Rockport Lyra

[andromedaaudio]

Your two provided graphs are evidence why your speakers and virtually all speakers need subs .

First of all it would be interesting to see some graphs of your speakers / subs measured inside your room as well , it makes comparing a bit easier .
I use Clio 11 with calibrated mic myself this includes its own signal generator , 3 K euros .
Please do some clean 10 hz -20 khz sweeps without correction for this or that , 1:3 octave smooth factor.
Listener distance / tweeter height .

The below is taken from a 12 inch JL fathom review , i guess these are manufacturer specs .

Look at the ELF trim -12 +3 db , i guess ELF stands for "" extra low frequencies " this is the area where it states to be adjusting for room influences/ gain.
Take my top graph for example and ad a JL fathom in the mix , lets say cross at 40 hz .
nominal SPL is 75 db in this graph, at 20 hz the signal is 90 db (15 db louder ) at 27 hz its 76 db , at 40 hz its 82 db again .
The lower graph has a different measurement mic position , 20-50 cm can be enough , move your chair a bit and measure .

The top one is a 1/2 octave smoothed graph with 1/3 octave the oscillations are even greater

Seems to me a mission impossible what these active subs have to correct for in such a small freq area , its more likely a somewhat gradual facsimile line which is then reproduced .

Conclusion:

Good bass lays in speaker design / housing construction / units used / crossover design / amp match.
Even placed in an average room these qualities shine through in such way that a active sub only degrades the music
Active subs are on the market to make up for not optimal designed main speakers.
By the way if your main speakers need subs they cant be called real Full range speakers in the first place .

I do think subs can play a role with a movie system for explosions / thunder to create some extra rumble but not for a HQ music system .

But everybody needs to do what he or she sees fit , coming back to Rockport i d love to hear the Arrakis , very cool design

 

[sbo6]

I'd be happy to share measurements but I'm thinking maybe we should move this to another thread and section? If not I'll keep typing

Thoughts from the admins?

 

[LL21]

...Conclusion:

Good bass lays in speaker design / housing construction / units used / crossover design / amp match.
Even placed in an average room these qualities shine through in such way that a active sub only degrades the music
Active subs are on the market to make up for not optimal designed main speakers.
By the way if your main speakers need subs they cant be called real Full range speakers in the first place .

I do think subs can play a role with a movie system for explosions / thunder to create some extra rumble but not for a HQ music system .

But everybody needs to do what he or she sees fit , coming back to Rockport i d love to hear the Arrakis , very cool design

I have to say, you are the speaker designer and an industry expert (which I am not). That said, as a consumer...I not only feel that the Focal Grande Utopia, Wilson XLF...and the Rockport Arrakis would (or do in fact) benefit from Subs...but I also note that one of the most renowned owners of the Rockport Arrakis (Arnie)...uses SIX REL 25 subs (dual stacks of 3 subs each) and he has confirmed to me that the improvement is yet another major leap forward in terms of scale, sense of venue, effortlessness.

Here is Arnie's system...note the 6 subs in his room alongside the Rockport Arrakis.

http://www.theaudiobeat.com/visits/austin_system.htm



I also think it is not at all a coincidence that designers like David Wilson have also designed the Wilson XVX and WAMM with dual sub towers...and that is NOT just some home theater gimmick. yes, the main towers can run flat to 20hz...nevertheless, they are designing these tower subs as part of their own venture towards all-out-assault state of the art music reproduction.

 

[microstrip]

I have to say, you are the speaker designer and an industry expert (which I am not). That said, as a consumer...I not only feel that the Focal Grande Utopia, Wilson XLF...and the Rockport Arrakis would (or do in fact) benefit from Subs...but I also note that one of the most renowned owners of the Rockport Arrakis (Arnie)...uses SIX REL 25 subs (dual stacks of 3 subs each) and he has confirmed to me that the improvement is yet another major leap forward in terms of scale, sense of venue, effortlessness.

Here is Arnie's system...note the 6 subs in his room alongside the Rockport Arrakis.

http://www.theaudiobeat.com/visits/austin_system.htm



I also think it is not at all a coincidence that designers like David Wilson have also designed the Wilson XVX and WAMM with dual sub towers...and that is NOT just some home theater gimmick. yes, the main towers can run flat to 20hz...nevertheless, they are designing these tower subs as part of their own venture towards all-out-assault state of the art music reproduction.

Yes, when properly matched even full ranges can improve significantly with adequate subs. Using the proper crossover is mandatory - adding the JLAudio CR1 crossover was a big step in the process of adding the F113 mk2's to the XLF's. The damping control was fabulous to create a perfect integration.

Adding subs in not just adding deeper bass - it is also putting your source of bass in a different location of the main bass source. If we have space (my case) optimizing the position of the subwoofer can smooth nulls that are very hard to remove, even with enormous bass traps. But I can easily accept that in a cramped space in a critical room in the bass a sub can do more harm than good.

 

[andromedaaudio]

designed the Wilson XVX and WAMM with dual sub towers

Lloyd a stand alone ( without sub towers ) Wamm or XVX are then most likely not full range designs , i m sure you re stand alone XLF will put out more bass energy and go lower then the 2 former .

10 , 5 inch and 12, 5 inch woofers compared to 13 inch and 15 inch woofers ,( pre condition they are both well designed ) with a proper sized volume ,.... its just physics .


The reason i call mine full range derives from the type of woofers i use , wiring , housing volume , housing construction , efficiency match woofers - MTM

These 2 newer designs divide the mid range in a complete different way though , smaller mid membranes for high mid s and larger mid membranes for lower mids.

and the Rockport Arrakis would (or do in fact) benefit from Subs.

Then the Arrakis despite its size aint a full range design afterall also , i might sound like a smart ass but i tell it like i see it , i have heard rell subs quite a few times , not my cup a tea

 

[LL21]

Lloyd a stand alone ( without sub towers ) Wamm or XVX are not full range designs , i m sure you re stand alone XLF will put out more bass energy and go lower then the 2 former .
10 , 5 inch and 12, 5 inch woofers compared to 13 inch and 15 inch woofers ,( pre condition they are both well designed ) with a proper sized volume ,.... its just physics .

Then the Arrakis despite its size aint a full range design afterall also , i might sound like a smart ass but i tell it like i see it , i have heard rell subs quite a few times , not my cup a tea

Thanks. I would be curious...besides your design do you consider ANY speakers full-range which do not need subs?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Thanks. I would be curious...besides your design do you consider ANY speakers full-range which do not need subs?

Ps Watching Avatar ( digital ) on my speakers is a blast adding subs doesnt come to mind it never has , tape rolls of slightly its not the speakers or tube amp its the medium in this case , its not the best way to show of Force

I d have to think about that nothing comes to mind fast , .... I was planning to go to a proper show but due to covid that answer has to wait

 

[LL21]

Watching Avatar ( digital ) on my speakers is a blast , tape rolls of slightly .

I d have to think about that , ....

The reason I ask is because I have never heard a speaker I either did not prefer with subs or did not think I would like to hear it with subs. The ONLY exceptions are 4-tower system speakers which essentially already had dedicated subs. i think it is because the enormous amount of energy required to maintain that sense of scale and venue, that sense of aural space around you is exceedingly hard to do unless you have something which is only focused on sub 30-35hz (many dedicated sub owners start the sub at 28hz and work down) that also can be setup/calibrated independently as Microstrip says.

 

[sujay]

The reason I ask is because I have never heard a speaker I either did not prefer with subs or did not think I would like to hear it with subs. The ONLY exceptions are 4-tower system speakers which essentially already had dedicated subs. i think it is because the enormous amount of energy required to maintain that sense of scale and venue, that sense of aural space around you is exceedingly hard to do unless you have something which is only focused on sub 30-35hz (many dedicated sub owners start the sub at 28hz and work down) that also can be setup/calibrated independently as Microstrip says.

Based on my experience, I completely agree with you. I can understand why a speaker designer can get all defensive about his/her design. It’s human nature. And it’s not about whether a full range speaker ‘needs’ a sub. It’s about whether it benefits from one....... and in my experience it does, at least ones I have heard, full range or otherwise.

 

[andromedaaudio]

The reason I ask is because I have never heard a speaker I either did not prefer with subs or did not think I would like to hear it with subs. The ONLY exceptions are 4-tower system speakers which essentially already had dedicated subs. i think it is because the enormous amount of energy required to maintain that sense of scale and venue, that sense of aural space around you is exceedingly hard to do unless you have something which is only focused on sub 30-35hz (many dedicated sub owners start the sub at 28hz and work down) that also can be setup/calibrated independently as Microstrip says.

I dont know may be i listen a bit different / am more sensitive/ perfectionistic towards lower end freq. reproduction , i ve just never liked it .
It does more wrong then good imo .

 

[LL21]

Based on my experience, I completely agree with you. I can understand why a speaker designer can get all defensive about his/her design. It’s human nature. And it’s not about whether a full range speaker ‘needs’ a sub. It’s about whether it benefits from one....... and in my experience it does, at least ones I have heard, full range or otherwise.

Hi Sujay,

Great to hear from you. Yes, I also think it is important to acknowledge that full-range means it reaches the full range of 20hz to 20khz or even slightly higher at a level that at a certain distance/measurement, the entire spectrum is relative solid all the way through (ie no major roll-off).

However, somehow, I think about real-world spaces, real world volumes...and i do wonder how many speakers can keep it up sub 30hz-35hz with their upper mids, treble, even upper bass...plus I think even at low volumes having extra air pressure at sub 35hz makes a big difference in the impression of realism.

 

[andromedaaudio]

I can understand why a speaker designer can get all defensive about his/her design

Thats not the point i dont need to persuade anybody to buy my speakers , i m luckily enough financially independant.
This is just sharing thoughts on a forum based on expiriences

 

[LL21]

I dont know may be i listen a bit different / am more sensitive/ perfectionistic towards lower end freq. reproduction , i ve just never liked it .
It does more wrong then good imo .

Yes, I could understand your wanting seamlessness, and I can respect that.

For me, I would sacrifice seamlessness for that sense of effortlessness and that sense of venue and space around you when you listen. That requires scale, cone surface area, independently adjustable bass...something. But that for me, now that we have the sub, it is just simply not something I would give up for the sake of pure seamlessness and coherence but that cannot provide that all-out effortlessness of scale and sense of aural space and venue.

And that is 1 x 18" sub with servo...I am now investigating 4 x 18" subs...why? because even when played at low volumes, I am curious as to whether the symphony hall sense of space appears even more solidly around the entire room when the amount of air moving (no matter how quietly) can create that sense of symphony hall.

 

[sujay]

Hi Sujay,

Great to hear from you. Yes, I also think it is important to acknowledge that full-range means it reaches the full range of 20hz to 20khz or even slightly higher at a level that at a certain distance/measurement, the entire spectrum is relative solid all the way through (ie no major roll-off).

However, somehow, I think about real-world spaces, real world volumes...and i do wonder how many speakers can keep it up sub 30hz-35hz with their upper mids, treble, even upper bass...plus I think even at low volumes having extra air pressure at sub 35hz makes a big difference in the impression of realism.

Absolutely! It’s one thing to be full range and completely another to know what the speaker outputs at 20 hz in the real world. The sub 35hz region is where I think it really helps to have a sub.

 

[sujay]

Thats not the point i dont need to persuade anybody to buy my speakers , i m luckily enough financially independant.
This is just sharing thoughts on a forum based on expiriences

Oh it’s not about your speakers at all....was a general comment. I haven’t heard yours and I’m sure they are very good. I just feel, given my experience, even your speakers might benefit. They may well not ‘need’ them. To be fair, even as consumers we are defensive (sometimes more than the manufacturers) about our choices of equipment.....

 

[sbo6]

Then the Arrakis despite its size aint a full range design afterall also , i might sound like a smart ass but i tell it like i see it , i have heard rell subs quite a few times , not my cup a tea

I know Arnie well as we live 20 minutes apart and have heard his system evolve over the years and I can tell you that the move from 2 older Rels to the Rel 6 pack was not subtle. And his system is one of the best I've ever heard (and continues to improve).

Also, speakers that benefit from subs doesn't necessarily have to do with being full range, it has to do with leveling out the room modes and in some cases augmenting ultra - low bass. I don't think you're accounting for that reality with any speaker in any reasonably sized room.

 

[LL21]

I know Arnie well as we live 20 minutes apart and have heard his system evolve over the years and I can tell you that the move from 2 older Rels to the Rel 6 pack was not subtle. And his system is one of the best I've ever heard (and continues to improve).

Also, speakers that benefit from subs doesn't necessarily have to do with being full range, it has to do with leveling out the room modes and in some cases augmenting ultra - low bass. I don't think you're accounting for that reality with any speaker in any reasonably sized room.

Thanks for that...great to hear from those who know that system well. Having heard the Rockport driven by VTL Sigfried IIs in HK, I have always admired Arnie's system from afar!

 

[andromedaaudio]

Regarding room size versus speaker size there is an optimum for sure , you cant expect great sound from a small speaker in a large room and vice versa , although putting a too big speaker in a smaller room would be preferable if i had to take an option .

From what i can recall from the early versions of the arrakis, rockport used audio technologie bass drivers these were very low efficiency woofers at the time iirc 82 db eff. or something like that.
Later ( from what i could see at least) it was a different version with a custom designed rock port carbon fiber woofer membrane .

In a passive loud speaker design with a dedicated bass driver for the low freq , its the bass drivers efficiency which will later determine the overall efficiency of the LS , if the mids / tweeter play on a too high level one can tune these down with resistor networks and level the balance .
Increasing the relative woofers out put however is not possible as it instantly would make it an active system, so the correct woofers choice " efficiency " is crucial in a Full range passive design
To Increase the bass drivers output it would require a dedicated woofer amp with volume adjustment making it an active system .

Going by all the comments here, people seem to prefer that way as the optimum way to balance their systems out .

What i am saying is :

If there is an optimal balance already in a passive design meaning the woofers will ideally match the mids/ tw transition , there would not be a need for a dedicated adjustable woofer amp in the speaker or a complimentary active sub .

As there is no mention of a current arrakis on the website here is some old info ., it was a bi - amp design with an adjustable X over , but no active parts (amplifier) in it .
The use of the relatively low efficiency 15 inch woofer in the arrakis could have easily made it sound lean despite the fact it being a huge speaker , its all about perceived balance which is important.

Ps Regarding Bi Amping , if you drive the LF section of the arrakis ( i assume this is the 2 * 15 inchers section ) by a power amp with a 3-4 db higher gain then the amp used for the HF section ( mids tw.) and the adjustable X over has a level adjustment network it gives room to balance things out as well off course .
Assuming the 2 amps used for bi amping get the exact same signal from the ( double output ) pre amp

 

[LL21]

Thanks, Andromeda. Having heard the Rockport Arrakis, it was not lean at all...probably the best, most propulsive bass of any speaker period, and the bass was literally making my trousers flap while putting my fingers to the outer rim of the bass enclosure...i literally could not tell if the speaker was on or off...it was that dead still. Remarkable enclosure quality as well as sound quality.

HOWEVER, as 'internally perfect' as that design might be...2 x 15" cones are still not going to match 2 sub towers with 6 x 12" cones each when it comes to the scale of an 80-piece orchestra in a hall.

And that is why I believe that properly setup, even if there is sacrifice in coherence, the ability to scale the Arrakis up further is an important piece of the puzzle for me.

BTW, coming back, have you come across any 2-speakers (ie not 4-towers) more widely available that you feel are truly full range?

 

[LL21]

Thanks, Andromeda. Having heard the Rockport Arrakis, it was not lean at all...probably the best, most propulsive bass of any speaker period, and the bass was literally making my trousers flap while putting my fingers to the outer rim of the bass enclosure...i literally could not tell if the speaker was on or off...it was that dead still. Remarkable enclosure quality as well as sound quality.

HOWEVER, as 'internally perfect' as that design might be...2 x 15" cones are still not going to match 2 sub towers with 6 x 12" cones each when it comes to the scale of an 80-piece orchestra in a hall.

And that is why I believe that properly setup, even if there is sacrifice in coherence, the ability to scale the Arrakis up further is an important piece of the puzzle for me.

BTW, coming back, have you come across any 2-speakers (ie not 4-towers) more widely available that you feel are truly full range?

And by the way, I think Arnie crosses over his 6 x REL subs at various points ranging between 23hz and 28hz...so it truly is about getting that subterranean/infrasonic stuff right does require massive amounts of cone area it seems. I remember hearing that Dan D'Agostino had SIX Krell Master Ref Subs (12 x 15" cones) paired with his Wilson Grand Slamms at one point.