Towers vs Bookshelf/subs

[AcuDefTechGuy]

It is possible that the vibrations that caused the grill to fall off were caused by other speakers (like your subwoofers) vibrating things in the room.

I think you're right.

The entire room was shaking. Heck, my whole body was shacking.

It was just a weird experience since this has never happened.

 

[JerryLove]

This is not a simple truth, Jerry. If the main speakers have limited low-frequency output it is probably best to use a high-pass filter on them, but if the mains have considerable bass capabilities they can provide additional bass sources, which will probably smooth in-room bass response. Running the mains full-range and using a DSP with the sub to limit it to fill in response dips is also a viable strategy, and then the bass capabilities of the mains is not wasted. It is a more complicated to implement strategy for sure, but having experimented with various sub integration strategies it was the one that eventually provided the smoothest and more extended bass response at my listening position.

There is, of course, the cancellation problem between the mains.
Then there's the doppler problem from the LF drivers which are now running a fuller range.
Then there's the "what did I give up to get extension in the first place" question... but that gets us back into 2-way / vs / 3-way discussions.

Plus: That you've added and configured a DSP to accomplish your goal is not a trivial point and puts it outside the assumptions of my response.

It's sometimes easiest to think of the subs as added drivers to the existing speaker system. You are suggesting putting a high-pass and low-pass crossover with significantly different -3db points as a positive thing. Can you point to a single integrated speaker (as opposed to someone dealing with an external sub) which has done this on any of the crossovers? The only similar thing I can think of is on the X.5-way designs, and that's still not the same.

Finally, put simply: I could accomplish the same thing (only easier) with more subs.

(I assume the point of the question was not whether to "waste bass capabilities" but whether to seek out such capabilities in the first place)

 

[Irvrobinson]

There is, of course, the cancellation problem between the mains.
Then there's the doppler problem from the LF drivers which are now running a fuller range.
Then there's the "what did I give up to get extension in the first place" question... but that gets us back into 2-way / vs / 3-way discussions.

I'll ignore all of this stuff, because I don't believe that even you think it's relevant here. Also, many tower speakers will have much more headroom in the mid-bass than 2-way monitors, which may allow the system to sound much better as it gets louder.

That you've added and configured a DSP to accomplish your goal is not a trivial point and puts it outside the assumptions of my response.

This is true, but many powered subs have DSPs in them. Some serious time spent on my system and friends' systems with the OmniMic have taught me that without a good in-room measurement tool and a DSP, smooth response in the lower three octaves is very difficult to achieve. So, yeah, I threw that in.

It's sometimes easiest to think of the subs as added drivers to the existing speaker system.

Only if the subs are in the same positions as the mains.

You are suggesting putting a high-pass and low-pass crossover with significantly different -3db points as a positive thing. Can you point to a single integrated speaker (as opposed to someone dealing with an external sub) which has done this on any of the crossovers? The only similar thing I can think of is on the X.5-way designs, and that's still not the same.

I was not suggesting anything of the sort. What I am suggesting is that in some rooms, with some towers that have extended bass response, it can be beneficial to run the towers full-range, and adjust the sub via DSP and careful positioning to fill-in for suck-outs, or of course extended frequency response in the lowest frequencies.

Finally, put simply: I could accomplish the same thing (only easier) with more subs.

Maybe, but now you're talking a much more expensive solution with more room intrusion.

I assume the point of the question was not whether to "waste bass capabilities" but whether to seek out such capabilities in the first place)

Agreed, but you're the one that mentioned waste. My only point is that it's not so simple.

 

[JerryLove]

I'll ignore all of this stuff, because I don't believe that even you think it's relevant here. Also, many tower speakers will have much more headroom in the mid-bass than 2-way monitors, which may allow the system to sound much better as it gets louder.

You've fallen into the trap I was trying to avoid of juxtiposing 2-way/3-way with bookshelf/tower. It leads to aruging in circles.

But I most certainly do think Doppler shift is relevant and I most certainly do think that adding bass in a bad room location worsens the overall sound.

In my present setup, I also use the crossover to sub to raise the SPL before the woofers on my mains hit X-Max.

Only if the subs are in the same positions as the mains.

I disagree given the non-localization of sub frequencies. Indeed: in professional venues it's not uncommon to separate more than the subs into separate enclosures.

I was not suggesting anything of the sort. What I am suggesting is that in some rooms, with some towers that have extended bass response, it can be beneficial to run the towers full-range, and adjust the sub via DSP and careful positioning to fill-in for suck-outs, or of course extended frequency response in the lowest frequencies.

I cannot disagree with the claim that this will sometimes work out better. I don't presently believe that this will be the normal outcome; especially for those who do not spend many hours learning to use, then using, an omnimic to tweak their DSP.

Agreed, but you're the one that mentioned waste. My only point is that it's not so simple.

I think there's a bit of equivocation there.

 

[Irvrobinson]

I disagree given the non-localization of sub frequencies. Indeed: in professional venues it's not uncommon to separate more than the subs into separate enclosures.

Yeah, assuming the subs are really rolled off by about 100Hz. I haven't heard very many 2-way monitors that integrate well with powerful subs unless the sub gets into the 120Hz range, and then pop goes non-localization, and the subs need to be near the monitors. Solo piano is a good test case for the issue.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Yeah, assuming the subs are really rolled off by about 100Hz. I haven't heard very many 2-way monitors that integrate well with powerful subs unless the sub gets into the 120Hz range, and then pop goes non-localization, and the subs need to be near the monitors. Solo piano is a good test case for the issue.

Yeah, I like placing the monitors directly above the subs as if the monitor + sub were one modular unit like the Philharmonic 3 or RBH T2, etc.

I don't see an issue with localization w/ XO @ 120-150Hz.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I could accomplish the same thing (only easier) with more subs.

I definitely agree that having 4 equal subs + 2 monitors could potentially be better than having 1 sub + 2 towers and especially better than 0 sub + 2 towers.

 

[JerryLove]

I definitely agree that having 4 equal subs + 2 monitors could potentially be better than having 1 sub + 2 towers and especially better than 0 sub + 2 towers.

Let me clarify my position a little.

I assert that towers are more likely to be 3-way (or TL) designs than bookshelves, and I think there are advantages to 3-way designs when crossing over to a sub. My claim was that extension much past the sub crossover was wasted (I'll add the caveat "in most circumstances"), but I do predominantly use towers with subs for reasons other than bass extension.

I assert that a 2-way design has to choose between 2 bad scenarios:
1) use a small midrange and have little ability to produce SPL at the crossover point.
2) use a large midrange and worsen midrange performance (and likely drive down the midrange SPL by moving the crossover to the tweeter down)

How audible the compromise is is something clearly up for debate. I've run 2-way+sub without being annoyed by the results (my computer setup currently is, but my bedroom setup used to be).

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I have this crazy idea of placing five KEF Reference 201/2 atop five RBH Signature SX-1010N plus two Funk 18.0 - sort of like having five large towers and dual subs.

 

[Mark of Cenla]

This a great topic. I gave up "accurate sound" a long time ago for various reasons, not the least of it is available funds. In my living room, where is plenty of space, we have towers with subwoofers in the back (my weird design), and it sounds very good. Where I do most of my listening, in our bedroom, there is only space for bookshelf speakers, in this case Polk Rti4's. I run them full range and use a Sony subwoofer to add to the lows below about 70hz. It works for me. Peace and goodwill.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I've been basking in audio nirvana with my five 201/2 + five SX-1010 + two F18 the past 24 hrs.

The balance is truly incredible. I think I could sell everything else and be utterly happy.

 

[its phillip]

Just donate it to me

 

[DS-21]

The sub-as-mains-stand setup (or "flanking sub" setup) has two advantages and three disadvantages.

The advantages are:
1) Headroom in the region of music where it's most needed.
A big driver powered by a big amp can get all kinds of loud. That kind of dynamic fidelity in the upper bass is rare in home systems. One typically has to move all the way to the Revel Salon2-Snell XA Reference-KEF 207/2-TAD Reference One class to get that kind of upper bass power. (And even then, only with a big amp powering them!)
2) Allison effect.
With proper placement (preferably bass driver or drivers low and vertically offset from the mains' baffle) and measurement equipment, one can eliminate floor bounce, i.e. the Allison Effect, at the listening position by playing with the crossover to blend the two units together. In conjunction with 2 or more other subs in the room, it becomes possible to nearly completely tame system response in the modal region, thus making one's listening space sound much much larger.

The disadvantages are:
1) Crappy performance (if run without additional subs).
Putting the subs under the mains does not smooth out response in the modal region. In fact, the extra headroom with exacerbate the problem, because the subs will excite modes that the mains were not stout enough to excite. Not an issue if you run subwoofers in the room in addition to the flanking subs. But if one is only running two subs, it is always better to have them placed away from the mains. Usually the optimum placement for two subs is one in a corner and one far away from the corner sub.
2) Most subs aren't good enough to be so used.
As Irv mentioned, the subs need to have clean, extended response an octave above the intended lowpass. If you're using them to 250Hz, that means a driver good to 500Hz or so. Most dedicated sub drivers just aren't that good. A few, such as the Aurasound units and it seems Nathan's bespoke parts, are.
3) Diffraction off of the subs,
If they the mains are just placed on a subwoofer that's wider than the mains cabinet. Better to commission cabinets so that they are a continuous form, or at least use a stand on top of the sub for the mains.

I use the approach for the mains in my living room, albeit in concert with three other subs.

The audio parts are:
Main speaker: Pioneer EX S-IW691L "in wall" speakers with a 5" concentric driver (damped magnesium cone, ceramic-graphite tweeter) with 7" midbasses flanking it on top and bottom, closed box of about 40L, wool felt strategically placed on the baffle to mitigate diffraction and simulate a larger wall.
Flanking sub: Aurasound NS12-794-4A woofers firing on the inside rear of the 65L sub/stand, fed 1kW from a bridged channel pair of my ElectroVoice CPS8.5 multisub amp.

Crossover is staggered, though off the top of my head I don't remember the numbers. The system uses all 8 channels of my miniDSP 8x8 processor for 3 mains and 5 subs.

Also visible in that picture is my current corner sub, an M-Design Eleganza Godfather, which uses the Aurasound NS15-992-4A woofer.

i realize you want the subs to handle as much of the bass response as possible, but the TAD's are rated down to 50Hz. what is the advantage of crossing over so high? ***

Headroom. I wouldn't do it without measurement gear one knows how to use and a good DS external crossover, though!

Only if the music has copious amount of high quality bass.

I bet a pair of *** atop dual $2K subs (PSA, HSU, Rythmik) would sound better - if you like ribbons and such.

I don't know how high the PSAs or Hsus go, but Rythmiks are especially poorly suited to flanking sub configurations. The cockamamie servo nonsense severely cripples their bandwidth up top. And the subs cannot be used high enough to help deal with floor bounce, there's no acoustic reason to put them that close to the mains.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

The sub-as-mains-stand setup (or "flanking sub" setup) has two advantages and three disadvantages.

The advantages are:
1) Headroom in the region of music where it's most needed.
A big driver powered by a big amp can get all kinds of loud. That kind of dynamic fidelity in the upper bass is rare in home systems. One typically has to move all the way to the Revel Salon2-Snell XA Reference-KEF 207/2-TAD Reference One class to get that kind of upper bass power. (And even then, only with a big amp powering them!)
2) Allison effect.
With proper placement (preferably bass driver or drivers low and vertically offset from the mains' baffle) and measurement equipment, one can eliminate floor bounce, i.e. the Allison Effect, at the listening position by playing with the crossover to blend the two units together. In conjunction with 2 or more other subs in the room, it becomes possible to nearly completely tame system response in the modal region, thus making one's listening space sound much much larger.

The disadvantages are:
1) Crappy performance (if run without additional subs).
Putting the subs under the mains does not smooth out response in the modal region. In fact, the extra headroom with exacerbate the problem, because the subs will excite modes that the mains were not stout enough to excite. Not an issue if you run subwoofers in the room in addition to the flanking subs. But if one is only running two subs, it is always better to have them placed away from the mains. Usually the optimum placement for two subs is one in a corner and one far away from the corner sub.
2) Most subs aren't good enough to be so used.
As Irv mentioned, the subs need to have clean, extended response an octave above the intended lowpass. If you're using them to 250Hz, that means a driver good to 500Hz or so. Most dedicated sub drivers just aren't that good. A few, such as the Aurasound units and it seems Nathan's bespoke parts, are.
3) Diffraction off of the subs,
If they the mains are just placed on a subwoofer that's wider than the mains cabinet. Better to commission cabinets so that they are a continuous form, or at least use a stand on top of the sub for the mains.

I use the approach for the mains in my living room, albeit in concert with three other subs.

I most certainly didn't know any of that.

1) I just placed my 201/2 on 12" black wood stands atop my black RBH Signature SX-1010 subs because I saw AJ do that with his Overture 1212 speaker system.

2) And although my RBH & Funk subs are clean & flat up to 180Hz & 250Hz respectively, I have changed my XO to 100Hz.

3) And I have a total of seven subs spread around my room.

BTW, that looks like one sweet awesome system you got there!

And I don't own Rythmik anymore, but I recall they can go flat up to 150Hz if you set the XO to the sub, instead of the AVR.

Also as stated on their site, their new H600PEQ2 also provides an LFE mode that extends the upper end to 200hz.

Their $598 shipped LV12R is flat up to 300Hz.

 

[3db]

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/images/products/subs/LV12R_LFE.jpg[/IMG]

I'll be ordering that sub within the next couple of weeks for my birthday.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I'll be ordering that sub within the next couple of weeks for my birthday.

That will be quite a nice birthday present for sure.

 

[DS-21]

BTW, that looks like one sweet awesome system you got there!

The cabinets are an aesthetic compromise with my wife. I wanted them to look more like the Grimm LS1's (Another riff on the standmount + flanking sub concept) but with the bass drivers vertical and facing the wall behind them rather than horizontal and upfiring:

Except obviously with better parts than the Seas Excel woofer and diffraction-guide dome tweeter on top, and Peerless XXLS down low. (Though the XXLS is a very good woofer.) Parts more like this:

(5" Pioneer EX "coherent source transducer" concentric driver, with TAD/Pioneer 7" midbass in background.)

(7" TAD/Pioneer midbass)

(Aurasound NS12-794-4A)

But she wanted them to match the TV cabinet. So I compromised a bit on performance (squared off edges rather than nice big diffraction-mitigating curves) and she compromised a bit on size (they're taller and about as wide as Salon2s or 207/2s, but less deep).

Side and rear surrounds are commercial speakers. KEF R800ds and Q100, respectively.

And I don't own Rythmik anymore, but I recall they can go flat up to 150Hz if you set the XO to the sub, instead of the AVR.

That is not what Josh Ricci's measurements showed for the one he tested. I am unaware of other 3d party measurements, and Ding's don't mean much to me.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Today I've been listening and comparing my speakers.

Revel Salon2 in 2.0 (MSRP $22K)
B&W 802D2 in 2.0 (MSRP $15K)
Linkwitz Orion3 in 2.0 (MSRP $10K)
KEF 201/2 + RBH SX-1010N in 2.2 (MSRP $8.4K)

I unequivocally preferred the 2.2 setup over all the 2.0 tower setup 100% of the time. No contest.

Going back to 2.0 towers was unpleasant. It seemed anemic in comparison to the 2.2 setup.

The KEF + Funk was even better.

 

[exlabdriver]

ADTG: I've been a big fan of sat/sub systems for over 20 years. Last year when I was auditioning floor standers locally I found that, while they were good, none of them equaled my vintage system that was comprised of a couple of sats & 1 Velo 10" sub. As you stated - all were anemic compared to what I already had. Furthermore, IMO small speakers on stands with a sub or two just look cool as well.

I needed to update my audio system so I went with the same format but added a second sub, SACD player all driven by a tube amp. While my gear is certainly not as high end as yours, this is very pleasing music only system for me.

My gear can be seen here - Posts 206 and 207:

New Official Axiom Audio Speaker Owners Thread

TAM

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

ADTG: I've been a big fan of sat/sub systems for over 20 years. Last year when I was auditioning floor standers locally I found that, while they were good, none of them equaled my vintage system that was comprised of a couple of sats & 1 Velo 10" sub. As you stated - all were anemic compared to what I already had. Furthermore, IMO small speakers on stands with a sub or two just look cool as well.

I needed to update my audio system so I went with the same format but added a second sub, SACD player all driven by a tube amp. While my gear is certainly not as high end as yours, this is very pleasing music only system for me.

My gear can be seen here - Posts 206 and 207:

New Official Axiom Audio Speaker Owners Thread

TAM

Yeah, I think when we are used to a certain preference level of bass, it's difficult to change to anything else.

Yesterday I was listening to the Salon2, 802D2, and Orion3 in Pure Direct 2.0. Man, I was disappointed to say the least. It was like, "What the heck happen to my bass?"

It's like an addiction and switching to 2.0 towers causes immediate withdrawals.

I think if I TAPER down the dose - stop listening to my system for 3 months, then listen to the towers, I might find them more pleasing.