• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Revel M106 Bookshelf Speaker Review

KaiserSoze

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
699
Likes
592
By a country mile the most important aspect of a speaker to me, when I have been looking to change, is accuracy of instrumental timbre.
I don't even notice stereo image or spatiality or any of that guff if the instrumental timbre is unconvincing.

THANK YOU once more. To tell the honest truth I don't even know what people are talking about when they start talking about that stuff. I think that all they are really trying to do is prove that they can be just as silly as a bunch of pretentious boobs at a wine-tasting affair. I would rather have a single large speaker playing monaurally but with accurate timbral rendition than any stereo or multi-channel setup where the instruments don't sound right. To keep things in correct perspective it is the flatness of the frequency response that matters most, yet it is without question true that harmonic distortion can alter the timbral makeup of instrumental notes even for a speaker that measures flat. An interesting question that deserves investigation is whether this might possibly occur at harmonic distortion levels that are supposed to be inaudible per the popular view in the present era. It is not a trivial question.
 

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,616
Likes
6,087
Location
.de, DE, DEU
@JustIntonation gave me an idea how to determine the audibility threshold of harmonic distortions very easily, at least for a very low tone.

I played an inaudible 10Hz sine wave (15 Hz would have been better) through a loudspeaker and increased the sound pressure until I could just barely perceive any harmonic distortion in my room and then measured HD. Then I increased the sound pressure until the distortions were clearly perceptible.
1593619963518.png


At 10Hz distortions with -33dB-(-17dB)=-16dB HD2 (16%) and -25dB-(-17dB)=-8dB HD3 (39%) are clearly audible.

Just at the limit of audibility are -40dB-(-20dB)=-20dB HD2 (10%) and -36dB-(-20dB)=-16dB HD3 (8%).
Since HD3 should be masked much less, I would define 8% HD3 as the limit for audibility in my room at 10Hz.

To get a second opinion, so to speak, I additionally measured the harmonic distortions with a sliding sine wave - but this might be less accurate due to the very low frequencies.
1593621098397.png

At 12Hz 3.5% HD2 and 3% HD3 are specified. At least it is still in the right size range.

Including all uncertainties one could say 4-10% THD@10Hz are (for me) just inaudible with an artificial signal.
 
Last edited:

KaiserSoze

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
699
Likes
592
Of course, depending on the strength of the harmonic distortions, both take place.
If the harmonic distortions are significantly less than the harmonics, this will hardly change the timbre.

If the harmonic distortions become too extreme, the harmonics are changed in their sound level, which naturally changes the timbre.


Here in the example a piano keystroke F5 is shown. The first harmonic is -15dB, the second harmonic -25dB below the fundamental.
If HD2 (1400Hz) is now at -20dB and HD3 (2100Hz) at -30dB, the harmonics are only marginally changed in their sound pressure.
The sound will not change noticeably, but the harmonic distortion is "masked" by the harmonics.

View attachment 71497

It seems to me that you may be misinterpreting or misusing the concept of "masking". When I think of masking, I think of the way that a strong tone can mask weaker tones that are at different frequency but nearby in frequency. You seem to be saying something different, that since the natural harmonics of a given fundamental tone occur at the same frequencies as the H2, H3, etc., elements of the harmonic distortion, that the harmonic distortion is masked by the natural harmonics (since with real music the musical notes are always accompanied by a rich suite of harmonics). You are alluding to something that is well-known and that has long been used to dismiss the significance of distortion within whatever context one desires to dismiss the significance of distortion. As such it seems more genuine to my way of thinking for you to not talk about masking per se and simply say that when listening to real music distortion isn't nearly as discernible as it is with pure tones because the harmonic distortion components are not easily distinguished from the natural harmonics. Then we would be able to argue about questions such as the possible difference in the timbral character of harmonic distortion vs. natural harmonics.

(Note: I had to edit this and change " ...isn't nearly as discernible as it is with real music .." to the intended "...isn't nearly as discernible as it is with pure tones ..." Pretty stupid error if you ask me.)
 
Last edited:

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,616
Likes
6,087
Location
.de, DE, DEU
I disagree. Adding a tone at -20dB to the existing one at -15dB, plus a bit to all the other harmonics too, including the harmonic distortion of the harmonics themselves will change the timbre of the piano, not much, maybe, but it will change the timbre since the timbre of the instrument is defined by the number and intensity of the harmonics.
You are right. I should have thought before writing. Just a few days ago, I made a few attempts with Distort and piano strokes and the audibility of HD3.

If I remember correctly, in the ABX test I couldn't distinguish a piano keystroke at -20dB HD3 from the original, but at -15dB HD3 this was the case.
So, the threshold where harmonic distortions are "hidden" without changing the timbre is much lower.
 

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,616
Likes
6,087
Location
.de, DE, DEU
It seems to me that you may be misinterpreting or misusing the concept of "masking".
Had it in a post put in quotation marks. But it would have been better to use "hide" or something like that, so that there is no confusion with the psychoacoustic masking term.
 

KaiserSoze

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
699
Likes
592
The background noise in a normal living room is given with 30-50dB.
View attachment 71498
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TableOfSoundPressureLevels.htm


UPDATE: At my seat in front of the screen I just measured 36dBA (I live in the city, near a busy street, house has soundproof windows)

UPDATE2: But this will not be enough to completely mask a 1kHz@20dB sine wave. So you are right, it will probably still be perceivable.


Even if you had discovered that you could not hear the 20 phon tone in your living room, consistent with the inference taken from a published table, it still would not be altogether appropriate to exclude from relevance all of the living rooms that are not like yours and not like the typical rooms that are represented by the values in the table. Was this worth mentioning? Probably not.
 
Last edited:

JustIntonation

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
480
Likes
293
@JustIntonation gave me an idea how to determine the audibility threshold of harmonic distortions very easily, at least for a very low tone.

I played an inaudible 10Hz sine wave (15 Hz would have been better) through a loudspeaker and increased the sound pressure until I could just barely perceive any harmonic distortion in my room and then measured HD. Then I increased the sound pressure until the distortions were clearly perceptible.
View attachment 71499

At 10Hz distortions with -33dB-(-17dB)=-16dB HD2 (16%) and -25dB-(-17dB)=-8dB HD3 (39%) are clearly audible.

Just at the limit of audibility are -40dB-(-20dB)=-20dB HD2 (10%) and -36dB-(-20dB)=-16dB HD3 (8%).
Since HD3 should be masked much less, I would define 8% HD3 as the limit for audibility in my room at 10Hz.

To get a second opinion, so to speak, I additionally measured the harmonic distortions with a sliding sine wave - but this might be less accurate due to the very low frequencies.
View attachment 71501
At 12Hz 3.5% HD2 and 3% HD3 are specified. At least it is still in the right size range.

Including all uncertainties one could say 4-10% THD@10Hz are (for me) just inaudible with an artificial signal.
That test may hold for your system and your listening position / room. But it doesn't hold for you in general. What you're testing is not what % HD you can hear but at what level SPL you can hear the HD products.
 

JustIntonation

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
480
Likes
293
You are right. I should have thought before writing. Just a few days ago, I made a few attempts with Distort and piano strokes and the audibility of HD3.

If I remember correctly, in the ABX test I couldn't distinguish a piano keystroke at -20dB HD3 from the original, but at -15dB HD3 this was the case.
So, the threshold where harmonic distortions are "hidden" without changing the timbre is much lower.
I think this treshold is much lower for some instruments and it very very much depends too on your listening situation. Room reflections / reverb will mask HD to a very very great degree.
If you listen to very low distortion speakers in an anechoic chamber or near anechoic chamber you'll be surprised how crazy absolutely crazy deep you can hear into some music and how incredibly precise and realistic timbre of instruments can be perceived. It's really a shocking experience. You will also hear driver HD much ore clearly and things like cabinet / wood resonances are very noticeable too.
 

JustIntonation

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2018
Messages
480
Likes
293
The background noise in a normal living room is given with 30-50dB.
View attachment 71498
http://www.sengpielaudio.com/TableOfSoundPressureLevels.htm


UPDATE: At my seat in front of the screen I just measured 36dBA (I live in the city, near a busy street, house has soundproof windows)

UPDATE2: But this will not be enough to completely mask a 1kHz@20dB sine wave. So you are right, it will probably still be perceivable.
Depending on your measurement mic, the 36dBA may well be the noise of your mic itself. Cheap ones can be around that level.
 

ctrl

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
1,616
Likes
6,087
Location
.de, DE, DEU
That test may hold for your system and your listening position / room. But it doesn't hold for you in general. What you're testing is not what % HD you can hear but at what level SPL you can hear the HD products.
Yep, it's the HD product, that's why in the final evaluation I talked about THD and not individual HD orders.

The test could be improved very easily. You could record with the microphone very close to the chassis or listen directly over headphones and check for the presence of audible harmonic distortion.
This would reduce room resonances as much as possible. But of course I am also interested in the hearing threshold in a typical listening room.

It should actually work quite well for 10, 15 and 20Hz, because you can't (almost) hear these frequencies, but the resulting harmonic distortions very well.
With Distort it would be easier to realize the experiment, but then it would no longer correspond to a typical listening room with a real speaker.

... it was an, easy to realize, funny experiment.

Depending on your measurement mic, the 36dBA may well be the noise of your mic itself. Cheap ones can be around that level.
That's not an issue, according to the specification the mic has 3% distortion @143dB.
During my measurements I stayed well below 130dB


UPDATE: F..., you meant the sound level meter. I'd have to look for the specs and see if there was a lower limit.
UPDATE2: The measurement range is 30-130dB (+-1.5dB), so the measured 36dBA background noise should be realistic for my living room - it also fits quite well with the literature references.
 
Last edited:

edechamps

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
910
Likes
3,620
Location
London, United Kingdom
The background noise in a normal living room is given with 30-50dB.

That's neither here nor there. You're comparing a broadband noise level to the level of a pure (i.e. narrowband) tone. You can't do that; that's not how the ear works.

While the total (broadband) noise in a typical room might be around 30-50 dB, the noise in the critical band around 1 kHz will be much less than that, which is why you will be able to hear 1 kHz tones much lower than 30-50 dB just fine.
 

KaiserSoze

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
699
Likes
592
That's neither here nor there. You're comparing a broadband noise level to the level of a pure (i.e. narrowband) tone. You can't do that; that's not how the ear works.

While the total (broadband) noise in a typical room might be around 30-50 dB, the noise in the critical band around 1 kHz will be much less than that, which is why you will be able to hear 1 kHz tones much lower than 30-50 dB just fine.

I was wondering about that, i.e., how it would be possible to hear a 1 kHz tone at a low but theoretically audible volume level if it had to compete with a noise level more than 30 dB higher.

In any case, it seems to me that since the bottom curve on the Fletcher-Munson curves corresponds to the threshold of audibility, that any tone with SPL above that level should be considered audible, since otherwise there is the assumption that background noise will always be loud enough to prevent you from hearing the tone. It just does not seem correct to me to impose this assumption on the analysis that is taking place here. A 20 Hz tone is audible at 70 dB SPL. A 40 Hz tone is audible at 50 dB SPL. A 100 Hz tone is audible at 25 dB SPL. Etc.
 

Bear123

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 27, 2019
Messages
796
Likes
1,370
There isn't much that sounds worse than a subwoofer that isn't properly integrated with the main speakers. In fact just thinking about it makes me uncomfortable, wanting to go to my happy place if you know what I mean. Sometimes I think it would be better if no one had ever thought up the idea of a subwoofer separated from the main speakers. It was bound to lead to an alien invasion where the real speakers were slowly and quietly replaced by puny little speakers with puny bass that need to be crossed over not lower than 200 Hz notwithstanding that in the measurements the response is flat down to around 60 to 70 Hz. It is plainly apparent from the distortion measurements that most of these speakers are being driven to a point where the diaphragm excursion has gone well passed linear operation, i.e., well beyond Xmax, but the prevailing opinion is that this is okay because we're not supposed to be able to hear the distortion because the frequency is low. As soon as I buy off on that I'm gonna take a trip down to Florida and see if I can find myself a good piece of swampland.

I'm quite grateful for subs and the substantially better sound quality they provide. Fortunately, excellent integration is easy and cheap with modern day AVR's.
 

KaiserSoze

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
699
Likes
592
I'm quite grateful for subs and the substantially better sound quality they provide. Fortunately, excellent integration is easy and cheap with modern day AVR's.

Excellent integration is easy so long as your main stereo speakers can play cleaning at adequate volume at the requisite low frequency. Of course in your case your main speakers are perfectly adequate to cross over to a sub below 80 Hz, so you don't have any issues.

I was suggesting that the present-day crop of tiny bookshelf speakers would probably not have gained acceptance had it not been for the widespread adoption and acceptance of separate subwoofers.

Even though you like your sub and your setup, you would possibly like it just as much, possibly more, if those Revel speakers each had a first-rate powered sub built into the speaker (and capable of being separated for transport). Infinity has made several very good speaker models of this type over the past two or three decades, and people who own them don't seem to be in any hurry to "upgrade" to a 2.1 setup. The Prelude MTS Tower with incorporated powered sub, the Interlude IL-60, and the Intermezzo 4.1t were all great speakers of this type, with powered subs in each stereo channel. With this approach you don't have to trust to the A/V receiver to properly integrate the setup, and there is another significant advantage: the powered sub can be operated up to a higher frequency, as high as 500 Hz with no problem if the designer desires, and this permits using a smaller mid-woofer, smaller-midrange, and smaller tweeter, all toward greater dispersion while maintaining a smooth off-axis response. But of course there isn't much improvement compared to an excellent pair of 3-way main speakers augmented by a single subwoofer. At this point it becomes mainly a question of which approach is better accommodated by the room.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
Excellent integration is easy so long as your main stereo speakers can play cleaning at adequate volume at the requisite low frequency. Of course in your case your main speakers are perfectly adequate to cross over to a sub below 80 Hz, so you don't have any issues.

I was suggesting that the present-day crop of tiny bookshelf speakers would probably not have gained acceptance had it not been for the widespread adoption and acceptance of separate subwoofers.

Even though you like your sub and your setup, you would possibly like it just as much, possibly more, if those Revel speakers each had a first-rate powered sub built into the speaker (and capable of being separated for transport). Infinity has made several very good speaker models of this type over the past two or three decades, and people who own them don't seem to be in any hurry to "upgrade" to a 2.1 setup. The Prelude MTS Tower with incorporated powered sub, the Interlude IL-60, and the Intermezzo 4.1t were all great speakers of this type, with powered subs in each stereo channel. With this approach you don't have to trust to the A/V receiver to properly integrate the setup, and there is another significant advantage: the powered sub can be operated up to a higher frequency, as high as 500 Hz with no problem if the designer desires, and this permits using a smaller mid-woofer, smaller-midrange, and smaller tweeter, all toward greater dispersion while maintaining a smooth off-axis response. But of course there isn't much improvement compared to an excellent pair of 3-way main speakers augmented by a single subwoofer. At this point it becomes mainly a question of which approach is better accommodated by the room.

The problem with powered subs that are attached to the mains is that they can't be physically separated from the mains to achieve good sound. In most rooms, subs need to be placed in different physical locations than the mains in order to sound good. Subs that are attached to the mains are almost guaranteed to sound worse than external subs, regardless of the quality of sub.
 

KaiserSoze

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
699
Likes
592
The problem with powered subs that are attached to the mains is that they can't be physically separated from the mains to achieve good sound. In most rooms, subs need to be placed in different physical locations than the mains in order to sound good. Subs that are attached to the mains are almost guaranteed to sound worse than external subs, regardless of the quality of sub.

If you are comparing two subs attached to stereo speakers vs. two unattached subs that you can place at the midpoints of adjacent walls, then what you are saying has strong merit. But when you made this comparison, you changed the context. The previous comments were concerned with the pros and cons of a single subwoofer vs. stereo speakers with full-bass capability built-in.

I am befuddled by your assertion that you cannot achieve good sound with a pair of subwoofers integrated into the stereo speakers. Some of the very finest speakers that have ever been made are speakers of this type. The Mythos towers that Definitive Technology made were phenomenally good speakers, for one example. And the speakers that Infinity made according to this recipe likewise sounded amazingly good.

When a pair of subwoofers are incorporated into the stereo speakers, they do in fact achieve a useful degree of mitigation of room modes (i.e., the beneficial effect that you identify as being of strong importance), especially compared to a single sub in any single location. As such, the effect that you pointed to is genuinely an advantage of having full-bass capability in each of the two stereo speakers as compared to a single subwoofer. It would have been more genuine for you to have pointed this out rather than to have obfuscated it.

And there is again the fact that when the stereo speakers have full-bass capability built-in, this generally means that each of the higher-frequency drivers will be smaller than they otherwise will be, thus promoting broader dispersion and also making it easier to achieve directivity match at the crossover points. This is a manifest and substantial advantage of this approach. I don't like directivity mismatches, or the absence of high treble in the off-axis response, or the lack of good dispersion throughout midrange and treble. Any technique that is helpful in these related areas is akin to using more drivers, and is a useful technique in my individual opinion.

The advantages of having full-bass capability incorporated into the stereo speakers are substantial, not only as compared to a single sub as per the original context of the question, but even (albeit to a milder degree) when compared to a pair of separate subwoofers that can be placed anywhere in the room. In addition to the aforementioned advantage of better off-axis smoothness and dispersion, stereo speakers with built-in full-bass capability are far more easily accommodated by a typical listening room, vs. a couple of subwoofers that are placed somewhere along the walls, which is so awkward as to be patently infeasible in a typical room. Even in a large room it is an obstacle to have a big subwoofer sitting on the floor against a wall. In most rooms at least one wall has to be allocated to traffic, another to a sofa or a couple of chairs, and another to the stereo speakers and whatever else goes along with them, and usually there is other furniture than needs to be placed on the fourth wall if there even is a fourth wall and it doesn't have a fireplace. Stereo speakers with full-bass capability built in are somewhat more difficult to place in the room than small towers and some stand-mounted speakers, but the incremental increase in the difficulty of room placement pales in comparison to the challenges of placing two subwoofers elsewhere in a typical room, even if it is allowed to put them in the corners, which may be worse at mitigating room modes than for them to be integrated into the main stereo speakers.
 
Last edited:

Absolute

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2017
Messages
1,084
Likes
2,125
I can hear bird songs in the distance, cars on the street thousands of meters away, the strong winds blowing here on the mountain top and people talking hundreds of meters away. At the same time.

I can also hear the fridge making noise in the kitchen while playing rather loud music in the living room, or the very low tv sound in the other room while the neighbors are cutting the grass with a freaking jet-powered monster of a machine (joke).

I don't think the ambient noise matters as much as some think for what we can and cannot hear. But that's me using my hearing instead of graphs to reach conclusions :D

Oh, and people ending up with worse sound because of subs are just not patient and/or competent enough to make it work.
 

KaiserSoze

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Jun 8, 2020
Messages
699
Likes
592
I can hear bird songs in the distance, cars on the street thousands of meters away, the strong winds blowing here on the mountain top and people talking hundreds of meters away. At the same time.

I can also hear the fridge making noise in the kitchen while playing rather loud music in the living room, or the very low tv sound in the other room while the neighbors are cutting the grass with a freaking jet-powered monster of a machine (joke).

I don't think the ambient noise matters as much as some think for what we can and cannot hear. But that's me using my hearing instead of graphs to reach conclusions :D

Oh, and people ending up with worse sound because of subs are just not patient and/or competent enough to make it work.

I agree with that except not entirely with the last sentence. My reason, as I have previously discussed, is that there are lots of speakers being sold nowadays, for considerably more than mere pocket change, that do not have the bass capability needed for proper integratiion with a subwoofer at some frequency below 100 Hz, unless they are played at volume that is probably lower than the typical volume at which most people probably play their systems. There has been a lot of discussion on this, which discussion has mostly concerned itself with audibility of distortion, but it has also been pointed out that depending on the steepness of the filter slopes, a 100 Hz crossover point will still allow the sub, typically, to emit sound at an audible level in the upper bass and even lower midrange, again depending on the particulars, but generally this concern is valid and is easily evidenced in many setups that employ subwoofers. Which is to say, it is manifest that there is no bass coming from those small bookshelf speakers using drivers that are claimed to be 6.5" but that are actually less than 5", and it is further not difficult to identify the location of the subwoofer just by moving your head a little. And in the off-axis response you get destructive interference for the frequency range one or two octaves above the crossover point, which means that you hear a dip in that area of frequency. You may beg to differ based on your personal experiences, in which case you and I have had different experiences from which we obtain our individual perspectives on this question. From my experience, and to sum it up, the only stereo speakers that easily integrate properly with a subwoofer at frequency as low as it needs to be are speakers that have sufficient bass capability that many people wouldn't bother with the subwoofer.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
If you are comparing two subs attached to stereo speakers vs. two unattached subs that you can place at the midpoints of adjacent walls, then what you are saying has strong merit. But when you made this comparison, you changed the context. The previous comments were concerned with the pros and cons of a single subwoofer vs. stereo speakers with full-bass capability built-in.

I haven't switched context. If you think that, it's probably due to a failure to communicate clearly on my part. Just to be clear, when I'm talking about the benefits of multiple separate subs, I'm strictly speaking of situations where you have full control of where those subs will go. Otherwise, you might as well just attach them to the mains and live with the sound that results.


I am befuddled by your assertion that you cannot achieve good sound with a pair of subwoofers integrated into the stereo speakers. Some of the very finest speakers that have ever been made are speakers of this type. The Mythos towers that Definitive Technology made were phenomenally good speakers, for one example. And the speakers that Infinity made according to this recipe likewise sounded amazingly good.

I'm sure those are fantastic speakers. The problem is, sound quality at those frequencies isn't about the speakers, it's about the room, and the speakers position within that room. Remember, you're hearing the room, not the speakers. The speakers themselves are somewhat irrelevant. Once you have sufficient output, the best bass speaker will be the speaker with the most placement flexibility, hence why attached subs are at a huge disadvantage.

Now, that's not to say you can't get good bass out of full range towers, but it's gonna take a lot of luck(with the room), and a ton of EQ(which limits headroom). I can guarantee that those Mythos towers would have terrible bass, compared to what I have now with separate subs in two of my rooms.

When a pair of subwoofers are incorporated into the stereo speakers, they do in fact achieve a useful degree of mitigation of room modes (i.e., the beneficial effect that you identify as being of strong importance), especially compared to a single sub in any single location. As such, the effect that you pointed to is genuinely an advantage of having full-bass capability in each of the two stereo speakers as compared to a single subwoofer. It would have been more genuine for you to have pointed this out rather than to have obfuscated it.

Not sure what point you think I was trying to make here. I'm not trying to obfuscate anything or be disingenuous. Can you quote the part of my text you thought was disingenuous? May have just been a mistake on my part.

The advantages of having full-bass capability incorporated into the stereo speakers are substantial, not only as compared to a single sub as per the original context of the question, but even (albeit to a milder degree) when compared to a pair of separate subwoofers that can be placed anywhere in the room. In addition to the aforementioned advantage of better off-axis smoothness and dispersion, stereo speakers with built-in full-bass capability are far more easily accommodated by a typical listening room, vs. a couple of subwoofers that are placed somewhere along the walls, which is so awkward as to be patently infeasible in a typical room. Even in a large room it is an obstacle to have a big subwoofer sitting on the floor against a wall. In most rooms at least one wall has to be allocated to traffic, another to a sofa or a couple of chairs, and another to the stereo speakers and whatever else goes along with them, and usually there is other furniture than needs to be placed on the fourth wall if there even is a fourth wall and it doesn't have a fireplace. Stereo speakers with full-bass capability built in are somewhat more difficult to place in the room than small towers and some stand-mounted speakers, but the incremental increase in the difficulty of room placement pales in comparison to the challenges of placing two subwoofers elsewhere in a typical room, even if it is allowed to put them in the corners, which may be worse at mitigating room modes than for them to be integrated into the main stereo speakers.

All other things held constant(usually price is something that's not) having real bass capability in your mains is always a positive. Not sure why you think I disagree with that. My point was simply that attached subs are "less good" than separate subs(with placement flexibility), but given the choice between full range mains and bookshelves, I'll always go for the full range mains(if everything else is the same).
 

Bear123

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Nov 27, 2019
Messages
796
Likes
1,370
If you are comparing two subs attached to stereo speakers vs. two unattached subs that you can place at the midpoints of adjacent walls, then what you are saying has strong merit. But when you made this comparison, you changed the context. The previous comments were concerned with the pros and cons of a single subwoofer vs. stereo speakers with full-bass capability built-in.

I am befuddled by your assertion that you cannot achieve good sound with a pair of subwoofers integrated into the stereo speakers. Some of the very finest speakers that have ever been made are speakers of this type. The Mythos towers that Definitive Technology made were phenomenally good speakers, for one example. And the speakers that Infinity made according to this recipe likewise sounded amazingly good.

When a pair of subwoofers are incorporated into the stereo speakers, they do in fact achieve a useful degree of mitigation of room modes (i.e., the beneficial effect that you identify as being of strong importance), especially compared to a single sub in any single location. As such, the effect that you pointed to is genuinely an advantage of having full-bass capability in each of the two stereo speakers as compared to a single subwoofer. It would have been more genuine for you to have pointed this out rather than to have obfuscated it.

And there is again the fact that when the stereo speakers have full-bass capability built-in, this generally means that each of the higher-frequency drivers will be smaller than they otherwise will be, thus promoting broader dispersion and also making it easier to achieve directivity match at the crossover points. This is a manifest and substantial advantage of this approach. I don't like directivity mismatches, or the absence of high treble in the off-axis response, or the lack of good dispersion throughout midrange and treble. Any technique that is helpful in these related areas is akin to using more drivers, and is a useful technique in my individual opinion.

The advantages of having full-bass capability incorporated into the stereo speakers are substantial, not only as compared to a single sub as per the original context of the question, but even (albeit to a milder degree) when compared to a pair of separate subwoofers that can be placed anywhere in the room. In addition to the aforementioned advantage of better off-axis smoothness and dispersion, stereo speakers with built-in full-bass capability are far more easily accommodated by a typical listening room, vs. a couple of subwoofers that are placed somewhere along the walls, which is so awkward as to be patently infeasible in a typical room. Even in a large room it is an obstacle to have a big subwoofer sitting on the floor against a wall. In most rooms at least one wall has to be allocated to traffic, another to a sofa or a couple of chairs, and another to the stereo speakers and whatever else goes along with them, and usually there is other furniture than needs to be placed on the fourth wall if there even is a fourth wall and it doesn't have a fireplace. Stereo speakers with full-bass capability built in are somewhat more difficult to place in the room than small towers and some stand-mounted speakers, but the incremental increase in the difficulty of room placement pales in comparison to the challenges of placing two subwoofers elsewhere in a typical room, even if it is allowed to put them in the corners, which may be worse at mitigating room modes than for them to be integrated into the main stereo speakers.

Separate subs that can be placed in optimal locations will always achieve better sound quality, higher SPL capability, lower distortion, and lower extension. No matter how good, how large, and how low a speaker attempts to play, they are better with subs.

Fact is, if one is after the best sound quality possible, speakers crossed to good quality well placed subs is the most optimal solution. I wouldn't therefore waste money on "subwoofer" capability that is limited to the same placement as the speakers.

I suppose another way to look at it is, given the choice of tower speakers with solid 40 Hz extension that can be effectively crossed at 80 Hz to good subs, or tower speakers spec'd to 20 Hz extension but no subs, I'd gladly pass on the 20 Hz speakers.
 
Top Bottom