Towers vs Bookshelf/subs

[3db]

This is actually a point worth discussing. For most pop, rock, and some jazz recordings there never was a live performance to compare to. All bets are off about "accuracy" for movies. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge about how sound mixing and foley work is done for movies knows "accuracy" is a meaningless concept. Even for live acoustic music, unless the music was played in a very large venue you still get a different sound by simply sitting in different places in the venue. When listening to live acoustic jazz in night clubs I've been known to force my wife to change tables, because I didn't like the sound at the original one. Fortunately for me she's a musician, so she doesn't think I'm daft. Even with supposedly purist recordings, something as minor as mic placement can affect the spectral balance, and recording engineers know that. Unless you made the recording, unless you know the original venue, "accuracy" is just an audiophile dream. My point is that preference is not a dirty word.

That said, I still am a big proponent of going for as flat a frequency response curve as one can achieve at one's listening seat. Otherwise you are coloring every recording. If that's your preference, whatever, it's your system.

You made some good points Irv. Whether the recording is accurate or not is mostly a moot point as we have no control over the recording process nor were we present at that particular recording. Even if we were there during the recording, comparing accuracy of the recording to the event would be lost with time anyway. To me an accurate system is one that adds no coloration to the recording. The recording becomes the benchmark to our systems whether accurate or not.

 

[fmw]

I've always been curious why audio reviewers use amplified music as a test subject. They should only use acoustic music. At least there is a reference for that.

 

[TLS Guy]

What subwoofers exactly have you heard?

Have you experienced any of the true-to-life-bass subs from Funk, Seaton, JTR, Rythmik, PSA, SVS, etc?

I bet five Funk high-efficiency monitors atop five Funk 18.0 unpowered subs would sound quite true-to-life. I might just do that when I get my new house.

Mainly B & W and Velodyne before they went Internet only. I heard subs at the Audioholics get together, especially HSU and SVS I don't remember the others. Lots of bottom end, but not accurate. It does take an integrated approach to really reproduce a piano and be fooled there is a real one right in front of you. I have not heard any system realistically produce the bottom end of the pipe organ like this rig does. I have not heard anything else that gets even close to how it actually sounds.

However, good speakers are very much about transitions. Lots of bass is easy, and well integrated and highly controlled bass is very difficult. I believe this can only be achieved with a fully integrated design from the ground up.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Mainly B & W and Velodyne before they went Internet only.

B&W and Velodyne are not internet only. In fact, Velodyne's DD Plus line is no longer sold over the internet, only through authorized dealers. I was never aware that B&W in the USA ever allowed their products to be sold on the internet with a warranty.

Regarding your comments about subwoofer sound, I use a sub, and I've made my own piano recordings in my own house, and I can tell you that it is possible to accurately reproduce a piano with a sub.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I've always been curious why audio reviewers use amplified music as a test subject. They should only use acoustic music. At least there is a reference for that.

There is a reference if you were the recording engineer, as with John Atkinson of Stereophile, but then he goes off and talks about cables having different sound and he loses my trust. For most people there really isn't a reference.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

This is actually a point worth discussing. For most pop, rock, and some jazz recordings there never was a live performance to compare to. All bets are off about "accuracy" for movies. Anyone who has the slightest knowledge about how sound mixing and foley work is done for movies knows "accuracy" is a meaningless concept. Even for live acoustic music, unless the music was played in a very large venue you still get a different sound by simply sitting in different places in the venue. When listening to live acoustic jazz in night clubs I've been known to force my wife to change tables, because I didn't like the sound at the original one. Fortunately for me she's a musician, so she doesn't think I'm daft. Even with supposedly purist recordings, something as minor as mic placement can affect the spectral balance, and recording engineers know that. Unless you made the recording, unless you know the original venue, "accuracy" is just an audiophile dream. My point is that preference is not a dirty word.

That said, I still am a big proponent of going for as flat a frequency response curve as one can achieve at one's listening seat. Otherwise you are coloring every recording. If that's your preference, whatever, it's your system.

I agree. Yet some people would like everyone to believe that their own preference is "accurate" and everything else is "crap".

 

[lsiberian]

I've always been curious why audio reviewers use amplified music as a test subject. They should only use acoustic music. At least there is a reference for that.

If that's what you listen too wouldn't it make sense to evaluate speakers based on that. I love science, but at some point you gotta go with some personal preference too. Even in perceptual research the preferred speakers in ABX tests varies between people.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

If that's what you listen too wouldn't it make sense to evaluate speakers based on that. I love science, but at some point you gotta go with some personal preference too. Even in perceptual research the preferred speakers in ABX tests varies between people.

IOW, in any DB tests, there will never be a case where 100% of all subjects prefer ONLY ONE speaker or ONLY ONE Room Correction or ONLY ONE of anything.

We can never agree on EVERYTHING, can we?

Same with this topic. Some believe that sub + sat are actually better than any full-range towers (w/o subs). And some disagree.

 

[NewHTbuyer]

I like threads like this when different opinions can be expressed and respected, especially backed up with technical knowledge, as opposed to some that end up in shouting matches. Ultimately, the system has to not only satisfy the users preference, but the real world (room setup, budget, WAF) circumstances. I debated a set of SVS Ultra towers ($2,000) vs. Ultra bookshelves ($1,000) and then spending the extra thousand or so on 1 or 2 subs. In a dedicated HT room, I would have gone sub/sats. Since my setup is underneath the master bedroom and I listen or watch TV at night when the wife is asleep, the subs would have been detrimental.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Gotta keep the wife happy.

But in terms of man-caves, gotta go big on subs.

When I play music w/ just the Salon2 in 2.0, which has great bass, it just doesn't have enough bass for my taste. But adding subs in PD 2.2, I get that extra punch. It's probably just that bass-boost effect around 25Hz, which many sub EQ can produce.

One time I auditioned the RBH T2 at a dealer's house. The RBH sub amp has the typical 3dB boost @ 25Hz. Some sub amps even have a 6dB 25Hz bass-boost. The dealer compared the bass-boost to no-boost. It was very apparent. And being a bass-head that I am, of course, I preferred the bass-boost a lot more.

I assume not everyone likes the 25Hz bass-boost.

Wait, okay, I just thought of something. What happens if I use Stereo 2.0 mode and just do manual EQ to boost ONLY the 25Hz frequency by 3dB-6dB and keep everything else flat? Would that be the same as the sub amp EQ 3dB 25Hz bass-boost?

 

[Irvrobinson]

When I play music w/ just the Salon2 in 2.0, which has great bass, it just doesn't have enough bass for my taste. But adding subs in PD 2.2, I get that extra punch. It's probably just that bass-boost effect around 25Hz, which many sub EQ can produce.

Bass response from speakers like the Salon2 is very room and placement dependent. I've heard the Salon2 have thunderous bass in demos, but in my room 2.0 bass has always been problematic. My old Legacy Focus, which had bipolar woofers, were much easier to get decent perceived bass from in the same room, even though the Salon2 has been measured to go much deeper. (The Salon2 is -6db at 17Hz, the original Focus is -6db at about 28Hz. Looking at the two speakers you would think the performances would be reversed, but the Focus was about 9db more sensitive.) It might be that you are suffering from some of the same room problems with your Salon2s that I am, and the subs are effectively filling in suck-outs from room modes.

I think this thread is interesting because the real advantage from sub-sat architecture, in my experience, is not so much from saving money by going from towers to stand-mounted monitors, it is the disaggregation of the speakers by spectrum segment allowing optimization and scaling of the sources for the bottom three or four octaves separately from the higher six or seven octaves. Satellites, tower or stand-mounted, allow you to place the sources of the top six or seven octaves in positions best for smoothness and imaging, and the subs let you place them, or even replicate them as necessary, for smoothest and most powerful deep bass response. In some rooms you can get good results by having the entire spectrum produced by only two sources, and therefore in two positions, but for many of us that isn't the case. I think once you get hooked on flexibility you get from the disaggregation subs allow it becomes difficult to go back.

 

[fmw]

If that's what you listen too wouldn't it make sense to evaluate speakers based on that. I love science, but at some point you gotta go with some personal preference too. Even in perceptual research the preferred speakers in ABX tests varies between people.

Not for me. For me the goal is accuracy. If the the system is accurate, it will reproduce any kind of music accurately. I understand that accuracy isn't always the goal but it should be for a review, not necessarily for a purchase. For me, for a reviewer to say that this speaker is good for this kind of music but not for some other kind just tells me the speaker isn't accurate and I shouldn't buy it. The person who listens to music that is compatible with the speaker might want to buy it.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Just ran Audyssey today on AVP-A1 + KEF 201/2. I liked FLAT better. I guess I don't like HF roll-off like I am supposed to.

Audyssey Flat (no HF roll off):

Audyssey (HF roll off):

 

[JerryLove]

Not for me. For me the goal is accuracy. If the the system is accurate, it will reproduce any kind of music accurately. I understand that accuracy isn't always the goal but it should be for a review, not necessarily for a purchase. For me, for a reviewer to say that this speaker is good for this kind of music but not for some other kind just tells me the speaker isn't accurate and I shouldn't buy it. The person who listens to music that is compatible with the speaker might want to buy it.

Except that there is no such thing.

Let's imagine that for some umpteen-million dollars you manage to find a speaker with perfect phase, nearly zero impulse time, and completely flat in all directions out to 90-degrees.

Well, you've still got comb problems at the crossover. So I guess you didn't want to start with complete vertical dispersion (given a vertical arrangement). Any crossover design will create peaks and lows; the trick has been traditionally to get those pointed away from the listener.

So I guess that's the first "which is perfect" question. Do you want an omnipolar radiator (in which case you are introducing extra room reflections to the original material), or mono-polar? I guess which one would be "more accurate" would depend on the thing beind reproduced. A triangle is mostly omni-polar (except if there's filtering, and for the baffle of the person holding it), but a voice is decidedly directional. So pick which one you want to be wrong.

Stereo or mono bass? Stereo was realistic, but you'll have odd cancellations unless the speakers are the exact same distance as the microphones; and even in mono you'll have cancellation where the speaker separation is 1/2 wavelength.

A bigger problem is that you won't find my hypothetical speaker in existence. So do you prefer the speaker that's -6db @45 degrees @3000Hz, or the one that's -12db @45 degrees @16000Hz? How much impulse delay are you willing to accept for -3db?

Sadly: It's all about compromise. If all music were a single source (we only wanted to reproduce a tenor sax for example), perfection might be doable. But since the sources don't radiate the same, and aren't themselves speakers, it's not gonna happen.

I have some *very* flat speakers at the house.

 

[JerryLove]

I think it's a mistake to worry too much about the form (bookshelf vs tower), and I apologize if this was already covered (I read a few pages).

Some simple truths (well : my claims regarding truth anyway).
1) You are going to do better with subwoofers than with running your speakers full range. Simple room interaction problems are gonna hurt full-range mains, even if you could manage to get the same kinds of performance.
2) Given that: There's little-to-no advantage to response well below the crossover point to the subs. It's wasted (this would point to most "bookshelves").
3) That said: 3-way speakers don't usually cross to the woofer @80Hz with good reason... because HF and midrange performance can be improved with higher crossover points. 3-way designs are (usually) towers; and many of the 2-way towers take advantage of the extra space for porting (or better transmission lines) allowing far smaller "LF" drivers and higher crossovers to the tweeter than the comparable bookshelf.

I run towers (Songtowers, Philharmonic2s, N801s, etc) in most rooms partially because they were the best speakers I found and partially because otherwise I would need stands.

 

[cpp]

I've always been curious why audio reviewers use amplified music as a test subject. They should only use acoustic music. At least there is a reference for that.

I thought most reviewers used a lot of classical music which seems to covers broad range of lows and highs.

 

[ImcLoud]

I haven't heard many towers that produce the bass of a decent sub... A good fast sealed sub just sounds effortless in making bass that you can feel, while even the highest end of towers just don't seem to move me in the bass department. When I was picking between jade 5s and jade 7s I tried the 7s with no subs then the 5s I preferred the mids of the 5s (seemed simpler) but the lows of the 7s, but when I added a sub to the 5s it was the best of both wolrds {better than the best, because the 7s lows couldn't compare to the bass of a 10" powered sub..)

I can tell you from experience, I cross my evo2 40s to the subs at 80hz, when I had the bookshelfs in that system I crossed at 150 for the best sound... I think it just depends on the listener and the equipment/room...

One of the best sounding 2.2 systems I have ever heard {I helped put it together} was a pair of Ascend Sierra towers with an HSU ULS15 Dual drive package (the sierras were the dark cherry and the uls15s were rosenut, they actually looked really good together), powered by a pair of emotiva XPA1s and an XSP1 processor... They spent just under $7000 and it is in a large room. I have to say I have never heard anything as impressive and I have been in a lot of rooms with a lot of systems...

 

[Irvrobinson]

Given that: There's little-to-no advantage to response well below the crossover point to the subs. It's wasted (this would point to most "bookshelves").

This is not a simple truth, Jerry. If the main speakers have limited low-frequency output it is probably best to use a high-pass filter on them, but if the mains have considerable bass capabilities they can provide additional bass sources, which will probably smooth in-room bass response. Running the mains full-range and using a DSP with the sub to limit it to fill in response dips is also a viable strategy, and then the bass capabilities of the mains is not wasted. It is a more complicated to implement strategy for sure, but having experimented with various sub integration strategies it was the one that eventually provided the smoothest and more extended bass response at my listening position.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Well, if you use bookshelf speakers + subs and use Audyssey DEQ, you better set the speaker size to SMALL.

Last night I was using Flat DEQ w/ KEF 201/2 for movies, but I left the speaker size to Large (Audyssey set this).

During that opening scene w/ Bane in the plane, the bass was so tremendous that one of the speaker grilles (Right Surround speaker) fell out!

I probably didn't have it on tight the last time I removed the grille, but still! Some bass from the surround speaker.

I thought surround speakers weren't suppose to have all that bass?

So for 5.1, I set speaker to small. For 2.1 music, I set speaker to Large.

 

[Pyrrho]

Well, if you use bookshelf speakers + subs and use Audyssey DEQ, you better set the speaker size to SMALL.

Last night I was using Flat DEQ w/ KEF 201/2 for movies, but I left the speaker size to Large (Audyssey set this).

During that opening scene w/ Bane in the plane, the bass was so tremendous that one of the speaker grilles (Right Surround speaker) fell out!

I probably didn't have it on tight the last time I removed the grille, but still! Some bass from the surround speaker.

I thought surround speakers weren't suppose to have all that bass?

So for 5.1, I set speaker to small. For 2.1 music, I set speaker to Large.

It is possible that the vibrations that caused the grill to fall off were caused by other speakers (like your subwoofers) vibrating things in the room.