@erik_squires wrote:
The biggest problems I’ve heard/seen have been excessively large peaks in the subwoofer range. Sometimes those peaks put out 20x more power into a room than the rest of the subwoofer. Think about that!! Your 1000 W sub is putting out 20,000 watts worth of power in some very narrow bands. Of course that will sound bad and muddied. The combination of sub and main speaker can also excessively accentuate the area where they meet, not to mention nulls.
A lot is made about nulls in the bass but honestly IMHO, those are the least of our worries. Of course too many of them can make the bass drop out, but in practicality is is the irregular bass response and the massive peaks that most prevent any good sub from functioning well in a room.
Either scenario (i.e.: peaks and nulls) in the extreme is one not to be desired. It’s their combination in particular that can tip the boat, but remember that corrected nulls require power; peaks don’t. So, peaks have one sitting with a surplus of acoustic power that can be counteracted with a narrow range of power suppression, whereas nulls have one in the need of actual, added electrical ditto. Thus, practically speaking power requirement can be the more predominant issue at hand.
If a distributed bass array is not an option we are dealing with frequency irregularities in the bass in the first place, even with pairs of subs, and the damn thing about absorption is that to alleviate peaks sufficiently, on its own, it can have a damaging effect on the overall presentation in other areas. I always go about sparingly with absorption, and would rather have the rest of the corrective measures done with digital room correction and/or a more manual approach with frequency correction via a DSP - preferably actively. On the other hand excessive use of DRC has its own disadvantages, or so I find, and so in the end there may be an element of one needing to accept an extent of FR-irregularities with a limited amount of bass sources. Or, a DBA is called for, and one placed symmetrically to the mains rather than a mono-ed asymmetrical ditto.
Lastly, using a subwoofer to only fill in 20 Hz range is nonsense. Go big or go home. Use a sub at least at 60 Hz or higher. Use a single cap to create a high pass filter. Use EQ on the subwoofer at least. Get bass traps. Measure, for heaven’s sake measure and stop imagining you know a thing about your speaker or subwoofer’s response in the room because you don’t. Once that speaker arrives in the room it’s a completely different animal than it was in the showroom or in the spec sheet.
Definitely agree on the high-passing of the mains higher than lower - not only does it more effectively relieve the mains from LF but it also has you go about the overall integration with the subs much more effectively when controlling the HP of the mains over a range as well, which is akin to approaching it more as a single speaker system per channel than simply adding on the subs to the mains run full-range. There’s this misconception generalizing that high-passing the mains higher (say, >60-70Hz) is more suited to Home Theatre than "audiophile" use, which goes contrary to my own experience. To my ears high-passing higher (with a fittingly higher subs low pass as well) is usually more suitable on the whole.
With regard to "slow bass" I believe there’s some merit to considerations on overhang and/or group delay inherent to a design that will impact the presentation regardless of the integration with the room/FR-smoothness.
|
@erik_squires wrote:
The efficiency of a driver in a cabinet is determined by the driver, not the box.
Except with horns. The cabinet/horn does the heavy lifting, not the driver - very neat. When the driver has the sole burden to carry, you hear the effort, but it requires of one to have experienced the difference to assess its impact, and react on it. The next step, if one ever gets this far, is actually implementing horn sub variants in your home, but most would be intimidated by the sheer size demand of such solutions.
@gdaddy1 --
Different ways to skin you cat. Implementation is key for whatever route is taken here, and being I favor active configuration from a DIY-approach setting filter values of both the mains and subs, high-passing the mains lends itself even more naturally; although housed in different boxes, each sub and corresponding main speaker channel is treated as a single L/R system. The important thing is we're happy with whatever path we're choosing. It seems you are, as am I.
@sfgak wrote:
Agree completely with @erik_squires, @audiokinesis and others regarding treating the peaks with EQ, but not trying to boost nulls. Multiple subs helps with that (not wading into the swarm debate).
My point was that with a limited amount of bass sources both nulls and peaks are unavoidable, and not boosting the nulls here can certainly be an issue - just like failing to address peaks.
Another issue comes from the lauded flexibility of placing, say, two bass sources diagonally to try and address room modes, which I've tried several times with countless filter permutations and room treatments without ever getting to a satisfying result (even with a fairly low XO-point). It may look good "on paper," but I far and away prefer symmetry of subs-to-the-mains placement with all that it entails. Sidewall placement, symmetrically, has proved is viable solution as well.
So, up to a point, the higher you can cross over, the better, up until where you can start hearing the directionality of the subs.
Unless the subs are placed fairly close to and symmetrically to the mains.
The other issue sort of mentioned so far that could be stated more explicitly is phase-matching the mains and the subs at the point of crossover. This requires two things: (1) a continuous phase adjustment on the subs (like on those by Rythmik) or digital PEQ; and (2) a very steep and symmetrical crossover, typically implying an active crossover. That means both low-passing the sub and high-passing the mains are important.
This is of course a cardinal point. I would never do with a built-in DSP/filter of a sub, instead using a Xilica DSP for both the mains and subs, actively, with elaborate filter settings and finely scaled adjustments.
Because the wavelengths change quite a bit from 20 Hz (56 feet) to 80 Hz (14 feet), the mains and subs can only be in phase at a small range of frequencies. That is why the steep crossover is needed. Otherwise, even if the mains and subs are in phase at 70 Hz, with 6 dB/octave sloped filters there will be audible overlapping of the subs and mains from the lower audible limits all the way up to ~250 Hz or so. Because all filters have a frequency-dependent phase shift, most of that overlap is out of phase and contributing to "smudging" that translates to "slow bass."
FIR-filter would be helpful here, but using IIR-filters of the Xilica with 36dB/octave L-R slopes produces very good results. 48dB/octave slopes didn't fare as well sonically in my setup context.
@tomic601 wrote:
... building an inert cabinet for those massive low THD but high IMD woofers is not trivial…. but then cabinet movement = trash = output = “ efficiency “….. funny how systems engineering just creeps in…..
Forest for trees, as they say; engineering only gets you so far when the physical framework is stunted as an outset.
|
@erik_squires wrote:
No one wants peaks or nulls, but IMHO and experience, peaks are worse. Of course, mathematically we can compute power differences for each, but peaks are bad because they tend to force the listener to keep the overall subwoofer level excessively low. OTOH, I’ve never seen a real system where the nulls were so pronounced that they forced an excess in sub volume. Maybe I got lucky.
In my experience, clipping the peaks and then raising the subwoofer level is 2/3rds of the battle.
The highlighted parts are important points I’ve tried to raise at numerous, previous occasions - certainly the aspect that many end up lowering sub(s) gain to suppress not only peak issues in the range here, and thus are deprived of sufficient low end presence and overall quality.
To clarify on the corrective measure of peaks/nulls: it is my experience that nulls, which can be quite severe, require sometimes a fairly prodigious amount of extra power to be alleviated, and this can put a strain on the amp(s). At the same time peaks do the opposite to some degree, which may end up at least partly nullifying the added power demands from peaks, but from my chair this is usually not enough to keep nulls from being a potential power issue correction-wise, to the point even where the driver is also stressed.
The purpose of this thread was to discuss the myth of subwoofer speed, not any particular technology, and it invariably happens that SWARM fanboys show up and turn the thread into "WHY DON"T YOU HAVE SWARM" and take the discussion far afield from it’s intended point.
So, sure, any tech which evens out the peaks and nulls and correctly meshes the response of the subs to the mains is good, including SWARM, but this thread is about dispelling myths that you can’t add a sub to a "fast" speaker, not pushing any particular solution.
First, if dispelling named myth is the goal then be prepared for a variety of suggestions on how proper subs integration can be achieved. I don’t yet SWARM myself (though down the road I’m contemplating a symmetrically set up DBA with smaller tapped horn, similarly tuned variants), and my intention was not to be the "SWARM missionary" here but rather to lay out the challenge with a more limited number of bass sources (say, no more than 2 bass sources). Yes, SWARM presents challenges as well, but personally I find 2 subs a mandatory outset for serious sub integration, and one that lends itself naturally with a main speaker high-pass above the 60-70Hz range (i.e.: where directionality sets in when not using absolute brick wall low-pass slopes) placed symmetrically to and (fairly) close to the main speakers with the subs configured in stereo.
Installing 1 subwoofer correctly is a big deal and a lot more work than most audiophiles want to do. Tripling the number of speakers (from 2 to 6) for SWARM is also a big deal for many. Failing to do either well is what makes for slow, mushy or overbearing sub experience.
Either of these approaches can dispell the myth that big cone subs are slow and unable to keep up with "fast" planar speakers. OTOH, lets be realistic that audiophiles are also unprepared for the work they’ll have to do in many cases to be done.
Indeed they often are.
IMHO, bass should not be "fast." It should be glorious. That is, it shouldn’t sound like you are listening to a bullet traversing the air, nor should it feel like a hammer in your chest.
Excellent bass should be clear like air or water and evidence itself only by the scale and dynamic range of the music being played and seemingly come out of nowhere and ignores the physical size of the room.
When you put it that way (and it’s a very good description of what great bass can sound/feel like) I’ll have to say very few ever get to experience bass like that. Such bass presentation only comes from prodigious effective air radiation area, loads of headroom (i.e.: very low distortion and thus ease) and excellent overall integration.
However, with reference to your second paragraph just above I’d go further and say there is a particular design approach that aids the traits mentioned by you (even though you don’t want to get "specific"), and that’s horn-loading or a variation thereof; that particular "coming out of nowhere," omnipresent and liquid/smooth sense of the lower octaves that swell effortlessly with dynamic swings and don’t call unnecessary attention to itself is a definite quality of large, horn-loaded subs. Direct radiation with larger, or multiple smaller cones (remember, horns are force multipliers that make smaller cones deliver similar or even more total air pressurization) just make themselves and their cones known more predominantly - even to the point of becoming a distraction when you know the difference horns can make. It comes down to cones in horns moving very little to produce even staggering output, as well as the gradual impedance match of cone-to-air coupling of horns, with all that entails, likely in combination with the woofer cones being partly or entirely hidden in the horn path and thus prevents mechanical distortion and upper end harmonics to more readily enter audibility (effectively acting also as a low-pass filter). It’s more of an immersive, musical flow of low frequencies than the more ground-based and differently tactile sense of bass from direct radiators, to my ears.
|
@gdaddy1 wrote:
You will never find tight punchy bass by setting a crossover high near 80hz or higher and then having to lower the volume to remove boominess. Like stepping on the brakes trying to go faster. That's completely backwards and is NOT what a subwoofer was designed to do.
There are quite a few aspects to this. Depending on the nature of the bass response of both the main speakers and subs (from where they're positioned and further tweaked into place) there could be favorable scenarios for either solution, i.e.: a higher or lower subs-mains crossover point.
Making a general statement however that subs can't reproduce the range up to ~100Hz without sounding boomy is simply incorrect. Main speakers are usually positioned as a compromise taking both the range above and below the Schroeder frequency into consideration, whereas subs can be dialed in for low frequency reproduction exclusively with rather elaborate corrective measures via positioning, added bass sources, DSP and other.
Subs are also mostly actively configured, meaning direct amp-driver connection with dedicated amplification, much better woofer control to boot and a more efficient use of the power at one's disposal here without looking into a bunch of coils and what not of a passive filter.
There's also the problematic aspect of crossing over in the middle of the central bass area - that is, in the 40-60Hz range - and mixing what is likely two different bass signatures here. You could argue any crossover point is a potential issue, but to my ears - again, depending on several factors - the less intervening and most advantageous crossover point to subs typically sits somewhere between 80-120Hz handing over to the upper bass area. This way the mains are effectively relieved of LF (not least important when the woofer/mids of the mains cover the entire power region up to ~450-ish Hz, and possibly even higher), and the subs cover the most energy-rich area to which they can be favorably dialed in and are better suited to tackle. Subs sounding "boomy" are most likely badly implemented and/or badly designed/constructed or simply too small.
@tomic601 wrote:
No…. the physics are super clear…. trade efficiency aka trashy output for pistonic motion…
Efficiency and low frequency reproduction means large size, and that again means the large cones/effective air radiation area generated move very little for a given SPL. Nothing "trashy" about that, but rather accommodated physics where they actually matter, but are less convenient for the interior decor-minded. Moreover, I can assure you "pistonic behavior" of well-designed typically pro segment woofers with anything but wobbly cones/suspensions here is the least of your worries in a domestic environment vs. a smaller and much less efficient driver (usually in the least efficient, sealed box with maximum cone movement at the tune) that needs excessive excursion by comparison for similar SPL. Potential mechanical noise issues galore, thermal compression creeping in, elevated distortion - you name it.
@waytoomuchstuff --
+1
|
@gdaddy1 wrote:
After many, many tests...I respectfully disagree. So does REL.
From REL..."Almost 100% of the time, newcomers will set the crossover too high and the gain (volume level) too low. This will result in a sound that is fatter, boomier and improperly integrated with the main speakers. The secret is to realize the crossover needs to be lower than the main speaker’s output at which point the gain can be significantly higher resulting in very flat, natural and extended deep bass."
This is a very revealing quote that only exposes a misunderstanding: it states that "newcomers" sets the low-pass frequency of the sub(s) too high while - as we can deduce - running the mains full-range, in which case of course there'll be an overlap, with all that implies when too severe.
From that I take it REL is really only considering the scenario where the mains are run full-range with the subs then "added" on, and thus the only variable here is centered on the subs and their low-pass frequency that will be dictated by the bass extension and overall character of the mains; all things being equal, the lower they reach, the lower the low-pass, and that explains REL's position of a highly set low-pass as generally bad because of the resultant overlap with the bass performance of the mains (when run full-range).
Except some of us here are advocating high-passing the main speakers, and this changes everything with two variables to consider - that is, both a low-pass and a high-pass frequency. This being the case a, say, 90Hz subs low-pass can be a perfectly sound choice when the mains are high-passed accordingly. Some overlapping between the subs and mains, which is inevitable, isn't necessarily a bad thing, but obviously when taken to the extreme can be detrimental.
I'm not saying REL's approach with the mains run full-range and the subs fittingly (low) low-passed is a bad choice (albeit, to my mind, a lesser one compared to high-passing the mains), only that making a blanket statement on the deficiency of a higher crossover point between the subs and mains is downright incorrect, and taken out of context with your quote above.
|
@sfgak wrote:
Hadn't hear of Xilica before. Looks very interesting. Which model(s) do you have?
The XP-3060. It's controlled wirelessly via my laptop, which makes setting filter values for every driver section on the fly from the listening position a very straight forward approach. Neat.
@tomic601 wrote:
Sure bass horn loading is a different case…. i’m flat to 20 in a regular room without resorting to cutting down every tree in the mythical forest… Enjoy the music ;-)
I was going to say reaching 20Hz is the easy part, but making that last audible octave and a half matter (say, down to 15-ish Hz) is no small feat. For it to really matter you need prodigious cone/air displacement area, ample power and/or high efficiency, proper flooring and overall room construction, etc. Numbers are easy; how they're real-world applied and experienced is quite another thing.
Not saying what you've achieved with your subs setup is this, that or the other (obviously, I don't know), but all things being more or less equal (and that's the tricky part) the larger and more efficient subs setup will reproduce the lower octaves more effortlessly, relaxed and viscerally. Whether 20, 30 or more Hz at play here is at first secondary vs. how these frequencies are reproduced.
That horn sub variants need to be indeed very large just to reach 20Hz is another matter, not least with non-truncated Front Loaded Horns (I mean, for all practical intents and purposes in anything other than houses: forget it), but here I've found tapped horns to be the best option and overall compromise. For what they do at their size (20 cubic feet per cab with a 23Hz tune) with low distortion, high SPL output there's really no equal to my mind.
|
@mijostyn wrote:
You want the sub running certainly up to 80 Hz and I will go no lower than 100 Hz. The solution to this problem is running steeper filters, not lowering the crossover point. The problem here is analog filters are terrible at this. You have to have a digital crossover then 8th order and higher is no problem. Running that high a high pass filter for the mains is mandatory or you will have a hot mess. This is advantageous anyway from a distortion and headroom perspective.
That’s a bit of an absolute. Generally we agree, but less than 8th order will do, and obviously it’s also co-dependent on the upper range performance of the subs. Tapped horns, that I use, are bandwidth limited by nature, meaning the lower the tune the more restricted the upper range extension. Even with the same tune though different implementations wrt. compression ratio (depending also on cone rigidity), the specific horn expansion, number of horn folds etc. will have implications on how ragged or not the upper range, outside its intended span, will be.
Long story short: even with limited upper end extension of my TH’s, sans corrections in their upper band, I’m applying a low-pass at just below 85Hz, 36dB/octave L-R with great results. Raising the LP just a single Hz or two however reveals a progressively more "rowdy" character - again, sans correction - towards 100Hz, so obviously the uncorrected upper range limit area is entered here. I intend to experiment with some corrections however, aided by measurements, and aim for a low-pass closer to 100Hz. Should be interesting to see the effect of that. As is the subs are essentially "characterless" with two minor PEQ’s in the central bass area.
Lastly here: I use the same slope steepness throughout into the mains, also the high-pass over the TH’s at 20Hz (though Butterworth style), and 48dB/octave didn’t fare as well sonically. To me in my setup context 36dB/octave L-R is the sweet spot; neither more or less.
Making an enclosure that does not shake or resonate is a very hard problem to solve.
Arguably it’s also a more pressing matter with direct radiating woofers and their mechanically induced noise to boot. Coming down to it I find enclosure "noise"/distortion is less of an issue than that created by the exposed driver itself, unless large quantities of drivers with larger diameter cones like in your (future) case are used, without solving the issue completely though.
Or, like in my case with partially hidden woofers with cones that move little due to high efficiency and excursion minima at the tune (that is, the horn/enclosure does the heavy lifting), contrary to sealed, direct radiating designs that are inefficient and have excursion maxima at the tune. Horn design cabs are also inherently braced from the horn path innards, on top of added bracings, and built with interlocked and CNC-machined 13-ply Baltic Birch panels, like my TH’s, are structurally very sturdy.
Small sealed enclosures are always best with subwoofers but you have to have a lot of power and high resolution digital EQ. Then you can make any sub run flat as a carpenters dream.
Per above paragraph of mine, I disagree.
If subwoofers and main speakers are integrated correctly there is no reason to turn the subs up or down with any genre of music. A system that is tuned correctly does not care what genre you are playing. When I use the term , system I include the room in that category.
Most audiophiles are ball parking it with their ears which are extremely poor calibration devices. There is no substitute for measurement.
I agree re: subs gain when correctly* implemented. With both music and movie reproduction I never change subs gain as it sits where it’s supposed to for overall balance, although I can understand if some would want to go bonkers with the subs gain lever to suit a particular mood and/or occasion.
With regard to measurements, they’re certainly indispensable in many regards and as an outset at least with some parameters, but to me it always comes down to fine tuning per ears as a last tweaking measure - if not in all aspects. Gain structure however I always fiddle into place by ears (like filter slopes), and that in 0.25dB increments; eventually I know exactly where it’s supposed to sit, and no measurement can tell me otherwise. So, it’s a both/and scenario here.
|
@mijostyn wrote:
I have no experience with horn subwoofer. For most of us they are impractical do to size constraints. For sure distortion will be lower for any given size driver due to efficiency. They problem is low bass will rattle and resonate almost anything. IMHO is is much easier to make a small enclosure resonance free with clever design and balanced force construction. It will not come remotely close to the efficiency of a horn but is way more practical from a size perspective.
"Practicality" mostly comes down to convenience, aesthetics and making a decision about something, not what's strictly and barely possible to physically and acoustically integrate in one's home surroundings. You are right about the majority of audiophiles balking at grand size, to which manufacturers certainly cater, but who cares about the majority of opinion when all that matters is meeting a performance envelope in a dedicated listening space, from a DIY-approach and defined by oneself? I don't care about practicality or what's at first easy, as long as the damn things can get through the doors and be properly located in the listening room. Done. Henceforth (or for a while) they're no longer impractical and are well out of way in their respective corners - even at 20 cubic feet per cab. It's really about the will of things and what one sets his mind on.
And you don't think 8x12" sealed cab woofers crawling below 20Hz can make things rattle at elevated SPL's? My TH's will bend the windows at war volume, but there's no reason to go there. It's about how they sound at listening levels we're usually exposed to, and that there's an abundance in reserve even at our max. desired SPL's. Ease of reproduction is paramount.
Please keep us updated on your quad cab subs development. They look great even with raw surfaces, and I'm sure the sonic outcome will turn out to be quite awesome.
You are doing exactly as I suggested for crossover and slope. The game is keeping the sub out of the midrange or you will have mud. You are running 85 Hz @ 36 dB/oct. If you move up to 100 Hz you will have to steepen the slope.
We'll see what comes of it. If we're able to sufficiently clean up the upper band of the TH's I feel rather confident maintaining 36dB/octave slopes will do fine.
I can change crossover points and slopes on the fly which is very helpful for AB comparisons.
As can I.
|
@mijostyn wrote:
I think it is more a matter of, you have this idea in your head and dam the torpedoes you are going to do it regardless. I certainly am that way.
Exactly.
Each enclosure has 84 individual pieces. I have a total of 4 coats of polyester lacquer to spray, wet sanding between coats and the last coat has to be sanded 4 times to 2000 grit then polished two times. I am putting together a pictorial diary of their construction in case someone wants to give it a go. I am not making any more for any reason ever.
Bring on the pictorial!
I have a much different situation than you. My main speakers are line sources all the way down to 1 Hz. The subwoofers, in order to match the volume at increasing distance have to act like line sources. I achieve that by spacing the drivers at the right interval right into both side walls so that they are acting acoustically as one driver, a bass line source array.
You mean as a horizontally configured subs array?
No matter how large and powerful you make a horn it is still point source unless you space one every four feet from wall to wall.
If addressing the full audible frequency spectrum the problem to me is not a point source being a point source, but rather merging more of them and instead have a single ditto cover a suitably wide range to minimize issues. That’s what’s I do having a single point source from just over 600Hz all the way up to about 17-18kHz, while - importantly - controlling directivity down to the crossover region with a fittingly large horn for a smooth dispersion pattern transition to the vertically mounted woofers below. Next step, in theory at least, would be a Synergy horn for a single point source all the way down to the 100Hz, if proper energy coherence can be maintained handing over to the subs - certainly when thinking of the lack of a dedicated midbass section.
Instead of one very efficient driver in each channel I use four 12" drivers in each channel and 2500 watts per woofer. The over all distortion at any given volume below 100 dB (already too loud) is probably about the same. You do not see horns at big concerts any more. They hang two 40 foot curved line arrays and A LOT of WATTS. Who cares about electricity bills?
My aim is for at least 20dB headroom in the bass region on top of the max. desired SPL level. That’s when efficiency comes in handy, at the expense of size (and, ultimately, ultra low end extension), but sonically it makes a difference few have experienced. Yours is simply a different approach with multiple woofers and a bucket load more power that’s needed here, but you’ll have even deeper extension (flat to 15-ish Hz?) and a no doubt excellent performance in the lower octaves when dialed in.
Honestly, I’ve never much cared about the sound of curved line arrays at concerts. They very generally lack midbass presens and impact. I would have preferred the industry officials here cared more about sound than catering to install convenience from smaller boxes and being indifferent to power requirements. Moreover, the variety of bass horns I’ve heard from concerts are vastly better sounding than those typically dual 18" ported subs with their pounding out one-note LF, which is just tiring.
@100Hz and 36 dB/oct you will only be 20 dB down at 200 Hz. Imagine a phono stage with a signal to noise ratio of 20 dB. using 48 dB per octave you will be 60 dB down at 200 Hz which is low enough to be masked by louder signals.
It comes down to listening evaluations eventually. If it works out with higher high-pass, it works out. If not, ~85Hz is where it’ll remain.
Other drivers are better at doing midrange than big woofers, that’s just life. With ESLs there is a stark difference.
My gripe with ESL’s in general has been a lack of overall substance or density to their sound, certainly compared to larger horn variants or hybrid iterations with large woofers. To you that may be about cone-based speakers being too thick (i.e.: slow) sounding, but to me it’s about what lends itself more naturally to my ears. Never heard those Sound Labs - they may be different in this regard due to their sheer size and ceiling-to-floor termination.
With regard to large woofers (say, 15") as mids, they do cover less range upwards compared to smaller drivers for them to really be called midrange drivers, but importantly they have a power region fullness and realism here that smaller drivers can only dream of. It’s no comparison, period (when they’re high-passed accordingly they’re even low mids rockets, and run actively will give you another level), so all that talk about smaller drivers being more ideal as mids, when also going down into the upper bass area, fails to take both of these aspects into consideration. ESL’s when large enough, or so I gather, are no doubt different beasts with regard to speed and lack of inertia.
If the subs run into the midrange you will easily be able to localize them which to me is very annoying. The subs are integrated correctly when the low bass is there, more felt than heard and you would swear there wasn’t a sub in the room.
If you cross the subs at 100Hz the subs can be localized no matter how steep the slopes. My subs are positioned close to and symmetrically to the mains and configured in stereo, so no issues here.
And I fully agree; when the subs are dialed in correctly it’s just a coherent of-a-piece presentation. I love how the lower octaves "morph" effortlessly in intensity and presence depending on the material. Great bass just "happens" in the air, right in front of you between the speakers or as this immersive presence.
|
