very informative discussion on bass vis-a-vis speakers, subs and room acoustics.

[siddh]

http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/back-to-bass-again/

[Alrainbow]

Yes it was. I posted on it. I think it's something we should have here too.

[Rust]

So ideally the listener should be seated 50' above the ground on a post with the full range speakers similarly 50' above ground on posts, out in an open field to eliminate floor bounce and reflections. Works for me.

[siddh]

Hmmm....I missed that posting in the conversation.

[Rust]

My post was in regards to the posted link to the thread on accurate reproduction of bass frequencies, room interactions and the like. My "solution" was to listen in an environment free of any interactions, thus the open field.

[Alrainbow]

It continued today. There is person on there named acuvox if I remember right he has a made a stereo spacial device for two speaker setups as his is many Chanel's
the pont is he is someone who really knows how it should sound and well schooled how to measure if it does not
My only argument with him is where does how we like fit in. Most here have had there room tuned with a sspectal
sweep. I know have and I like it the way it is not as it looks best. And for me bass is something g that seems at times too low.

[Bill Hart]

I'm hardly an expert on the subject, but here is what I've observed:

1. A lot of recordings don't have extremely deep bass, at least on LPs, leaving aside pipe organ, the occasional down-tuned double bass or synth/electronica. What gives us the gravitas of a performance is some low-ish stuff with upper harmonics.
2. The transition between subs and lower bass/mids is critical in my estimation. That's where the system shows the "hidden wires" (in the theatrical sense of the mechanics of the illusion).
3. I'll trade off some bandwidth for everything else- tonality, dynamics, evenness of sonic character, see point 2, above.
4. Real bass in a room (like a double bass) isn't usually hyper-articulated, and chest slamming- it lays a foundation for the music that you sometimes don't even hear separately distinct from the other instruments. (Sometimes you do hear it distinctly, but there still isn't this "high contrast edge" around the shape of the notes that I hear on a lot of "hi-fi" systems).
5. Re point 4, and some of the earlier points above, "impressive" is different than "real" sounding.

I'm not trying to pronounce any "truth" other than for myself. Happy to learn how others consider and hear differently if you have a different view or an amplification of any of these points.

Pretty much spot on, Bill.

[david k]

Yep, that's mostly how I see & hear it too.
david

[david k]

http://www.psaudio.com/pauls-posts/back-to-bass-again/

Aside from a couple of people the majority of that thread is the typical blind leading other blind, there's nothing new or informative there.

david

[MylesBAstor]

I think that it's far more complex than Paul lets on and what happens when we try to over simplify things and make sweeping generalizations. Particularly why the bass is missing. That could be due to a multitude of reasons.

But I do agree that it is puzzling whem a speaker whose price is north of 50k doesn't have low bass. But one has to really analyze the situation and think what is going on and where the blame lies. With the speakers or with the rest of the system? With the speaker/amplifier combination? With the speaker set up? With the room? Or as Bill intimated, does the source really have low base? For instance, is what you hear as low bass on your system really low bass? Or maybe a doubling of the low bass? Or a bloat in the bass you think is low bass? It becomes the chicken or the egg.

I will also add this knowing the speakers Paul uses as his reference. One needs to differentiate between low bass and moving the quantity of air an instrument such as an organ will produce vs. quality and tightness of the low frequencies. Not unlike the debate between a planar lover vs. a dynamic speaker lover.

[david k]

Yes, those servo woofers aren't exactly what I'd call quality or anywhere near natural bass...

[Bill Hart]

Room integration is key. I had an epiphany when I changed the surround processor in our small "den" home theatre- I eliminated my old Meridian which had been my main processor back in the '90s--it was long past its sell-by date when it wound up in the "den" system and eventually got replaced by a modern "black box"- a Marantz with Audyssey. The sub is no bigger than a large shoe box (and the satellites are tiny wall mounts- all from one of the Canadian speaker companies- decent, but not high end gear). I was stunned by how tight and deep sounding that little woofer was with electronic manipulation. I'm not advocating DSP for the main system (though I use a small DSP unit on one big sub up there to get it flatter before I roll it off but the signal to the main speakers does not pass thru it, it runs parallel to the main system from additional outputs off the line stage). I'm also very persuaded by that "swarm" woofer approach of using multiple subs spread throughout the room to even out the response.
I think despite our "audiophile" credentials, we are still tempted by the devil of "impressive"- getting the subs tuned down to integrate well means you don't really hear them till you turn them off. And, if you are listening to heavy rock bass/synth/music soundtrack- type music, there is a temptation to give the subs a little juice since most of that is artificial anyway and who knows what "right" is -bass at rocket launch thrust levels may actually be how this sounds in real life (my buddies with the club in Austin regularly reach shuttle launch levels with their onstage woofer system for live shows) - obviously, when you switch to a more "natural" sounding jazz combo or symphony, it can be too much, but there is a "WOW" factor to it that is probably hard to resist, I don't know. It probably costs a lot of money to add the woofers/crossovers/hardware necessary for a fully integrated floor stander to deliver real bass in one package.

[MylesBAstor]

Room integration is key. I had an epiphany when I changed the surround processor in our small "den" home theatre- I eliminated my old Meridian which had been my main processor back in the '90s--it was long past its sell-by date when it wound up in the "den" system and eventually got replaced by a modern "black box"- a Marantz with Audyssey. The sub is no bigger than a large shoe box (and the satellites are tiny wall mounts- all from one of the Canadian speaker companies- decent, but not high end gear). I was stunned by how tight and deep sounding that little woofer was with electronic manipulation. I'm not advocating DSP for the main system (though I use a small DSP unit on one big sub up there to get it flatter before I roll it off but the signal to the main speakers does not pass thru it, it runs parallel to the main system from additional outputs off the line stage). I'm also very persuaded by that "swarm" woofer approach of using multiple subs spread throughout the room to even out the response.
I think despite our "audiophile" credentials, we are still tempted by the devil of "impressive"- getting the subs tuned down to integrate well means you don't really hear them till you turn them off. And, if you are listening to heavy rock bass/synth/music soundtrack- type music, there is a temptation to give the subs a little juice since most of that is artificial anyway and who knows what "right" is -bass at rocket launch thrust levels may actually be how this sounds in real life (my buddies with the club in Austin regularly reach shuttle launch levels with their onstage woofer system for live shows) - obviously, when you switch to a more "natural" sounding jazz combo or symphony, it can be too much, but there is a "WOW" factor to it that is probably hard to resist, I don't know. It probably costs a lot of money to add the woofers/crossovers/hardware necessary for a fully integrated floor stander to deliver real bass in one package.

I think the other issue is what people call subs are really woofers. For me, a true sub starts working below 40 Hz.

[david k]

I think the other issue is what people call subs are really woofers. For me, a true sub starts working below 40 Hz.

That depends on the main speakers subs have to go higher than 40hz to blend in but no higher than 80-85hz.

david

[MylesBAstor]

That depends on the main speakers subs have to go higher than 40hz to blend in but no higher than 80-85hz.

david

I agree but a true sub in my book is really below 40 Hz. And some get into trouble eg. blending when trying to go higher then.

To wit, it was near impossible to get a woofer to blend with the CLS but if you could get something respectable if you say blended in a REL back then under 40 Hz. Otherwise, despite it's great qualities, the CLS was always too thin sounding for my tastes. Despite Andy Benjamin claiming the CLS went down to 30 Hz.

[david k]

I agree but a true sub in my book is really below 40 Hz. And some get into trouble eg. blending when trying to go higher then.

To wit, it was near impossible to get a woofer to blend with the CLS but if you could get something respectable if you say blended in a REL back then under 40 Hz. Otherwise, despite it's great qualities, the CLS was always too thin sounding for my tastes. Despite Andy Benjamin claiming the CLS went down to 30 Hz.

I don't disagree subs are to fill below 40hz-50hz but you need to come in higher with the sub(65hz-80hz) if you want to blend it in seamlessly, you can't just dial the xover at 39hz. If you're picky then stay away form Rels, JLs, Velodynes, etc., these are home theater subs and IME will never work properly with any speaker for music. Class D amps, digital crossovers and thick heavy drivers are sonically the worst possible combination.

david