This is something that I would like to replicate in the future. I guess you are using a PC with a VST Host, so can I ask you some details regarding your hardware and software setup?
-
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!
If you have full range main speakers can a single sub be enough?
- Thread starter Frank Dernie
- Start date
This is something that I would like to replicate in the future. I guess you are using a PC with a VST Host, so can I ask you some details regarding your hardware and software setup?
@Frank Dernie @mitchco
Great thread - many thanks!
I have a very similar situation, and am torn between Dirac's latest, Mitcho's services, and/or REW DIY (which I've used to do basic system tuning with before).
I'm running JBL 2216ND1s (20hz) in my mains, with a single beastly JBL 4645C sub (also 20hz), which I've crossed at 55hz (so mostly for it's SLAM LF effects
. I have no real 'issues' with how it all works as is (does shake the house framing pretty well, tho!), but would like to 'just know' things are properly tuned - without having to get a Phd in Silly Software or audio engineering.
Worse yet, I'm considering a MF/HF horn upgrade, so would need to be able to 're-do' things if I choose to go that route.
Thanks for the great thread and replies!
Great thread - many thanks!
I have a very similar situation, and am torn between Dirac's latest, Mitcho's services, and/or REW DIY (which I've used to do basic system tuning with before).
I'm running JBL 2216ND1s (20hz) in my mains, with a single beastly JBL 4645C sub (also 20hz), which I've crossed at 55hz (so mostly for it's SLAM LF effects
. I have no real 'issues' with how it all works as is (does shake the house framing pretty well, tho!), but would like to 'just know' things are properly tuned - without having to get a Phd in Silly Software or audio engineering.Worse yet, I'm considering a MF/HF horn upgrade, so would need to be able to 're-do' things if I choose to go that route.
Thanks for the great thread and replies!
- Joined
- May 24, 2016
- Messages
- 643
- Likes
- 2,408
I gave away my PC when I retired 10 years ago so no chance for Audiolense
Understood.
Yes. You can host the FIR correction filters in Roon's convolution engine on any platform Roon supports. The issue is taking measurements. If running a Windows PC, no problem. But if using a Mac, one can use Boot Camp or Parallels. Or my service is able to import REW measurements into Audiolense and design/generate the correction filters to be hosted in whatever convolver one is using. One does not need to purchase the product, but there is a "one time" usage cost associated for the license. When I design/generate filters for folks, you get up to 6 filter sets as we zero in on your preference.
As a side note, I don't recommend any h/w based DRC solutions for these reasons: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ssey-room-eq-review.12746/page-10#post-380033
Wrt to software based DSP/DRC solutions, not all solutions are the same. In fact, the scale from not very good to excellent varies wildly based on my testing of many DRC products. Audiolense and Acourate currently represent the state of the art using proprietary psychoacoustic filtering that is in no other DRC product, in addition to having full user control over all frequency and time domain parameters. This is why I can get virtually "textbook" frequency and timing response out of my mains and dual subs: https://www.avsforum.com/threads/of...woofer-thread.1214550/page-1834#post-57390652 It is overkill for my room and listening levels, so I could have used a single sub...
To be clear, I am not shilling my service here. DRC is a mostly misunderstood topic as to exactly what the DSP algorithms are doing and how it impacts the sound quality in ones system/room. The "quality" of these solutions vary wildly and "how" they are used can make a huge difference in sound quality.
Good luck!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #44
Oh the room has been measured, first over 20 years ago when positioning the speakers (MLSSA) about 8 years ago with the DSPeaker device and recently with Audyssey.
So far neither of the latter have offered a more natural sounding result over the original, achieved by careful speaker positioning.
I have always rather suspected we listen "through" room modes since the measured FR varies a lot more in different location than it "sounds" if you put your ear in the microphone location.
I learned this when I started making recordings over 50 years ago, what I heard and what the microphone picked up differ. Moving the microphone around has a profound effect on the sound recorded IME, far more than moving listening position. So it is a very real difference in the sound as measured considerably more than I notice when listening.
If it hadn't been for the huge popularity of room compensation on this forum I would still be comfortable with the idea that as long as the speaker location is acoustically suitable one doesn't notice room modes, based on my experience.
I was asking the question since I don't mind doing more measurements but won't buy or have a convenient location for a 2nd sub, so was just interested if experienced people believed I could effectively use all 3 bass sources to fill in the dips in response.
I shall start dicking about when I can build up enough enthusiasm for equipment evaluation, which I detest...
Floyd would agree that we listen through rooms and can do this rather quickly. There is an initial room issue, but our brains quickly get rid of them.
That being said, almost no room that I have experienced, unless designed to be a listening room (and even then), will not benefit from some minor eq/tone work. How much is done can definitely degrade the sound. I try to really work with as minimal eq as possible.
A lot of auto programs (including REW Auto EQ) apply more bands than needed and actually hurt the sound. Doing manual filters, I can usually do the same eq work with about half of the REW Auto EQ filters used.
That being said, almost no room that I have experienced, unless designed to be a listening room (and even then), will not benefit from some minor eq/tone work. How much is done can definitely degrade the sound. I try to really work with as minimal eq as possible.
A lot of auto programs (including REW Auto EQ) apply more bands than needed and actually hurt the sound. Doing manual filters, I can usually do the same eq work with about half of the REW Auto EQ filters used.
I think there’s a point to be added about measurements versus manual, by-ear evaluation. What I get from Amir, @mitchco and others championing the need for room compensation in the bass is that one needs to establish a proper baseline for neutrality. Measurements and filtering are not there to make it sound good right away, but to let us aquire the experience of what a linear, phase-correct bass response sounds like.
After that, one can tweak to preference by broad stroking the spectral balance to what sounds good in the room to one’s ears. For instance, I usually add a bit more bass compared to the “ideal” in-room response because that sounds natural to me. But I know what linear bass sounds like, so I know the choice I’ve made and how it impacts the system. Without that baseline, one is falling back on acquired taste, heavily biased by years of time smearing, as it were.
Subjectively, what I found was that when the phase in the lower mids and bass has been optimized (there will always be some group delay), the lust for bass fades away. There is more “meat on the bones” in the lower registers when the timing is correct and the room modes have been dealt with, so as to give “fullness” and “body” to the sound in a way that can never be done by just adding or subtracting bass. And the accuracy of transient impacts from drums etc. gives the soundscape a type of “calm immediacy” thatI’ve otherwise only heard in studio control rooms.
For me, experiencing accurate phase and timing at home has been THE eye opener. That’s the real value of DSP solutions. Otherwise we’re just fiddling with tone controls.
After that, one can tweak to preference by broad stroking the spectral balance to what sounds good in the room to one’s ears. For instance, I usually add a bit more bass compared to the “ideal” in-room response because that sounds natural to me. But I know what linear bass sounds like, so I know the choice I’ve made and how it impacts the system. Without that baseline, one is falling back on acquired taste, heavily biased by years of time smearing, as it were.
Subjectively, what I found was that when the phase in the lower mids and bass has been optimized (there will always be some group delay), the lust for bass fades away. There is more “meat on the bones” in the lower registers when the timing is correct and the room modes have been dealt with, so as to give “fullness” and “body” to the sound in a way that can never be done by just adding or subtracting bass. And the accuracy of transient impacts from drums etc. gives the soundscape a type of “calm immediacy” thatI’ve otherwise only heard in studio control rooms.
For me, experiencing accurate phase and timing at home has been THE eye opener. That’s the real value of DSP solutions. Otherwise we’re just fiddling with tone controls.
- Joined
- May 24, 2016
- Messages
- 643
- Likes
- 2,408
Floyd also says, "ANY loudspeaker can sound better after room EQ, so long as it competently addresses the bass frequencies - this is not a guarantee, but really is not difficult for at least the prime listener." I am in total agreement.
I would hazard to say not many folks have actually heard smooth, even bass response in their room... The articles I linked above provide an easy listening test to verify this with your own ears.
I am a huge fan of John's REW and use it daily. But it is not marketed as state of the art of DRC. While it can tame a few peaks, which indeed is helpful, it cannot deal with non-minimum phase room issues caused by the multitude of low frequency room reflections.
This is where SOTA DRC shines. Check out this post and the last chart: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...udio-monitor-review.10897/page-44#post-344825 The bass response is not only smooth, but notice there are no low frequency room reflections in the measurement. It is one thing to have smooth sounding bass and another to have it both smooth and crystal clear.
Edit: @9radua1 too right man!
I would hazard to say not many folks have actually heard smooth, even bass response in their room... The articles I linked above provide an easy listening test to verify this with your own ears.
I am a huge fan of John's REW and use it daily. But it is not marketed as state of the art of DRC. While it can tame a few peaks, which indeed is helpful, it cannot deal with non-minimum phase room issues caused by the multitude of low frequency room reflections.
This is where SOTA DRC shines. Check out this post and the last chart: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...udio-monitor-review.10897/page-44#post-344825 The bass response is not only smooth, but notice there are no low frequency room reflections in the measurement. It is one thing to have smooth sounding bass and another to have it both smooth and crystal clear.
Edit: @9radua1 too right man!
OP
- Thread Starter
- #48
Why don't I feel the need to compensate any of the musical instruments that people play in here too?
I understand a lot of them won't excite the room a lot, but the cello could but nobody has ever commented on it or noticed anything, including me.
Mind you we don't shove instrumentalists into a corner.
I understand a lot of them won't excite the room a lot, but the cello could but nobody has ever commented on it or noticed anything, including me.
Mind you we don't shove instrumentalists into a corner.
Because the room colors the sound of the cello, but the cello isn't a recording. While you're playing a recording of a cello your room colors the sound of the cello and the recording venue. If the venue in which you're recording is the same room as the audio system, an 8db peak at 80Hz from the room at the mic location will be magnified by the playback on uncorrected speakers. That venues color the sound of instruments is why concert hall designers pay so much attention to acoustics.
The musician may compensate as he hears himself...
It will be interesting to see your measurements when they become available.
With miniDSP OpenDRC-DI, 6144 taps @ 48kHz, two channels.
AcourateDRC used, which provides data for both IIR and FIR filters in the miniDSP.
Left and right before and after correction - the "slope" target was "flat".
Good result, elimination of boomy or tubby sound that was irritating at higher listening levels...
However, the "lack of taps" @mitchco mentions creates an inability to correct phase in the very lows, and a problem shows when both left and right speakers standing waves combine at the listening position:
The standing wave of the left and right around 48Hz is 180 degrees out of phase (cancellation) at the listening position. Left, right, and both speakers with correction:
SPL:
Phase:
For whatever reason, the dip doesn't seem to make itself audible as a fault, so I still haven't worked on it, and only think about it when I think about it.
When the bass in the music being replayed is in stereo, the phase relationship is altered.
The problem tends to disappear then, when watching the in-room RTA.
When the bass is mixed to mono, the dip is seen in the in-room RTA.
AcourateDRC used, which provides data for both IIR and FIR filters in the miniDSP.
Left and right before and after correction - the "slope" target was "flat".
Good result, elimination of boomy or tubby sound that was irritating at higher listening levels...
However, the "lack of taps" @mitchco mentions creates an inability to correct phase in the very lows, and a problem shows when both left and right speakers standing waves combine at the listening position:
The standing wave of the left and right around 48Hz is 180 degrees out of phase (cancellation) at the listening position. Left, right, and both speakers with correction:
SPL:
Phase:
For whatever reason, the dip doesn't seem to make itself audible as a fault, so I still haven't worked on it, and only think about it when I think about it.
When the bass in the music being replayed is in stereo, the phase relationship is altered.
The problem tends to disappear then, when watching the in-room RTA.
When the bass is mixed to mono, the dip is seen in the in-room RTA.
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
- Messages
- 4,336
- Likes
- 6,705
Floyd recommends room correction for the bass, though. I believe he says it’s almost a requirement to get good sound.
Also, an acoustic instrument or voice can be considered a point source. Replaying that through a pair of speakers creates the illusion of mono, the phantom center, and any phantom placement of point sources in the stereo field. The phase coherence needed for phantom mono is easily disturbed in our untreated rooms, because two speakers interfere with the room (and each other) in ways our ears can’t predict as opposed to one live cello.
Imo your single subwoofer should have a continuously-variable phase control, which will give you one more tool for addressing that dip.
\\
As I'm sure you know, dips are much less audible and objectionable than peaks, but it seems to me that IF one of these days a recording just happens to have too much energy right there, it might not stick out like the sore thumb that it should.
I understood that you have full range speaker going to 26hz with -3db. I have similar ones (X6). I fail to understand for what kind of music you want to add subwoofers. I have one too, but only for the .1 movie channel. But I may get this wrong as 60% of all posts here deal with subwoofers. I still have to catch up on this business, or play more Bach organ work recorded in long churches with special organs.
restorer-john
Grand Contributor
I think most "audiophiles" are really grown up kids who had (or wished they had) a car full of subwoofers when they were young. Now they think a room full of them is cool. A huge amount of modern recordings really don't have much real bass anyway- it's just packed full of mid bass. And if it's movies with subterranean sound effects, that's surely for the home theatre, not the listening room?
I've got a pile of subwoofers that never get used. I've given several to my boys for their bedrooms so they can get "bass" out of their systems before they grow up. After going "extreme" and having SPL wars trying to crack the paster walls, they are bored with excess bass, just as I am. There's no system I have heard, ever, regardless of price, quality of installation or the room, where they do not betray their location and break apart the illusion of speakers disappearing. Even when placed directly under speakers (used as a speaker stand).
I see this obsessiveness of p#ssing around in the lowest few octaves, fighting a room, and yet accepting putrid midrange around crossover points and right at the point our ears are most sensitive.
Make some recordings of music playing on your system and listen to it on headphones. You'll hear way more problems which your brain happily compensates for subconsciously. Way more than a few room modes and suckouts.
.... thanks, I thought I was missing something.
If somebody makes an esthetic choice to only place small satellite speakers in his living room, then a subwoofer is of course needed. And I believe that esthetic choices are as important as a good sounding system.
Actually, there are quite a lot of acoustical problems in many venues. We simply don’t have the ability to correct them. I play the tuba in a wind band, and we play(ed, thank you Covid) in village halls and so. Sometimes you have too much reverb, sometimes you don’t hear the bass notes, sometimes the clarinets are all but inaudible, etc, etc. Mind you, there are some very bad Concert Halls too...
Similar threads
