Today a special listening

[BruceD]

Mighty Interesting thread here--- I good friend of mine asked Franco Serblin(RIP) years back at a European show what Sub he recommended for his SFG's--- None!

Although SF did make a small domestic Sub for their speakers he reiterated NOT for the Homages.

I had the Muse Subs with my Avalon Ascent II's --the Muse had user changeable frequency data cards that one inserted for the speaker used /etc-

-no other seem to have picked up on Kevin's technique that I've heard of.


BruceD

 

[sbo6]

Mighty Interesting thread here--- I good friend of mine asked Franco Serblin(RIP) years back at a European show what Sub he recommended for his SFG's--- None!

Although SF did make a small domestic Sub for their speakers he reiterated NOT for the Homages.

I had the Muse Subs with my Avalon Ascent II's --the Muse had user changeable frequency data cards that one inserted for the speaker used /etc-

-no other seem to have picked up on Kevin's technique that I've heard of.


BruceD

I think Martin Logan had something similar with the CLX and Descent subs.

 

[Tango]

Using subs, imo, is similar to putting a turbo on an Aventador. Most mini monitors are purposefully designed to excel as a stand alone. Additional woofers are just not in design parameters If you can integrate them seamlessly, you are definitely a guru and can have a profession in this field.

Tang

 

[BruceD]

I think Martin Logan had something similar with the CLX and Descent subs.

Oh thank you--I must say I cannot recall it ever coming up in User reviews /etc--I presume it "worked" in operation not just in theory

BruceD

 

[ddk]

Using subs, imo, is similar to putting a turbo on an Aventador. Most mini monitors are purposefully designed to excel as a stand alone. Additional woofers are just not in design parameters If you can integrate them seamlessly, you are definitely a guru and can have a profession in this field.

Tang

You need to get specific about which mini monitors there are too many crappy ones out there that are just hopeless. Looking at better designs pairing them with subs is no different than full range speakers, the sub counts. Personally I’ve never heard any active sub with digital xover and plate amps to fully integrate in any high end music system only in HT, but we all have different expectations.

david

 

[sbo6]

Using subs, imo, is similar to putting a turbo on an Aventador. Most mini monitors are purposefully designed to excel as a stand alone. Additional woofers are just not in design parameters If you can integrate them seamlessly, you are definitely a guru and can have a profession in this field.

Tang

Sorry Tang I have to disagree. Speakers and components, like most products have a budget. Then there's physics. Most "full range" speakers aren't even truly full range. I would recommend 1-2 subs for all speakers. I've heard subs with Arrakis and the augmented sound stage and sense of presence can't be disputed. But as you said, integration is key.

 

[DaveyF]

Mighty Interesting thread here--- I good friend of mine asked Franco Serblin(RIP) years back at a European show what Sub he recommended for his SFG's--- None!

Although SF did make a small domestic Sub for their speakers he reiterated NOT for the Homages.

I had the Muse Subs with my Avalon Ascent II's --the Muse had user changeable frequency data cards that one inserted for the speaker used /etc-

-no other seem to have picked up on Kevin's technique that I've heard of.


BruceD

Very interesting post. I think that Franco, rest his soul, was right and unfortunately wrong...
In his experience, and with the subs available to him at the time...and probably the rooms that he heard his speakers in...he was right. Unfortunately, like many designers, they can ultimately end up not totally knowing the extent of what their gear can do, simply because they never had the experience of hearing it when it is added to by another component or mod that allows for the increase.
I had a similar conversation with Ken Stevens a few years back, I told him that I was getting a much better sound out of his preamp after I had rolled in NOS tubes. He was having none of it, because in his experience the tubes that he supplied as stock were good enough. Only years later does he now know that rolling in tubes can prove to be very beneficial in his preamp.
I get excellent results with the small REL subs and their hookup scheme to a pair of SF GH’s. The biggest area where these particular speakers lag, is in the bass....and as such, I’m sure that Franco had not “experienced “ these type of subs with these speakers, otherwise I’m sure he wouldn’t have said what he did...

 

[Tango]

Looking at better designs pairing them with subs is no different than full range speakers, the sub counts.

It is easy for you to say my master Yoda because you know how to use the force.
But for most people including me, forget it. Get real. Knowing theory is one thing, implementing is another...requiring experiences.

Btw, do you happen to have the SL600 in one of your vaults ?

Kind regards,
Tang

 

[Al M.]

Very interesting post. I think that Franco, rest his soul, was right and unfortunately wrong...
In his experience, and with the subs available to him at the time...and probably the rooms that he heard his speakers in...he was right. Unfortunately, like many designers, they can ultimately end up not totally knowing the extent of what their gear can do, simply because they never had the experience of hearing it when it is added to by another component or mod that allows for the increase.

The designer of my Reference 3A MM DeCapo BE monitors liked my review of the speakers on WBF and links to it from his website. In it, I claim that pairing with a sub is essential. If he disagreed, he would have told me so.

It may also depend on which subs are used. A sub with a 15" woofer may work well with a full-range floorstander but may prove to be too much of a discontinuity with a monitor. My sub uses a 9" driver. I may lose the last few Hz, but that is less important than the ability to integrate.

BTW, as Peter pointed out, Magico do not recommend pairing a monitor with a sub. Yet their own subs are very large, so in this context I am not entirely surprised they would say that.

 

[JackD201]

Using subs, imo, is similar to putting a turbo on an Aventador. Most mini monitors are purposefully designed to excel as a stand alone. Additional woofers are just not in design parameters If you can integrate them seamlessly, you are definitely a guru and can have a profession in this field.

Tang

It is easier to do with 2 subs or more and comes with the physical and mental work but do it enough times, it really isn't that hard. The rule of thumb is simple. Felt but not heard. In other words, respect the mechanical roll off of the main speakers and gently cross the sub in. The problem is when people try to get punchiness from the subs. These are not what they are designed to do. If it were they would just be called woofers not sub-woofers.

 

[Tango]

It is easier to do with 2 subs or more and comes with the physical and mental work but do it enough times, it really isn't that hard. The rule of thumb is simple. Felt but not heard. In other words, respect the mechanical roll off of the main speakers and gently cross the sub in. The problem is when people try to get punchiness from the subs. These are not what they are designed to do. If it were they would just be called woofers not sub-woofers.

You have a prefession in this field Jack .

 

[bonzo75]

It's quite possible the bass quality of the sub is better than that of the speakers in which case you would want to do it at 80 Hz.

 

[christoph]

It's quite possible the bass quality of the sub is better than that of the speakers in which case you would want to do it at 80 Hz.

But in this case you would have to cross the main Speakers over at around 80hz and this almost always happens with an OP-amp loaden electronic x-over, so the whole frequency range of the main Speaker has to go through that eye of a needle.
Wouldn't it in this case be more sensible to let the main Speaker run fullrange (=aka unharmed by the electronic X-over of the subwoofer) and "underfill" with the subwoofer, where the main Speaker naturally rolls off?

 

[morricab]

I think we don't look at this issue in the same way. I don't know if one is more correct than the other. There are a lot of issues involved in this discussion, and this thread may not be the proper place to address them, but I will attempt to clarify my views.

It is not obvious to me that there is a distinction between clarity and realism. I think they are similar and closely related. If one hears less distinct sting plucking because he is too far away or the hall is absorbing some of those details, that just means that the real sound is less clear in that hall, or you are too far away to hear the details. Some recordings are very close mic'd and we don't often hear that either. I presume by "realism" you refer to the sound of real instruments. That obviously varies depending on many factors. So we are really talking about a range of actual sounds and when we are recalling that as a reference, we are talking about our memories of a range of sounds that we have heard over a period of time. The one overwhelming characteristic when I listen to orchestral sound at the BSO is "clarity". Regardless of where I sit, though it is usually up close in the center, what strikes me is the extreme clarity of each of the instruments. This is the same when I listen to a small ensemble in a living room or up on a small stage. Clarity, then energy. In my view, if the information is on the recording, then a system must convey these things for it to sound real, or close to real.

I am also conflicted about my goals. I do not know if I want my system to remind me of the sound of real instruments more than I want my system to try to more closely reproduce what has been captured on the recording. Regardless of the goal, I certainly do not want a system that inherently reduces clarity so that it sounds a bit more like some instrument that is in a warm, "fuller acoustic" so that "some of those details are less apparent, less 'clear'...." because I have heard a soft sounding cello once in a bad hall somewhere. If that acoustic is on the recording, I want to hear it. And clarity in a system is what will allow me to hear it from the recording.

I want my system to be clean, clear, transparent and neutral but I do not want it to impart a sterility or thinness, or sameness to every recording. This I think is the best way to reproduce the sounds captured on the recording. A really good full range speaker system in a great system can do that. So can a good two-way system, except that it is limited in frequency range which may rob it of some fullness, scale and weight. I have heard well integrated sub woofer systems which do not rob a system of clarity. But I have also heard subs that do, and I don't really know if it is because of integration issues, the alteration of tonal balance, or overall coherence. I just don't know how to better describe it, but I do know that my preference is for a cleaner sound than it is for one that is augmented by low frequencies if they sound unnatural or mask over details. Final resolution is the arbiter or me.

Perhaps it is the timing which people mention between disparate drivers. Perhaps it is tonal balance. Perhaps it is the obscuring of details or masking of some sort. I agree with you that not all live sound is super clear and detailed. The sound of a piano through a neighbor's window is one classic example. That is not about clarity, but we know it is real. It might have to do with dynamics and tone. Its sound still convinces us that it is real.

In my view, if one compares a system with and without a sub turned on, if the sub robs the system of clarity, something is wrong. I prefer the more clear sound. Others may prefer something else that the subs bring to the sound. Subs do not have to rob the system of clarity. Often, if well integrated, they both maintain system clarity and improve extension, fullness, weight and other nice things which make the system sound even more real. And in some cases, adding a sub will free up the lower drivers in a speaker and overall clarity will actually improve. But if turning on the sub decreases clarity, my preference is to turn it off.

I think we can agree that we both choose realism. I just think that we sometimes have a different notion of what realism sounds like. And that is fine, my friend.

I think there are several things being convoluted together here that I will try to unravel. First there should be no distinction or dichotomy between clarity and realism. The problem comes when you discuss real is "at what distance from the performers". The reason that this is important is that nearly all recordings are made up close...inlcuding large orchestral works. This means that real, sitting in the middle to rear of a hall, will never sound much like what is on a recording nor will it have the clarity that one regularly gets from good recordings. Even in the best halls it will still be lower than a good recording due to the reflections and losses from absoprtion and diffusion of the hall and people in the hall. Now, if you sit very close to the band or orchestra in a good hall you will have a very high degree of clarity.

IMO, the only live experiences that really truly qualify as references are those where you are close to the performers as would the microphones be on most recordings. This is especially true for unamplified performances. Most listening experiences at a distance are enjoyable but lack the impact of what can be deliverd live up close or from a great recording. I have only one recording in fact where I know for sure it was recorded at a distance. This is a recording given to me by the engineer himself so I have all details about it (it was taken at 6 meters distance from the orchestra and without compression and a minimal amound of equilization on a single stereo ribbon microphone). I have also made some recordings of solo violin, violin and piano, violin and cello and string quartet...all at close range (within 3 meters). Now, if all classical recordings were made in situ, meaning well into the auditorium (say middle center) then a more normal seating location for a live performance would likely translate better to what we hear on recordings. Recordings would also be less clear to some degree... but that is not what we get.

Some of the most striking performances I have heard have been chamber music where I was sitting very close to the performers. Those I take as mental reference when I listen to a piece of chamber music on my system. Only the above mentioned recording allows me some conception of how realistic my system sounds with large orchestra...most recordings and live don't translate becuase of hte stark difference in how you listen to an orchestra live vs. how they are recorded.

Realism and clarity don't necessarily have to go together because something can easily be live but not clear due to distance and environmental factors. That said, sitting up close and listening to a good recording of the same should provide a comparable experience live and recorded...if not the system in question has an issue.

Subwoofers can be well integrated but consideration for timing and phase are paramount...not the smoothness of the FR. IMO, two-way systems offer better integration compared to most multi-way but a small monitor cannot deliver the level of realism one gets sitting close to a Jazz band or string quartet...perhaps a solo voice or guitar but otherwise not really if we are honest with ourselves. I have been hesitant to go with more than a two-way horn because of the integration issues I have heard with most multi-way horns, which IMO robs realism. I have heard one that doesn't do this but it is unaffordable to me. However, I have found that my two-way horn delivers more impact and realism than nearly all multi-way cone/dome speakers I know and quite a bit more than monitor speakers like Reference 3a, which I know the sound of very well.

 

[Tango]

Gian,

Next "Today a special listening" of yours can be 3-4-way with subs huh?

Tang

 

[ddk]

It is easy for you to say my master Yoda because you know how to use the force.
But for most people including me, forget it. Get real. Knowing theory is one thing, implementing is another...requiring experiences.

Btw, do you happen to have the SL600 in one of your vaults ?

Kind regards,
Tang

Yes, even a complete System 6000 NOS set.

A lot of it comes down to the sub, a good passive one matching the main speakers isn’t a big deal to blend in but active subs create problems. Not much one can do with a malfunctioning light saber if it won’t cut!

david

 

[morricab]

It is easier to do with 2 subs or more and comes with the physical and mental work but do it enough times, it really isn't that hard. The rule of thumb is simple. Felt but not heard. In other words, respect the mechanical roll off of the main speakers and gently cross the sub in. The problem is when people try to get punchiness from the subs. These are not what they are designed to do. If it were they would just be called woofers not sub-woofers.

I disagree with you regarding punchinesss. I have found that this has everything to do with timing and phase (ie. integration). If it is integrated properly with regard to timing then it will give even more impact to that small speaker that doesn't have the solid bottom end. That punchiness is smeared when the subwoofer is not moving in harmony with the mid/bass and tweeter that actually give the "thwack" sound (it is in fact upper frequencies and not bass per se). The fundamental and the harmonics have to be in time or it won't have punchiness...nothing to do with the sub per se.

 

[morricab]

But in this case you would have to cross the main Speakers over at around 80hz and this almost always happens with an OP-amp loaden electronic x-over, so the whole frequency range of the main Speaker has to go through that eye of a needle.
Wouldn't it in this case be more sensible to let the main Speaker run fullrange (=aka unharmed by the electronic X-over of the subwoofer) and "underfill" with the subwoofer, where the main Speaker naturally rolls off?

Having tried both numerous times, I would say the best strategy I have found is the fullrange and fill in with the sub concept and not to high pass the main speaker. I tried this with the Accuphase F25, Bryston 10B sub and even passively. Letting the speaker roll off and then blending with the sub always worked better.

 

[morricab]

Yes, even a complete System 6000 NOS set.

A lot of it comes down to the sub, a good passive one matching the main speakers isn’t a big deal to blend in but active subs create problems. Not much one can do with a malfunctioning light saber if it won’t cut!

david

I have found the bigger problem is the type of amplification used in the sub...I have had more difficulty blending Class D based subs than traditional Class A/B amps in the subs... Also, the proximity of the subs to the main speakers and how this affects the time/phase relationship is critical to get it singing together.

 

[ddk]

I have found the bigger problem is the type of amplification used in the sub...I have had more difficulty blending Class D based subs than traditional Class A/B amps in the subs... Also, the proximity of the subs to the main speakers and how this affects the time/phase relationship is critical to get it singing together.

IME matching sub amplification to main speakers is critical and will make or break the installation, sub placement is no different than main speaker placement have to listen and figure it out the same way as part of the overall placement process. Of course no need to mention the importance of an analog crossover which is also rare these days.

david