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

[Florian]

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

[GMichael]

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

[Pat D]

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

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

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

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

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

[Florian]

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

[gonefishin]

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

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

dan

[gonefishin]

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

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



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


dan

[Florian]

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

[Pat D]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

dan

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

[Pat D]

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

[Pat D]

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



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


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

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

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

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

[gonefishin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

dan

[RGA]

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


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

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

[RGA]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[theaudiohobby]

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

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

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

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

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

[Florian]

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

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

dan

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

-Flo

[kexodusc]

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

-Flo

Hey Flo...

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

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

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

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

[Florian]

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

Cheers

Flo

[kexodusc]

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

Cheers

Flo

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

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

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

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

[theaudiohobby]

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

-Flo

To Florian the Apogee lover,

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

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

[Florian]

Well i dont need a subwoofer

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

[theaudiohobby]

Well i dont need a subwoofer

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

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

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

[Florian]

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

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

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