What's the point of floorstanding when we have subwoofers?

[Snarfie]

Besides personel (bass head) preference you could revers the question if you probably use room correction DSP. What's the point of Subwoofers when we have Floorstanding speakers. This how it work for me after DSP.

​

 

[Digital_Thor]

Agreed. Subwoofers that aren't built to play much higher than 100hz cleanly should of course not be asked to do so.

Correct me if I remember wrongly. But you place the subwoofers symmetrical and rather close to the mains, making them blend like bigger mains, but with separate boxes - so to speak - right?

I overlap my subwoofers with the mains, because I run the two subs on my right with the right mains - and the two subs on my left, with the left main - and place my subwoofers away from my mains, to get a total of 6 low frequency sources, between 60 and 120Hz.
With no overlap, I would get serious dips in the response, but with the overlap, it seems to blend much more easily.

 

[kemmler3D]

I'm not saying that no music contains frequencies below 30 Hz, but You know this is ASR, so can You provide some objective proof regarding "most music can benefit from a speaker capable to go down to 20 Hz". I mean like a blind test where people can reliably hear the difference, and state their preference.

I don't know of any blind tests or anything about this specific question, but I don't think the difference between 20 and 30hz is as subtle as it might seem based on there only being 10hz between them. After all, it's half an octave we're talking about here.

To be fair - I did try this with a cymbal crash once... you can see the change in the spectrogram if you filter out 20hz, but if I am honest I couldn't hear the difference in a casual test. Some of this benefit may only be theoretical, but at least it is objectively observable. If you want to reproduce all of the music and not just most of it, it's easy to see that even cymbal transients do contain frequencies below 30hz. If you are not worried about missing out on that, then this may just be a point of trivia.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Correct me if I remember wrongly. But you place the subwoofers symmetrical and rather close to the mains, making them blend like bigger mains, but with separate boxes - so to speak - right?

I overlap my subwoofers with the mains, because I run the two subs on my right with the right mains - and the two subs on my left, with the left main - and place my subwoofers away from my mains, to get a total of 6 low frequency sources, between 60 and 120Hz.
With no overlap, I would get serious dips in the response, but with the overlap, it seems to blend much more easily.

So, our subwoofers play cleanly to 300hz, we have customers using them in all sorts of configurations and crossovers.

When our subs are used in our speaker systems, they're crossed over at 100hz, while the speakers are -3dB at around 80-90hz depending on which speaker it is, so there is a slight overlap. I then would typically recommend using two in a stereo configuration and placing them relatively close to the speakers.

Personally in my dedicated listening space I normally have two subwoofers at the front wall, asymmetrically placed. One is inside the left speaker, the other is outside the right speaker. And they're used as a system with the speakers, so crossed as mentioned above. In this configuration I have no dips in the response.

Overlapping in a wider frequency range is often problematic, but you may certainly consider your speakers as "subwoofer #5 and #6" to get as many low frequency sources as possible. If that works well for you, great!

The reason it's often not a good idea to overlap, is that it's pretty normal to have a least one dip in the 20-100hz area where one would typically place the speakers. So if you allow the speakers to play all the way down, there's no real way to get rid of that dip. Subs placed elsewhere will help, but they won't mitigate it completely.

 

[Digital_Thor]

So, our subwoofers play cleanly to 300hz, we have customers using them in all sorts of configurations and crossovers.

When our subs are used in our speaker systems, they're crossed over at 100hz, while the speakers are -3dB at around 80-90hz depending on which speaker it is, so there is a slight overlap. I then would typically recommend using two in a stereo configuration and placing them relatively close to the speakers.

Personally in my dedicated listening space I normally have two subwoofers at the front wall, asymmetrically placed. One is inside the left speaker, the other is outside the right speaker. And they're used as a system with the speakers, so crossed as mentioned above. In this configuration I have no dips in the response.

Overlapping in a wider frequency range is often problematic, but you may certainly consider your speakers as "subwoofer #5 and #6" to get as many low frequency sources as possible. If that works well for you, great!

The reason it's often not a good idea to overlap, is that it's pretty normal to have a least one dip in the 20-100hz area where one would typically place the speakers. So if you allow the speakers to play all the way down, there's no real way to get rid of that dip. Subs placed elsewhere will help, but they won't mitigate it completely.

Great answer - thank you
I do get pretty good results, when helping friends with "just" 2 subwoofers and a pair of larger mains. But I find that it is in general a bit of a fiddle to find the solution that works best in each situation. Also because different people have mixed feelings on size, looks, placement and given equipment, that they have some kind of deep feeling about. This gives you a set of compromises, and then I work around that

 

[terryforsythe]

So, our subwoofers play cleanly to 300hz, we have customers using them in all sorts of configurations and crossovers.

Sometimes a bit of creativity is needed. Last year my friend got a subwoofer and I went over to tune it for him. He had a room mode creating a significant dip at 150Hz. He had a traditional pre-amp and amplifier without any EQ capabilities, so equalizing the speakers was not an option. But his new subwoofer had PEQ. We ended up placing the subwoofer between the speakers and running it high enough to fill in the 150Hz dip, and using the subwoofer's PEQ to achieve a relatively flat response below 200Hz at the listening position. It may not have been the optimal scenario, but it certainly improved the sound of his system and he was happy.

 

[sigbergaudio]

Sometimes a bit of creativity is needed. Last year my friend got a subwoofer and I went over to tune it for him. He had a room mode creating a significant dip at 150Hz. He had a traditional pre-amp and amplifier without any EQ capabilities, so equalizing the speakers was not an option. But his new subwoofer had PEQ. We ended up placing the subwoofer between the speakers and running it high enough to fill in the 150Hz dip, and using the subwoofer's PEQ to achieve a relatively flat response below 200Hz at the listening position. It may not have been the optimal scenario, but it certainly improved the sound of his system and he was happy.

If you are willing to experiment and ignore common "truths", a lot of interesting things can happen.

 

[ZolaIII]

I don't know of any blind tests or anything about this specific question, but I don't think the difference between 20 and 30hz is as subtle as it might seem based on there only being 10hz between them. After all, it's half an octave we're talking about here.

To be fair - I did try this with a cymbal crash once... you can see the change in the spectrogram if you filter out 20hz, but if I am honest I couldn't hear the difference in a casual test. Some of this benefit may only be theoretical, but at least it is objectively observable. If you want to reproduce all of the music and not just most of it, it's easy to see that even cymbal transients do contain frequencies below 30hz. If you are not worried about missing out on that, then this may just be a point of trivia.

That's because timing delay increases so in the way it's self masking and we perceive it as tail.

 

[Hear Here]

Well integrated subwoofers can enhance an audio system and have advantages.

But one replied to your question is:

Because integrating subwoofers effectively asks the consumer to become an amateur speaker designer, and not everybody is interested in that or up to it.

Think about it: a well designed floorstanding speaker, the manufacturer typically has far more knowledge and experience in regards to designing speakers, and has very carefully designed the integration of all the drivers and frequency range in order to achieve a coherent sound - whether that is a neutral sound they might be going for or their own particular sound they are going for.

So then the question is “ if I bought the loudspeakers for how they sound , why would I want to possibly screw that up?”

It’s not easy to perfectly integrate subwoofers. And some people just may not be interested in all the hassle.

I’ve very rarely heard a system with subs that sounds fully coherent to me - rarely is coherent as the floor speakers I have used.

I also tried to integrate subwoofers with my floorstanding speakers - dual subwoofers, crossover, DSP… and I did not find the results satisfactory. I found it changed the overall sound enough in a way that I preferred how the speaker sounded originally without the subwoofers.

Other people have different experience, which is of course fine. But personally, I am super fussy about the character of the loudspeaker I purchase. It’s a character that has been carefully achieved by the loudspeaker designer, and I’m not really into playing amateur loudspeaker designer to try and better it.

(And of course there is the issue of trying to place the extra subs in your room in terms of both aesthetics and performance, adding extra cabling, AC cabling etc)

I agree 100%.

Why do so many of us think we can design a speaker system ourselves? It takes experience, money, many prototypes, much testing and measurement-taking and expert listening sessions before any self-respecting brand will introduce a new loudspeaker. It will have been designed as a whole to offer the best and most integrated sound the designer can achieve within his brief and it will have the same "house sound" for all sections. Buying a stand-mount from one brand and a sub from another and trying to get the pair working in perfect harmony isn't something we should really attempt. Unfortunately people think they can chuck DSP as their self-inflicted problem and believe they've achieved a great-sounding system.

Already mentioned are the extra floor space needed, the cost of extra amps, enclosures, stands and cables, and the need for an amp that can protect the stand-mount from deep bass, etc usually using a very basic electronic XO filter.

I have never owned stand-mounts (unless you call the ATC Active 50s a stand-mount) and I probably never will. Since my first self-built Wharfedale Airedale speakers decades ago (with 15" woofers), I've never been short of bass from my speakers, mostly with twin 10" or even twin 12" bass drivers. Granted they are expensive and relatively large, but they were designed by a single brand with loads more experience than any of us. And there are plenty of great used floor-standers at prices matching or bettering stand-mounts plus subs.

I do regret the move towards skinny floor-standers featuring typically twin 6.5 or 7" "woofers" in recent decades. These sound impressive at shows and showrooms, but after listening for a prolonged periods at home, you realise these small drivers are straining, rather than relaxed in their ability to provide good bass. Adding subs is all too often a last-ditch attempt at retrieving the initial error of not getting full-range speakers in the first place.

Others may disagree.

PS - Subs and DSP may have their place in AV / HT systems but should be avoided if high fidelity 2-channel stereo is one's goal

 

[Purité Audio]

‘Straining ‘ ‘relaxed’ have no meaning, loudspeakers are designed to fulfil specific demands, if you need to play at 124dB continuously then make sure you choose a suitable loudspeaker.
Keith

 

[kemmler3D]

I tested with headphones so that wouldn't necessarily apply...

That's because timing delay increases so in the way it's self masking and we perceive it as tail.

 

[Buckchester]

I'd say the biggest advantage is additional output. If you like to play loud, bookshelves may struggle to keep up without adding too much distortion.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I agree 100%.

Why do so many of us think we can design a speaker system ourselves? It takes experience, money, many prototypes, much testing and measurement-taking and expert listening sessions before any self-respecting brand will introduce a new loudspeaker. It will have been designed as a whole to offer the best and most integrated sound the designer can achieve within his brief and it will have the same "house sound" for all sections. Buying a stand-mount from one brand and a sub from another and trying to get the pair working in perfect harmony isn't something we should really attempt. Unfortunately people think they can chuck DSP as their self-inflicted problem and believe they've achieved a great-sounding system.

(..)

PS - Subs and DSP may have their place in AV / HT systems but should be avoided if high fidelity 2-channel stereo is one's goal

If only there was a brand with subs and speakers designed to work together from the manufacturer.

 

[Oddball]

‘Straining ‘ ‘relaxed’ have no meaning, loudspeakers are designed to fulfil specific demands, if you need to play at 124dB continuously then make sure you choose a suitable loudspeaker.
Keith

124dB continuous would be a bit too loud for humans - but perhaps we have some mutants around that might feel right at home with that SPL.

 

[Purité Audio]

Depends how far away you sit.
Keith

 

[ZolaIII]

I tested with headphones so that wouldn't necessarily apply...

No you didn't understand me there. Time dalay simply grows there in shelf manner. New ISO 226 2012 and later try to adresa that. But it's really questionable if anything can follow that literally.

 

[Oddball]

Depends how far away you sit.
Keith

True. Would probably need to sit quite far to absorb such noise.

Anyway - entertaining thread and basically nothing to do with my own HT interests, so just observing and poking the most extreme points. Keep up the good work on the 2 channel material and good luck on finding a consensus. Looks like that will be coming at he same time as the hell freezes over, again and again.

 

[MattHooper]

‘Straining ‘ ‘relaxed’ have no meaning,

If a loudspeaker is making demands on an amplifier that the amplifier is ill suited to deliver, then you can get things like clipping and distortion, compressed dynamics, loss of bass control, etc.

This can be described as the sound of an amplifier “ straining” under the demand placed on it.

Likewise, a loudspeaker pushed beyond its capabilities can produce distortion, compression where the speaker just hits its limit and flattens out in terms of volume and dynamics, driver chuffing, or rattling, reduced bass control, etc.

This also can be understood in terms of the loudspeaker “ straining” to cleanly reproduce sound, versus another loudspeaker that handles the same signals without any of those problems.

And this is why somebody could describe a loudspeaker that can reproduce sound at the required levels cleanly, and without strain as as being more “ relaxed” under such circumstances.

Not to mention the subjective impression or feeling can be that the listener can remain more relaxed when cracking up the volume.
Any audiophile with much experience should recognize when he/she has encountered a loudspeaker that can play very loudly and very cleanly, and it feels like you can turn it up louder without discomfort or a feeling you are straining the loudspeaker.

loudspeakers are designed to fulfil specific demands, if you need to play at 124dB continuously then make sure you choose a suitable loudspeaker.
Keith

And if you don’t… your loudspeaker may
“ strain” to reproduce such levels cleanly.

You don’t have to use such language yourself, but to sort of pretend to be puzzled by informal language seems very bizarre to me.

I mean when you pick up a novel and read a description of, say, “ The old pine trees strained against the relentless howl of the wind”… are you just left baffled as to what the author is trying to get across?

 

[kemmler3D]

‘Straining ‘ ‘relaxed’ have no meaning, loudspeakers are designed to fulfil specific demands, if you need to play at 124dB continuously then make sure you choose a suitable loudspeaker.
Keith

You're technically right here, but for what it's worth I typically interpret "effortless" or "strain" in the context of large diaphragms (>10") as an attempt to describe THD and IMD in particular. This is something we know tends to increase very predictably with higher excursion, and that would be the main advantage of larger diaphragms at any given SPL.

I don't know if that's what people are talking about or if they know what's behind their impressions, that's just how I tend to read it.

 

[Waxx]

‘Straining ‘ ‘relaxed’ have no meaning, loudspeakers are designed to fulfil specific demands, if you need to play at 124dB continuously then make sure you choose a suitable loudspeaker.
Keith

I think the key word in this is headroom. Big woofers distort way less than small woofers for the same volume on the bass, and need to work less to move the same air. Big woofers also got disadvantages off course, that's why i tend to like 10" woofers the most in floorstanders, preferable on a wide baffle. They are often the best compromise for what i want (you may disagree).

But like i said before, there is no one solution for it all. This is where taste often comes into play. Some like the bookshelf/subwoofer combo, some like the big woofer floorstander option, both can sound very good. But the sound is still different in the details. And there is a whole leap of options in between also.