Stand-mounted vs. Floorstanding

[March Audio]

Mine does.
A little polyester fleece at the right position does the trick.
To me it sounds really good and I'm not a fan of bose if you get my drift.

Im afraid that will attenuate a range of frequencies it wont address the fundamental problem. If you bring the massive peaks down, those two big titties, you will also attenuate the other areas in around them.

Anyway, doesnt it strike you as just a bit odd that you have to cover your speaker in a woolly jumper to stop it making your ears bleed with high frequency abuse?

 

[Sal1950]

To accurately reproduce that kick drum, you need this subwoofer...

View attachment 55198

I'm guessing that's a DIY sub?
I had 2 of Dr Hsu's very early HRSW12 subs that were 7' tall and went down into the teens.

 

[Juhazi]

Lots of good info and measurements of bass drivers and subwoofers here!
https://data-bass.com/#/articles?_k=iwjgrg

Sealed vs. BR vs. TL https://data-bass.com/#/articles/5cb774640ca6e70004e10828?_k=dh1e9a
"Bass Reflex - It is easy to see why bass-reflex designs are so prevalent as they get more out of a single driver over a large bandwidth. They can be made reasonable in size and don't have major issues, other than increased energy delay and decay near tuning and issues with port resonance, noise and compression.

Sealed Systems - Sealed systems are simple to design and build, are relatively forgiving of variations or mistakes and are more idiot-proof from damage in many cases. They also have no major acoustic issues related to the alignment itself to contend with, other than the fact that they do not offer the same amount of headroom and sensitivity over the intended bandwidth, driver for driver. However with enough drivers and power, the headroom can be increased as much as needed if the funds are there."

 

[QMuse]

Im afraid that will attenuate a range of frequencies it wont address the fundamental problem. If you bring the massive peaks down, those two big titties, you will also attenuate the other areas in around them.

View attachment 55229

I think it can actually be done avoiding that. They are both symmetrical so choosing a frequency in the middle of each of them and Q that fits their width should do the job nicely.

 

[BDWoody]

I'm guessing that's a DIY sub?
I had 2 of Dr Hsu's very early HRSW12 subs that were 7' tall and went down into the teens.
View attachment 55232

Would those fit in the Klippel?

I've still got a pair of the 10" Hsu's that I use.

 

[March Audio]

I think it can actually be done avoiding that. They are both symmetrical so choosing a frequency in the middle of each of them and Q that fits their width should do the job nicely.

Electronically/digitally yes of course, but A800 was talking about placing a blanket over the driver !

 

[QMuse]

Electronically/digitally yes of course, but A800 was talking about placing a blanket over the driver !

Oh, I wouldn't bother to comment that.

 

[thewas]

I think it can actually be done avoiding that. They are both symmetrical so choosing a frequency in the middle of each of them and Q that fits their width should do the job nicely.

Just the second large "hill", the first one doesn't really appear in that form in the angular measurements and thus if removed per EQ will create dip off-axis and in the sound power.

 

[QMuse]

Just the second large "hill", the first one doesn't really appear in that form in the angular measurements and thus if removed per EQ will create dip off-axis and in the sound power.

Sure. I was merely looking at the shape to be corrected without attenuating the areas around them, not what would make sense to correct.

 

[A800]

Im afraid that will attenuate a range of frequencies it wont address the fundamental problem. If you bring the massive peaks down, those two big titties, you will also attenuate the other areas in around them.

View attachment 55229



Anyway, doesnt it strike you as just a bit odd that you have to cover your speaker in a woolly jumper to stop it making your ears bleed with high frequency abuse?

The measurement above is indoors.
Reflections...
I measured them outdoors and it wasn't peaking that much as far as I remember.
It's just a 2" x 2" piece of polyester fleece.
I don't see the problem given the natural sound, ideal point source and absurd SPL.
Even before the modification it wasn't that big of a deal.
Any more questions?

 

[March Audio]

The measurement above is indoors.
Reflections...
I measured them outdoors and it wasn't peaking that much as far as I remember.
It's just a 2" x 2" piece of polyester fleece.
I don't see the problem given the natural sound, ideal point source and absurd SPL.
Even before the modification it wasn't that big of a deal.
Any more questions?

With respect I think you are the only one not seeing the massive problems with this driver and its implementation.

 

[A800]

With respect I think you are the only one not seeing the massive problems with this driver and its implementation.

On paper it's far from "perfect" and also my measurements were far from flat and the enclosure looks kind of interesting.
I don't know how but it just sounds so good.
Also I played around with EQ for 3 full days.
In the end I dropped the idea.
It was just better without.

 

[Siwel]

I

Do your mic, software, plots and charts tell you when your are 360 degrees out of phase?

I appreciate all of your, and others input on this topic and respect your steadfast loyalty to the science of measurements.

In the end, being happy with what you hear is the final metric, kind of like your 8-foot tall sounding speaker preference comment.

I'm sure there are people out there with fine measuring rooms/systems that were still dissatisfied with the results because their ears told them otherwise. I've read about their sagas in What's Best, oh their first world problems are just terrible I tell you.

Do your mic, software, plots and charts tell you when your are 360 degrees out of phase?

Is the software giving to 4D feedback?

4D is like 3D with TIME added in.

My ears could be wrong but I wouldn't know it, and ignorance is bliss I'm telling you.

You don't need golden ears or expensive instruments to set up a sub but you do need a rational, systematic approach and a way to create a reference.

As a couple of guys have said, for each system and each potential crossover frequency, there is a unique setting of level, phase and/or delay that correctly matches the time and level relationships between the two separate speaker elements. Careful setup is done not only to get the most seamless integration, tightest, deepest bass and best tone, but also to establish a known reference for your system for a particular crossover frequency, speakers and their unique spatial relationships. After you get the rig aligned you may decide you want more or less of this or that but now you have a known and relatively accurate starting point that you can return to if you get lost. It's also a reference point to see if you've actually made an improvement by altering the settings beyond the technically correct ones. If you can't find the happy spot for your stuff first, you are essentially just twiddling knobs until you think you have something that sound best to you. But this approach is more like settling on something you can live with rather than finding the ideal tuning and learning what your system sounds like when it's aligned as best it can be. Once you get "there" (in the technically correct sweet spot for your system), you can decide if the extra sauce you just dialed in sounds good or not relative to the level and phase aligned settings you found by testing.

"360 degrees (out) of phase" is essentially the same as a 0 degree phase angle (relationship) but may not be time coherent because you may have aligned the signal at different relative points in time (of the waveform). A signal may be phase coherent, but out of "sync" by one or more cycles. That may be the best you can do or you may have the necessary delay capability to correct that too. But I think half a loaf may be better than none in this case.

It has been recommended previously that you Read this. It's a practical tutorial on how to set up subwoofers for guys (like me) who want and need to keep it simple but still accurate. I've modified the approach by the obvious addition of using an spl meter instead of my ears. It's possible to implement this approach by ear but I find it's easier for me to put a mic and meter (or a phone with an spl meter) between the two elements being mated to help locate the deepest null. This all makes sense if you follow the link and then go ahead and do the work. Splurge on a meter for your phone if you don't already have one. There are some that are free but this is a worthwhile $4.00 tool. AudioTools is another app for those who need expandable capabilities. You don't need a separate mic with this system since all measurements you'll be making will be relative to each other, not absolute.

I bet you like your system's sound better if you follow the tutorial!

Big speakers rule!

 

[March Audio]

On paper it's far from "perfect" and also my measurements were far from flat and the enclosure looks kind of interesting.
I don't know how but it just sounds so good.
Also I played around with EQ for 3 full days.
In the end I dropped the idea.
It was just better without.

If it sounds good to you then I can only accept your view.

My opinion is that it is fundamentally flawed and you will find a much better solution elsewhere. I have yet to see a single driver solution that isn't so. Its the reality of physics.

EQ will not work well on this driver because its off axis response is so different to its on axis response.

 

[MattHooper]

Well...there's certainly no shortage of opinions, is there?

 

[MattHooper]

On the other end of the spectrum, I will happily admit I have an unreasonable disdain for towers. Key word being unreasonable; I can't think of any truly great arguments reasons why, but I'll express myself anyway.

First things first: I don't get the point of towers that aren't truly full range. I became an audiophile through headphones first, which just about all have real extension into the 20s. So spending the extra money on towers that don't have extension to the 20s seems absurd to me. I would take bookshelf+sub over a tower that only reaches into the 40s or 30s -6dB every time. I listen to everything, including a lot of hip hop, rap, pop, and electronic music that has plenty of content in the 20s. Even classical, which makes up half of my listening, feels incomplete without good sub-bass (especially orchestral works or anything with an organ).

Whereas I seem to be quite happy with floor standing speakers that get down to the 40s/30's. I just tend to not feel the need for more.

I listen to "everything" as well, from symphonic to funk, electronica, R&B and lots more.

I've had full range speakers. I've had subs. I've had stand mounted and floor stander.

I agree with some of your subjective impressions of stand mounted speakers. I've always owned speakers large and small that soundstage and image really well. But there is something aesthetically "neato" and appealing about the tiny visual footprint of a small stand mount, casting a big sound picture in front of you! I always get a kick out of it.

Though I can really enjoy both floor stander and stand mount, I eventually gravitate back to floor stander for the majority of my listening. I do end up appreciating the larger sound/lower frequencies/dynamic ease. But once it gets down to around 30 - 35 Hz, I just don't feel the need for more. I know it's there, I've heard it in other set ups, but I don't find "enough of it" to miss it, and don't find it makes that much impact on my enjoyment of the music. My two current floorstanding speakers go down to around 35Hz or so, they can sound "huge" and weighty when called for in the program material, so I just don't find myself missing something, hankering for more. Horses for courses and all that...

(Still, I DO intend to play around with subs again to see if I ever feel it's worth it. And isolation during this darned pandemic looks like the time).

 

[Bear123]

Whereas I seem to be quite happy with floor standing speakers that get down to the 40s/30's. I just tend to not feel the need for more.

I listen to "everything" as well, from symphonic to funk, electronica, R&B and lots more.

I've had full range speakers. I've had subs. I've had stand mounted and floor stander.

I agree with some of your subjective impressions of stand mounted speakers. I've always owned speakers large and small that soundstage and image really well. But there is something aesthetically "neato" and appealing about the tiny visual footprint of a small stand mount, casting a big sound picture in front of you! I always get a kick out of it.

Though I can really enjoy both floor stander and stand mount, I eventually gravitate back to floor stander for the majority of my listening. I do end up appreciating the larger sound/lower frequencies/dynamic ease. But once it gets down to around 30 - 35 Hz, I just don't feel the need for more. I know it's there, I've heard it in other set ups, but I don't find "enough of it" to miss it, and don't find it makes that much impact on my enjoyment of the music. My two current floorstanding speakers go down to around 35Hz or so, they can sound "huge" and weighty when called for in the program material, so I just don't find myself missing something, hankering for more. Horses for courses and all that...

(Still, I DO intend to play around with subs again to see if I ever feel it's worth it. And isolation during this darned pandemic looks like the time).

A sentiment I see repeated over and over here is a lot of folks that don't use subs state that their tower speakers provide "enough" bass and they don't need more, so there is no reason for subs.

Although it has been repeated many times, subs aren't about "more" bass, its about "better" bass, and hence better sound quality. It's very easy to glance at any of the in room responses of the speakers Amir has measured.....in room response is horrible below a certain frequency. +/-10 dB swings in response does not produce good sound quality. A pair of well placed subs along with eq on both the speakers and subs provides substantially higher sound quality than two speakers without subs can ever produce.

Yes, in addition to higher fidelity, subs provide drastically better capability and the ability to boost lower frequencies to compensate for our lack of sensitivity to bass at low volumes through the use of DEQ. Also, for dual purpose systems in which folks want to both watch movies and listen to music, a good pair of subs is necessary for accurate playback, which is the intention.

Many of us are in this hobby with a focus on sound quality. Subs provide much better sound quality than two channel.

 

[Lifer]

Hello,

To come back to the Stand-Mounted vs Floorsanding, for me one of the main advantage of Stand-Mounted is to keep those out of reach to my animals (Cats and dogs).
I always wondered how people with animals and floorstanding managed to protect their speakers as my cats would surely scratch them all day long ?

 

[Bear123]

Hello,

To come back to the Stand-Mounted vs Floorsanding, for me one of the main advantage of Stand-Mounted is to keep those out of reach to my animals (Cats and dogs).
I always wondered how people with animals and floorstanding managed to protect their speakers as my cats would surely scratch them all day long ?

Fear of reprisal would solve this. Pets can be trained to behave.

 

[MattHooper]

A sentiment I see repeated over and over here is a lot of folks that don't use subs state that their tower speakers provide "enough" bass and they don't need more, so there is no reason for subs.

Although it has been repeated many times, subs aren't about "more" bass, its about "better" bass, and hence better sound quality. It's very easy to glance at any of the in room responses of the speakers Amir has measured.....in room response is horrible below a certain frequency. +/-10 dB swings in response does not produce good sound quality. A pair of well placed subs along with eq on both the speakers and subs provides substantially higher sound quality than two speakers without subs can ever produce.

Yes, in addition to higher fidelity, subs provide drastically better capability and the ability to boost lower frequencies to compensate for our lack of sensitivity to bass at low volumes through the use of DEQ. Also, for dual purpose systems in which folks want to both watch movies and listen to music, a good pair of subs is necessary for accurate playback, which is the intention.

Yes, subwoofer advocates have been saying this for years and years so I'm aware of the arguments. I've also heard many systems with subwoofers (by people who have put a lot of effort in to the set up) and have never come home to my own system feeling I really need subs because my system just doesn't sound good compared to that system. In fact I tend to be made even happier with my system, which usually sounds to me more effortlessly coherent and integrated top to bottom.

I also went down the sub "rabbit hold" and bought JL 110E subs and the JL crossover. I have not, at this point (which is preliminary) felt the subs added enough to my system to justify the added expense, cables, speakers, hassle, and lowered aesthetics (I frankly hate subwoofers, aesthetically). I haven't fully decided not to use them as I could devote more time to integrating them even better. But that's one of the off-putting issues I (and others) have with subwoofers. When you read the literature from subwoofer advocates, it's amazing how much time and effort they have often put in to dialing in their subs to finally get perfect integration and room response. Tweak, tweak, tweak...it rarely seems to end.

I'm just not that motivated because the sound without subwoofers in my system is so damned good.

Many of us are in this hobby with a focus on sound quality.

I'm afraid a sentence like that comes off as sort of audiophile-virtue signaling: "Those of US who use subwoofers care about sound quality; by implication those without subwoofers don't."

I'm pretty sure all of us here care about sound quality. I think I have an inkling myself. ;-) I find my system to have beautiful, smooth, evenly balanced sound, tight bass, the whole shebang. Could it be even better? Sure, few systems couldn't be improved to some degree, at least objectively. But is it "low fidelity" sound owned by someon who has no focus on sound quality? Not by a long shot. It sounds fantastic (not just in my opinion, but in that of a number of people who work in pro sound - I'm in the industry - who have heard the system).

Subs provide much better sound quality than two channel.

Sure. For you. (Note "much better sound quality" has a subjective valuation component).

I have no argument against integrating subwoofers. The theory is certainly sound, and insofar as someone achieves beautiful integration in practice, that's great. But I've heard enough subwoofer set ups to infer that integration...to the degree I find good enough...is not easy to achieve.
And then the results, in the sense of the user's subjective experience, are subjectively evaluated. A bass node or resonance may look bad in objective measurements, but may either be subjectively less so, or may be excited only occasionally given the musical material, and not be a "big deal" for a user. So we may disagree on "how much better" subs make one or another system sound.

I plan to give my subs another whirl, but it's more out of interest and playing with the system, vs feeling any dramatic need for "more/better" bass.