or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Decision Time is Finally Here. Flip a coin?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Decision Time is Finally Here. Flip a coin? - Page 2

post #31 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by edoggrc51 View Post

The bigger driver doesnt need to move the same amount (excursion) as a smaller driver to produce the same SPL at the given frequency. Displacement baby! smile.gif

Thanks for the thought. I'm not posting about SPL but instead, I'm posting about the creation of the note itself. Maybe that's the rub, some here are about SPL where I and others are about the "perceived" or "subjective" quality of the sound created. I'm not saying my view point is better or worse than another's view point. I'd rather have five dB less SPL if the quality of sound is increased by a similar amount. Say the difference between live bass sounding as if it's in another room vs the live bass sound in a room, noting that the recorded bass sound in the room, is woofer created. tongue.gif

It gets real sticky at this level of live vs recorded vs personal perceptions.
post #32 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiophile2k View Post

You are arguing against your own statement. In order for smaller woofers to move the same amount of air, they need more driver movement than a larger driver. So the larger drivers will have less excursion to create the same soundwave....so according to your theory above, the larger drivers would be "faster". The small drivers without the longer excursion are simply not going to be capable of reproducing the lower notes at higher SPL because they cannot move the needed air. Maybe this lack of depth is what you are confusing for "fast and tight" or "musical". Either way, there are sub EQs on the market that also take care of the time domain (as measured by waterfall graphs), which goes a long way in making any sub seem tighter and more musical.

Thanks for the though. I'd prefer not to add a sub EQ into the equation. Obviously, I'm confused enough. tongue.gif

Thinking aloud: a woofer is a speaker like any other speaker yet a woofer is immune to physical and sonic differences unlike tweeters and mid-range speakers (not equating them as the same) as folks seem to be unintentionally projecting subwoofers to be all the same. ???

My follow-up response mentions how I'm not about SPL and that seems to be the rub, reproduction of SPL as opposed to simple, clean reproduction of the sound waves. Regarding your comment about lack of depth, what I'm responding to is a lack of tightness in the sound created as I find bass to be muffled as in another room as opposed to my being in the room with the bass as I would experience live. Smaller subs give me that in the room experience whereas larger subs don't give me that experience.

I really am trying to grasp the why of it all. My "logic" makes the why work. What you and others post doesn't meet where the rubber meets the road, personal experience. Maybe, for some dumb reason, it's because my hearing is sensitive in the lower registers (10-20Hz) and no, I'm not laying claim to special hearing whereas normal hearing for my age, bails at 14kHz with about a 10dB, 4kHz hole going up the ladder. That's why I ask if someone can link insightful information so I can get any myths cleared up in my thinking.

-
post #33 of 66
Quote:
Physics says that to cover a longer distance in equal time, say one inch vs two inches, the object in motion must be moving at a faster speed, not a slower or equal speed. If this is fact, then any subwoofer using a longer throw, has to be faster in both directions to reproduce the same sound wave, in the same amount of time.

I'm not being argumentative, I'm asking where I can find support that addresses these issues showing that longer throw woofers are equally responsive (faster in both directions to compensate for longer throws) as shorter throw woofers; key ingredients to tight, accurate, musical bass.

It would seem that if these issues of longer throws are not successfully addressed, then larger woofers can't be as fast, tight and responsive as some are want for them to be and this then becomes a valid issue/concern, not a myth.

What others are saying that seems to have gone over your head is that for any given SPL, the larger woofer will need a shorter throw than the smaller woofer. Using a simple xmax calculator, you can figure this for yourself (applicable for sealed subwoofers).

http://www.baudline.com/erik/bass/xmaxer.html

One example: A single 8" driver needs almost 11mm of travel (one way) to deliver 100dB at 1m free space at 40Hz; conversely, the 15" woofer only needs 3mm.

As far as the rest of your post, the factor you seem to be looking for is motor strength.
post #34 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve1981 View Post

As far as the rest of your post, the factor you seem to be looking for is motor strength.

Thanks for the thought. I keep posting that my concern is not SPL and folks keep addressing my post in terms of SPL. To me, SPL is something that happens (not kicking off another question) where as sound quality is something that's earned and motor strength sounds like what addresses my concern regarding tight bass and larger woofers.

(currently Googling "BI or woofer motor strength.")
post #35 of 66
BeeMan, we are not discounting your personal experience...but you have drawn some poor conclusions based on that experience. It could be that the smaller subs you've heard WERE better than the larger subs you've heard. But NOT for the reasons you seem to think. A really well designed 10" sub can easily sound better than a 15" sub that was poorly designed.
What you are ignoring is the sub is not just an entity to itself, so depending on room, placement, EQ, etc there could be many different reasons something did not sound musical too you. Not to mention, a lot of people have a tendency to run their sub much hotter (louder in respect to the rest of the system) which usually results in inaccurate, boomy music. So unless you've heard a good quality large sub, well placed in the room, EQed, and set up at the right level, your argument of personal experience doesn't mean much. As I stated before, the fact that the smaller subs are not producing some of the lower frequencies and thus not creating some of the peaks and room modes you might get with a larger sub (that was poorly set up) could very well account for what you think you are hearing as a faster and more musical sound.
post #36 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiophile2k View Post

BeeMan, we are not discounting your personal experience...but you have drawn some poor conclusions based on that experience. It could be that the smaller subs you've heard WERE better than the larger subs you've heard. But NOT for the reasons you seem to think. A really well designed 10" sub can easily sound better than a 15" sub that was poorly designed.
What you are ignoring is the sub is not just an entity to itself, so depending on room, placement, EQ, etc there could be many different reasons something did not sound musical too you. Not to mention, a lot of people have a tendency to run their sub much hotter (louder in respect to the rest of the system) which usually results in inaccurate, boomy music. So unless you've heard a good quality large sub, well placed in the room, EQed, and set up at the right level, your argument of personal experience doesn't mean much. As I stated before, the fact that the smaller subs are not producing some of the lower frequencies and thus not creating some of the peaks and room modes you might get with a larger sub (that was poorly set up) could very well account for what you think you are hearing as a faster and more musical sound.

FWIW, I'm not arguing, I'm trying to understand and I appreciate you taking time to point out why there can be these differences between small and large subs. As we post to each other, I'm reading about woofer magnets and how much power it takes to drive these woofers.

As to smaller subs vs larger subs, I'm good with the differences in how low each can go, what the differences are at what SPL each can recreate. I'm good with all that and have no questions or concerns as for the most part, all things being equal, bigger amps, boxes and woofer surface area, equals bigger sound. I'm good with that. My concern is strictly sound quality. And yes, agreeing with everybody, placement, EQ, etc does make a difference. It's been a universal experience, no matter the who, what and why of the subwoofer placement, for me, larger subs equal smeared bass. I kinda got tired of this point and started looking toward smaller woofers, knowing I'd be giving something up in exchange for the tighter bass sound I was wanting.

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 9/6/12 at 12:03pm
post #37 of 66
Thread Starter 
It still seems like you might be missing what they mean by SPL. They aren't talking about a sub playing loudly.

For example, pretend a real instrument plays a note which happens to be at 85dB.

Now you have a 10" sub and a 15" sub and are attempting to recreate the exact sound at 85dB. In order to do this, the 10" sub will have to move much further than the 15". Having both subs recreate the sound at the same SPL keeps the comparison fair, and after that you can move on to other objective or subjective measurements.
post #38 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by coke View Post

It still seems like you might be missing what they mean by SPL. They aren't talking about a sub playing loudly.
For example, pretend a real instrument plays a note which happens to be at 85dB.
Now you have a 10" sub and a 15" sub and are attempting to recreate the exact sound at 85dB. In order to do this, the 10" sub will have to move much further than the 15". Having both subs recreate the sound at the same SPL keeps the comparison fair, and after that you can move on to other objective or subjective measurements.

Thanks for the clarification as to me, the way it was posted, it read as if SPL was the goal as opposed to 85dB and a given note (say 25Hz), all things being equal.
post #39 of 66
Where you located BeeMan?? If anywhere near the SoCal area feel free to come by for a listen. Im using 4 18in subs that have a TON of power & SPL, but more importantly the SQ is top notch.
post #40 of 66
I think you need to do some blind test with someone who really knows how to set up the subs correctly, and be sure the subs are of equal quality. There are some people (in fact many people of the female persuasion) that don't like low accurate bass. It might just be a personal preference. If that is the case, nobody will say a thing about that. It is just that we don't want people looking for knowledge to come away with the incorrect notion that larger drivers are not tight and musical if designed and set up correctly. Its all about giving as much accurate information as possible, beyond that nobody is going to complain about your personal taste (well, okay, after spending some time on this forum that is probably not true...but FEWER people will have an issue concerning taste). My guess is you are a candidate for a really well designed sealed sub that doesn't go much below 30hz, but that is just a guess based on your comments to this point.
post #41 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

It's been a universal experience, no matter the who, what and why of the subwoofer placement, for me, larger subs equal smeared bass. I kinda got tired of this point and started looking toward smaller woofers, knowing I'd be giving something up in exchange for the tighter bass sound I was wanting.

Just a little more data for thought:

A big 18" sealed sub
http://www.data-bass.com/images/measurements/89/A%20vs18.1%20sub1%20waterfall.jpg

An itty bitty 12" sealed sub
http://www.data-bass.com/images/measurements/66/B%20xref12%20waterfall.jpg
post #42 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by edoggrc51 View Post

Where you located BeeMan?? If anywhere near the SoCal area feel free to come by for a listen. Im using 4 18in subs that have a TON of power & SPL, but more importantly the SQ is top notch.

Thanks. I'm in Northern Cal but in truth, out of respect, I'd be afraid to listen to another's system. I'd see it like wine tasting, if you don't like the wine, you're looked down on by the wine maker. So, I just tell everybody it's great wine, buy a couple of bottles and rather than give my opinion beyond tastes great, have since stopped wine tasting and simply buy according to region in a grocery store or Costco and like wine tasting, takes my chances. Just saying, four 18" subs are a lot more bass than I'm use to and I'm sure I'd fall over in a dead faint or maybe worse throw up from the amount of bass. tongue.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Audiophile2k View Post

I think you need to do some blind test with someone who really knows how to set up the subs correctly, and be sure the subs are of equal quality. There are some people (in fact many people of the female persuasion) that don't like low accurate bass. It might just be a personal preference. If that is the case, nobody will say a thing about that. It is just that we don't want people looking for knowledge to come away with the incorrect notion that larger drivers are not tight and musical if designed and set up correctly. Its all about giving as much accurate information as possible, beyond that nobody is going to complain about your personal taste (well, okay, after spending some time on this forum that is probably not true...but FEWER people will have an issue concerning taste). My guess is you are a candidate for a really well designed sealed sub that doesn't go much below 30hz, but that is just a guess based on your comments to this point.

I like the concept of a sealed sub and you may be right about being a candidate for upper register LF sound waves. Can't say on that one as I do like LF sound waves rumbling though the house when listening to a good movie sound track.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve1981 View Post

Just a little more data for thought:
A big 18" sealed sub
http://www.data-bass.com/images/measurements/89/A%20vs18.1%20sub1%20waterfall.jpg
An itty bitty 12" sealed sub
http://www.data-bass.com/images/measurements/66/B%20xref12%20waterfall.jpg

Thanks, I'll check the links out.
post #43 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by edoggrc51 View Post

Where you located BeeMan?? If anywhere near the SoCal area feel free to come by for a listen. Im using 4 18in subs that have a TON of power & SPL, but more importantly the SQ is top notch.

One of these days I'd like to check out these beasts. I ain't scared biggrin.gif.
post #44 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve1981 View Post

Just a little more data for thought:
A big 18" sealed sub
http://www.data-bass.com/images/measurements/89/A%20vs18.1%20sub1%20waterfall.jpg
An itty bitty 12" sealed sub
http://www.data-bass.com/images/measurements/66/B%20xref12%20waterfall.jpg

Put my reading glasses on so I could follow the squiggly lines and checked it out closely and surprisingly, despite the obvious fuller over all bass, at 50ms, the nature of the 12" was close to that of the 18.1" sub with a 1dB difference for and the 18.1" having the same performance.

95dB at 25-26Hz vs 95dB at 25-26Hz. The off shoot I took away from almost going blind with the squiggly lines was, at 50ms all things being equal, all things are equal and what I've read is all wet as the 18.1" sub is equally responsive. You're welcome to correct any errors I made in reading the 3D graph as I did it by eye and can be off a dB or Hz, here and there.

That was some waterfall graph as clearly the 18.1 sub was more stable and symmetrical in it's measured sound signature. I spent a good twenty minutes going over the graph, absorbing what it was graphically showing me in the process. Please don't think I'm trying to jack the 12" sub up in stature or trying to show the 18.1" sub readings any disrespect. I'll try to use what you shared in furthering my understanding of bass waves and subwoofers.

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 9/6/12 at 1:21pm
post #45 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by holt7153 View Post

One of these days I'd like to check out these beasts. I ain't scared biggrin.gif.
Just say when boss, I'll make it happen. smile.gif
post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

The off shoot I took away from almost going blind with the squiggly lines was, at 50ms all things being equal, all things are equal and what I've read is all wet as the 18.1" sub is equally responsive.... I'll try to use what you shared in furthering my understanding of bass waves and subwoofers.

Glad I could be of some service!
post #47 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve1981 View Post

Glad I could be of some service!

biggrin.gif

The only problem with this new information, this messes with my choices and the size of the box of the choices available.

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 9/6/12 at 4:42pm
post #48 of 66
While we all wait for coke's ordered sub to arrive, be setup, dialed in and reported on, after further evaluation of the waterfall graphs, I'm going change my opinion back. The reason, if you look at the 50ms numbers, all things are equal. But looking at the tightness of bass, I looked to the speed of the decay and I found the most pronounced decay to be around 100ms and the smaller woofers had faster decay, or my understanding, tighter bass.

I looked, more like stared at the waterfall graphs for Emotiva, Epic, Klipsch, Rythmik, SVS and even the uber expensive Paradigm. Now comes in price/performance as I then zeroed in on decay. Paradigm was the clear winner but at $9k, definitely off our personal budget's table. Sadly, no graphs for the Martin Logan, Depth i. Right or wrong, my bet, if a waterfall was done for the Depth i, the 100ms decay would be close to Paradigm's decay which has the affect of changing my decision back to the Depth i.

Now the question morphs into, in real life, how fast does bass decay as opposed to how fast does bass decay in someone's living room vs what is considered affordable price/performance within budgetary constraints? All had their pluses and minuses, within confines of price/performance.

That's my latest $0.02 cents worth.

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 9/7/12 at 5:58am
post #49 of 66
Thread Starter 
Looks like it may take some effort to move these things lol. Hard to believe shipping was only $126 for the pair.

post #50 of 66
Oh man, that's like TUESDAY! tongue.gif

You won't even notice the weight when you bust those boxes open and single handedly, who needs help, carry those bad boys into their new home.
post #51 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

While we all wait for coke's ordered sub to arrive, be setup, dialed in and reported on, after further evaluation of the waterfall graphs, I'm going change my opinion back. The reason, if you look at the 50ms numbers, all things are equal. But looking at the tightness of bass, I looked to the speed of the decay and I found the most pronounced decay to be around 100ms and the smaller woofers had faster decay, or my understanding, tighter bass.

Not what I'm seeing, but admittedly the waterfalls aren't the easiest things to read. Lets move to the spectrograms. Basically the same info, but different representation.

18"
http://www.data-bass.com/images/measurements/89/C%20vs18.1%20sub1%20spectrogram.jpg
12"
http://www.data-bass.com/images/measurements/66/D%20xref12%20spectrogram.jpg

At drawing a line at 100ms, both are in the yellow to orange range. At 200ms, the 18" sub is mostly into the light blue with some bits of green at lower frequencies. The 12" isn't really doing any better, with one trouble spot centered around 30Hz.
post #52 of 66
Not arguing, being that the spectrogram lacked the third dimension, all I could take away from the spectrograph was, the 18.1" sub was clearly a stronger performing sub and the 12" sub was leaky with it's vertical blue streaks. OTOH, the 3D, waterfall charts told me the best bang-for-the-buck subwoofer was the SVS line as obviously, there's nothing charitable with the Paradigm line. For a budget minded person, in my opinion, shipped price, the SVS PB12-NSD had the strongest, symmetrical, overall showing. Now that's a "per-tee" waterfall graph; at 120Hz, a 15db drop at a 100ms and at 23Hz, an ~14dB drop.

B%20pb12nsd%20waterfall%20decay.jpg

The Paradigm sub knocked it out of the park but at $9k, with my deep pockets, you can fer-git-about-it.

D%20sub%202%20waterfall.jpg

I do appreciate you posting a link to data-bass as their posted information is very revealing as to what a sub is capable of.

.............................................................biggrin.gif

Sharing back, while doing some phone shopping today, if you don't know already, I was told about this freeware. It's professional grade and you might like to play with it. You need a microphone like the Audyssey microphone and a laptop. Should provide a few hours of free entertainment.

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 9/7/12 at 3:33pm
post #53 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

Not arguing, being that the spectrogram lacked the third dimension

?

The spectrogram has time (y axis), intensity (color), and frequency (x axis). One can also more easily see the effect of group delay on a subwoofer with the spectrogram, ie the raised tail on the PB12-NSD spec.

http://www.data-bass.com/images/measurements/71/D%20pb12nsd%20spectrogram.jpg
post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve1981 View Post

?

The spectrogram has time (y axis), intensity (color), and frequency (x axis). One can also more easily see the effect of group delay on a subwoofer with the spectrogram, ie the raised tail on the PB12-NSD spec.

http://www.data-bass.com/images/measurements/71/D%20pb12nsd%20spectrogram.jpg

Thanks. I'm not seeing things in the fashion I see the waterfall. For me, the waterfall is more definitive like a geomap tells you what the terrain, miles ahead of you, is going be. Ya can't get lost with a geomap in hand. tongue.gif

I'm not being critical of you or the spectrogram, I see the colors but not the well defined intensity boundaries of the waterfall. The waterfall is labeled waterfall decay and shows me what I'm needing to know regarding the speed of the decay. The spectrograph doesn't show me this. If it does, I'm lost. tongue.gif

What's a "group delay" that you're posting about regarding the spectrograph? I see the raised tail, but haven't a clue what I should take from this phenomenon. What is the raised tail trying to tell me?

All I can take away from the spectrograph is, by comparison, the PB12-NSD is very focused or tight in nature...

D%20pb12nsd%20spectrogram.jpg

...and has a lot more energy than say the Epik, Empire. Looks like the PB12-NSD has no trouble breaking the 20Hz barrier.

D%20empire%20spectrogram.jpg

Irrespective, I do see learning to read the spectrograph to be a good thing for both energy output and where the energy decay takes place. I'm use to 3D plots as opposed to spectrographs.

(I'm trying.)

The spectrograph for the Paradigm shows it has more focused energy but has some weak spots alone the way; 45-50Hz.

E%20sub%202%20spectrogram.jpg

The Paradigm's energy digs way deeper and consists of six 10" woofers but costs $9k. For me, that's way too much for that last little bit of focused energy but if I were a rich guy, I'd buy four of them. biggrin.gif

The more I familiarize myself with the spectrograph and what they're showing me, all these graphs are doing is making me want to hurry up and buy a pair of the PB12-NSD subs, all that much more.

-
Edited by BeeMan458 - 9/7/12 at 8:25pm
post #55 of 66
^^^^^

Is it just me or do those 3 pics look like something that has nothing to do with subs?? TGIF!!!!! biggrin.gif

Carry on......
post #56 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by edoggrc51 View Post

^^^^^
Is it just me or do those 3 pics look like something that has nothing to do with subs?? TGIF!!!!! biggrin.gif
Carry on......
Reminds me of a weather map.

weatherman-penis.jpg
post #57 of 66
LOL!
post #58 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

What's a "group delay" that you're posting about regarding the spectrograph? I see the raised tail, but haven't a clue what I should take from this phenomenon. What is the raised tail trying to tell me?

It's telling you that quite literally, the output at 20Hz for example, is delayed by about 110ms. This is a predictable result of a bass reflex enclosure combined with a steep high pass filter to protect the driver. Audibility is debatable; no study has proven the threshold one way or the other at these frequencies. Of course, as Ed at SVS pointed out to me, given that GD is inherently related to frequency response, the room and any EQ/auto setup easily have the potential to change things up considerably...
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeeMan458 View Post

All I can take away from the spectrograph is, by comparison, the PB12-NSD is very focused or tight in nature.....and has a lot more energy than say the Epik, Empire.
The PB12-NSD has a purposefully flat FR and good bandwidth linearity (basically, flat FR at the limit), which is what you're seeing. Natively (ie without EQ), the Empire well...does not. However, aside from right around the tuning frequency of the PB12, the Empire offers considerably greater output, as one should expect from dual 15" drivers and 50% more juice. Of course, that the PB12 can keep up at tuning frequency is a great demonstration of the inherent efficiency of a vented box at tuning frequency.
post #59 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by edoggrc51 View Post

^^^^^
Is it just me or do those 3 pics look like something that has nothing to do with subs?? TGIF!!!!! biggrin.gif
Carry on......

Then there was the poor "little" JBL...

http://www.data-bass.com/images/measurements/73/F%20jbl%204645c%20spectrogram.jpg
post #60 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve1981 View Post

Then there was the poor "little" JBL...
http://www.data-bass.com/images/measurements/73/F%20jbl%204645c%20spectrogram.jpg

Must be made in China.smile.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Decision Time is Finally Here. Flip a coin?