What is the most musical, fast and accurate subwoofer you have heard?
- Thread starter treitz3
- Start date
At the crossover the main problem is getting the mains in phase with the sub(s). That can be a problem with a single sub. The subs must also be in phase with each other as measured at the main listening position (MLP) or you will get multiple peaks and valleys in the frequency response depending upon where the subs' outputs combine constructively (add) and destructively (subtract). That is related to the relative phase among them and distance to boundaries and the listener(s).
One of the biggest hurdles I see with 2 channel enthusiasts is the resistance to measurements with a microphone. I would disagree that DSP is required for great performance. It is yet another tool. While fine tuning, exact spectral balance, and subjective preferences aren't immediately clear with a microphone, it is a wonderful and now very inexpensive tool to diagnose offensive bass issues and give direction toward solutions. I've mentioned it before, but again I'll reiterate that the method of achieving relatively even delivery of the entire bass range is much less important than the achievement. Excellent results can be had in some rooms simply through placement and treatments. Many do not have the placement flexibility or spaces that make this plausible, but there is no reason for those reluctant to employ DSP correction to turn their nose up at the information and insight a few measurements can provide.
The best world music concert halls are designed from calculated measurements. There is no difference with ultra hi-end home music listening rooms.
The room is the main DSP calibration and EQ program system in tandem with the loudspeakers (and subwoofers) positioning.
A live classical orchestra doesn't use DSP chips/pedals, and neither ultra audio purists. Besides, they are analog audiophiles; no digital pizza in the chain.
_____
There are two main worlds in audio; stereo (including mono), and multichannel. The former is the dedicated puritan audio philosopher, the later the 3-dimensional audio explorer.
The subwoofers have various roles in each world. And now the best subwoofers come with their own integrated DSP EQ programs. And yet, in the world of multichannel it's not even used because the pre/pro has its own DSP program, so there is no use to have them both working as it complicates things to the detriment of sound quality and simplicity.
In my limited view of the two worlds, one type of sub is not necessarily right with both worlds.
* This particular thread right here, from my understanding, is related to the stereo music listening world.
And the room is already determined in its dimensions.
The question: How far acoustically is the room treated and how much freedom is there in speakers/subwoofers positioning?
Then we can concentrate on which subwoofer's brand and model. ...DSP included, or not. ...Quality designed driver(s), sealed box enclosure, plate amp, crossover, phase, integration with the mains and the room and the main listening position.
The room is the main DSP calibration and EQ program system in tandem with the loudspeakers (and subwoofers) positioning.
A live classical orchestra doesn't use DSP chips/pedals, and neither ultra audio purists. Besides, they are analog audiophiles; no digital pizza in the chain.
_____
There are two main worlds in audio; stereo (including mono), and multichannel. The former is the dedicated puritan audio philosopher, the later the 3-dimensional audio explorer.
The subwoofers have various roles in each world. And now the best subwoofers come with their own integrated DSP EQ programs. And yet, in the world of multichannel it's not even used because the pre/pro has its own DSP program, so there is no use to have them both working as it complicates things to the detriment of sound quality and simplicity.
In my limited view of the two worlds, one type of sub is not necessarily right with both worlds.
* This particular thread right here, from my understanding, is related to the stereo music listening world.
And the room is already determined in its dimensions.
The question: How far acoustically is the room treated and how much freedom is there in speakers/subwoofers positioning?
Then we can concentrate on which subwoofer's brand and model. ...DSP included, or not. ...Quality designed driver(s), sealed box enclosure, plate amp, crossover, phase, integration with the mains and the room and the main listening position.
I don't think that it's a matter of turning noses up Mark, IME taking measurements without having proper understanding of the fundamentals is only an exercise in futility. Most audiophiles and even many so called "experts" lack this basic knowledge. What's the value of sticking a microphone in a chair and getting a bunch of readings that are most likely erroneous? If anything they can lead the person further down the rabbit hole.
david
I think measurements have a value and I've certainly gained from seeing them for my room (thank you Gary
). but being a slave to or having blind faith in measurements is a mistake. measurements do allow you to attack gross FR problems with the best tools. and 'seat of the pants' 'by ear' will likely never get you close to a solution. however; when things are in the green 'ok' zone then I think ears are better for fine tuning. music is a dynamic changing sort of thing and the best musical truth is a subjective thing.
I do accept that a speaker designer who regularly uses measurements to set up their own speakers might be the exception to my viewpoint (it takes lots of experience to properly take and apply measurements). OTOH it's also possible that their knowledge gets in the way sometimes.
just my own opinion, YMMV, and all that stuff.
Last edited:
Bob,
We will disagree on this one. To speed things I will just quote Wikipedia:
Musikverein the "Great Hall" (Großer Saal) due to its highly regarded acoustics is considered one of the finest concert halls in the world, along with Berlin's Konzerthaus, the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, and Boston's Symphony Hall.[1] None of these halls was built in the modern era with the application of acoustics science and all share a long, tall, and narrow shoebox shape.
Unfortunately we never had any direct evidence of the cases of success. The fortunate owners of SOTA rooms do not dare to post the measurements taken during their creation and current measurements.
IMHO measurements can be nice to help diagnostics and control, but not to correct problems.
BTW, IMHO a single unique measurement of the frequency response at the listening position, as shown in 99% of forum posts, can be highly misleading. Surely YMMV.
While a fair point, if you consider the speed and accuracy with which so many can cite detailed specifications and spectacular claims of so many products, learning a process for getting a first look at what sound is getting to the listener is hardly beyond our cognitive capacity.
I certainly recognize there are many who cling to their microphone for all the answers, even those the device is not well suited to explain or demonstrate. If you look to most all skilled and experienced system calibrators, they will all acknowledge that the final bits of overall spectral balance, soundstaging and imaging are best confirmed by ear and at best some more advanced measurements techniques could help identify the cause of an observed issue, rather than identifying it in the first place. Measurements can help confirm which direction a change shifted certain qualities, but often tell you when you are finally there, or at least is very inefficient at doing so.
I could probably easily come up with 5 levels of understanding of acoustic measurements, and none eliminate observation and listening as part of the process.
My intended point in the prior post is that no level of toe in and 1/2" movements are going to cut through a 15dB, 1/2 octave wide hole below 150Hz. The bigger issues is often that the measurements deviate so far from the flat lines show from our electronic components that enthusiasts have no idea what is OK vs bad response.
Of course blindly chasing a single measurement can often destroy other qualities of a system, which is why getting a great result from so many variables is so tricky.
I think measurements have a value and I've certainly gained from seeing them for my room (thank you Gary
measurements do allow you to attack gross FR problems with the best tools. and 'seat of the pants' 'by ear' will likely never get you close to a solution. however; when things are in the green 'ok' zone then I think ears are better for fine tuning. music is a dynamic changing sort of thing and the best musical truth is a subjective thing.
I do accept that a speaker designer who regularly uses measurements to set up their own speakers might be the exception to my viewpoint (it takes lots of experience to properly take and apply measurements). OTOH it's also possible that their knowledge gets in the way sometimes.
just my own opinion, YMMV, and all that stuff.
To be sure I agree with the above in general. When ever we get engrossed in measurements the hardest part is to keep stepping back to make sure any changes have continued to make a wholesale improvement rather than just trade one fault for another. I also fully agree that once in the "green zone," as you put it, listening is a primary guide to any adjustments. The reason for this is that we simply never have the time to collect enough measurements nor view them in a collective manner that would provide an all encompassing view of the system's sound.
With competent measurement systems having the low bar of entry of a PC, a $75 USB micrphone and a mic stand, or even $300-400 for a more turnkey system, the cost and requirement of exotic gear is gone to start learning and experimenting. Remember that most gear peddlers of the industry have little interest in enlightening owners to such options as it pulls away from the endless cycle of changing out parts.
The best, i.e. "natural" sounding rooms I've been in weren't designed for audio reproduction Francisco and sometimes you feel it naturally as soon as you step inside the space. My experience with 100% of the "SOTA" audiophile rooms has been negative, because they've been designed to do things you hear and feel their presence and add yet another competing layer of coloration to natural presentation of music. IMO it's a trap that audiophiles and designers fall into not unlike any other high end paraphernalia. Measurements plot the level of a single frequency at a given time in a single location so much more is left out of the equation...
I think measurements have a value and I've certainly gained from seeing them for my room (thank you Gary
measurements do allow you to attack gross FR problems with the best tools. and 'seat of the pants' 'by ear' will likely never get you close to a solution. however; when things are in the green 'ok' zone then I think ears are better for fine tuning. music is a dynamic changing sort of thing and the best musical truth is a subjective thing.
I do accept that a speaker designer who regularly uses measurements to set up their own speakers might be the exception to my viewpoint (it takes lots of experience to properly take and apply measurements). OTOH it's also possible that their knowledge gets in the way sometimes.
just my own opinion, YMMV, and all that stuff.
That was part of my point, Gary's not your average audiophile he has the expertise to take proper measurements and understand them. I disagree with gross FR problems; if you can't hear the gross obvious then you need someone who does. 2nd, measurements don't give you the tools to do anything, at best they can point to a potential problem, tackling it is an entirely separate deal.
david
Last edited:
It's not easy even for experienced listeners and measurements to identify *some* gross problems. The measurements I took of Mike's room only began to point out potential areas to address in very broad strokes and let alone identify specific potential problems. They did not show that he had one of four woofers wired out of phase, and I have to admit that I certainly did not hear that!! However, that may have been masked by other room problems as many other experienced listeners had gone through his room without noticing.
But you found the problem! I'm not against measurements my point was that they're worthless for most people unless the operator is experienced and knowledgeable, which you are; I don't know of anyone else who could have found a single out of phase woofer in an array like that!
I agree setup/system problems aren't easy to isolate even when you know something's off and as you mention there's usually more than one thing going on and not necessarily room related. Experienced listeners usually play a passive role, they spend a little time to listen and walk away or at best might make a passing comment if they think the host is open to it...
david
I think that we can design great rooms and great subwoofers without taking measurements. But in general, before, or after, sound is a science still full of mysteries...
I could direct to many links, it's a fascinating subject; acoustics. Only five....
• http://fusion.net/story/226407/sound-architecture/
• http://www.businessinsider.com/best-concert-halls-in-the-world-2016-10
• https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2015/mar/05/10-worlds-best-concert-halls-berlin-boston-tokyo
• http://mariobon.com/Articoli_storici/AAA_2003_Beranek_Articolo_eightyeighthalls.pdf
• http://www.fujitsu-ten.com/business/technicaljournal/pdf/5-6E.pdf
_______
The furniture, the audience (full or empty hall), the sculptures, the paintings, every crevasses, the paint (thickness), the colors, the curves, the reverb time, the seats, the sound stage, the coulisses, the backstage, the ceilings, the side and rear walls, the overall shape and dimensions, and one million plus other "gold decorations"...all contribute to the objective and subjective preferred acoustics by the the average expert world ears from the best world's halls.
Two hundred years ago (and hundred years ago), they didn't have the measuring tools available today, but they did have their own measure of acoustic standards.
They experimented with what they knew best @ the time; sumptuous decors, gorgeous looks, exotic and expensive materials, richness, music comfort, dispersion, reverberation, ...
_________
Today we can go to an audio dealer showroom, to an international audio show, to an audiophile room, ...listening to the music playing through the system in each room and with the music of our choice or not, old or/and new music, and experience a multitude of various acoustical characteristics that are are more or less pleasant according to our personal preferences. The art of sound is a balance between magic and calculation. The performance is the maestro with the baton, and the orchestra in the room his tool.
The audience, us, we are simply a witness of an event...of a two-hour music concert...a musical journey. The magic is in the imperfection, in the non-measurable.
So yes, I agree to the extent of its true meaning.
_________
What is a musical, fast and accurate subwoofer? First, what is musical? ...Then, what is fast?...And last, what is accuracy?
Can we measure subjectively, and objectively those three attributes that just don't rhyme with a subwoofer? ...Because for most experienced audio people there is no such thing as a musical subwoofer, as a fast subwoofer. And accuracy is not synonymous of preferred audio perfection.
Me honestly thinks that today we have many great subwoofers in all prices category. ...From just under $500 to over $50,000
I have a music listening room in my home; I evaluate that room @ roughly $30,000 (more or less). The dimensions of that room with my taste in music will help me pick a pair or more of appropriate subs. What's the best sub for my room? The one that I will be happy listening to all my music playing and with certainty. ...Till I experiment more...and till the ends of time...
Life is like a clock; it'll never stop ticking...
_____
SVS, Rythmik, HSU, REL, Paradigm, JL Audio, PSB, PMC, RBH, Seaton, Velodyne, ...dozens more subwoofer brands.
What is, which one? Who knows with 100% certitude for each one of us in our own each room and gear and mains?
EXPERIMENT ...Read WBF and the member's own systems, check all the multitude of variations, realize all the possibilities and capabilities and sensibilities...
Is a Magico sub part of a consideration? ...Krell sub? ...Submersive?
About a pair of REL subs? ...Or two affordable Rythmik ones?
EXPERIMENT in your own room with your own music, gear, mains, and according to the money figure travelling in your mind...that can vary with experimentation.
Our best adviser? ...The doctor we trust. :b ...Our mental and physical health is worth more than all the gold @ Fort Knox.
And music listening is part of a balanced and healthy diet.
______
If only we could bring (teleportation) the best world concert hall in our own listening room...with the best live music performances...
Last edited:
You might be able to build up a very good sounding room with just a tape measure and a bit of experienced intuition, but good luck reproducing that at even 3 different size spaces without some science to understand why the first one worked. As for subwoofers, you might get lucky with an IB or dipole sub using some general guidelines and a lot of plug-n-pray experimentation, but acoustic measurements (or at minimum electro-acoustic parameters) are absolutely required to make a great sounding and performing subwoofer, and I know of none I would consider great that didn't involve plenty of measurement during development.
Hi Mark,
Some music concert halls built over hundred years ago are some of the most preferred ones acoustically in the world; I agreed with Francisco (microstrip).
I did some reading, and even back then they did have some basic acoustical knowledge. ...But without the tools available today.
I also agree with you, in particular in our own rooms @ home with subwoofer's integration. Those aren't concert halls, they are reproduction home room music systems, with audio electronic components and mechanical/electric loudspeakers and subwoofers and crossovers. Concert halls (the ones I'm thinking of here) are generally for live acoustic music, without electronics in the music signals path. ...Orchestral works, operas and ballets, etc. An organ doesn't need amplification for example.
The dimensions of our rooms @ home are much smaller, and the art of measurements is a must...IMSO. Some might disagree among some purists, and that's mighty fine by me; their ears and system and taste in the art of music listening from the full audio spectrum...20-20...is theirs. With music science can only do so much, the rest reposes in the balance of sound interpretation for each one of us and depending of our experience and sense of exploration and the understanding of measurements with the space and phase we're in and for each different room.
Yes, 100% with you on the acoustic basics of low frequencies.
Some music concert halls built over hundred years ago are some of the most preferred ones acoustically in the world; I agreed with Francisco (microstrip).
I did some reading, and even back then they did have some basic acoustical knowledge. ...But without the tools available today.
I also agree with you, in particular in our own rooms @ home with subwoofer's integration. Those aren't concert halls, they are reproduction home room music systems, with audio electronic components and mechanical/electric loudspeakers and subwoofers and crossovers. Concert halls (the ones I'm thinking of here) are generally for live acoustic music, without electronics in the music signals path. ...Orchestral works, operas and ballets, etc. An organ doesn't need amplification for example.
The dimensions of our rooms @ home are much smaller, and the art of measurements is a must...IMSO. Some might disagree among some purists, and that's mighty fine by me; their ears and system and taste in the art of music listening from the full audio spectrum...20-20...is theirs. With music science can only do so much, the rest reposes in the balance of sound interpretation for each one of us and depending of our experience and sense of exploration and the understanding of measurements with the space and phase we're in and for each different room.
Yes, 100% with you on the acoustic basics of low frequencies.
Last edited:
Bob, concert halls fall in a different acoustic domain than home listening spaces. They are considered "large" which in technical terms means their transition frequency where you get modal response is down to 20 Hz or even lower. In typical listening spaces in our homes, we are at 200 to 300 Hz. Meaning below that, we have lots of peaks and valleys which are far more easily identified with measurements than ear.
The large vs small is just physics of the room and cannot be worked around. Large room acoustics as a result, is a different animal than what we have to deal with at home. In general, in small rooms, you always, always have bass problems. Whereas in large spaces, that cannot be said.
Yes Amir, I understand that, and I mentioned it above in my added up.
* I started that distinction couple days ago or so with that mention of some of the world's best acoustic music concert halls.
And Francisco brought up a great reply.
In our own rooms @ home it's totally different; we are relying in closed confined spaces and our electronics. ...Restricted and less than ideal acoustics.
The acoustics are much tougher to deal with, and with the master volume level @ eleven even more so.
* Last night I revisited X-Men: Apocalypse (3D Blu-ray), and it's a well recorded BR flick with some great low frequencies. :b
And yet I have the most crappy subwoofers of them all. I can only imagine with a couple of quality Rythmik subwoofers, or SVS ones, or HSU...
I know, it's only a movie, and it's multichannel (7.1); nothing even remotely closed to a quality stereo music record (vinyl), lossless analog.
* I started that distinction couple days ago or so with that mention of some of the world's best acoustic music concert halls.
And Francisco brought up a great reply.
In our own rooms @ home it's totally different; we are relying in closed confined spaces and our electronics. ...Restricted and less than ideal acoustics.
The acoustics are much tougher to deal with, and with the master volume level @ eleven even more so.
* Last night I revisited X-Men: Apocalypse (3D Blu-ray), and it's a well recorded BR flick with some great low frequencies. :b
And yet I have the most crappy subwoofers of them all. I can only imagine with a couple of quality Rythmik subwoofers, or SVS ones, or HSU...
I know, it's only a movie, and it's multichannel (7.1); nothing even remotely closed to a quality stereo music record (vinyl), lossless analog.
Similar threads
Members online
- Artnet
- 3776Meters
- jbrrp1
- Corinthian
- Kingrex
- 4dr.no
- asiufy
- JimmyJet
- rau
- Blake
- schnittlich
- Król_Artur
- Bruce B
- dminches
- Juiced
- shel50
- sukmano
- alank46
- jazdoc
- Marck1973
- Kingsrule
- ticktock
- the sound of Tao
- Jazzman53
- Casasky
- J007B
- orrman
- andromedaaudio
- marty
- audiobomber
- averagemusicenjoyer
- PYP
- SlapEcho
- nkbg
- Tuckia
- Geoffkait
- Lazz
- UncleE
- oldvinyl
- alwayslearning
- cdka
- Foxbat
- Salectric
- GroovySauce
- Reality Audio
- Nicktube
- abeidrov
- mainelotus
- kswanson27
- John T
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |