Hi Rooze,
I know swarms and more subs are the popular thing, but I dono't think that's the first direction.
I have a Hsu and I love it, but integration is key. The issues you have described may not be phase related at all.
Do you have any bass traps? Consider adding those to your room. Talk to GIK Acoustics.
Yes, JL audio's room EQ is awesome, but also, you can do the same with your current subs and a miniDSP HD unit. Either will, with the help of bass traps, fix your issues. The problem is the learning and implementation. If you have the money, and don't want to go down a rabbit hole, get the JL subs. If you have the time, and want to learn, miniDSP with Room EQ Wizard is your most cost effective and just as good solution.
I mean it when I say this, JL Audio won't be a better sounding solution than what you have now, but it sure will be faster. :)
|
@rooze What erik squires posted above. To that, I think it is very important to match a sub woofers resolving capability and speed to the main speakers that are being utilized. This is why I very much like what the REL subs can do. Firstly, you can hook up a REL to the high level input which means that they are connected to your amps outputs (just like your main speakers..as such they see exactly the same signal as the mains) and secondly REL offers some very fast and tonally accurate subs that can be made to easily match up with your mains...and your room.
Personally, whenever I have heard Hsu's, they do not have much in the way of definition...and as such tend to deliver bass heft, but not bass resolution. ( which is great for HT, but not so much for our audio systems).
I would see if you can hear a REL ( or a pair, as they tend to minimize room nodes) and go from there. |
Personally, whenever I have heard Hsu's, they do not have much in the
way of definition...and as such tend to deliver bass heft, but not bass
resolution. ( which is great for HT, but not so much for our audio
systems). It's all in the EQ in front of them. :) |
Agree with daveyf. Go with the appropriate REL sub. I have the T7i with my Joseph Audio Pulsars. Integration is seamless as far as I can tell and the sub positively impacts / enhances all frequencies, not just the low / mid bass.
|
On the subject of phase settings, its probably my hearing, but I can't tell the difference whether I set it to 0 or 180. So I just split the difference and set it to 90 on both my SVS subs. Can others hear the phase setting differences? |
There is no such thing as swarm. Its just a bunch of subwoofers rather than a single subwoofer.
|
Can others hear the phase setting differences? yes i can. |
Thanks guys ^^
Erik’s first post got me interested in the miniDSP, which I’ve heard of many times but never really followed up with any research.
I’m not sure it would be a fit for my system, though it sure as heck sounds tempting. I do a fair amount of equipment reviewing so need to be able to evaluate various DACs, preamps etc and I think the DSP would be a variable that wouldn’t sit well in a reviewing environment. One question I had on the miniDSP is - can it be setup via a tape loop on an existing preamp so it’s affect can be switched in and out?
I ran a Lyngdorf TDAi with room perfect a few years ago and it worked well, but again, for reviewing it’s not an ideal tool.
Agreed on the REL subs, whenever I’ve heard them over the years they’ve always seemed well integrated.
I’m still not certain that my main concern of managing phase would be resolved with a REL unless it’s one with 360 degree phase control and I find the patience to set it up manually (times two).
An auto solution would be awesome.
Thanks again.
oh... for gear I have stuff coming in and out but my ‘static’ rig is heavily vinyl and tube:
Music Hall MMF-11 soon to be replaced with a new Origin Live setup
Manley Chinook / Zesto Audio Andros
Thor Audio tubed Pre and Power
Aurender N100H
Sim Audio Moon 380D DAC
other odds and ends
|
Hey Rooze,
If you use your subwoofer in a review environment, you should use miniDSP. What I'd suggest is you do it for the subwoofer alone. This lets you leave every other part of your chain undisturbed.
Best,
E
|
Um, what you haven't convinced me of, at all, is that your problem is "phase" related.
It's the entire integration of the subwoofer to speaker and room. That's what you are describing.
Adding a mini DSP correctly will allow you to perfectly blend in the sub to your speakers (yes, including phase) as well as blend it to your room. Better with bass traps that can help drain the energy out of persistent room modes, but still effective without.
|
EQ is a lame idea, DSP or otherwise. But no more lame than taking advice from a bunch of guys with absolutely zero idea what they’re talking about. Which is every single post so far! The problem you’re having rooze, and the mistake you’re making, is the same one I made and everyone makes and that’s following the conventional wisdom, because the conventional wisdom is WRONG! The conventional wisdom is based on the idea that because sound is waves and bass is waves then bass must be the same as midrange and treble. When its not. Both in terms of how it is heard by human beings, as well as in how it works in a room in practice, low bass is a completely different animal. My subs for example all face the wall mere inches away. Try that with your precious Dunlaveys and see how it works. Which is not a knock on your speakers - NO speakers will work like this. EXCEPT SUBS. Because low bass is so very different. That’s the key idea. My distributed bass array integrates and images so seamlessly with the entire stage its freaking uncanny. It does not shrink, my room expands. It does not narrow, it envelopes. It does all this regardless of where I put them. How can this be? Its a completely different animal. Incidentally, I am saying nothing hasn’t been said by everyone else who has actually done it. People with unfounded opinions based on imagination will say all kinds of things. People who know all say the same thing. Go read the threads. Tim, noble_100, had his a lot longer than me, expresses it a bit differently but we’re saying the same things. Sometimes when learning new complex ideas helps to hear presented different ways. Go read it all. If you want to learn. I can appreciate where you’re coming from because I was once like these others, parroting the same nonsense, not even knowing its nonsense. I had a really good sub, Talon Roc, which I spent hours trying in vain to find that one perfect spot. Spent years searching high and low for an answer to the problem of really good bass response. The Swarm or distributed bass array solution seemed like just another likely idea at first. By now though I have learned they all sound likely at first. Even the posts above sound likely at first. They just turn out to be wrong. Which I assumed would be the case with DBA too. Except, turns out its not wrong. It works in practice, and the science is compelling. Experiments show human beings cannot even hear a low bass note shorter than one full cycle. Think about that one for a minute. There goes your timing theory. Low bass isn’t even stereo. The subwoofer systems developer starting from first principles looked at a lot of music, found it was all summed low bass. Of course he didn’t test them all, but only a statistically conclusive sample range. Whatever. We can argue, or we can see. Hooked up running four off one mono signal sounds just the same as running two hooked up to the same amp but wired for stereo. Again, the bass in my DBA is every bit as 3D in the sound stage as anything else. The subs actually disappear even better than the stereo pair. The stereo pair treated with Synergistic Research HFT Speaker Kit, that disappear extremely well. The five subs plopped down almost at random disappear and integrate supremely well. Because: the conventional wisdom is wrong. The DBA concept is correct. Right now you have only two, and all the stuff you are trying so hard thinking its helping is unwittingly only making things worse. But hey, don’t take my word for it. Move your subs away from the stereo pair. Put them very near the wall, pointing along the wall or towards the wall or any direction but at you. Now this is important: place them asymmetrically, different distances from you, the other speakers, and most importantly the corners. Now go listen. See how much better it is? The more, the better. With four or five you can literally plop them down anywhere around the room like this and have superb smooth articulate deep bass. Which unlike the others above I know, because I did it, and I heard it. I am not just blowing smoke out my, well you know. And now hopefully this answer will make a little more sense: 1/ How does running a swarm setup, with 4 subs, affect phase/time integration with the mains? Does it create twice or half the issue or remove it altogether? It removes it altogether. |
There is no such thing as swarm. 5 subwoofers gives the speaker dealers 5 times the profit and you"ll end up with mega bass in your room that you dont want. One is more than enough for a small room. You will not even have space for 5. Its another band aid that is being touted as the solution to horrible room acoustics that most audiophiles have. |
@millercarbon So, you state with absolute certainty that what myself and others have posted above is incorrect. Really! You are the ONLY person here who knows what they are talking about...:0(
Oh, while you are at it, maybe --just maybe, add to all of your future posts...this...IMHO. Look up what that means if you don’t already know. All IMHO. |
@millercarbon thanks for the informative and entertaining post.
Just for a bit of context, I sold a pair of full range speakers last week that didn’t really need subs. The Dunlavy 3 is a great speaker that will cover well until I reinvest in new speakers.
I’m not new to the perils of sub integration nor the DBA theory, and I’ve conversed with Duke a couple times over the years about his Swarm arrangement. I’ve setup a few successful 2+2 systems and had pretty good results with so-called difficult speakers like Magnepan and Apogee.
So with that out of the way, to benefit from the content of your post I also need some context - I’m curious to know what your mains are and whether or not you run them full range. Also, you make no reference to sub quality, only quantity. Are you saying that 4 cheapish subs can produce tight, articulate and extended bass, or is there a requisite standard or level of quality and if so, can you suggest a make/model that you see as the entry point for a successful distributed sub system.
As for the ‘phase’ affect, I only hear what I hear and see what I see. With subs inline, I hear no issues other than that stated. With subs elsewhere, there is a downside, as stated. It may or may not be phase but it sure seems like it based on the effect that I hear.
Lastly, my pair of HSU have been pretty much everywhere in the room including perched up on table tops; presently they’re against the left and right walls, tight up and with one behind the front plane of the speakers and the other closer to the listening position.
It would be cool to hear from people using subs with inbuilt room equalization to see just how successfully they integrate in a 2+2 setup.
Cheers! |
@kenjit Same applies to you as to what i posted to millercarbon above.
|
|
@rooze ,
Well, there is always Vandersteen.
The new Sub 3 has a built in equalizer.
BTW, I own both the Hsu and Vandy subs (2wq) for 2 systems, and the Vandersteen subs are by far more subtle and better integrated than I can get with the Hsu's.
Don't get me wrong, I like the Hsu's, but when it comes down to seamless integration, the Vandy's have it hands down.
Bob |
You should also consider the Rythmik subs. These have one of the best servo control systems on the market and are reasonably priced. The servo control amps include a variable phase control which makes it easier (using REW and a calibrated mike) to optimize the integration with your mains.
If you have the room, you might also consider the GR-Research open baffle subs. These use the Rythmik servo controlled amps in an open baffle system. I have stereo triple-woofer subs which provide very natural sounding bass that is very deep and detailed, but these need to be at least a few feet from your front wall. These are sold in kit form, but if you don't want to build them yourself, GT Audio Works sells complete subs with from one to six drivers in each.
The theory behind the swarm is that by distributing the bass needs across 3, 4 or more subs, each one doesn't have to work very hard (so you can theoretically get away with lower quality subs) and each excites room modes differently so the amplitude of the peaks and valleys as you move around the room is reduced and the bass can be considerably smoother. |
I’m curious to know what your mains are and whether or not you run them full range.
Mains are Talon Khorus X. Not that it matters. Which I seriously doubt that it does matter, given the range of speakers and situations its been reported to work beautifully with. I mean Tim has electrostats. So case closed. Oh and yeah, full range. If you understand the way you seem to think you do then you would know the whole idea is more low bass source locations. So it would be counterproductive to that goal to eliminate the two mains from helping with that. Indeed, as it turns out, every time I do something that improves the response of the mains (like speaker cables) the improvement is seamless including well into the low bass. This should not be news since its exactly what Duke and everyone else is saying. Well, dang, let me clarify that. Everyone else means everyone else who has a clue. Which you can only have by actually building, or buying, and then setting up and listening. Everyone else emphatically excludes the yammering nabobs posting so much about which they know so little. Also, you make no reference to sub quality, only quantity. Are you saying that 4 cheapish subs can produce tight, articulate and extended bass, or is there a requisite standard or level of quality and if so, can you suggest a make/model that you see as the entry point for a successful distributed sub system. Of course sub quality matters. Duh. Should go without saying. Except, on the other hand: audiophiles! Nothing can ever go without saying. Only group of people in the world to know everything and nothing, simultaneously. While working on mine Duke was very careful not to recommend or comment on anything too specific. The minute I told him what I had ordered however he immediately said mine will kick butt on his. He knew it was the same Dayton amps, same size drivers, very similar speaker boxes, only Morel drivers with more powerful magnet and voice coil. So yeah quality matters. Duh. But that being said, based on everything I have seen I would have to say that no single sub no matter how awesome or powerful or how perfectly EQ-able will ever touch my 5. Just no way. Duke had a customer with mega sub budget actually compare and decide the same. Most incredible of all was one guy with four speakers, just ordinary biggish bookshelf type speakers, ask how to use them best. My answer was put two facing the corners with a pillow over the tweeters, in other words use them like subs. Much to my surprise the guy actually did this, and then reported back how surprised he was at the bass extending deeper, smoother, and more cleanly than ever before. Which did not surprise me at all. Because quantity beats quality. Which is not to say quality does not matter at all. Only that in this particular case quantity matters so much more that more often than not four of anything will beat one of anything, at least around anywhere near the same total cost. Which for reference Duke’s customer thought the $3k Swarm was better than anything he heard up to ten times the price. |
EQ is a lame idea, DSP or otherwise. But no more lame than taking advice from a bunch of guys with absolutely zero idea what they’re talking about. Which is every single post so far! Hello @millercarbon, We have gotten to the unfortunate part of a discussion where you assert knowledge of your own little in evidence and denigrate that of others leaving me no choice but to out you. I used to work in motion picture equipment industry, including design, installation and set up of some of the best sounding motion picture audio gear in the world. I also make my own loudspeakers and do my own room EQ. My views are pretty much the same as those posted by JL Audio, though as I posted elsewhere, I disagree with them in some nuanced ways: https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/me-vs-jl-audio-an-open-discussion?highlight=me%2Bvs%2Bjl%2Bau...
The problem you’re having rooze, and the mistake you’re making, is the same one I made and everyone makes and that’s following the conventional wisdom, because the conventional wisdom is WRONG! The conventional wisdom is based on the idea that because sound is waves and bass is waves then bass must be the same as midrange and treble. When its not.
That’s not the conventional wisdom, and not what I’ve seen anyone propose. The general solution, as written by and accepted by professional acousticians and installers, for getting deep bass in a room with moderate spend is bass traps + EQ. http://ethanwiner.com/basstrap_myths.htmMy views and recommendations are also largely in line with what GIK Acoustics would recommend, so please, contact them directly and ask. https://www.gikacoustics.com/If you have lots of room, time and money, get more subs, and a custom room. Otherwise, I stand by my advice of using a DSP based solution along with appropriate room treatment and question your judgement and qualifications. Best, Erik |
Sorry. Remind me again, about your experience setting up and using your distributed bass array? |
I am not familiar with the JL subs room correction so I can't comment on what it will do or not do, but some general thoughts: at the expense of some stage depth, width and image
dimensionality. Placing the subs a few inches forward of the front plane
of the speakers helps a little but that isn’t where they perform at
their best as ‘subwoofers’. This suggests to me that your subs perhaps are crossed over too high? How big is your room out of interest? If I am not mistaken, the SC-3 dips pretty low (40Hz -db quick check?). Probably want to cross over at about 50Hz for music (+/- 5 hz), and get the volume matching right (and phase). 50Hz is about 7 meters, so 180 degrees phase is 3.5 meters (needed when making a bass array - or inverted audio inputs/outputs/speakers). At that frequency, you should not have localization impacting sound-stage perception. Not sure how steep your sub cut-off is. They are usually fairly steep, so higher frequencies above the cross-over should not be an issue. In terms of a bass-array, yes they are great. They are even greater when you invest $100 in a microphone to let your tune the bass-array across your listening position. If you have phase adjust (not just 0/180) you can do some virtual movement (and digital delay can do more). |
I also make my own loudspeakers which if i recall correctly has been heavily ridiculed by the experts on diyaudio. |
I use a distributed bass system in my room . My subwoofer use stared with one sub and then two in stereo with a DSPeaker Antimode 2.0 DSP device . The sound at the listening position was good but not even across the room . After adding two more subs this improved . In the past three weeks I added two more and did another room correction . The sound in the room at all frequencies improved . This leads me to wonder if a bass mode in a area not in the listening position affects the sound as a whole ? |
@rooze asked, "How does running a swarm setup, with 4 subs, affect phase/time integration with the mains? Does it create twice or half the issue or remove it altogether?"
Briefly, a distributed multi-sub setup is quite flexible in positioning and phase. I have yet to have a customer fail to achieve a good integration with his mains. The relative uniformity of the low frequency sound field with a good distributed multisub system means that you aren’t "rolling the dice" when it comes to blending with your mains.
The minor differences in arrival time at the listening position are a much smaller fraction of a wavelength than what the ear can resolve at low frequencies. How uniformly the low frequencies decay in-room is of greater audible consequence. Speakers + room = a minimum phase system at low frequencies, which means the time-domain response tracks the frequency response. Fix one and you have fixed the other.
@kenjit wrote: "There is no such thing as swarm."
A the risk of stating the obvious, the guy who manufacturers the Swarm begs to differ.
Duke
yes, I’m that guy
|
@gdnrbob
Thanks for your input. I’ve been tempted by the Vandy approach a few times over the years but I’ve never pulled the trigger on a pair. I think I’ve been put off a little by the need for placing an extra crossover in line. At least that’s how I remember them working. I’ll take a refresher on the Vandersteens tomorrow when I’m more awake!
Cheers
Rooze |
@jaytor great suggestions, thanks. I had a set of the Carver Amazing Platinums with their open baffle bass system and though blending with the ribbon was flawed, the bass could be made to sound very good.
I’m familiar with the GT Audioworks subs having heard them at Cap Audio Fest a few weeks ago.
I’ll check into the Rythmik Servo approach and GR Audio’s implementation, if I’m not mistaken GR has a presence on Audiocircle so I’ll take a look.
Thanks
Rooze |
@millercarbon
”Mains are Talon Khorus X. Not that it matters”
It matters to me, or I wouldn’t have asked.
|
@audiozenology
I have them crossed around 60hz but I’ve experimented quite a bit with different settings. My room size is part of the issue, 17x16 x 8.5 ‘
Point taken about bass arrays and the mic investment.
cheers
Rooze |
My multi sub set up, (6 of them ) makes my mains sound like the best speakers in the world. There is no way a single sub no matter the features or power can compete . After i was told to put the sub in the listening chair and go from there , it was like a fog of ignorance was lifted. Its a whole other level.
Many thanks to tim and duke . |
Kenjit,
It was your grandiose claims and lack of ability to alter your reality as more information was presented which contradicted your claims.
|
No one has to rely on my expertise alone.
I've posted a number of references, and agree with Duke.
The physics don't change. I just happen to have experience with it, and shared the way.
Best,
Erik
|
PS - I don't have a problem with swarms. Just their cost, placement, wiring, etc.
The physics are fine, but from a convenience point of view, 1 sub with bass traps and EQ rules.
|
Kenjit,
It's also your ability to hold simultaneously opposite positions on a subject matter which we all remember.
|
Hey Kenjit:
which if i recall correctly has been heavily ridiculed by the experts on diyaudio.
Post your link. Like any other project, plenty of discussions. By the way Kenjit, unlike you, I’ve posted my entire design. You keep asking me questions about it, and claim your own are far superior, with zero data to back them up. Here's the discussion on the SNR-1 https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/316511-snr-1-mundorf-scanspeak-2-a.html |
millercarbon2,336 posts12-29-2019 10:38amEQ is a lame idea, DSP or otherwise. But no more lame than taking advice from a bunch of guys with absolutely zero idea what they’re talking about. Which is every single post so far!
1/ How does running a swarm setup, with 4 subs, affect phase/time integration with the mains? Does it create twice or half the issue or remove it altogether?
It removes it altogether. millercarbon, Which brands or types of DSP have you used to make such a sweeping generality? I’ve used four properly placed self powered subwoofers and after adjusting their basic crossover and gain then saving those settings to memory, they did eliminate my rooms modes. Using one of the DSP calibration equipped subs as a master the room measurements clearly showed that time, phase, and frequency issues, in my room still needed to be addressed. Comparing the memory of the original non-EQd version to the EQd the improvement in the crossover region alone was quite dramatic. I’m not doubting anybody’s feeling of success and satisfaction with their setup, better bass of any type can be a sea-change improvement in this hobby and I share in that enthusiasm. I also share in Eric’s suggestion of using competent DSP for the subwoofer region only. Depending on the room, any user may find one or two subs can substantially reduce their rooms modes and satisfy their low frequency tastes. Four or more subwoofers in a room can eliminate a rooms modes and may seem like a panacea but its only one aspect of integrating extra low frequency with a system and the room. Variable multi-band parametric equalization, filtering, Q settings etc., can make for a far more desirable level of crossover integration and personalization that the OP seems to be seeking. I found the JL Audio F series very well made and very potent for their size. If I remember correctly the majority of their ARO/DARO equalization adjustments are Automatic Room Optimization only and may have led to their developing a manual solution with their companion CR-1. Comparing DSP procedures is very important. |
I have a large room which requires large subs. I have had 2 SVS powered subs for around 10 years that I futilely attempted to integrate. The biggest issue is the carp adjustments on the power plates, starting with the volumes control that raise volume too high when barely turned up from zero. These at least have a sweep Phase which does allow for other than 0 or 180.
I never had the negative sound stage experiences you mention, but could never get them to blend seamlessly, but when the Polarity/phase was out (on numerous discs), reversing the bass Phase/polarity solved the problem, no matter which main speakers. I had Magnepan 3.5Rs, Usher 6371s, and Emerald Physics KCIIs. Most likely an expensive active XO is needed, but my system is all diff balanced, which makes active XO in the price range of new speakers
I am attempting to eliminate the integration problems by replacing the KC IIs 10" woofers and eliminating the subs with EP 2.8s as each speaker has 2 @ 15" carbon fiber woofers. should they ever show up. They ave a few pair of these $10K speakers available for 50% off including shipping
hth
|
Erik, what you dont seem to understand is i have ultra perfect high standards. I have heard many high end speakers, and they sound dreadful. How do you explain this? I see and hear problems that seem to elude experts like you. Why is that? Your speakers are nothing more than box speakers. They are equivalent to every other box speaker both in their strengths and weaknesses. The differences that do exist between your speakers and every other box speaker, are immaterial.
|
The truth is that the 4-sub Distributed Bass Array (DBA) Concept actually works like a proverbial charm! There are no ifs ands or buts, no maybes, no under the right conditions, no excuses, no fear and loathing, no terms, no conditions, no stipulations, no hidden clauses, no fine print, no oils and no qualifiers whatsoever. It's the cat's pajamas, the bee's knees, good as gold, tits, right as rain and too legit to quit. I believe it's the gold standard of sub systems that all others should be judged against. Based on the 4-sub DBA's near state of the art bass quality, I actually continue to be amazed that it isn't more widely known, accepted and utilized, especially by fellow Audiogon members who are typically keenly aware and accepting of high quality audio related concepts, technology and methods they can utilize to increase the performance of their systems. Heck, the main reasons we're all members is that we enjoy good music, realize high quality audio equipment, technology, concepts and methods are capable of increasing our systems performance and musical enjoyment as well as enjoying learning of, discussing and sharing this information, Right? The very relevant and utilitarian concept of the 4-sub DBA isn't exactly new, either. I believe it's about ten years old and began as a spark of an idea that Duke Lejeune, owner of Audio Kinesis, had while having a conversation with his friend,Dr. Earl Geddes, about the results of the doctor's research and experiments on in-room bass performance in smaller room environments. Dr. Geddes stated that his research indicated to him that 4 well distributed subs in a room reliably provided the best in-room bass response performance regardless of the small room's dimensions or main speakers utilized. This knowledge was the impetus for Duke creating his 4-sub Swarm DBA system that has won multiple product of the year awards (2015 and 2019): 2015: https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/audiokinesis-swarm-subwoofer-system/2019: https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/2019-golden-ear-awards-robert-e-greene/ I've utilized an Audio Kinesis Debra/Swarm 4-sub distributed bass array (DBA) system for about 4 years now with a pair of Magnepan 2.7 QR main speakers. I use my system both for 2-ch music and for 5.4 ch surround sound for HT. I now use it with a pair of Magnepan 3.7i main speakers with equally excellent results, I just needed to adjust the volume and crossover frequency controls on the sub amp/control unit a bit. |
Kenjit, To paraphrase your post in another thread: I refuse to engage with you unless you can prove to me it would be worth my time. |
Rooze, it is a complex issue. Properly set up subs should improve sound stage and clarity. Speakers that benefit most from subs have woofers that run up higher above 500 Hz. Full range speakers like ESLs benefit most.
Ideally the sound from the sub should reach the listening position at exactly the same time and at exactly the same phase angle as the woofers in the satellite speakers. Subs work best against a wall and better right in corners. This is usually not going to be time or phase correct. Some woofers like the JL Audio have adjustable phase angle which helps but this does not correct the time issue. In most cases you would have to delay the satellite approximately 0.3 milliseconds each millisecond being equivalent to about 1 foot. This can only be done digitally. So in order to put subs in the places they work best and integrate them to the satellites you have to have digital bass management. If all your sources are digital this is not difficult. A dBx DriveRack will do the job. Digital room control processors like TACT, Anthem and Trinnov units will do the job for you. If you are into analog only and unwilling to digitize your turntable it is probably best to avoid the subwoofer altogether. Doing a swarm system would be the best way to go with an analog system.
|
Ideally the sound from the sub should reach the listening position at exactly the same time and at exactly the same phase angle as the woofers in the satellite speakers. Which is not possible with the duke le june swarm technology |
Noble100 wrote: "This knowledge was the impetus for Duke creating his 4-sub Swarm DBA system
that has won multiple product of the year awards (2015 and 2019):"
Just to clarify, the Swarm only received a single Product of the Year award, for 2015, from The Absolute Sound magazine. It has also received three Golden Ear awards and three Editor's Choice awards, including one of each in 2019. So apparently the concept has a decent shelf life.
And as I have said before, my product is definitely not the only way that the distributed multisub concept can be employed. And results can be further improved with EQ and bass trapping. Nor is a distributed multisub system necessarily the most practical solution for most people... if it were, I'd be sitting in my corner office smoking a cigar while my minions did all the work.
Duke
|
@kenjit quoting millercarbon and then replying: " ideally the sound from the sub should reach the listening position at exactly the same time and at exactly the same phase angle as the woofers in the satellite speakers. "Which is not possible with the duke le june swarm technology" Of course it’s possible, if arrival time synchronization is your priority when you set the system up. It is not my priority because other things matter much more. The ear does not BEGIN to have enough time domain resolution in the bass region for small differences in subwoofer arrival times to matter. The ear DOES have PLENTY of resolution in the loudness domain, so frequency response smoothness (which correlates precisely with good decay characteristics) matters a LOT. Duke |
Ideally the sub should be crossing over from the mains at a frequency where localization isn’t possible rendering time alignment not critical. If you force time alignment, then you force maximum wave reinforcement in the listening position which negates the point of a distributed bass array to even out frequency response by negating room modes. Ideally the sound from the sub should reach the listening position at exactly the same time and at exactly the same phase angle as the woofers in the satellite speakers. |
Duke, why dont you tell that to mijostyn? I was quoting him |
Audiozenology wrote: " If you force time alignment, then you force maximum wave reinforcement in the listening position which negates the point of a distributed bass array to even out frequency response by negating room modes."
My understanding is that the in-room frequency response (and therefore our perception) will still be dominated by the steady-state response, to which those initial arrivals obviously contribute, but their synchronization would not negate the benefits of modal smoothing. So I think that as long as we get good modal smoothing there’s nothing wrong with arrival time synchronization, but personally I wouldn’t trade off anything that mattered (including aesthetics) to achieve it.
Duke
|
I go back to one thing.
I recommend the OP turn to GIK acoustics first. Ask them for advice on room and then see where he's at.
Best,
E
|
These three different approaches (bass trapping, EQ, distributed multisubs) each do something different. The goal is "smooth bass", because "smooth bass" = "fast bass"; it is the peaks in the in-room frequency response which decay more slowly and make the bass sound boomy or muddy or whatever, and each of these techniques contributes to "smooth bass" and therefore to "fast bass".
Bass trapping absorbs in-room bass energy which shortens the decay times and thereby reduces the magnitude of both the peaks and the dips everywhere in the room. (The in-room frequency response tracks the time domain response, and vice-versa, in the bass region.)
EQ is very good at reducing peaks but not so good at filling in dips, which are caused by modal cancellation, and driving that cancellation harder can eat up a lot of power and excursion (a 6 dB boost to fill in a dip would call for a doubling of excursion and a quadrupling of power). EQ of a single subwoofer is most effective at a single location, because the room-interaction peaks-and-dips will be at different frequencies for different locations within the room. So EQ can be great in the sweet spot, but it usually make things worse elsewhere in the room. In general the larger the listening area we try to fix with EQ, the less improvement we are able to make at any specific location within that area.
A distributed multisub system results in a significantly improved peak-and-dip pattern. Each sub contributes its own unique peak-and-dip pattern, but each sub is only contributing maybe 1/4 of the total bass energy, so the net result is many small peaks and dips instead of a few large ones. This can have a non-obvious psychoacoustic benefit: When a peak and a dip are fairly close to one another (within about 1/3 octave), the ear/brain system averages them out. So the perceptual improvement tends to be greater than what we would infer from eyeballing before-and-after curves. And this improvement is not limited to a given location, but extends throughout the room.
Obviously there are differences of opinion about how much subjective improvement each of these approaches offers, and the devils are probably in the details.
But as you can see, these three different techniques are almost asking to be used in combination, as each does something different that is beneficial. The reduced spatial variation of a distributed multisub system makes EQ much more effective over a large listening area, and bass trapping provides smoothing regardless of what else you are doing.
Duke
|
in other words we dont really know how all these things work so just do a bit of each and see what happens. |
