SPEAKERS, SPEAKERS AND MORE SPEAKERS.. BUT NEED BASS.?

@yogiboy wrote: "Many people that use a sub run the speakers full range without the high pass option!"

I'm one of those people.

I remember trying to find a sufficiently transparent highpass filter for my tweaked-out Quad 63’s, which sat atop matching Gradient dipole subs. In the end the best results (to my ears) came from running the 63’s full-range and accepting that the max SPL was limited.

Now that I manufacture a subwoofer system, I’m aware that the parts cost in the highpass filter section of my subwoofer amp is not very high. I wouldn’t want it in my main speakers’ signal path if I could help it.

So when I design a speaker specifically to be used with subs, I make sure it has enough thermal & mechanical power handling and enough efficiency that the user has the option of foregoing a protective highpass filter with very little likelihood of significantly compromising headroom.

Duke

bdp24 said, "[Duke’s] approach of making speakers that are built to handle the demands of a full-range signal ignores one of the major benefits of high-pass filtering---removing the low frequencies from not just the speaker, but also the amp driving them."

Such was not the case in my experience with the Quads and Gradient subs. The net benefits of not using a highpass filter were greater.

And please note that my approach of making speakers that are built to handle the demands of a fullrange signal gives users the OPTION of using them that way. It is not mandatory. In a situation where the amplifier is the limiting factor, the greatest net benefit may well come from reducing the load on the amp. I’m not unaware of this issue, which is why I specified that I try to build "enough efficiency" into the speakers. An extra 6 dB or so of efficiency arguably makes a greater contribution towards easing the load on the amp.

"Regarding Duke’s finding of reduced transparency as result of high-pass filtering of main speakers, if a 1st-order filter is sufficient, a simple passive one can be installed on the input jacks of the amp powering the speakers, just a single cap usually."

In some situations that can work very well. I used that approach in a system I built back in the mid-80’s. The effects of a first-order highpass filter extend well into the next octave up, which may or may not be a good thing. Again what I do adds an option; it does not remove other options.

Not Duke, but some people put a "budget" active electronic crossover into their system, and find it to reduce the system's transparency. Lots of people are even using those cheap digital x/o's. Oy! They contain Opamps, IC's and other sound-compromising parts. Plus, who wants to digitize an analog signal?!

There are some real good x/o's available, at varying price points. Marchand's tube x/o's are popular with DIYers, and the First Watt B4 is a real nice little unit. It was unfortunately recently discontinued. Nelson Pass makes a great one, but it's not cheap. People like the Bryston, but it's pretty limited in adjustability.

shinemaster OP5 posts09-24-2018 6:33pmSoix, fair enough :)  Currently I am using a pair of B&W 805 Monitors.. tried Vandersteen 3 series, Dali and Sonus Faber venere series..
At this moment my Dedicated audio room is 220 sf.

@rauliruegas wrote: "The main reason to integrates a pair of self sealed ( not vented ) powered subs in true stereo fashion along any passive main speaker in a home audio system is to reduce IMD in the speaker/system and you can achieve that main target only through a high pass filter ( teflon cap. ) like the one @bdp24 advise."

I think that what works best depends on the specific situation.

And in particular regarding vented vs sealed subs, again imo it depends on the specifics. I can go into detail if you’d like.

"According with a scientific JBL studies the ideal number of subs in a home system is four subs and at least two. The number of subs makes evenly the room/system bass frequency range response."

Yes, I’m quite familiar with Todd Welti’s study. I manufacture a four-piece subwoofer system called the Swarm, and in my setup guidelines I include Welti’s recommendations along with several asymmetrical suggestions. Welti did not investigate asymmetrical placements but Earl Geddes has.

Briefly, the in-room smoothness goes up as the number of intelligently-distributed subs goes up, and smooth bass is "fast" bass.  So two subs are twice as smooth as one, and four subs are twice as smooth as two, and eight subs are grounds for a divorce.  So four subs is probably ideal! 

Duke

@rauliruegas said, "I just can’t imagine any situation in a passive design speakers where subs can’t help to lower speakers IMD that comes with additional benefits as lowering the speakers THD and gives the amps to works way better when are liberated from the low bass range..."

This was in response to me saying "I think that what works best depends on the specific situation."

I’m NOT saying that lowering intermodulation distortion and liberating amp and speaker from the bottom two octaves isn’t beneficial. IT IS!

But in some situations, the circuitry necessary to high-pass-filter the main speakers causes more degradation than it’s worth. For instance if the mains and amp have 10 dB of headroom beyond whatever peaks they’re likely to see then the benefits of a protective high-pass filter may be negligible, and if the speakers are particularly revealing any resulting degradation in the signal path may be audible and objectionable. So imo, "it depends".

Also in many situations budget is a factor. Maybe a really nice high-end signal processor would make a great and super-transparent highpass filter, but is that always going to be the smartest place to spend the next however many hundreds, or thousands, of dollars? Once again, imo "it depends".

Finally there is this possible consideration: An intelligently distributed multi-sub system can significantly reduce room-interaction peaks and dips in the modal zone, and an unusually capable pair of main speakers may have enough useful low-end to contribute to this modal smoothing.

In my experience a fair number of people who are using a protective highpass filter, be it digital or analog, end up pursuing whatever offers the next level of transparency. This may mean hot-rodding the parts inside their device, or it may mean replacing it altogether with the latest-and-greatest. Anyway this tells me that protective highpass filters do have audible downsides.

By building "satellite" speakers that arguably don’t NEED a protective highpass filter under most conditions, I’m giving people the OPTION of not using one. Budget is an issue for most of my customers, so maybe they can defer the expense of that high-end processor for a while, if that’s what they want to end up with.

Duke

@rauliruegas wrote:  "In my case was a : " win to win ".

That's GREAT!

Using a very-high-quality cap in series with the amp's input as a high-pass filter is probably the most transparent highpass filter format.

The theoretically possible downside is, in the octave above the calculated -3 dB point the output is diminished by an average of about 2 dB, and by almost 1 dB average in the octave above that.  Also the best blend in the crossover region with the steeply-filtered subs might be where the mains are minus more than 3 dB, which increases the region where you are losing energy due to the broad nature of that first-order highpass.  THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY BAD!  It might be an improvement, and it might not; room effects will play a major role in this region so it's impossible to predict accurately. 

Duke