What happened at this site?

[Pyrrho]

I know, that is the problem. I have said for years that there is far to much emphasis on subs. I think the weighting of money to subs in almost all systems here is too high and much more relatively should be spent on the other speakers.

Just this afternoon a thread turned interesting about bass management. It caused me to research 5.1 and 7.1 mastering. On one very good site an engineer made a statement I heartily concur with. "The subwoofer is the least important part of any audio system." He went on to show spectro graphs of power versus frequency to prove the point. His results mirror my own exactly. In my surveys, wandering demo rooms, subs are turned up to unseemly levels in a vain attempt to mask a bunch of dreadful speakers. It never fools me.

The obsession with subs on this and other forums is, I believe severely impairing the quality per dollars spent of member's systems.

If a system can't sound good without a sub, it is a lousy system, period.

When putting a system together in stages, the sub should be the last item purchased.

I don't quite agree with you on everything you say, but I very much agree that "If a system can't sound good without a sub, it is a lousy system, period." I think the other speakers are, by far, the most important part of the system. But I think the subwoofer is going to matter more for the actual sound than the particular receiver or digital source in almost all cases.

 

[Swerd]

2 things to never discuss with friends, politics and religion. It may be time to add a third thing, stereo equipment.

Then why are you here ?

There is a very large variety of speakers and other audio gear available on the market. Market competition helps the buyer, but it is also difficult to for newbies to know where to start. That, in my opinion, is one of the main purposes of this web site - to offer useful advice to newbies.

Another function of this site is to provide a place where various audio junkies can gather and talk. To do that, common sense (like yours ) is always a welcome benefit. Similarly, it is worthwhile to have a wide tolerance for preferences other than your own. Just make sure to clearly distinguish between facts you have learned through experience from your own preference or opinions. It seems some AHers, who were not too long ago newbies themselves, should work harder at that.

I believe this is what this particular thread is really about. (Swerd steps down from the soap box...)

 

[Pyrrho]

...

in my case my sub blends in too well. at most it adds an extra octave / some weightyness to some instruments. the issue is that people have actually been actually dissapointed by the lack of bloat and heavy distortion in hearing my system.

...

It sounds like you probably set the level properly, rather than boosting it excessively relative to the other channels. I have the same situation, as my subwoofers do not generally draw attention to themselves. It is only in cases where there is considerable bass in the music or, more often, soundtrack, that they draw some attention to themselves.

A great advantage to setting the subwoofer properly is that music sounds right with it on, whereas one finds many people online saying that they turn off their subwoofers for music because it sounds too "boomy." When one hears of how they set up the subwoofer several decibels higher than the other channels, it is no wonder that it sounds boomy with the subwoofer.

Of course, if they like excessive bass with movies, they could simply have two settings that they use for the subwoofer level, one for movies and one (properly set up) for music, but they don't generally seem smart enough to think of such a thing, and often simply imagine that a subwoofer necessarily makes music sound boomy. Frankly, I would rather not have a subwoofer than have one set as some people set them, but as long as they are not bothering the neighbors, it is their business what they do with the settings.

 

[jp_over]

I know, that is the problem. I have said for years that there is far to much emphasis on subs. I think the weighting of money to subs in almost all systems here is too high and much more relatively should be spent on the other speakers.

Just this afternoon a thread turned interesting about bass management. It caused me to research 5.1 and 7.1 mastering. On one very good site an engineer made a statement I heartily concur with. "The subwoofer is the least important part of any audio system." He went on to show spectro graphs of power versus frequency to prove the point. His results mirror my own exactly. In my surveys, wandering demo rooms, subs are turned up to unseemly levels in a vain attempt to mask a bunch of dreadful speakers. It never fools me.

The obsession with subs on this and other forums is, I believe severely impairing the quality per dollars spent of member's systems.

If a system can't sound good without a sub, it is a lousy system, period.

When putting a system together in stages, the sub should be the last item purchased.

Dr. Mark,

This sounds interesting - Where do you think the % spent for a sub (relative to total system cost or simply relative to cost of all speakers) should be?

Already bought all my current gear but I have already been planning my retirement system!

Thanks!

 

[Alex2507]

Where do you think the % spent for a sub (relative to total system cost or simply relative to cost of all speakers) should be?

I think your subs should cost about half of what you paid for your wife's car.

In my case that means I have a shitload more money for subs or she's gonna be driving a Pinto tomorrow.

 

[jp_over]

"I think your subs should cost about half of what you paid for your wife's car."

In that case I need about 9 more F15s. I think I need to build some shelving...

 

[Pyrrho]

Dr. Mark,

This sounds interesting - Where do you think the % spent for a sub (relative to total system cost or simply relative to cost of all speakers) should be?

Already bought all my current gear but I have already been planning my retirement system!

Thanks!

Not that you were asking me, but I personally don't think one should simply spend a particular percentage on different parts of the system, as I think that how much one should spend on any one part depends upon the total amount one has to spend, and what, exactly, it is that one wants the system to do.

For example, if I had only $1000 to spend on a system consisting of new equipment, I would make it a two channel system and not get a subwoofer at all. I would buy these speakers:

http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMG

And then I would get an amplifier adequate to drive them, and inexpensive digital source(s).

Other people would make different choices, based upon having different values and different ideas about what it is best for the system to do.

In the case of a subwoofer, I would not bother with one if I did not have about $500 or more for it alone. But for a $1500 system, I might simply add a subwoofer to the 2 channel system that I would buy for $1000.

 

[psbfan9]

Then why are you here ?

HaHa...Me, I'm here for the discussions on politics and religion.
And to suck the life out of the knowledge base or maybe I should say "knowledge bass" to not go off topic.

 

[psbfan9]

For example, if I had only $1000 to spend on a system consisting of new equipment, I would make it a two channel system and not get a subwoofer at all. I would buy these speakers:

http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMG

Hm, this is a two way speaker, doesn't that mean there would be less bass output?

 

[psbfan9]

Substantiated

If a system can't sound good without a sub, it is a lousy system, period.

.

Does this also go for center channels and surrounds?

Is this for a music only setup or do you apply this theory to 'surround, multi channel' setups?

 

[TLS Guy]

Does this also go for center channels and surrounds?

Is this for a music only setup or do you apply this theory to 'surround, multi channel' setups?

I think that every system should sound really good with just the left and right mains playing. If it doesn't, you haven't paid the price of admission.

Now it should also sound good in HT, with good dialog and it should lock to center even off the central position. Good speakers do.

Now if you want a center it has to match the mains seamlessly, or you will take a step back.

Personally I think the surrounds should also act seamlessly with the rest of the system. I encounter a lot of situations where a lot is demanded of the surround and rear backs. They can't be weak brethren in a properly balanced system.

This system should still do a good job on music and HT. Yes, even if it uses bookshelves. Properly designed and balanced, yes and balance is key here, should not sound as if you need to open your browser and buy a sub.

Now I agree few book shelves are properly balanced. Obviously the bass rolls off and the HF should too.

Now if you want to add a sub to enhance the rest of the system it should blend in seamlessly and gently underpin the last octave. The last thing it should do is dominate the system

I'm yet to visit a dealer or home where the sub is not far too loud and blowing any sense of realism right out of the window. In just about every system I encounter less would be more as far as subs are concerned.

Quite honestly, I just can't imagine you guys with multiple massive subs are getting the best from your systems.

Granted HT has the odd impressive sound effect, but music just does not demand much power below 60 Hz and practically none below 30 Hz. I can watch the power distribution continuously on my computer screen. Only briefly does the last octave even show itself, and on a lot of music never.

Now my rig can produce massive dynamic drum beats and reproduce huge organs in full flight realistically. Now I'm not even using sub drivers, just four 10 inch SEAS Excel drivers. Two of them also handling other duties. I have 500 watts total for these drivers, but I doubt I ever use more than a small fraction of that power.

Now my amps driving those 10 inch drivers barely get warm at all, unlike the amps for the mids, which get quite warm.

As you will see from a member who recently reviewed this system, it plays clean and loud even when reproducing a large pipe organ, or Laplanders hitting lots of very large drums hard. I can honestly say I have never bottomed a driver, I don't think even close.

In my other system, I have two coupled cavity subs coming in below 70 Hz. Yet the two 100 watt amps stay almost stone cold, and the bass is plentiful.

So I think I can be forgiven for suggesting that a lot of people are listening to very unbalanced reproduction of late. That is certainly what I have found listening to other systems.

What I hear, is "I paid for these humongous subs and your jolly well going to hear and feel them."

I think people would actually enjoy music and movies with a more realistic bass balance, especially as far as the last octave is concerned.

 

[TLS Guy]

"I think your subs should cost about half of what you paid for your wife's car."

In that case I need about 9 more F15s. I think I need to build some shelving...

After just completing some honest service work, its nice to see the forums back on track.

I recently bought another Quad FM 4. Waited for ages for one to come up in North America. No luck, so i had to purchase one in the UK and paid the freight.

I have just modded the power supply board for 120 volt and changed the de emphasis from 50 msec to 75 msec. Now fully tested and sounds wonderful.

Nice to get back to this useful banter after that.

 

[Pyrrho]

For example, if I had only $1000 to spend on a system consisting of new equipment, I would make it a two channel system and not get a subwoofer at all. I would buy these speakers:

http://www.magnepan.com/model_MMG

Hm, this is a two way speaker, doesn't that mean there would be less bass output?

Less bass output than what?

If you look at the specifications at that link, you will see that they are not capable of incredibly deep bass. The -3dB point is 50Hz, which would be respectable for a bookshelf speaker, but not terribly great for a floorstanding speaker. But that is not the only consideration in a speaker. (If bass were the only consideration, then one ought to just get a subwoofer and not bother with main speakers at all.)

With the hypothetical budget of $1000 for the entire sound system, I would sacrifice bass rather than throw away good quality for the rest of the audio spectrum. (In general, with modestly priced speakers, one has a choice about what one will give up. Deep bass is one thing that one can sacrifice, but one can sacrifice other aspects of the sound if one prefers to do so.) So I would pick those speakers at the link quoted above. Someone who cared less about the majority of the frequencies relevant to music, but who cared about having a lot of bass thump, would pick different speakers.

 

[GranteedEV]

So I think I can be forgiven for suggesting that a lot of people are listening to very unbalanced reproduction of late. That is certainly what I have found listening to other systems.

What I hear, is "I paid for these humongous subs and your jolly well going to hear and feel them."

Now I don't know how you would actually feel about my system (chances being that it would be well below your standards )

But I take offense to the idea that having a big sub is to "show it off". my opinion is simple that you want to reproduce a recording, any recording, you want to be able do it justice. Now the reality is that I'm not listening to grand symphonic music on my system nearly to the extent that you would be. The ratio would be more of a 40/60 with perhaps more emphasis on movies and less organic music than what you might enjoy. So I think you want in-room flat response from 20hz-20khz as much as is possible.

Now the other reality with movies, if we're talking about subs, is that the LFE channel is 10db hotter than any other channel. So the reference level for a movie is 115db, and at a more likely listening volume, perhaps around 108db at the listening position. OTOH while reference level for a movie is 105db and you might at most get in the high 90s with dynamic peaks at a reasonable listening volume, (in the high 70s for vocals)

I just don't want to be limited by compression or distortion. I don't feel the sub is the heart of the system, the mains are, but I do feel perfectly comfortable with the fact that my sub probably cost as much as my L/R mains. My L/R mains really impress me for what I paid. If I were to do it over I would not get the matchng MTM center and I may yet do that but that aside I think you're really underating the last octave from a movie perspective.

No, it doesn't make a world of difference in the overall experience. But that last octave definitely has its place and I'm glad I paid what I paid. Although I wonder if perhaps porting the sub would have been worthwhile, I don't think I could go back and simply get a less impressive sub and more impressive mains. I feel really good about the balance right now, minus the center channel.

Of course, I didn't feel my mains were a pure compromise either. I think I'd have needed to have DIY (which wouldn't look as nice) or spend twice as much to really get a huge upgrade.

All I'm saying, I guess, is that my system seems to blend pretty smoothly to my ears at least. But I would not go and try to get that little bit more mid range resolution at the pure cost of the quality and quantity of low bass that i'm getting right now.

NOW - in a totally different room, I might want to do something entirely different like a Linkwitz Pluto with no bass whatsoever. But just for that specific system I don't think I made a poor choice in balance - and I spend about 900 on a sub and about 800 on mains so on paper that sounds like awful balance.

 

[TLS Guy]

Now I don't know how you would actually feel about my system (chances being that it would be well below your standards )

But I take offense to the idea that having a big sub is to "show it off". my opinion is simple that you want to reproduce a recording, any recording, you want to be able do it justice. Now the reality is that I'm not listening to grand symphonic music on my system nearly to the extent that you would be. The ratio would be more of a 40/60 with perhaps more emphasis on movies and less organic music than what you might enjoy. So I think you want in-room flat response from 20hz-20khz as much as is possible.

Now the other reality with movies, if we're talking about subs, is that the LFE channel is 10db hotter than any other channel. So the reference level for a movie is 115db, and at a more likely listening volume, perhaps around 108db at the listening position. OTOH while reference level for a movie is 105db and you might at most get in the high 90s with dynamic peaks at a reasonable listening volume, (in the high 70s for vocals)

I just don't want to be limited by compression or distortion. I don't feel the sub is the heart of the system, the mains are, but I do feel perfectly comfortable with the fact that my sub probably cost as much as my L/R mains. My L/R mains really impress me for what I paid. If I were to do it over I would not get the matchng MTM center and I may yet do that but that aside I think you're really underating the last octave from a movie perspective.

No, it doesn't make a world of difference in the overall experience. But that last octave definitely has its place and I'm glad I paid what I paid. Although I wonder if perhaps porting the sub would have been worthwhile, I don't think I could go back and simply get a less impressive sub and more impressive mains. I feel really good about the balance right now, minus the center channel.

Of course, I didn't feel my mains were a pure compromise either. I think I'd have needed to have DIY (which wouldn't look as nice) or spend twice as much to really get a huge upgrade.

All I'm saying, I guess, is that my system seems to blend pretty smoothly to my ears at least. But I would not go and try to get that little bit more mid range resolution at the pure cost of the quality and quantity of low bass that i'm getting right now.

NOW - in a totally different room, I might want to do something entirely different like a Linkwitz Pluto with no bass whatsoever. But just for that specific system I don't think I made a poor choice in balance - and I spend about 900 on a sub and about 800 on mains so on paper that sounds like awful balance.

I guess my bottom line is that you can produce a big realistic wallop in the bass, without the enormous powers people claim they need.

 

[GranteedEV]

I guess my bottom line is that you can produce a big realistic wallop in the bass, without the enormous powers people claim they need.

For music, absolutely agree with you! It's not only unnecessary but also generally unpleasant. A good pair of mains should be able to handle the majority of music. Like I said earlier, the most my sub adds is just a little bit of extremely low end "weight".

But the dynamic range of the LFE channel in movies makes it worthwhile. I've certainly seen clip lights go off on a 2400w pro amp driving an 87 to 89db sensitive driver in a rather well damped and minimally EQ'd enclosure. And i'm not talking about reference level listening here... certainly not quiet or usual listening levels but roughly -12 to -8 on the receiver which seems like a sweet spot for more dynamic movie content (Inception being a notable example).

 

[Pyrrho]

Now I don't know how you would actually feel about my system (chances being that it would be well below your standards )

But I take offense to the idea that having a big sub is to "show it off".

If I understand TLS Guy correctly, he is saying that that is what most people want from their subwoofers. I don't think he is saying that that is the only reason to have subwoofers.

And frankly, I think he is right, that many want to have exaggerated bass from their subwoofer, just like a lot of people complain about not having enough sound from their surround channels. They paid for those speakers back there, and they want to hear something from them! It is like those people who want to fill their screen with picture, no matter what the aspect ratio of the original source is. They paid for the whole screen, and so they want it filled. Never mind that in doing these things they will frequently distort the picture and sound.

my opinion is simple that you want to reproduce a recording, any recording, you want to be able do it justice. ...

I agree that that is the ideal. But in the real world, people operate with various budgets, and the question becomes, what do you sacrifice in order to stay in budget? Do you give up the deepest bass for better midrange and treble, which will affect every piece of music you listen to? Or do you make everything sound worse in the midrange and treble in order to have deeper bass? These are real world questions that people should think about in making their decisions.

 

[GranteedEV]

And frankly, I think he is right, that many want to have exaggerated bass from their subwoofer, just like a lot of people complain about not having enough sound from their surround channels. They paid for those speakers back there, and they want to hear something from them! It is like those people who want to fill their screen with picture, no matter what the aspect ratio of the original source is. They paid for the whole screen, and so they want it filled. Never mind that in doing these things they will frequently distort the picture and sound.

I don't think we're on a different page. Exaggerated bass is bad bass. But talking specifically about big woofers and budget, I just don't think I would do it another way than I did given the same budget. I mean I might DIY the mains but then they'd just be plain ugly

I agree that that is the ideal. But in the real world, people operate with various budgets, and the question becomes, what do you sacrifice in order to stay in budget? Do you give up the deepest bass for better midrange and treble, which will affect every piece of music you listen to? Or do you make everything sound worse in the midrange and treble in order to have deeper bass? These are real world questions that people should think about in making their decisions.

Well, they're certainly questions you should never ignore! You're absolutely right! But at the same time if the bass, mids, and highs sound "good", then you hit a crossroads of "sounding better" or "getting that last octave and movie type LFE bass" with the rest of your budget. For most people their systems aren't critical listening head-in-a-vice Hi Fi systems... that's all. I mean I like my system and it personally amazes me in various ways at times but I have heard some better, more resolving systems for music and I just can't see it making a big difference for movies specifically (with the center channel exception. I'm definitely saving up for an Aperion or Revel CC).

I think my mains sound really good. I don't know if TLS GUy would feel the same because I don't have the same discerning ear as he does. But I also know there's stuff out there that sounds better to my own ears so I have to say that while that stuff does sound better I just wouldn't get it and get a cheaper, less impressive and less accurate sub.

 

[TLS Guy]

I agree that that is the ideal. But in the real world, people operate with various budgets, and the question becomes, what do you sacrifice in order to stay in budget? Do you give up the deepest bass for better midrange and treble, which will affect every piece of music you listen to? Or do you make everything sound worse in the midrange and treble in order to have deeper bass? These are real world questions that people should think about in making their decisions.
GranteedEV

This thread has turned into one of the best discussions we have had for a long time.

I don't think you have quite posed the options correctly.

Any loud sound effect even one such as a cannon shot or explosion has enormous energy out of sub range. Even for these sources there is far more energy in the mid, and upper bass and mid range, then there is last octave content. There is also nearly always significant HF contribution.

The accurate reproduction of these effects, still requires everything in correct balance.

Now I'm certain I have never clipped my 500 watts pf power to the bass speakers, reproducing these types of sounds, not even close. I suspect there is the attempt to drive the sub too hot to cover the lacking elements.

Now one of the best tests are the canon shots in Master and Commander. I have actually heard 18th century canon fired. For this movie they actually recorded 18th century English canon, and very accurately too.

To reproduce these shots correctly you need the whole enchilada in proper balance. When the right balance is achieved the result is terrifying. I have had visitors grip the arms of my theater chairs for dear life, without bottoming a driver.

I really don't think the demands of music are very different from HT or even at all. Both require realism. I would point out that music is a big part of every movie.

Not only that natural speech and the accurate reproduction of the familiar sounds of everyday life really enhances the telling of a story more than the ability to reproduce the odd earth shattering explosion. In any event I personally believe earth shattering explosions are of more import to the HT buff than family and friends being in a theater that can produce sounds that really draw them into a movie.

A speaker system with shouty reproduced speech (common) really detracts from the average viewers enjoyment. Natural intimate speech really draws them in far more then if the ground and walls shake. What I getting at is the creating of believable atmosphere and acoustic environments.

When my rig reproducers really accurate distant thunder far outside the side wall of this room, and someone say we going to get a thunder storm, I know there is true realism.

I guess the comments I so often get from people who come to watch a movie, isn't about the big sounds, but about intimacy and really being drawn deep into the story by realistic believable soundscapes.

So I don't think there is either or here. But I truly believe passing up a speaker with a nice smooth response and excellent balance to buy a sub that rattles walls is not the right trade off. So yes, the last octave is nice to have, when accurately reproduced and blended in with the rest of the system in an unobtrusive way, but in my view it is not part of the basics.

 

[Warpdrv]

New stuff for you guys to pour over here... http://www.data-bass.com/blog

Extensive new testing data that will be updated with new products as time goes on....

Lots of clicking to see measurements of all the systems... look around

BTW, take a look at the THD's on the different products.... -- very interesting and quite enlightening IMO.

Subwoofers to me are just as intimate as speakers are to the many masses, and you may scoff at the powers that I have chosen to implement - rather then efficiency but there are reasons I chose that path...