$30K Budget - On the quest for my "end game" speaker

[fubarnow]

Open Baffle

Home, Open Baffle Speakers - PureAudioProject

www.pureaudioproject.com

 

[FrantzM]

So coming back to the room EQ and room treatment topics, including multi sub approach … Been doing a lot of reading on this topic past days and I am starting to lean in a fully different direction. I am sure this will be sacrilege for many here, and that’s ok, we can discuss like adults … but my conclusion is that if a speaker requires EQ and room treatment to sound right, it is a flawed design to begin with. Thoughts?

On the multi sub approach specifically, I am referring especially to a post by our local very large brain (much bigger than mine, that’s for sure) @j_j that really got me to thinking and researching more deeply …

https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...fferent-than-digital-right.37657/post-1490035

Hi
I am not sure it is a black and white situation. We mentioned these often in this thread: good (smooth) anechoic response in an off-axis, good directivity, low distortion and absence of compression... Speakers that do present these traits tend to sound reasonably good.. in most rooms, likely they would sound better with a modicum of treatment but..
For the way our hearing apparatus works and because of physics, the best way to have smooth bass response in a room, is multiple subwoofers and DSP. Best pass almost mandates DSP. One can debate ad infinitum, the two best known approaches, at this point in time that seem to work and well are The Harman/Toole/Welti/Devantier methos that preconizes subwoofer at the midpoint in a rectangular room, or the less documented Geddes method that goes for 3 subwoofers in a quasi-random positioning, one of those in the front corner... Both work.
One could retort that some speakers are full range and may not need subwoofers, Well this is true, but best bass even with full range requires DSP... we coudl actually call this a mandate. In some ways, the woofer section of those full range are in fact low frequency transducers .. in that case two... Thus multiple subwoofers if it really full range full dynamics.. Stretching it a bit but there is truth to that. Same speakers + external subwoofers, even inexpensive subwoofers would have presented better bass reproduction in most rooms , most of the times.

I hasten to say that none of those are easy to implement. I am one of the most vocal supporter and proponent of the multiple subwoofers approach in particular the Geddes method; it is important to stress the difficulty in integrating multiple subwoofers. MSO which is touted , rightly perhaps, as a savior is very difficult to learn and understand. Not impossible but it takes time and understanding, thus research and more research to correctly interpret results ... Yes some of us are able to , most of us, even experienced may not want to dedicate so much time to extract the max from an audio system.. It is honestly quite frustrating at times; even when you think you have a decent understanding of those software and of acoustics.

Some DRC are intrinsically very capable ( I am talking to you Audyssey!!) but require a lot of work to ... work well. I don't know much about Dirac but it seems quite capable too but doesn't do much in the bass, unless you pay more, for DLBC. There are others, DEQX is an example of a company that produces a very good unit by all accounts. Lyngdrof took the old TaCT DRC and seems to be extremely good and not cheap. I believe in an endgame system DRC/DSP is required. Not because the speakers aren''t good but because of .. Physics.
And that is what I find attractive in some companies: Storm's prepro, is good by many accounts but Trinnov seems to take its DRC and its support ( support shall be needed, don't fool yourself), to a different level. If I am going endgame this is something I want, lest I spend many afternoons working and not being satisfied. It would be appropriate to request the opinions of those with Lyngdorf, Storm or Trinnov, etc.

I would advise to not overanalyze or else paralysis will ensue. Get your speakers from the short list you have in mind, I am sure you do , and prepare yourself to work (a lot) to extract the max from these. That is where support will make the greatest difference...

Peace.

 

[steve59]

Makes sense to put room size and speaker placement necessities at the top of the list when picking speakers. Focal is the only company website(I've seen) that actually tells us the room size each speaker in the line was made for. If you like the sopra line pick the one out of 3 that most closely fit your room. I see a company like kef that's been boasting about their science led development for as long as I could read and never have I read on their site which speaker in a line was tailored for the room? 4 different lines of consumer speakers with multiple sizes and not a single recommendation for bass output per cu/ft. come on.

 

[sigbergaudio]

So coming back to the room EQ and room treatment topics, including multi sub approach … Been doing a lot of reading on this topic past days and I am starting to lean in a fully different direction. I am sure this will be sacrilege for many here, and that’s ok, we can discuss like adults … but my conclusion is that if a speaker requires EQ and room treatment to sound right, it is a flawed design to begin with. Thoughts?

On the multi sub approach specifically, I am referring especially to a post by our local very large brain (MUCH bigger than mine, that’s for sure) @j_j that really got me to thinking and researching more deeply …

https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...fferent-than-digital-right.37657/post-1490035

Depends what you mean here. What does "sound right" mean? A well designed speaker will sound decent in a normal room without EQ.

That being said, both EQ and room treatment will improve the sound no matter how good your speakers are. And you will get nowhere near smooth bass response (below 2-300hz) without EQ/DSP. Sub or no sub, and again no matter how good your speakers or subs are.

 

[Mr. Widget]

So coming back to the room EQ and room treatment topics, including multi sub approach … Been doing a lot of reading on this topic past days and I am starting to lean in a fully different direction. I am sure this will be sacrilege for many here, and that’s ok, we can discuss like adults … but my conclusion is that if a speaker requires EQ and room treatment to sound right, it is a flawed design to begin with. Thoughts?

On the multi sub approach specifically, I am referring especially to a post by our local very large brain (MUCH bigger than mine, that’s for sure) @j_j that really got me to thinking and researching more deeply …

https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...fferent-than-digital-right.37657/post-1490035

I have no issues with any of that. I personally prefer FULL range speakers, and agree with @j_j that the standard 80Hz crossover to subs that most of us use is too high for critical listening. I have no issue with it for home theater as the added visual stimulus makes such subtle differences vanish for most listener/viewers.

Basically this leads back to room design. You will need to avoid placing speakers or listeners in areas that will excite room modes or lose bass in nulls. Assuming you still augment the very bottom octave with subs they too will need to be carefully located and probably tweaked by DSP.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I have no issues with any of that. I personally prefer FULL range speakers, and agree with @j_j that the standard 80Hz crossover to subs that most of us use is too high for critical listening. I have no issue with it for home theater as the added visual stimulus makes such subtle differences vanish for most listener/viewers.

Since we build speaker systems designed primarily for music where the subs play up to 100hz (24db/octave roll-off, and with a slight overlap as the speakers aren't -6dB down until about 80hz) I guess I have to disagree with this.

We've had zero issues with localization during development (otherwise we would have chosen a lower crossover) with this configuration, and have zero customers experiencing this as a problem. So that 80hz crossover is too high for critical listening is not true as a blanket statement like that.

 

[MarkS]

we build speaker systems designed primarily for music where the subs play up to 100hz ... We've had zero issues with localization during development ... and have zero customers experiencing this as a problem.

This applies to 2.1 set-ups? (That is, a single sub only, with L+R main speakers.)

I don't disagree, I just want to clarify. Thanks!

 

[MKR]

Gents … thanks for the great comments on this, except maybe for @Absolute who called me stupid … I know my statement was an over generalization and I probably didn’t express myself very well. What I was trying to say is a solid speaker design should provide mostly accurate reproduction without EQ or room treatment in normal living environments, and only this would be needed to achieve “perfection”. I suppose what I am disagreeing with (feel free to call me stupid again) is the emphasis placed on room treatment and EQ by some as being the end all be all of the equation. I think it is important, certainly, but not more important than the speaker design itself. Though of course one could argue it is equally important. Anyway, this conversation is not me trying to decide for or against EQ or room treatment, just an open conversation on something I have been curious about. I still have some type of EQ system on the must purchase list, no doubt about it.

 

[MarkS]

i think the consensus here would be that one should first do everything possible with speaker positioning to get smooth bass at the main listening position (which requires measurements to get right), but once this is done, significant further improvement is almost always possible with EQ.

 

[MKR]

By the way, another interesting post on the sub freq cutoff topic …

https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/jbl-4367-review-was-m2-review.190/post-5521

 

[MKR]

Open Baffle

Home, Open Baffle Speakers - PureAudioProject

www.pureaudioproject.com

Thanks, was aware of PAP and early on took a look at them. After some research (never actually heard them, only what I have read), these do not appear to be what I am looking for … mainly to say, not an accurate/transparent (flat FR) transducer. Many seem to like them, but I am certain I would not vs the many other well engineered loudspeakers I have auditioned recent months. I expect they are designed via subjective rather than objective methods (as are many loudspeakers!)

And there is this …
https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...ts-measured-whats-your-take.19435/post-639570

 

[AdamG]

except maybe for @Absolute who called me stupid

Stupid Prizes handed out!

 

[Dj7675]

Trinnov hands down. Their support is the stuff of legends.

Storm has really great support too. They have removed into my system when necessary and answered many questions as well.

 

[Mr. Widget]

Since we build speaker systems designed primarily for music where the subs play up to 100hz (24db/octave roll-off, and with a slight overlap as the speakers aren't -6dB down until about 80hz) I guess I have to disagree with this.

We've had zero issues with localization during development (otherwise we would have chosen a lower crossover) with this configuration, and have zero customers experiencing this as a problem. So that 80hz crossover is too high for critical listening is not true as a blanket statement like that.

I'm running ~80Hz crossovers in two of my systems, but both seemed subjectively better when I had a pair of subs located near the primary speakers.

Since you have spent time working on this very issue for your business I won't disagree with you in your application, but in my experience when a sub is crossed at ~80Hz, in most rooms you can locate the sub even when blindfolded. The sound is not without a directional component.

 

[AudioJester]

I'm running ~80Hz crossovers in two of my systems, but both seemed subjectively better when I had a pair of subs located near the primary speakers.

Since you have spent time working on this very issue for your business I won't disagree with you in your application, but in my experience when a sub is crossed at ~80Hz, in most rooms you can locate the sub even when blindfolded. The sound is not without a directional component.

Perhaps the type and steepness of the crossover plays a part?
I had a sub using the plate amp cutoff of 80Hz, but it still made noise at 140Hz with a test tone.
If 80Hz is the cutoff for localisation then needs a cliff like filter.

 

[benanders]

Gents … thanks for the great comments on this, except maybe for @Absolute who called me stupid … I know my statement was an over generalization and I probably didn’t express myself very well. What I was trying to say is a solid speaker design should provide mostly accurate reproduction without EQ or room treatment in normal living environments, and only this would be needed to achieve “perfection”. I suppose what I am disagreeing with (feel free to call me stupid again) is the emphasis placed on room treatment and EQ by some as being the end all be all of the equation. I think it is important, certainly, but not more important than the speaker design itself. Though of course one could argue it is equally important. Anyway, this conversation is not me trying to decide for or against EQ or room treatment, just an open conversation on something I have been curious about. I still have some type of EQ system on the must purchase list, no doubt about it.

I’ve heard setups plenty would consider “end game” with zero EQ, and others with elaborate EQ. At a certain point, digital improvements become so finitely incremental for the given owner that the scale tips from objective to functionally subjective. How far, if at all, you need to dive into digital for realizing your goal should vary among listeners. Actually, same can probably be said of the subs, but that’s a partly different matter.

Of the serious EQ setups I’ve heard that seemed just right, literally all were owned/operated by folks who enjoyed (or at least lovingly labored over) the software side of things. I think it’s important to be honest with yourself which side of that EQuation you’re in. Because as previously mentioned, tech support will likely be needed for optimal DSP.

Edit: last sentence got chopped and looked more blanket than I intended; fixed now.

 

[Absolute]

Gents … thanks for the great comments on this, except maybe for @Absolute who called me stupid

I sincerely apologize for how that came across, implying that was not at all my intention. Searching for the graph of Dunning-Kruger gave this result which I found funny in a side-poking kind of way.
In hindsight I should have been more mature and chosen a different version of the graph and be more careful of my wording to make sure the implication was not to call anyone stupid (or uneducated). Apologies to @MKR And the rest of you.

 

[Holmz]

Perhaps the type and steepness of the crossover plays a part?
I had a sub using the plate amp cutoff of 80Hz, but it still made noise at 140Hz with a test tone.

That cut-off is like the Dunning Kruger, in that it is not a brick wall, but a sloping function.
Depending on how many dB/octave the level at 160, 240, and 360 Hz is down by some finite number of dBs.

If 80Hz is the cutoff for localisation then needs a cliff like filter.

It is more like a couple of hundred Hz.
But a sub is usually prone to higher distortion… and the distortion, port noise, and cabinet resonances, can all make it produce stuff even with a brick wall filter let in no actual signal at the higher frequencies.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I'm running ~80Hz crossovers in two of my systems, but both seemed subjectively better when I had a pair of subs located near the primary speakers.

Since you have spent time working on this very issue for your business I won't disagree with you in your application, but in my experience when a sub is crossed at ~80Hz, in most rooms you can locate the sub even when blindfolded. The sound is not without a directional component.

Then I would suspect the subwoofer either had a 12db/octave roll-off and/or it excited vibrations (with audible higher order harmonics) from something else as well (floor, wall, furniture, the enclosure itself).

That being said, I would generally try to use dual subs, and also locate them in front of the listener as well, and I would agree that it would sound subjectively better.

 

[sigbergaudio]

This applies to 2.1 set-ups? (That is, a single sub only, with L+R main speakers.)

I don't disagree, I just want to clarify. Thanks!

Yes. If you have only a single sub and insist on putting it directly to your side or behind you, I will not promise that it's completely impossible to localize it. I would recommend front corner placement.

Personally I currently have only a single sub in one of my setups (testing a new design). It's located in front of me but to the side, and much closer to me than the speakers. It's currently crossed over slightly lower (90hz), but to the extent I'm able to localize it, I'm pretty positive it's just sighted bias because I know that is where it is located.

I will also point out that the drivers we use have completely clean / even response beyond 1000hz, while many subwoofer drivers aren't really designed to play much higher than 150-200hz, and will have breakups pretty early. This might also add to localization issues (speculation).

Finally, our speakers don't roll off as hard as the subs, so they are blending over with a somewhat gentler slope.