More speakers, less watts?

[Soundmixer]

The ability to localise sound at deep bass frequencies varies from person to person and, for people with unimpaired hearing, typically sits within the 60-120Hz range. My understanding is that 80Hz was chosen as the standard as it's a level at which the vast majority of people cannot localise bass and is sufficiently high to provide dynamic headroom benefits through using active subwoofers. So while 80Hz might work well for someone, 100Hz or even 120Hz might work equally well for someone else.

If the end goal is non-localization, then 100-120hz is too close to the localization detection threshold - which makes it unsuitable. First, you have made this about the environment (which has no relevance), and now you are making this an individual thing. Once again, if this is the case, then why have a standard? If this is all about personal customization, then no standard is needed, it is all subjective. Sorry, but we have standards for a reason. It is to prevent the wild wild west of calibration and system setup. The industry has accepted 80hz as the standard, perhaps you should as well instead of trying to reinvent it.

It is a fact that subwoofers can work extremely well at crossover settings higher than 80Hz. If you follow Anthony Grimani (who, given his career path, probably knows more about HT than anyone) you'll find that he sometimes even uses them in high end (>$200k) custom HT installations specifically to overcome SBIR issues with the main speakers.

Subwoofers(plural) can use a higher crossover point, especially if they are co-located in the corners. A single sub (which is what we are talking about here) cannot use a higher crossover point, because it is easier to detect one sub than it is for two. Another way to tame SBIR is with equalization or bass traps, so there is no real need to move the crossover point higher to deal with that.

His systems all typically use four subwoofers though which eliminates localisation issues. If you understand room acoustics, you would never believe in a universal 80Hz crossover setting. It's simply a starting point that works for many people in their own systems.

He uses the same thing I use in my studio and my HT. It is called Sound Field Management for subs, and that is a whole different topic than what we are discussing here. With SFM, you can use a higher crossover point because of the distributive nature of the setup. Setting up SFM with four subs is expensive, time-consuming, and beyond the knowledge of most folks here, and everywhere else. It is also beyond the scope of this discussion, as most folks don't use it, and don't even understand how it works. At no point up to know have we discussed multiple subs, so bringing it up is just moving the goal post.


I believe in a universal 80hz crossover point because the industry adopted it for editing studios and dubbing stages. It is also recommended by subwoofer manufacturers, Dr. Floyd Tool, Bob Greene, Cedia, THX, Dolby, DTS, and everyone else in the industry. If everyone agrees this is the ideal crossover point, then I think folks can do themselves a great favor by sticking with it, and not paying attention to folks that propagate no standard at all.

Personally I can localise a single subwoofer crossed at 80Hz in my system (even placed at the front), at 60Hz I cannot. I currently use a pair of subwoofers crossed at 80Hz and, even though they're placed in the rear corners behind the listening position, I cannot localise them at all. If I turn one of them off I can.

If you can localize a sub at 80hz, then the filtering in your bass management must be relatively shallow allowing higher frequencies into the subwoofer. I am not surprised you cannot localize two subs at 80hz, even if you use a shallow filter. Two are more subs are much more difficult to localize than a single sub. We aren't talking about multiple subs here, or the dynamics of this discussion would be quite different.

Also note that the LFE channel's output can be up to 120Hz although usually it's rolled off before then. This is independent of the bass management crossover setting so you ideally don't want a system where 120Hz can be localised. If you can, depending where the sub is I would consider using that LPF for LFE setting.

This is pretty common knowledge, so I am not sure why you would bring this up.

 

[Soundmixer]

A loudspeaker like the a120 will given its size obviously benefit from a much higher crossover if possible, this will increase its spl capacity and your overall system headroom.

The speaker may benefit from the higher crossover point, but preventing sub localization does not. SPL and system headroom is a whole different topic than sub localization.

 

[sigbergaudio]

If it is found that a subwoofer becomes more sonically visible as the crossover frequency is raised beyond 80hz, then there is a standard that says higher crossover can't work.

The speaker may benefit from the higher crossover point, but preventing sub localization does not. SPL and system headroom is a whole different topic than sub localization.

Exactly, but when setting up a home cinema, everything you do is a compromise of a number of things. You can't consider localisation issues alone if you also have headroom issues. In many instances (I know you don't believe me but it is indeed true) both 90 and 100hz crossovers will work without being localizable and will at the same time have the benefit of added headroom. The end result is A BETTER COMPROMISE than an 80hz crossover.

Most standards including this one is a result of finding a compromise that works best in most situations. Not all situations. Lots of people are knowledgeable enough to challenge the standard in situations like this, and net a better end result than if they would blindly stick to the standard.

By the way: We build active speakers that are explicitly designed for subwoofers and have a -3dB point of 90hz. We also build subwoofers that when configured to be paired with these speakers, roll off with a -6dB point at 100hz (LR4). No one is able to localize the bass to the subwoofers in this system.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Sorry for deleting my previous post. Can't remember exactly what I said, but I guess I'd like it if all manufacturers could recommend crossover settings for all their speakers, especially if it has any impact on their intended sound signature.

We do, and the recommendation is 90hz or higher.

In general, signature will be affected if you choose a crossover that is too low, leaving a gap in the response between the subwoofer and the speaker.

 

[jgiannakas]

I set my crossover point purely based on FR measurements. Saw that there is a massive cancellation between FR and FL speaker below 70hz or so, due to room issues. Experimented with 80-90-100 hz and the best compromise was 90hz yielding the smoothest FR while preserving reduced localisation .

 

[Benedium]

I find that raising the crossover setting also means I have to increase the playback volume. Is this right?

 

[Mr Wolf]

SVS recommended crossing over at 10Hz above the frequency that a speaker can comfortably cover, presumably the -3dB point.

https://www.svsound.com/blogs/subwo...he-proper-crossover-frequency-for-a-subwoofer

It also has a database of speakers which provides suggested crossover settings.

https://www.svsound.com/pages/merlin

 

[jgiannakas]

I find that raising the crossover setting also means I have to increase the playback volume. Is this right?

No that shouldn’t happen unless your sub is not volume matched to the mains

 

[Benedium]

No that shouldn’t happen unless your sub is not volume matched to the mains

It should be volume matched as I've already done audyssey setup.

I thought it might be because with lower crossover, the speakers were resonating more or causing some frequencies to seem louder previously. Guess I won't know if I don't do proper measurements. Anyway just had to check with u guys on the theory. Thanks again.

 

[jgiannakas]

It should be volume matched as I've already done audyssey setup.

I thought it might be because with lower crossover, the speakers were resonating more or causing some frequencies to seem louder previously. Guess I won't know if I don't do proper measurements. Anyway just had to check with u guys on the theory. Thanks again.

You’ll need a measurement mic to see what’s going on. In a pinch use audusseys mic with your computer running rew. What I found with audussey is that the phase for the sub needed adjustment (sub distance tweak) depending on the crossover frequency. If not adjusted it caused cancellations (dips) in some frequencies for one or both speakers. That cancellation varied depending on the XO setting as the sub and main speaker phase is not constant depending on the XO frequency.
So measure your speakers and adjust the sub distance (increase) until you get a smooth FR at the XO point for both speakers. Volume shouldn’t need adjustment at all if you don’t get any cancellations.

you can see what I mean from my measurements here: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...-3000-micro-subwoofer-announced.21504/page-11

 

[Soundmixer]

Exactly, but when setting up a home cinema, everything you do is a compromise of a number of things. You can't consider localisation issues alone if you also have headroom issues. In many instances (I know you don't believe me but it is indeed true) both 90 and 100hz crossovers will work without being localizable and will at the same time have the benefit of added headroom. The end result is A BETTER COMPROMISE than an 80hz crossover.

You are correct, setting up a home theater is a series of compromises. Some compromises are less damaging than others. However, if you plan out your system (rather than willy nilly choosing components), you can minimize those compromises. I would not make the compromise of choosing a bookshelf speaker that could not make it down to at least 60hz, so I would have to make another compromise by choosing a crossover point that localizes my sub. Those are two unnecessary compromises right out of the gate. If you choose the right amp/speaker combination, then headroom should be taken into consideration in that choice. That way you don't have to make another unnecessary compromise, like gaining headroom by raising the crossover point of the sub to the point it localizes.

Most standards including this one is a result of finding a compromise that works best in most situations. Not all situations. Lots of people are knowledgeable enough to challenge the standard in situations like this, and net a better end result than if they would blindly stick to the standard.

If those standards have already been established, then it would be senseless and a waste of time to try and re-write them. Blindly sticking to a standard can at least guarantee a consistent result. Not sticking to a standard leaves you in the wild wild west of set. You don't know what you will get. You would be throwing crap against a wall to see what sticks.

By the way: We build active speakers that are explicitly designed for subwoofers and have a -3dB point of 90hz. We also build subwoofers that when configured to be paired with these speakers, roll off with a -6dB point at 100hz (LR4). No one is able to localize the bass to the subwoofers in this system.

This system would work great with an 80hz crossover point, and your bolded comment would be satisfied.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Not sticking to a standard leaves you in the wild wild west of set. You don't know what you will get. You would be throwing crap against a wall to see what stivna.

This seems to be your returning point of worry in your posts. This process is called experimenting, and is a great way of both learning and finding what works best. Why are you so afraid of it?

 

[Soundmixer]

This seems to be your returning point of worry in your posts. This process is called experimenting, and is a great way of both learning and finding what works best. Why are you so afraid of it?

The experimenting has already been done, and the conclusion is that 80hz is the best crossover point for keeping your sub unlocalizable. Any higher than that, and the sub becomes more and more localizable. Bob Greene found this to be so back in 1990 with his blind listening tests. THX, Dolby, DTS have all found this to be the case. I attended two listening tests at Harmon Labs in 2001 and 2002, and that was the conclusion of the listeners in those tests. Now here you are suggesting we should experiment with something that has already been tested to death and established industry-wide, just so you can scratch an itch. What, do you want to reinvent the wheel so it can be shaped square?

Afraid is an emotion that is impossible to glean on a forum. It might be helpful for you to stick to the topic at hand, and discontinue analyzing emotions that you can't detect. That is called deflection, and people do that when they become answer bankrupt.

 

[sigbergaudio]

The experimenting has already been done, and the conclusion is that 80hz is the best crossover point for keeping your sub unlocalizable. Any higher than that, and the sub becomes more and more localizable. Bob Greene found this to be so back in 1990 with his blind listening tests. THX, Dolby, DTS have all found this to be the case. I attended two listening tests at Harmon Labs in 2001 and 2002, and that was the conclusion of the listeners in those tests. Now here you are suggesting we should experiment with something that has already been tested to death and established industry-wide, just so you can scratch an itch. What, do you want to reinvent the wheel so it can be shaped square?

Afraid is an emotion that is impossible to glean on a forum. It might be helpful for you to stick to the topic at hand, and discontinue analyzing emotions that you can't detect. That is called deflection, and people do that when they become answer bankrupt.

Again, localisation as a problem doesn't live in isolation in people's homes. And again, there are many instances where 80hz is NOT the lowest working crossover, and choosing something else will allow us to make less compromise in other areas, ultimately gaining a better net result.

If it's more important to stick to the standard than to get the best possible sound, by all means choose 80hz blindly in all situations. This conversation has become repetitive, so I will stop feeding the troll now.

 

[MarkWinston]

What need do you have of all channels driven to max simultaneously?

Because when I buy watts I use all the watts. ALL.

 

[Persik]

So, it is safe to say that there will be no sub localization below or at 80Hz.
Is there any reason one would want to cross sub at 80Hz and not lower, besides load/ power output distribution, and general assumption that sub is more capable to reproduce bass/ sub bass?
My question is mostly about music reproduction, especially when the mains are capable to go much lower, e.g. 35Hz. Not sure if there are any standards exist for music setups.

Also, SVS has specific speaker/ sub matching recommendations including suggestions re: crossover frequency, that goes lower than 80Hz for larger towers. Does it make sense?

 

[Soundmixer]

Again, localisation as a problem doesn't live in isolation in people's homes. And again, there are many instances where 80hz is NOT the lowest working crossover, and choosing something else will allow us to make less compromise in other areas, ultimately gaining a better net result.

If it's more important to stick to the standard than to get the best possible sound, by all means choose 80hz blindly in all situations. This conversation has become repetitive, so I will stop feeding the troll now.

If you are going to stop feeding the troll, it is likely you will starve to death. Commit suicide much?

I would rather listen to the industry that established the crossover point by objective listening than listen to a dude who has established nothing. You want to crossover higher than 80hz, go ahead. Recommending that to somebody else is not advisable.

 

[Soundmixer]

So, it is safe to say that there will be no sub localization below or at 80Hz.
Is there any reason one would want to cross sub at 80Hz and not lower, besides load/ power output distribution, and general assumption that sub is more capable to reproduce bass/ sub bass?
My question is mostly about music reproduction, especially when the mains are capable to go much lower, e.g. 35Hz. Not sure if there are any standards exist for music setups.

Since this is specifically a music question, I would say if you have mains that go down to 35hz, skip the sub altogether. There is not much in the way of musical information below 40hz unless you listen to a lot of synthesizer-based music, or demanding wide-range classical music like a Mahler symphony. There have been standards set for multichannel music back in 2004, but not many folks really followed them.

Also, SVS has specific speaker/ sub matching recommendations including suggestions re: crossover frequency, that goes lower than 80Hz for larger towers. Does it make sense?

Lower makes sense for a bass-capable tower with the right amount of power. They are rare though.

 

[sigbergaudio]

So, it is safe to say that there will be no sub localization below or at 80Hz.
Is there any reason one would want to cross sub at 80Hz and not lower, besides load/ power output distribution, and general assumption that sub is more capable to reproduce bass/ sub bass?
My question is mostly about music reproduction, especially when the mains are capable to go much lower, e.g. 35Hz. Not sure if there are any standards exist for music setups.

Yes, in a balanced setup, the subwoofer will typically be more capable up to 80hz+ even when you have large speakers.

 

[Head_Unit]

It used to be the surrounds needed less power. However, with the introduction of Atmos and X, that has changed. Now ALL channels (for the most part) are equal and should have equal power.

I've been hypothesizing that for years in the face of conventional wisdom otherwise. Do you have any way to measure that assertion? I'd love to have evidence of the hypothesis.