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

[gonefishin]

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

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

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


gotta go>>>>>see ya later


dan

[theaudiohobby]

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

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

[Florian]

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

[Florian]

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

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


gotta go>>>>>see ya later


dan

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

[RGA]

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



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

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

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

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

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

[Florian]

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

-Flo

[Pat D]

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

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

[Pat D]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Resident Loser]

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

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

Addressing other points of this thread:

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...lacementP1.php

Also this excerpt from PSB audio:

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

It's full text is at:

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

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

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

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

[theaudiohobby]

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

Addressing other points of this thread:

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

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

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

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

[Resident Loser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[theaudiohobby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Florian]

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

[Resident Loser]

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

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

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

[theaudiohobby]

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

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

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

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

Orchestra seating arrangements

[RGA]

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

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

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

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

[RGA]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[theaudiohobby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Quad ESL is a line source, not a point source, so stacking them does not cause problems that are opined by Messrs. Beranek et al. And that is why it is such popular tweak for those who have the space to accomodate the much larger resultant speaker.

[Resident Loser]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.psbspeakers.com/audioTopi..._num=1&start=0

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

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

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

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

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

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

[theaudiohobby]

Resident Loser,

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

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

[Resident Loser]

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

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

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



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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

[Resident Loser]

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

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

[theaudiohobby]

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

Thank you Sir T, for the clarification.

[theaudiohobby]

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

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

My actual quote was

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

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