I just read the "
Ten Nonsense Myths About Subwoofers and Bass Busted!" article and for the life of me, I cannot find the comments section at the bottom. Is the author afraid to actually defend his "truths" in actual discussion or debate? Or has Audioholics turned into a one-sided conversation like Stereophile who dare not discuss their diatribes in public for fear of being ripped a thousand new ones by people that actually know of which they speak instead of a one-sided credo of horse manure?
For instance, the argument that "reflections" are a "good thing" negates the fact that any true recording made in a live space ("dead" direct input and synthesized recordings need not apply) ALREADY has the inherent "reflections" of the room in which it was recorded in contained within the recording itself, which will be reproduced from said source of sound when played back along with the original signal. Adding your own personal room reflections serves no purpose but to blur your space with the recorded space. Now I own dipole ribbons and while the extra back reflection does give the sound a certain "presence" in space, especially for closely miked vocals which have no real reflections of their own, it also has the negative effect of obscuring the original space in which it was recorded. So sorry, but a subwoofer would be far better off with no reflections whose only real benefit is to reinforce the bass. Unfortunately, that same reflection nature is what causes room modes for bass and screws the response to hell for ALL listeners as no frequency will be perfectly represented in one location without correction as is the nature of standing waves. In short, the second point made is, as the author likes to use the phrase, "UTTER NONSENSE."
The author then repeats the error in the very next point (#3) claiming that a near-field sub is less realistic (the hell it is) placed next to you despite better response at that location. That once again assumes synthesizer recordings, which if you were to objectively evaluate should NOT have any reflections upon playback as none are presented in their artificial constructs. If they contain added reverb, that will be represented by the driver. Ultimately, do you want to hear YOUR ROOM or the room the recording was made in?
Adding a second subwoofer MAY help with room modes, but it could just as readily make them worse if it multiplies the error by poor placement. I dare say a person who does not know what he's doing would be more likely to not screw up putting a sub in the corner than they would trying to make two subs perform better together without knowing what they're doing. You have to not only find a good location that breaks up existing room modes, but you need to delay the second sub so that the sound arrives at the MLP at the same time as the other sub. Audyssey isn't going to do this for you as it EQs subs separately when in reality, they need to be adjusted together. All this needs to be done with the goal of putting the subwoofer somewhere where it doesn't look like absolute crap in terms of position (no one really wants to trip over a sub in the dark, after all) or have to use it as a foot rest because it works well right in front of your reclining chair.
Six makes an assumption about stereo pairs and ignores time coherence altogether, probably because the author firmly believes that multiple reflected bass sound is preferable to direct anyway so who cares about time aligned response? It seems several loudspeaker makers including Thiel do care as they have made time and phase aligned systems for a long time. And while DIRAC can align by time for ONE location, the ONLY location that can time align for every seat in the room is at the speaker plane itself, not some subwoofer in the corner of the room to maximize room efficiency (because a good loud standing wave sounds fantastic, after all...until it dips at a higher or lower frequency). I mean if ONE seat is your only goal for sound, it's not that hard to do. If you want multiple rows of seating to all sound good, you'd be better off working on the room modes directly, but that brings us back to point #2 again, which suggests reflections are your friend and they most certainly are not, especially at subwoofer frequencies. You'd be far better off with a dead room. You'd need more output, but that's easily achieved. Eliminating all room modes for all listeners in a larger home theater is not.
Point #7 is so generic it's pointless. How much better? Without any specs, it's meaningless.
Point/Myth #8 exists in the first place due a plethora of cheap designs in the 1990s. Yes, a well done ported design can do nearly as well as a sealed design, but how many were "well done" that the myth began in the first place? Subwoofers have come a long way since the 1990s for the most part (which is not to say they were all crap; I'm getting quite good response from one of the more expensive Definitive Tech 15" subs from the mid-1990s with a bit of Audyssey correction. They tended to use larger drivers more often than the "hip" use of tiny subwoofers with giant coils started by Bob Carver and Sunfire, no less. Hey, I like Bob. I have his "Amazing" speakers in my living room right now (they just turned 24 years old and work great still with a bit of tension adjustment and a replacement woofer cone), but while his Sunfire subs worked well for producing prodigious bass out of a small package, they sounded like boomy crap every time I auditioned one. Now newer designs are much improved, but you can only squeeze so much water from a lime as opposed to a grapefruit without compromising the lime's integrity. If I had a choice for a subwoofer with an unlimited budget right now, I'd go with the Mariana 24SC 24" subwoofer. It's got a 4000 Watt amp and an 80 pound motor on it. I have no doubts that it could do an utterly fantastic job with 16Hz organ notes in terms of pressurizing the room and has strong output down to 7Hz in most rooms.
Point #9 is missing what really matters. Larger woofers CAN be slower to respond (simple physics), but that can be overcome with an appropriate motor and power. Instead, it's suggested that what's better than "speed" is LOUDER room shaking bass ("louder and deeper"). How about a properly designed subwoofer that has enough power with a large enough coil to move the larger woofer just as "quickly" as a smaller subwoofer? Yes, that costs more money. But the article wasn't about "The cheapest way to loud bass" was it?
Point #10 debunks itself. I postulates a crazy notion about integration and time alignment (who ever made those claims/myths? I've never heard them), but correctly asserts the REAL reason to use pre-amp level outputs which is typically lower noise. The subwoofer amplifier is not going to use any power whatsoever from the receiver using speaker level outputs. In fact, above a certain level, it's just burning off heat trying to get the low level signal to amplify out of that signal. Thus, a low level connection is almost certainly better than a high level connection and I can't recall ANYONE *EVER* suggesting otherwise...until this article, at least.
I wrote the article and I'll respond to each point then, but I agree with Gene, you don't seem to undestand psychoacoustics or sound reproduction. At heart of your misunderstanding is knowing how we perceive sound in a room and what reverb actually is. If you believe that 2-channel can reproduce accurately reverb, then you don't know what reverb is. It's not just a sound effect. Gene told you to read a book because that book covers, over a lot of pages, all the misunderstandings you have. You really want us to provide the identical information here? You say you are insulated? Shouldn't we be just as insulted? You dispute my claims without proof to the contrary. I at least made reference to why I believe this stuff and it is supported by the best current research.
Let's put these two points together:
"
For instance, the argument that "reflections" are a "good thing" negates the fact that any true recording made in a live space ("dead" direct input and synthesized recordings need not apply) ALREADY has the inherent "reflections" of the room in which it was recorded in contained within the recording itself, which will be reproduced from said source of sound when played back along with the original signal. Adding your own personal room reflections serves no purpose but to blur your space with the recorded space. Now I own dipole ribbons and while the extra back reflection does give the sound a certain "presence" in space, especially for closely miked vocals which have no real reflections of their own, it also has the negative effect of obscuring the original space in which it was recorded. So sorry, but a subwoofer would be far better off with no reflections whose only real benefit is to reinforce the bass. Unfortunately, that same reflection nature is what causes room modes for bass and screws the response to hell for ALL listeners as no frequency will be perfectly represented in one location without correction as is the nature of standing waves. In short, the second point made is, as the author likes to use the phrase, "UTTER NONSENSE."
The author then repeats the error in the very next point (#3) claiming that a near-field sub is less realistic (the hell it is) placed next to you despite better response at that location. That once again assumes synthesizer recordings, which if you were to objectively evaluate should NOT have any reflections upon playback as none are presented in their artificial constructs. If they contain added reverb, that will be represented by the driver. Ultimately, do you want to hear YOUR ROOM or the room the recording was made in?"
Ok so the gist of your claim is that spatial information in a recording is able to be reproduced by just 2 speakers without the assistance of reflections in the room, correct? That the room doesn't need to add to this? That is incorrect. The reverberant field is defined as the point at which the reflections swamp the direct sound. We perceive the sound of instruments in a room based on things like the ratio of direct to reflected sound, with the reflected sound happening in 3 dimensions. 2-speakers in a reflection-free room cannot reproduce those reflections and as such the recording would simply reproduce the sound of the reflection, not the actual reflections. Our brain doesn't perceive that accurately as giving size and space to either the instruments or the room they are in. A 2-channel system gives an illusion of that by relying on reflections in the room. These reflections create a kind of reverberant field in the room. Even small rooms have a reverberant field (though there is no point in a small room where the reverberant field dominates except for in the bass). At all points in time at which we can detect tone the reverberant field dominates in low frequencies and this largely is how we perceive a room's spaciousness. As such, removing the reflections or creating a scenario where, at low frequencies, a direct field dominates (such as sitting on top of a subwoofer) would negatively impact the perception of space for either a surround system or a 2-channel system.
This also addresses it to a point:
and
Floyd Toole, a leading expert in the field of sound reproduction, explains how to design the best possible listening experience for recording control rooms and home entertainment systems. This comprehensive work considers the whole sound reproduction chain from multi channel audio configurations...
books.google.com
Numerous places in Floyd's book is this discussed. He even addresses the importance of low frequencies in spaciousness (but dismisses the importance of stereo bass below 80hz, note however this isn't the same as suggesting a mono sub source with strong direct sound is a good thing, Floyd has never suggested that is ok).
www.sciencedirect.com
I'm not going to repeat everything Toole has said. If you have read his book and his citation and reject his contention that reflections are a good thing, then that doesn't mean I made false statements. Argue with his points.
Ok as for this point:
"Adding a second subwoofer MAY help with room modes, but it could just as readily make them worse if it multiplies the error by poor placement. I dare say a person who does not know what he's doing would be more likely to not screw up putting a sub in the corner than they would trying to make two subs perform better together without knowing what they're doing. You have to not only find a good location that breaks up existing room modes, but you need to delay the second sub so that the sound arrives at the MLP at the same time as the other sub. Audyssey isn't going to do this for you as it EQs subs separately when in reality, they need to be adjusted together. All this needs to be done with the goal of putting the subwoofer somewhere where it doesn't look like absolute crap in terms of position (no one really wants to trip over a sub in the dark, after all) or have to use it as a foot rest because it works well right in front of your reclining chair."
Again, if you don't agree with the views of multiple subs, that is fine, but your point doesn't dispute this accurately. Multiple subwoofers can certainly make things worse, but that is in the user's hands. It will always make it better if done right. If people don't know what they are doing, but follow Harman's placement advice, they should still end up better off in most rooms than they would if they used a single subwoofer. Corner placement maximizes mode activation, so off all the single sub-locations, it's the one most likely to cause the most issues if you don't average out the modes.
Hopefully you have read this article:
and
This point:
"Point #9 is missing what really matters. Larger woofers CAN be slower to respond (simple physics), but that can be overcome with an appropriate motor and power. Instead, it's suggested that what's better than "speed" is LOUDER room shaking bass ("louder and deeper"). How about a properly designed subwoofer that has enough power with a large enough coil to move the larger woofer just as "quickly" as a smaller subwoofer? Yes, that costs more money. But the article wasn't about "The cheapest way to loud bass" was it?"
Really? Says who? I can't really even provide proof of this point because its so ridiculous. My best proof would be that subwoofers of all sizes produce exactly the same response. If it was slower there would be measured proof of that. I've seen none. Show me the proof that an 18" woofer is slower than a 12" woofer? How would that be? What would that look like? If it was literally slower, it couldn't produce the tone and would have measurably higher distortion. Are we talking transient response? Again, show me some proof that transient response of larger woofers is worse than small ones at these low frequencies. Louder and deeper is what matters because speed is not a thing. Distortion is ultimately what holds subs back. There are no appreciable differences in distortion or transient response that can be tied to woofers dimensions. There are difference in ability to produce loud low bass as a result of cone mass, which must be higher with smaller diameter woofers.
As for my myth 7, Not sure what your issue is. A common claim I've heard made against the Geddes or Harman point is that you are better off spending the same budget on a single subwoofer rather than two or more. My point was that at some point certainly, a budget would be so small that buying two or more would compromise things too much. However, in general, bass sound quality comes from the smoothness of the bass, it's extension, and its maximum output in room, and much of this is better controlled through the use of multple subwoofers than through the quality of a single subwoofer. You want a number? I have no idea what that number exactly would be. It would depend on a person's needs, room size, etc. Going back to my first point, since a room dominates (the reverberant field takes over) at low frequencies, maximizing the rooms performance is more important than small differences in the subs actual performance.
Ok so this one, Myth 10, really, you've never heard this:
"Point #10 debunks itself. I postulates a crazy notion about integration and time alignment (who ever made those claims/myths? I've never heard them), but correctly asserts the REAL reason to use pre-amp level outputs which is typically lower noise. The subwoofer amplifier is not going to use any power whatsoever from the receiver using speaker level outputs. In fact, above a certain level, it's just burning off heat trying to get the low level signal to amplify out of that signal. Thus, a low level connection is almost certainly better than a high level connection and I can't recall ANYONE *EVER* suggesting otherwise...until this article, at least"
REL has been propegating this myth for decades. A lot of people seem to believe it. Every time I get into discussions of bass connections, someone always seems to chime in with the need to use high level inputs to improve sound. It's nonsense. Sounds like we agree. So you dislike my point because you never heard anyone say that? Get out of your echo chamber. It's a common enough myth.
httpv://youtu.be/5AoiS_e8wBA
www.psaudio.com
PS Audio also seems to think its a good idea, and I think Paul is wrong. Sounds like you do too.
I want to conclude this by saying that I don't appreciate being called out like a western gun slinger with accusations of grand conspiracy. The article was obviously written to be provacative. It obviously got many readers, yourself included, thinking about these ideas. I wouldn't expect everyone to agree with these points. I think the problem with bass myth articles is everyone writes them and often they themselves are loaded with myths. We can cite literature and experience to support our contentions, but in the end, it's about doing what works for you. I can defend each and every myth I wrote with scientific literature in some fashion or provide some proof to support the claim. I'm sure someone would accuse me of being selective in this and provide their own approach. But this is a forum and if someone wants to discuss my articles with me, just say so, in a calm and polite fashion. Trust me, no grand conspiracy here. I wasn't afraid of anything, as this isn't supposed to be an adversarial matchup of minds. As Gene noted, Google was penalizing our articles by having linked Forum pages, so we decided to stop.
