No comments or feedback on news articles?

VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Audioholic Chief
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.
 
R

RedCharles

Full Audioholic
"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.""

So the ideal listening area in the middle of a football field? I guess I could run a system out in my backyard this summer and try out your idea to see if it sounds better.
 
VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Audioholic Chief
With enough power and bass support, how would that be any different from listening with a good pair of in-the-ear earphones? What outside reflective environment is being used then to recreate quality sound? Just because your home loudspeakers aren't powerful enough to energize an outdoor environment sufficiently for the direct waves to sound proper doesn't mean it cannot be done. Don't confuse reflections or reverb with sound reinforcement. An anechoic chamber sounds weird too, but have people taken a surround system quad recording like Auro-3D into one where all the simulated reflections are that of a real room to be recreated rather than the sound of your own living room?
 
R

RedCharles

Full Audioholic
Headphones of all kinds are inferior to speakers. I have yet to find a headphone that is superior. And I'm not talking dollar for dollar. I'm talking just straight sound quality.

You're not opposed to indoor live music.

You're opposed to a recording of indoor music being replayed in another room where the listening room will interfere with the reflections and space of the recording room, and a way to solve that problem is to have no reflections at all. That seems pretty extreme. True. But pretty extreme.
 
VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Audioholic Chief
I beg to differ about headphones. The best headphones are lightyears superior to ANY speaker on the market because it's a controlled environment (no reflections, etc.). You only have to get the driver response right. Fortunately, the fact you've never heard a good headphone has no effect on reality. What most find objectionable about headphones is a combination of comfort wearing them and the typical "in the head" imaging you get without binaural correction systems. With a binaural system custom tailored to your head, everything images outside your head the same as real loudspeakers with the capability to image in 3D space right done to a bee landing on your ear lobe (I've got such recordings here).

I don't find my position extreme at all. It's the entire idea behind the "DSP" "room" simulations (damp your room and let speakers recreate the reverb times of "better rooms" or even famous ones. Unfortunately, with just 5.1 or 7.1 speakers, the effect generally sucks. Add a set of front height speakers to a Yamaha DSP program and suddenly the effect is quite eerie. With my eyes shut, it sounded like I was in some giant old movie house with a lot of echoes playing back The Maltese Falcon in the movie theater mode. In 5.1, it just sounded echoey. In 5.1.2, it sounded like an actual different room (much larger than the one I was in). Sadly, Denon/Marantz doesn't have any DSP modes like that so I can't tinker with room simulation anymore.

Now in my upstairs living room Carver dipole setup, I don't expect any such reproduction as dipole reflections are part of their design. It's great for making a vocalist seem to be right there "in your room" with the direct reflections, but then your hearing a combination of your room and the original recording. I got for a more damped response in my home theater room where I have 17.1 speakers to reproduce reverb rather than let the room do it.
 
gene

gene

Audioholics Master Chief
Administrator
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.
We stopped offering related forum threads to our articles because Google was penalizing as duplicate content and hurting SEO of our articles.

Most of your arguments against the article are not inline with the latest research in sound reproduction. I suggest picking up a copy of Sound Reproduction by Dr. Floyd Toole and also reading the various articles published by Harman on bass and multi-sub.

Here are a few articles you should read that may help shed some light on your circle of confusion:
 
VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Audioholic Chief
"Most" is a generic nothing response and your inference is insulting. Your reply amounts to a generic "your wrong; go read some books" while your writer gets a free pass for writing an article replete with exaggerated generic claptrap advice like near field bass sucks (deep bass is non-directional and delayed you couldn't tell it from far field other than the highly desirable pants shaking effect and reduction in needed power to achieve the same levels) and room reflections of your room are somehow a good thing when trying to reproduce the room of the recording not to mention parallel walls are technically the cause of of room modes and so that form of reflection is hardly desirable.

Multiple subs are a form of signal interference. If the ear was not insensitive to directionality at those frequencies, it would not be viable at all. It's also quite costly compared to bass traps, especially if you use more than two and not always easy to place them in acceptable locations for optimal effect (Who wants a sub in the middle of the floor or blocking a walk way if that's the best location for breaking up room modes?). That doesn't negate the option. It offers perspective on reflective sound and possible pitfalls to everyone buying multiple subs as a magic bullet when setting them up properly takes far more skill than putting bass traps in the corner.

How are any of these things contradicting the points in those books/articles? My biggest problem with the article is its one-sided take no prisoners nature and sadly your response is even more disappointing, seeking to imply I'm a moron in order to defend a poorly written one-sided article that fails to mention pitfalls like cost, skills needed to setup multiple subs properly, etc.
 
VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Audioholic Chief
Anyone who cannot be bothered to point out his problem with a response and just points to generic articles (on "small rooms" no less which wasn't part of the subwoofer myth article) without so much as giving me a clue WTF his point is in the first place (since he couldn't be bothered to state anything at all) and then rates posts dumb deserves the same in return, IMO. Frankly, Gene, I expected better from you by your reputation. Call me disappointed.

I'll cover all my major points anyway (as clearly I don't mind discussing something instead of pointing to yet more articles, most on your own site at that):

-Ask Jim Thiel or any of his customers over the years what they think about time coherent audio. Even a subwoofer needs its early wave arrivals to align as closely as possible to the main speakers for the primary listening location.

-I could point to numerous sources on the many advantages of near-field subwoofer placement (removing the room from the equation for smoother frequency responise and more tactile feel with far less power needed to energize the MLP space as well, giving a pants shaking feel without the danger of ear splitting levels needed to achieve it further away). I don't have to justify that statement in the slightest. Some people love it. Its limitation is placement hazards and limited to one or two seats for optimal listening, making it a poor option for a large room with multiple rows of seating. It's also a subjective experience, not a myth as your writer claims.

It's not missing realistic reflections in that the recording (if it's a real space) already has them. Most of the reflections (reverb) you're likely to actually hear in any kind of "ambient" manner are probably not being produced by the subwoofer, but the other speakers reproducing higher harmonics. Adding subwoofer level "reverb" is more than likely going to muddle the original sound waves (more interference from your room, not the one of the original recording and thus not actually in the recording itself). Look at low damping factor setups and see how good extra waves sound when they keep going after the signal has stopped.

Thus, adding room reflections to the ones already present in a recording is also well known to blur the original acoustic atmosphere. What's the point in multi-channel immersive audio like Auro-3D whose sole goal with music is to recreate the actual environment of the room the music is being recorded in (dual quad microphones that reproduce the ACTUAL reflections of the real environment of the recording across 8+ speakers) if you can just bounce your sound off the living room walls and call it a day as your writer implies?

-Subwoofer "speed" is a non-starter in that driver action is just a basic function of mechanical motion controlled by basic physics. Larger drivers need more power and a larger magnet to control them adequately. A small subwoofer with a small amp and a small motor can perform far worse than a large sub with a large motor and a negative feedback control system. Choosing a smaller subwoofer purely on its driver size without considering the rest of the specs isn't a myth. It's dumb.

-Do bass traps no longer function in the real world and are they not easier to set up for a beginner than phase-aligned dual subwoofers and also a lot cheaper to boot? Shouldn't they be done first before trying to make multiple subs work so you have less issues to deal with? What's "dumb" about that? Your writer ignored that aspect entirely in favor of pushing multiple subwoofers. But my post is dumb for pointing out easier alternatives to try first or in addition to multiple subwoofers? OK....

-I also think removing features from a site because of some rating Google uses is rather sad. You're letting a giant corporation dictate the features of your web site? If you keep putting the absolute dollar above integrity and you'll soon find you no longer have any of the latter left.

Have a nice day.
 
R

RedCharles

Full Audioholic
The fanciest headphone I've owned was the Grado 500E. I've also spent some time with the Audeze LCD-X. In both cases, I found speakers to be better. If headphones truly were better, why would people would invest in expensive two channel listening set-ups? I've always seen headphones as a solution to problem, and never an ideal. I will look into binaural headphones. And where is "here"? Your basement?

Homonym errors diminish credibility.

And damn dude. Gene is just trying to reach a wider audience. This site does have forum, and you are being heard, but your consistent hostility undermines your ability to influence to others.
 
R

RedCharles

Full Audioholic
So I looked into it. Binaural has nothing to do with the cans really, and has everything to do with how the track was recorded, which appears to consist of carefully strapping some mics to a perfect dummy head, replete with shoulders and other natural reflection. It's supposed to work. I'll have to look into it more.
 
VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Audioholic Chief
Headphone bass, no matter how good cannot be felt through your whole body like speakers. Headphones are generally uncomfortable (people don't like wearing 3D glasses either) and imaging in your head sucks (binaural recordings are rare and if the dummy head is significantly different from your own, it won't work as well). These are reasons some people prefer even poor headphones compared to speakers. That doesn't mean the speakers are more accurate.

I'm hostile? It must be because I apparently live in a "basement". Sleeping by the washing machine makes one grouchy. You try typing on a phone with large fingers and auto correction and see how many homonyms you end up with over time. But what do I know? Nothing, apparently.

Hell, why would I be hostile with comments thrown at me like that which imply I'm an idiot living in my parents' basement rather than a electronic engineer with multiple degrees, a self built 18-channel three row home theater in my rec room (I don't even have a basement), an active crossover separates based ribbon system in my living room and a recording studio on premise? I also write, record and master songs (I play multiple instruments) and have built pinball simulators in the past for the PC. I formerly ran an audiophile CD review site when I was in college as well and built an analog audio scrambling system as my senior project. Yeah, I'm clueless about audio.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
I tend to just refer to the data-bass' myths list if I need one and didn't get too worked up about the AH one (altho I didn't notice it until this post). I found some of the reflective comments seemingly more about using speakers than subs, tho. Where's @Matthew J Poes response, curious as to the author's response. Too bad the comments for articles had to go away due some Google rool.
 
Alex2507

Alex2507

Audioholic Slumlord
(I don't even have a basement)
Maybe if you work real hard and save up ... :D

Seriously, you can ignore gene just like you would anybody else. Most people who cross swords with admin's just drop off the forum or get run off but the forum has value to me beyond the scope of the articles or the opinions of people sitting safely behind their keyboards.

Where's @Matthew J Poes response, curious as to the author's response.
Hopefully enjoying the holidays. His profile page says he hasn't logged on since 12-21-19. It also says he hasn't given out any dumb ratings so a discussion sans insults is likely.

Now I'm gonna have to go read all those articles. :rolleyes:
 
VonMagnum

VonMagnum

Audioholic Chief
The forum now loads slow as hell (I mean over a minute to load a page if at all) when I'm logged in, but it loads full speed (almost instantly) if I log out (tested in three browsers with and without login) so I can only surmise there's some kind of undocumented punitive action against my account since Gene's "dumb" reaction to my post earlier (it started going slow immediately right after that). If he wants to run a dictatorship where only positive things are allowed to be said about articles, etc. so be it. I, however, have no use for a "me too" forum where a disagreement about subwoofer placement and size leads to unpublished punishments and/or insults to my intelligence. That's just ridiculous. This isn't Romper-Room.com.

@Alex2507 - You're right. I mostly enjoyed talking to a dozen or so regulars on here about Atmos movies and the like as it's a smaller forum than AVS (where the bullies are a handful of know-it-alls, not the owners generally speaking). But if this is the way it's going to be run, the hell on it. Life is too short to sit waiting 2-5 minutes for each page to load (yeah it's THAT slow). All I know is if more people get treated this way, it won't be Google's search engine oddities that keep his site from growing. Word of mouth travels fast these days with the Internet.

If that's not why it's running slow on my account, I apologize. But it's one hell of a coincidence from where I sit and even odder that there's zero slowdown if I log out. Hell, it's giving me random errors when I click post even. Meanwhile, the other browser I have up that's now logged out is loading the pages full speed. It's pretty sad.
 
R

RedCharles

Full Audioholic
Your pictures show what looks like a basement. It was not meant as an insult.
 
R

RedCharles

Full Audioholic
You're obviously knowledgeable, that's why I've been asking you questions.
 
Last edited:
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
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

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).


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.
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.
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
Maybe if you work real hard and save up ... :D

Seriously, you can ignore gene just like you would anybody else. Most people who cross swords with admin's just drop off the forum or get run off but the forum has value to me beyond the scope of the articles or the opinions of people sitting safely behind their keyboards.



Hopefully enjoying the holidays. His profile page says he hasn't logged on since 12-21-19. It also says he hasn't given out any dumb ratings so a discussion sans insults is likely.

Now I'm gonna have to go read all those articles. :rolleyes:
I've just been busy. I try to respond where and when I can, but honestly, I can't keep up. I'm sure everyone understands that this is a side job for me, and the forums and comments sections of Youtube can best be described as a 4th or 5th job. Besides my regular job as a social science researcher, a married man with one child and one on the way, I also do acoustic consulting for small projects, some private clients, reviews and tech articles for Gene, some product development work, and some other work for Gene that will come to light in the near future. My reviews involve measurements and are typically more technical than most, so they are time-consuming.

As many probably know, I am reviewing the new Polk Audio L800's for Audioholics. My measurements will include binaural impulse response measurements to help characterize the SDA effect. The analysis of that data is fairly complex and I have to look for a way to display it for readers such that everyone can make sense of it. My original plan, to measure differences in IACC, is probably not going to make sense to anyone. In order to do this, I can't just make it up. I have to go to the literature and see what others have done because I need to be able to support anything I put out there. That itself is time-consuming. A lot goes into these reviews.

I also don't really like responding to people who attack me or who are rude. James Larsen and I don't agree on a lot, with have great conversations disagreeing over this or that technical view. We are good friends. I love a good discussion, but I think we need to be civil. I hate how uncivil people have gotten on the forums and I don't really like to spend a lot of time on forums.

I also find a lot of people make really awful statements about me or Gene over something we say, and have more than once had them come back to me privately apologizing and explaining where it came from. I wish they would publicly say these things. One guy called Gene and I amateurs related to my views on acoustics. He had hired a well-known competitor who holds strong counter-beliefs which he supports solely with his belief on studio design, rather than the scientific literature. He found this guy very unhelpful, he also found that his work with a very famous German studio designer matched my claims, not this other guys. He came back to me, apologized, and asked to hire me. Great! So the public record has a pretty vile comment (which apparently I am expected to dispute?), even though he is now doing business with me.

A lot of people take issue with the notion that reflections are a good thing in 2-channel sound reproduction. Fine. But it's not like the literature base isn't on my side, or that what I say is inconsistent with psychoacoustics of sound. I don't believe the burden of proof is on me, I'm not the one making extraordinary claims anymore.
 
Matthew J Poes

Matthew J Poes

Audioholic Chief
Staff member
I tend to just refer to the data-bass' myths list if I need one and didn't get too worked up about the AH one (altho I didn't notice it until this post). I found some of the reflective comments seemingly more about using speakers than subs, tho. Where's @Matthew J Poes response, curious as to the author's response. Too bad the comments for articles had to go away due some Google rool.
Reflections are not speaker-specific. I think a lot of folks don't realize that there are a lot of reflections at low frequencies. So much so that the reverberant field, at low frequencies, dominates. There is no direct sound field at low frequencies. There are two primary reasons for this. The first is basic physics, the dimensions of the room are small relative to the wavelength. By the time the wave develops, it must reflect off multiple surfaces. To measure 20hz, you inevitably will have spanned enough time to include a ton of reflections. Second, we don't detect tone immediately and the length of time it takes to detect tone lengthens with frequency (for the same reason as above). As such, by the time we perceive a low-frequency tone, it's reflected off many surfaces. So it is not a speaker vs sub thing, its a low-frequency thing. The source doesn't matter.
 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
Reflections are not speaker-specific. I think a lot of folks don't realize that there are a lot of reflections at low frequencies. So much so that the reverberant field, at low frequencies, dominates. There is no direct sound field at low frequencies. There are two primary reasons for this. The first is basic physics, the dimensions of the room are small relative to the wavelength. By the time the wave develops, it must reflect off multiple surfaces. To measure 20hz, you inevitably will have spanned enough time to include a ton of reflections. Second, we don't detect tone immediately and the length of time it takes to detect tone lengthens with frequency (for the same reason as above). As such, by the time we perceive a low-frequency tone, it's reflected off many surfaces. So it is not a speaker vs sub thing, its a low-frequency thing. The source doesn't matter.
Of course below Schroeder has plenty of reflective action going on, but what I remember reading sounded more like comments for the room reflection qualities of a speaker's interface rather than a sub....I might need to reread it.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top