Rated bass vs. actual bass

J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
Looking at my Polk Monitor 50s next to my Mirage Omni 150s, one would expect them to have much more powerful bass (since they are much larger.) This impression is borne out by listening.
Now look at the specs: The -3dB point of the Polks is 57Hz, while that of the Mirages is 55Hz. In other words, on paper the Mirages go deeper!
Does this imply that the rated frequency response is comletely useless?:confused:
To confuse matters even further, my KRK ST6s are in-between the Polks and Mirages size-wise (though closer to the Mirages), rated to 60Hz, and have more powerful bass output than either one!:eek:
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
It has to do with a lot of things, not the least of which is your room. If you were to look at response charts of each speaker, they would likely have different curves within your room, possibly one having a peak at a particular spot and another having a dip, giving you the difference in what you hear. If one has a peak down low, you'll get more bass; if the other has a peak higher up or a dip lower down, you may percieve less bass. The -3dB is "in a typical room" but it not representative of every room. YMMV basically.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Looking at my Polk Monitor 50s next to my Mirage Omni 150s, one would expect them to have much more powerful bass (since they are much larger.) This impression is borne out by listening.
Now look at the specs: The -3dB point of the Polks is 57Hz, while that of the Mirages is 55Hz. In other words, on paper the Mirages go deeper!
Does this imply that the rated frequency response is comletely useless?:confused:
To confuse matters even further, my KRK ST6s are in-between the Polks and Mirages size-wise (though closer to the Mirages), rated to 60Hz, and have more powerful bass output than either one!:eek:
Also, is the -3dB FR measured @ 1 meter or 2 meters away from the speaker?
And is the -3dB from 90dB Reference or from 80dB?

Edit: well, maybe the distance is the only factor.
 
Last edited:
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
In other words, the specs are useless. This means that those shopping for speakers online have basically nothing to go on, especially if they are looking for small speakers with good bass.:(
I enjoy the Mirages for what they are, but I feel that their bass specs were misleading. Based on the sound, I would place their -3dB point at 80-100Hz, like typical satellites.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
It is generally accepted that -3dB is measured at 1m. If it isn't then they are playing with the numbers to make something look better. No, I wouldn't say useless, but I would use it as a guideline rather than law when comparing. I noticed that there are some sealed speakers that list a very low -3dB but when I listened to them in a listening room it didn't seem like they really went as low as they claimed, but that is their measured response.
 
AcuDefTechGuy

AcuDefTechGuy

Audioholic Jedi
Yeah, more like guidelines really.
I think it's hard to tell the difference if the FR is < 5Hz.
Now if the FR were > 10Hz (like 60Hz vs 40Hz), there better be a difference in bass level!
 
annunaki

annunaki

Moderator
The spec is not totally useless if all the variables are given. For it to be truly valid it needs to stated like this:

-3db @ 55hz 1w/1m @ 90db reference

If the reference level is not stated it does not mean as much.

Many speakers out there are now fudging their sensitivity numbers a bit by stating "X"db @ 2.83v/1m. They claim a nominal impedance of 8 ohms or so knowing fully that the speaker is fairly reactive and tends to average 6 ohms. This yields an input power of 1.33 watts as opposed to 1 watt at a true 8 ohms, thus bumping the number up slightly. Be especially careful of this with 4 ohm speakers as 2.83 volts at 4 ohms is 2 watts instead of 1! You can subtract 3db from the sensitivity number if a speaker is 4 ohm nominal impedance with a 2.83v/1m rating.
 
annunaki

annunaki

Moderator
So is the "1w/1m" important if your amp is 200 wpc?

Probably not as much to a degree. However, the higher the sensitivity the more headroom you will have available from the amplifier at normal volumes.

Example Time!

For instance say at a moderate volume level you are averaging 25 watts of output from the amplifier. The speaker you are using is 94db 1w/1m. you sit 15 feet from the speakers which would decrease that 1 watt output to 80.5db at the listening position.

Because you have two speakers (unless you listen in single channel mono :) ) and two channels of amplification, you are doubling the surface area and power resulting in a theoretical gain of +6db to the baseline output at 1 watt, resulting about 86.5db at the listening position. Quite loud for a single watt of input. :)

Since you are averaging 25 watts of output, the volume at the listening position is actually around 100db. If you are listening to a dynamic recording you will have 9db of dynamic range available with 200 watts rms on tap before clipping of any sort. This yields a peak output level of 109db.

Let's say you swap speakers and they are only 90db 1w/1m. Again, sitting 15 feet away with 1 watt of output, the level would be 76.5db. Add in the other speaker and amp channel and you are at 82.5db. At 25 watts continuous output you would have a volume of only 96db and a peak output level unclipped of just 105db.

To get the 90db speakers to the same average level, or close to it, as the 94db speakers, requires and extra 25 watts continuous of amplifier output decreasing available unclipped headroom to just 6db. :(

To achieve the same level of dynamic capability and continuous output level you would now have to have a 400w rms amplifier.

This is not a big issue as 100db average volume is very loud. However only having 9db of dynamic range is not a lot. Take a recording like Dire Straits' "Brother's in Arms" with average dynamic range on the record in the 16db-18db range and you are asking for slightly clipped top end when listening at that level. You would have to lower the overall (average) output level to around 4 watts rms or 92.5db so as not to have any clipping in the dynamic range on a 200 watt rms amplifier with the 94db sensitivity speakers.

This is why we typically hear people saying bigger amps sound better. It is about DYNAMICS. To listen at the same levels listed above (for the 94db speakers) and have totally unclipped dynamic playback, one would need a 800-1600 continuous watt per channel amplifier. Obviously, it is not typical to listen at such high volumes nor is it recommended. A 400 watt rms amplifer would work in nearly all cases for distortion free playback at moderate to high levels with little to no clipping at the distance of 15 feet from the speakers. Any that would occur would be inaudible.

This is why you see some users who feel that receivers are inadequate for power. They simply will not have the unclipped dynamic capability for speakers with lower sensitivity.

This is a bit off subject though as far as the intent of the post is concerned. However it is somewhat relevant. The lower the speaker plays the more power consumed. Thus, the chance that a high continuous power level will be achieved or needed.

Hopefully this is not confusing.
 
Last edited:
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
The Mirage speakers that prompted me to start this thread are very inefficient (only 87dB/w/m.) This seems to be a common characteristic of very small speakers that have (or claim to have) impressive bass extension for their size. Fortunately, I am driving them with a beast of an integrated amp. (Carver CM-1090, very conservatively rated at 100 watts/ch.)
 
annunaki

annunaki

Moderator
Everything in electronics is a system of compromises. Small cabinets that still yield good low frequency response will have lower sensitivity. High sensitivity designs with good low frequency output tend to have large cabinets and/or larger woofers or many woofers.
 
M

markw

Audioholic Overlord
To put this another way that'e easy to remember,

Everything in electronics is a system of compromises. Small cabinets that still yield good low frequency response will have lower sensitivity. High sensitivity designs with good low frequency output tend to have large cabinets and/or larger woofers or many woofers.
When designing a speaker, you have three choices:

1) Efficiency

2) Small size

3) Strong bass

You can have any two, but not all three. Most speaker designers decide what they are willing to compromise when they sit down to design a speaker system.
 
j_garcia

j_garcia

Audioholic Jedi
The bookshelf speakers I run in my bedroom have relatively low sensitivity also, and I run them with my PM-7200 and they produce a surprising amount of bass (with a rating of -3dB @ 55Hz) from a small cabinet. I personally like the whole concept of driving low sensitivity speakers with a ton of power...:)
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
When designing a speaker, you have three choices:

1) Efficiency

2) Small size

3) Strong bass

You can have any two, but not all three. Most speaker designers decide what they are willing to compromise when they sit down to design a speaker system.
Reminds me of a quote from a well known bicycle manufacturer. "Strong, light, cheap. Pick any two."
 
highfihoney

highfihoney

Audioholic Samurai
I personally like the whole concept of driving low sensitivity speakers with a ton of power...:)
I can attest to the merits of that concept:D

Seriously though,its what drove me to buy monster amps in the first place,my line array's are extremely inneficient & anything less than 600 watts wasnt cuttin it.
 
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
The bookshelf speakers I run in my bedroom have relatively low sensitivity also, and I run them with my PM-7200 and they produce a surprising amount of bass (with a rating of -3dB @ 55Hz) from a small cabinet. I personally like the whole concept of driving low sensitivity speakers with a ton of power...:)
After doing a more extensive A/B/C comparison between the Polks, Miages, and KRKs this weekend, I have decided to keep the Mirages as my mains for now. When turned up, they have more bass than I originally thought. They sound quite accurate (very lifelike tones.) They are a bit short on dynamic impact, but all of their shortcomings are more than outweighed by the imaging, which is truly incredible.
The limitations of bass and dynamics would probably be eliminated by either going with the floorstanding models or a sub, but that would remove the "impressive sound from tiny speakers" effect, which is the other thing I really like about them.
 
no. 5

no. 5

Audioholic Field Marshall
Looking at my Polk Monitor 50s next to my Mirage Omni 150s, one would expect them to have much more powerful bass (since they are much larger.) This impression is borne out by listening.
Now look at the specs: The -3dB point of the Polks is 57Hz, while that of the Mirages is 55Hz. In other words, on paper the Mirages go deeper!
Does this imply that the rated frequency response is comletely useless?:confused:
To confuse matters even further, my KRK ST6s are in-between the Polks and Mirages size-wise (though closer to the Mirages), rated to 60Hz, and have more powerful bass output than either one!:eek:
Quoted frequency response is not of fine enough resolution to discern how the bass will sound.

For example, the two illustrations below are of two hypothetical speakers that have a -3dB point of 60Hz:



As can be seen by the "measured frequency response line", although both speakers have a -3dB point of 60Hz, the actual output above 60Hz is very different, and very audible.

Also, printed loudspeakers frequency response is given relative to the input; so a frequency response of 60Hz to 20kHz +/- 3dB means that between 60Hz and 20kHz the speaker will deviate no more than 3dB from the input signal (at least, that's what I've heard... ;)).


Edit: I apologies for the hideousness of the illustration, but the it seems I cannot use spaces to draw a picture, and my scanner isn't working so I couldn't draw one by hand, and... you get the idea. :eek:
 
Last edited:
J

Joe Schmoe

Audioholic Ninja
Edit: I apologies for the hideousness of the illustration, but the it seems I cannot use spaces to draw a picture, and my scanner isn't working so I couldn't draw one by hand, and... you get the idea. :eek:
It gets the idea across well enough. The FR graphs I have seen resemble your first example far more than the second. (I wish such graphs were available for a much broader range of speakers, though, as they are far more informative than specs alone.)
 

Latest posts

newsletter

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