Can you get really low freq. (lets say 30 and down) from a small driver (~6 inch? What is the relationship between driver size and frequency? Most speakers today have went away from a large base driver (10 inches or more). Have we really come that far or is it really a compermize?
Any recomendations for smaller floor standers with good bass?
Hi Dr Ken I laugh at people who say you need 3 way speakers for good bass.The quality of the bass more important than the quantity.Stick with 2 ways ,many added benefits-timing,coherency ,imaging,simpler crossover etc.Revel M20's good example of a answer to your question.Remember my previous suggesstion in another forum regarding the Merlin's?Like I said,I ordered VSM-MM's.Read the Merlin website carefully as well as the forums on audio.Hope my opinion helps Good Luck Dr Chris
Onhwy61...Agreed. You can get deep bass from small speakers: even from the 3/4 inch drivers in headphones. However, real LF sound at high volume, such as generated by an organ, is felt as much as heard. It takes large drivers to create the total sensation.
I was forwarded this thread by Michael Wolff, and since my speakers are being discussed here, thought it would be appropriate to throw in my 2c.
Many of the above posts are correct. It is indeed possible to get good bass out of small drivers, and at the same time, as the old saying goes, there is just no substitute for cubic inches (in this case, driver displacement and cabinet volume). The answer to the original question depends almost entirely on the priorities of an individual listener. What is considered a "realistic" volume level and "deep" bass is totally different from one person to the next. Many would consider 90dB at 30Hz to be plenty deep and loud, because the vast majority of listeners will never exceed this. (It's louder and deeper than you think.) Others may not be happy unless they can achieve 110dB at 15Hz! These two things are so far apart as to make discussion utterly meaningless without first defining what you are trying to achieve.
Many of the knocks on the excursion levels of small drivers are substantially solved by the new ultra-linear motor systems developed in the last five or ten years by several manufacturers ("Symmetric Drive" by Scan-Speak, etc). This results in a drastic reduction in IM distortion, and the performance achieved by the Ultimate Monitor would not be possible without this. It still can't break the laws of physics, but if used within its linear excursion limits, will give extraordinary performance regardless of volume level or frequency.
The issue of the extra power required by the BOMB is more of a problem for the amplifier than for the speaker. The reason for this is that there is surprisingly little energy (on a continuous basis) in the deep bass. But when it appears, it can make very heavy transient demands on the power amplifier. The BOMB has a maximum boost of 10dB at 24Hz, which equals a factor of 10 in amplifier power. That is why I recommend relatively high power amplifiers for use with the BOMB. It's not unreasonable-- 100wpc into 4 Ohms is plenty for most applications, provided it's high quality-- but I wouldn't dream of trying to pair this system with a 3W SET amp. The real tradeoff here is that you lose nearly that same 10dB in peak output at the loudspeaker end, in order to stay within the linear excursion limits. As bad as it sounds on paper, this is not a limitation for the vast majority of listeners.
Those who have heard the UM/BOMB system would likely agree not only that the system obliterates every preconceived notion they have about "small speakers", but furthermore, that for "reasonable" listening levels in "normal" sized rooms, they deliver all the volume and bass that most people will ever use, and then some. Will they deliver 110dB at 15 Hz? Not a chance. But that's why they were designed to integrate extremely well with the REL subs and similar sub-bass units.
The bottom line, with this issue and many others, is that there are always compromises. Every time you decide you want to improve performance in one area, you give up something elsewhere. Adding a column of 15" woofers is a great way to make more bass, and it's also a great way to (m)uck up the entire system. There are a hundred things that are of absolutely critical importance in the design of a high-performance loudspeaker, and deep bass extension is one of them.
In the design of the Ultimate Monitor, the goal was always to achieve extraordinary "real world" performance-- that is, to make a small speaker that has virtually no serious flaws when used in average-sized rooms at average volume levels. This is a far, far harder task than is generally realized, and drives the design compromises in directions that most speakers don't take. It's quite simple to design a 3-way ported box speaker that has a wide frequency response, if that's all you're after. It's another thing entirely to make it sound like real music.
I would encourage anyone interested in the technical aspects of speaker design to read the two articles under "tech notes" on our website, http://www.audiomachina.com. They will (hopefully) give a better understanding of the tradeoffs and necessities in any loudspeaker design that aspires to "high fidelity".
Drew,,, I'm just curious as to any speaker which is in the same price range that lists all those specifications that you say are missing on the Karl Schuemann site. I have been searching and Wilson Watt at $20K plus does not, Sonus Faber Stradavari does not, Von Schweikert does not, Kharma does not. In fact, Karl gives a huge amount of information of how his speakers spec and perform.
Before pointing fingers and saying that "The specs don't tell you enough to be useful", do your homework please.
Onhwy61...A better analogy would be trying for high torque at low rpm from a small displacement engine. The small engine might produce lots of horsepower, but you won't win many drag races.
This question in analogous to asking whether it's possible to produce high horsepower from a small displacement piston engine. The answer is yes, but it's much easier, more efficient and less performance compromised if you produced the same horsepower with a larger displacement engine. Small cones in small cabinets can produce deep bass, but larger cones in larger cabinets can do it more easily. Multiple small cones in a large cabinet is a good combination, but it tends to be more expensive and complicated than an equivalent single large cone. Every design choice presents a set of compromises. None of the choices is inherently better than the others, they simply present a different set of compromises.
>Here is the frequency response of the Ultimate Monitor from >Karl Schuemann
The specs don't tell you enough to be useful.
1. They don't tell you about distortion. The mid-ranges used in my speakers are good for .3% THD @ 96dB/1 meter in their operating range with an increase to 1% at the tweeter cross over frequency where they're 6dB down and distortion should be less. Run at lower frequencies they'll have horrible distortion at much lower output levels - maybe 10% at 70dB one you reach 30Hz. This is especially bad at low frequencies where tight spacing of the equal loudness curves makes the harmonics sound louder than the fundamentals. IM distortion is even more of a problem.
2. They don't tell you what the maximum output level is at those frequencies. Using a pair of 6.5" scan speak mid-bass units (Sd = 145 cm^2, xmax = 5mm) in a sealed box the linear limits are about
88dB @ 35Hz 94dB @ 50Hz 100dB @ 71Hz
3. They don't tell you what the off-axis response looks like. At reasonable listening distances you're picking up more sound from the reverberant field than direct sound. The shape of the off-axis curves has a _huge_ effect on what you hear.
4. The don't quantify thermal compression. This is especially important where you start equalizing. The BOMB is a Linkwitz Transform which allows you to change the F3 point and Q of a speaker thus getting you lower bass extension and less group delay at higher frequencies. Low group delay means "fast bass." The problem is that your power requirements go up. The extra power increases voice coil heating and therefore resistance. That means more thermal compression and changes in the cross-over response with output level than you'd have in a speaker without equalization.
I'm sure the Ultimate Monitors are exceptional speakers although they can't break the laws of physics. If you want natural sounding bass at realistic output levels you need a 3-way or sub-woofers, the later being better because high and low frequency transducers interact with the room differently and therefore work best with different placement.
Smaller drivers can produce low bass IF the cone is of a high mass design and capable of long excursion. There are several problems here though. That is, why would you want to use a smaller woofer of higher mass? This reduces both transient response and high frequency bandwidth, negating much of the benefit of using a smaller driver. On top of that, a driver with more surface area reproducing the same note at the same amplitude of a smaller driver with longer excursion will produce lower distortion. The more "throw" that the driver makes, the more distortion that it produces. On top of that, longer throw woofers produce more reflected EMF, making them harder to control. On top of that, the smaller driver will have to move more air to produce the same spl, meaning that it will be producing more distortion at all times while running into Xmax ( linear excursion capabilities ) sooner than a larger driver. Obviously, there are a lot of "on top of's" in this equation : )
In plain English, this means that if you want deep bass out of a small driver, you'll have to make several compromises in other areas to get it. The only way to get low distortion and deep bass while retaining good linearity at high volumes is to use large woofers in a large cabinet or a multitude of smaller woofers in a large cabinet.
To quote speaker designer Bill Fitzmaurice: "The bottom line for speaker cabinets is that for the goals of a small box, a reasonably efficient system, and good bass extension, you may achieve any two of those goals at the same time, but not all three". Sean >
It's possible to get excellent bass by using multiple smaller woofers as opposed to fewer larger ones. The surface area works out to be about the same but the smaller drivers are generally quicker.
For example, the bass specification of the Dali Megaline is 35 HZ.
That specification did not particularly astound me until I was face to face with the designer at the London audio show. When I found the measurement was taken at center line of an anechoic chamber I was impressed.
In a typical listening room the boundary reinforcement at the floor, sides and rear wall would improve those numbers substantially.
The Dali is a line source two way (ribbon plus woofers) with twenty four 6.5 inch bass drivers to achieve the desired surface area. They are rated in excess of 131 DB before breakup.
I will try to verify when mine get past the required 500 hours and I get some serious power on them.
I am a believer in large area LF drivers. My subwoofer system sports three 15" drivers and three 12" drivers. I have some small monitor speakers that will play almost as low in frequency, but there is obviously no comparison in the impact of the sound. Large diameter (area) LF drivers have an effortless quality to their sound.
The specs of small drivers can have a low cutoff - my bedroom speakers have a pair of 5.25" mid-bass drivers and are flat in-room through 30Hz.
In practice it doesn't work.
SPL is purely a function of displacement and frequency. Displacement requirements quadruple for each octave you drop in frequency, meaning excursion increases 4-fold in a sealed system when you don't change the diameter.
Play with www.linkwitzlab.com/spl_max1.xls if you want.
This has a couple of problems 1. Physics prevent reaching reasonable SPL levels with small drivers outside a car or closet environment where you have up to 12dB of cabin gain below the fundamental resonance .
2. Excursion increases 4-fold with each octave lower if you don't change diameter. Distortion is a function of excursion. My 5.25" midranges (about equal to a 6.5" driver - they have more area, but will have less excursion) double at low frequencies - the harmonics are loud enough that you hear the higher tone. IM distortion (why old transistor amps sound bad) also increases. I never got good midrange performance from drivers <= 6.5" when bass notes were also present. Adding a sub-woofer with a 80Hz cross-over always cleaned up bass and midrange in music with a bassline. I now use an 8.5" midrange, 2 10" long-throw subwoofers per side for bass below 120Hz, and add a 14.5" subwoofer for theatrical tracks where the bass is really out of hand.
If you want small speakers use subwoofers too. You can have small boxes for WAF, small baffles for minimal difraction, place the midrange+highs for their best performance, and the sub-woofers for the flattest response at your listening position.
Many people find the best integration when crossing over an octave above ported speakers' F3 point (LR4 order electrical high and lowpass) or at sealed speaker's F3 point (2nd order butterworth high-pass, LR4 low-pass).
If you don't want sub-woofers and do want full-range music (symphonic, rock, jazz with an upright bass, etc.) you need 3-way speakers with a large bass driver.
Hi - I own a pair of Avalon Eclpses, which I consider small woffer and capable of reproducing a very clean low frequency range at 35Hz and up. Be sure to position this (or any other speaker) on it{s right place to achieve the best possible bass.
I heard amazing, deep, tuneful bass down to 30hz and then some from a 6.5" woofer in the Merlin VSM-MM. And this was in an approx. 8000 cu. ft room. They really did blow my misconceptions of what a small woofer could do in a well designed speaker. It was an eye (ear) opener.
Speakers with only one 6 inch bass driver (mid-range really) are not going to move enough air for output into any room larger than a small car trunk even at 35hz.
Ported speakers only add SPL pretty much and are a poor choice for bass output IMO.
If you need (want) deep bass don't start out with a design that is compromised from the start....OR, you could say, don't send a boy to do a man's job.
Yes, there are many speakers that can get to the 30hz range with those 6.5" drivers. VBT has a claimed frequency response of 18hz(-6db) with one of their subs using a 6.5" driver.
There are tradeoff though. A 6.5" driver generally can't play as loud as a 10" driver before breaking up. Second deep bass in small boxes generally means lower effeciency. So yep physics still applys.
It is absolutely possible even without a port. Karl E. Schuemann and the ultimate monitor have accomplished this very very well, at least in my system. http://www.theultimatemonitor.com/default2.htm
Small drivers, like 3/4 inch headphones, are perfectly capable of LF response, but not at any volume. Because a small driver cannot move enough air to achieve useful volume at low frequency they are designed for other characteristics like mid/high reproduction. A 6 inch subwoofer is technically possible, but would be almost useless for any real audio system.
The only small speakers I have heard that had ridiculous bass, relatively speaking of course, were Royds. They are tiny floorstanders that have a weird porting design that makes them sound really full range while only having 6 inch drivers (or something close to that). They are cool but very rare in the USA.
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.
