• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Bass Response

E-Stat said:
Each individual channel? No. I always listen to both simultaneously.

The full range response of the smallish 1+1s is insufficient for good first octave response at desired output levels due to diaphragm excursion limits. Most importantly, one must carefully blend the output of the mains and subs for the most linear combined output.

That's where the alchemy comes into play. ;)
Click to expand...

Each speaker interacts with the room differently so each needs to be treated as a individual. Since you are adding a mono sub then you could look to it as a monaural unit.

Also as I have reported before, working for a McIntosh dealer when a client challenges you with a problem they would take on your problem as their own and help you satisfy the client.

This is or at least was a BIG deal.

So even though they too had only thought of the MQ104 as a device to correct bass issues when I was challenged with a lower mid issue by a client they stepped up, that is Gow, Russell, and Coderman, to help this sophomore audio guy, solve a 1.5 dB channel to channel discrepancy, which greatly pleased the client.

I know this challenge opened up a dialog within Mac because Gow kept asking me about my room voicing adventures and a year or so latter the MQ107 was released giving us more options.

So yes each speaker individually is important if you WANT to really know. It is stereo isn't it.......imaging stability does matter.
 
c_dk said:
Each speaker interacts with the room differently so each needs to be treated as a individual.
Click to expand...
If you recall from post #94, the two frequencies requiring attenuation are 55 and 60 hz. While there is some debate as to where localization begins, I believe 60 hz falls below that threshold.

c_dk said:
Since you are adding a mono sub then you could look to it as a monaural unit.
Click to expand...
FWIW, I use a distributed pair although they share the same source.

c_dk said:
So yes each speaker individually is important if you WANT to really know. It is stereo isn't it.......imaging stability does matter.
Click to expand...
Agree for the upper eight octaves. :)
 
I believe that has been debated for decades........compromised systems have seemed to settle on somewhere near 80 hz. but the pros when push comes to shove always use full range speakers across the front with the sub relinquished to the LFE information...which is most often contrived anyway.
 
c_dk said:
I believe that has been debated for decades........compromised systems have seemed to settle on somewhere near 80 hz. but the pros when push comes to shove always use full range speakers across the front with the sub relinquished to the LFE information...which is most often contrived anyway.
Click to expand...
I would definitely agree that setting a sub's low pass at 80 hz is problematic because most use 12 or 24 db/octave slopes allowing content a good octave above that. Such is easy to hear. Just turn off the mains and some might be surprised at what they hear. I use 60 hz with my dual subs as that provided the most linear response.

As for me, I find the frequency 60 hz (actually 63 hz) omnidirectional in the family room based upon the Stereophile Test CD I use. The only things that are directional are bits around the room that vibrate in response. ;)
 
Last edited:
In the theme of this thread you have already admitted that your speakers are a compromised in your space or maybe a compromised design in the first place.

It has bee a long time since I ran response curves on Magnapans and when I did on the prototype Accoustats they were a disaster........

The Maggies certainly had a ethereal appeal that I could see and hear would push some listeners audio feel good buttons but accuracy.......hardly.
 
Last edited:
c_dk said:
In the theme of this thread you have already admitted that your speakers are a compromised in this space or maybe a compromised design in the first place.
Click to expand...
The family room has less than ideal dimensions and I have limited latitude for placement. The bass linearity results I get are good but not like I'm able to achieve in the music room.

c_dk said:
and when I did on the prototype Accoustats they were a distaster......
Click to expand...
No distaste here. :)
 
Last edited:
Even spell check sometimes let's me screw up......

The graphs I created did get to Strickland via the local Carboneau engineers and the subsequent speakers were better but still had issues if you were looking for accuracy.
 
I would think that in today's world, once snapshot measurements were taken of how the speakers and room were interacting a digital based processor would be a better choice than a old MQ107.

E-Stat said:
*Accurate* to exactly what?

Roger Russell's current thinking with the IDS-25 now coincides with my long term preference for full range line arrays.
Click to expand...

I think the examination of accuracy has been explored in detail by accoustical engineers in shaping the design of performance venues where non amplified performances are the norm; for the Amatuer home audio business it probably would be what sells best.

When designing reinforcement systems using EASE we always had to understand how the accoustical parameters of the non amplified performance hall behaved so as to allow the reinforcement system to supplement it for those performances that needed amplified reinforcement.

Having measured any number of home audio systems that the owner thought correct the idea was to nudge it to a even more satisfying level. Making assumptions without client input was where you could get in trouble.

Again lots of different measurements of lots of different speakers and rooms is where the knowledge is.
 
c_dk said:
I think the examination of accuracy has been explored in detail by accoustical engineers in shaping the design of performance venues where non amplified performances are the norm;
Click to expand...
Agree. I've been a regular season subscriber to the nearby symphony for years. And listen to wifey play her baby grand all the time.

So, exactly to which characteristics of *accuracy* to the musical experience does your comment in post # 114 refer?

c_dk said:
...is where the knowledge is.
Click to expand...
Would you kindly state what that *knowledge* is specifically?
 
Last edited:
SaturationPt said:
People say 3-D, and although I feel that I can sense height differences the science doesn't support it, so I am happy telling people 2-D.

Even the 2-D soundstage is somewhat false unless one's system is set up with no reflelctions / no 2nd-arrival sound, no turntables creating crosstalk, etc., etc. but the pure and the enjoyable aren't always the same thing, ... I've been way down the perfect and pure route and although it is great for bragging rights, there are some things that sound better to the human ear and brain.
Click to expand...

Ok, so I'm spinning the Woodstock album at this moment, this live album should give you what we're talking about.

Side one Richie Havens is dead center about 3' above my speakers as if on stage, the other arranged left and right with some on the same plane and others farther back. The audience is clearly on my level arranged with the closest to the stage about 3' back with me immersed in the crowd so I can clearly hear people to my extreme sides and on around to the back.

I can't see how this could be interpreted as anything other than 3D.

My preamp has Sonic Holography, but here's the thing, I rarely use it because it has little affect on my setup.

In Bob's white papers on Sonic Holography he mentions the improvement in soundstage will be much more pronounced with speakers etc that aren't all that good at it on their own. So with better imaging speakers the change is subtle to nonexistent at best.

If you have this album give it a spin, if you're not hearing a solid 3D image you might look at room treatments or speaker location. Of course this assumes you're interested in this, I don't want to speak out of turn.
 
In a multi-element speaker (2-way, 3-way) it is entirely possible that your brain will interpret a lack of time-alignment between the drivers as height. In other words, if you hear HF elements of the sound slightly before MF frequency elements, the brain should decode that as a source higher than you because the tweeter is located above the midrange. If your speaker is a single-element or perfectly time-aligned, how would the brain possibly get a signal that provides height information? I know that I have many good sources of music that are 2-track direct mic'ed recordings (my favorite type) and have excellent imaging, sources well distributed in their original locations, ... but unless I close my eyes and picture those sources higher than each other I don't actually hear it. When I close my eyes and visualize the performance, "cognitive bias" will convince me that I hear height.

The enitre imaging perception is created by phase-shift in the music, or the difference in timing between the left and right ear and volume/spl.

I really haven't thoroughly researched it but I am not aware of any way that two sources of sound can create any more than 2-D imaging, can be nearer/further and left/right well beyond the sources (speakers), but I remain skepical on 3-D imaging from 2-channel.

A turntable OTOH, now there's a way to create more false soundstage as the cartridge moves in sympathetic motion to the stylus' movement and creates out-of-phase crosstalk, ... another subject entirely.
 
SaturationPt said:
If your speaker is a single-element or perfectly time-aligned, how would the brain possibly get a signal that provides height information?
Click to expand...
Height!
sl_array.jpg
 
Aquired data from measurements is usually considered the basis for knowledge.

Alchemy was a collection of recipes, data, trying to acquire absolute BS, but did set down the foundation for chemistry, again experimental, measurement driven data based.

Opinions from even trained observers can then be examined for correlations to that measured data.

If you think your speakers are the greatest thing in a small room, have been tweaked to your satisfaction let's see the measurements. Of coarse it will reflect on you but that is to be expected, in the end it is what sounds best to you.

The OP was searching for a bass sound that he described in words that most likely have a different meaning to everyone who hears them.

If someone hears a setup, agrees it is "right" measurements might let be replicated, or at least give insight as to what "right" might be.
 
c_dk said:
Aquired data from measurements is usually considered the basis for knowledge...let's see the measurements.
Click to expand...
Since you refuse to answer the question of which measurements you hold dear, I cannot answer.

And I do not consider my modest HT requiring the use of subs as "the greatest thing in a small room". :)

All you speak of is nebulous generalities.
 
Last edited:
E-Stat said:
Height!
Click to expand...

Apparently you're missing the point. If your speaker makes the same sound at the same time at the top and bottom, ... there's nothing that will change the perceived height of the instrument or source of the music.

I've had 8' tall speakers, I've had everything from McIntosh line-arrays to ribbon and electrostats, and the height of the speaker has absolutely nothing to do with vertical imaging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom