Subwoofers make all big speakers obsolete?

[Deleted member 43441]

Yes, but perhaps not in the way one would think. The LESS your system interacts with the room, the more of the imaging and spatical cues present in the recording will be conveyed successfully to you as a listener.

That’s correct, and why it’s my belief every room needs to have some type of treatment. For me it’s bass traps and wall treatments, and only then can the soundstage be to my liking.

I think it’s safe to say that soundstage comes from our source as intended and mastered by the engineer, our electronics to transparently deliver that source, our choice of speakers, the placement of those speakers, and how our room interacts with those speakers.

 

[dasdoing]

let's not forget mostly directivity at 100-500hz it's kind of omni, having more driver just create large image

For example
The R3 and R11, the R11 just uses more woofers with the same directivity

the vertical will be more controled
here is 4 omni sources with 0,2m seperation at 400Hz (example)

 

[dominikz]

Yes, but perhaps not in the way one would think. The LESS your system interacts with the room, the more of the imaging and spatical cues present in the recording will be conveyed successfully to you as a listener.

The above approach may seem intuitive, but there also seems to be evidence that removing the loudspeaker-room interaction (extreme case: listening in an anechoic chamber) can break externalization - i.e. cause in-head localization of phantom sources (similar as with headphones). An interesting note on this can be found in Toole's "Sound Reproduction" 3rd Ed, chapter 7.4.2, page 182.
So it appears that some level of room reinforcement/reflections is actually required with most loudspeaker reproduction schemes to facilitate something resembling a realistic (albeit phantom) sound source image.
In addition, (some) reflections can improve the sense of envelopment, image width and even dialogue intelligibility and tonality (e.g. see the famous ~2kHz stereo dip).
My point is that completely removing room influence on loudspeaker reproduction may not always bring us closer to hearing the recording 'as intended', and that there really is a bit of ambiguity on what constitutes 'neutral' and 'realistic' when speaking about spatiality and imaging in stereo (and even multichannel) sound reproduction. Since most sound reproduction systems don't try to recreate the full 3D soundfield around the listener I'm not sure that this ambiguity can really be avoided. Consequently, there may always be some leeway for preference when speaking about loudspeaker directivity and room treatment vs spatiality/imaging/envelopment.
Anyway, just my 2c

EDIT: This is of course related to part of the spectrum above the transition frequency. Below the transition frequency there is usually a need to tame room effect (via treatment and/or EQ) as they cause severe resonances and nulls that are usually audibly detrimental.

 

[Deleted member 43441]

The above approach may seem intuitive, but there also seems to be evidence that removing the loudspeaker-room interaction (extreme case: listening in an anechoic chamber) can break externalization - i.e. cause in-head localization of phantom sources (similar as with headphones). An interesting note on this can be found in Toole's "Sound Reproduction" 3rd Ed, chapter 7.4.2, page 182.
So it appears that some level of room reinforcement/reflections is actually required with most loudspeaker reproduction schemes to facilitate something resembling a realistic (albeit phantom) sound source image.
In addition, (some) reflections can improve the sense of envelopment, image width and even dialogue intelligibility and tonality (e.g. see the famous ~2kHz stereo dip).
My point is that completely removing room influence on loudspeaker reproduction may not always bring us closer to hearing the recording 'as intended', and that there really is a bit of ambiguity on what constitutes 'neutral' and 'realistic' when speaking about spatiality and imaging in stereo (and even multichannel) sound reproduction. Since most sound reproduction systems don't try to recreate the full 3D soundfield around the listener I'm not sure that this ambiguity can really be avoided. Consequently, there may always be some leeway for preference when speaking about loudspeaker directivity and room treatment vs spatiality/imaging/envelopment.
Anyway, just my 2c

Good post, and I have to agree with this to a certain degree also. You’ll never get the room totally out of the equation, but taming it is my goal.

I have an acquaintance that lives in a historic area of Pennsylvania, and his house and neighboring houses were built in the in the 1800s I believe some more actually built in the 1700s. Anyway the foundations and walls on these houses are sometimes 3 feet thick, and his house had the deadest sound that I’ve ever heard in a home. I often wondered if my set up would sound any good in there?! Anyway my goal is to take the muddy bass that I sometimes experience away from the MLP, and I prefer to do this by treating my room versus DSP. I’m halfway there, aren’t we always? Thanks for the post.

 

[dominikz]

Good post, and I have to agree with this to a certain degree also. You’ll never get the room totally out of the equation, but taming it is my goal.

I have an acquaintance that lives in a historic area of Pennsylvania, and his house and neighboring houses were built in the in the 1800s I believe some more actually built in the 1700s. Anyway the foundations and walls on these houses are sometimes 3 feet thick, and his house had the deadest sound that I’ve ever heard in a home. I often wondered if my set up would sound any good in there?! Anyway my goal is to take the muddy bass that I sometimes experience away from the MLP, and I prefer to do this by treating my room versus DSP. I’m halfway there, aren’t we always? Thanks for the post.

I'd just like to add that my previous post above was referring to the part of the spectrum above the transition frequency. Below the transition frequency (i.e. all of the bass, as transition frequency will normally be somewhere between 200-300Hz) is where modal effects of the room dominate the perceived tonality, and here it's always beneficial to try to mitigate the room effects - be it via EQ, acoustical treatment or some combination of both.

 

[Adi777]

Damn, really damn interesting topic Actually, it's a bit of a jumble, as some have already written, but still mega-interesting.

 

[NewbieAudiophileExpert]

In my experience feeding the input of my SVS SB1000 and allowing the high pass filter to output a signal (minus anything sub 80HZ) to an amp which powers a 3 way speaker from 80HZ and above is the superior way - although i'd bet my life that a really good two way bookshelf would sound so good with this set up as well.

 

[Tangband]

As a kid I always dreamed about the huge towers with a big woofer or even several bass drivers.
But I'm wondering now that subs are priced OK for 10-15 inch and it's possible to add one to each channel, are all the big speakers obsolete?
So a small speaker /monitor combined with a sub basically have the same woofer power as the big guys for much less €€€
What am I missing here?

The best sound for 2 channels can be gained by :

1. Extensive listening to find the correct place in the room for the main loudspeakers, using the tunemethod.
Here is how to do it :

Setting up loudspeakers for the best tune -

2. After this is done correctly, you will find that the correct placement of the two active subwoofers in stereo is exactly the same place as your main loudspeakers - i.e. right below your main speakers.

3. After recognizing this - one understands that the best sound option is to have the active subwoofer inbuilt in the same cabinet as the main speaker - a big active floorstander .

So, to answer your question — if you want a pitch accurate sound from the whole audible frequency area, separate subwoofers is not the most optimal choice, but it might be practical.

Also, combining two separate subs with two small main loudspeakers with a 5 inch midbass , youre gonna get distortion at around 100 Hz when playing loud, and you cant cross over any higher in freq than about 100 Hz , because of the distance sub- to main loudspeaker is to long.
————-
Edit : in cases where you only have one subwoofer - because of wavelengths of sound is longer at lower frequencies, you have much more freedom in placement of a single subwoofer if your main loudspeaker can play music down to maybe 40 Hz without trouble . In this case, crossing the sub at 40 Hz with a steep filter ( more than 36 dB/oct ) you have a better opportunity to preserve the tonal pitch in the bass region.

The key to good bass fidelity is always to have the main loudspeakers playing bass as good as it gets even without subwoofers , with the correct placement in the room and with the use of proper loudspeaker stands. You have to do this even before thinking about adding subwoofers.

A bass guitarr plays frequencies from 40-8000 KHz , its not separated in only deep bass area - real instruments are functioning very different from sine sweeps or test tones.

 

[Adi777]

The best sound for 2 channels can be gained by :

1. Extensive listening to find the correct place in the room for the main loudspeakers, using the tunemethod.
Here is how to do it :

Setting up loudspeakers for the best tune -

2. After this is done correctly, you will find that the correct placement of the two active subwoofers in stereo is exactly the same place as your main loudspeakers - i.e. right below your main speakers.

3. After recognizing this - one understands that the best sound option is to have the active subwoofer inbuilt in the same cabinet as the main speaker - a big active floorstander .

So, to answer your question — if you want a pitch accurate sound from the whole audible frequency area, separate subwoofers is not the most optimal choice, but it might be practical.

Also, combining two separate subs with two small main loudspeakers with a 5 inch midbass , youre gonna get distortion at around 100 Hz when playing loud, and you cant cross over any higher in freq than about 100 Hz , because of the distance sub- to main loudspeaker is to long.
————-
Edit : in cases where you only have one subwoofer - because of wavelengths of sound is longer at lower frequencies, you have much more freedom in placement of a single subwoofer if your main loudspeaker can play music down to maybe 40 Hz without trouble . In this case, crossing the sub at 40 Hz with a steep filter ( more than 36 dB/oct ) you have a better opportunity to preserve the tonal pitch in the bass region.

The key to good bass fidelity is always to have the main loudspeakers playing bass as good as it gets even without subwoofers , with the correct placement in the room and with the use of proper loudspeaker stands. You have to do this even before thinking about adding subwoofers.

A bass guitarr plays frequencies from 40-8000 KHz , its not separated in only deep bass area - real instruments are functioning very different from sine sweeps or test tones.

Can you objectively determine which solution is better? Monitors plus a few subwoofers placed so that the bass is as even as possible, or speakers a 'la Revel Salon Ultima 2 also with subwoofers vs very large floorstanders with large drivers, but without subwoofers?
So to put it bluntly, a lot depends on the acoustics of our room, the distance from the loudspeakers, and the volume with which we want to listen to music.

 

[Adi777]

2 small speakers and 2 subwoofer offer more options for placement

What, if we have very good acoustic room?

 

[dominikz]

2. After this is done correctly, you will find that the correct placement of the two active subwoofers in stereo is exactly the same place as your main loudspeakers - i.e. right below your main speakers.

As far as I understand it, this approach does not seem to be in line with the research from Welti/Devantier or Geddes.
Do you have some references to share? Thanks!

 

[Tangband]

Can you objectively determine which solution is better? Monitors plus a few subwoofers placed so that the bass is as even as possible, or speakers a 'la Revel Salon Ultima 2 also with subwoofers vs very large floorstanders with large drivers, but without subwoofers?
So to put it bluntly, a lot depends on the acoustics of our room, the distance from the loudspeakers, and the volume with which we want to listen to music.

In my experience two active large floorstanders with inbuilt subwoofers correctly ( very carefully ) setup in the room , is the best you can get for two channel sound. Having a few subwoofers far away from the main speakers to get the bass as even as possibly in the room ( cancelling room-modes ) can be good and will measuring well using a microphone with sine sweep measurements, but real instruments don´t function like that. No real instrument just play music tunes in the 20-80 Hz area. The timing in each register from 20 to 20000 Hz must be perfect for a really good sound.

 

[dominikz]

In my experience two active large floorstanders with inbuilt subwoofers correctly setup in the room , is the best you can get for two channel sound. Having a few subwoofers far away from the main speakers to get the bass as even as possibly in the room ( cancelling room-modes ) can be good and measuring well using a microphone with sine sweep measurements, but real instruments don´t function like that. No real instrument just play just in the 20-80 Hz area. The timing in each register from 20 to 20000 Hz must be perfect for a good sound.

I can understand this line of reasoning - however please note that loudspeakers are not not meant to accurately simulate real instruments, they are meant to accurately reproduce recordings of real instruments. We should try not to conflate the two; anyway various instruments have diverse individual dispersion characteristics so no loudspeaker can hope to accurately mimic each one, and especially not when multiple instruments are playing simultaneously (as is the case for many recordings).
Although it is not related to subwoofer integration per se, perhaps this post may also be interesting as it touches on the topic of difference between sound production vs reproduction, and some of the limitations of stereo format.

 

[Tangband]

I can understand this line of reasoning - however please note that loudspeakers are not not meant to accurately simulate real instruments, they are meant to accurately reproduce recordings of real instruments. We should try not to conflate the two; anyway various instruments have diverse individual dispersion characteristics so no loudspeaker can hope to accurately mimic each one, and especially not when multiple instruments are playing simultaneously (as is the case for many recordings).
Although it is not related to subwoofer integration per se, perhaps this post may also be interesting as it touches on the topic of difference between sound production vs reproduction, and some of the limitations of stereo format.

Thanks for the link.
accurately reproduce recordings of real instruments is an impossible task because the 2 channel system is so seriosly flawed so you have to optimize for the illusion of the recorded event. Listening at the event of a concert hall doing a 2 channel recording of real instruments are very far from the sound that comes out in the listening room.
Many enthusiasts believe that 2-channel sound is a photoprint of the concert hall, it is not.

 

[dominikz]

accurately reproduce recordings of real instruments is an impossible task because the 2 channel system is so seriosly flawed so you have to optimize for the illusion of the recorded event. Listening at the event of a concert hall doing a 2 channel recording of real instruments are very far from the sound that comes out in the listening room.
Many enthusiasts believe that 2-channel sound is a photoprint of the concert hall, it is not.

I agree completely - you will notice I wrote something similar in the linked post:

Since 2ch stereo can only encode and reproduce sounds coming from the two speakers in front of the listener, it cannot faithfully replicate any real acoustical space in the recording - regardless how well recorded the content.

 

[Ultrasonic]

2. After this is done correctly, you will find that the correct placement of the two active subwoofers in stereo is exactly the same place as your main loudspeakers - i.e. right below your main speakers.

What specifically are you basing this claim on? I and many others here would disagree with this...

 

[Tangband]

What specifically are you basing this claim on? I and many others here would disagree with this...

This is valid only if you want a pitch accurate sound where you easily can follow the melodies in the bass register, from a contra bass player , an electric bass or a cello. Its easiest to learn the method focusing on the melodies in the lower registers. This installation method can be done with every loudspeaker .

The method for this, tunedem or tunemethod was described by Linn products in the -70 and later, more exactly by Lejonclou. This is a very logical and precise method, where you listen for the melodies the musicians are playing, not just the ”sound” of the music.

Here is how to do loudspeaker installation:

Setting up loudspeakers for the best tune -

 

[Adi777]

What specifically are you basing this claim on? I and many others here would disagree with this...

Maybe there is a point in this? Neumann KH 420 plus subwoofers KH870?

 

[Tangband]

Maybe there is a point in this? Neumann KH 420 plus subwoofers KH870?

 

[Plcamp]

I have two systems that can reach to 25hz, upstairs are Paradigm Studio 100’s with no sub, downstairs is PAP open baffles with twin 15” per side plus a single ported sub aiding under 50 hz.

The basement system is more realistic, I think because OB bass tends to load the room with far fewer reflections 80 hz to 600 hz due to the inherent 90 degree off axis null. That’s an example where big woofers and sub make sense IMO.