Most music goes down to what frequency?

[TLS Guy]

It would suffice if the subs went down to 30 Hz unless you listen to music like a Pipe Organ or this techno stuff

An interesting note on the piano

This makes the piano sound better to most ears, partially because the low end of the piano at 27.5 Hz is in a frequency range where your hearing has dropped off considerably, so that the upper harmonics of these low strings are probably heard more prominently than the fundamental. The extreme upper end of the piano is tuned up to 30 cents sharp in a practice that is called "stretched" tuning.

from this website

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/music/pianof.html

Actually most pipe organs do not go as low as people think. The largest stop on most organs is the 16 ft stop, with frequencies as low as 35 Hz. Only very large organs have 32 ft stops, frequencies down to 17 Hz. Even then these stops are seldom called on. 64 ft stops are very unusual.

The foundation stops of the organ are the 4 and 8 ft diapasons, with frequencies in the 150 Hz and 75 Hz range respectively. What the organ does have is a huge mid and HF sound energy.

Speakers that reproduce organ in addition to a good bass response, need very good output above 70 Hz. The foundation stops between 75 and 150 Hz find a lot of speakers very weak in the wind so to speak.

I just caught the end of the AGO convention in the twin cities and had the pleasure of hearing Stephen Cleobury's recital of British organ music on the huge Casavant organ at Central Lutheran Minneapolis.

The bass is largely under pining and punctuation. The HF energy is what is so huge compared with other instruments.

It was a wonderful recital and you could smell the Malvern Hills in Elgar's first organ sonata.

 

[WmAx]

I have analyzed a lot of music with a precision spectrum analyzer function as found in Adobe Audition, using high resolution FFT window setttings and sampling narrow time points in a great number of points in order to identify the exact behavior of the LF energy. My sampling has included a great deal of rock, pop, rap, jazz and other popular genres.

Most 'deep bass' in music, is 35Hz and above. It is rare to find any energy in significant amplitudes under this point. You can get away with a flat response to 40Hz and you would barely notice a difference on the vast majority of music as compared to 25Hz flat response, for example. Movie sound tracks are far more likely to have true deep bass in substantial amplitude values.

-Chris

 

[3db]

Actually most pipe organs do not go as low as people think. The largest stop on most organs is the 16 ft stop, with frequencies as low as 35 Hz. Only very large organs have 32 ft stops, frequencies down to 17 Hz. Even then these stops are seldom called on. 64 ft stops are very unusual.

The foundation stops of the organ are the 4 and 8 ft diapasons, with frequencies in the 150 Hz and 75 Hz range respectively. What the organ does have is a huge mid and HF sound energy.

Speakers that reproduce organ in addition to a good bass response, need very good output above 70 Hz. The foundation stops between 75 and 150 Hz find a lot of speakers very weak in the wind so to speak.

I just caught the end of the AGO convention in the twin cities and had the pleasure of hearing Stephen Cleobury's recital of British organ music on the huge Casavant organ at Central Lutheran Minneapolis.

The bass is largely under pining and punctuation. The HF energy is what is so huge compared with other instruments.

It was a wonderful recital and you could smell the Malvern Hills in Elgar's first organ sonata.

I love the pipe organ now but as a youth, I didn't care for it that much. I love Bach's Tocatta (spelling) and his use of dissonance on the organ to provide emphasis. Its a very powerful instrument and can convey many many emotions. I'm glad you enjoyed your concert.

 

[TLS Guy]

I have analyzed a lot of music with a precision spectrum analyzer function as found in Adobe Audition, using high resolution FFT window setttings and sampling narrow time points in a great number of points in order to identify the exact behavior of the LF energy. My sampling has included a great deal of rock, pop, rap, jazz and other popular genres.

Most 'deep bass' in music, is 35Hz and above. It is rare to find any energy in significant amplitudes under this point. You can get away with a flat response to 40Hz and you would barely notice a difference on the vast majority of music as compared to 25Hz flat response, for example. Movie sound tracks are far more likely to have true deep bass in substantial amplitude values.

-Chris

That is completely in line with my own observations with the spectrum analyzer. Apart from the odd Hollywood explosion, there is no need for huge sub amps. I'm not into Hollywood explosions. In any event who wants a steady diet of them?

I have been on about this myth before. The myth is that subs relieve the mains of a lot of power and spare the amp. With crossover at 80 Hz and below it does nothing of the sort.

We have allowed a situation to develop that I have come to understand since joining these forums. The cause of which is receiver output stages designed for 8 ohm speakers, that are unstable at four ohms and or won't deliver sufficient current below 6 ohms. The result is we have a bunch of narrow fronted speakers not properly compensated to deliver spls in the range needed, the mid and upper bass. We then have a situation were subs are turned up too high below 80 Hz. This is not proper balance and is not realistic. I think there are a lot of systems out there, may be the majority that are way out of balance in the lower registers.

I have come to realize that these receivers with poor performance below 8 ohm impedance are actually polluting the whole scene.

 

[fmw]

I remember reading somewhere that low E on a 4 string bass guitar is around 40 hz. I assume low B on a 5 string bass would be a little lower. I think the 35hz figures provided above are probably right on the mark.

 

[fmw]

The result is we have a bunch of narrow fronted speakers not properly compensated to deliver spls in the range needed, the mid and upper bass.

Do you mean like the 8 ohm B&W 801?

 

[TLS Guy]

Do you mean like the 8 ohm B&W 801?

The 801 is not 8 ohm. It drops to 3.4 ohm below 400 Hz and takes gobs of current, my best friend has a pair, and I've had a chance to examine them closely. As i said the stated spec when it comes to speakers means NOTHING.

 

[croseiv]

The result is we have a bunch of narrow fronted speakers not properly compensated to deliver spls in the range needed, the mid and upper bass. .

Compared to what?

 

[TLS Guy]

Compared to what?

The problem I'm referring to is diffraction loss. There is a first order loss below a frequency which is a function of driver size and baffle width.

In the vintage speakers with 10, 12 and 15 inch speakers in wide baffles this was not a factor. There have been many members on these forums yearning for the type of bass those older speakers produced.

Now there has rightly been a trend to small bass/mids in narrow cabinets. So we now have the problem of diffraction loss. This requires dropping the impedance progressively below the shelving point, when using passive crossovers.

I have come to realize that is these receivers that are incapable of driving this type of load that has skewed the speaker design square so to speak.

This has resulted in far less than optimal designs. Because of problems mentioned on these forums, I have seen some crossovers that are frankly horrific on digging into the issue.

So the yes, I believe that a large segment of the market being dominated by receivers with amplification that is incapable of correctly driving a passive diffraction compensated speaker, has skewed the market.

One of the things that came out of the Canadian research was listener preference for speakers properly balanced in the mid and upper bass. This is especially crucial for classical music. In fact I would say this trend has been a significant impediment to bringing classical music before a wider public.

The result is a string sound that is thin and lacks body, and the brass has too much lip over bell. For signers that are not eating the microphone, there is too much head voice over chest voice.

Anyhow, what I have noticed is that this issue leads to subs set at too high a level to compensate for lack of correct balance from 80 Hz to 400 Hz. It masks it, but its not correct.

 

[croseiv]

The problem I'm referring to is diffraction loss. There is a first order loss below a frequency which is a function of driver size and baffle width.

In the vintage speakers with 10, 12 and 15 inch speakers in wide baffles this was not a factor. There have been many members on these forums yearning for the type of bass those older speakers produced.

Now there has rightly been a trend to small bass/mids in narrow cabinets. So we now have the problem of diffraction loss. This requires dropping the impedance progressively below the shelving point, when using passive crossovers.

I have come to realize that is these receivers that are incapable of driving this type of load that has skewed the speaker design square so to speak.

This has resulted in far less than optimal designs. Because of problems mentioned on these forums, I have seen some crossovers that are frankly horrific on digging into the issue.

So the yes, I believe that a large segment of the market being dominated by receivers with amplification that is incapable of correctly driving a passive diffraction compensated speaker, has skewed the market.

One of the things that came out of the Canadian research was listener preference for speakers properly balanced in the mid and upper bass. This is especially crucial for classical music. In fact I would say this trend has been a significant impediment to bringing classical music before a wider public.

The result is a string sound that is thin and lacks body, and the brass has too much lip over bell. For signers that are not eating the microphone, there is too much head voice over chest voice.

Anyhow, what I have noticed is that this issue leads to subs set at too high a level to compensate for lack of correct balance from 80 Hz to 400 Hz. It masks it, but its not correct.

But can't all of this be compensated for with a good EQ?

 

[fmw]

The 801 is not 8 ohm. It drops to 3.4 ohm below 400 Hz and takes gobs of current, my best friend has a pair, and I've had a chance to examine them closely. As i said the stated spec when it comes to speakers means NOTHING.

Nominal 8 ohms. I don't doubt that they go below 4 ohms. But they go over 15 ohms too. NOMINAL.

 

[TLS Guy]

But can't all of this be compensated for with a good EQ?

Yes it can be, however I find a speaker that is right before Eq sounds better than one that is suboptimal with Eq. I don't personally find it satisfying to design and build a speaker that requires Eq.

 

[TLS Guy]

Nominal 8 ohms. I don't doubt that they go below 4 ohms. But they go over 15 ohms too. NOMINAL.

I have inadvertently mislead you, it is the 800D my friend has. The two woofers are in series below 350 Hz so they are really 4 ohm, although nominally stated to be eight ohm.

The 801D has a large woofer on a big baffle ans so compensating for diffraction loss would not be an issue.

When we were auditioning we had a significant preference for the 800D.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

When we were auditioning we had a significant preference for the 800D.

So how did the B&W 800Ds compared to your own speakers?

Are the 800Ds the best speakers you've heard?

 

[TLS Guy]

So how did the B&W 800Ds compared to your own speakers?

Are the 800Ds the best speakers you've heard?

My friend Phil is a frequent visitor here. He wanted speakers that sounded closest to these. He still prefers the bass character and definition of my TLS system. Also in terms of presence the B & W speakers go right up to the line, but I guess don't quite cross it. Mine have a little more of the velvet glove which softens the strings. However mine still make the brass blaze and the cymbals crash.

If you are asking would I swap mine for those, the answer is no. However your question has to be answered with reference to the fact, that if you have the luxury of building your own speakers, you can make the compromises you want, and yes, they are always there. So you end up with a speaker whose strengths please you the most and whose weaknesses irritate you the least.

You also have to remember that ALL the crossovers in my system below 2.5 KHz are active, which gives me a big advantage over the design concept of the B & W 800D.

Phil is driving these speakers with a 400 watt per channel Mac amp. This is one with the auto transformers. When I first heard these speakers in Phil's home I was not happy. The dealer had connected them to the 8 ohm tapping, because that is how B & W rated them. However because the impedance falls below 4 ohms as there are two 8 ohm drivers in parallel in the bass, I changed it to the 4 ohm transformers on the Mac. The speakers just blossomed and filled out the mid and upper bass.

Phil checked with Mac to get their view, and was told they keep a pair for reference, and that they can only get good results on the 4 ohm transformer tap. They also stated that they thought they were a very difficult amp load.

You really would expect that from the design configuration. The fact I use active crossovers makes the amp loads much kinder and solves a lot of problems. I have to use six power amp channels to power my left and right mains, he only needs two.