Can you trust a subwoofer by ear?

[NTK]

Yeah but my idea wasn't sub versus no sub as in no way to monitor the low end, but sub versus headphones for evaluating the lowend.

There are a lot of subtleties in comparing headphone and loudspeaker listening. One of the major difference, especially for low bass, is that in headphone listening you are missing the tactile sensation experienced by your body, which in studies have shown to add to the enjoyment of music listening (and dancing).

Moreover, there is also the so called "missing 6 dB" phenomenon. Only by using the most stringent of controls (including, but not limited to, having the listeners sitting on vibration isolated chairs inside anechoic chambers) can this effect be mitigated.

The Missing 6 dB: Perceptual or Procedural Effect?

Several studies have shown that, to produce the same loudness, a sound must be played 6 dB louder by headphones than by loudspeaker. Thus, a sound is louder when reproduced by loudspeaker compared to headphones, while the level at the ears are the same in both cases. This phenomenon was called...

hal.science

 

[FireEmblem]

There are a lot of subtleties in comparing headphone and loudspeaker listening. One of the major difference, especially for low bass, is that in headphone listening you are missing the tactile sensation experienced by your body, which in studies have shown to add to the enjoyment of music listening (and dancing).

Yes but that's only for enjoyment as you write, it doesn't affect working with the actual source material. I think working with the actual source material only without whatever the room adds, is beneficial for precision.

Moreover, there is also the so called "missing 6 dB" phenomenon. Only by using the most stringent of controls (including, but not limited to, having the listeners sitting on vibration isolated chairs inside anechoic chambers) can this effect be mitigated.

I believe that's not an issue. If I listen to let's say Seawall or Flight to LAPD (Blade Runner 2049 tracks with very intense low-end) on my 2.1 system with sub or headphones, of course it doesn't produce the same amount of "oomph" in my headphones. But I take that for granted because it's headphones and the relationships between lows, mids and highs still sound balanced (more like an overall shift in proportions as opposed to only the lowend lacking), so it's not something that makes me want to bump up the low end in headphones by +6dB for compensation. If you did that, the low end would rumble all over the rest of the track and you'd immediately notice that the low end is too loud. At least that's my experience.

Maybe that's because if you bump it up by +6dB in headphones you're increasing the actual source material which causes a different change in amplitude in the actual track, opposed to when it's the room that adds perceived +6dB differently through air pressure.

 

[NTK]

Maybe that's because if you bump it up by +6dB in headphones you're increasing the actual source material which causes a different change in amplitude in the actual track, opposed to when it's the room that adds perceived +6dB differently through air pressure.

If the explanation is so simple, there wouldn't have been multiple scientific papers written on this subject.

 

[FireEmblem]

Okay I've made my decision. I've ordered Adam T5V + T10s subwoofer, and I will also order the Edifier MR5. They had an excellent review here and are 3 way speakers with the same 5" size. So my plan is to do the following:

I'm going to inspect how well I can integrate the sub into my room and how much of that extra lowend I actually need to verify whether the sub makes sense for me as of now or not. Then I'm going to try the T5V alone and see if I can get used to the thinnier sound without the sub's lowend and see if they'd be a good standalone purchase, and I'll compare them to the MR5.

Then I compare those to my 2.1 Logitech consumer system. The last tests I did with T7V versus my Logitech system showed: While of course the stereo imaging was much better and sound more enjoyable, I could hear and spot everything on my Logitechs that I could spot in the T7V as well. T7V was a bit snappier with snare/drum transients though (only one specific song, nowhere else), IIRC. But not drastically so that I felt like I'm missing out on Logitech. I actually believe that was rather due to the speakers just being bigger so these transients felt larger and closer, not about being more transparent, but difficult to tell from memory.

And eventually I will compose a little short sequence of music with many different tracks for complexity and then do multiple mixes always from scratch with each of these combinations (T5V + Sub, T5V alone, MR5 alone, Logitech 2.1 with sub, Sennheiser HD650, Superlux681).

Then I can see how the different mixes turn out and how they translate to other devices. I think that's the best way to figure out what works in my situation specifically and what I do need or do not need. Like I said, my mixes do translate pretty well with my Logitech 2.1 + Superlux HD681 already, but the direct comparison might or might not reveal things, or will show me if I get other benefits like being faster (less forth an back or so).

Edit: Also I think it would be very interesting to see the same low-end-heavy sequence mixed once on headphones and once on T5V + T10s, to see how easy or difficult it is in comparison to dial in the correct amounts of low end on headphones. I can make a thread here then, quote this post and share the results if you're interested, for the fun of it.

We could even turn this into a blind test.. and you can judge with all your high end system which mixes you like the best

 

[TurtlePaul]

So I'm going to dial down the sub by 7dB, until it sounds sweet. No booming, no cancellations. Now the -7dB I applied isn't applied in the mix, but only on the hardware.

If I am now working with my mix, which is neutral in its source, and I do the occasional +3/-3dB changes, I'm operating in absolute correct realms.

I don't see how the fact that my room has a 7dB boost down there should play a role now anymore since I dialed the sub down until it aligned with my room?

Most room problems are fairly narrow in freqency area (high Q). Here are my speakers in my room (measured without my sub in this example). As you can see, being able to coarsly adjust below 80 hz isn't useful. It would make 42 hz better but 73 hz worse in my case to dial back below 80 hz.

 

[dualazmak]

Hello again, OP @FireEmblem,

In case if you would actually use BHERINGER ECM8000, you would please note that recent products of ECM8000 have considerably bad (and inconsistency among the ones) Fq-response compared to older ones, in case if you cannot get the calibration sheet/data for your own ECM8000.

Very fortunately, recently I could successfully cross calibrate my rather old but specially selected ECM8000 against strictly calibrated EARTHWORK M50.

Please refer to #810, #813, #816, #819 and #831 (cross calibration!) on my project thread.

 

[FireEmblem]

Most room problems are fairly narrow in freqency area (high Q). Here are my speakers in my room (measured without my sub in this example). As you can see, being able to coarsly adjust below 80 hz isn't useful. It would make 42 hz better but 73 hz worse in my case to dial back below 80 hz.

Hmm.. yeah, true. I thought of this, but I hoped maybe I just don't have such dips and it would work better. But seeing this, I could set the crossover to 60Hz to make the potential error range smaller. Apart from the range being smaller, is below 60Hz commonly more stable as in that you won't find big boosts and dips right next to each other?

Edit: Wait a minute!

If we assume that this is the starting position and crossover is at 120Hz, and you'd now dial down the subwoofer by 5dB, this would not just bring the boost down, it should also bring the dip up. Because lower volume means fewer reflections and mode stimulation, so cancellations will become smaller too. In practice, both the boost and dip should come closer towards are more flattened middle.

Also, this looks like something that could be solved by using the phase inversion switch.

Hello again, OP @FireEmblem,

In case if you would actually use BHERINGER ECM8000, you would please note that recent products of ECM8000 have considerably bad (and inconsistency among the ones) Fq-response compared to older ones, in case if you cannot get the calibration sheet/data for your own ECM8000.

Very fortunately, recently I could successfully cross calibrate my rather old but specially selected ECM8000 against strictly calibrated EARTHWORK M50.

Please refer to #810, #813, #816, #819 and #831 (cross calibration!) on my project thread.

Thanks for the heads up! I once had the ECM8000 here, but the calibration file that Behringer offers on their website didn't seem to work with REW and someone said that they wouldn't properly do it because the microphone is cheap.

Do you think your method would work with a newer build of the microphone too, or should I rather just look at something bit more expensive that comes with a proper callibration file right from the manufacturer? Maybe I can ask at Thomann if they can somehow just rent a mic to me.. (given that I'll take the measurement route, I'm still afraid of measurement mistakes messing up my results. Nobody here replied yet to my question if these mistakes are generally minor or can introduce major problems.)

 

[dualazmak]

....
Do you think your method would work with a newer build of the microphone too, or should I rather just look at something bit more expensive that comes with a proper callibration file right from the manufacturer? ....

Yes, you can do the similar cross calibration on newer ECM8000 if you have friend or colleague who has well calibrated measurement microphone (good over 15 Hz - 25kHz) with calibration sheet/data and he/she knows well how to perform such cross calibration properly.

Otherwise, you may go to the simpler way to purchase suitable (but more or less expensive) measurement microphone with calibration data which REW (and @Keith_W and/or other people in ASR who are intensively using REW) recommends.

 

[FireEmblem]

Yes, you can do the similar cross calibration on newer ECM8000 if you have friend or colleague who has well calibrated measurement microphone (good over 15 Hz - 25kHz) with calibration sheet/data and he/she knows well how to perform such cross calibration properly.

Otherwise, you may go to the simpler way to purchase suitable (but more or less expensive) measurement microphone with calibration data which REW (and @Keith_W and/or other people in ASR who are intensively using REW) recommends.

What if I just use something like Arc Studio 4? I've did a short reasearch and it's supposedly easier than REW with much fewer room for mistakes. It would probalby not cost too much more compared to a high quality measurement microphone and since I don't need a lot of the in depth REW details but just want my room to be properly measured and speakers calibrated, would this be an option?

 

[dualazmak]

What if I just use something like Arc Studio 4? I've did a short reasearch and it's supposedly easier than REW with much fewer room for mistakes. It would probalby not cost too much more compared to a high quality measurement microphone and since I don't need a lot of the in depth REW details but just want my room to be properly measured and speakers calibrated, would this be an option?

Sorry, but I have never used Arc Studio 4.

I do hope @Keith_W (and other people onboard) will kindly follow you suggesting proper measurement microphone (with calibration data) fit well for REW.

In case if you would not go in-depth with REW, you would please carefully learn/study again my suggestions of rather primitive but reliable reproducible well-validated methods shared in my post #12 referring here. As I wrote there "If you would be seriously interested in using the test tone signal tracks I prepared and applied in these my measurements and tunings, please simply PM me writing your wish."

 

[FireEmblem]

I do hope @Keith_W (and other people onboard) will kindly follow you suggesting proper measurement microphone (with calibration data) fit well for REW.

Yes please, @Keith_W what other microphone could I get? Next cheap one that Thomann has available is Superlux ECM999.

Or should I just wait for the Behringer to restock? Or spend a bit more for better results (and especially one with a proper callibration file for REW available).

 

[Keith_W]

There is a list of commonly used microphones in that REW eBook. Pick one that suits your budget.

 

[FireEmblem]

There is a list of commonly used microphones in that REW eBook. Pick one that suits your budget.

I cannot find recommendatons in the eBook (full version). Where are they supposed to be?

 

[Keith_W]

I cannot find recommendatons in the eBook (full version). Where are they supposed to be?

It's on page 6 in Book 2.

FYI, I am not in the business of recommending equipment. I'll list the mics that ASR people commonly use, and you make your decision.

All I will tell you is not to make the same mistake as me and buy an Earthworks M30. Don't get me wrong, it's a great microphone, but its advantages are pretty irrelevant - it can measure up to 30kHz, and it is more sensitive than the Behringer. But it costs 15x more than the Behringer and i'm not convinced it would be any better than a cheapo ECM8000 that is professionally calibrated. The extra sensitivity is nice, but all you need to do is turn up the gain on the mic preamp.

 

[RickS]

View attachment 496510

It's on page 6 in Book 2.

FYI, I am not in the business of recommending equipment. I'll list the mics that ASR people commonly use, and you make your decision.

All I will tell you is not to make the same mistake as me and buy an Earthworks M30. Don't get me wrong, it's a great microphone, but its advantages are pretty irrelevant - it can measure up to 30kHz, and it is more sensitive than the Behringer. But it costs 15x more than the Behringer and i'm not convinced it would be any better than a cheapo ECM8000 that is professionally calibrated. The extra sensitivity is nice, but all you need to do is turn up the gain on the mic preamp.

Whoever wrote that eBook, needs to update it.

A Dayton EMM-6 is an XLR microphone (and works well for me).

 

[FireEmblem]

View attachment 496510

It's on page 6 in Book 2.

FYI, I am not in the business of recommending equipment. I'll list the mics that ASR people commonly use, and you make your decision.

All I will tell you is not to make the same mistake as me and buy an Earthworks M30. Don't get me wrong, it's a great microphone, but its advantages are pretty irrelevant - it can measure up to 30kHz, and it is more sensitive than the Behringer. But it costs 15x more than the Behringer and i'm not convinced it would be any better than a cheapo ECM8000 that is professionally calibrated. The extra sensitivity is nice, but all you need to do is turn up the gain on the mic preamp.

The problem is I don't know anyonye who could professionally calibrate the ECM8000. The Earthworks is anyways way out of my budget und the iSemCon EMX-7150 as well.

Does no cheaper (<=100€) measurement microphone exist that comes with a calibration file that REW can use?

 

[Keith_W]

Whoever wrote that eBook, needs to update it.

A Dayton EMM-6 is an XLR microphone (and works well for me).

I have updated the document stored in my PC. The next version of the PDF will contain the correction. Thanks for catching that!

The problem is I don't know anyonye who could professionally calibrate the ECM8000. The Earthworks is anyways way out of my budget und the iSemCon EMX-7150 as well.

Does no cheaper (<=100€) measurement microphone exist that comes with a calibration file that REW can use?

Buy a mic from Cross Spectrum Labs or you can buy a mic and send it to them.

Bear in mind that calibration files are not created equal. Some "calibrated" Behringer ECM8000's are not individually calibrated, they are batch calibrated. If you are complaining about the price, think about the labour cost of manufacturing thousands of microphones and having to manually calibrate each one.

 

[FireEmblem]

Buy a mic from Cross Spectrum Labs or you can buy a mic and send it to them.

Bear in mind that calibration files are not created equal. Some "calibrated" Behringer ECM8000's are not individually calibrated, they are batch calibrated. If you are complaining about the price, think about the labour cost of manufacturing thousands of microphones and having to manually calibrate each one.

Hmm.. international shipping + tariffs.. but certainly an option.

What is with the IK Multimedia MEMS Microphone? It says "calibrated frequency response with ARC 20-20.000 Hz +/- 0.5 dB", but shouldn't it be automatically callibrated then with REW too? Or does the calibration file match a microphone with a specific piece of software?

 

[Keith_W]

The ONLY type of microphone you should use for audio measurements is an omnidirectional condenser microphone. As for that specific microphone, I assume you are talking about this. Does it say it's omnidirectional? Where is the polar plot? And why would you buy that when you could get an ECM8000 or EMM-6 that dozens of people on ASR use for the same price? If you can't afford to get it calibrated, well there are people (like Amir) who think you don't need a calibrated mic. I don't agree with him, and I stated my reasons why in that book. The evidence is there for you to examine, along with links to the source. You can look at the evidence for yourself and decide if you want to go calibrated or not. I am a purist and I have a particular insistence on doing things properly, so for me, it's calibrated mic.

 

[NTK]

@SIY has a review of the IK Multimedia ARC microphone.

Fresh From the Bench: IK Multimedia ARC 2.5 MEMS Test Microphone

For the Test & Measurement Focus published in audioXpress March 2018, two of our authors tackled IK Multimedia’s ARC 2.5 room correction system. In this article Stuart Yaniger tested the new MEMS measurement microphone available with IK Multimedia’s ARC 2.5 System. The microphone is built around...

audioxpress.com