Ultrasonic
Addicted to Fun and Learning
but that is not realy the bass we are feeling right? the bass that I feel is not air induced, but I feel it on my feet (floor) and in my couch
Personally I do think we feel airborne low frequency sound.
but that is not realy the bass we are feeling right? the bass that I feel is not air induced, but I feel it on my feet (floor) and in my couch
but that is not realy the bass we are feeling right? the bass that I feel is not air induced, but I feel it on my feet (floor) and in my couch
Personally I do think we feel airborne low frequency sound.
When I was young and more stupid than even now, I loved the gut massage one would get standing in front of those Cerwin-Vega boxes
I still insist, the answer to OP's question should be contained in the difference between these two:
View attachment 159898
And here's the sum of it:
View attachment 159900
In the sense that all other differences are removed so we're talking only about the property of floor-standing as the sole difference. Here we could see precisely what towers bring to table.
I don’t deny the loudness war but I’d say that is a huge exaggeration. A lot of reduced DR remasters are not so much compressed as much as they have instruments panned closer to the edge of the stereo image, and restored stereo bass.Why buy expensive speakers with 90 % of the music produced now is bad : the loudness war.
I think that really depends on the situation. At home: probably not. Standing in front of a speaker wall meant for bass-heavy electronic music: not so sure. Would have to measure that somehow, but if you can feel it hit your chest then wouldn't it mainly be airborne? Which isn't that surprising, given physics. As in: I found it a bit surprising seeing some reluctancy here, after all hearing itself works mainly via vibrating body parts, so why wouldn't that apply to other parts as well given the situation is right?let me correct what I said:
it's not the main part of it
How much is felt through the floor will depend on the construction but in my room I think it's airborne that is dominant.let me correct what I said:
it's not the main part of it
Aside from higher SPLs, what real listening advantage do towers have over the better measuring bookshelfs, if any?
Because we have 100+ years of recorded music to listen to? And it's really only a tiny fraction of mostly top 40 pop of the last couple of decades that is really compromised by the 'loudness wars'. Plenty of other things to listen to ...Why buy expensive speakers with 90 % of the music produced now is bad : the loudness war.
If you find mono recording good, all is possible.Because we have 100+ years of recorded music to listen to? And it's really only a tiny fraction of mostly top 40 pop of the last couple of decades that is really compromised by the 'loudness wars'. Plenty of other things to listen to ...
Why join this forum?If you find mono recording good, all is possible.
Why buy expensive speakers for a use in a living room, the worst room?
I don’t deny the loudness war but I’d say that is a huge exaggeration. A lot of reduced DR remasters are not so much compressed as much as they have instruments panned closer to the edge of the stereo image, and restored stereo bass.
For these recordings, speaker setups that can handle the improved bass and with good lateral imaging will give improved results.
The really bad releases are another matter of course, but I’m not sure it comes to 90%. I may just be lucky in my choice of music, of course…
My thoughts exactly. I wanted to say this, but I thought... I understand the guy. He is just blowing off steam same as I do many times. But I also think it's an exaggeration. Loudness wars, no matter how bad they may be, are not an hifi issue since they concern Justin Bieber and Ariana Grande. Who gives a fuck. The most we suffer from loudness wars is when you see many producers think their job is to compress everything when making a remaster, so, even if a remaster could indeed improve on an original recording, they often don't.Because we have 100+ years of recorded music to listen to? And it's really only a tiny fraction of mostly top 40 pop of the last couple of decades that is really compromised by the 'loudness wars'. Plenty of other things to listen to ...
Why find the most negative interpretation possible of any and every statement in any thread you participate in?If you find mono recording good, all is possible.
Why buy expensive speakers for a use in a living room, the worst room?
Now, that's what I like to hear(read) pardon the pun four 18 inch subs in 8 cubic feet cabinets.I wasn't talking about speakers like the above, but I bet that my four 18" subs, each in an 8 cubic foot cabinet would beat the bass shit out of that Wilson and leave it as roadkill. No brag, just fact.
What is the difference, between a pair of floorstanding and two subwoofers and on them two bookshelf speakers, for example see picture It can then become a three way speaker. If now they fit together. To figure it out, it is the small aspect that you then in practice need to become a speaker designer.If you want a well-integrated solution sub-bookshelf that sound good.
There will be many measurements and calculations. If you think it's fun and rewarding.
Or you buy a finished floorstanding three way developed by professionals.
The speakers in the pictures are chosen at random, the first ones that appeared when I googled, just to exemplify the challenge.
By with your speakers you mean next to them or you tried various positions in the room for the subs to work best? Bass management was employed?
I went through the same phase as well, enjoying the transients of my 8inch in my bookshelfs. I suspect that the perhaps the slow roll off and lack of longer wavelengths does provide a percieved improvement in sound(without subs). But once you add powerful subwoofers with drivers that can keep up with intense bass and time align them with minumim 3 subs then its a different ballgame.Yes and yes. (DSP via Dspeaker Anti Mode Dual Core 2). (JL subs, spec'd to 25Hz)
I went through this on another thread so won't repeat myself. Basically I found little audible benefit to adding the subs in terms of noticeable bass extension, "lack of strain," or anything much, really. A slightly flatter frequency response in the bass, but I preferred the sound of my speakers without the subs. Others may take things further in terms of the technical aspects and effort (I'm often amazed how much time and effort some people spend on integrating subwoofers! Like a part time job!). It was as far as I was willing to go for trying out subwoofers and the effort involved. That's why I mentioned YMMV.
I exaggerated, I must add. It depends on (which you mention), where in frequency you divide between sub-satellites. Plus dB level regarding the division. If you use subs as base boxes that go up more than 200 Hz so..but then it is not really a subwoffer... No, I'm taking back what I wrote in that previous post. I thought a little wrong. Sorry.Subwoofer integration is not as complicated as loudspeaker design.
.
The pain is worth the gain, my friend.There will be many measurements and calculations. If you think it's fun and rewarding.