Recommended F3 for Rock Music

[Henryk]

To be honest I wouldn’t worry to much about it, I'm certain good results can be had with both MA1 and Dirac.
Definitely the target curve you choose will have more of an influence on the resulting sound than the SW that you use to calibrate.
In case it helps, my choice after quite detailed testing of multiple automatic room correction SW was to use manual PEQ based on filters calculated by REW. I like the control I have that way, it's relatively simple to do once you get a hang of it, and IMO sounds just as good as (or better than) any automatic room EQ SW I tested so far.

Oh really? That's good to know!
So free software ended up working the best for you?

Maybe I should just get a mic and REW first, before committing to some expensive automated software.
That said, I'm sure DIRAC & MA-1 must adjust much more than just EQ stuff, no?

 

[Steve81]

Is there a way to quantify that characteristic, or is it a subjective quality of the speaker that needs to be heard?

...would explain why my monolith Altec's worked so well with Zeppelin, Floyd, Doors, Stones, etc.
That's a shame too, in a way; So many modern speakers tend to top-out at 8" woofers.

It's about raw SPL capability throughout the bass range. This requires a fair amount of displacement and power handling (or raw efficiency), beyond just the conventional subwoofer range (<80Hz). Of course, there's more than one way to skin a cat; the big boxes with massive drivers of old aren't the only way to get there. I prefer a multi-sub system crossed a bit higher than 80Hz, along with appropriately capable mains.

 

[ozzy9832001]

Ah okay!
Spending money only to over-absorb certainly sounds dumb.

Is REW the best way to take those measurements?
I've heard some say that's what they use it for predominantly.

REW is a great piece of software and the best part is it's free.

Once you take the measurements, I'd recommend posting them here. The wonderful people here will be able to take a look at them and let you know where or if there even are any concerns.

As for the order of events, I would recommend: take measurements, move listening position (if possible for best response), room treatment and then finishing it off with either EQ or some other form of Room Correction. If the room is large enough or has some odd acoustic characteristics, you may only need some minor EQ and can skip the room treatment altogether. There are plenty of people who listen fine without it.

The mic is about $100 and it's really worth the price.

 

[dominikz]

Oh really? That's good to know!
So free software ended up working the best for you?

Maybe I should just get a mic and REW first, before committing to some expensive automated software.
That said, I'm sure DIRAC & MA-1 must adjust much more than just EQ stuff, no?

The main benefit of automated SW like Dirac Live or MA-1 is that it doesn't require much of a learning curve to apply - which alone can make it worth the investment for a lot of people.
Also, it makes a lot of sense if you're already in the respective product eco-system.
A lot of the general functional differences between various room correction SW are covered in detail in my DRC comparison thread.
Dirac Live and MA1 try to correct the phase response as well, but there's no formal evidence of audibility of such corrections, and my experience is no exception in this regard.

 

[radix]

Do you have any experience with Neumann's MA-1 monitor alignment software?

Not an expert on this, but I do have the KH80s + KH750 for a desktop system. The Neumann software, AFAIK, is focused on a main listening position and will have you move a mic around in very precise increments. It only works with certain Neumann speaker systems.

DIRAC can be used with many systems, either via minidsp or some other hardware or on a PC. It can operate in a few modes, such as focused like the Neumann software, or geared for a large listening area like a couch.

I've not used the Neumann software in some time, but I remember it being more temperamental than DIRAC.

 

[Henryk]

It's about raw SPL capability throughout the bass range. This requires a fair amount of displacement and power handling (or raw efficiency), beyond just the conventional subwoofer range (<80Hz). Of course, there's more than one way to skin a cat; the big boxes with massive drivers of old aren't the only way to get there. I prefer a multi-sub system crossed a bit higher than 80Hz, along with appropriately capable mains.

Oh, I see. So the strategy of the 70's - big drivers, big efficiency, big boxes - isn't necessarily required to achieve the 100 - 250 Hz "sweetness" you described. With modern speaker engineering methods, we can achieve the same thing with smaller drivers, less efficiency, and smaller volume enclosures?

REW is a great piece of software and the best part is it's free.

Once you take the measurements, I'd recommend posting them here. The wonderful people here will be able to take a look at them and let you know where or if there even are any concerns.

As for the order of events, I would recommend: take measurements, move listening position (if possible for best response), room treatment and then finishing it off with either EQ or some other form of Room Correction. If the room is large enough or has some odd acoustic characteristics, you may only need some minor EQ and can skip the room treatment altogether. There are plenty of people who listen fine without it.

The mic is about $100 and it's really worth the price.

I see what you're saying; A $100 mic to access a whole bunch of room correction goodness sounds like a steal!
It's great that folks here are willing to help with the learning curve too; I heard REW can be a bit tough at first.

Any benefit to getting a better measurement mic than the UMIK-1?
I see that the UMIK-2 has selectable sample rates, but I don't know what good that would do.

The main benefit of automated SW like Dirac Live or MA-1 is that it doesn't require much of a learning curve to apply - which alone can make it worth the investment for a lot of people.
Also, it makes a lot of sense if you're already in the respective product eco-system.
A lot of the general functional differences between various room correction SW are covered in detail in my DRC comparison thread.
Dirac Live and MA1 try to correct the phase response as well, but there's no formal evidence of audibility of such corrections, and my experience is no exception in this regard.

Is DIRAC doing anything over-and-above what can be achieved with REW and applying PEQ filters to the computer's digital audio output?
It's such an expensive piece of software, I figure it must be adding more value than mere automation. I could be wrong though!

Not an expert on this, but I do have the KH80s + KH750 for a desktop system. The Neumann software, AFAIK, is focused on a main listening position and will have you move a mic around in very precise increments. It only works with certain Neumann speaker systems.

DIRAC can be used with many systems, either via minidsp or some other hardware or on a PC. It can operate in a few modes, such as focused like the Neumann software, or geared for a large listening area like a couch.

I've not used the Neumann software in some time, but I remember it being more temperamental than DIRAC.

Thank you for that!

I hadn't thought that Neumann would be geared for a single listening position, but it makes perfect sense when you consider how those monitors are typically used for mixing at a desk. I'm much more interested in optimizing a larger listening area, as you mentioned.

I guess one could still buy Neumann monitors and use DIRAC though...

How do you like your KH80+KH750 system?
Do you find the crossover between the monitors and sub is sonically seamless?
That's always been my concern with pairing relatively small speakers with a subwoofer.

 

[Steve81]

Oh, I see. So the strategy of the 70's - big drivers, big efficiency, big boxes - isn't necessarily required to achieve the 100 - 250 Hz "sweetness" you described. With modern speaker engineering methods, we can achieve the same thing with smaller drivers, less efficiency, and smaller volume enclosures?

FWIW I didn’t describe the “sweetness”, and the drivers / aggregate enclosure volumes aren’t necessarily that small, but as I said… more than one way to skin a cat.

Crossing over at say 120Hz (some go higher) to a multi-sub setup means your mains are freed from dealing with the most displacement-limited part of the bandwidth (among other advantages), obviating the need for huge woofers in your mains. This isn’t to suggest the mains can now be a couple of pee-wee micro-speakers, but crossed at 120Hz, a pair of 8” woofers would have a heck of a bite.

 

[dominikz]

Is DIRAC doing anything over-and-above what can be achieved with REW and applying PEQ filters to the computer's digital audio output?

That depends on the license, in my understanding:

1. Dirac Live with the basic license (stereo or MC) is doing FIR-based EQ on each channel, which apart from fixing the frequency magnitude response (EQ) also tries to make the impulse response look pretty.
   Frequency magnitude response correction can be done manually with REW-calculated filters, and you could also manually calculate a similar phase/impulse correction with e.g. rePhase.
   However, as I mentioned before, research seems to indicate that the shape of impulse response is perceptually largely irrelevant (within reason, of course) - I refer to this article by AudioXpress for a bit more information and references, as well as opinions by several authorities in the audio field.
   I also couldn't hear any benefit of phase/impulse correction so I don't bother with it.
   
   
2. Dirac Live with the additional Bass Control (DLBC) license enables optimization of multiple subwoofers and loudspeakers to provide a smoother bass response over a wider area. I suspect very similar results could be obtained manually with the Multi-Sub Optimizer (MSO) free SW.
   
   
3. Dirac Live with the additional Active Room Treatment (ART) license uses all channels (satellite and sub) to reduce decay time in the bass region. To my knowledge nothing similar can be done with free SW, but I have no experience to comment how well this works or whether measurable improvements translate into audible benefits.

So as I see it, if you have the required competence you can get similar results to 1. and 2. above with free SW. Note that it will not be identical - but two calibration passes with Dirac Live probably won't be identical either so I don't believe that is worth fixating on. With REW you definitely have more control which is something I like, but it is also why beginners may feel overwhelmed (I know I have!).

It's such an expensive piece of software, I figure it must be adding more value than mere automation. I could be wrong though!

But automation is huge value - not everyone is willing to spend the time to learn and understand the manual process sufficiently to get consistently good results. Dirac is simple to use, allows tweaking so you can adapt the response to your preference and works really well in the process. I can absolutely understand people who buy it, especially if they don't view audio reproduction as a profession (or a serious hobby)!

There are many examples in life where we prefer to pay someone else to do the work, rather than spend our time to learn and do the same thing to save some money - this is not that different!

Lastly, in any kind of engineering there is rarely only one correct answer to any question - it is the same in audio engineering.
Asking questions online in a forum can be useful and may give you some ideas, but without a deeper understanding of physics/technology/psychology it can be next to impossible to decide which advice is perfect and which is less so for your specific situation.
However if you are an audio enthusiast (and you probably are if you are here asking questions ) it may make sense to attempt to learn the basic concepts to see where best to invest the time in experimentation and to allow you to make more informed decisions down the road.
My go-to recommendation is the amazing "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms" 3rd Edition by dr. Floyd E. Toole.

 

[Henryk]

FWIW I didn’t describe the “sweetness”, and the drivers / aggregate enclosure volumes aren’t necessarily that small, but as I said… more than one way to skin a cat.

Crossing over at say 120Hz (some go higher) to a multi-sub setup means your mains are freed from dealing with the most displacement-limited part of the bandwidth (among other advantages), obviating the need for huge woofers in your mains. This isn’t to suggest the mains can now be a couple of pee-wee micro-speakers, but crossed at 120Hz, a pair of 8” woofers would have a heck of a bite.

Sorry... I need to choose my words on this forum very carefully it seems.
Unless I solely use scientific terms it seems my word-choices always get misconstrued; I apologize.

Would a 3-way speaker have better bass capability than a 2-way - other things being equal - because the a woofer is freed up, as you eluded to?

That depends on the license, in my understanding:

1. Dirac Live with the basic license (stereo or MC) is doing FIR-based EQ on each channel, which apart from fixing the frequency magnitude response (EQ) also tries to make the impulse response look pretty.
   Frequency magnitude response correction can be done manually with REW-calculated filters, and you could also manually calculate a similar phase/impulse correction with e.g. rePhase.
   However, as I mentioned before, research seems to indicate that the shape of impulse response is perceptually largely irrelevant (within reason, of course) - I refer to this article by AudioXpress for a bit more information and references, as well as opinions by several authorities in the audio field.
   I also couldn't hear any benefit of phase/impulse correction so I don't bother with it.
   
   
2. Dirac Live with the additional Bass Control (DLBC) license enables optimization of multiple subwoofers and loudspeakers to provide a smoother bass response over a wider area. I suspect very similar results could be obtained manually with the Multi-Sub Optimizer (MSO) free SW.
   
   
3. Dirac Live with the additional Active Room Treatment (ART) license uses all channels (satellite and sub) to reduce decay time in the bass region. To my knowledge nothing similar can be done with free SW, but I have no experience to comment how well this works or whether measurable improvements translate into audible benefits.

So as I see it, if you have the required competence you can get similar results to 1. and 2. above with free SW. Note that it will not be identical - but two calibration passes with Dirac Live probably won't be identical either so I don't believe that is worth fixating on. With REW you definitely have more control which is something I like, but it is also why beginners may feel overwhelmed (I know I have!).


But automation is huge value - not everyone is willing to spend the time to learn and understand the manual process sufficiently to get consistently good results. Dirac is simple to use, allows tweaking so you can adapt the response to your preference and works really well in the process. I can absolutely understand people who buy it, especially if they don't view audio reproduction as a profession (or a serious hobby)!

There are many examples in life where we prefer to pay someone else to do the work, rather than spend our time to learn and do the same thing to save some money - this is not that different!

Lastly, in any kind of engineering there is rarely only one correct answer to any question - it is the same in audio engineering.
Asking questions online in a forum can be useful and may give you some ideas, but without a deeper understanding of physics/technology/psychology it can be next to impossible to decide which advice is perfect and which is less so for your specific situation.
However if you are an audio enthusiast (and you probably are if you are here asking questions ) it may make sense to attempt to learn the basic concepts to see where best to invest the time in experimentation and to allow you to make more informed decisions down the road.
My go-to recommendation is the amazing "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms" 3rd Edition by dr. Floyd E. Toole.

Thanks for that wonderful article on phase correction!
I also didn't know that DIRAC had an ART license.
Personally, I'd rather do room treatments though.

I agree that automation has value for those not inclined to spend the time to learn.
That MUST be true, otherwise DIRAC Live wouldn't make any money!
However, I'm one who likes the increased control that comes with knowledge.

I do consider myself someone who knows the basic concepts already, but I find that concepts only go so far.
Most of my questions here are to learn which of these measurements translate to audible differences in the real world.
Because I don't have experience with a wide array of equipment, and people here do, this place is perfect for what I need!
I'm a pragmatist at heart.

I've heard others speak highly of that book; I may give it a shot one of these days!
But right now, with all the new terms I've learned, I'm a bit 'technically' burnt out

 

[Steve81]

Would a 3-way speaker have better bass capability than a 2-way - other things being equal - because the a woofer is freed up, as you eluded to?

I’m unclear as to what you’re asking. Restricting a woofer’s top end bandwidth by introducing a dedicated midrange driver can certainly can have its benefits, but it in and of itself won’t increase low end extension or output capability.

 

[ozzy9832001]

Would a 3-way speaker have better bass capability than a 2-way - other things being equal - because the a woofer is freed up, as you eluded to?

No. Having a 3-way speaker wouldn't allow the woofer to go any lower. That is solely based off how the driver and cabinet are constructed. A ported speaker will have lower extension but at the cost of port noise and placement restrictions (if it's rear ported). Driver size isn't always a factor either. An 8" woofer that does say 50hz will be the same 50hz as a 12". One could argue there will be less distortion as the 12" driver moves less to reproduce the same sound. Whether it's audible or not will likely depend on actual listening volume.

Having a 3-way speaker does have some benefits.

My current speakers are a 3-way and they have excellent mid range. Often times the limiting factor in a good 3-way is how well the crossover is implemented and at what frequency.

 

[Henryk]

I’m unclear as to what you’re asking. Restricting a woofer’s top end bandwidth by introducing a dedicated midrange driver can certainly can have its benefits, but it in and of itself won’t increase low end extension or output capability.

No. Having a 3-way speaker wouldn't allow the woofer to go any lower. That is solely based off how the driver and cabinet are constructed. A ported speaker will have lower extension but at the cost of port noise and placement restrictions (if it's rear ported). Driver size isn't always a factor either. An 8" woofer that does say 50hz will be the same 50hz as a 12". One could argue there will be less distortion as the 12" driver moves less to reproduce the same sound. Whether it's audible or not will likely depend on actual listening volume.

Having a 3-way speaker does have some benefits.

My current speakers are a 3-way and they have excellent mid range. Often times the limiting factor in a good 3-way is how well the crossover is implemented and at what frequency.

Ah, okay.
I knew that a 3-way helps the mids because they're freed up from having to deal with bass frequencies, but I was just curious if it had any effect on bass vice-versa.

Thanks for the clarification!

 

[radix]

I hadn't thought that Neumann would be geared for a single listening position, but it makes perfect sense when you consider how those monitors are typically used for mixing at a desk. I'm much more interested in optimizing a larger listening area, as you mentioned.

I guess one could still buy Neumann monitors and use DIRAC though...

How do you like your KH80+KH750 system?
Do you find the crossover between the monitors and sub is sonically seamless?
That's always been my concern with pairing relatively small speakers with a subwoofer.

The KH80+KH750 is excellent. The Neumann software does a great job integrating it at the MLP (where my head is sitting in the office chair). I bought some VESA mounts for the desk, so the speakers are elevated at ear height and do not take up any desk space. The Genelec VESA plate works fine on the KH80 and is easier to get. See my other post about it.

Best way to elevate desktop speakers with limited desktop real estate?

Situation below. This is a sit/standing desk, so floor stands are not a good solution. I would like them a bit higher. Perhaps a bracket mounted stand? Hi ahofer, Maybe a larger and higher wooden shelf. The Dell monitor stand would be at minimum height with a higher shelf. Maybe the laptop...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I see that newer versions of the MA1 software can now do HT style setups (e.g. 5.2.4), so maybe they can handle larger seating areas now. You should be able to send them a pre-sales question. They are very good about responding. Or I'm sure there's someone else on ASR that knows. You might want to post a specific question to the Neumann MA1 thread, or look through that.

New Neumann MA 1 - Automatic Monitor Alignment

The Beginning of a New Era in Monitoring Calibration algorithms jointly developed with Fraunhofer IIS For stereo setups with KH 80 DSP and all pairs of analog (non DSP-based) Neumann monitors using the KH 750 DSP subwoofer Individually calibrated measurement microphone Room adaptive target...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[radix]

The KH80+KH750 is excellent.

I should clarify that I use them in a desktop setup where I am about 1m from the speakers (it's in a different room and I'm too lazy to get the exact distance). The sub is under a second desk near me, but pointed in a different direction. I have the sub on one of those sub-plates with foam bottom to make it easier to move if I need to get to the back of it.

I should also say that I've never had much luck with the auto on/off of the KH80. I admit, I have not tried using it in maybe 1-2 years, so maybe a firmware update has fixed it. I use a smart power strip that monitors my DAC (RME) and turn the neumann power on/off based on the DAC power.

 

[Henryk]

I should clarify that I use them in a desktop setup where I am about 1m from the speakers (it's in a different room and I'm too lazy to get the exact distance). The sub is under a second desk near me, but pointed in a different direction. I have the sub on one of those sub-plates with foam bottom to make it easier to move if I need to get to the back of it.

I should also say that I've never had much luck with the auto on/off of the KH80. I admit, I have not tried using it in maybe 1-2 years, so maybe a firmware update has fixed it. I use a smart power strip that monitors my DAC (RME) and turn the neumann power on/off based on the DAC power.

Would you hesitate in recommending near/mid-field active monitors for living room and general listening use?
I heard that vertical and horizontal dispersion of some of these units can be a bit too narrow to be used otherwise.

 

[radix]

Would you hesitate in recommending near/mid-field active monitors for living room and general listening use?
I heard that vertical and horizontal dispersion of some of these units can be a bit too narrow to be used otherwise.

I don't think I would use the KH80 in a living room. Maybe as surrounds, but not mains. The KH150 would be better for that purpose, and I think it works with the KH750 for MA1 calibration. I've never used the 150s. I don't remember your room size or listening distance. if you are at, say, 2m or so and it's not a big room, maybe the KH80/KH750. But the 150 or 120v2 would likely be better. The KH80 just has small drivers and won't move a lot of air, though they do get loud.

You should ask about them in a relevant thread, like:

Is there any better of Neumann KH150 + 2x KH750 at this price range?

Hello guys. So maybe some remember me a few months ago I was trying to decide which monitors buy but I decided to expend more money into it (like 6000 range) of course I can go up if it's worth it. My usage is in a 7mx4m room (aprox 30m2 or 80m3) at 2m-2.25m distance. Between 85-95db SPL. Music...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Neumann KH 150 Monitor Review

This is a review, listening tests and measurements of the Neumann KH150 DSP 2-way studio monitor (active speaker). It is on loan from the company and costs US $1,750 (each). The design language is not changed of course. The main woofer is 6.5 inches now powered by 120 watt dedicated...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[dominikz]

I also didn't know that DIRAC had an ART license.
Personally, I'd rather do room treatments though.

Just note that treating the room to reduce decay at such low frequencies can be quite difficult and/or expensive.
However the question is if it is needed at all - that will depend on your room as well as your personal preferences.

Most of my questions here are to learn which of these measurements translate to audible differences in the real world.

The book I (and others) suggested can help a lot with these questions, and conclusions in it are backed by formal research. Connecting measurements to perception is not trivial and not everything is fully understood - but I wouldn't worry about that initially because current state of research can take you quite far.

I've heard others speak highly of that book; I may give it a shot one of these days!
But right now, with all the new terms I've learned, I'm a bit 'technically' burnt out

That is quite understandable, it is a good idea to take your time and let the information settle a bit

Because I don't have experience with a wide array of equipment, and people here do, this place is perfect for what I need!
I'm a pragmatist at heart.

Being pragmatic is of course OK, but notice you'll sometimes get conflicting advice from different people. This is where having a deeper understanding of underlying theory (and in time also your preference) can help you decide which approach makes more sense in your case.

 

[Henryk]

I don't think I would use the KH80 in a living room. Maybe as surrounds, but not mains. The KH150 would be better for that purpose, and I think it works with the KH750 for MA1 calibration. I've never used the 150s. I don't remember your room size or listening distance. if you are at, say, 2m or so and it's not a big room, maybe the KH80/KH750. But the 150 or 120v2 would likely be better. The KH80 just has small drivers and won't move a lot of air, though they do get loud.

You should ask about them in a relevant thread, like:

Is there any better of Neumann KH150 + 2x KH750 at this price range?

Hello guys. So maybe some remember me a few months ago I was trying to decide which monitors buy but I decided to expend more money into it (like 6000 range) of course I can go up if it's worth it. My usage is in a 7mx4m room (aprox 30m2 or 80m3) at 2m-2.25m distance. Between 85-95db SPL. Music...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Neumann KH 150 Monitor Review

This is a review, listening tests and measurements of the Neumann KH150 DSP 2-way studio monitor (active speaker). It is on loan from the company and costs US $1,750 (each). The design language is not changed of course. The main woofer is 6.5 inches now powered by 120 watt dedicated...

www.audiosciencereview.com

I've read Amir's review but didn't know about that other thread - thanks for pointing it out to me.

Yeah, I figured I might need some bigger drivers for general listening use.
The KH150's sure do look good, but the 310's aren't that far off in terms of price.
Larger drivers and a 3-way design sounds nice, but the arrangement looks strange.

Would those 310's, because of how the drivers are stacked, be bad for an situation where the listening position can change?

Just note that treating the room to reduce decay at such low frequencies can be quite difficult and/or expensive.
However the question is if it is needed at all - that will depend on your room as well as your personal preferences.

The book I (and others) suggested can help a lot with these questions, and conclusions in it are backed by formal research. Connecting measurements to perception is not trivial and not everything is fully understood - but I wouldn't worry about that initially because current state of research can take you quite far.

That is quite understandable, it is a good idea to take your time and let the information settle a bit

Being pragmatic is of course OK, but notice you'll sometimes get conflicting advice from different people. This is where having a deeper understanding of underlying theory (and in time also your preference) can help you decide which approach makes more sense in your case.

I don't doubt that low frequency room treatments can be expensive, but did you see the price of the hardware required to run DIRAC ART?!
I'll get the mic + REW going, take some measurements, then - as you said - find out if anything else is needed.

My thoughts exactly, when you say the state of research can take you quite far.
I like music, but I can't say I care as much as some people do about the technical side.
ASR gives me enough easily-picked knowledge to be as well informed as I care to be.

When one is a pragmatist, the first thing you learn is the practical value of other people's opinions.
Don't worry sir, I am far from making the mistake of trusting opinions above my own experience.
Learnt that when I was very young

 

[Ze Frog]

The speaker I'm looking at has an F3 of 52 Hz and yet many reviews claim that you don't need a subwoofer even for rap music (which I assume to have even lower bass than rock). Am I missing something?

Also, on that Daft Punk song, there is no bottom!
The jazz example looks to be 25 Hz; am I reading that right?

My speakers are sealed with an F3 of 60Hz, and a lot of music really don't feel the need for subwoofers.

 

[radix]

My speakers are sealed with an F3 of 60Hz, and a lot of music really don't feel the need for subwoofers.

A 4-string bass has an open E of 41 Hz and a 5-string base with low B has 31 Hz. A fair bit of rock / alt rock / grunge has low-B or de-tuned E (e.g. Into The Void is tuned down 1.5 steps to C#).

A lot of bass has a strong harmonics, so you might just be picking up on the 2nd harmonic of bass lines and your brain fills in the rest.

Is that 60 Hz spec or measured? If it's spec, you likely get some room reinforcement a bit lower than 60 Hz.

I have one room with L100s that are good to maybe 38 Hz (down 3dB from 50 Hz). I have another room with F228be + subs that are good to below 20 Hz. Those are based on UMIK-2 + REW and Arc Genesys measurements. Playing the same music, it's noticeable. That's not a level-matched test. The 15" sub can really be felt in a different way than the L100s.