2. speakers
  3. 155592-117859

Are big subwoofers viable for 2 channel music?

In thinking about subwoofers to get for a large future listening space (30' x 30'). So far there seems to be a lot of great options for smaller subs for music.. such as the rel s812. Now my main focus will be music but I do plan to do some home theater on the system and I do enjoy subs that reach low and have strong but clear sub-bass. Would a large sealed sub still be able to provide clean tight bass that digs low and thus satisfy both duties. Can it ever match the speed and precision of a pair or more of rel 812s? Something like PSA S7201 or Captivator RS2?

A realize a smaller sub has a smaller moving mass and thus for a given level of power would be faster than a bigger sub with a bigger moving mass (driver mass). But a large sub would have to move less to achieve the same SPL and would reach lower.

Anyhow what do you guys think? Thanks.
smodtactical
oldhvymec
5,101 posts
 
Must make my acquaintance with bass columns, as you should with horn subs, be they Tapped Horns of Front Loaded Horns - if you haven’t already.

I agree with you here. My first real system had a Jensen imperial sub a 
a pair of Imperial horns. LOL A local lumber company sold the cut lumber from 1" marine ply, and the drivers were optional. You could build your own or they would do it for a small fortune. Took most of my earnings from my after school job for over a year.. I built those things and lined them with shag carpet of all things.. tamed them right down...

Met a guy named Brian C had a little start up company called VMPS he was the guy that told me about the shag carpet...

Took 2 pick up loads to move 3 speakers and 4 strong fellas to lift the sub..

Those three speakers were ran on a pair of 20s and a 30 watt mono block kit, 2 C-4s, all Mac gear.. Had Altec XOs. They would fill a whole indoor basketball court, with ease... and did.. HS dances...

I think I had a whoppin' 850.00 dollars in that system. I know I tripled my money, 4 years later or so. late 70s.

I been making bass for a long long time.. it's one of my personal favorites...BIG bass, low distortion...

I also like a 15" active, firing up, with a single 18" HE alu passive.. firing forward paired, then face to face, 6 feet apart.. kids call it "in da chamber".. It will concuss if your not careful. 130-140 db..Nose bleed material.. 2 12k behringers.. to run that set up..3500 watts per voice coil
1800.00 total with amps, 2496 OXO, drivers, MDF, Ply, thick FG batting, and finish. 140 db.. when you face the actives, 120 with the passives face to face. Source is a 10 dollar broken G3 smartphone..2 20 amp breakers, too. It can trip 15s when its heated up..and were breakin'
glass, in the lab...

Big bass is easy. Great bass.. can be really tough with boundaries involved...

Columns ... Boom Boom, in the Room Room

smodtactical OP
967 posts
 
Has anyone directly compared Rel offerings to JTR, PSA or Rhythmik and specifically to the 18 inch subs of the last 3 companies to smaller rel subs? What was the difference in speed and resolution in the bass?
brotw
103 posts
 
What I'd like to know is whether a 4 smaller sub DBA has diminishing returns over dual larger higher powered subs when room correction is employed. I've got a treated room but still have difficulties taming the lowest frequency suck outs from SBIR. One sub is a non-starter but could 2 subs smooth the room response enough that after room correction I'm 90% there.

Understand a smoother response from 4 subs before cal puts less stress on the filtering algorithm, but audio is full of compromises. I've only got a 3-5 dB suckout near 50hz after cal with mains alone.

What about this new Live Dirac Bass Control module with AI optimization for mag/phase on each sub for best room response at the LP and integration with mains? Seems technology could go along ways towards whittling down a 4 sub DBA to a dual setup for a very close level of performance. Catch is it appears Bass Control Module is only available in AVRs where a multichannel dac is needed. 


millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
Understand a smoother response from 4 subs before cal puts less stress on the filtering algorithm,

No that's missing the point. Equalizing or getting flat response is only part of the problem. Another equally important factor is smooth bass is fast articulate bass.

That's because bass energy is in the room whether its measured flat at your EQ location or anywhere else. To get flat bass with EQ always requires turning it up somewhere. Even if its not EQ'd louder still there's extra bass energy somewhere in the room for the simple fact that's the way bass works- there's always reinforcement somewhere, cancellation somewhere else. Nulls and sickouts aren't a problem. Reinforcement is, because that extra bass energy hangs around taking time to dissipate which until it does results in muddy bass. This probably more than anything else is why DBA bass is so exceptionally fast and articulate.

More subs is diminishing returns only because once you have reduced one set of really big modes to two smaller ones they're half as big. Then form 2 to 4 half as big again. To cut them in half again means doubling to 8 which as Duke says is grounds for divorce. But I went from 4 to 5 and it sure did not seem like diminishing returns to me. In any case the returns are relative to DBA not EQ, which is apples and oranges.

brotw
103 posts
 
Thanks miller. Exactly right. Just because the response is smooth at the LP doesn't mean ringing is occurring with long decay times from peaky modes at other locations in the room. Only DBA can fix that.

For all the RF EE's, that like time domain codes modeling electromagnetic cavity modes where highly resonant cavities require sampling long durations of time to get the response right, where as low Q /broadband antennas and cavities can be accurately characterized by a quick impulse. 


More to discover