AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Setting levels for two subs
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Setting levels for two subs - Page 3

post #61 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Yes, you lose coupling. And you lose output. Output that you might think is not needed is actually pretty beneficial because you can use it to your advantage. You can EQ and reduce distortion further.

Coupling power is maximum when identical level and phase is achieved.

Could you provide a good link for me to read about coupling, especially in regards to subwoofers, goner? I'd like to read about it.

I don't understand why it is so important if your subs' level is going to be calibrated, anyway. Except that it might allow both subs to be run at a lower level than would have otherwise been used were the subs not 'coupling'.


Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Comb-filtering will make sure of it.

post #62 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

Also, when debating against weaker-minded individuals *co... sivadselim ugh *...it just makes things a tad easier.

post #63 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

No. That's not correct. You're confused. Equal gain means equal gain, at the amps.


Yes, you're wrong. If you set the gain on a sub, and leave it, the output is the same whether you are sitting on it or it's in the other room.

Output from a sub drops 6dB every time you double the distance

So wouldn't your statement be wrong for those pendatic people

You need to say "the output @ 1m is the same whether you are sitting on it or it's in the other room" no?

The output from a sub in one room is definitely lower in another room, a person just needs to use a SPL meter to see that.

I guess everyone is using the term "Output" differently.
post #64 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

One, you've got equal work load...yippee, less distortion, but now because both subs are in awkard locations calls for you to perhaps bump the levels or the gain up a tad to compensate....

But you don't "bump the levels or the gain up a tad to compensate". That's the whole point. You don't care about the individual effect of a sub's location upon that sub's contribution to the sum total of the bass produced by the subs.
post #65 of 249
Math has never been sivadselim's forte so it's completely understandable that he made a technically absurd comment. I've been here before but then that's why it's so easy.

Quote:


Output from a sub drops 6dB every time you double the distance

At least Penngray has his cap screwed on right.

Regards,
post #66 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Comb-filtering will make sure of it.

I think this year smiley icons are in. But why the rolling eyes smiley ? Do you not know what comb-filtering is ? Should I explain it to you ? There should be no shame in learning something you don't understand.

Regards,
post #67 of 249
Good read but is "level" matching really any different then "gain" matching?

The methods for doing both seems to be the same thing? FR plots, Adjusting gain controls. Well, that seems to be gain matching....how does a person level match, they still have to use the gain controls, don't they?
post #68 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Output from a sub drops 6dB every time you double the distance

The loudness changes. The SPL. If you turn a sub on and play a constant tone, and don't change the volume, as you walk away from the sub, the loudness decreases. But the sub's output never changes.


Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

I guess everyone is using the term "Output" differently.

Right. But when discussing gain-matching it only means one thing.
post #69 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Could you provide a good link for me to read about coupling, especially in regards to subwoofers, goner? I'd like to read about it.

Craig John is the inside man on this. Ask him to send you a few links or better yet, ask him to post them here. You'll find many respected sources, some claim that 1/4 wavelength offers maximum coupling benefits, others claim 1/2 wavelength.

I keep harping on 1/4 wavelength because after trying all the other methods, that was the one which gave the most consistent (and best) result.

Regards,
post #70 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

Could you provide a good link for me to read about coupling, especially in regards to subwoofers, goner? I'd like to read about it.

I provided the following to goneten in a previous thread:
Quote:


Originally Posted by goneten View Post
dB = 20 * log (Px/Py) (where Px and Py represent the two pressure levels).

If you double the sound pressure, then Px/Py = 2. Solving for the dB increase = 6.0206 dB. A doubling of the sound pressure equates to a 6 dB increase in sound pressure. But in order to gain this you need to do a few things. You will only see a 6 dB increase when the two sound pressure sources are co-located and are identical in frequency, phase, and individual sound pressure.

It is not a requirement that both subwoofers be together to gain coupling benefits but in order for full mutual coupling to the x-over region you must co-locate unless the crossover chosen is ungodly low. I have not co-located my subwoofers and as a result I don't gain the full benefit up to my crossover point (80 hz) due to the spacing being almost 5 m apart but from 40 hz and below I am seeing a solid 5-6 dB increase due to the 1/4 wavelength spacing that I have mentioned on several occasions.

Quote:


Quote:
A 40 Hz soundwave has a wavelength of 8.5 meters:

speed of sound at sea level = 340.29 m/s
340.29/40 Hz = 8.5
8.5/4 = 2.125 meters

How are you getting mutual coupling with the 1/4 wavelength theory if your subs are 5 meters apart? They would need to be no more than 2.125 meters apart for 1/4 wavelength coupling at 40 Hz.

Of course, not everyone agrees that 1/4 wavelength is the distance needed for mutual coupling. Some think that 1/2 wavelength spacing is required. This is from the Genelec website:
Quote:
When two or more subwoofers (except the 7050B as it does not have a sum output) are positioned close to one another mutual coupling is the fortunate by-product. This is due to the long wavelengths, associated with low frequencies, causing constructive superimposition. For mutual coupling, the subwoofers must be placed within ½ a wavelength of one another (85 Hz upper crossover frequency ½ wavelength is approximately 2 m). For example, two subwoofers give a 6 dB increase in acoustical output at the listening position
Here is another interesting discussion on "coupling" of drivers from the Rane website:
Quote:
coupling or mutual coupling Loudspeakers. General term describing the combining behavior of two or more drivers reproducing the same frequency. If two or more identical loudspeakers are mounted such that their acoustic centers are close together (i.e., some fraction of a wavelength), their acoustic outputs over some frequency range will combine (couple) and propagate forward as one waveform, thus two smaller drivers behave as one big driver. [This is the simple vague answer, a detailed specific answer requires a great deal more.]

Mark Gander, VP of pro marketing for JBL, puts it this way: "The correct maximum distance that mutual coupling occurs depends on what you want to define as the limit of coupling. For example, is it the maximum approaching +3 dB, or when it reverts to unity gain? It's a gradual transition, so either 1/4 wavelength or 1/2 wavelength separation distance is just a rule of thumb." [Gander sites Lee Henney's Radio Engineering Handbook, 5th ed., Ch. 11 'Loudspeakers and Room Acoustics,' as a useful source that shows the response from groups of pistons at various distances, following the work of Klapman (Klapman, S. J., "Interaction Impedance of a System of Circular Pistons," J. Acoust. Soc. Am., vol. 11, p. 289, 1940.)"

John Murray, Digital Audio Lab Manager, Columbia College Chicago, explains: "Mutual coupling is when multiple drivers produce relatively more output at the low end of their response curve than a single driver. This occurs when the drivers are close enough together to have less than 90 degrees of path length difference for the wavelengths of interest at a given listening position. This phenomena is position-dependant, and is, in fact, what causes the high level portion of lobing. At shorter wavelengths (higher frequencies) and listening positions farther off-axis of the drivers, the phase difference becomes destructive which results in the nulls of lobing. Even with drivers that are touching, mutual coupling over a wide listening area are virtually always below 300-500 Hz.

Chuck McGregor, Technical Services Manager for EAW, says, "It depends." And goes on to explain: "There is no such thing as a correct, maximum source spacing distance for mutual coupling. First one has to define what they consider as mutual coupling (i.e., at what level off-axis does one stop considering the sources as no longer being mutually coupled) and then what is the criteria is for a particular situation, meaning the frequency to which one requires the coupling and the overall angle over which it is needed. Based on this stuff you can figure out the maximum, acceptable driver spacing.

Harry Olson analyzes this (although he does not call it mutual coupling) as a double or doublet source in his book, Acoustical Engineering, section 2.3.

McGregor's personal view: "First, mutual coupling will occur on-axis even if the center-to-center distance of two sources is 100 light years. At 1/2 wavelength separation they cancel completely at 90 degrees off-axis. At 45 degrees off-axis the signal is roughly 6 dB down, i.e. the equivalent of one source. Does this mean their mutual coupling beamwidth is limited to 45 degrees or is it limited at the 6 dB down point? Maybe it is 3 dB down over a lesser angle?"

McGregor offers this as a detailed definition: "Mutual coupling is when the outputs of two or more acoustical sources producing the same signal combine (couple) and propagate forward as one waveform. In this way, two smaller drivers can behave as one larger driver. While any number of sources can mutually couple, for clarity this discussion will focus on two sources.

The amount of coupling directly on axis between two sources producing the same signal will result in a 6 dB increase in level. On-axis, the spacing of these sources has absolutely no effect on this result. However, because the two sources must be physically separated, the coupling decreases off axis as the path lengths from each source to the listener increasingly differ. This is because the two waveforms become increasingly out of phase. For a given source spacing, the higher the frequency is, the more quickly off-axis this occurs. Likewise for a given wavelength (frequency) the wider the source spacing, the more quickly off-axis this occurs. Thus, the amount of mutual coupling at any point off-axis depends on both the source spacing and the wavelength (frequency) of the sound being produced.

What is considered mutual coupling? The broadest definition is that any multiple sources producing the same signal whose outputs acoustically combine to produce an increase in level over that of one of the sources means mutual coupling is taking place.

For audio purposes, changes of 3 dB and 6 dB are often used as typical criteria for acceptable increases or reductions in level. For two sources, a 3 dB decrease from the on-axis coupling of 6 dB occurs when the path length difference from the sources to the listener is 1/4 wavelength. This equals a 90 degree phase shift between the two waveforms. Likewise for two sources, a 6 dB decrease from the on-axis coupling of 6 dB occurs when the path length difference from the sources to the listener is 1/3 of a wavelength. This equals a 120 degree phase shift between the two waveforms. It also results in a level that equals the output of one source, meaning the amount of mutual coupling is effectively equal to zero.

Thus, the best definition for mutual coupling is defined by what is acceptable for any given situation. This can vary from the full, on-axis mutual coupling to the effective absence of mutual coupling, which is where the level decreases to be equal to or less than of one of the sources. Contrary to popular notions, there is no particular driver spacing that results in mutual coupling. Mutual coupling is defined by the level below which mutual coupling is not longer considered mutual coupling. This is an arbitrary level but, in any case, it cannot be below the level of one of the sources. The source spacing and the wavelength (frequency) of the signal then determines the angle over which the combined wavefront falls within the chosen definition of being mutually coupled."
http://www.rane.com/par-c.html

And another one from the ServoDrive manual:
Quote:
If you are using more than one ServoDrive subwoofer for an application, coupling the subwoofers by placing them next to each other will result in a large increase in efficiency and extended low frequency response. Coupling ServoDrive subwoofers in this manner has the effect of creating a larger, more powerful single sound source equivalent to a much larger subwoofer. Units may be placed at a desired wavelength apart from each
other to effectively create "lobes" of sound where the output would resemble a large figure 8, with little output to the sides, yet projecting a large output to the front and rear.
http://www.servodrive.com/Download_f...BassManual.pdf

Finally, see "Low Frequency Augmentation - Subwoofers" starting on Page 26 of this article from the JBL Pro Sound Systems Design Reference Manual:
http://www.jblpro.com/pub/manuals/pssdm_2.pdf

Craig
__________________
Paul Scarpelli said it:
Putting a good speaker in a horrible room is like driving a Porsche 911 on glare ice, and then blaming the lack of handling on the car.


http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...oupling&page=4
Post #105

PS. You were a poster in that thread as well.
post #71 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Good read but is "level" matching really any different then "gain" matching?

They're completely different. Sure, with either method you calibrate the subs properly anyway. But you could just throw two subs in a room, turn them on without any regard to their individual levels, and calibrate them properly. You'd be neither gain-matched nor level-matched.
post #72 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

The loudness changes. The SPL. If you turn a sub on and play a constant tone, and don't change the volume, as you walk away from the sub, the loudness decreases. But the sub's output never changes.

Seems like a arguement about semantics.

I read almost any document on listening position levels, etc and I never read the word "loudness"...I do read a lot about the "output = .......", "Output is down...."

You seem to believe that "Output" is defined at a fixed position of 1m. Do you have proof of that definition. If not then maybe we should be more precise in what we post because we do not what to mislead any other readers do we
post #73 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

They're completely different. Sure, with either method you calibrate the subs properly anyway. But you could just throw two subs in a room, turn them on without any regard to their individual levels, and calibrate them properly. You'd be neither gain-matched nor level-matched.

Explain the procedures and then we can find out if they are actually different.

I have done what I thought was Gain matching using with REW and running each sub separately until the plots were very close.

Its really hard to calibrate subs if one is much closer unless you level or gain match. You won't understand this because you have one sub
post #74 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Seems like a arguement about semantics.

I read almost any document on listening position levels, etc and I never read the word "loudness"...I do read a lot about the output = .......

You seem to believe that "Output" is defined at a fixed position of 1m. Do you have proof of that definition. If not then maybe we should be more precise in what we post because we do not what to mislead any other readers do we

It seems that you are the one that wants to discuss the semantics, penn. Semantics aren't involved, here.
post #75 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Explain the procedures and then we can find out if they are actually different.

I have done what I thought was Gain matching using with REW and running each sub separately until the plots were very close.

Read the thread. I explained gain-matching vs. level matching in Post #9.

To re-iterate, gain-matching is setting the gains of both subs to be identical, irrespective of what the SPL measures at any one position in the room.

Level-matching is measuring the SPL at one position in the room and setting the individual gains so the SPL's are equal at that one position.

Read Post #9.

Craig
post #76 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

I have done what I thought was Gain matching using with REW and running each sub separately until the plots were very close.

That would be level matching then.

As far as semantics I think his use of "output" threw some off initially but miles davis clarified what was meant by "output" in his points a while back.
post #77 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Explain the procedures and then we can find out if they are actually different.

How 'bout you figure it out, yourself. It's been discussed plenty here in the forums. The concepts and the difference are both VERY simple to understand.
post #78 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

It seems that you are the one that wants to discuss the semantics, penn. Semantics aren't involved, here.

hah, never.....I do not tell people they are wrong when using Output to explain SPL levels. You seem to pride yourself in that sort of pendatic behavoir.
post #79 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Read the thread. I explained gain-matching vs. level matching in Post #9.

To re-iterate, gain-matching is setting the gains of both subs to be identical, irrespective of what the SPL measures at any one position in the room.

Level-matching is measuring the SPL at one position in the room and setting the individual gains so the SPL's are equal at that one position.

Read Post #9.

Craig

Perfect, thanks.....
post #80 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

How 'bout you figure it out, yourself. It's been discussed plenty here in the forums. The concepts and the difference are both VERY simple to understand.

Nah, I like to save time and have it posted again
post #81 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

hah, never.....I do not tell people they are wrong when using Output to explain SPL levels. You seem to pride yourself in that sort of pendatic behavoir.

So, I see you've learned some new words, today.
post #82 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

So, I see you've learned some new words, today.

I have posted that word too many times

Anyways, just trying to keep up with you.
post #83 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

hah, never.....I do not tell people they are wrong when using Output to explain SPL levels. You seem to pride yourself in that sort of pendatic behavoir.

Not to be pedantic or anything, but the word is "pedantic".

Craig
post #84 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

Not to be pedantic or anything, but the word is "pedantic".

I'm sure he just mistyped it.


(forum really sluggish for anyone else, today?)
post #85 of 249
I completely forgot that sivadselim only has one sub. Hmmm....

You know what that means....

Regards,
post #86 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by sivadselim View Post

I'm sure he just mistyped it.


(forum really sluggish for anyone else, today?)

Since he misspelled behavior also, I'm sure you're right. He has said many times that he doesn't re-read his posts after he types them.

I was just being pedantic.

The forum's not sluggish for me today.

Craig
post #87 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by goneten View Post

You know what that means....

That I have big feet?
post #88 of 249
Amusing... To clarify, if you have enough capability that you never push the limits of your subwoofers in your room, then the matching the level at the seat vs. acoustic output per device (matching gain) shouldn't matter much, so long as the response is desirable over the seats of interest. I expect a bit more headroom than most , and hate running into limits.

If you want to get serious about multiple subwoofer locations that aren't similar distances from the listening area (ie front/rear), you want to allow for adjustment of delays or implemented group delay to get the best results.
post #89 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

I have posted that word too many times

Anyways, just trying to keep up with you.

Yup, story checks out. You've used the word "pendatic" three times on AVSForum dating back to February of this year. Never used the word "pedantic" though (Although to be fair I had to look it up, learned a new word today)

And no, forum's not slow on my end either
post #90 of 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by lennon_68 View Post

Yup, story checks out. You've used the word "pendatic" three times on AVSForum dating back to February of this year. Never used the word "pedantic" though

OMG. That is too f'n FUNNY! Thanks. He tried to use it because it has been used a few times recently in another thread he's trying to participate in.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Setting levels for two subs