@millercarbon -- ...
since we all know no one or two subs can ever touch a DBA, then not only do the high-end dealers make money selling you the one sub that can’t work, they get to sell you another. And another. And another. And EQ. And more amps. And room treatments.
There’s simply way more money to be made selling audiophiles things that don’t work than things that do.
Especially if they first sell you on a good story. Which since you already know DBA works, and yet is not widely adopted, then you know how good they are at selling audiophiles on stories.
And that’s the real answer to your question. Why would anyone buy a sub? They don’t. They buy a story.
This is actually an excellent summation, if it weren't for the fact that a pair of subs can work wonders in a more limited number of seating areas. Really, why would you want smooth response most everywhere in the listening room when where you're seated is where you're seated, positioned most likely dead center in front of your main speakers and you're less than a goddamn convention of people? Yes yes, sans DSP and room treatment and what not and just close to an acoustical miracle left for you to savor relatively cheaply, but still; a pair of (not least bigger) subs can do great as well, and not only to the ears of some stubborn dumb asses that don't know any better. I have listened to DBA set-ups, not SWARM's per se but a variety of quad sub systems of greatly different sizes all from 8" DR woofers to 15"-loaded horn subs systems. By far the latter was the best, indeed some of if not the best I've ever heard/felt, but without a shred of a doubt I preferred dual sub set-ups with 2 x 18" ported DR woofers and even more so 15"-loaded tapped horns (from the pro arena), both placed symmetrically to the mains and crossed no lower than 80Hz, compared to asymmetrically placed DBA's with up to 12" DR sealed woofers and crossed somewhat lower. I, indeed we don't know any better? Excuse me, but that would be plain arrogant, or, better yet: ignorant to presume. You're placing yourself on top of a pedestal taking a piss at what you haven't experienced, or if you have it wasn't your cup of tea (to each their own, perhaps?) - fair enough. However, this never gets through, and instead it's the same condescending diatribe again and again against anytime other or LESS (to your mind) than a DBA. You guys love selling the DBA approach, but if bass quality and integration is anything to go by it seems I should be even more prolific with the traits of a pair of big, efficient, symmetrically placed and crossed-no-lower-than-80Hz subs. That's something to savor as well, but the same could, to a perhaps even higher degree than the audiophile resilience to DBA, be leveled: who cares? Let's be clear: what you're getting at is, essentially, spot on. The physics part of subs integration with a DBA gets annoyingly in the way of the audiophile snooty approach that loves what's more expensive is also necessarily better. It's hilarious as it is sad. |
@millercarbon --
FIFY.
There is no "if" and, or but. Its excellent, period.
You're impervious to views countering yours - not much of a debate in that, only dictation leveled from one to the other. One thing is for sure: you love your own story. You're wrong about the 2 seats. The problem with fewer subs, yes you can get good bass at one or two places- but only by having too much elsewhere. The excess energy in these areas as it dissipates muddies the bass everywhere in the room. This is one reason DBA bass is so clean and articulate. And yet, as stated earlier, we're several to prefer the presentation from 2 big subs vs. 4 smaller DBA's. In some cases this approach calls for mild PEQ and/or room treatment, but in either case it has been the preferred scenario. I'd cherish 2 more big subs like the ones I already have, but - as I've written earlier - space doesn't presently permit. You're wrong about the expense. DBA is actually the cheapest most cost effective solution. Yes you can spend a lot but the beauty of it is you can have truly awesome bass easily and for under $3k.
There's nothing snooty, hilarious, or sad about it. Your response, I mean. Just another failed put-down. Tiresome, is what I'd call it.
What are you rambling about? On the contrary I'm speaking in defense of DBA - read again:
"Let's be clear: what you're getting at is, essentially, spot on. The physics part of subs integration with a DBA gets annoyingly in the way of the audiophile snooty approach that loves what's more expensive is also necessarily better. It's hilarious as it is sad."
|
I must have a magic sub.
And here I was thinking I had TWO magic subs.. @noble100 -- Hi, Tim I think there are two types of people as dannard states but I would describe them a bit differently:
1. Those that realize we all perceive deep bass tones below 80 Hz as not directional and therefore utilize bass arrays to obtain excellent bass performance.
2. Those that believe deep bass tones below 80 Hz are directional, place a sub next to each main speaker to reproduce it and believe this configuration is responsible for their perceiving the deep bass below 80 Hz as stereo. However, they’re not realizing that their brain’s ability to associate the mono fundamental deep bass tones, below 80 Hz that are actually being reproduced by their L+R subs, with the stereo harmonics or overtones, above 80 Hz that are being reproduced by their main speakers, are the real reason they are perceiving the deep bass below 80 Hz as directional and in stereo.
In my opinion, an understandable misunderstanding by group#2 above. I don’t think it’s really a big deal, either, since both groups are ultimately perceiving the mono and nondirectional deep bass below 80 Hz as stereo. It’s important to note that for bass to actually appear nondirectional a cross-over somewhat lower than 80Hz must be used. Most may apply no steeper than an 4th order cut-off, and as such (even with steeper cut-offs) residual information will be audible above a, say, 80Hz cross-over and quite easily render sub sources directional. A mono-coupled DBA set-up will thus require a fairly low cross-over, indeed dictate it for best results, and from my chair it’s an undesirable and limiting demand being my preference is for main speaker/subs constellations to be crossed higher, typically between 80-100Hz (which also means high-passing the mains). For this dual sub set-ups work wonderfully, insofar symmetrical placement of the subs close to the mains is upheld for best possible integration and overall balance. It’s not about being uninformed sticking to dual, symmetrically placed subs (close to the mains) - preferably large, at that - but a choice based on preference; indeed, why do I prefer a higher cross-over between the subs and mains in the 80-100Hz region? Because I find it usually sounds better, plain and simple, and here stereo information is suddenly a factor as both it and directionality are factors from sub sources crossed no lower than 80Hz, with residual information from those sub sources audible beyond 100Hz. Moreover: if this (i.e.: DBA) was truly about physics and adhering to that, it’s conspicuous that the sheer size and displacement area of subs isn’t taken more into consideration. This as well is a huge factor, and what may seem overkill to some in this regard is only just an approximation to sufficient headroom to others, with lower distortion and cleaner bass to boot. May I offer yet an alternative summing-up (and this is not as much implied by or addressed at your contributions on the matter, Tim, as that from others): - Those that staunchly believes DBA subs set-ups is the one solution to end them all, and that the people who do not abide by this or otherwise shares this view, exclusively, are, more or less, stubborn dim wits.
- Those that maintains that what sounds best sounds the best, be that whatever configuration it takes - also one differing from a DBA.
Different ways to skin your cat, as they say, and not least: the proof is in THE EATING OF the pudding. |
@dannad -- In my experience, this arrangement tends to create far more issues than it solves, specifically because of what you mentioned, spectral leakage. For this to work, your speakers need to be phase aligned across the whole shared frequency range of your mains, otherwise you end up with some very strange phase cancellation effects and not just at typical subwoofer frequencies.
My speaker set-up is fully active and phase aligned by ear over their entire frequency spectrum. A friend of mine using a dual sub EV TL880D set-up, symmetrically placed, have passive 2-way main speakers (S.P. Tech Revelation) that coheres smoothly with the subs. They’re crossed at ~100Hz and phase aligned here - again, by ear - but with no issues to report in the remaining frequency range - it sounds wonderful. As you write "In my experience" - indeed the imperative words here. Loss of directionality is <120Hz, hence why 80Hz was chosen to allow enough frequency distance for filters to work. You don’t need perfect cutoff at 120Hz, but enough that the mains are at that point significantly dominant in output.
Even with a cross-over point to the subs lower than 80Hz, 36dB/octave L-R, we’ve always been been able determine the advantage of symmetrical placement of our individual dual sub systems, so fairly rigid numerical values that would hold otherwise does little do change what’s actually perceived audibly. |
@dannad -- You lost me at "phase aligned by ear" as I know that is impossible. Not difficult, but impossible as you must have equal slopes on both (after applying high/low pass) including the amps, crossovers if they exist, speakers, etc. It’s hard enough when one has total control over the drivers and cross-over and the proper tools. Even with DSP it can be challenging.
I say "in my experience" as I actually have experience in this area and work with others that do as well. Last I looked you didn’t sit in my or our listening room being us, so what exactly is your experience in the context I’m referring to? You may well have a lot of experience in a variety of areas and this matter in particular, good for you, but you’re not familiar with our specific set-ups/rooms nor our preferences, so we’re not getting any further with you dealing out absolutes that we must simply agree with. Crossing over at 100Hz with those big TL880D and with the S.P. Techs there are going to be comb effects. "Sounds wonderful" and not void of issues that could be eliminated are not the same thing.
Same as my reply just above. Is it so difficult to fathom that others might think differently on a matter than you? You don’t know enough of the context I’m referring to, i.e.: our specific contexts, and even if you did why would you tell us what we prefer is somehow wrong or a path off-trodden? |
@dannad -- Whether I am knowledgeable with your specific setup, I am very knowledgeable about how difficult it is to match the phase response of two completely different speakers, with two different amplification chains, and potentially with some crossover components thrown in. I am also knowledgeable about what happens when you don’t do it highly accurately.
I’m not putting into question your being knowledgeable in the areas you point out to me, but what makes your believe what we’ve done with my set-up (or the others I’m referring to) isn’t implemented "highly accurately," if that’s what your saying? I am also knowledgeable about the specific case of main and subs side by side and what the artifacts are when the matching in phase is not really good. I am also knowledgeable that you can’t match that by ear to any good accuracy.
If this is the principle basis of your criticism it still goes: you have zero knowledge about the specific implementations in question, so what you have at hand is simply conjecture - end of story. I’ve previously had measurements and digital corrections done of my set-up with different main speakers, passive at that, using DRC Designer (in both time and amplitude domain), and it sounded.. oh well, why bother; what you need is the theory in place according to your head and a set of measurements, right? Currently with my fully active set-up and different speakers I’ve chosen not to implement digital corrections, and yet it’s certainly the sonic scenario of my/our preference. Measurements and digital corrections only get you so far, on their own. They can be helpful, but the final tweaks must be done by ear. That I have not experienced your exact system does not change how the physics of sound and how electronics work.
So? Essentially what you contest is based on mains and subs placed side-by-side and our having done phase adjustments per ear, which is hardly the big picture. Sorry, man, this is a dead end. |
@atmasphere Uh... it is.
The size of the subs *has* been taken into consideration by Duke of Audiokinesis and that is the beauty of his system. His subs are 1 foot square by 2 feet (using a 10" driver), which is fairly small as subs go, yet they go flat to 20Hz. He gets away with that because they are designed to work in the room boundary effect and so roll off at 3dB/octave starting around 100Hz. This means they have to be placed close to the walls (which usually happen to be more out of the way, resulting in inconspicuous placement in most rooms) in order to work right. It sounds to me from your comment above that you might have missed this bit in the prior conversation. Most subs are not designed to take advantage of the room boundary effect because the right place to put them is likely not against the wall- its where-ever in the room it has to be in order to work.
Mr. Karsten, Thank you for pointing this out, not that I wasn’t aware of the boundary effect you mention. My main aim was to go after the scale of the DBA set-ups typically used, not the design principles themselves. I believe size-considerations to make the DBA system commercially viable have been prevalent, which is understandable, but for those wanting to take the bar even higher a bigger scale will be advantageous. |
IME what this often means has something to do with sound pressure.
That's certainly the potential of a scaled-up sub system (i.e.: added SPL capacity through bigger air radiation area/higher sensitivity/ability to take more power and larger overall size), yes, but it's not the goal per se or rather as much as that which relates to added headroom; performance gains at a similar SPL compared to a smaller/less powerful system due to less cone movement and wattage put through the voice coils, and therefore less distortion and cleaner bass. That's the prevailing logic of (more) headroom, and it's far overlooked in audiophilia in general as large size (and very high SPL capabilities) are usually scoffed at, otherwise deemed undesirable (i.e.: WAF, interior decoration) or ridiculed for being overkill. |
Mr. Karsten -- One obvious advantage is that with four subs for a given volume as opposed to two, each driver will have less excursion.
All things being equal, yes, but my advocacy with pairs of subs (or even more of them) is using very large subs - i.e.: no less than 15" drivers for horns and +18" multiples for direct radiator designs, in either case dictating very large enclosures. Initially, before deciding on a pair of 15"-loaded tapped horn subs, I did consider 4 smaller (but not ’small’ by any means) tapped horns with 10" drivers for a DBA set-up, but different circumstances (like lack of availability of proper drivers for the given TH design) had me choose my current 2 x 20 cubic feet TH configuration, with the option to build two more of them in a future scenario - crazy it may seem; remember, a 15" tapped horn loaded sub roughly translates into something like 2 x 18" direct radiators, and with just two such subs the driver cones rarely get to move more than a few mm’s even at close to war volume. In fact 2 x 18" units in a DR design move visible more than a single 15" in a tapped horn for a perceived similar SPL, and less cone movement for a given SPL is what we want. I guess what I’m saying is that with bass capacity of this magnitude even pairs will give the advantage of prodigious headroom. |
