers
One of the biggest myths about woofers is that smaller units like 8's
and 10's sound "tighter" and "faster" than 15's or 18's. Even bigger
drivers such as 21's and 24's are supposedly worse than 15's or 18's.
This can be true in some specific cases, but as a blanket statement of
all drivers this is factually incorrect.
This subjective impression is often caused by factors other than the
simple size of the driver. What tends to happen is that the smaller
drivers have a lower Qts because manufacturers tend to share one motor
design across many different sizes of drivers in the series. They may
have the same motor on the 10" driver that they have on the 15 or 18".
Unless the motor can compensate for the extra mass it has to push, then
the Qts will not be the same as the smaller drivers. Ultimately the
larger driver may not be suited for the same kinds of alignments as the
smaller driver and ends up requiring a much larger air volume for the
same system "Q" and response shape. Typically the larger driver will end
up in a higher "Q" undersized system with a less linear response shape
that may cause it to sound more uneven or "one note". It may also end up
being tuned much deeper in frequency and the increased low frequency
output may also cause it to sound "slower" or "heavier". Smaller subs
and those using smaller driver sizes are often not asked to go as low
and will not have the same low frequency extension in their design. When
comparing subs the one with more low frequency extension and output
will sound quite different. Having said that, high Qts drivers are not
inherently inferior sounding when compared to more efficient, highly
damped drivers, but they require larger boxes and less internal pressure
to prevent response peaking and increased group delay.
Large sub drivers can be made to have the same motor to cone ratio
as smaller drivers. The larger woofers also have more room for bigger
suspension components and voice coils which can allow higher power
handling, more excursion capability and larger mechanical clearances
that simply cannot fit on an 8 or 10" driver frame. It is more expensive
to make larger driver sizes in this way, but not impossible. There are a
number of good examples on the market. It's just a matter of picking
the right driver for the job."
Indeed, great article. Josh Ricci knows of what he’s writing.
I’d go so far to say big subs aren’t only viable for 2-channel music, they’re wholly essential. The effortless quality of very large, preferably efficient subs means the cone(s) move very little, and it’s directly translatable into lower distortion and cleaner, more tuneful bass. Either you use a bunch of large diameter direct radiating drivers, or you horn-load a fewer number of them for what’s effectively a similar air radiation area, but a differently perceived bass presentation (one that I prefer, I might add, but to each their own).
I guess with regard to subs you could say: by and large, buy ’em large (and plenty of them) :)
Lol I like that phusis. I guess the only downside is if the large subwoofer doesn't have a motor powerful enough to control the driver as well as a smaller sub.
Wow, I was a bit surprised that this thread is still continuing. I don't have any disagreements with anything stated in the linked article but think it may be a bit technical for some consumers to completely comprehend and apply the information usefully to their own buying and system building decisions. I believe most consumers seeking better bass in their rooms/systems would prefer to purchase subs or bass systems that have intelligently incorporated the best and most relevant bass reproduction knowledge and technology into their products. My main point being that some consumers have taken the time and have the interest in knowing the details of how to attain very good bass performance in their domestic rooms and many, most?, don't and just want a simple and affordable solution. You, some others on this thread and I understand that getting good bass performance is more complex than just plopping down a sub in a convenient room location. I think it's best if we keep things as simple as possible for this thread to be beneficial to the largest number of readers. For example, I think we agree that multiple subs will typically provide much better bass performance than a single sub in virtually any room and that 3 to 4 subs will generally provide even better bass performance. A pair of well positioned, good quality subs is usually sufficient for achieving good bass performance at a single designated listening position and 3-4 subs are usually sufficient for achieving good bass performance throughout the entire room, which is important for HT setups with multiple listening positions. If consumers want very good bass performance throughout their entire room, the Audio Kinesis Swarm or Debra 4-sub distributed bass array complete kits for about $3K are a simple, relatively affordable and very high quality solution. Here's an Absolute Sound review of the Swarm:
I think we must careful not to make ourselves the judges on the level of ambition and complexity to dictate in this matter, but rather to relevantly pursue the subject of this thread to the fullest extend possible. At its core linked article by the OP simply tries to debunk a general assumption within audiophilia that larger drivers are slower sounding than smaller dittos, and indeed some perspective is given into this by Mr. Ricci. The general "math" behind it, as presented by him, isn’t that hairy, and in any case there’s the choice of going ground-up by yourself, or implement shared, existing knowledge in the form of actual, specific DIY designs. Or, you could simply buy pre-assembled, large subs and be done with it easily (not to take lightly proper integration/implementation) - they’re out there the likes of JTR, PSA, Deep Sea Sound, Funk Audio, Danley Sound Labs and others.
What is your reply other than to essentially advocate, or indeed advertise for a multi-sub set-up with smaller drivers? We know it works excellently, yes, but sorry - it’s not the primary relevance of this thread. The OP asked whether BIG subs are viable for 2-channel music, and they most certainly are while bringing to the table possible advantages few get to experience, because large size isn’t desirable or otherwise allowed for. Nothing holds anyone from going the DBA-route with big subs - now that would be awesome, and with proper designs it’s a win-win.
And yet, I’d go on to maintain the following: personally I’d rather have two symmetrically placed, very big and efficient subs vs. 4 small-ish lower efficiency subs in a Distributed Array. It’s what I have (2 BIG subs), and have very deliberately chosen. Would I want two more of them? Hell yes, if space and economy allowed, which unfortunately it doesn’t at the moment. As is though it’s a treat, and it would take something like 2x ported dual 18"-loaded subs to equate a pair of 15"-loaded tapped horn subs that I use. It’s not bragging; it’s underlining the importance of headroom and sheer air displacement capacity, and what it does to the bass presentation and how it integrates with the mains.
To boil it down, properly designed larger subs are just as fast as smaller ones. You can see thi is their frequency response curves. The larger driver will have less distortion because it does not have to move as far to produce the same volume. Unfortunately the larger driver will require a larger enclosure and their is the trade off. Distortion vs Size. My approach has always been to take the smallest driver that will take you down where you want to go and use them in multiples to lower the distortion. With DSP and powerful amplifiers sealed enclosures are King. If you have DSP and can match the subs to the satellites in phase and time the absolute best place to put the subs for Hi Fi use is in the corners. If you want a really unified wavefront and fewer room interactions connect the subwoofers with more subwoofers every five feet. In my case with a 16 foot wall that would be 4 total. Since I cross over high at 125 Hz the subs are connected to their appropriate channels. If the drivers are closer together than 1/2 the wavelength of the highest frequency they are to reproduce they will act acoustically like one driver. So, since most bass is mixed mono I have a 16 foot subwoofer. Rock and Roll:)
phusis: "
What is your reply other than to essentially advocate, or indeed advertise for a multi-sub set-up with smaller drivers? We know it works excellently, yes, but sorry - it’s not the primary relevance of this thread. The OP asked whether BIG subs are viable for 2-channel music, and they most certainly are while bringing to the table possible advantages few get to experience, because large size isn’t desirable or otherwise allowed for. Nothing holds anyone from going the DBA-route with big subs - now that would be awesome, and with proper designs it’s a win-win."
Hello phusis,
Good points and fair enough. It's obviously true that I highly recommend the AK Swarm or Debra 4-sub DBA systems that use one smaller 10" driver in each of its relatively small sub cabinets, admittedly ad nauseum and unapologetically, mainly because it's proven to be so exceptionally effective in my own room/system, as well as numerous other A'gon members' rooms/systems, and because I know it's a reliable, relatively affordable and relatively simple method to attain near sota bass performance, that's flat down to 20 Hz, in virtually any room and with virtually any pair of main speakers. What's not to like, right?
But I agree with you. let's just agree to concur on all that and rightfully focus on the OP's inquiry. I get the impression from this thread that the OP, smodtactical, has learned quite a bit, and has done a considerable amount of research on his own, concerning the attainment of good bass performance through the use of subs and bass systems. He also seems to have an admirably open mind as well as the courage, curiosity and spirit of adventure necessary to consider and explore various options.
Contrary to apparently popular belief, I've always realized there's multiple methods of achieving very good and well integrated system bass performance besides simply buying and installing a complete AK Swarm or Debra DBA system. In fact, I learned of the 4-sub distributed bass array concept before learning of it being sold in complete kit form by AK. At this point about 7 years ago, I had already proven to myself, through personal experimentation and experience, that very good bass performance could be achieved at my designated listening seat through the use of 2 good quality and precisely positioned subs. I also learned that this dual sub concept was scalable, since larger subs performed equally well but just with greater bass impact and dynamics, and that there's no requirement that the subs utilized are the same brand, model, size or even type (sealed or ported). I discovered combining a sealed sub with a ported sub works equally well and that the overall bass extension perceived extends to the depth of the sub with the deepest rated bass extension, which is almost always the ported sub. I was originally intending to create a custom 4-sub DBA for my combination 2-ch music and HT system using a pair of the JL F112 subs with a 12" driver each and a pair of the JL F110 subs with a 10" driver each. But then I learned about the AK Swarm complete kit DBA for $2,800 and started noodling . My custom JL DBA would cost about $15,000 at the time 5 years ago:
- Sure, the custom JL DBA would likely go a bit deeper than the AK DBA's 20 Hz, but how deep did I need? - I'm not a bass-head at all and much prefer high quality bass. - Besides, I don't think there's much if any available music or HT source material that has content below about 20 Hz. -With a custom DBA, I'd need to optimally adjust the level, crossover frequency and phase controls on all 4 subs individually. On the AK DBA, I'd only need to optimally adjust these three controls once on the supplied amp/control unit for all four subs and the bass system as a whole. - It'd be a lot easier accommodating the four AK DBA's 1'x1'x28" subs in our living room than four larger subs. - Hmm, I could save over $12,000, get near sota bass performance down to a flat 20 Hz and it'd be simpler to optimally setup?
Long story short...ish, I bought the AK complete kit and it's exceeded my expectations plus made me smile for over 5 years thus far. From what I've read and experienced however, I still think smodtactical's idea of using 4 large subs,in a DBA configuration for music and HT would likely perform very well. But I suspect a combo pair of larger and smaller subs, or an AK DBA, would probably perform at least as well. I think his bass preferences and his budget wll, and should be, the key factors in his choice.
" I'm not a bass-head at all and much prefer high quality bass. " This is a statement I see often and actually kind of why I made this thread. Do big subwoofers just automatically mean someone is a bass head and the bass they are getting is of poor quality? Many people here said that a well designed large subwoofer is not inferior or slower than a small subwoofer. Do you disagree with that sentiment?
"- Besides, I don't think there's much if any available music or HT source material that has content below about 20 Hz."Another statement I see often. Pipe organs can go below 20 hz and I find frequencies below 20 hz provide an incredible sense of space, scale, growl of the organ that I really love. Also lots of my EDM/techno/ambient goes below 20 hz. So I think there is value there.
"
Do big subwoofers just automatically mean someone is a bass head and the bass they are getting is of poor quality? Many people here said that a well designed large subwoofer is not inferior or slower than a small subwoofer. Do you disagree with that sentiment?"
No, I don't think using big subwoofers automatically means someone is a bass-head and they're relegated to poor quality bass. I believe there's a variety of viable options using 2 or more subs to incorporate better bass performance in the lowest 2 octave range, about 16-32 Hz in frequency, into one's system and room. Unfortunately, I just understand I lack the knowledge and personal experience of the various possible options, including the use of various sub sizes, to confidently and reliably state how well large subs perform on music and HT as compared to multiple smaller subs. I can tell you with complete confidence and certainty that the AK Swarm or Debra DBA , utilizing 4 rather small subs and priced at a complete kit price of about $3K, will provide near sota bass response for music and HT. I suspect that 4 larger subs in a similar DBA configuration, however, would perform at least as well or likely even better than either AK system. The best suggestion I can offer you is to select 4 larger subs, from a vendor with a liberal return policy, and give it a try. The main drawbacks would be the time, effort and the required optimum setting of the volume, crossover frequency and phase controls on each sub individually.
"
Besides, I don't think there's much if any available music or HT source material that has content below about 20 Hz."Another statement I see often. Pipe organs can go below 20 hz and I find frequencies below 20 hz provide an incredible sense of space, scale, growl of the organ that I really love. Also lots of my EDM/techno/ambient goes below 20 hz. So I think there is value there."
I formerly believed commercially available music and HT content had bass extension below 20 Hz, too. But then someone asked me to identify a single commercially available music or HT recording as an example. I searched for a while but couldn't find a single example, not even one. Of course, you're more than welcome to try and find an example if you'd like. The closest I could find was a group of guys that discovered an arcane method for retrieving any sub 20 Hz content from some discs if any trace of the original master recording with deeper bass extension was still accessible. They maintained a list of such discs that did on some online site I've forgotten. Talk about bass-heads.
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.
