AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Musical Subs and Complete Bass
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Musical Subs and Complete Bass - Page 2

post #31 of 295
@Auditor55

If the power-to-weight ratio is the same for both an 8" and 18" sub, there shouldn't be any difference in 'speed'.
post #32 of 295
I certainly noticed how muddy Stevie Ray sounded playing through his usual favorite Fender amp with a 15 inch speaker. That'd be sarcasm in case it's not obvious.

The speed thing, AFAIK, is a misnomer. My understanding is that group delay has to get pretty high to be audible. But literal speed in terms of being able to respond to the electrical input has to show up in FR plots and or dynamic compression. At least that's how it seems to me. I recall Bob Lee taking me to school on amp rise time on these very boards when I first started participating. He said rise time is reflected in the amp's high frequency response. Makes perfect sense once you think about it.

I've heard a little sealed sub (specifically the original Martin Logan Dynamo) sound like it was literally behind the beat. It was also too hot and simply turning it down a few dB eliminated whatever I was responding to as "slow."

I think our hearing and the mechanisms that underlie it are not great for intuitive thinking and there are many many misunderstandings that get passed around including by folks who probably ought to know better. Like that 15s naturally go deeper (in the bass amp world, it seems pretty common for multiple 10 inch speakers to be tuned deeper than typical 15s, for example). A 10 can go just as slow as a 15, it just has to move farther to output the same spl. Which, btw, tends to undercut whatever speed advantage one believes the 10 has. It's theoretically gotta move farther on each cycle, thus has to move faster, to get as loud as the 15.
post #33 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I'm not burrying my head in the sand, science is what is, we can't get around it, we are governed by physical laws.

OK. Let's run with this for a second, then. As you are fond (overly so) of telling us, accuracy and tight bass response is all important to you. Why did you buy the less musical sub in the X-Ref line? The X-Ref 10 is better than the X-Ref 12.
post #34 of 295
Thread Starter 
Ok, back to topic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by qguy View Post

Music or movies content does not really matter, what is good for movies is good for music and vise versa, if its accurate on movies, it would be accurate on music.. again its vise versa...

but..of course there is a but An acceptable HT sub to some people (like me) will not be acceptable for music reproduction. its all about being able to compare the sound with the real thing, we can do this for music, we know how a real guitar sounds like, we know how the human voice sounds like, but how many of you knows how the Sonic Canon on the incredible hulk sounds like ?..or how does an Andromeda Class Battleship actually sounds when doing mach 10 in space ? Does it even make a sound in space? How about a nuclear explosion ? For movies, it would be acceptable for a sub to produce those frequencies as long as it goes low and loud and then were happy.. for music its all about accuracy

See, this is where I have a problem following the conversation. I want to join in and talk about accuracy too, but I can't get past the fact that the sound generated by the sub is a filtered version of the instrument which usually results in the expression of the fundamental frequency of the current note, in most cases of an instrument in the class Bass. Therefore one can not begin to describe the sub as accurately reproducing the instrument because its filtered and a lot of information is missing! For instance, qguy, you have indirectly defined accuracy as 'reproducing the sound of the instrument'...sorry to paraphrase, I'm trying to simplify and be concise for brevity. You mention that we all know the sound of a guitar (lets make that a bass guitar for this discussion). How can you accurately reproduce the sound of a bass guitar with a sub alone? It's my experience that a bass guitar gets its unique sound from its timbre, almost all of which falls in the frequency range above the typical crossover of 80Hz or even 120Hz even above 200Hz. Usually, Only the fundamental frequency falls within the range of the sub. Now, we are criticizing, for one thing, the accuracy of the sub in these forums and judging and professing their qualities. Its seems to be impossible, to me, to do this based on the sound produced by a sub alone given its frequency range. Sorry if I misunderstand what I have been reading, or if I misrepresent your statements, I am just trying to understand to speak your language.
post #35 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

OK. Let's run with this for a second, then. As you are fond (overly so) of telling us, accuracy and tight bass response is all important to you. Why did you buy the less musical sub in the X-Ref line? The X-Ref 10 is better than the X-Ref 12.

I don't know if its less musical, however I think wouldn't mind the having the 10.
post #36 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I don't know if its less musical, however I think wouldn't mind by having the 10.

Yes. The X-Ref 12 is definitely less musical because the driver is bigger, according to Auditor physics.
post #37 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunbear View Post

I am just trying to understand to speak your language.

WELCOME TO EARTH

Since were discussing subwoofers, we did not include the supporting cast of the satellites. The sub section deals with one part of the frequency range, I reckon, listening to a bass guitar with only the sub would not be an ideal situation. When listening to a recording, were not only listening to the mere instrument, were listening to entire venue of where the recording was made. I cant explain it, but listening to Superbass, (4 bass guitars) on my system without the sub produces a dull lifeless presentation, with the sub on operating from 14 to 35 hz, the recording dramatically changes for the better... accurare or not, honestly I could not tell as I was not present during the recording, but I can surely tell you it was better...

btw.. on older M&K sealed 12 inch sub did not produce the same results as my present Rythmik, I actually preferred listening to the recording without the M&K sub.

hope this helps.
post #38 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I don't know if its less musical, however I think wouldn't mind the having the 10.

This one should be much more musical than the X-Ref 12 and an improvement over the X-Ref 10 because it has a 7 1/2 driver--according to Auditor physics.
post #39 of 295
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by qguy View Post

WELCOME TO EARTH

Thanx, Man!

So, when you audition or critique a sub (as in a shootout), you are doing so with mains on? (slaps himself on forehead!) Seems like this is never discussed and it seems that to do so would significantly affect the apparent low frequency bass reproduction as this is where the Timbre lies and a significant source of the sound quality of the bass.

Interesting fact to note it has been proven that if one generates the natural harmonics of a given fundamental note our brains will 'fill in' the gap and fool us into hearing the fundamental even though it be missing in the original sound wave itself. This has to affect our perception of our subs.

Just something to ponder, though I suspect you already know this.
post #40 of 295
YES. With mains on (for me at least), as in when I am auditioning the subs except for ID subs as there is no audition, its pretty much how each part of the system Sub, mains, amp and the room plays and interact together. There are occasions when an upgrade of one part of the system requires an upgrade of another part in order to fully utilize the capabilities of new gear..

and yes I gues flling of the gps by our brais is happenng all the time... just like looking at photos of half naked uh... speakers


Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunbear View Post

Ok, back to topic.

See, this is where I have a problem following the conversation. I want to join in and talk about accuracy too, but I can't get past the fact that the sound generated by the sub is a filtered version of the instrument which usually results in the expression of the fundamental frequency of the current note, in most cases of an instrument in the class Bass. Therefore one can not begin to describe the sub as accurately reproducing the instrument because its filtered and a lot of information is missing! For instance, qguy, you have indirectly defined accuracy as 'reproducing the sound of the instrument'...sorry to paraphrase, I'm trying to simplify and be concise for brevity. You mention that we all know the sound of a guitar (lets make that a bass guitar for this discussion). How can you accurately reproduce the sound of a bass guitar with a sub alone? It's my experience that a bass guitar gets its unique sound from its timbre, almost all of which falls in the frequency range above the typical crossover of 80Hz or even 120Hz even above 200Hz. Usually, Only the fundamental frequency falls within the range of the sub. Now, we are criticizing, for one thing, the accuracy of the sub in these forums and judging and professing their qualities. Its seems to be impossible, to me, to do this based on the sound produced by a sub alone given its frequency range. Sorry if I misunderstand what I have been reading, or if I misrepresent your statements, I am just trying to understand to speak your language.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunbear View Post

Thanx, Man!

So, when you audition or critique a sub (as in a shootout), you are doing so with mains on? (slaps himself on forehead!) Seems like this is never discussed and it seems that to do so would significantly affect the apparent low frequency bass reproduction as this is where the Timbre lies and a significant source of the sound quality of the bass.

Interesting fact to note it has been proven that if one generates the natural harmonics of a given fundamental note our brains will 'fill in' the gap and fool us into hearing the fundamental even though it be missing in the original sound wave itself. This has to affect our perception of our subs.

Just something to ponder, though I suspect you already know this.
post #41 of 295
Thread Starter 
I think the most important lessons I have learned since acquiring quality audio gear for music a year ago are: Understanding that a sound is usually a combination of frequencies whether it be a single note or an entire orchestra; Crossover frequency plays a crucial roll in the quality of the sound reproduced by a 2.1 channel audio system, affecting stereo image and tone at the MLP greatly; Good mains that can reproduce quality LF to at least 40Hz (even lower is better) are necessary in order to reproduce good quality sound in a 2.1 channel system for Rock. The crossover range of the system is an octave below and an octave above the actual crossover point which should guide the audiophile in how to purchase and set up the components of a 2.1 system.

My speakers produce good quality bass with a LFR down to 33Hz. Taking into account the rule that our brains will 'fill in' the fundamental frequency for a given note if fed the proper natural harmonics for that particular fundamental, my system ideally (ignoring room response) should be able to 'apparently' produce sound down to 17Hz without a sub. But at what power? Certainly not at the power a dedicated subwoofer would produce. So, doubling the effective LFR of my speakers to find the lower octave of the crossover range, gives me the crossover point for my speakers of 66Hz. This crossover point will give me an upper octave range up to 132Hz for the crossover range. Wanting to keep the upper range of the crossover below 100 Hz, forces me to choose the lower crossover point of 60Hz, since 50Hz gives me a lower octave range down to 25Hz which is too far below the effective LFR of my speakers. Now my mains are producing sound to 33Hz (30 if they can) and my sub up to 120Hz (if using the LFE input where the crossover of the sub itself is disabled).

It turns out that crossover frequencies above and below 60Hz on my system do not give adequate results to my ears for 2.1 listening. The stereo image and tone (especially tone of drums) becomes unsatisfactory to my ears. Listening to 2 channel music (Direct Mode) gives me a reference on which to base my crossover experiments, which are done by ear from the MLP.

I notice that for my system, since I have speakers which can handle low frequencies effectively (they are very efficient), that crossovers other than 60Hz in 2.1 listening mode degrades the sound as compared to 2 channel listening. More than just the frequencies within the range of the sub and the sounds within the crossover range are affected by adding a sub and introducing a crossover point. The whole stereo image as well as tonal qualities of the various instruments are affected. It is apparent, at least to my ears, that introducing a subwoofer into the system alters the timbre of various instruments (probably as an effect of the crossover), even those out of the frequency range of the sub, maybe even more so than those that lie within the range of the sub. The 60Hz crossover giving the least amount of noticeable change on my system as compared to 2 channel listening.

At this time, I am undecided if adding a subwoofer to my system for music was a good idea. I need to keep on experimenting. Had I different main speakers which could not produce LF as well as my current ones, maybe my conclusion would be different. I certainly have heard systems which have benefited from adding a subwoofer to work in conjunction with the mains, which lacked adequate LF for Rock. I suppose the benefit of reduced stress and distortion on the amps and mains might be worth the addition of the sub, if nothing else. But I am not willing (yet) to raise the crossover point, to say 80Hz, to further benefit from this effect because I do not like the effect on the sound.

I hope those who are new to subwoofers and even audio gear may benefit from my experience....that's why I include this conclusion. My thanks goes out to all of those who have contributed positively to this thread. To you and everyone reading this thread, good listening to you!

2 songs that have been useful during my sub/system setup (Format = Band, Song):

A Perfect Circle, "Counting Bodies Like Sheep To The Rhythm Of The War Drums"
Sick Puppies, "Riptide"

Rock on...
post #42 of 295
A body in a state of rest continues to be in a state of rest, unless it is acted by an external force. So if the external force is larger, a heavier object could move as fast as a small object.

The main problem the heavy object may face is that it is harder to stop, due to the inertia. A heavy object that is moving fast has a large inertia and so it takes longer to stop completely even if the force is completely removed. Of course a force acting in the opposite direction would reduce the time required to come to a complete stop (braking).

So while a large woofer may not have problem moving 30 times a sec, it may have problem coming to a complete stop as soon as a smaller woofer. That means, you may hear some low frequency that is really not in the source and which you may not hear from a smaller woofer. No?
post #43 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mupi View Post

A body in a state of rest continues to be in a state of rest, unless it is acted by an external force. So if the external force is larger, a heavier object could move as fast as a small object.

The main problem the heavy object may face is that it is harder to stop, due to the inertia. A heavy object that is moving fast has a large inertia and so it takes longer to stop completely even if the force is completely removed. Of course a force acting in the opposite direction would reduce the time required to come to a complete stop (braking).

So while a large woofer may not have problem moving 30 times a sec, it may have problem coming to a complete stop as soon as a smaller woofer. That means, you may hear some low frequency that is really not in the source and which you may not hear from a smaller woofer. No?

Presusmably, the heavier woofer also has a stronger motor to help it overcome inertia. That stronger motor can get the woofer going as well as stopping just as fast as the smaller woofer with the smaller motor. This is how a heavy car like the Bugatti Veyron at 4162 lbs can also do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. It's got 1001 hp.
post #44 of 295
Another car analogy I love is there is no substitute for cubic inches .
post #45 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by oztech View Post

Another car analogy I love is there is no substitute for cubic inches .

No replacement for displacement....
post #46 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I don't know if its less musical, however I think wouldn't mind the having the 10.

Talk about getting called out. Ouch!

And again, you couldn't be more wrong about size of the woofer and speed, as been pointed out by several people in this thread and on this forum for years. But, we will let YOU tell it.
post #47 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike View Post

This is how a heavy car like the Bugatti Veyron at 4162 lbs can also do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. It's got 1001 hp.

It will also stop from 60-0 in 104 ft. A Ferrari 458 Italia at 1000 less pounds (25% less weight) takes 99 ft.

Another thing to consider is that for the same displacement, a 10" driver needs 27 mm of excursion compared to 7 1/2 mm for an 18" driver. Smaller drivers producing the same output as larger drivers need to move a lot further to get back to their resting point and this takes time.
post #48 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdome View Post

It will also stop from 60-0 in 104 ft. A Ferrari 458 Italia at 1000 less pounds (25% less weight) takes 99 ft.

Another thing to consider is that for the same displacement, a 10" driver needs 27 mm of excursion compared to 7 1/2 mm for an 18" driver. Smaller drivers producing the same output as larger drivers need to move a lot further to get back to their resting point and this takes time.

That is a very important point and should always be considered when looking at the issue of the "supposed" speed advantage of smaller woofers. The smaller woofers are forced to move faster in order to cover more excursion just to keep up with the larger woofers.
post #49 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mupi View Post

A body in a state of rest continues to be in a state of rest, unless it is acted by an external force. So if the external force is larger, a heavier object could move as fast as a small object.

The main problem the heavy object may face is that it is harder to stop, due to the inertia. A heavy object that is moving fast has a large inertia and so it takes longer to stop completely even if the force is completely removed. Of course a force acting in the opposite direction would reduce the time required to come to a complete stop (braking).

So while a large woofer may not have problem moving 30 times a sec, it may have problem coming to a complete stop as soon as a smaller woofer. That means, you may hear some low frequency that is really not in the source and which you may not hear from a smaller woofer. No?

TO the extent that applies at all, it would apply equally to a ten with a heavier cone. But in general heavier woofers have heavier everything - meaning the spider etc. are heavier and will be tending to drag the system to a stop faster than a lighter system, theoretically.

But every system has some resonance and part of designing a sub is to determine the tradeoffs you want between extension, power, size and overhang.

Moreover, most of the time, one cycle is followed by another. If the heavier woofer could not stop and turn around with the incoming signal on a timely basis, you'd see it in the frequency response. To the extent some frequencies lag more than others, that's group delay, which seems more related to total design than the size of the driver in the sub. AFAIK, folks may differ in their sensitivity to group delay, but the delay has to get to be pretty large versus the period of the tone being reproduced to become audible (just more for some than others). Impulse testing will show how the spring of the total system damps out. Again, in my limited review of sub testing, I don't think I see a difference based on size of driver.

And the cycle or 2 of continued movement after all electrical energy is stopped appear to be very far down in level in testing I've looked at. Since every spring will keep springing when the motive force is removed, it's not that only bigger drivers have the problem - - they all do. The question then becomes whether the level of the continued springing is high enough to be audible.

Maybe that's what I heard in the 10 inch sealed Dynamo, that went away when it was put more in proper calibration with the mains. Maybe not.
I'm thinking it could not have been group delay because the problem went away with a more appropriate sub level. But that's me applying what I think of as semi common sense logic to a field in which, as nearly as I can tell, common sense is largely inapplicable. Which is to say we hear what we hear, but we likely will attribute it to the wrong things unless we've been schooled in acoustics . . .
post #50 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaeelarr View Post

Talk about getting called out. Ouch!

And again, you couldn't be more wrong about size of the woofer and speed, as been pointed out by several people in this thread and on this forum for years. But, we will let YOU tell it.

I guess I have been vindicated by above scientific arguments.

"TO the extent that applies at all, it would apply equally to a ten with a heavier cone. But in general heavier woofers have heavier everything - meaning the spider etc. are heavier and will be tending to drag the system to a stop faster than a lighter system, theoretically."

That's what I was attempting to convey, but someone objected to my use of the word "generally".
Nevertheless, again, the law of physics do apply in all of nature, subwoofers are not excluded.
post #51 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I guess I have been vindicated by above scientific arguments.

Actually just the opposite.

Your original argument was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Music bass isn't the same as movie, the big huge subs we buy for movies, I don't believe can't cut for fast, transients sounds in some music (Jazz) do to the there sheer size and inertia of being big and heavy.

That has been shown to be false. Big subs can cut it and actually have the advantage of not having to use as much excursion for equal amounts of output. Re-read the discussions, admit you're wrong, and then go away.
post #52 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I guess I have been vindicated by above scientific arguments.

But you have yet to explain why--if what you believe is true--you bought a 12" sub. Doesn't make any sense???
post #53 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike View Post

Presusmably, the heavier woofer also has a stronger motor to help it overcome inertia. That stronger motor can get the woofer going as well as stopping just as fast as the smaller woofer with the smaller motor. This is how a heavy car like the Bugatti Veyron at 4162 lbs can also do 0-60 in 2.5 seconds. It's got 1001 hp.

Most race cars have powerful engines and light bodies. The goal is to make the fastest car with as less weight as possible. The same is true for NASA. They understand the laws of physics, they don't defy or try to deny them, they apply them.

Is same true for most subwoofer manufacturers, probably not. There is a market of people who want the biggest, baddest, lowest subs for HT, they don't care as much about speed as say the typical audiophile, since for HT purposes speed is not that important. Again critical listening is not required for HT since its part video and for most part the HT enthusiast is more so after that boom than fast transients. I believe that market or mentality currently dominates the subwoofer buying public and the manufacturers do take note of it. If there's a market for a big HT sub the manufacturers will supply it.
post #54 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by cel4145 View Post

But you have yet to explain why--if what you believe is true--you bought a 12" sub. Doesn't make any sense???

I told you back in the Emotiva threads, I was looking to exchange my 12 for 10, even before this thread started. Since you like pull up some of my old post, why don't go find and that one, its there.

I believe the Emotiva X-12 is more musical than the SB-13 and ULS-15 for the reasons I stated, but not by much though. We're only talking about marginal at best differences that only critical listening would reveal.
post #55 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Most race cars have powerful engines and light bodies. The goal is to make the fastest car with as less weight as possible. The same is true for NASA. They understand the laws of physics, they don't defy or try to deny them, they apply them.

Is same true for most subwoofer manufacturers, probably not. There is a market of people who want the biggest, baddest, lowest subs for HT, they don't care as much about speed as say the typical audiophile, since for HT purposes speed is not that important. Again critical listening is not required for HT since its part video and for most part the HT enthusiast is more so after that boom than fast transients. I believe that market or mentality currently dominates the subwoofer buying public and the manufacturers do take note of it. If there's a market for a big HT sub the manufacturers will supply it.

You're arguing against the ability a larger subs to accurately reproduce music, but I have my doubts that you have ever actually listened to a high-quality sub that both has deep extension and accurate playback. That would explain your ignorance about the subject. Most of your arguments both in this thread and others reflect a lack of experience in listening to quality sound systems.

What is the best properly set up "HT" sub you have ever evaluated?
post #56 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by mojomike View Post

You're arguing against the ability a larger subs to accurately reproduce music, but I have my doubts that you have ever actually listened to a high-quality sub that both has deep extension and accurate playback. That would explain your ignorance about the subject.

What is the best properly set up "HT" sub you have ever evaluated?

You're throwing a lot of assumptions out there, and we all know that assumptions are the mother of all screw ups. You don't know me or what I have listened to over the years.

Again, facts and science is independent of our personal experience. I thought I proved that to you already on the subject of Infrasounds.
post #57 of 295
Here we go again lets compare a scenario to car again. Im sure tgatz an 80's thing. Lol.
post #58 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

You're throwing a lot of assumptions out there, and we all know that assumptions are the mother of all screw ups. You don't know me or what I have listened to over the years.

Again, facts and science is independent of our personal experience. I thought I proved that to you already on the subject of Infrasounds.

You have been on the wrong side of every argument you've been engaged in. This one is no exception.

Could you tell me about the best systems you have been able to listen to? What kind of subs were involved?
post #59 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Most race cars have powerful engines and light bodies. The goal is to make the fastest car with as less weight as possible. The same is true for NASA. They understand the laws of physics, they don't defy or try to deny them, they apply them.

Is same true for most subwoofer manufacturers, probably not. There is a market of people who want the biggest, baddest, lowest subs for HT, they don't care as much about speed as say the typical audiophile, since for HT purposes speed is not that important. Again critical listening is not required for HT since its part video and for most part the HT enthusiast is more so after that boom than fast transients. I believe that market or mentality currently dominates the subwoofer buying public and the manufacturers do take note of it. If there's a market for a big HT sub the manufacturers will supply it.

Could you explain in your own words, what physics back up your assertions? It is not as simple as a heavier driver is harder to start or stop. Its been posted before, but I think is worth repeating, a smaller diameter driver needs more excursion than a larger diameter driver for the same spl. So the cone has to move faster. Energy or momentum is directly related to both mass and velocity. More excursion also means more distortion, which probably has a much greater effect on the "sound quality" than any differences because of mass.

Others have tried to define "speed", but what is your definition? Here is an interesting thread about this topic. http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showth...ut-them-to-bed

-Mike
post #60 of 295
Quote:
Originally Posted by gperkins1973 View Post

Here we go again lets compare a scenario to car again. Im sure tgatz an 80's thing. Lol.

Its not so much the cars but the law of physics and how the same laws apply to subwoofers.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Musical Subs and Complete Bass