RESPECT (for 249$)

[pixelthis]

Receiver owners have never gotten much respect from owners of high end
audio, save the occasional NAD, Concert , or maybe a 5,000 Denon.
And for good reason, BEST BUY is selling a Pioneer receiver , 110wx5,
for 299 BUCKS.
Thats HTIB territory.
Of course theres better, spend a grand and you can get a pretty decent receiver,
and it will do mostly what you need.
However , now you can supercharge your front two channels for 249 bucks with a two channel amp from Emotiva.
Wil you get any respect? Maybe not... BUT YOU WONT CARE.
This amp is a goodie, all you need is a receiver with a decent preamp, and a decent pair of speakers, and you're ready to go.
With most of the local hi-fi sources folding up, its been awhile since I have even auditioned
a decent amp, so the Emotiva was a pleasant surprize.
Audio nirvanah for 249$.
I LIKE STEREO BASS, (yes it does exist) and with the Emo the bass from my fronts are tight, response is fast,, and the Natilus tweeters on my B&W'S sound like Angels
singing.
Results weren't as good on four ohm Axioms, might give them another try, but A-B-ing
these monsters is difficult.
With todays production methods there is no reason for a decent two channel amp to cost
north of five hundred bucks(Adcom had one for 750$).
Will a more expensive amp sound better? thats in the ear of the beholder.
I say not enough (.00000001%) to matter.
So there is relief for those who can never seem to get the scratch together for decent gear.
There is no excuse now.
A plus is that HT rocks also, your system will sound better all around, and you will get
the best of both worlds , a decent audio system and a decent HT system.
Will you finally get some "respect"?
Again, WHO CARES?
This amp is sweet.
Cant miss. I was a scoffer when I saw this company with its cheapjack prices , but brothers and sisters, after two weeks or so of toe curling musical heaven,
I BELEIVE.
Get one of these.
NOW.:1:

[kexodusc]

Glad it worked out. That's 3 of us that have been skeptics with this brand (Mr. P, you and myself). They certainly are raising the bar in the entry/mid-level market and giving people a viable alternative to the usual Japanese company stuff. We've seen this before with the likes of Outlaw and NAD.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

There is no such thing as stereo bass. The wavelengths at bass frequencies are wider than our heads, so it is impossible for it to create a stereo image. The information that forms a stereo image happens at 100hz and above.

[E-Stat]

There is no such thing as stereo bass. The wavelengths at bass frequencies are wider than our heads, so it is impossible for it to create a stereo image. The information that forms a stereo image happens at 100hz and above.
Others may differ with your assertion that frequencies above 100 hz are the midrange. Many consider the bass to extend three octaves (160 hz) which most certainly contains directional content. I use dual subs for that very reason.

rw

[kexodusc]

Others may differ with your assertion that frequencies above 100 hz are the midrange. Many consider the bass to extend three octaves (160 hz) which most certainly contains directional content. I use dual subs for that very reason.

rw

Very good point...Middle c on a piano is probably around 250 Hz...an octave lower than that I'd consider subjectively to be in the upper bass range, so there's some overlap there.

[Feanor]

There is no such thing as stereo bass. The wavelengths at bass frequencies are wider than our heads, so it is impossible for it to create a stereo image. The information that forms a stereo image happens at 100hz and above.
The frequency I've most often heard quoted is 80 Hz.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Others may differ with your assertion that frequencies above 100 hz are the midrange. Many consider the bass to extend three octaves (160 hz) which most certainly contains directional content. I use dual subs for that very reason.

rw

Sorry Stat, but you are not correct. First I never said anything about midrange being at 100hz, so please do add words which are not there. Secondly, it has been widely established that 100hz and below is non directional, and most musicians, acousticians and audio engineers consider frequencies above 100hz as the mid bass, not the midrange.

http://www.audioholics.com/tweaks/get-good-bass/bass-management-basics-2013-settings-made-simple

Notice these words

Low frequency information below 120Hz is, for the most part, non-directional, meaning that even if the info is “crossing over” from a surround channel, you won’t know it.

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/howto/805bass/index1.html

Under myths and confusion are these words

Low bass is NOT directional. If I had a penny for every time someone has told me they can hear bass directionality down to 20 Hz, I would be writing this article while flying to the French Riviera in my private jet. Yes, we can hear the overtones of bass instruments above 120 Hz, and those overtones should definitely be played by the main speakers correctly located in the room for proper imaging. However, we cannot-I repeat cannot-localize bass below about 80 Hz.

http://www.axiomaudio.com/bassmanagement.html

Under crossovers and filters note these words

in other words, the non-directional parts of the bass below 100 Hz (approximately).

Under caption 80hz, you have these words

Why 80 Hz? Because deep bass below that frequency (the aforementioned energy of the bass drum) is not directional;

Since these comments recite non-directionality as betwee 80-120hz, I cut the difference to 100hz. In most rooms with modes and nodes fully excited, it is terribly difficult to hear any directionality at 120hz, even more so at 100hz, and quite impossible at 80hz.

If you crossover your subwoofer to your mains at 160hz, then you will need two subs, because you can hear directionality at that frequency. However 160hz is too high of a crossover point unless your speakers are have output deficiencies below 160hz.

[E-Stat]

Sorry Stat, but you are not correct. First I never said anything about midrange being at 100hz, so please do add words which are not there.
...acousticians and audio engineers consider frequencies above 100hz as the mid bass, not the midrange.
Exactly. Last time I checked, both the mid bass and the upper bass were part of - get this - THE BASS. Your sweeping statement: "There is no such thing as stereo bass." is therefore incorrect. Had you qualified your statement as you did in more detail here, you would get agreement. The uppermost octave of THE BASS is most certainly directional.


However 160hz is too high of a crossover point unless your speakers are have output deficiencies below 160hz.
Or, choice (B), I choose a wider range so that the subs may participate in the room correction via EQ. The last thing I want to do is butcher the sound quality by running mine full range. I've done that before and it wasn't pretty.

rw

[Luvin Da Blues]

So, what about the out of phase signals in each channel below 80Hz (100Hz). Do you perfer let them cancel each other electrically or acoustcally? I run two subs and deal with this acoustically where I have at least a little control over it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Exactly. Last time I checked, both the mid bass and the upper bass were part of - get this - THE BASS. Your sweeping statement: "There is no such thing as stereo bass." is therefore incorrect. Had you qualified your statement as you did in more detail here, you would get agreement. The uppermost octave of THE BASS is most certainly directional.

A) I shouldn'tt need to qualify my statement to cover 40hz versus 120hz of information. This is splitting hairs, and I have no time for that. In most systems, you have no crossover point at 160hz to choose, the highest is 120hz. It is recommended that bass in a bass managed system would be 18-24db down by the time that bass gets to 160hz. I do not have to quantify my statement to accomodate your personal choice, a choice that in over 1000 systems installed and tuned, I have very rarely seen. The very few times I have seen anyone use a crossover point any higher than 100hz, was because their speaker system could not produce bass in amplitudes high enough to keep up with its midrange response. In other words they were bass deficient.



Or, choice (B), I choose a wider range so that the subs may participate in the room correction via EQ. The last thing I want to do is butcher the sound quality by running mine full range. I've done that before and it wasn't pretty.

rw

What you have done is a matter of personal choice, and not a standard rule or practice. For most speaker setups, 160hz is too high a crossover point unless the subs sit right next to the main speakers. Even in sub-sat systems, the highest crossover points are 120hz and not 160hz. If your speakers are located away from walls in a bass managed system, there is no need for a higher crossover point nor eq in the mains. They are already beginning to roll off before any interaction with surfaces occur. Main speakers when properly placed does not excite any of the room modes and have very low interaction with walls and other surfaces, and therefore need little or no correction.

[audio amateur]

Pix isn;t even talking about subwoofers, but his main speakers.

[E-Stat]

A) I shouldn'tt need to qualify my statement to cover 40hz versus 120hz of information.
Agreed. You do, however, need to avoid attempting to correct people who say that bass is directional because some most certainly is.


In most systems, you have no crossover point at 160hz to choose, the highest is 120hz.
I'm with aa as you seem to be limiting your discussion to subwoofers. Pix just said "decent pair of speakers". You rarely see the bass crossover in even a three way system to be that low.


I do not have to quantify my statement to accomodate your personal choice, a choice that in over 1000 systems installed and tuned, I have very rarely seen.
Qualify? No, you just incorrectly assumed there is but one reason. As for me, I think room correction is an important part of every system.



The very few times I have seen anyone use a crossover point any higher than 100hz, was because their speaker system could not produce bass in amplitudes high enough to keep up with its midrange response.
Now you've learned something. :)


What you have done is a matter of personal choice, and not a standard rule or practice. For most speaker setups, 160hz is too high a crossover point unless the subs sit right next to the main speakers. Even in sub-sat systems, the highest crossover points are 120hz and not 160hz.
Except of course those like mine that offer more choices. Doesn't your pre-pro offer as many choices as my modest NAD receiver?



If your speakers are located away from walls in a bass managed system, there is no need for a higher crossover point nor eq in the mains.
Only if you live in a mode-free room. Mine certainly isn't! BTW, What do you do with the M-EQ units?

rw

[audio amateur]

to be continued....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Agreed. You do, however, need to avoid attempting to correct people who say that bass is directional because some most certainly is.

That some is not representative of the whole. When the majority of the bass is non directional, it is stupid to quibble over 40hz. When somebody says that bass is directional, they are only speaking of a half octave of bass, while the remaining 3 1/2 octaves ( from 5 to 120hz) are not. Don't you think it is a little trivial to make a point off of half an octave when compared to the remain 31/2?



I'm with aa as you seem to be limiting your discussion to subwoofers. Pix just said "decent pair of speakers". You rarely see the bass crossover in even a three way system to be that low.

This is irrespective of whether a subwoofer is included in the equation or not. In most recordings bass is summed into both channels equally to give the system more headroom. In order to perceive any directional information even from two speakers, at 120hz they would have to be spaced more than 9ft apart, at 100hz its 11ft, at 80hz it is 14ft apart. Do you know of any system that spaces their speakers 9ft apart? In most rooms that would put the speakers pretty close to the side walls, and that is not recommended. Besides, even it they were spaced that far apart, our ears are not.



Qualify? No, you just incorrectly assumed there is but one reason. As for me, I think room correction is an important part of every system.

I think room correction can be achieved without a high crossover point don't you? Can you tell me why in the hell somebody would use such a high crossover point if a speaker can reach lower?




Now you've learned something. :)

I haven't learned anything, I have been informed that you have an uncommon approach to managing bass in your system.





Except of course those like mine that offer more choices. Doesn't your pre-pro offer as many choices as my modest NAD receiver?

It does indeed. But it does not offer a choice of crossover above 120hz because in 95% of the systems out there, it is not needed.




Only if you live in a mode-free room. Mine certainly isn't! BTW, What do you do with the M-EQ units?

rw

Modes are excited by placing a speaker close to the room boundaries, which is a poor place to put a main speaker. Once you move the speakers away from boundaries (which the mains should be) room modes are less excited, and less of a problem. The further away, the less of a problem. Even if you put your speakers in a corner, you would have to be in a high pressure zone in the room to hear it resonating. It is not wise to locate your listening position in a high pressure zone.

Right now I am not using the M-EQ units, I am using the Audyssey EQ in my pre-pro. They are in my system just in case I need them, and that is when I shut my subs off, and listen in a 5.0 or 7.0 mode. My main speakers don't really need subwoofers as they play bass louder, lower, and cleaner than most subwoofers out there.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

So, what about the out of phase signals in each channel below 80Hz (100Hz). Do you perfer let them cancel each other electrically or acoustcally? I run two subs and deal with this acoustically where I have at least a little control over it.

There are little to no recordings that have out of phase signals below 80hz. It is usually mixed equally into both the main left and right speakers to increase the system's headroom. The wavelengths in frequencies below 80hz are too long for us to perceive any out of phase information. Phase is not detected because of the relative insensitivity of our ears to perceive it, and the distance between our ears is too short to perceive it as well.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Pix isn;t even talking about subwoofers, but his main speakers.

Irrelevant point. The principles remain the same.

[Luvin Da Blues]

.........In most recordings bass is summed into both channels equally to give the system more headroom.

As far as I know, this is only done at the pre/pro or receiver.

Please help me out here. Explain how they do this with multi track "music" recordings? I've spent some time in the studio twisting knobs (mind you this was years ago) and all we had then was pan pots but we recorded the whole track intact. Do they actually have gear now that separates the lower octaves from the rest of the signal during mix down?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As far as I know, this is only done at the pre/pro or receiver.

Nope, for music it is done in the mixing stage. For film soundtracks via bass management it is done at the pre-pro level because there could be bass in all of the channels, not quite as loud in the rears, but certainly there.


Please help me out here. Explain how they do this with multi track "music" recordings? I've spent some time in the studio twisting knobs (mind you this was years ago) and all we had then was pan pots but we recorded the whole track intact. Do they actually have gear now that separates the lower octaves from the rest of the signal during mix down?

When you lay down a bass track, you simply leave the panning knob at exactly center of the left and right (or neutral) and don't pan it. The signal if reproduced in a two channel system will image center between the speakers above 120hz, or in a 5.1 system it will come from the center speaker if not directed to the subwoofer via bass management. As you should know, with a panning knob (or joystick) the level that is equal between the two channels will come from in between those two channels. In a 5.1, you simply place the signal in the center channel. Not that difficult.

[Luvin Da Blues]

. When you lay down a bass track, you simply leave the panning knob at exactly center of the left and right (or neutral) and don't pan it. The signal if reproduced in a two channel system will image center between the speakers above 120hz, or in a 5.1 system it will come from the center speaker if not directed to the subwoofer via bass management. As you should know, with a panning knob (or joystick) the level that is equal between the two channels will come from in between those two channels. In a 5.1, you simply place the signal in the center channel. Not that difficult.

Of course this is true but, I have many recordings where for example the piano may be panned left and kettle drums may be panned right. These cancellations is what I'm talking about.

[E-Stat]

That some is not representative of the whole.
I'll agree once again. Your blanket statement remains incorrect.


When the majority of the bass is non directional, it is stupid to quibble over 40hz.
Indeed if that were the case, it would be. It is not. Remember saying this?

"However, we cannot-I repeat cannot-localize bass below about 80 Hz."

I agree entirely. The difference between 80 hz and 160 hz, however is one full octave or one third of the entire bass range. At the other end of the spectrum, you would be dismissing everything from 10k up using the same criteria.


This is irrespective of whether a subwoofer is included in the equation or not.
Yet for some unknown reason, you found the need to make a comment that applies only to subwoofers.

"In most systems, you have no crossover point at 160hz to choose, the highest is 120hz. "


I think room correction can be achieved without a high crossover point don't you?
My opinion should be very clear by now. I prefer not having any crossovers whatsoever and prefer using room treatments to address the issue, not active correction. In my HT, however, neither the room situation (that WAF thing) nor the equipment provides that luxury.


Can you tell me why in the hell somebody would use such a high crossover point if a speaker can reach lower?
I'll be delighted to repeat the point. I equalize the subs for the most linear response at my listening position for that room. My room requires some EQ as high as 160 hz in order to achieve the most neutral response. Perhaps you would prefer leaving a 2 db response suckout by choosing a lower crossover point. To what benefit?


Modes are excited by placing a speaker close to the room boundaries, which is a poor place to put a main speaker.
I don't have the luxury in the den to place the speakers where they would sound best as I do with my dedicated listening room. I deal with what I have and use EQ to provide a neutral response.


Right now I am not using the M-EQ units, I am using the Audyssey EQ in my pre-pro.
Ok

rw

[blackraven]

Pix must be ROFLAO seeing how this thread is going from saying how much he is enjoying his new amp to a discussion on bass:rolleyes5:

[pixelthis]

Pix must be ROFLAO seeing how this thread is going from saying how much he is enjoying his new amp to a discussion on bass:rolleyes5:

Its a great subject for disscussion.
My beemers go down to around 48 hz, in direct mode they get a straight two channel signal, no crossover, no chickanery with "sound feilds", etc, just two channels the way god intended, thats why he gave us two ears.
Just saying that my emotiva gets the most outta my mains.
Which is a pleasant surprize, not that much of a sacrifice to go without a sub.
I HAVE A NICE ONE, but for pure audio you need tyo pass on the sub.
I thought the main mprovments would be in the mid/treble area, and they do sound greatly improved, but the bass was just such a pleasant surprize.
The ad copy about releiving the receiver of the front two channels wasnt just BS, BTW.
I had to turn down the levels on my surrounds, and a tad on my center.
Now that my receiver only handles three channels its much happier, and sounds much better.
And sure below 40hz its hard to figure out where the bass is coming from, but I am talking about 48 hz and up.
The bass is just better "defined", that would be a better way of putting it I guess.
Cant beat the price anyway.
Now for that Mitshu 60" DLP.........:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'll agree once again. Your blanket statement remains incorrect.

My statement is quite correct, it is only incorrect to support your personal opinion. Bass is not defined as one homogenous region of frequencies like you are trying to present here. Nobody in the audio press, or science has termed bass frequencies as 20-160hz. They have split it into smaller pieces. This is supported by the links I have previously posted. Bass frequencies have been defined as 20-120hz for as long as I can remember. 120-160hz is referred to mid bass or lower midrange. It has been defined that way on every AES document I have ever read on the issues of acoustics and bass management.



Indeed if that were the case, it would be. It is not. Remember saying this?

"However, we cannot-I repeat cannot-localize bass below about 80 Hz."

I agree entirely. The difference between 80 hz and 160 hz, however is one full octave or one third of the entire bass range. At the other end of the spectrum, you would be dismissing everything from 10k up using the same criteria.

You statement does not hold up well against white papers done on the subject. The bass between 80-120hz CANNOT be included in this statement based on Tom Nousaine white paper on stereo bass. Room reflections dominate's all of the output from 20-120hz, which prevent our ears from clearly hearing any dominance of out of phase information at these frequencies, UNLESS they are produced by a single sub woofer in a corner. Since we are taking sub woofers out of the equation, your theory on 80-160hz stereo bass fails. In his study, listeners were clearly able to ascertain stereo content from 120hz up where wavelengths become smaller, and closer to the distance between our two ears. So your argument is really based on the frequencies between 120-160hz, which is a half octave. That is a petty argument IMO when your consider that bass from 5-120hz is truly non-directional. You are at best majoring in minors. In the future, please do not assume that I am dismissing anything until I state it.



Yet for some unknown reason, you found the need to make a comment that applies only to subwoofers.

"In most systems, you have no crossover point at 160hz to choose, the highest is 120hz. "

I know of no full range loudspeaker that has a crossover point at 160hz to any driver, do you? Even my 4 way full range loudspeaker crossover from the built in subwoofer section is done at 80hz. So my point still stands as true. If you think I am wrong, name a few loudspeaker with a driver transition point at 160hz, and I'll admit I am wrong. When you are speaking of sub-sat system, the highest crossover point that can usually be found is 120hz. With full range system, the crossover point is either lower, or much higher than 160hz.



My opinion should be very clear by now. I prefer not having any crossovers whatsoever and prefer using room treatments to address the issue, not active correction. In my HT, however, neither the room situation (that WAF thing) nor the equipment provides that luxury.

Okay, so you panel system uses no crossovers, and you use room treatments to correct acoustical problems. Well, it is pretty well understood that acoustical treatment is not very effective below 70hz, and the amount that has to be deployed to deal with frequencies above that to 200hz will negatively reduce the amount energy in the midrange and high frequencies in the room. All that tells me is that you cured one problem and created another. There is such a thing as over treating a room even without having a lot of panels. The conventional and well tested method of dealing with acoustical issues is to use room treatments to deal with frequencies above 200hz where they are most effective, and use listening seat placement and EQ for frequencies below that.


I'll be delighted to repeat the point. I equalize the subs for the most linear response at my listening position for that room. My room requires some EQ as high as 160 hz in order to achieve the most neutral response. Perhaps you would prefer leaving a 2 db response suckout by choosing a lower crossover point. To what benefit?

Using EQ to treat a suckout is not very bright. And to answer your question, yes I would. Trying to EQ out a suckout will reduce the headroom of the system itself. It is widely understood that you do not use EQ to treat room suckout for that very reason. A 2db suckout is completely inaudible (which explains the name), and as long as it is not a broadband suckout, I would just leave it alone. So yes, I would have left the suckout in favor of a lower crossover point. Subwoofers are not the best speakers for reproducing frequencies above 120hz or so.



I don't have the luxury in the den to place the speakers where they would sound best as I do with my dedicated listening room. I deal with what I have and use EQ to provide a neutral response.
rw

Perfectly understandable.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Its a great subject for disscussion.
My beemers go down to around 48 hz, in direct mode they get a straight two channel signal, no crossover, no chickanery with "sound feilds", etc, just two channels the way god intended, thats why he gave us two ears.
Just saying that my emotiva gets the most outta my mains.
Which is a pleasant surprize, not that much of a sacrifice to go without a sub.
I HAVE A NICE ONE, but for pure audio you need tyo pass on the sub.
I thought the main mprovments would be in the mid/treble area, and they do sound greatly improved, but the bass was just such a pleasant surprize.
The ad copy about releiving the receiver of the front two channels wasnt just BS, BTW.
I had to turn down the levels on my surrounds, and a tad on my center.
Now that my receiver only handles three channels its much happier, and sounds much better.
And sure below 40hz its hard to figure out where the bass is coming from, but I am talking about 48 hz and up.
The bass is just better "defined", that would be a better way of putting it I guess.
Cant beat the price anyway.
Now for that Mitshu 60" DLP.........:1:

At 48hz and up, you are still wrong. Now change that to 120hz and up, then we can agree.

[E-Stat]

Bass is not defined as one homogenous region of frequencies like you are trying to present here.
LOL! Whatever you say! Who said anything about "homogenous"?


The bass between 80-120hz CANNOT be included in this statement based on Tom Nousaine white paper on stereo bass.
Mr. Car Stereo? Great expert!


I know of no full range loudspeaker that has a crossover point at 160hz to any driver, do you?
Is there an echo in the room? That was my (unanswered) question to you in post # 12 when you said the "highest crossover point is 120 hz"! They're usually much higher!


Well, it is pretty well understood that acoustical treatment is not very effective below 70hz, and the amount that has to be deployed to deal with frequencies above that to 200hz will negatively reduce the amount energy in the midrange and high frequencies in the room.
By whom? Mr. Car Stereo again? Obviously you've never heard a Rives Audio designed room or one using any number of commercial products.



And to answer your question, yes I would. Trying to EQ out a suckout will reduce the headroom of the system itself.
That is your preference and I have plenty of headroom. At the expense of stating the obvious, the use of any tone control or EQ boost will do that.


A 2db suckout is completely inaudible ...
You really cannot hear a 2 db difference in level? Then it wouldn't matter to you.

End of transmission. You have the last word. Still shaking my head. "Bass is not a range of frequencies" Ok!

rw

[pixelthis]

At 48hz and up, you are still wrong. Now change that to 120hz and up, then we can agree.

Sorry, but you disagreeing with me is a litmus test of weather or not I am CORRECT.
Thanks.
YOU CAN GO BY WHAT THE "EXPERTS" SAY, or what your ears say.
And everytime I use a sub its like theres a big gob of bass coming outta one place.
With direct mode I CAN TELL which speaker the bass is coming out of.
Most of the time, anyway.:1:

[audio amateur]

So your argument is really based on the frequencies between 120-160hz, which is a half octave. That is a petty argument IMO when your consider that bass from 5-120hz is truly non-directional. You are at best majoring in minors. In the future, please do not assume that I am dismissing anything until I state it.
I think you're pushing the boundaries of 'bass' when you include frequencies down to 5Hz. That's infra territory.


I know of no full range loudspeaker that has a crossover point at 160hz to any driver, do you? Even my 4 way full range loudspeaker crossover from the built in subwoofer section is done at 80hz. So my point still stands as true. If you think I am wrong, name a few loudspeaker with a driver transition point at 160hz, and I'll admit I am wrong. When you are speaking of sub-sat system, the highest crossover point that can usually be found is 120hz. With full range system, the crossover point is either lower, or much higher than 160hz.
I'm not sure why you're going on about crossovers here, they have nothing to do with what Pix or EStat said. They're not talking about crossovering at all. As Pix said, his B&W are playing full range.

Coming back to infrasonics, a good friend of mine once told my about 18Hz being the resonant frequency of the eye, which could explain certain ghost sightings near equipment/machines that generates close enough frequencies. And I've just been reading this on Wiki, it's pretty cool.

Infrasound has been known to cause feelings of awe or fear in humans.[16][17] Since it is not consciously perceived, it can make people feel vaguely that supernatural events are taking place.
Some film soundtracks make use of infrasound to produce unease or disorientation in the audience. Irréversible is one such movie.
The infrasound and low-frequency noise produced by some wind turbines is believed to cause certain breathing and digestive problems in humans and other animals in close proximity to the turbines.[18]
[edit]Infrasonic 17 Hz tone experiment
On May 31, 2003, a team of UK researchers held a mass experiment where they exposed some 700 people to music laced with soft 17 Hz sine waves played at a level described as "near the edge of hearing", produced by an extra-long stroke sub-woofer mounted two-thirds of the way from the end of a seven-meter-long plastic sewer pipe. The experimental concert (entitled Infrasonic) took place in the Purcell Room over the course of two performances, each consisting of four musical pieces. Two of the pieces in each concert had 17 Hz tones played underneath. In the second concert, the pieces that were to carry a 17 Hz undertone were swapped so that test results would not focus on any specific musical piece. The participants were not told which pieces included the low-level 17 Hz near-infrasonic tone. The presence of the tone resulted in a significant number (22%) of respondents reporting anxiety, uneasiness, extreme sorrow, nervous feelings of revulsion or fear, chills down the spine and feelings of pressure on the chest.[19][20] In presenting the evidence to British Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the scientists responsible said, "These results suggest that low frequency sound can cause people to have unusual experiences even though they cannot consciously detect infrasound. Some scientists have suggested that this level of sound may be present at some allegedly haunted sites and so cause people to have odd sensations that they attribute to a ghost—our findings support these ideas."
[edit]The Ghost in the Machine
Research by Vic Tandy, a lecturer at Coventry University, suggested that the frequency 19 Hz was responsible for many ghost sightings. He was working late one night alone in a supposedly haunted laboratory at Warwick, when he felt very anxious and could detect a grey blob out of the corner of his eye. When he turned to face it, there was nothing.
The following day, he was working on his fencing foil, with the handle held in a vice. Although there was nothing touching it, the blade started to vibrate wildly. Further investigation led him to discover that the extraction fan was emitting a frequency of 18.98 Hz, very close to the resonant frequency of the eye (given as 18 Hz in NASA Technical Report 19770013810). This was why he saw a ghostly figure — it was an optical illusion caused by his eyeballs resonating. The room was exactly half a wavelength in length, and the desk was in the centre, thus causing a standing wave which was detected by the foil.[21]
Tandy investigated this phenomenon further and wrote a paper entitled The Ghost in the Machine. He carried out a number of investigations at various sites believed to be haunted, including the basement of the Tourist Information Bureau next to Coventry Cathedral[22] and Edinburgh Castle.[23][24]

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

LOL! Whatever you say! Who said anything about "homogenous"?

You did when you state that BASS covers from 20-160hz



Mr. Car Stereo? Great expert!

It is funny that you would define him as Mr. Car Stereo. He has produced more white papers and reviewed more subwoofers for the home than you have. And he actually did the research into stereo bass, and you have not! I find it quite ironic that you would belittle a person who has done far more research in bass acoustics and subwoofer design for both home and car than you have.



Is there an echo in the room? That was my (unanswered) question to you in post # 12 when you said the "highest crossover point is 120 hz"! They're usually much higher!

This is a irrelevant point. The point is, that is the threshold of detection of stereo content.



By whom? Mr. Car Stereo again? Obviously you've never heard a Rives Audio designed room or one using any number of commercial products.

More assumptions on your behalf. Unlike you I tune hometheaters, dubbing stages, recording studios, and listening rooms. I have measured the response of these products rather than just relying on marketing schmeel. I have measured the effect of these products in REAL ROOMS, and bass traps offered from these guys or any others are not effective in REAL ROOMS below 70hz, no matter what they advertise. That is why they created PARC. And this is from their website;

The PARC is a Parametric Adaptive Room Compensation system. Rives Audio designed the PARC because current stereo and home theater components have exceeded the capability of their environment. Today's hi end audio speakers and electronics have the capability of delivering a near flat response throughout the audible frequency range (20Hz to 20kHz).

If they really believed that room treatments could do the job alone, then why created this product? Thank you Rives Audio for making my point!



That is your preference and I have plenty of headroom. At the expense of stating the obvious, the use of any tone control or EQ boost will do that.

Which is the reason you don't use them to fill in nulls



You really cannot hear a 2 db difference in level? Then it wouldn't matter to you.

In the bass region, nobody can hear a 2db difference, our ears are not that sensitive in the bass region. Every heard of the Fletcher and Munson or equal loudness curve?


End of transmission. You have the last word. Still shaking my head. "Bass is not a range of frequencies" Ok!

rw

Who said that? I didn't. I stated that bass frequencies are not defined as you stated. Talk about twisting words.....jeeze!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think you're pushing the boundaries of 'bass' when you include frequencies down to 5Hz. That's infra territory.

Infra what AA? That would be infra bass wouldn't it? Just for the sake of argument let's move the threshold up to 20hz. Still doesn't change a damn thing does it? From 20-120hz phase differences are undetectable.



I'm not sure why you're going on about crossovers here, they have nothing to do with what Pix or EStat said. They're not talking about crossovering at all. As Pix said, his B&W are playing full range.

His speakers are not full range. With a low frequency limitation of 48hz(with no tolerance listed) his speakers are not full range. It still does not change a damn thing. The detection of stereo content does not occur until 120hz, whether a crossover is in the chain or not.


Coming back to infrasonics, a good friend of mine once told my about 18Hz being the resonant frequency of the eye, which could explain certain ghost sightings near equipment/machines that generates close enough frequencies. And I've just been reading this on Wiki, it's pretty cool.

Infrasound has been known to cause feelings of awe or fear in humans.[16][17] Since it is not consciously perceived, it can make people feel vaguely that supernatural events are taking place.
Some film soundtracks make use of infrasound to produce unease or disorientation in the audience. Irréversible is one such movie.
The infrasound and low-frequency noise produced by some wind turbines is believed to cause certain breathing and digestive problems in humans and other animals in close proximity to the turbines.[18]
[edit]Infrasonic 17 Hz tone experiment
On May 31, 2003, a team of UK researchers held a mass experiment where they exposed some 700 people to music laced with soft 17 Hz sine waves played at a level described as "near the edge of hearing", produced by an extra-long stroke sub-woofer mounted two-thirds of the way from the end of a seven-meter-long plastic sewer pipe. The experimental concert (entitled Infrasonic) took place in the Purcell Room over the course of two performances, each consisting of four musical pieces. Two of the pieces in each concert had 17 Hz tones played underneath. In the second concert, the pieces that were to carry a 17 Hz undertone were swapped so that test results would not focus on any specific musical piece. The participants were not told which pieces included the low-level 17 Hz near-infrasonic tone. The presence of the tone resulted in a significant number (22%) of respondents reporting anxiety, uneasiness, extreme sorrow, nervous feelings of revulsion or fear, chills down the spine and feelings of pressure on the chest.[19][20] In presenting the evidence to British Association for the Advancement of Science, one of the scientists responsible said, "These results suggest that low frequency sound can cause people to have unusual experiences even though they cannot consciously detect infrasound. Some scientists have suggested that this level of sound may be present at some allegedly haunted sites and so cause people to have odd sensations that they attribute to a ghost—our findings support these ideas."
[edit]The Ghost in the Machine
Research by Vic Tandy, a lecturer at Coventry University, suggested that the frequency 19 Hz was responsible for many ghost sightings. He was working late one night alone in a supposedly haunted laboratory at Warwick, when he felt very anxious and could detect a grey blob out of the corner of his eye. When he turned to face it, there was nothing.
The following day, he was working on his fencing foil, with the handle held in a vice. Although there was nothing touching it, the blade started to vibrate wildly. Further investigation led him to discover that the extraction fan was emitting a frequency of 18.98 Hz, very close to the resonant frequency of the eye (given as 18 Hz in NASA Technical Report 19770013810). This was why he saw a ghostly figure — it was an optical illusion caused by his eyeballs resonating. The room was exactly half a wavelength in length, and the desk was in the centre, thus causing a standing wave which was detected by the foil.[21]
Tandy investigated this phenomenon further and wrote a paper entitled The Ghost in the Machine. He carried out a number of investigations at various sites believed to be haunted, including the basement of the Tourist Information Bureau next to Coventry Cathedral[22] and Edinburgh Castle.[23][24]

Hmmmm so this is why an earthquake can give the illusion that the room is bending in funny directions.

[E-Stat]

If they really believed that room treatments could do the job alone, then why created this product?
This question is profoundly stupid. Because most folks (like my HT situation) cannot design their room from scratch to include them or add them afterwards. You'll find quite a few of their treated rooms that obviate the need for any electronic compensation. Duh!

Rives Room WITHOUT the need for PARC (http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/663.html)

You might note the quality of his gear is a wee bit higher than you'll find in HT systems using Japanese mid-fi stuff.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sorry, but you disagreeing with me is a litmus test of weather or not I am CORRECT.
Thanks.
YOU CAN GO BY WHAT THE "EXPERTS" SAY, or what your ears say.
And everytime I use a sub its like theres a big gob of bass coming outta one place.
With direct mode I CAN TELL which speaker the bass is coming out of.
Most of the time, anyway.:1:

Sorry you are still wrong. Pix, while I think your are strange as hell, you are not superhuman. You can say whatever you please (and you usually do) by science says that once the wavelengths of a signal become wider than our ears, the ability to detect phase differences becomes less acute. So unless your head is 11.3 ft wide or 22.5 feet wide you cannot detect the direction of a 100 hz or 50hz signal, especially not in a ordinary room full of reflections. That is science, not what the experts say.

If you use a sub, and it sounds like a big gob of bass coming out of one place, you obviously do not know how to setup or use a sub.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This question is profoundly stupid. Because most folks (like my HT situation) cannot design their room from scratch to include them or add them afterwards. You'll find quite a few of their treated rooms that obviate the need for any electronic compensation. Duh!


Rives Room WITHOUT the need for PARC (http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/663.html)

You might note the quality of his gear is a wee bit higher than you'll find in HT systems using Japanese mid-fi stuff.

rw

Here is a note for you. This HT system that uses Japanese Mid-fi stuff is not stock, and not the only system I own.

Now, there is no listed tolerance for frequency deviation in that room, so just how do you know there isn't any need for electronic assistance to correct any acoustical abnormalities? You will have to do better than this to convince me that his room is perfect without EQ. A picture of a nice room with high quality equipment will not cut it in the absence of measurements, and to think it would is stupid as well. I am not the easily impressed.

[audio amateur]

Infra what AA? That would be infra bass wouldn't it?
Actually infrasonic, or infrasound if you prefer :)
(how I love the smart alec smiley...)

[E-Stat]

Now, there is no listed tolerance for frequency deviation in that room, so just how do you know there isn't any need for electronic assistance to correct any acoustical abnormalities?
The answer is really quite simple. Rives Audio found zero need to equalize their own "level 3" room design. Your commentary about screwing up the midrange is hilarious.

BTW, you'll find Mike's room on the Rives website with significant commentary about the room and system.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The answer is really quite simple. Rives Audio found zero need to equalize their own "level 3" room design. Your commentary about screwing up the midrange is hilarious.

Yes, I also found your belittling of a person who has done FAR more research than you have equally as amusing.


BTW, you'll find Mike's room on the Rives website with significant commentary about the room and system.

rw

Yes I read it. Noticed some very important issues as well that could have been tamed with with a simple parametric EQ;

In my case I have about a 5dB to 6dB peak at 134Hz, and a 5dB to 6dB null at 80Hz. followed by this;

From time to time I do perceive a slight wooliness to the mid-bass... but only occasionally (a very few cuts of female vocal, or maybe a cello recording).

A 5-6db peak is VERY audible, and he does not define how broad the null extends upward of 80hz or downward as well. That "wooliness" is most likely a result of the peak at 134hz of which again he does not tell how broad its effect is. I want to see the measurements, because his description of the issue does not tell me much of anything. Measurements along with the commentary would be more helpful than just mere words. With a peak still present in the room, that notion of ZERO need to EQ is quite suspect.

[E-Stat]

Yes, I also found your belittling of a person who has done FAR more research than you have equally as amusing.
Nousaine? He's an audio gourmand. Here are some of his "urban legends" as found on Peter Wackzel's website:

Fancy parts improve sound.
Fancy cables improve sound quality
LP sounds better than CD (I would aver in some areas only)
Negative feedback is bad

And by the way, several of his articles consistently reference 80 hz as the threshold for audible localization. That's what THX chose as well. Do you think they might know something? My favorite article had the gripping title "Autosound vs Home Audio". Can you hear the difference? :^)


Noticed some very important issues as well that could have been tamed with with a simple parametric EQ;

I have about a 5dB to 6dB peak at 134Hz...

Tame something at 134 hz via equalization. Hmmm. My issue near 160 hz is but a fourth of an octave away. You know, I might just try using some EQ to fix that. Wait - I already do!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Nousaine? He's an audio gourmand. Here are some of his "urban legends" as found on Peter Wackzel's website:

Fancy parts improve sound.
Fancy cables improve sound quality
LP sounds better than CD (I would aver in some areas only)
Negative feedback is bad

Can't comment on that, but his technical knowledge of bass in small rooms is widely accepted as fact.


And by the way, several of his articles consistently reference 80 hz as the threshold for audible localization.

I have quite a few of his AES submissions, and not one supports 80hz as the threshold. Above 100hz is consistently listed as the absolute threshold for audible detection, and when you speak of two loudspeakers sans a subwoofer, the level goes up to 120hz. Now in a anechoic chamber, 80hz might be the threshold, but not in small rooms loaded with reflections. This is support by the white papers of Dr. F. Toole as well.


That's what THX chose as well.

That is because that is the frequency that works best between their approved mains and subwoofers, and because it is below the area of localization. Now this one I can argue you to the floor because Dr. Holman was my professor at USC when I attended film school there.


Do you think they might know something?

Sure. They know to create a crossover point that will ensure that you cannot localize a subwoofer. If they designed it right at the level of detection, the roll off would have to be steeper than 24db per octave.


My favorite article had the gripping title "Autosound vs Home Audio". Can you hear the difference? :^)

Never read it


Tame something at 134 hz via equalization. Hmmm. My issue near 160 hz is but a fourth of an octave away. You know, I might just try using some EQ to fix that. Wait - I already do!

rw

The big difference between this and your situation is that he has no subwoofer, and you do. He has a peak, you have a suckout. He didn't have a choice of a crossover point, you do. I don't think your choice is particularly wise, but it is your choice. This is a bad example to use to support your decision.

[E-Stat]

I have quite a few of his AES submissions, and not one supports 80hz as the threshold.
Maybe he's also an amnesiac because that's the threshold he specifes in two documents found on his website found here. (http://www.nousaine.com/nousaine_tech_articles.html) Refer to "Stereo Bass" and "Subwoofers - How Big is Enough". While you're there, you can find some more jollies by reading "Why We Need to take Car Stereo Serious (sic)". You really shouldn't miss any of his gripping tales. I tell you, he's all over the state of the art!

I nearly fell out of my chair when I read his used "hearing protection" during some high level testing. Now we know why he can't hear squat.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Maybe he's also an amnesiac because that's the threshold he specifes in two documents found on his website found here. (http://www.nousaine.com/nousaine_tech_articles.html) Refer to "Stereo Bass" and "Subwoofers - How Big is Enough". While you're there, you can find some more jollies by reading "Why We Need to take Car Stereo Serious (sic)". You really shouldn't miss any of his gripping tales. I tell you, he's all over the state of the art!

rw

Already read it.

However I could hear no detectable difference between stereo and mono using 80hz crossover slopes.

At crossover ABOVE 100hz the differences between stereo and mono tended to be localizable in nature.

He never states in that article that 80hz is the threshold, he just states there is no detectable difference between mono and stereo at that frequency. He states at crossover frequencies ABOVE 100hz ( he didn't say 100hz, but ABOVE 100hz) localization is detectable. So his comments are absolutely consistent with what I have been stating and what he states in his white papers. His white papers go into much more detail than this example.

[Ajani]

My favorite article had the gripping title "Autosound vs Home Audio". Can you hear the difference? :^)

Thanks for the link, I just read that article....

I truly love how he "assembled four source units that represent the state of the art in component design" for his test:

Sony CDX-A2001 Car CD Changer $1,800
Denon DCD-3520 Home CD Player $1,500
Nakamichi TD-1200II Car Cassette Tuner $1,595
Nakamichi Dragon Home Cassette Deck $2,295

Now, I don't know much about what was "State of the Art" in 1990 (when the test was conducted), but since the most expensive component in the test cost $2,295 in 1990... which is roughly equal to $3,826 in 2009, I really have to wonder if those products were indeed "State of the Art"...

[E-Stat]

Already read it.
Very selectively at that. Apparently, you didn't read his conclusion. Let's review it, shall we?

"In sum, music listeners were unable to identify differences in monophonic and stereophonic reproduction at frequencies below 80 hz, even using...


However I could hear no detectable difference between stereo and mono using 80hz crossover slopes.
Maybe he needs to remove the hearing protection.

I'm sure we could go on all night my friend. Neither of us has worry much about localization since I have two and you have four. I'll leave you with one more thought. What do find in common with these four high performance speaker systems ? (the first three of which I've heard at length in a home setting using incredible gear) You only get one guess. :)

Infinity IRS

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s23/darqueknight88/misc/IRS-V.jpg

Nola Grand Reference

http://nolaspeakers.com/products/gifs/GrandRefHomes/audio-01-vsm.jpg

Scaena 1.4

http://www.stereotimes.com/images/CES07%20Scaena.jpg

Evolution Acoustics MM7

http://evolutionacoustics.com/images/mm70.jpg

What could that common denominator be for these leading edge systems?

rw

[Ajani]

I forgot to mention his conclusion, that a carefully assembled "car stereo system can sound as good as the best home stereo"...

He comes to this conclusion, despite not testing Car speakers versus Home Speakers (he tested source components in that article and amplifiers in a previous one)... And not testing the "room" acoustics of a car...

[Ajani]

What do find in common with these four high performance speaker systems ? (the first three of which I've heard at length in a home setting using incredible gear) You only get one guess. :)
..........

What could that common denominator be for these leading edge systems?

rw

They're all very expensive?


See AA, I used bold instead of caps... better???

[audio amateur]

I've heard some Nolas, but not the flagship:) Sounded very good IMO...
Those are quite some speakers you got to hear EStat, which would you say you prefered out of the bunch?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Very selectively at that. Apparently, you didn't read his conclusion. Let's review it, shall we?

"In sum, music listeners were unable to identify differences in monophonic and stereophonic reproduction at frequencies below 80 hz, even using...

I read his conclusion, and it does not change or alter one bit what he previously said which I put in bold from his text. I am not sure how you think it does. It is your assumption that it was read selectively, as I have read and cited this article many times. Never make assumptions.

However I could hear no detectable difference between stereo and mono using 80hz crossover slopes.

At crossovers ABOVE 100hz the differences between stereo and mono tended to be localizable in nature.

This comment is perfectly consistent with what I have stated, and what you highlighted does not alter that consistency. You cannot detect stereo below 80hz, and you can at frequencies above 100hz. He does not state the threshold of detection in this article, but he sure does in his white papers he submitted to AES. That detection frequency would be 120hz for non subwoofer applications (two full range speakers), and 100hz with application that deploy subwoofers. Since you commented that Pix was talking about a non subwoofer application, then your contention that the threshold is 80hz is just plain wrong.



Maybe he needs to remove the hearing protection.

He stated he used hearing protection for high level testing which is wise. He didn't say he wore hearing protection for every test, so implicating that with this comment is disingenuous.


I'm sure we could go on all night my friend. Neither of us has worry much about localization since I have two and you have four. I'll leave you with one more thought. What do find in common with these four high performance speaker systems ? (the first three of which I've heard at length in a home setting using incredible gear) You only get one guess. :)

Infinity IRS

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s23/darqueknight88/misc/IRS-V.jpg

Nola Grand Reference

http://nolaspeakers.com/products/gifs/GrandRefHomes/audio-01-vsm.jpg

Scaena 1.4

http://www.stereotimes.com/images/CES07%20Scaena.jpg

Evolution Acoustics MM7

http://evolutionacoustics.com/images/mm70.jpg

What could that common denominator be for these leading edge systems?

rw

All these speaker system have separate subwoofer modules to augment the output of the main speakers.

[E-Stat]

They're all very expensive?
Hint: in context with this discussion.

rw

[Ajani]

Hint: in context with this discussion.

rw

LOL... I know...

[audio amateur]

They're all very expensive?


See AA, I used bold instead of caps... better???
Lol, actually I wasn't refering to the fact that you capitalized a full word, but that you very often use capitals at the beginning of words that don't need one. As an example, I'm quoting you from another thread:


I regard the search for physical impact, to be moving past accurately reproducing music and towards recreating a Live 3D experience.... So just as I don't attempt to recreate the smell of Cigarettes, Weed and Sweat from a local club, I don't care about recreating the sense of touch (the aforementioned kick)...
Cigarettes, weed and sweat don't need a capital letter :)

[E-Stat]

I read his conclusion, and it does not change or alter one bit what he previously said which I put in bold from his text. I am not sure how you think it does.
Only the difference between other listeners can hear and that which he is capable of. Maybe its time to change the Dynaco PAT-5. :)


He stated he used hearing protection for high level testing which is wise. He didn't say he wore hearing protection for every test, so implicating that with this comment is disingenuous.
I can't think of anything much funnier than an audio "reviewer" who needs to wear hearing protection during a listening test. That's hilarious! "What did you say? Huh? CAN YOU LOCALIZE THE SIGNAL? I SAID, CAN YOU LOCALIZE THE SIGNAL? "



All these speaker system have separate subwoofer modules to augment the output of the main speakers.
You're getting warm. The towers of each are good down to about 40 hz.

rw

[Ajani]

Lol, actually I wasn't refering to the fact that you capitalized a full word, but that you very often use capitals at the beginning of words that don't need one. As an example, I'm quoting you from another thread:

Cigarettes, weed and sweat don't need a capital letter :)

But I Like Capitals!!!! Just Cuz the Words don'T neEd them, Doesn't meant I shouldn't add THem...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Only the difference between other listeners can hear and that which he is capable of. Maybe its time to change the Dynaco PAT-5. :)

This is a stupid comment. Come on E-stat, you are better than this. In his white paper he didn't participate, and the conclusions were exactly the same.



I can't think of anything much funnier than an audio "reviewer" who needs to wear hearing protection.

I cannot think of anything more stupid than doing high level tests without them




You're getting warm.

I guess I am not interested enough to give a second guess.

rw[/QUOTE]

[audio amateur]

But I Like Capitals!!!! Just Cuz the Words don'T neEd them, Doesn't meant I shouldn't add THem...
At the Beginning I said!!!! :D

[E-Stat]

This is a stupid comment. Come on E-stat, you are better than this. In his white paper he didn't participate, and the conclusions were exactly the same.
"The Conclusion" was NOT exactly the same. Hint: that's the part that follows "in sum". It was very different. Have you forgotten already?


I cannot think of anything more stupid than doing high level tests without them
I can't think of anything more stupid than conducting listening tests that require earplugs! That is just too funny!


I guess I am not interested enough to give a second guess.
I'll help you out with the complex answer: They're all in stereo. ;)

rw

[audio amateur]

Don't be embarrassed to say it Terrence, we won't mock you ;)

[audio amateur]

Oups... too late.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"The Conclusion" was not exactly the same. It was very different. Have you forgotten already?

Please enlighten me because it was not very different at all.



I can't think of anything more stupid than conducting listening tests that require earplugs! That is just too funny!

When you are relying on test equipment and not your ears, it is best that they are protected don't your think?



I'll help you out with the complex answer: They're all in stereo. ;)

rw

The are deployed as stereo, they are not inherently stereo speakers. 5 sets would be multichannel. Who says you only need two mains and two subs? I am not into systems that have built in limitations.

[E-Stat]

Please enlighten me because it was not very different at all.
Not very different at all. Hmmm. Well, I'll have to agree that in the grand scheme of things, half an octave isn't all that great. So, let's review what our deaf "reviewer" has said:

"However I could hear no detectable difference between stereo and mono using 80hz crossover slopes...

In sum, music listeners were unable to identify differences in monophonic and stereophonic reproduction at frequencies below 80 hz, even using..."

Here's another Where's Waldo question. What is the difference between the subjects of the two sentences? Well, the subject of the first was "I". That would be Mr. Earplugs. The subject of the CONCLUSION was "music listeners". As for me, I would be more concerned what "music listeners" can hear as opposed to what Mr. Earplugs is capable of discerning. Also, note the difference between "using" in the first case and "below" in the second. The language is quite clear .


When you are relying on test equipment and not your ears, it is best that they are protected don't your think?
Why would you ever choose to listen to music at levels that required the use of earplugs? Like totally wow man, that sub was rocking at 126 db. Kewl. How does one take a guy like that seriously to ascertain anything resembling critical listening? Certainly not I.


The are deployed as stereo, they are not inherently stereo speakers.
At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, the cabling to and amplification required for each subwoofer is discrete and adheres to every aspect of the word "stereo". As for me, I'll trust guys like Arnie Nudell and Carl Marchisotto - not to mention my own ears - over *reviewers* who need to wear earplugs.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Not very different at all. Hmmm. Well, I'll have to agree that in the grand scheme of things, half an octave isn't all that great. So, let's review what our deaf "reviewer" has said:

"However I could hear no detectable difference between stereo and mono using 80hz crossover slopes...

In sum, music listeners were unable to identify differences in monophonic and stereophonic reproduction at frequencies below 80 hz, even using..."

Here's another Where's Waldo question. What is the difference between the subjects of the two sentences? Well, the subject of the first was "I". That would be Mr. Earplugs. The subject of the CONCLUSION was "music listeners". As for me, I would be more concerned what "music listeners" can hear as opposed to what Mr. Earplugs is capable of discerning.

Wow, this is a stretch. You have a negative personal opinion of him, but that is your problem and issue. He essentially said the same thing two different ways, so I don't agree with your assertion that the conclusion were very different. Neither could detect stereo below 80hz [b]period[.b] Your choice of whether to personally like or dislike his conclusion are irrelevant to the conclusion nevertheless. I think it is pretty damn weak to base your conclusions on what music listeners hear, as they have no superhuman powers of hearing that nobody else posses. A music listener is just a music listener, not super ears.



Why would you ever choose to listen to music at levels that required the use of earplugs? Like totally wow man, that sub was rocking at 126 db. Kewl. How does one take a guy like that seriously to ascertain anything resembling critical listening? Certainly not I.

They would if they were testing ultimate loudness capabilities, and this should not be all that difficult to figure out. Listening to ultimate loudness capabilities is not a critical listening activity, and it should not be judged that way. Keep in mind, your way of doing a test is not the only way a test can be done. Maybe you are not into ultimate loudness tests, but some folks what to know how loud a speaker can play as to judge its ability to hang together during loud peaks. Everyone does not listen to music like you do, or at the levels that you do.



At the expense of confusing the issue with facts, the cabling to and amplification required for each subwoofer is discrete and adheres to every aspect of the word "stereo". As for me, I'll trust guys like Arnie Nudell and Carl Marchisotto - not to mention my own ears - over *reviewers* who need to wear earplugs.

rw

This comment is BS and you know it is. The cabling and amplification is not limited to stereo, it can be expanded to accommodate more channels than just two. So are you telling me the only application these speakers can be used in is a stereo application? That is just plain foolishness. I own 7 Dunlavy SC-V and 5 Dunlavy TSW-V tower subwoofers I use for music mixing. How are these speakers any different than those?

[E-Stat]

Neither could detect stereo below 80hz [b]period[.b]
What part of "below" don't you understand? Hint: 100 hz is NOT below 80 hz.


but some folks what to know how loud a speaker can play as to judge its ability to hang together during loud peaks.
Like I said, he is an audio gourmand.


This comment is BS and you know it is. The cabling and amplification is not limited to stereo, it can be expanded to accommodate more channels than just two. So are you telling me the only application these speakers can be used in is a stereo application?
Sorry, I find no need to veer into your pet enthusiasm for MC. Let's stay on topic here, shall we? What do you mean by this statement: "they are not inherently stereo speakers."? Let's see here. There are two separate subwoofer towers in each design included with the system. That would be one for each main tower. Can you buy multiples of the speaker system? Why not? With five channels, you would have - five subwoofer towers, not one! What does that have to do with your assertion about "bass not being stereo?". They are driven independently using separate cabling and amplification. There is no summing of the signal at any level. WTF?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

What part of "below" don't you understand? Hint: 100 hz is NOT below 80 hz.

More BS and hair splitting. This does not mean that they COULD detect stereo information above 80hz and below 100hz does it? Why state this;


At crossovers ABOVE 100hz the differences between stereo and mono tended to be localizable in nature.

If 80hz was the detection threshold, then why state above 100hz? Why not state above 80hz? Even then it was describe as spaciousness and not directional. That is because you have a very weak understanding of stereo localization principles. Localization does not just jump out once you get above 80hz, It is a gradual process as the frequency increases. We detect the direction of frequencies based on time( for LF) and intensity (for HF) inter-aurally. Since bass frequency wavelengths are long at 80hz (14ft), it is wider than our heads, so it bends around our heads and hits both ears simultaneously which prevents any directional detection. You can move the source to close to your left ear, and both ears would still hear the same amplitude because once again there is no time or perceived level difference, and our ears lack sensitivity at this frequency. You can increase the intensity on one side of the head, but still because the wavelength is longer than the distance between your ears, you will still not be able to localize. At 160hz the wavelength is 7ft. Localization improves slightly because now the wavelength gets a bit closer to the size of the head which allows one ear to hear slightly more than the other. At 320hz is is 3.5ft, and at 640hz it is 1.5ft, and at the most sensitive point of our hearing 1-4kHz 12" to 3". Once the wavelengths get smaller ( especially smaller than our heads), intensity becomes the vehicle that determines direction. This is if you only use one source for localization. When you use two sources, and surround them with walls, the signals become more complex and more difficult to localize because of reflections, and the size of the wavelengths combined. This is why he stated that ABOVE 100hz signals begin to more clearly localize. The difference in wavelength size of 80hz and 100hz is 3ft which is wider than our heads, and provides minimal improvement in localization theoretically but not perceptionally due to hearing insensitivities at these frequencies (see Fletcher/Munson loudness curve). The difference between 80 and 160hz is 7ft, and that is a much better improvement in localization capability, but still not as clear as one octave up. And so on and so on.



Like I said, he is an audio gourmand.

Your opinion. I suppose he was a audio gourmand when he did this stereo study? I think your opinion of him is akin to doing a fine painting with a street sweeper. Some of his tests may involve excessive volumes, but not all of them.



Sorry, I find no need to veer into your pet enthusiasm for MC. Let's stay on topic here, shall we? What do you mean by this statement: "they are not inherently stereo speakers."? Let's see here. There are two separate subwoofer towers in each design included with the system. That would be one for each main tower. Can you buy multiples of the speaker system? Why not? With five channels, you would have - five subwoofer towers, not one! What does that have to do with your assertion about "bass not being stereo?". They are driven independently using separate cabling and amplification. There is no summing of the signal at any level. WTF?

rw

Oui!! My Dunlavy system does not include a summing circuit either, it does not even use bass management. The two rear wall speakers handle their own bass. Each of the 7 speakers and 5 subwoofers are driven independently using separate cabling and amplification as well. So what! This does not improve localization at lower frequencies, it makes it more difficult to do so. In Nousiane's test he used no summing circuits either. So what is your point?

Based on his tests, whether you sum the bass or not, localization is not improved, and neither is the perception of spaciousness. Your point is a red herring at best.

His conclusion is very simple. Stereo is a higher frequency phenomena associated with locating sound.

[E-Stat]

More BS and hair splitting. This does not mean that they COULD detect stereo information above 80hz and below 100hz does it? Why state this;
Obviously, your *expert* is anything but articulate or discerning. He's clueless and his comments remain inconsistent. What is not inconsistent, however, is the absolute dearth of any high performance speaker that uses a single woofer tower. Zilch. It's for low end system for folks that cannot afford two.

For the life of me, I don't understand your apparent need to raise the banner of mediocrity.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Obviously, your *expert* is anything but articulate or discerning. He's clueless and his comments remain inconsistent. What is not inconsistent, however, is the absolute dearth of any high performance speaker that uses a single woofer tower. Zilch. It's for low end system for folks that cannot afford two.

E-stat, I really thought you were smarter than this. The only thing that using two woofer towers do is add headroom to a system. If you don't need the headroom (and some don't) there is no need for two towers of subwoofer. And your comments smack of elitism, and has nothing to do with high performance at all. Widescreen reviews old reference system only had two Dunlavy towers with six SC-V. One could not call that system a low end system and still have any credibility.


For the life of me, I don't understand your apparent need to raise the banner of mediocrity.

rw

Perhaps I am raising the banner of unscientific elitism, and not mediocrity at all. The high end that you so closely align yourself with is full of BS claims and unscientific practices, and somebody needs to cut through all that crap with a dose of reality. Each speaker is not required to have its own dedicated subwoofer to be considered a high performance speaker. A Dunlavy SC-V without a subwoofer by anyone's measure is a high performance speaker. I think many folks would consider my own custom speakers as high performance speakers without a sub. A ATC SCM-300A would be considered a high performance speaker without a sub. That would go for a TAD Reference One, All of Egglestons models, and many more. One approach to high performance is not better than another, and a person would have to be living in an alternate reality to believe any different.

Now I am going to exit to watch a movie on my low end mediocre system, so we can take this up tomorrow if you like.

[audio amateur]

I very much doubt the bass modules (sorry to coin a term used for Bose in such a context) in those - I think we can call them - state of the art speakers need any more headroom than what a single is capable of... Clearly they are meant for perfect seperation of bass between the two channels, and help to achieve an easier flat in-room frequency response. I guess you could argue that on top of this, two can achieve more headroom; however, that is not the main argument.

[audio amateur]

I own 7 Dunlavy SC-V and 5 Dunlavy TSW-V tower subwoofers I use for music mixing.
:yikes: Those are massive!

[E-Stat]

E-stat, I really thought you were smarter than this. The only thing that using two woofer towers do is add headroom to a system.
I'm delighted that you've given up on Mr. Car Stereo and now acknowledge there are ZERO high performance speakers using a single sub. :)


And your comments smack of elitism, and has nothing to do with high performance at all.
Just pointing out the obvious to one who has difficulty understanding words like "under".


Perhaps I am raising the banner of unscientific elitism, and not mediocrity at all. The high end that you so closely align yourself with is full of BS claims and unscientific practices, and somebody needs to cut through all that crap with a dose of reality.
When all else fails, use the straw man fallacy.

rw

[bobsticks]

Yee haw!!....love them Pioneer receivers...

[Ajani]

Yee haw!!....love them Pioneer receivers...

What U talkin' bout Sticks??? This thread is about using dual subs!!! It has NOTHING to do with receivers/amplificati... ohhhh... riiiiight.... never mind...

[E-Stat]

I very much doubt the bass modules (sorry to coin a term used for Bose in such a context) in those - I think we can call them - state of the art speakers need any more headroom than what a single is capable of... Clearly they are meant for perfect seperation of bass between the two channels, and help to achieve an easier flat in-room frequency response. I guess you could argue that on top of this, two can achieve more headroom; however, that is not the main argument.
That's not fair using logic! ;)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm delighted that you've given up on Mr. Car Stereo and now acknowledge there are ZERO high performance speakers using a single sub. :)

That is not what I said, and please do not put words in my mouth.



Just pointing out the obvious to one who has difficulty understanding words like "under".

You know good and damn well I know what under means, but you're trying twist his comments to say something else, and that is BS. His under comment does not mean that once one gets to 80hz then poof, here comes the stereo imaging and localization. It does not work like that.



When all else fails, use the straw man fallacy.

rw

Yeah, and for you when all else fails you result to elitist BS.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I very much doubt the bass modules (sorry to coin a term used for Bose in such a context) in those - I think we can call them - state of the art speakers need any more headroom than what a single is capable of... Clearly they are meant for perfect seperation of bass between the two channels, and help to achieve an easier flat in-room frequency response. I guess you could argue that on top of this, two can achieve more headroom; however, that is not the main argument.

Two points. Using a mono amp and discrete pathways in your pre-amp will do just fine in separating the bass between two channels, you don't need two big boxes in the room to do this.

Secondly, I single sub in a corner with EQ can acheive a flat in room response.

The only real reason to use two subwoofers is to increase the headroom of the system. If you don't need the headroom, then you can ditch the two big boxes. I have not seen any research that supports the notion that summing bass results in a degrade in performance as bass frequencies. There is no distinct advantage is keeping the bass separate between two channels, at those frequencies there is no audible difference.

[GMichael]

In essence, I'm running 3 subs. There is the main sub that I use for most bass below 60 htz. My two front speakers have powered subs built in. These handle from about 30 htz up to around 160. I have them set this way because it helps me with a null in my room at around 140. And since they are set up in stereo I am not concerned with being able to locate where their bass is coming from.

Pix,

Nice acquisition. When do we get a full review?

[E-Stat]

That is not what I said, and please do not put words in my mouth.
We're still waiting for you to provide a single example of a high performance system that uses a single sub. In every example you've provided, there have been between four and five! Best of luck to you!


His under comment does not mean that once one gets to 80hz then poof, here comes the stereo imaging and localization. It does not work like that.
Intelligent people make such statements using clearly identified points of reference. Perhaps Mr. Car Stereo is simply an idiot who doesn't understand the language. Recall that he is your expert in the field.


Yeah, and for you when all else fails you result to elitist BS.
Why is observing the highest level of performance "elitist"? Apparently, it must all be about ownership to you. As a car enthusiast, I love nothing more than to watch and hear F1 cars outperform every other kind of race car in every aspect. Will I ever own one? Are you kidding? Will I ever own the kinds of systems I've heard with my reviewer friends? Same answer. What bearing does recognizing and appreciating the highest level of audio art have to do with elitism? It is what it is. And I have been very fortunate to have a long term source for continuing to experience what is possible.

rw

[audio amateur]

In essence, I'm running 3 subs. There is the main sub that I use for most bass below 60 htz. My two front speakers have powered subs built in. These handle from about 30 htz up to around 160. I have them set this way because it helps me with a null in my room at around 140. And since they are set up in stereo I am not concerned with being able to locate where their bass is coming from.
Are you using any EQ on the sub GM? Having the sub set at 60, wouldn't you have exaggerated response between 30 and 60Hz, given that your mains reach 30Hz?

[GMichael]

Are you using any EQ on the sub GM? Having the sub set at 60, wouldn't you have exaggerated response between 30 and 60Hz, given that your mains reach 30Hz?

No BFD, although it's on my wish list. Each one has a parametric eq built in, but can only be used at one frequency. All also have level controls, which is normal I guess. After playing around with a Rives test CD, a Rat Shack meter and all the settings for a weekend, these were the settings that gave me the flattest response.

The main sub is set to knock off 3 db at 45 htz with a slow roll-off (or is that roll-up here) on either side of the 45.
The two built in subs knock off 4 db at 100 htz with a semi-sharp roll-off/up.

This is pretty flat from 25 to 130. I still have a drop off below 25 and about 2 db drop off between 130 and 160.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

We're still waiting for you to provide a single example of a high performance system that uses a single sub. In every example you've provided, there have been between four and five! Best of luck to you!

I do not need to find any example of a high performance system that uses a single sub, I can put together my own. How about a system built around 5 Thiel CS-3.7 mated with a single SS4 sub. That is a high performance system. My point is that I do not have to be boxed in by your examples, I can put together my own system easily.





Intelligent people make such statements using clearly identified points of reference. Perhaps Mr. Car Stereo is simply an idiot who doesn't understand the language. Recall that he is your expert in the field.

Unfortunately Mr. Car Stereo's research agrees with Mr Floyd Toole's research on the same subject. So whatever issues you have with him, that is your business, but it does not take away from the fact he is right on this issue.



Why is observing the highest level of performance "elitist"? Apparently, it must all be about ownership to you. As a car enthusiast, I love nothing more than to watch and hear F1 cars outperform every other kind of race car in every aspect. Will I ever own one? Are you kidding? Will I ever own the kinds of systems I've heard with my reviewer friends? Same answer. What bearing does recognizing and appreciating the highest level of audio art have to do with elitism? It is what it is. And I have been very fortunate to have a long term source for continuing to experience what is possible.

rw

I don't think the observing the highest level of performance is an issue. What I take issue with is alot of what YOU call high performance is not really necessary to get high performance. There is no need to separate the bass from each channel when they are going to be combined within the room anyway. In a room, there is no such thing as discrete bass. So the whole concept you put forth about why these systems have two seperate bass cabinets is flawed from the get go. The elitism comes from saying that a system with a single sub is flawed because it has only one sub. That is pure BS. Both Mr. Car Stereo and Dr. Toole's research has shown that the advantage two subs bring to the table is a smoother response over a front row of seats, and to provide headroom within the system. However, your Rives audio example has a single seat, and that is the way most "audiophiles" listen to music, is from one point in the room. If you are only going to listen from the sweet spot, two subs are not necessary, only one is.

When I say that the high end has a lot of BS science attached to it, this is one example of it. We could jump into the $4000 dollar a piece interconnects, $500 a foot speaker cable, and the various other over priced accessories that "audiophiles" think are necessary, but that is not the topic of this thread.

I have absolutely no problem with high end equipment as long as the high end is turned into real performance, and not just a bunch of over priced fluff. A system with two huge speakers, and two huge subwoofers put together in the name of keeping bass frequencies discrete is a waste of money, because once that bass enters the room, it is no longer discrete. I can understand separating the bass from the mains as an argument, but keeping the bass discrete between two channels? Nope, can't do it, it makes no acoustical sense for one seat in a room. Three seats, yes, but not one seat.

[Luvin Da Blues]

All low frequency information is sent to the subwoofer. However, unless the sound tracks have been carefully mixed for a single subwoofer channel, it's possible to have some cancellation of low frequencies if bass information in one channel is out of phase with another. (Wikipedia)


While it is true that low bass is in theory non directional, the way that bass mixes in the room is not. An example - suppose that you have a group of performers on a stage and they are being recorded by two or three omni directional microphones in front about 15 feet away, which is a common technique. Now say you have someone playing a bass drum or string bass on the extreme left of the stage. The sound of that instrument will reach the left microphone earlier than the right microphone. Considering the frequency of the instruments will be be around 30 Hz in the case of the bass drum and 40 Hz in the case of the bass, the delay in the sound reaching the left and right microphones will be as much as half a wavelength. If you were to play this with a single subwoofer, or two subs with the bass between the channels electronically summed by the crossover as it is when you use the "sub/LFE" output on your pre/pro, this acoustic delay would simply cause peaks and dips in the response of the bass from that instrument. However, if you use stereo subs and are hearing ture stereo bass, this delay between the sound reaching the left and right microphones is heard as natural acoustic mixing of the bass frequencies from those instruments in the listening room, just as it did in the original recording venue. The way the bass mixes in the room is natural, acoustic, and dynamic over time. (Soundhound)

[pixelthis]

Sorry you are still wrong. Pix, while I think your are strange as hell, you are not superhuman. You can say whatever you please (and you usually do) by science says that once the wavelengths of a signal become wider than our ears, the ability to detect phase differences becomes less acute. So unless your head is 11.3 ft wide or 22.5 feet wide you cannot detect the direction of a 100 hz or 50hz signal, especially not in a ordinary room full of reflections. That is science, not what the experts say.

If you use a sub, and it sounds like a big gob of bass coming out of one place, you obviously do not know how to setup or use a sub.

Its BS science, an assumption based on faulty logic.
A bass element low enough is omnidirectional, true, but higher freqs coming from the same direction give enough if a clue to the brain to help it figure out where most bass
is coming from.
They said that you cant pick the direction of certain "wide" freqs, and if your brain was a computer hooked to an audessey mike that might be the case.
But its not.
Your brain is a computer tho, a 486 with a busted drive.
Dont take everything you read at face value, and as the truth.
Thats why people beleive in fairy tales like global warming, etc.:1:

[E-Stat]

Unfortunately Mr. Car Stereo's research agrees with Mr Floyd Toole's research on the same subject.
Unfortunately? Everyone else here (except for you) agrees with all the written commentary! Both Mr. Car Stereo and Todd Welti at Harman (found here (http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Documents/White%20Papers/multsubs.pdf)) use identical terminology: " bass below 80 Hz". You'll also note how the wording clearly qualifies their commentary to a part of the bass range. There would be no need to say "bass below 80 hz" if there were no bass above 80 hz (as there most certainly is - for another octave or so).



The elitism comes from saying that a system with a single sub is flawed because it has only one sub.
Curious reply as I merely made an observation of fact. Feel free to disagree with the entire speaker industry with your DIY approach.


That is pure BS. Both Mr. Car Stereo and Dr. Toole's research has shown that the advantage two subs bring to the table is a smoother response over a front row of seats, and to provide headroom within the system.
Yes, there are many advantages. Maybe that's yet another reason why no one on the planet makes a high performance speaker system using a single sub. We'll leave that to Bose and computer speakers.


...because once that bass enters the room, it is no longer discrete.
Back to saying "bass" ends at 80 hz? :)

rw

[E-Stat]

Its BS science, an assumption based on faulty logic.
Like the flawed Fletcher-Munson curves, too. Let me be clear though - I don't assert that bass as low as 40 hz can be localized, but I will tell a story of my first exposure to a single sub. It was with JWC's (of The Absolute Sound) system back in '76 or '77. He had the Dayton-Wright XG-8 electrostats which were incredible, but lacked output in the low bass. Solution? He had a sub custom built using the 18" Cerwin Vega "Earthquake" driver in a down firing arrangement. The cabinet was huge and served as a table for a lamp. He crossed it around 60 hz and placed it in the right corner of the room. While the x-over slope may have been gradual, you could always hear it "poom-poom" over to the side of the room.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Unfortunately? Everyone else here (except for you) agrees with all the written commentary! Both Mr. Car Stereo and Todd Welti at Harman (found here (http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Documents/White%20Papers/multsubs.pdf)) use identical terminology: " bass below 80 Hz". You'll also note how the wording clearly qualifies their commentary to a part of the bass range. There would be no need to say "bass below 80 hz" if there were no bass above 80 hz (as there most certainly is - for another octave or so).

I am going to try and find a listening test done in Europe where the frequency was swept from 200hz down to 80hz to find the threshold of localization. If my memory serves me correctly, 80hz was the minimum frequency that nobody could detect the direction of a single sub, and at 185hz everyone BEGAN to detect its placement. This test was alluded to here under under standard low pass cut off frequency:

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=95817

And here as well

http://www.ultimateavmag.com/howto/805bass/

On the Lenard Audio website he states this:

At low frequencies the wave lengths are so long that both ears will hear sound at similar level. Therefore below 1K Hz the direction of sound is by the phase difference in the wave between our ears. We are able to detect sound direction to approx 100Hz in a free field. But in a reverberant cave or room this is limited to approx 300Hz because the bass energy is reflected from all directions.

http://www.lenardaudio.com/education/10_mics.html

Now our rooms are not free field, they are reverberant rooms. If sound detection takes place at 100hz in the free field, then the frequency for which we can detect direction in a room would be much higher when you include room reflections.





Curious reply as I merely made an observation of fact. Feel free to disagree with the entire speaker industry with your DIY approach.

The problem here is that you are trying to use 80hz as a hard frequency for detection, and studies just do not bare that out. So my approach is not so DIY is it?



Yes, there are many advantages. Maybe that's yet another reason why no one on the planet makes a high performance speaker system using a single sub.

Not all high performance speakers come with subs do they? I can remove all of the subs from my mixing system, and the SC-V would still be considered a high performance speaker. If I only use one sub for that system, it would still be considered a high performance system. Subs can be added or taken away, and any high performance speaker can still perform well. This whole BS about a high performance speaker must include two subs is just plain audiophile BS.



Back to saying "bass" ends at 80 hz? :)

rw

I never said bass ENDS at hz. I said that bass frequencies are split up into different categories. There is infrasonic bass, deep bass, and mid bass. You stated that bass goes from 20-160hz. Okay if a agreed to that concept, then I would still be right about bass being non directional according to the listening test done in Europe, and according to the comments on the Lenard Audio website.

[E-Stat]

...80hz was the minimum frequency that nobody could detect the direction of a single sub
Exactly. This is what I have been saying all along! Here is text from your first reference:

...and 80 Hz was the minimum frequency below which no one heard directionality.

And from the second:

...and 80 Hz was the absolute minimum case below which no one heard directionality. This has led most manufacturers to choose 80 Hz as the frequency for their fixed filters.

Gee, that is the fourth reference to 80 hz. Hmmm. Is there an echo in the room?


The problem here is that you are trying to use 80hz as a hard frequency for detection, and studies just do not bare that out. So my approach is not so DIY is it?
Studies? What studies? The preponderance of your references prove that 80 hz is the threshold.


Not all high performance speakers come with subs do they?
Correct. They do not need them.


I can remove all of the subs from my mixing system, and the SC-V would still be considered a high performance speaker.
You go girl!


If I only use one sub for that system, it would still be considered a high performance system. Subs can be added or taken away, and any high performance speaker can still perform well. This whole BS about a high performance speaker must include two subs is just plain audiophile BS.
Only if you think speaker designers assume you would have to augment their designs. That suggestion would piss off quite a few. :)


I never said bass ENDS at hz. I said that bass frequencies are split up into different categories. There is infrasonic bass, deep bass, and mid bass. You stated that bass goes from 20-160hz. Okay if a agreed to that concept, then I would still be right
...
You seem to struggle with math where 80 <>160. That is called an octave. Which just happens to be a third of the entire bass range!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

All low frequency information is sent to the subwoofer. However, unless the sound tracks have been carefully mixed for a single subwoofer channel, it's possible to have some cancellation of low frequencies if bass information in one channel is out of phase with another. (Wikipedia)


While it is true that low bass is in theory non directional, the way that bass mixes in the room is not. An example - suppose that you have a group of performers on a stage and they are being recorded by two or three omni directional microphones in front about 15 feet away, which is a common technique. Now say you have someone playing a bass drum or string bass on the extreme left of the stage. The sound of that instrument will reach the left microphone earlier than the right microphone. Considering the frequency of the instruments will be be around 30 Hz in the case of the bass drum and 40 Hz in the case of the bass, the delay in the sound reaching the left and right microphones will be as much as half a wavelength. If you were to play this with a single subwoofer, or two subs with the bass between the channels electronically summed by the crossover as it is when you use the "sub/LFE" output on your pre/pro, this acoustic delay would simply cause peaks and dips in the response of the bass from that instrument. However, if you use stereo subs and are hearing ture stereo bass, this delay between the sound reaching the left and right microphones is heard as natural acoustic mixing of the bass frequencies from those instruments in the listening room, just as it did in the original recording venue. The way the bass mixes in the room is natural, acoustic, and dynamic over time. (Soundhound)

As a audio engineer you take all sort of consideration when you record live. On what format will it be presented on is one of the first before you even set up a microphone. Most recordings done now days are recorded for 5.1 multichannel and are downmixed into 2 channels for CD playback. For as long as I been mixing, engineers have monitored all of their recordings on multiple systems with multiple configurations, so the chances of your scenario happening in real life are pretty slim to none. Back before 5.1 was deployed in audio only application, I often monitored my stereo recordings with two full range speakers, and a sub-sat system to make sure the recording could be played back on systems with different configurations. I used a mono speaker, sub-sat system, and a full range two speaker system. At least for the last 20 years, this is a common practice among audio engineers.

The better approach, and one that was commonly used to combat phase cancellation when things are summed is using a microphone technique that did not rely on phase to determine direction. Using an XY setup (or Blumlein pair) developed by Alan Blumlein allows you to record in stereo, and when summed there is no cancellation because the XY setup does not rely on phase to determine direction. It purely relies on intensity.

Another recording technique that I commonly use to record film scores is the Decca tree configuration. If cancellation is a worry, you carefully select a microphone with a compatible polar pattern, or you just increase the volume of the center microphone.

Whichever technique you use, you never put a recording out there without checking it on different configured systems. You never know how that recording will be played out in the field.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Exactly. This is what I have been saying all along! Here is text from your first reference:

...and 80 Hz was the minimum frequency below which no one heard directionality.

And from the second:

...and 80 Hz was the absolute minimum case below which no one heard directionality. This has led most manufacturers to choose 80 Hz as the frequency for their fixed filters.

Gee, that is the fourth reference to 80 hz. Hmmm. Is there an echo in the room?

Umm, E-stat, that is a minimum, that is not where detection begins sir. You seem to think that detection begins at the frequency and it does not. Detection actually occurs more than an octave up in listening rooms. According to Lenard Audio 100hz is the threshold of detection in the free field. Our rooms are not free fields are they? That means the detection threshold in rooms is much higher than 80hz, 100hz, and according to the European study it begins at 185hz. However in that same study nobody could localize at 100hz and only a very few at 120hz, so your constant pounding of 80hz is just not correct at all. 80hz just a safety number, not an absolute.



Studies? What studies? The preponderance of your references prove that 80 hz is the threshold.

There was a study on localization at bass frequencies conducted in Europe several years ago. My links allude to that study. According to that study 185hz is the threshold, not 80hz.



Correct. They do not need them.

Yeah, that is what I thought.



You go girl!

I do not know who you are responding to, there is no girl here fool!



Only if you think speaker designers assume you would have to augment their designs. That suggestion would piss off quite a few. :)

If I purchase the speakers, and decide they need augmentation, that is my business. If the speaker designer is pissed off that I augmented his speakers, to damn bad. The SC-V were designed without a subwoofer. Because they were going in a very large room, its bottom end was not going to get down to 25hz without introducing a lot of distortion during peaks, so I augmented them with there own dedicated subs. This gave the system plenty of headroom in the deep bass. I could have used just one tower, and my needs would have been met, but I choose to get five to make absolutely sure there would be no overloading the bass during peaks



You seem to struggle with math where 80 <>160. That is called an octave. Which just happens to be a third of the entire bass range!

rw

I am not struggling with anything, but you seem to be. And it is not a third at all. Bass does not begin at 20hz. It begins much lower than that. The cannon fire on Telarc's 1812 recording has sub harmonics that extend down to 5hz. The movie The Phantom Menace has very high levels of infrasonic bass at that same level. 20hz is the threshold of what we can hear, not where bass ends.

[Luvin Da Blues]

As a audio engineer you take all sort of consideration when you record live. On what format will it be presented on is one of the first before you even set up a microphone. Most recordings done now days are recorded for 5.1 multichannel and are downmixed into 2 channels for CD playback. For as long as I been mixing, engineers have monitored all of their recordings on multiple systems with multiple configurations, so the chances of your scenario happening in real life are pretty slim to none. Back before 5.1 was deployed in audio only application, I often monitored my stereo recordings with two full range speakers, and a sub-sat system to make sure the recording could be played back on systems with different configurations. I used a mono speaker, sub-sat system, and a full range two speaker system. At least for the last 20 years, this is a common practice among audio engineers.

I can't argue this, I haven't been in a studio since 1988. I'm dating myself but most of the tunes I listen to are at least that old. :smile5:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Like the flawed Fletcher-Munson curves, too. Let me be clear though - I don't assert that bass as low as 40 hz can be localized, but I will tell a story of my first exposure to a single sub. It was with JWC's (of The Absolute Sound) system back in '76 or '77. He had the Dayton-Wright XG-8 electrostats which were incredible, but lacked output in the low bass. Solution? He had a sub custom built using the 18" Cerwin Vega "Earthquake" driver in a down firing arrangement. The cabinet was huge and served as a table for a lamp. He crossed it around 60 hz and placed it in the right corner of the room. While the x-over slope may have been gradual, you could always hear it "poom-poom" over to the side of the room.

rw

The Fletcher Munson curve is flawed only in its exactly readings, not in the principle of reduced sensitivity at low frequencies. The Robinson-Dadson also show reduced sensitivity at low frequencies, and it pretty much agrees with the newer SO 226:2003 curve which also supports reduced sensitivity at lower frequencies.

Just saying it is flawed is pretty misleading. The principle as a whole is still quite correct even if the exact figures are not.

[E-Stat]

and according to the European study it begins at 185hz.
Are you really serious? Then they are stone deaf. Perhaps they're wearing earplugs, too.


...so your constant pounding of 80hz is just not correct at all. 80hz just a safety number, not an absolute.
May I remind you it is not I who in the four references reports 80 hz as the threshold. They include your *experts* Mr. Car Audio and Toole's study at Harman.


There was a study on localization at bass frequencies conducted in Europe several years ago. My links allude to that study. According to that study 185hz is the threshold, not 80hz.
How many times are you going to say that? I'll repeat my answer: they are stone deaf !


20hz is the threshold of what we can hear, not where bass ends.
Exactly. That's where the ten octave audible range originates.

rw

[E-Stat]

The Fletcher Munson curve is flawed only in its exactly readings...
Nothing has stopped you before from using references known to be flawed. :)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Are you really serious? Then they are stone deaf. Perhaps they're wearing earplugs, too.

Hey, that was the conclusion of the study. Since their hearing was tested before the study, your contention of deafness can easily be dismissed. The findings were peer reviewed, and deemed credible by AES standards. If they can except the findings, then why can't you?

Since you have not met not one of the testing subjects, then you have no clue of their hearing capabilities. A lot of myths have been busted in double blind testing.



May I remind you it is not I who in the four references reports 80 hz as the threshold. They include your *experts* Mr. Car Audio and Toole's study at Harman.

Not one of those sources said the threshold of detection was 80hz, they said that nobody can hear stereo below 80hz, there is a difference whether you want to recognize it or not. None of the sources except for three (Lenard Audio, the European tests, and Nousaine) have conducted listening tests. Mr. Car Stereo never said that 80hz was the threshold, he stated quite clearly stated it was above 100hz (and he lists no frequency) was the area of detection. Each source that has done the testing has stated that it is above 100hz. Todd Welti used 80hz because it is the industry standard for crossover points, not because it was the area of localization. THX uses a 80hz crossover for their standard because it helps their certified speakers and subwoofer to meet their output criteria, and it was a safety point safely out of the frequency of localization. It had nothing to do with the ability to localize anything. That was straight from Dr. Holmanson mouth. He also stated in class that he knew that the area of localization was above somewhere above 100hz, and they wanted to make sure that the subwoofer stayed unlocalizable by mandating a steep 24db per octave low pass filters in their certification.



How many times are you going to say that? I'll repeat my answer: they are stone deaf !

Since they did the test, and you didn't, I am going on their word. It is easy to dismiss something when (A) you have never participated in a listening test on localization and (B) you don't like the results. The folks that have done the testing have cited the threshold of localization is above 100hz( specifically 185hz), so there is no point in continuing to argue over something that has been established through testing. When you do your own testing and come out with results that debates this finding, I am all eyes. Until then, be a man and except the outcome. If you don't like the outcome, do your own testing and challenge it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Nothing has stopped you before from using references known to be flawed. :)

rw

While the exact figures are flawed, the concept is not. If the concept was flawed by these inaccuracies, then I understand your point. But Robinson and Dadson and the ISO 226:2003 that have now been accepted has verified that the concept is correct. Our hearing becomes insensitive as the frequency decreases.

[E-Stat]

The findings were peer reviewed, and deemed credible by AES standards. If they can except the findings, then why can't you?
what they accept is that test procedures were followed correctly. It has nothing at all to do with validating outcomes. Don't you understand that? Hmmm. Where do we start? It's findings differ from the preponderance of findings. More importantly, it doesn't pass the believability test. Do you really think that you cannot identify the location of a single subwoofer thumping over in a corner playing a 180 hz note? Seriously? This continues to get funnier by the post!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

what they accept is that test procedures were followed correctly. It has nothing at all to do with validating outcomes. Don't you understand that?

Well, since nobody has challenged the outcome (they have had plenty of time) it seems to me that they have accepted it. Can you understand that!


Hmmm. Where do we start? It's findings differ from the preponderance of findings.

What findings? Can you site them? It doesn't differ from Lenard Audio's testing (over 100hz in an open field). As far as I can read everyone has pointed to over 100hz. If the threshold of detection was 80hz, then most every sub connected to a receiver or most pre-pro would have subwoofers that localized like crazy. Do you find that is the case? Nope. The filters are steep, but they are not brickwall.


More importantly, it doesn't pass the believability test.

Maybe not for you, but apparently the AES community doesn't have a problem with it, nobody has challenged it. According to the white paper, the test was conducted in the year 2000 which has given anyone close to 10 years to challenge the findings. Nobody has that I can recollect, and if you have a study that does, well, present it.
.


Do you really think that you cannot identify the location of a single subwoofer thumping over in a corner playing a 180 hz note? Seriously?

Not all subwoofers thump do they? If it is thumping, it is likely to have transients that are higher in frequency than 180hz. Aside from that, you seem to be skipping some important details. There are dense reflections within a room at low frequencies. Those reflections cloud our ability to detect direction. That is why first order reflections must be controlled, it is why we deploy bass traps, and do acoustical correction to our rooms.


This continues to get funnier by the post!

rw

Yes you do....

[E-Stat]

Well, since nobody has challenged the outcome (they have had plenty of time) it seems to me that they have accepted it. Can you understand that!
You win the farce! This whole diatribe certainly underscores the nature of most recordings today.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You win the farce! This whole diatribe certainly underscores the nature of most recordings today.

rw

Or how flawed some of our hearing is.

[MrAcoustat]

Sorry, but you disagreeing with me is a litmus test of weather or not I am CORRECT.
Thanks.
YOU CAN GO BY WHAT THE "EXPERTS" SAY, or what your ears say.
And everytime I use a sub its like theres a big gob of bass coming outta one place.
With direct mode I CAN TELL which speaker the bass is coming out of.
Most of the time, anyway.:1:

I agree 100% subs don't make music, they make NOISE.

[pixelthis]

I agree 100% subs don't make music, they make NOISE.

Thank you.
A sub is nice for HT, especially a precise one like a Velodyne.
But with the bass the B&W 602s2 puts out I don't need it for music, only "muddies"
the waters.:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I agree 100% subs don't make music, they make NOISE.

So let me get this straight...a 60hz tone is just noise?. Do you realize that 42hz is the lowest note on a bass guitar...is that noise or a note?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thank you.
A sub is nice for HT, especially a precise one like a Velodyne.
But with the bass the B&W 602s2 puts out I don't need it for music, only "muddies"
the waters.:1:

Maybe you should get a better sub....just sayin.

[GMichael]

Maybe you should get a better sub....just sayin.
Or calibrate it with a nice EQ. The BFD does a fine job. A nice sub that has been properly calibrated adds to the listening enjoyment. On the other hand, a boomy sub that only hits one note is just noise. How you feel about them is very much up to what you have been exposed to.
When listening to music, if I turn my sub on, you can hardly tell that it was just added. But after a few deep notes have been hit, you can feel that it’s on.

[Ajani]

Or calibrate it with a nice EQ. The BFD does a fine job. A nice sub that has been properly calibrated adds to the listening enjoyment. On the other hand, a boomy sub that only hits one note is just noise. How you feel about them is very much up to what you have been exposed to.
When listening to music, if I turn my sub on, you can hardly tell that it was just added. But after a few deep notes have been hit, you can feel that it’s on.

I've yet to hear a good sub implementation... The ones I've experienced were boomy, one note jokes... But the way you describe your sub setup sounds like how I'd want a sub to be...

[GMichael]

I've yet to hear a good sub implementation... The ones I've experienced were boomy, one note jokes... But the way you describe your sub setup sounds like how I'd want a sub to be...
Most subs are not set up right. There are the one note wonders as mentioned above. Then even when someone has a nice sub, they tend to keep turning it up too high. It's easy to become a bass-head with a powerful sub. But to me, a sub should be felt, not heard.

[pixelthis]

Maybe you should get a better sub....just sayin.

WHY?
i have a five hundred dollar VELO, its fine for HT, which is all I USE A sub FOR.
The most musical sub I have ever had was a B&W asw . BUT MOSTLY I have
never used a sub much for music, prefer two full range speakers for that.
:1:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

WHY?
i have a five hundred dollar VELO, its fine for HT, which is all I USE A sub FOR.
The most musical sub I have ever had was a B&W asw . BUT MOSTLY I have
never used a sub much for music, prefer two full range speakers for that.
:1:

The problem with this response is that you don't have full range speakers. A 48hz bottom limit with no tolerance is not considered full range when the lowest note on a bass guitar is 42hz, and there are bass drums and synthesizer notes that extend below that. A full range speaker is flat to at least 40hz, and an extended range speaker is flat to 20hz. The lowest note on the piano is 27hz, which is well below what your speakers can reproduce. You really need a good sub to fill out the bottom octaves of the musical scale, especially with a 48hz roll off point of your mains.

[JoeE SP9]

Most subs are not set up right. There are the one note wonders as mentioned above. Then even when someone has a nice sub, they tend to keep turning it up too high. It's easy to become a bass-head with a powerful sub. But to me, a sub should be felt, not heard.

I agree with you. If you can hear that a sub is on and working it's probably turned up too high. Audyssey a BFD or something equivalent does wonders in setting up and calibrating a sub. Ideally you should hear something missing when you turn the sub off.

I have two 7 1/2 foot tall 12" diameter PVC (sewer pipe) tubes for my TL subs. First time guests almost always ask what they are. When told they are sub woofers they usually ask why aren't they on. Then, while playing some music and in the middle of a selection I turn them off. Everyone without exception notices the difference.

BTW: Several years ago when I first built them I did a lot of experimenting with different crossover points. At around 100Hz they stopped being directional to me. I used 80Hz to make sure they would never be directional.

A BFD is at the top of my gadgets to have list. Until then I'm using REW and my trusty Rat Shack SPL meter to dial in my subs.

[audio amateur]

A BFD is at the top of my gadgets to have list. Until then I'm using REW and my trusty Rat Shack SPL meter to dial in my subs.
By doing that you're not correcting your subs' response are you?

[GMichael]

I agree with you. If you can hear that a sub is on and working it's probably turned up too high. Audyssey a BFD or something equivalent does wonders in setting up and calibrating a sub. Ideally you should hear something missing when you turn the sub off.
I agree to agree.


I have two 7 1/2 foot tall 12" diameter PVC (sewer pipe) tubes for my TL subs. First time guests almost always ask what they are. When told they are sub woofers they usually ask why aren't they on. Then, while playing some music and in the middle of a selection I turn them off. Everyone without exception notices the difference.
I’d love to see those! Got any pics to share?



A BFD is at the top of my gadgets to have list. Until then I'm using REW and my trusty Rat Shack SPL meter to dial in my subs.

What does the REW do? I remember people talking about them but don’t recall their function. Is that just test tones of some kind?

[audio amateur]

REW is a free software which allows you to model the FR of your subwoofer, using a mic and your computer's sound card (if i'm not mistaken).

[GMichael]

REW is a free software which allows you to model the FR of your subwoofer, using a mic and your computer's sound card (if i'm not mistaken).

Oh... Room Eq Wizard. Duh....

Thanks. My mind is still in slow motion today.

I don't have a laptop (ironic that I buy & sell laptop parts) so I never used it. I've read that it's a great tool to use with the BFD to make your response perfect, instead of just pretty good.

[audio amateur]

Oh... Room Eq Wizard. Duh....

Thanks. My mind is still in slow motion today.

I don't have a laptop (ironic that I buy & sell laptop parts) so I never used it. I've read that it's a great tool to use with the BFD to make your response perfect, instead of just pretty good.
No problem. I need to get me one of those BFD.... first. Have you sorted your Maelstrom yet?
I just finished a DIY sub a couple weeks ago, I need to get cracking on a thread + pics...

[GMichael]

No problem. I need to get me one of those BFD.... first. Have you sorted your Maelstrom yet?
I just finished a DIY sub a couple weeks ago, I need to get cracking on a thread + pics...
I took readings and then made the adjustments that I thought would work. Then my Rat Shack meter sh.t the bed, so I don't know for sure how well I did. It sure seems to work great though.

Finished a sub?! Dude, you are supposed to start the thread when you start the DIY.
So spill it. What are you using for a driver, amp etc...?

[audio amateur]

I took readings and then made the adjustments that I thought would work. Then my Rat Shack meter sh.t the bed, so I don't know for sure how well I did. It sure seems to work great though.
Shame, fortunately they arent expensive. Take it apart maybe?


Finished a sub?! Dude, you are supposed to start the thread when you start the DIY.
So spill it. What are you using for a driver, amp etc...?
I'll just say that it's not quite as obscene as yours :D

I'll try starting the thread this w-e

[GMichael]

Shame, fortunately they arent expensive. Take it apart maybe?

Maybe. At this point, I'm still mad at it though.


I'll just say that it's not quite as obscene as yours :D

Mine is not obscene. Take a look at a few of the other DIY threads at AVS or HT Shack. One guy built a sub with 4 - 21" drivers and 8 - 21" passive radiators. I think he used 4 - EP4000's to drive them. (Or was it the Crowns?) I don't remember. But that's obscene. His house must breath in and out when he's got those on.


I'll try starting the thread this w-e

Looking forward to it.:thumbsup:

[JoeE SP9]

By doing that you're not correcting your subs' response are you?

Only as much as placement can do. I am using the Pass supplied active eq to flatten the extreme low end. A BFD is next in line for gadgets to buy. I'm looking forward to hearing what the BFD can do.

[pixelthis]

The problem with this response is that you don't have full range speakers. A 48hz bottom limit with no tolerance is not considered full range when the lowest note on a bass guitar is 42hz, and there are bass drums and synthesizer notes that extend below that. A full range speaker is flat to at least 40hz, and an extended range speaker is flat to 20hz. The lowest note on the piano is 27hz, which is well below what your speakers can reproduce. You really need a good sub to fill out the bottom octaves of the musical scale, especially with a 48hz roll off point of your mains.

Too many compromises, the 48 hz or so my speakers go to is fine until I can get new ones.
Besides, I LIKE MY MUSIC loud, which works out better without a sub.
When they started making sub-sat systems it was generally agreed that no matter how precise you get everything lined up, a classic two speaker system is superior to a
sub-sat system, even if the bottom end is not as low.:1:

[GMichael]

Too many compromises, the 48 hz or so my speakers go to is fine until I can get new ones.
Besides, I LIKE MY MUSIC loud, which works out better without a sub.
When they started making sub-sat systems it was generally agreed that no matter how precise you get everything lined up, a classic two speaker system is superior to a
sub-sat system, even if the bottom end is not as low.:1:
Turn your sub down and try again.:lol:

[pixelthis]

Turn your sub down and try again.:lol:

I did, and was surprized at how good the sound was.
MY SUB IS NICELY SET UP(Audyssey) but ABing between direct (no sub) and stereo, and
I just prefer the sound without a floorshaker. In other words, only thing I want a lot of
"bottom" end on is movies and women.:1:

[GMichael]

I did, and was surprized at how good the sound was.
MY SUB IS NICELY SET UP(Audyssey) but ABing between direct (no sub) and stereo, and
I just prefer the sound without a floorshaker. In other words, only thing I want a lot of
"bottom" end on is movies and women.:1:

We all enjoy what we enjoy.

Not for nuttin', but that pic isn't of her bottom end.:frown2: