Highest frequency that cannot be "localized" by the ear?

[edlchiang62]

Sorry to ask a basic question, but what is the generally accepted highest frequency that humans can hear and still appear to be "omni-directional" to humans?

[kexodusc]

This is open to much debate. I've read anywhere from 70 to 120 Hz. My own experience is that it is closer to 110 Hz. But there's a catch. Often, the localizing cues we perceive when a subwoofer or speaker plays these notes isn't the frequency itself, but the harmonics, vibrations, interactions with room, etc. Your senses are pretty clever, and will hear the impacts of the released energy near the subwoofer, and hence direct your attention to that area. Play a 20 Hz tone sometime through your sub (or lowest it's safely capable of)...often your senses will direct you to the source...not just hearing, but everything.

With an A/V receiver, or subwoofer plate amp, look for crossovers or LFE cutoffs with steep acoustic slopes. 24 dB/octave. Many are still 12 dB/octave. No good IMO. Even 24 dB/octave still plays a lot of information above the so called "cutoff" frequency. Sometimes we're hearing these higher frequencies and mistaking it as 90 Hz being directional.

Often overlooked is the simple factor of the size of the room, your postion in the room and your position relative the subwoofer. If you're sitting near a mode or node, response will be affected quite a bit when moving even a few inches. The thing about non-directional frequencies is the size of the wavelengths. 90 Hz is 12 feet. If you're +/- 6 feet of axis, you can expect some major discrepencies between what you hear in your left and right ears. 80 Hz is almost 14 feet. 70 Hz almost 16 feet.

I guess my point here after all this rambling is that what's non-directional in your setup, might be easily localized in another room. Experiment.

[Richard Greene]

Assuming almost all the bass above 80Hz. is coming from the satellite speakers, and the subwoofer is located in the vicinity of one or both main speakers (not alone in a far corner someone):

I recommend output at 160Hz. down at least 24dB versus bass output under 80Hz, (I personally prefer even less subwoofer output above 80Hz.)

We hear the location of the subwoofer from the output in the 80-160Hz. octave (which can be significant if low-pass filters are not at least 24dB/octave slope, with a turnover frequency no higher than 80Hz.).

With all other speakers turned off you can feel the sound pressure from a subwoofer and at least identify the side of the room it's located on AT ANY FREQUENCY.

You can feel a subwoofer behind you.

That's why for the best integration with the main speakers, subwoofers should be located near one main speaker, or between two main speakers.

[RGA]

Perhaps this is the explanation from Richard Greene. The only time a subwoofer was remotely convincing - even ones set up by professionals was when the sub was directly between the two speakers (which then makes it totally impractical. The toher was when one sub was behind each speaker.

Never ever ever have I been convinced by a system using one subwoofer not in the dead center between the two main speakers -- one sub on the left is heard from the left ALWAYS. Still I like them when something explodes in a movie.

[edlchiang62]

So am I corrrect to assume then for the best two channel system in which I cannot place the subwoofer inbetween the speakers (becasue of a tv), it is best two have a pair of subwoofers in which they are located near each monitor speaker. In other words I should not have a singe subwoofer in the corner of a room?

[kexodusc]

Corner loading a subwoofer can introduce some uneven response patterns throughout the room. I guess, depending on your room, adding a second sub in the opposite corner might compensate for that.
I'm convinced there's at least some benefit to running two subwoofers, even if there is no "stereo" effect. Problem is on a pounding bass drum, you might sense two separate sources of the drum, 1 in each corner, which isn't what a drum is doing. Your sense of "feel" for the bass won't create a virtual image in the same manner your ears interpret sound.

Don't discount room size and your proximity to the sub either. In my smaller studio, my sub easily gives itself away, and like RGA said, there were some challenges trying to add more bass into my 2-channel system. For some music, particularly acoustic music, it worked rather well. For rock, it didn't work as well. I ended up abandonning it for space saving reasons. My towers play down to 28 Hz or so anyway and though my sub is a bit more "musical", it took up too much space.

In my 20 X 24 room, I have the sub on the inside of one of my front main speakers. I listen to 2 channel stereo a lot in this room too. I'm about 11.5 feet from the subwoofer, near the center of my room. I honestly can't determine it's location until the walls in the surrounding area rattle and give it away. As I move closer, I can feel the energy it gives off.

I think for most, 1 subwoofer is fine, if you can do 2 subs, go for it. But just accept that the extra subwoofer's cost is only going to improve things a bit. For the cost of 2 subs in a stereo system, especially with space requirements, you might be better off to evaluate doing a speaker upgrade?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So am I corrrect to assume then for the best two channel system in which I cannot place the subwoofer inbetween the speakers (becasue of a tv), it is best two have a pair of subwoofers in which they are located near each monitor speaker. In other words I should not have a singe subwoofer in the corner of a room?

Tom Nousaine has measured many subwoofers in many positions including multiple subs(2,3,4,5 close to mains) and according to his measurements a single sub in a corner still measures the best. A subwoofer sitting between two main speakers is not likely to excite any of the rooms modes efficiently which will cause some some suckouts in the frequency response at the listening position. According to his testing, a subwoofer SHOULD excite all of the rooms modals to measure and sound good. While placing a sub between the mains may assist in better integrations with the mains, it will likely cause the frequency response of the sub to be uneven.

[kexodusc]

Tom Nousaine has measured many subwoofers in many positions including multiple subs(2,3,4,5 close to mains) and according to his measurements a single sub in a corner still measures the best. A subwoofer sitting between two main speakers is not likely to excite any of the rooms modes efficiently which will cause some some suckouts in the frequency response at the listening position. According to his testing, a subwoofer SHOULD excite all of the rooms modals to measure and sound good. While placing a sub between the mains may assist in better integrations with the mains, it will likely cause the frequency response of the sub to be uneven.

While it completly contradicts some reading I've done, this sounds like more great info from Mr. Nousaine...would you have any links to a discussion or anything? I'd be curious to read.

I'd like to know why exciting all the room modes is critical, and why it's considered more important than integrating with the mains, in particular. Is this just a taste preference, or is there something too it.

And is corner placement always preferable in every room no matter the size/shape?

[ruadmaa]

Perhaps this is the explanation from Richard Greene. The only time a subwoofer was remotely convincing - even ones set up by professionals was when the sub was directly between the two speakers (which then makes it totally impractical. The toher was when one sub was behind each speaker.

Never ever ever have I been convinced by a system using one subwoofer not in the dead center between the two main speakers -- one sub on the left is heard from the left ALWAYS. Still I like them when something explodes in a movie.

Sorry RGA, I strongly disagree with you. I use a 12 inch M&K powered subwoofer located on the far right front side of my room beside a sofa, and to date not one person has ever even known that a powered subwoofer was being used (in addition to the the two front 12 inch 4 way towers) that I use. The subwoofer is desquised as a lamp stand and draws no attention to itself. I suggest that mostly the eyes and mind are telling you where the subwoofer is. Frequencies of 80HZ or less are not locatable by hearing.

[3db]

While it completly contradicts some reading I've done, this sounds like more great info from Mr. Nousaine...would you have any links to a discussion or anything? I'd be curious to read.

I'd like to know why exciting all the room modes is critical, and why it's considered more important than integrating with the mains, in particular. Is this just a taste preference, or is there something too it.

And is corner placement always preferable in every room no matter the size/shape?

Although my sub is located in a corner, its at the opposite end of the room to where my mains are located. That postion was found by putting the sub where my seating psotion was and crawlign around like an angry dog until I found the spot where the bass seemed the loudest. This room is 12'x16' with a 7ft drop ceiling, and burber carpet.

Now in my other house, the best bass response I achieved was smack dam in the middle of the short wall againsgt the wall. My speakers flanked the sub on either side. This room (family room) was open to the kitchen however. I can't help but think that room shape and size plays a huge roll into where the sub should go.

[RGA]

Sorry RGA, I strongly disagree with you. I use a 12 inch M&K powered subwoofer located on the far right front side of my room beside a sofa, and to date not one person has ever even known that a powered subwoofer was being used (in addition to the the two front 12 inch 4 way towers) that I use. The subwoofer is desquised as a lamp stand and draws no attention to itself. I suggest that mostly the eyes and mind are telling you where the subwoofer is. Frequencies of 80HZ or less are not locatable by hearing.

Run a test tone disc - have your eyes closed let someone set up the romk and run a 30hz tone through -- You will know where the sub is.

Music can take a fair bit longer because few music has any real bass - systems with a sub don;t integrate properly and sooner or later the ear drifts to where the sub is. In a short term listening test maybe not, but then the $20.00 computer speakers on the table with the sub on the floor fooled me for a few minutes too in that gee it sounded klike it was coming from the speaker -- and this is way way about 80hz.

And it's funny you mention M&K because THAT was the set-up with the sub in the middle that I was referring to. The dealer, who's father invented the sand filling speaker for Wharfedale, had Lucas as a client. The problem was that the sub in the center created a weight always int he center and the dealer rarely wanted to play anything other than a drum solo -- this music sounded great but heavier voices and a lack of left to right depth. Ultimately it was a bit of a boom and sizzle experience. Other sub set-ups in the corners namely with B&W N801 sounded dead - one note bass. If I have a complaint, aside from not meshing with the speakers is the kind of bass -- I either get fake added ambiance to everything (which i admit can sound pleasing enough) or I get an obvious tranfer.to one side of the room or a heavier weighted balance to one side of the room -- someone mentioned drums in the left corner if the sub is in the left corner -- umm that ain;t great when the drums are supposed to be on the other side.

My main experience with subs was with a Boston Acoustics SW 10 long throw powered sub. I can forgive many problems but it's problem is that it could not outdo the Wharfedale's bass depth. It could be run passive or with its power and powered it "alleviated" the Wharfedales from the task of providing the bass - The sound was terrible in this mode - boom and sizzle -- I could hear more "air" in the Wharfedale more midrange and treble but umm that's about it along with the subwoofer.

Good speakers don't need to be alleviated from their job -letting the receiver run everything sounded much better but then I ran into the problem that the sub didn't add any bass so I basically gave up on the thing.

Heard many new supposedly better subwoofer designs - but I am not going to BUY one until a dealer can prove to me that they will add musical value to the bottom end rather than one note bass or "slam" which isn't at all music but a throbbing impress your friends "wow that's cool" pyrotechnic. (like I say great for movies) not been convinced for music though I will agree that subs often help out a lot of unnaceptably aneamic speakers.

[theaudiohobby]

Run a test tone disc - have your eyes closed let someone set up the romk and run a 30hz tone through -- You will know where the sub is.


It is a '30Hz test tone! i.e. a single fundamental with no harmonics,it will be primarily audible through the subwoofer! Talk about stating the obvious :rolleyes: ! At this point, your J's are several db down or not producing any sound at all, so sure you will locate the sub, try the same test with a music program, the outcome will be very different, if the crossover to the sub is sufficiently low.

[edlchiang62]

I appreciate all the responses, but I am afraid I am now more confused than ever about integrating a sub into a 2-channel system.

[E-Stat]

Tom Nousaine has measured many subwoofers in many positions including multiple subs(2,3,4,5 close to mains) and according to his measurements a single sub in a corner still measures the best.
Perhaps with all the qualifications RG stated, that would be the case. I suspect the modest 12" powered subs I use in my HT system do not utilize such a steep slope. Even when I set the sub's crossover to 70 hz sourced from the LFE output, I find two blend better than one.

Returning to the original question, I believe than unless you have largely full range speakers to begin with, buy a serious sub with an unusually steep crossover slope, you would be better off with a pair.

BTW, TtT - I notice you use a pair of 15 inchers.

rw

[ruadmaa]

Run a test tone disc - have your eyes closed let someone set up the romk and run a 30hz tone through -- You will know where the sub is.

Music can take a fair bit longer because few music has any real bass - systems with a sub don;t integrate properly and sooner or later the ear drifts to where the sub is. In a short term listening test maybe not, but then the $20.00 computer speakers on the table with the sub on the floor fooled me for a few minutes too in that gee it sounded klike it was coming from the speaker -- and this is way way about 80hz.

And it's funny you mention M&K because THAT was the set-up with the sub in the middle that I was referring to. The dealer, who's father invented the sand filling speaker for Wharfedale, had Lucas as a client. The problem was that the sub in the center created a weight always int he center and the dealer rarely wanted to play anything other than a drum solo -- this music sounded great but heavier voices and a lack of left to right depth. Ultimately it was a bit of a boom and sizzle experience. Other sub set-ups in the corners namely with B&W N801 sounded dead - one note bass. If I have a complaint, aside from not meshing with the speakers is the kind of bass -- I either get fake added ambiance to everything (which i admit can sound pleasing enough) or I get an obvious tranfer.to one side of the room or a heavier weighted balance to one side of the room -- someone mentioned drums in the left corner if the sub is in the left corner -- umm that ain;t great when the drums are supposed to be on the other side.

My main experience with subs was with a Boston Acoustics SW 10 long throw powered sub. I can forgive many problems but it's problem is that it could not outdo the Wharfedale's bass depth. It could be run passive or with its power and powered it "alleviated" the Wharfedales from the task of providing the bass - The sound was terrible in this mode - boom and sizzle -- I could hear more "air" in the Wharfedale more midrange and treble but umm that's about it along with the subwoofer.

Good speakers don't need to be alleviated from their job -letting the receiver run everything sounded much better but then I ran into the problem that the sub didn't add any bass so I basically gave up on the thing.

Heard many new supposedly better subwoofer designs - but I am not going to BUY one until a dealer can prove to me that they will add musical value to the bottom end rather than one note bass or "slam" which isn't at all music but a throbbing impress your friends "wow that's cool" pyrotechnic. (like I say great for movies) not been convinced for music though I will agree that subs often help out a lot of unnaceptably aneamic speakers.

Sorry again RGA, I don't run test tones on my system other than for system setup, I run both music and movies . No one has ever been able to spot the subwoofer. Quite frankly, you wouldn't be able to locate it either, even if you were listening for it. I have listened to my system quite critically many times, there is no clue that a sub is being used.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

While it completly contradicts some reading I've done, this sounds like more great info from Mr. Nousaine...would you have any links to a discussion or anything? I'd be curious to read.

Tom Nousiane papers are VERY difficult to find on the internet. Most of them are articles in audio magazine, or sound and vision back in the 90's. However as a memeber of AES, I am able to aquire quite a few of his papers through it, and CEDIA and THX use his work on subs to a great degree.


I'd like to know why exciting all the room modes is critical, and why it's considered more important than integrating with the mains, in particular. Is this just a taste preference, or is there something too it.

And is corner placement always preferable in every room no matter the size/shape?

Most experiments with room acoustics and standing waves have been on rectangular rooms only. I think the reason why it is important to locate subs in corners has more to do with maximum volume, low frequency extension, and most even measurements. Also consider that it is easier to cut a room mode(which corners stimulate all boundary related modes evenly) than it is to fill in a node which cannot be done without extreme penalties on amplifier headroom and overall output

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Perhaps with all the qualifications RG stated, that would be the case. I suspect the modest 12" powered subs I use in my HT system do not utilize such a steep slope. Even when I set the sub's crossover to 70 hz sourced from the LFE output, I find two blend better than one.

If you have read the writings of both Richard Greene(who comes here sometimes now) and Tom, according to both of them the ideal crossover point for subwoofer invisibility would be around 60-80hz with a VERY steep 24dbpo crossover. This is the parimeter that Tom Nousiane followed during his measurement of those many rooms.


Returning to the original question, I believe than unless you have largely full range speakers to begin with, buy a serious sub with an unusually steep crossover slope, you would be better off with a pair.

BTW, TtT - I notice you use a pair of 15 inchers.

rw

If you place full range speakers where the bass response is augmented(closer to the walls) then imaging suffers because of the added and early arrival of nearfield reflections. If you place full range speakers to acheive maximum imaging, it is likely to roll off early, and create peaks and valley in its freqeuncy responses do to late arriving reflections combining with early arriving reflections. That is why subs are so important no matter which kind of speaker you use.

You are right, I do use a pair of 15". Not for any reason other than to fullfill my audio requirements that the LFE speakers have 6db headroom over the loudest peak within that channel. A single of my subs could easily reach the loudest potential of the LFE channel(115db peak acousticall). Two subs located in each of the front corners on the floor reaches my goal of 6db. I otherwise would have used a single sub in my room if I didn't have these requirements. I require that all speakers in my system be able to handle at least 6db of headroom over the highest peak in that channel. Consequently I use VERY big speakers all of the way around, although I wouldn't consider my surrounds full range as they only go down to 50hz. Considering that there is not always alot of deep bass in the surrounds, that is low enough IMO to run full range. Only in the rarest of occasions have I seen bass at very high levels below 50hz in the surrounds. In the dubbing stage the surrounds are band limited at 80hz anyway, except if its being mixed at Skywalker sound which have surrounds that go down to 50hz or so.

[RGA]

It is a '30Hz test tone! i.e. a single fundamental with no harmonics,it will be primarily audible through the subwoofer! Talk about stating the obvious :rolleyes: ! At this point, your J's are several db down or not producing any sound at all, so sure you will locate the sub, try the same test with a music program, the outcome will be very different, if the crossover to the sub is sufficiently low.

Yes I have pedal organ work of the Saint Saens (though musically not my thing) and the subs drift. The fact that you do not get stereo sound from one sub should trigger a bit of a clue but then i'm talking to someone who thinks the 705 is a great speaker -- or even a good one. And if the Quad is satisfactory to you for bass of any sort then this discussion is going to lead nowhere.

[E-Stat]

... the ideal crossover point for subwoofer invisibility would be around 60-80hz with a VERY steep 24dbpo crossover. This is the parimeter that Tom Nousiane followed during his measurement of those many rooms.
I think we're on the same page. Unfortunately, I would venture to say most reasonably priced subs intended for HT use do not have that steep a slope.


You are right, I do use a pair of 15". Not for any reason other than to fullfill my audio requirements that the LFE speakers have 6db headroom over the loudest peak within that channel.
:)

That's also why Harry Pearson uses five in his Magneplanar based HT system! The waves crashing in the movie Blue Crush were quite convincing.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

Yes I have pedal organ work of the Saint Saens (though musically not my thing) and the subs drift.

Hello...30Hz test tone and Saint Saen pedal organ music, see the difference...


The fact that you do not get stereo sound from one sub should trigger a bit of a clue but then i'm talking to someone who thinks the 705 is a great speaker -- or even a good one.

:rolleyes: What is the title of the thread? And the 705 is a good speaker irrespective of your preferences.


And if the Quad is satisfactory to you for bass of any sort then this discussion is going to lead nowhere.
:rolleyes:, Do you know the -6dB point of the Quad ESL and next time try reading system details more closely before you comment.

[RGA]

Hello...30Hz test tone and Saint Saen pedal organ music, see the difference...



:rolleyes: What is the title of the thread? And the 705 is a good speaker irrespective of your preferences.


:rolleyes:, Do you know the -6dB point of the Quad ESL and next time try reading system details more closely before you comment.

Actually I know both points and neither is pretty - the Quads do not measure well - they have no credible bass and no bass dynamics whatsoever they're a midrange speaker (despite your preferences for rolled off bandwidth limited speakers).

[theaudiohobby]

[
Actually I know both points and neither is pretty -).measure well - they have no credible bass and no bass dynamics
:rolleyes:, what is the -6dB point of the Quad ESL? As for the B&W 705, The true -6dB point is published on the B&W site, and there are some comprehensive measurements available from other sources, if do not you have any information that contradicts those, your comments about its -6dB point are pointless.


whatsoever they're a midrange speaker (despite your preferences for rolled off bandwidth limited speakers).
as usual clutching at straws again..:rolleyes: and taking leave of the thread topic in the process :rolleyes:

[edlchiang62]

Jeez..I thought I asked a simple question about localization of sounds and it seems I've started a war between some people!

[Florian]

Run a test tone disc - have your eyes closed let someone set up the romk and run a 30hz tone through -- You will know where the sub is. I agree with RGA, my friend runs a REL Stadium with modified power supply (the stock one is crap) and when you run it x-o'd at 30Hz you can hear where it is. This is a Magnepan MG20 fully active and triamped. Granted, it is hard but you will be able to hear it out on complex music from Mahler or Bach. Thats why its better to use two subs instead of one.Ofcourse thats not the only advantage, but one of them. Or just ditch the box in your mains and buy a fullrange speaker that doesnt have a box in the first place. Or a good box speaker that is fullrange also. *

PS: The Quads are very good in the midrange, and i mean very good. But the fact is that the Quads are limited in bandwith and the bottom end extension. What they do, they do very well tough.

* I know its expensive but i am mentioning the ultimate solution here.

[GMichael]

I agree with RGA,
.


Huh? This is great. Mark down today's date.

Sorry, please excuse this interuption.

[Florian]

I agree with him quite often actually, smart guy. I just dont like his speakers :p

[GMichael]

I have never heard A.N.'s or Apogee's so I can't say which are better. But I would suspect that both are better than mine, and both have their pro's & con's. It's all in ones tastes.

[Pat D]

I agree with RGA, my friend runs a REL Stadium with modified power supply (the stock one is crap) and when you run it x-o'd at 30Hz you can hear where it is. This is a Magnepan MG20 fully active and triamped. Granted, it is hard but you will be able to hear it out on complex music from Mahler or Bach. Thats why its better to use two subs instead of one.Ofcourse thats not the only advantage, but one of them. Or just ditch the box in your mains and buy a fullrange speaker that doesnt have a box in the first place. Or a good box speaker that is fullrange also. *

PS: The Quads are very good in the midrange, and i mean very good. But the fact is that the Quads are limited in bandwith and the bottom end extension. What they do, they do very well tough.

* I know its expensive but i am mentioning the ultimate solution here.

Before you agree with RGA, you'd better get the facts straight: So what is the slope of the low pass filter (crossover to you) for the REL sub?

Any speaker has a limited bandwith and low frequency extension. The question is what those limits are. In some rooms, the Quad ESL-63 can do a reasonable job reproducing the 32 Hz organ pedal in Saint Saens Organ Symphony.

[Florian]

No no no, i will not get into any details at all and discuss this here. I simply agree with RGA that you can hear a subwoofer out in any system, especially with magnetostatics and electrostatics since they are too slow (the subs). I also think that subwoofers have a sonic character. My opinion are generally too different then the masses, so i will stick to my own kind when it comes to these kind of discussions.

[gonefishin]

Tom Nousaine has measured many subwoofers in many positions including multiple subs(2,3,4,5 close to mains) and according to his measurements a single sub in a corner still measures the best. A subwoofer sitting between two main speakers is not likely to excite any of the rooms modes efficiently which will cause some some suckouts in the frequency response at the listening position. According to his testing, a subwoofer SHOULD excite all of the rooms modals to measure and sound good. While placing a sub between the mains may assist in better integrations with the mains, it will likely cause the frequency response of the sub to be uneven.


I wish I knew where the articles I had read were. I can't remember the specifics...but I thought that in one test (regarding placement of single and double subs of different types) he had concluded that there was better response not only just in the corner...but also concluded that two perform better near a corner than near each main speaker. Again...I'm going from memory...but I thought that was what he had said. I'll see if I could find it.

dan

[gonefishin]

No no no, i will not get into any details at all and discuss this here. I simply agree with RGA that you can hear a subwoofer out in any system, especially with magnetostatics and electrostatics since they are too slow (the subs). I also think that subwoofers have a sonic character. My opinion are generally too different then the masses, so i will stick to my own kind when it comes to these kind of discussions.

lol...and your arguments are looking more and more like his as well.



Oh...the stats are too fast...blahhh ;)


dan

[Florian]

I decided i will swim with the stream of fish since that is the only way to get accepted. I'll stick with my non-box anywhere in the systems policy ;)

[Pat D]

While it completly contradicts some reading I've done, this sounds like more great info from Mr. Nousaine...would you have any links to a discussion or anything? I'd be curious to read.

I'd like to know why exciting all the room modes is critical, and why it's considered more important than integrating with the mains, in particular. Is this just a taste preference, or is there something too it.

And is corner placement always preferable in every room no matter the size/shape?

Some years ago, Stereo Review published an article on subwoofer placement by Mr. Nousaine. Unlike so many critics, he actually did the measurements and his work is widely accepted by the likes of Dr. Hsu, Tom Vodhanel, and others. Unfortunately I am not at home. If you want the reference, ask me next year.

Corner placement works best in most rectangular rooms giving the flattest and deepest response. Also, since the horn loads the sub, it requires less gain and can provide greater output levels.

There is a more general method. Place the sub in your listening position, preferably at your sitting level, and play some bass heavy music. Now, crawl around on your hands and knees to find those points in the room where the bass is loudest (probably close to the corners!). Next, place the sub in one of those places. Alan Lofft, who now answers questions on the Axiom site, describes this method in an article there. I'd link it except this silly computer I'm using makes it difficult to use multiple browsers.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I wish I knew where the articles I had read were. I can't remember the specifics...but I thought that in one test (regarding placement of single and double subs of different types) he had concluded that there was better response not only just in the corner...but also concluded that two perform better near a corner than near each main speaker. Again...I'm going from memory...but I thought that was what he had said. I'll see if I could find it.

dan

This is true, and I cannot disagree with this. This follows along with a single sub in a corner. I believe he found that two subs stacked in the same corner provided 6db more output, and a smoother overall response from the combination than what you get my locating subs at each of the 5 speakers.. However if even bass coverage(at more than one seat) is what you desire, two spaced subs in opposite corners do this best.

[Pat D]

Sorry again RGA, I don't run test tones on my system other than for system setup, I run both music and movies . No one has ever been able to spot the subwoofer. Quite frankly, you wouldn't be able to locate it either, even if you were listening for it. I have listened to my system quite critically many times, there is no clue that a sub is being used.

It's pretty hard to miss my subwoofer if you know what it is, but it is totally sonically invisible unless turned up way too loud. I use an external crossover (partly for convenience) and the sub's own crossover so I get quite a steep low pass filter. Down in the family room, the smaller subwoofer for HT is behind a chair and no one ever knows it's back there.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Some years ago, Stereo Review published an article on subwoofer placement by Mr. Nousaine. Unlike so many critics, he actually did the measurements and his work is widely accepted by the likes of Dr. Hsu, Tom Vodhanel, and others. Unfortunately I am not at home. If you want the reference, ask me next year.

Corner placement works best in most rectangular rooms giving the flattest and deepest response. Also, since the horn loads the sub, it requires less gain and can provide greater output levels.

There is a more general method. Place the sub in your listening position, preferably at your sitting level, and play some bass heavy music. Now, crawl around on your hands and knees to find those points in the room where the bass is loudest (probably close to the corners!). Next, place the sub in one of those places. Alan Lofft, who now answers questions on the Axiom site, describes this method in an article there. I'd link it except this silly computer I'm using makes it difficult to use multiple browsers.

I have that issue. He actually measure a sub in a L shaped room, and room with a loft, a regular rectangular room, a box shaped room, and a room with walls that jut in and out into the room. He stated that no sub should be located closer than 5ft to an opening. Corner loading provides 18db of boundary reinforcement at low frequencies.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I agree with RGA, my friend runs a REL Stadium with modified power supply (the stock one is crap) and when you run it x-o'd at 30Hz you can hear where it is. This is a Magnepan MG20 fully active and triamped. Granted, it is hard but you will be able to hear it out on complex music from Mahler or Bach. Thats why its better to use two subs instead of one.Ofcourse thats not the only advantage, but one of them. Or just ditch the box in your mains and buy a fullrange speaker that doesnt have a box in the first place. Or a good box speaker that is fullrange also. *

Florian, you will feel the pressure wave, but you will not be able to localize the sub unless there are walls or objects vibrating near the sub. The wavelength of a 30hz tone is larger than most rooms, so it makes it next to impossible to hear the location of this tone unless overtones where being produced by the sub too. This also depends highly on the slope of the crossover. A 6db per octave crossover with have very audible components higher above the crossover frequency. A 24db per octave crossover will have considerable less ouput above the crossover point.

Two subs require alot more work to setup and measure properly. However if bass coverage for more than one seat is desired, two spaced subs in opposite front corners works wonders.

[Pat D]

Hello...30Hz test tone and Saint Saen pedal organ music, see the difference...



:rolleyes: What is the title of the thread? And the 705 is a good speaker irrespective of your preferences.


:rolleyes:, Do you know the -6dB point of the Quad ESL and next time try reading system details more closely before you comment.

I've never understood why RGA and even his dealer cannot get subwoofers to work properly!

The Quad ESL-63 can do Saint Saens Organ Symphony at reasonable levels in some rooms. It does, however, limit itself at higher levels in the deep bass (it's impedance in the deep bass actually increases as the level increases). It is also quite capable of reproducing at 20 kHz, so it most certainly does not lack HF extension.

I like the B & W 705 quite a lot, too, and it works quite well with a subwoofer and I quite enjoyed auditioning them.

[gonefishin]

This is true, and I cannot disagree with this. This follows along with a single sub in a corner. I believe he found that two subs stacked in the same corner provided 6db more output, and a smoother overall response from the combination than what you get my locating subs at each of the 5 speakers.. However if even bass coverage(at more than one seat) is what you desire, two spaced subs in opposite corners do this best.


Like I said...I was just trying to recall from memory what the article had said. Many of us...don't have the luxury of placement all the time...or we are limited in how flexible we can be with placement. But it's still nice to read what we may want to achieve in a similar shaped or sized room.

Pat (or others) if you've got any links...I'd like to read them...whenever you find them is fine...even if it's next year :)



I decided i will swim with the stream of fish since that is the only way to get accepted. I'll stick with my non-box anywhere in the systems policy ;)

Oh...I would hardly say that I'm accepted.

I'm sorry for the rude comment I made (stats are fast comment)...I did know what you were trying to say. You would do very well by sticking exactly with what you have...but you know that

dan

[RGA]

[
:rolleyes:, what is the -6dB point of the Quad ESL? As for the B&W 705, The true -6dB point is published on the B&W site, and there are some comprehensive measurements available from other sources, if do not you have any information that contradicts those, your comments about its -6dB point are pointless.


as usual clutching at straws again..:rolleyes: and taking leave of the thread topic in the process :rolleyes:

You're the one who brought up the 6db point -- you're the one who has the speaker -- you post it and I shall let you know if you are lying or not - I am referring to the bigger bass version in the ESL 63 -- in room response from a professional installer measured at 100db from it's rated "flat" 1khz tone. Forget the Saint Saens what a laugh. Let's give it some synthed pop -- put on some Madonna pop and even ACDC rock and the bass and midbadd and upper bass equal George Castanza after coming out of the pool.

[RGA]

I've never understood why RGA and even his dealer cannot get subwoofers to work properly!

The Quad ESL-63 can do Saint Saens Organ Symphony at reasonable levels in some rooms. It does, however, limit itself at higher levels in the deep bass (it's impedance in the deep bass actually increases as the level increases). It is also quite capable of reproducing at 20 kHz, so it most certainly does not lack HF extension.

I like the B & W 705 quite a lot, too, and it works quite well with a subwoofer and I quite enjoyed auditioning them.

Clearly they do not know how to get it right(all the dealers in British Columbia over the last 15 years even the ones who are trained in the field - even the dealers who have had Paradigm build the sound room can;t get it right - man can every dealer be this incompetant that they can;t get a sub to integrate -- people with engineering acoustic degrees - dealers that have parametric equalizers. I simply ask to be convinced before I buy something is all. I mean you shoving a white paper at me isn't helpful unless that company convinces me in the showrrom. Perhaps those companies should ensure the people flogging their ware set the gear up correctly (if they gave a damn at all about their products).

Martin Logan at least admits that stats have no real bass or meat on the bones bass dynamic drive so they did the intelligent thing and put coned woofers on to provide proper bass sound. Unfortunately even though they KNOW that panels have no bass and KNOW they need a real traditional woofer they so far can't get it to mesh right. The notion that the cone is too slow is often used -- but well my view is that the panel is too thin sounding and so it cuts off most of the depth -- leanness or thinness is often mistaken for speed (see Bryston).

I also know why most anyone who owns a quad rushes right out and buys a subwoofer! The anaemic sound is just so unnacceptable for anything other than light strings. And if the 63 was the bigger bass version then heaven help the other ones.

If you get the sub to sound right for you then thats great -- I'm not saying you're not getting what you perceive to be getting -- I am saying that some of the prior posts indicate the results that I got. The result is the result -- and if you want to assume every dealer in BC is incompetant then maybe they are or it may be that some people can after listening for a while here the hick-up and while it may be slight for many may be annoying for some others.

[theaudiohobby]

in room response from a professional installer measured at 100db from it's rated "flat" 1khz tone. Forget the Saint Saens what a laugh. Let's give it some synthed pop -- put on some Madonna pop and even ACDC rock and the bass and midbadd and upper bass equal George Castanza after coming out of the pool.

??? What relevance does a 1KHz tone with the lower -6dB point.How about just leaving aside the trivia and simply answering the original question.


You're the one who brought up the 6db point -- you're the one who has the speaker -- you post it and I shall let you know if you are lying or not - I am referring to the bigger bass version in the ESL 63

I posited the question to you because of your previous comments because I suspected and rightly in the light of your responses that you are going by hearsay, rather than having any real firsthand knowledge of these ESLs.

Pat D echoes my sentiments and your response to his post is well..a rant. By the way going by your response to Pat D, we Quad owners should be in a better position to discuss sub integration since "most anyone who owns a quad rushes right out and buys a subwoofer!" :p :p

[Florian]

Oh...I would hardly say that I'm accepted.

I'm sorry for the rude comment I made (stats are fast comment)...I did know what you were trying to say. You would do very well by sticking exactly with what you have...but you know that

dan Thats ok Dan, i didn't take it in a bad way. I am not able to express myself exactly as i want to in writing, i mostly come across quite cold and with a huge EGO. My friends tell me that i am a different person when writing as oposed in real life. Personally i have never heard any subwoofer that could blend in with a panel perfectly and like SirT said the 30Hz wavelenght is longer then most rooms anyways but there are chairs, couches, furniture etc..that help you notice the subs direction. So the question is what we want to discuss, do we discuss the subwoofers localisation in a normal living surroundings or on a wide open field with emptyness. And to the Quad lover, most Quad people buy them for the reproduction of voices and string instruments just like with the Martin Logan CLS series. They do the midrange absolutly wonderfull, also the 988 and 989 are a bit better in this regard. Playing a pipe organ on a Quad is pretty out of place and will not show off their best side, thats just a fact. You will never get a perfect integration with a subwoofer across the board, you can go with a linesource subwoofer, one in each corner and and go fully active on the subwoofer and speakers with digital room correction where you can also adjust the phase and time delay issues that will come up.

-Flo

[kexodusc]

Personally i have never heard any subwoofer that could blend in with a panel perfectly and like SirT said the 30Hz wavelenght is longer then most rooms anyways but there are chairs, couches, furniture etc..that help you notice the subs direction. So the question is what we want to discuss, do we discuss the subwoofers localisation in a normal living surroundings or on a wide open field with emptyness.

-Flo

Hey Flo...

This caught my eye a bit,not sure I understand what you're getting at. I haven't known couches, chairs, etc to produce such an effect that a subwoofer could be localized because of the furniture interactions in a room. If anything those interactions frequencies have with furniture would do just the opposite, randomize reflections and make it even harder to localize a sub, wouldn't it?

As for panels and subs, well, I think this all comes down to proper integration. While panels do have a sweet sounding "speed" to them, there are plenty of traditional woofers with measured transient responses that are on par and even better. I think there's just a lot more budget/entry-level woofers and tweeters that people hear, and not many panel speakers at the same price points.

Some subwoofers have pretty good transient response. However, that said, low frequencies aren't very transient to begin with and a lot of the "speed" disadvantages you hear with subs has more to do with human perception and physics than the subs being "slow". Without a lot of technobabble, you can hit a barrier for speed in low frequencies much earlier than you hit it in the midrange. This happens regardless of how speakers are produced. It then becomes more of a question of how slow can you tolerate the subwoofer being. Lots of high output subs have terrible transients.

A friend of mine in the local DIY group here finished a large Bohlender Graebener/Aurum Cantus design (the AC's did just the highest frequencies in his design), and built in a pair of 15" woofers into a sealed box design. The subs had a relatively low xmax compared to most of the woofers you see these days. The low excursion and sealed cabinet resistive pressure made for a very fast attack and decay that had no problem keeping up. These speakers are tall and ugly looking, but damn they sounded nice. Total project cost him about $2400 or so.

[Florian]

Interesting. Well a sealed design is very preferable when matching it with a panel. Maybe its not only speed but the simple lack of a box and the different sound characteristic that sets almost all of us panel users in a position where we cannot tollerate a subwoofer in our systems. Panel bass is different from box bass, eventough they measure exactly the same. If you look at such high design like the Alon Grand Exotica or the IRS-V and chat with their owners (my friend owns a Alon Grand Exotica) they will telll you that even with digital room correction etc.. they cannot get that last nth of a percent of integration. Like i said in my above post, it was a close call but if you really tried you can hear the subwoofer. What i mean by the furniture is that the subwoofer will make the local surroundng resonate and they introduce noise. If you place a subwoofer near a cabinet then the cabinet will introduce its own noise which is audible and could be mistaken for the subwoofer. I agree that if done 1000% right with the matching time delay, slopes and positioning a subwoofer can be a nice addition if your speaker cannot reproduce a fullrange signal. For me its not only a integration issue its also a issue about character and the way music is reproduced. My speaker for instance moves air with a over 6ft tall area. It loads the room equally and the bass is very different that from any box, unless you go all the way and build a 6ft tall subwoofer that will load the room equally. But then you have to make sure you cross it low enough and correct the unequal room loading effect. Since most rooms are not perfectly symetrical the sound will be reinforced differently and the sides will not match which will make the subwoofer stand out from the system sonically. If done right, and in my case i think it would look something like this. A subwoofer, 6 feet tall in a dipole configuration driven actively with room correction to reduce the different loading effects of the room and the time delay that occurs between the main panels and the subwoofer. Combined with another subwoofer at the oposite side of the room run out of phase would give me the most evenly loaded room with matched timings and a even responce that is soncially very hard to locate. When a bass drum hits in my room the entire air vibrates over the entire height of the room, if i add a conventinal subwoofer to it, it will stand out because it loads the room differently. I agree with you, that if done right and taken the correct aproach they can be a nice addition. But they have to match the sonic characteristics and match the room loading actions of the main towers plus have to be matched by a digital room correction device since the room loads them differently.

Cheers

Flo

[kexodusc]

Interesting. Well a sealed design is very preferable when matching it with a panel. Maybe its not only speed but the simple lack of a box and the different sound characteristic that sets almost all of us panel users in a position where we cannot tollerate a subwoofer in our systems. Panel bass is different from box bass, eventough they measure exactly the same. If you look at such high design like the Alon Grand Exotica or the IRS-V and chat with their owners (my friend owns a Alon Grand Exotica) they will telll you that even with digital room correction etc.. they cannot get that last nth of a percent of integration. Like i said in my above post, it was a close call but if you really tried you can hear the subwoofer. What i mean by the furniture is that the subwoofer will make the local surroundng resonate and they introduce noise. If you place a subwoofer near a cabinet then the cabinet will introduce its own noise which is audible and could be mistaken for the subwoofer. I agree that if done 1000% right with the matching time delay, slopes and positioning a subwoofer can be a nice addition if your speaker cannot reproduce a fullrange signal. For me its not only a integration issue its also a issue about character and the way music is reproduced. My speaker for instance moves air with a over 6ft tall area. It loads the room equally and the bass is very different that from any box, unless you go all the way and build a 6ft tall subwoofer that will load the room equally. But then you have to make sure you cross it low enough and correct the unequal room loading effect. Since most rooms are not perfectly symetrical the sound will be reinforced differently and the sides will not match which will make the subwoofer stand out from the system sonically. If done right, and in my case i think it would look something like this. A subwoofer, 6 feet tall in a dipole configuration driven actively with room correction to reduce the different loading effects of the room and the time delay that occurs between the main panels and the subwoofer. Combined with another subwoofer at the oposite side of the room run out of phase would give me the most evenly loaded room with matched timings and a even responce that is soncially very hard to locate. When a bass drum hits in my room the entire air vibrates over the entire height of the room, if i add a conventinal subwoofer to it, it will stand out because it loads the room differently. I agree with you, that if done right and taken the correct aproach they can be a nice addition. But they have to match the sonic characteristics and match the room loading actions of the main towers plus have to be matched by a digital room correction device since the room loads them differently.

Cheers

Flo

I think you've nailed it here. IMO, a subwoofer can be a great addition to a stereo setup, but with all the complexity of getting it integrated into your system, you may or may not be better off just buying more full-range speakers. My speakers play down -3 dB at about 28 Hz or so in my room. In a smaller room it'd be a bit better. Adding a sub could add more slam and "fun" factor, and I tried it for a while. In the end it just wasn't worth it to me as it traded-off a few annoyances for a bit more punch. Even on classical and electronic music, most of the stuff I listen too doesn't have much below 35 Hz, and almost nothing below 30 Hz. I don't miss it.

In my HT system, when I listen to 2-channel up there, the sub really adds a lot of quality to the sound because the speakers really start to drop below 45 Hz. For most rock music it isn't a problem, but on Jazz, classical it's noticeable.

The nice thing about subwoofers I've noticed though, a lot of smaller woofers really perform much better when relieved of the lower 2 octaves of bass duty. Less excursion demands and work overall lets it play faster and easier, with better power handling.

I think like many things in life, there's more than one way to get to the same destination.

[theaudiohobby]

And to the Quad lover, most Quad people buy them for the reproduction of voices and string instruments just like with the Martin Logan CLS series. They do the midrange absolutly wonderfull, also the 988 and 989 are a bit better in this regard. Playing a pipe organ on a Quad is pretty out of place and will not show off their best side, thats just a fact. You will never get a perfect integration with a subwoofer across the board, you can go with a linesource subwoofer, one in each corner and and go fully active on the subwoofer and speakers with digital room correction where you can also adjust the phase and time delay issues that will come up.

-Flo

To Florian the Apogee lover,

You need to recheck your facts :D , Why? Cos they are wrong :cool: , I have already successfully interested a single 'cone' subwoofer with my Quad ESL 57 without need for digital room correction etc, What is required is a bit informed knowledge about room interaction, crossover slopes etc. And every now and then, I touch the subwoofer cone or put my ear to it to confirm that it is still operational, why, because it is sonically invisible. The subwoofer is lowpassed at 63Hz, the ESL is highpassed at the same frequency, the ESLs are also raised about 17'' from the floor to minimize floor reflections, The subwoofer is placed a couple of inches away from the right speaker. I play a lot of acoustic music, primarily jazz and orchestral music and I do not experience any of the issues that you mentioned, neither have any of the more knowledgeable sources made such observations, so I can safely conclude that your comment on subwoofer integration with planar speakers are erroneous.

Also, I hope your comments about Pipe Organs, Martin Logans, the 988 and 989 etc are simply just your opinion. Cos after some extensive listening I prefer the Quad ESL to the 988, IIRC a fellow over at AA specifically mentioned that he went from the ESL 57 to the 988 to the 989 and back to ESL 57, so it is all about preferences and for my musical preferences, the ESL 57 works much better for me.

[Florian]

Well i dont need a subwoofer :p

But i disagree, we are not talking about facts. Your small ESL is very different from my planar and trust me i can hear it out. If you like it, thats cool.

[theaudiohobby]

Well i dont need a subwoofer :p

But i disagree, we are not talking about facts. Your small ESL is very different from my planar and trust me i can hear it out. If you like it, thats cool.

It was a fact a few posts ago ;) , but hey it's cool;), I wonder why RGA and yourself find it almost obligatory to comment on products that you evidently do not know much about.

By the way, it is not a competition, enjoy your Apogees ;)

[Florian]

It was a fact a few posts ago ;) , but hey it's cool;), I wonder why RGA and yourself find it almost obligatory to comment on products that you evidently do not know much about.

By the way, it is not a competition, enjoy your Apogees ;)
We jump in because we know it takes more then a small quad and a subwoofer with some x.over and slope settings to achieve a perfect match :D

[gonefishin]

We jump in because we know it takes more then a small quad and a subwoofer with some x.over and slope settings to achieve a perfect match :D


Flo, it IS more difficult to match things. The first thing in matching a system (speaker or speaker/amp combo) is picking a system that matches what you want to accomplish with the room. The room should (or at least could) be treated at this "root" level when building a system...Room/Speaker/Amp(pre) combo.

The difficulties you can have when trying to integrate a subwoofer into a system, which is why you may want to discuss it. Discussing room interactions is certainly at the heart of properly integrating a subwoofer into a system.


gotta go>>>>>see ya later


dan

[theaudiohobby]

We jump in because we know it takes more then a small quad and a subwoofer with some x.over and slope settings to achieve a perfect match :D

Certainly, it takes good ol' audiophilia inspired ignorance to say it is impossible to match a cone subwoofer to a planar speaker :D

[Florian]

So true, and since your the first maybe a new race will spawn that is able to integrate the two which would actually please all the die hard panel owners :D But then again, the big panels dont need a sub in the first place. The best option is no subwoofer and the same sonic character over the entire frequency. And while we are at it, we will dumb all chassys and x-overs. Also we will dumb the room and everything else. No matter how you twist it, the die hard panel people will never use a subwoofer unless we are talking about a Alon Grand Exotica or IRS-V clone WITH room correction, time delay correction and at least two of them. Trust if its as easy as you say, many more would do it.

[Florian]

Flo, it IS more difficult to match things. The first thing in matching a system (speaker or speaker/amp combo) is picking a system that matches what you want to accomplish with the room. The room should (or at least could) be treated at this "root" level when building a system...Room/Speaker/Amp(pre) combo.

The difficulties you can have when trying to integrate a subwoofer into a system, which is why you may want to discuss it. Discussing room interactions is certainly at the heart of properly integrating a subwoofer into a system.


gotta go>>>>>see ya later


dan
I agree, it is very difficult and depends on taste and how critically you are. Its all good, but i choose no subwoofer. :D

[RGA]

??? What relevance does a 1KHz tone with the lower -6dB point.How about just leaving aside the trivia and simply answering the original question.



I posited the question to you because of your previous comments because I suspected and rightly in the light of your responses that you are going by hearsay, rather than having any real firsthand knowledge of these ESLs.

Pat D echoes my sentiments and your response to his post is well..a rant. By the way going by your response to Pat D, we Quad owners should be in a better position to discuss sub integration since "most anyone who owns a quad rushes right out and buys a subwoofer!" :p :p

The ESL 63 was measured professionally by a dealer in Vancouver who I know fairly well. They did several measurements to fill out a frequency plot --- that dealer is a the biggest pro dealsihip in Canada and the biggest Bryston pro monitoring ansd seller to recording studios in BC. So they know how to measure they have a full studio and they install. I am not going to get into this again but with listening to the 63 and being dismayed at how truly bad it is and then having them just grin in agreement with the points I made they just said "yeah I bet you can;t find a worse speaker in the entire store -- and they sold B&O knowing B&O was no good but it sells. I commented on the bass and the reply was yeah it has none. On a good day in the right room it might hit 35hz at the -10db rate but not at any sort of volume - they don't rock.

I mean forget ALL rock and pop, country and dance, rap or ANYTHING with a ANY sort of drum, rythm or depth of stage. You get a thin two dimensional stage which if you sit in a vice will give you big scale(which is artifically imprinted by the speakers as most very large speakers tend to do) -- and while it's very clear it is because the total lack of bass will sound clear and thin sound sounds clear (so being free of bass and balls and dynamics may be arguesd as free of box colouration but then it's also free of 50% of ewhat was on the recording too.

It took 2 years but somebody did buy them so preferences are the key thing -- somebody found something in them to like but please don;t give me they are great for all music and great bass speakers - puhleeze http://www.commercialelectronics.ca/EngineeringHome.html

[Florian]

I think your a little bit too negative on him RGA. The Quads do some things very well, but your right they dont rock. I also dont agree on his "Facts" on subwoofer integration with the panel. But they are definetly way beyond the B&O speakers. The midrange is very nice on them and is great for listening to female voices. You are right about the enlargment of voices on speakers with a large surface area but the difference between flat and curved panels are quite big. Flat panels dont suffer from the size changing imaging when moving in its radiating plane like curved panels do. Also most box speakers incl. AN's display the image scale too small. There is no optimium speaker but i wouldnt cut the Quad down like that. It does have a special midrange magic and is very resolving in its frequency range.

-Flo

[Pat D]

You're the one who brought up the 6db point -- you're the one who has the speaker -- you post it and I shall let you know if you are lying or not - I am referring to the bigger bass version in the ESL 63 -- in room response from a professional installer measured at 100db from it's rated "flat" 1khz tone. Forget the Saint Saens what a laugh. Let's give it some synthed pop -- put on some Madonna pop and even ACDC rock and the bass and midbadd and upper bass equal George Castanza after coming out of the pool.Of course a Quad ESL-63 will not do 100 dB in the deep bass. Who ever suggested it could? It's not for headbangers. I fear for your hearing if you listen at such levels. Try them at 85 dBa and they do have deep bass. Those of us who like the ESL-63 in a proper set up generally like them for what they can do and are usually too much bothered by what they can't do. The output limits of the ESL-63 in the deep bass have been well known since Richard C. Heyser reviewed them in Audio magazine in 1985 (as I recall). A subwoofer can increase the output capability of the system in the deep bass.

[Pat D]

Clearly they do not know how to get it right(all the dealers in British Columbia over the last 15 years even the ones who are trained in the field - even the dealers who have had Paradigm build the sound room can;t get it right - man can every dealer be this incompetant that they can;t get a sub to integrate -- people with engineering acoustic degrees - dealers that have parametric equalizers. I simply ask to be convinced before I buy something is all. I mean you shoving a white paper at me isn't helpful unless that company convinces me in the showrrom. Perhaps those companies should ensure the people flogging their ware set the gear up correctly (if they gave a damn at all about their products).

Martin Logan at least admits that stats have no real bass or meat on the bones bass dynamic drive so they did the intelligent thing and put coned woofers on to provide proper bass sound. Unfortunately even though they KNOW that panels have no bass and KNOW they need a real traditional woofer they so far can't get it to mesh right. The notion that the cone is too slow is often used -- but well my view is that the panel is too thin sounding and so it cuts off most of the depth -- leanness or thinness is often mistaken for speed (see Bryston).

I also know why most anyone who owns a quad rushes right out and buys a subwoofer! The anaemic sound is just so unnacceptable for anything other than light strings. And if the 63 was the bigger bass version then heaven help the other ones.

If you get the sub to sound right for you then thats great -- I'm not saying you're not getting what you perceive to be getting -- I am saying that some of the prior posts indicate the results that I got. The result is the result -- and if you want to assume every dealer in BC is incompetant then maybe they are or it may be that some people can after listening for a while here the hick-up and while it may be slight for many may be annoying for some others.
15 years ago, the principles of properly setting up a sub were not well known. About 10 years ago, Tom Nousaine published an article in Stereo Review showing how it should be done, presumably after having done some AES papers on the subject as per Sir Terence. Of course, for some, Tom Nousaine and all he stands for are anathema but there's really not much excuse for a professional not to know how to set up a subwoofer. I should point out that you apparently have never heard a sub-sat system that met your approval! But in fact, I haven't found setting up a subwoofer for a dipole to be much different from setting it up for conventional speakers.

The Martin Logans generally have much smaller electrostatic panels than the Quad 63, Quad 988 and Quad 989 have. So most needed a bass module to reproduce a lot of music.

For quite a while, some audio writers maintained they could not integrate the ESL-63 with a subwoofer while others said they were able to do so. One dealer in Ottawa (who carried B & W) discouraged me from using a sub with them. In any case, many users liked the Quads despite the limitations in output in the deep bass (below 50 Hz) as they felt they could do many things better than other speakers. Many users of the original Quad electrostat feel the same about it. Apparently you don't like the Quads, anyway, so I'm not sure why you worry about those who do.

[Resident Loser]

Sorry to ask a basic question, but what is the generally accepted highest frequency that humans can hear and still appear to be "omni-directional" to humans?

...between "omni-directional" and "non-directional"...subs should be considered the latter...anywho, around 150Hz may be the number...

Addressing other points of this thread:

FWIW, I tend to agree with Mssrs. Greene and RGA, with regard to placement of a sub...Since the sub's output is a mono summing of the lo-freqs, placement somewhere within the radiation field of the L&R speakers makes the most sense...preferably smack dab in the middle using one OR preferably two subs, one for each channel.

My rationale is: why would one want to perceive the lowest fundamentals from somewhere in the distance and the directional cues of their upper-harmonics from the appropriate loudspeaker?...I think it tends to obscure definition.

With regard to near-automatic placement in a corner, there are those who disagree or take some exception to...such as this from Audioholics, written by Alan Lofft of Axiom Audio:

"Instructions on getting good bass from a subwoofer in any given room usually begin by suggesting corner placement of the subwoofer. And it's true: placing the subwoofer in a corner will equally energize all the room's resonances and maximize the subwoofer's output. However, one of the more bizarre aspects of how subwoofers couple with the specific dimensions of a room -- is that to hear all the bass energy from the subwoofer in the corner of your room, you would have to sit in the corner diagonally opposite the subwoofer!"

The full text and some other really informative info(if a bit "techie" with charts and graphs) on the whys and wherefors of sub placement is available at:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/setup/loudspeakers/SubwooferplacementP1.php

Also this excerpt from PSB audio:

"As you go outward from the corner along one wall or another, the general consensus (with which we tend to agree) is that while bass output diminishes somewhat, it also becomes more uniform throughout the room, with fewer of the "standing waves" that produce peaks and nulls at various points. The consensus on this does not include Tom Nousaine, an extremely knowledgeable audio writer who probably has done more listening to subwoofers from an end-user's perspective than anyone else, along with lots of measurement. He finds that corner placement provides the most uniform bass output as well as the strongest bass, but our own experience, while it doesn't directly contradict his, is that away-from-the-corner placement produces better balance in many situations. In any event, the level, crossover, and phase controls give you immediate adjustments for changes as you go outward."

It's full text is at:

http://www.psbspeakers.com/audioTopics.php?fpId=7

IMHO, single, summing subs and/or corner placement may be OK if one is on a diet of electronica or head-banging tunes...perhaps HT with it's laser-totin' mechanical lizards, assorted crashes and various other forms of sonic mayhem...however once you start to listen to program material that is a bit more refined and demanding(volume not necessarily being considered a demand) the shortcomings of both schemes should be readily apparent.

P.S. For anyone interested...simply Google Tom Nousaine and the appropriate subject such as "Tom Nousaine on subwoofers"...no secret handshakes are required.

jimHJJ(...hey Pat D. long time, no see...)

[theaudiohobby]

...between "omni-directional" and "non-directional"...subs should be considered the latter...anywho, around 150Hz may be the number...

Addressing other points of this thread:

FWIW, I tend to agree with Mssrs. Greene and RGA, with regard to placement of a sub...Since the sub's output is a mono summing of the lo-freqs, placement somewhere within the radiation field of the L&R speakers makes the most sense...preferably smack dab in the middle using one OR preferably two subs, one for each channel.

My rationale is: why would one want to perceive the lowest fundamentals from somewhere in the distance and the directional cues of their upper-harmonics from the appropriate loudspeaker?...I think it tends to obscure definition.




If I may chime in, implicit in the suggestion of placing subwoofers in the middle of two main speakers is that sub-80Hz frequencies may be directional. If As Tom Nousaine found, sub-80Hz are non-directional, placement of the sub for the smoothest bass response will not necessarily be between main speakers. I was much surprised when I first realised that the subwoofer integrated more seamlessly with the main speakers, when placed closer to to the right speaker, it is almost directly behind the right speaker, this location closer to the right corner of the room. And as mentioned elsewhere in this thread the crossover frequency for both the subwoofer and the main speakers 63Hz. This experience correlates more closely with Tom Nousaine's observations about subwoofer placement rather than generally accepted audiophile wisdom.

As for the multiple subwoofers approach, it probably accrues benefits not from even bass loading but from the extra clarity that may be available when the bass frequencies from discrete channels are routed to discrete devices instead of summation into a single device. Ofcourse this assumes that the subwoofers in question are seamlessly integrated with the main speakers.

[Resident Loser]

If I may chime in, implicit in the suggestion of placing subwoofers in the middle of two main speakers is that sub-80Hz frequencies may be directional.

...they certainly are "stereo"...there may be something lost "in the mix", as it were, that may have a certain "directionality"(for lack of better words) factor.


Frankly, I was much surprised when I realised that the subwoofer integrated more seamlessly with the main speakers, when it was closer to to the right speaker, it is almost directly behind the right speaker. than closer to the right corner of the room...

If you listen to orchestral/operatic recordings, the answer would seem simple: just about ALL lo-freq instruments(double-bass, tympany, etc.) are to the conductors/listeners right...Phase and time coherence would all seem to play a part...Directional? Perhaps not, but certainly a real-world concern IMO.

There are those who think 20Hz-20kHz bandwidth(and the commensurate CD/digital sampling rate compromise) is sufficient...

jimHJJ(...and others who don't...)

[theaudiohobby]

...they certainly are "stereo"...there may be something lost "in the mix", as it were, that may have a certain "directionality"(for lack of better words) factor.


A non-directional signal may indeed be transmitted in stereo, As stated in my previous post, discrete subwoofers MAY indeed provide some extra clarity, but it is entirely dependent on the quality of devices as well as their seamless integration with the main speakers. A single good quality subwoofer may provide better bass clarity than two middle-of-the-road subwoofers.


If you listen to orchestral/operatic recordings, the answer would seem simple: just about ALL lo-freq instruments(double-bass, tympany, etc.) are to the conductors/listeners right...Phase and time coherence would all seem to play a part...Directional? Perhaps not, but certainly a real-world concern IMO.

Over 80% of all my listening is in orchestral, chamber, piano and acoustic jazz recordngs through either CD, SACD or FM radio (primarily BBC3/2, Classic FM) so I cannot agree with your comments here at all, Low frequency instruments are not always to conductor/listeners right nor do I think is it a real world concern, however balancing the sound of the orchestra is a real world concern, with variations to orchestral seating arrangements to suit specific music programs.


There are those who think 20Hz-20kHz bandwidth(and the commensurate CD/digital sampling rate compromise) is sufficient...

I invested in SACD over three years ago and still own a couple of highly regarded players, there is very little relationship between the both issues.

[Florian]

It sounds like you guys are bored :D
Why dont you all agree that some like a subwoofer and believe that it is possible to integrate them 100% and others wouldnt touch a subwoofer with a ten foot pole in their 2channel system. There is plenty of info below 40Hz and bass is a fundamental foundation in classical music. Some like them, some dont.

[Resident Loser]

...exceptions to every rule, generally speaking, the modern symphony orchestra IS laid out in the arrangement described...including London's RPO...Hence my conclusion vis a' vis the time domain/phase relationships of your subwoofer placement. THAT is the "real-world" concern, not how some "artiste" decides where to stick an oboe...Perhaps more avant-garde bits of fluff(for the sake of being different)require a particular configuration that might diverge from that norm. Quite possibly specific period pieces, using period instruments and instrumentation may vary...say for instance, not grouping first and second violins on the left, but an equal distribution on both sides of the podium, as may have been done in Mozart's day, tympani may have been more centered, the double bass and cello, even then, to the right. Few but the hard-core aficionados would notice.

Other genres are anyone's guess, which is why the compromise of one sub, placed in the center allows for all contingencies IMO.

jimHJJ(...and it is a compromise...)

[theaudiohobby]

...exceptions to every rule, generally speaking, the modern symphony orchestra IS laid out in the arrangement described...including London's RPO...Hence my conclusion vis a' vis the time domain/phase relationships of your subwoofer placement. THAT is the "real-world" concern, not how some "artiste" decides where to stick an oboe...Perhaps more avant-garde bits of fluff(for the sake of being different)require a particular configuration that might diverge from that norm. Quite possibly specific period pieces, using period instruments and instrumentation may vary...say for instance, not grouping first and second violins on the left, but an equal distribution on both sides of the podium, as may have been done in Mozart's day, tympani may have been more centered, the double bass and cello, even then, to the right. Few but the hard-core aficionados would notice.

Other genres are anyone's guess, which is why the compromise of one sub, placed in the center allows for all contingencies IMO.

jimHJJ(...and it is a compromise...)

A quick search over the web quickly confirmed that orchestras are laid out for right-left balance i.e. bass instruments are balanced to the left and right of the conductor. So your rationalisations about specific orchestral arrangements with bass weighted to the right is very much mistaken as a well as your subwoofer options founded on this premise.

Orchestra seating arrangements (http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar99/articles/orchestra.htm)

[RGA]

Of course a Quad ESL-63 will not do 100 dB in the deep bass. Who ever suggested it could? It's not for headbangers. I fear for your hearing if you listen at such levels. Try them at 85 dBa and they do have deep bass. Those of us who like the ESL-63 in a proper set up generally like them for what they can do and are usually too much bothered by what they can't do. The output limits of the ESL-63 in the deep bass have been well known since Richard C. Heyser reviewed them in Audio magazine in 1985 (as I recall). A subwoofer can increase the output capability of the system in the deep bass.

We listend at 85db and that was i meter -- it was just under 80db at the listening position.

And actually the deep bass is hardly ever the real concern anyway since almost no music goes under 30hz -- I am not a bass hound but it is required as an anchor to the rest of the event. It is in the main band where all the panels I've so far heard fail to excite. If one only listens to classical and strings then it's a non issue. but that band from around 80-300hz is where there is no realness no impact and no body being presented. So instead of knocking the speaker people just wsay well all rock, folk, pop, music is badly recorded. Sorry but no. Music has thunder and if one speaker can produce that thunder when it's on the disc and the Quad can't then it's the Quad's problem. I would not complain at all about them except they are just so insanely priced for being such an incredibly limited speaker. Interestingly the Castle Eden a boxed speaker for about 1/5 the price had the exact same problem -- but at least if the Castle blows its treble transducer it does not require chucking them in the bin or going broke to fix them.

And stacking is similar to having a speaker the requires two drivers to cover the same frequency band - according to Leo L Beranek, Peter Snell, Harry Olson among others this causes more problems than it fixes.

[RGA]

15 years ago, the principles of properly setting up a sub were not well known. About 10 years ago, Tom Nousaine published an article in Stereo Review showing how it should be done, presumably after having done some AES papers on the subject as per Sir Terence. Of course, for some, Tom Nousaine and all he stands for are anathema but there's really not much excuse for a professional not to know how to set up a subwoofer. I should point out that you apparently have never heard a sub-sat system that met your approval! But in fact, I haven't found setting up a subwoofer for a dipole to be much different from setting it up for conventional speakers.

The Martin Logans generally have much smaller electrostatic panels than the Quad 63, Quad 988 and Quad 989 have. So most needed a bass module to reproduce a lot of music.

For quite a while, some audio writers maintained they could not integrate the ESL-63 with a subwoofer while others said they were able to do so. One dealer in Ottawa (who carried B & W) discouraged me from using a sub with them. In any case, many users liked the Quads despite the limitations in output in the deep bass (below 50 Hz) as they felt they could do many things better than other speakers. Many users of the original Quad electrostat feel the same about it. Apparently you don't like the Quads, anyway, so I'm not sure why you worry about those who do.


I have no problem with anyone who likes quad no matter how they measure -- but if people say they can detect the sub or are bothered by the handoff it is then argued to the death that well we're nutas and you can achieve inaudible perfect (which means no one can detect) the hand-off artifice. Just because you hear perfect integration why do you assume your dealer is wrong? Maybe he is put off by something your ear either does not detect or is not at all bothered by?

I would never make the arguemnt that a Sub is harder to match to a panel than a regular coned speaker because I have never heard a sub that matched ANY speaker very well. I owned a sub ten years ago but I am not basing my experience off of that. i was far more a rookie back then.

The ultimate goal is to enjoy your stereo and if you do who gives a bean about one upmanship points. I get excellent bass but it can be improved. The E gets exxcellent bass but it can also be deepened. I'm not against the notion of a subwoofer I am against accepting substandard sound whioch is being called integrated fully inaudibly -- because that's bogus. I just ask to be convinced. I'd go to the CES but then if I say nobody had a sub mesh properly someone will say well it was the room's fault or they didn;t set it up right. I hear endless excuses for poor integration and never once have I been convinced in the ONE place i oughta be convinced -- in the showroom.

believe me a $500.00 sub is about the only thing I could afford ruight now and if someone can convince me that I won't hear the handoff on any music ever between my speakers bass and the sub's bass then this is the upgrade for me. It was either that or a cartridge.

[theaudiohobby]

We listend at 85db and that was i meter -- it was just under 80db at the listening position.

And actually the deep bass is hardly ever the real concern anyway since almost no music goes under 30hz -- I am not a bass hound but it is required as an anchor to the rest of the event. It is in the main band where all the panels I've so far heard fail to excite. If one only listens to classical and strings then it's a non issue. but that band from around 80-300hz is where there is no realness no impact and no body being presented. So instead of knocking the speaker people just wsay well all rock, folk, pop, music is badly recorded. Sorry but no. Music has thunder and if one speaker can produce that thunder when it's on the disc and the Quad can't then it's the Quad's problem.

Nobody is forcing you to like the speaker or any panel for that matter, enough people like the Quad ESLs that a whole cottage industry has been built around servicing them :p, better than that, new ones are still rolling off the line, talk about longetivity. That said, your comments about the 80-300Hz band are simply wrong, there are enough measurements and subjective opinions around to attest to that, afterall the original ESL has been around for over 40years and the ESL 63 for over 15 years. Bass does not begin to roll off until after 80Hz (55Hz for 63, both cases anechoic) and it has +4dB peak at 90Hz, such measurements validated by a majority of the publshed subjective opinion (take look at AR reviews of either speaker) are at odds with your comments, Many acoustic instruments have a lot of energy in that region anyway, so poor performance in that region will result in a very different speaker.


I would not complain at all about them except they are just so insanely priced for being such an incredibly limited speaker. Interestingly the Castle Eden a boxed speaker for about 1/5 the price had the exact same problem -- but at least if the Castle blows its treble transducer it does not require chucking them in the bin or going broke to fix them.


Fixing a Quad is not rocket science, and there are enough houses that can do the job at very reasonable prices.


And stacking is similar to having a speaker the requires two drivers to cover the same frequency band - according to Leo L Beranek, Peter Snell, Harry Olson among others this causes more problems than it fixes.
The Quad ESL is a line source, not a point source, so stacking them does not cause problems that are opined by Messrs. Beranek et al. And that is why it is such popular tweak for those who have the space to accomodate the much larger resultant speaker.

[Resident Loser]

...you were the one who said your sub worked/sounded better when aligned with your right channel speaker, I simply provided you with a plausible explanation...take it or leave it as you desire. Since I neither use nor need any bass augmentation, for me at least, the point is moot.

However, I suggest you take a zoom-in on that diagram provided in your link...you will plainly see the double-basses, cellos, tubas and other bass-rich instruments are, in fact, to the right of the conductor. The same info is provided at the following sites, the first four choices given when I Google'd "symphony orchestra layout", to wit:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C005400/orch.html

http://library.thinkquest.org/22673/orchestra.html

http://www.pacificsymphony.org/concerts/musicians.asp

http://www.rpo.co.uk/concert_orchestra_plan_flash.asp

Didn't find yours 'til the bottom of the second page as I recall...but then, it is really just a guide to emulate an orchestra using sampled instrumentation

The following FR chart is provided to show which instruments have fundamentals that extend down to the frequencies handled by the ordinary, garden variety, sub. Most of them are to the conductor's right:

http://www.psbspeakers.com/audioTopics.php?fpId=8&page_num=1&start=0

Balancing the sound of a stereo recording is NOT necessarily a product of frequency balance, but one of volume output, acoustical energy, or decibels, take your pick of terminology...as long as the left and right channels average roughly the same levels (as would be indicated on the VU meters) all will be well.

If one records X number of violins in the left and Y number of string-basses in the right so that the acoustical output is equalized, the recording will sound fine......The conductor, by instructing the musicians, can temper the mix in both a live setting or at a recording session...or there can be a greater number of violins in the ratio to achieve balance...or to a less-than-satisfactory end and depending on the miking technique used, it can be "fixed in the mix"...but, the higher frequencies will still be to the left and the lower one's to the right. That is inescapable and replicates the soundstage presented in a live venue.

Is there "bleeding"? Are there exceptions, such as the harp, piano and preferred timpani placement? The answer is: yes...but for the most part, the bass-rich instruments are, in fact, traditionally heard to the right.

We haven't even gotten into the average pop/jazz group, whose drummer and his bass/kick drum is, more often than not, center stage...hence the compromise of centering the sub...Perhaps sub-woofer positioning is more dependent on program material than anything else. I dunno'...two still seems correct to me...

I previously mentioned limited bandwidth simply as reference point with regard to the similar compromise of a single sub-woofer. So in that light, and with regard to SACD etc., how big a catalog of "true" SACDs is available compared to that of plain ol' CDs? Compared to vinyl? Whether sampled at the low-ball 44.1 kHz or 2.8 meg, unless the performers are actually recorded at that sampling rate, most of discs would seem to be digitally remastered reissues of older, classic(but analog) tapes...Hooray, we get to hear digitized tape-hiss! GIGO once again rears it's ugly head.

jimHJJ(...just some observations...)

[theaudiohobby]

http://www.pacificsymphony.org/images/concerts/orchestra_layout.gif

Resident Loser,

In the diagram I originally to linked clearly shows the bass heavy instruments are spread across the front of the conductor, however I have taken liberty to link to one of yours (Pacific Symphony Orchestra), the diagram is not much different from the original one I linked, The Horns, Timphani, Piano, and Kettle Drums (Percussion) are all to the left of the conductor. I have to dash but you get the gist, your basic premise is wrong, bass is not balanced to the right of the conductor, it is spread across the front of the conductor.

PS: I have linked to another of pictures, with a complete different layout, but original premise still holds, the bass laid out across the front of conductor.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C005400/orchlay.gif

[Resident Loser]

...string-bass, cello, contrabassoon, bassoon, tuba and all the trombones...the bass-heavy instruments are in the right, front quadrant of the soundfield whose epicenter or axis or what-have-you is the conductor...that portion of the soundstage represented by your right channel...Get MY gist?...with the exception of the french horn and bass clarinet(which have only marginal extension below "B", an octave below middle "C"-our sub's useful limit), the harp(I wonder how many pieces actually rely on the harp) and the piano(mostly a soloist's instrument-in which case it would be center stage) the left-front quadrant of said soundfield is populated primarily by the violins, whose fundamental FR starts around 200Hz or so...Sub-woofer? We don't got no sub-woofer! We don't need no stinkin' sub-woofer!!! And we are speaking of subs, aren't we?

Did you actually think I meant to the immediate right? No, no, no...that's where he keeps his spittoon!

Pity you didn't choose to show THIS particular linked diagram:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C005400/orchlay.gif

jimHJJ(...rather self-serving on your part, eh wot guv?...)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Both of you are right in regards to seating arraingments, but none of that is steadfast. I have recorded all kinds of seating arraingments for film scores, but they generally follow the seating plans you both list. Some large scale instruments are moved about(large bass drum may be centered in the back). I have seen setups which put all of the string instruments in the front around the conductor, most of the lower brass behind them, upper brass to the right or left, and all of the woodwinds on the left or right. It varies, and one has to consider whether this is going to be recorded(which may require some ajustments in seating depending on the music) or just a live concert which may use the standard setup. When it comes to seating arraingments, nothing is etched in stone. Brass, woodwind, and string esembles are another animal all together in terms of seating.

[Resident Loser]

...(in case you haven't been following this "riveting" exchange...ZZZ...zzz...) is not so much orchestral seating arrangements as the fact that AH perceives more seamless performance from his sub when it is positioned closer to his right speaker. He says he listens to primarily classical music...IMHO, a good classical recording would attempt to mimic the more traditional layout of a live venue with the majority of the bass-rich instruments(and their sub-woofer-friendly fundamentals) located stage-left...perhaps, just perhaps, that is why his sub sounds "right" to the right...

jimHJJ(...and at this point, I think I've nothing left...)

[theaudiohobby]

Both of you are right in regards to seating arraingments, but none of that is steadfast. I have recorded all kinds of seating arraingments for film scores, but they generally follow the seating plans you both list. Some large scale instruments are moved about(large bass drum may be centered in the back). I have seen setups which put all of the string instruments in the front around the conductor, most of the lower brass behind them, upper brass to the right or left, and all of the woodwinds on the left or right. It varies, and one has to consider whether this is going to be recorded(which may require some ajustments in seating depending on the music) or just a live concert which may use the standard setup. When it comes to seating arraingments, nothing is etched in stone. Brass, woodwind, and string esembles are another animal all together in terms of seating.

Thank you Sir T, for the clarification.

[theaudiohobby]

AH perceives more seamless performance from his sub when it is positioned closer to his right speaker. He says he listens to primarily classical music...IMHO, a good classical recording would attempt to mimic the more traditional layout of a live venue with the majority of the bass-rich instruments(and their sub-woofer-friendly fundamentals) located stage-left...perhaps, just perhaps, that is why his sub sounds "right" to the right...

jimHJJ(...and at this point, I think I've nothing left...)

My actual quote was


Over 80% of all my listening is in orchestral, chamber, piano and acoustic jazz recordngs through either CD, SACD or FM radio (primarily BBC3/2, Classic FM

Your underlying assumption about directlonality of low frequencies is inaccurate. Your comments suggest that low frequency instruments placed to the left sound 'less' right through my setup than those to placed to the right and that does not correlate with my experience, as instruments retain their clarity and weight in the soundfield irrespective of their specific placement. As a result, Tom Nousaine's position on subwoofer placement is closer to my experience.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If I am not mistaken, most signal components that contribute to imaging are located above the operating range of a sub crossed over at 80hz. If a sub is producing any significant ouput above 80hz, it will be localizeable no matter where it is located. This is why I think crossover points, and slopes are extremely important when trying to integrate subs with other speakers. As Doc Greene has said many times, crossing over a sub at 80hz with a 24dpo crossover will make that sub invisible as long as there are no distortion coming from the subl. If this is the case, then it probably wouldn't make much difference which main speaker it is located next to. As far as I can ascertain there are no spatial properties our ears can detect below 80hz except spaciousness. You may be able to detect the direction of the pressure wave on the body and skin, but not at the ears as far as I know.


I would say his individual room acoustics may play a role in why he may peceive that his sub sounds better positioned closer to the right speaker. Pehaps the sub may blend better because of the way the sub couples with the room modes on that side of the room as opposed to the left side of the room. Maybe the answer to why isn't found on the recording side at all, or any argument based on subwoofer position in respect to any main speaker. Just a thought.

[Resident Loser]

...there may be many reasons, on that count I have no argument...in fact I have no argumentative stance in that part of the thread whatsoever...as I have said, simply a plausible reason IMO...without being there, taking measurements and listening, it's all conjecture and was presented as such.

Much like Monster making name-brand wiring a lucrative cash-cow, I have seen it written in some quarters, that it really wasn't until Bose began to "popularize" the concept of smaller speakers coupled with a third lo-freq unit, that the concept of a subwoofer really caught on with the rest of the industry and consumers...not to say they originated the idea, as I'm fairly certain there were others who preceded their efforts...they just made it palatable, in fact de rigueur, for both the general public and audiopiles alike.

So...while some recommend corner placement, others disagree with that premise in whole or in part...I am of the opinion that since I'm paying for stereo, I want stereo no matter how ludicrous my reasoning may seem to the consensus. I prefer full range loudspeakers that require no debate re: placement of yet a third box...forced to compromise, I would place a sub somewhere near the center...for me, a better option would be two units placed in close proximity of the "sats" feeling that such placement would allow for phase and time coherence to be a non-issue or at least more easily worked with to that end.

jimHJJ(...but as usual, that's just me...)

[Resident Loser]

Thank you Sir T, for the clarification.

...what clarification did you derive from TtTs well-intentioned attempt at intercession?

jimHJJ(...jus' wunnerin'...)