Top Ten Reasons Why Subwoofers and B&W Loudspeakers Don't Mix Musically... Usually

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • RebelMan
    Ultra Senior Member
    • Mar 2005
    • 3139

    Top Ten Reasons Why Subwoofers and B&W Loudspeakers Don't Mix Musically... Usually

    DISCLAIMER: I make some pretty bold statements in the proceeding essay. If you think you might be offended stop here. It was not my intention to offend anyone but I have some very strong feelings about this subject as it pertains to B&W loudspeakers.

    Some people are of the mind that subwoofers are not only beneficial but necessary to realize and fully enjoy music reproduction in all of it's varieties. While I agree to some extent that subwoofers can in some unique situations aid the listener I do not agree that it is a requirement for the majority of people with full range monitors. What is full range? Any loudspeaker capable of producing bass, midrange and treble frequencies with high-fidelity. What is high fidelity? It is the reproduction of sound that faithfully captures the original master recording. Unfortunately, subwoofers, even high quality ones, fail to maintain true and authentic to the source material because of the lack of expertise employed by its user and/or the types of techniques required to integrated them into a high performance two-channel system. Here's why...

    10. Room Placement - You thought finding the right spot for your mains was tough try adding a sub to the equation. The same rules apply but guess what? Your mains should already be occupying the optimal position within the room. This wouldn't be a problem if you used your sub the way it was intended and that is to produce sub bass, that is below bass, not mid-bass. Our audible threshold of bass starts at 20Hz, not 60+Hz. Placing your sub anywhere in the room where it can be localized is a problem that many, including myself, have difficulty contending with because of the domestic restrictions most of us must deal with. Two subs are definitely better than one in this case but only if you have the means to accommodate them. Who among us do? Not many.

    9. Room Excitation - You finally have gotten your mains positioned for the best response in your room and they sound great but you "think" that something is missing... low bass. So now you add a sub to make up for (what you "think") are the inadequacies of your left and right speakers. Guess what, you may have just created new problem. The energy at some low frequencies may now be coincident to the resonant modes of your room. If you are one of the lucky few that have EQing abilities built into your sub this would seem like a non-issue. Time to refresh yourself with the definition of what it means to have high-fidelity that started this post. EQ's are the antithesis of audio purity. Fixed EQ's have gaps in-between frequencies that cannot be compensated for and variable realtime EQ's correct the signal after it has been produced. Both artificially manipulating the original signal. A high performance stereo system is designed to stay out of the way of the signal path, not jump head on into it. If you have a room that behaves poorly, treat the room! Don't bandaid the signal. Adding a second sub would be a great idea and would go a long way in taming the standing waves, if you can mange it, which again many if not most of us can't.

    8. Crossover Frequency - The general rule of thumb for setting the subwoofer crossover point is double the low frequency response of the main speakers. The problem with this is that most loudspeakers would require settings of of 60+Hz or more to compensate for slope variations thus crossing into mid-bass territory; recognized to be 40+Hz. Most subwoofers are not very adept at producing mid-bass frequencies much less upper bass which is what the engineers of your B&W's spent years perfecting. For home theater this is fine but it's not so good for revealing the subtleties within the musical fabric.

    7. Phase Relationships - Some subs provide the means for adjusting this parameter, sometimes called a delay, with an adjustment knob. Other's are less accommodating by using switches. The difficulty comes in knowing how much delay to apply. Once you know how it is pretty straight forward. Do you know how? I'll give you a hint, invert the polarities of your mains and pipe a 25Hz test tone through your system and dial the knob or better yet laterally move your sub. What do you think you should hear? Very little! Improper phase calibration could mean a breakdown in linear response or over excitation of certain modes drawing attention to the sub when there shouldn't be.

    6. Pitch and Timbre - How good are you at detecting driver induced resonances? You know they exist right? Well they do. Every transducer on the planet comes with it's own blend of color. What would you do if you needed to replace one of the woofers in your beloved B&W's? Will it come from Scan-Speak? How about Usher or better yet Focal? Maybe you could save yourself the trouble and expense by picking up a garden variety type off the shelf of your local electronics supply store. Unlikely that you would I am sure. Chances are you will replace the woofer with an original OEM. So why choose a different make and model transducer for your subwoofer? If all you wanted from your sub was sub-bass then this wouldn't be an issue. But you aren't asking your sub to produce LFE you are asking it to produce mid-bass. Herein lies the problem. Low frequencies produced by the sub can sound different from the low frequencies produced by the mains. The discontinuity manifests itself in a variation of pitch and timbre at different bass registers. Bass notes don't instantly drop off with one driver to be immediately picked up by another. Slopes cross over. Some of this can be compensated for but not so easily with most subs.

    5. System Q - Have you got Q? How much Q do you have? What the heck is Q? Q is a quality factor. It is a unit-less number that describes the resonant characteristics of woofers. A high measure of Q means a lower level of damping and a lower measure of Q means a higher level of damping. So what's this got to do with subs? Everything! Remember the objective is to integrate the subwoofer with the mains not to simply add it. The problem is high quality loudspeakers like B&W, have been engineered to deliver taut, lean, and quick bass impulses with very little overhang. Most subwoofers are not designed in this articulating fashion. Some servo based (distortion controller) subs can ameliorate this to some degree but they are not completely immune from ringing at upper bass frequencies. Check point reminder, subwoofers are meant to do one thing and one thing only and that is to produce prodigious amounts of sub-bass, not low bass but sub-bass.

    4. Signal Integrity - Here is the oft overlooked killer of signal purity, the subwoofer crossover network. How do you get your sub to properly mesh with your mains? One way is to use low level (line level) signals. The other way is to use high-level (speaker level) signals. Most audio purists, including myself, would recommend balanced low level signals whenever possible. If you don't have this option then go with single ended connections. But don't use high level signals unless you can't avoid them. Why? Because some subs use a fixed high pass frequency and slope when passing high signal levels to your main speakers. Mixed crossover slopes can show up as discontinuities in the low frequencies between the mid-bass bass produced by the mains and the low bass that is produced by the subwoofer. Furthermore, the quality of the crossover network and topology may not be of the same caliber as your mains and you simultaneously introduce another sound degrading circuit into the signal pathway. Folks, if you ever wanted to know the reason for sticking with the same manufacture for your mains and sub, this is it!

    3. Cabinet Design - When is a sub a musical sub? When it has no ports. Reflex loaded subs are designed with the sole intention of efficiently delivering visceral feel and impact at subsonic frequencies. Problem is they are not as competent at delivering the subtle nuances of music in the mid-bass region. It may seem like ported subs are accomplished low bass producers once they have been dialed in but it isn't "good" musical bass only good special effects bass that includes chuffing noise. Sealed subs are much better at low bass definition but generally need to be larger than their ported cousins and are usually much less efficient. This may seen like no big deal until you discover the tradeoff the manufacture had to make in cabinet construction to get it that size. When was the last time you "felt" your sub? That's right I said felt. Next opportunity you get, while playing music, feel your sub. Then feel your mains. If high performance audio means anything to you cabinet resonance should be non existent. You can't hear what you don't feel! Why spend all the time, trouble and expense to furnish your room with speakers that add very little of their own noise to the music you enjoy only to spoil it with a fat sub? Tattoo this thought to your head, subs mean distortion!

    2. Level Control - Here' a biggy, the volume control. You just spent $$$ dollars on that new state-of-the-art sub so you can hear what you think you have been missing in your music sources so you better be able to hear it, right? Maybe it's time to rethink what you've been thinking. Maybe it's time for a pair of hearing aids? Or maybe its time to educate yourself with equal-loudness contours? The human ear is less sensitive to frequencies that extends much below 1KHz or above 5KHz. Couple this with your hearing ability, or the lack thereof, and the issue is exacerbated. I am a 40 year old male with an average +5dB in the right ear and 0dB in the left, according to my last audiometer report in April. Superimposing my results to that with the absolute threshold of hearing curves places my hearing aptitude with that of a 20 year old male. I am not suggesting that I am the man with the golden ears or that I have perfect hearing, although my doctor seems to think so. What I am saying is that I have learned to become a very good listener and I don't require the boost on the low side of the frequency spectrum that others may need to enjoy the full range of the audio band. I don't need to feel the music I only need to hear it. But when I do feel the need I only need to adjust one volume knob not two thus avoiding yet another problem subs create at low frequencies. Understand what equal-loudness curves is all about and you'll understand exactly what I meant by the last statement.

    1. What do you know about B&W? - What do you know about the British sound? Seriously, what do you know? B&W's house sound can be simply described as somewhat forward in the high band (treble), somewhat reserved in the mid-band (midrange) and somewhat polite in the low-band (bass). Further up the range of B&W models the more refined and closer to neutral the performance of their loudspeakers become. But make no mistake, the Brits are no stranger to making bass, good articulate bass that is accurate and revealing. But don't expect to find the thunderous heart pounding knock you off the edge of your seat bass that you have come to expect from the loud and obnoxious sound systems used to put on most concert shows. You aren't going to find it here. But with an appropriate set of ancillary equipment what you will achieve is the quickness of attack and undistorted transient decay that only comes from unamplified acoustically projected live venues be it at semi-large or quaint little forums. The results may not be as polished as that you'll find from the same act in the recording studio but the intimate connection that you get from listening to the artist will be no different. If you are bass hound then I suggest you look elsewhere. The are some notable manufacturers, Vandersteen is one that comes to mind, that engineer their speakers from the ground up using built in subwoofers for those that need them. Also be sure to take into consideration your style of music. Most music rarely reaches energy levels much below 28Hz. If the kind you listen two hits this mark frequently, consider speakers that are engineer for these applications. B&W's own 801D passive radiators comes very close but even it will fall somewhat short on those rare occasions.

    Reading these ten reasons not to use a subwoofer for music would seem to indicate that it would be wrong in doing so. Well the reality is that it is neither right nor wrong. People should be compelled to do what feels good to them. We all have unique tastes and abilities which are carried over to the choices we are free to make. One cannot make a bad choice here. However, attached to the choices we make are the unavoidable conditions that go with them. Ask yourself this question, why am I here reading this post in Club B&W on HTGuide? Well, I believe one reason is because you have more than just a passing interest in B&W loudspeakers. I believe you are looking for answers to questions like what constitutes good sound and how can I achieve it? One way is to read the experiences of others the other is to experience it for yourself. My experience tells me subwoofers have no place in accurately representing the pre-recoded music that I prefer and have compared to live forums not equipped with public address systems, which far too many people falsely associate quality too. Now I am not completely abdicating the use of subwoofers altogether for stereo playback but I am of the mind that it isn't necessary for the vast majority of listeners and for anyone to suggest subs are unconditionally necessary is totally misleading of the truth and completely inaccurate.
    Last edited by RebelMan; 02 June 2007, 20:45 Saturday.
    "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."
  • nick.h
    Senior Member
    • Jan 2006
    • 171

    #2
    Still trying to decided to either build a new subwoofer or get a ASW855.

    Subwoofers rock!

    Comment

    • Aussie Geoff
      Super Senior Member
      • Oct 2003
      • 1914

      #3
      Rebleman,

      Excellent and well thought out... :T

      Though IMO if you take the time and use a good sub - the results are 100% worth it.... One of the top end B&Ws like the 855 or the Velodyne DD15 or 18.... They are tight and musical... I like then up front, near the speakers so that the bass blends in seamlessly from a phase etc point of view...


      Geoff

      Comment

      • beden1
        Super Senior Member
        • Oct 2006
        • 1676

        #4
        Originally posted by Aussie Geoff
        Rebleman,

        Excellent and well thought out... :T

        Though IMO if you take the time and use a good sub - the results are 100% worth it.... One of the top end B&Ws like the 855 or the Velodyne DD15 or 18.... They are tight and musical... I like then up front, near the speakers so that the bass blends in seamlessly from a phase etc point of view...


        Geoff
        I agree with this statement completely! :T

        Comment

        • beden1
          Super Senior Member
          • Oct 2006
          • 1676

          #5
          RebelMan,

          I wanted to mention that in speaking with a Velodyne Engineer, he said that the larger subs of 15" and up, are actually more efficient than the smaller 10" & 12" counterparts.

          Comment

          • ShadowZA
            Super Senior Member
            • Jan 2006
            • 1098

            #6
            Excellent & well written piece, RebelMan! :T

            I agree with all of your points. I find myself yearning for the less complicated days of olde when "stereo hi-fi" was king. I often fantasize as to the system I could own but spending the equivalent $ on stereo only. Most of my preferred listening is to smooth jazz and vocals. For this I prefer to utilize the full range front floorstanders only. No sub. Too my ears, this is bliss.

            I also agree with Aussie Geoff in that there are times in which I prefer to bring in the sub for music (for movies, I always use the sub). These musical pieces usually tend to be recorded on DVD-Video or DVD-Audio. These can be multi-channel or stereo. An example is the THX certified "Jarre in China" 2004 concert (Jean Michel Jarre) - a superb concert recorded in multichannel DTS (DVD-Video).

            I believe that audio is a road travelled towards perfection. We cannot actually reach it ... but there is great pleasure derived in trying. It's a bit like the Everest climb. Every step taken brings us closer. Since I've had my sub, I've equalized and experimented and re-equalized and re-experimented (whilst moving furniture around & hanging carpets & rugs on walls) ... and improvements have been noted and enjoyed. I've found that a sub is one of the most difficult pieces of equipment to work with (it's heavy & booms at you if you do not treat it right :P ).

            In summary, I agree that there are no rights or wrongs here ... rather it's all about preferences. And ... the sub ... imho ... adds complication to those preferences.


            For information: I'm bringing in the sub at 60Hz at this time. I'm preferring it to before when I crossed over at 80Hz.

            Comment

            • caleb
              Senior Member
              • Aug 2004
              • 514

              #7
              Well done rebelman,

              An excellent Expose and there are many points that I am in agreement with.

              Just on your point of the "Q" subgect - I drive the Q7.

              Comment

              • ZX10 Guy
                Senior Member
                • Mar 2005
                • 198

                #8
                Good write up. There are some things I disagree with. But in general, I agree with you that it's more of what is the person willing to give up in terms of getting the best sound. I'm of the firm feeling that buying the best speaker say a B&W 800D and shoving the speaker into the corners of a room or worse yet right up against some entertainment center is wasted potential for the money spent. I understand that there are aesthetic concerns and other factors but one might be better served to spend less for a less obtrusive speaker and then properly place it than spend mega bucks on a speaker and improperly place it. It's all about placement, ultimately after room considerations like room treatments and such....another taboo subject.

                I used to be in the mindset that adding a sub was unnatural and would detract from achieving the best musical performance. I had problems with my sub interacting with the room...had resonant peaks that made the sound too boomy. All I had was a SPL meter and a test tone CD. I can readily see plotted on paper how the bass output was non-linear. I then built my dedicated sound room and had more flexibility in moving my main speakers and my subs. Then add in what I feel is a tool that is a requirement for anyone with a sub.....the Velodyne SMS-1. All the problems you've mentioned in your post can be corrected or minimized single handedly with this tool. You see your in room response in real time. You can adjust all the things you've mentioned in your post. Phase? Yep...in 1 degree increments from 0 to 180. Q? Yep that's adjustable too. EQ? Yep...8 parametric bands with independently adjustable levels (+6 to -12 db), Q, and frequency center point. Adjustment for frequency of the low pass crossover? It's got that too. Am I saying the SMS-1 is the be all end all? Of course not. It still boils down to room placement and the room itself.

                With all that said, I tackled the issue about having a sub do what amounts to a pretty wide spread of reproduction (lower mid bass to the LFE range.) I decided to experiment and I'm so far happy with the results. I have two subs: a Velodyne HGS15II and a Velodyne DD18. The HGS15 has a SMS-1 mated to it. After some playing, I felt my speakers (4 N804s and a N HTM1) were best left at a setting of small and crossed over at, can't remember exactly right now, 72 Hz on my Meridian 568.2. The Meridian is feeding bass output out to both subs directly. With the HGS15, it is set to do duty from 76 Hz to about 40 Hz. The DD18 then picks up from 42 Hz on down. I eq'd the HGS15 first to try to obtain the flattest response possible. Then I added the DD18 and eq'd that making adjustments on where the two overlap. The results have been seemless to me. With only an evening spent here are my results:



                I think that's pretty darn good. I'm going to play with the EQs some more later to try and flatten out some of the minor humps in the response. Also, my experience has mimic'd some others where the pursuit of a flat bass response isn't always a good thing. Yes, most things about the bass performance have been great with a flat curve but I kept feeling something was missing. Enter what many are calling a house EQ curve. I found myself making a specific tune for some material that boosts the lower bass range a bit to suit my tastes. Because the SMS/DD setup allows me to change EQ curves on the fly, this was a no brainer to implement and use.

                Comment

                • WI Rotel
                  Senior Member
                  • Jul 2006
                  • 657

                  #9
                  Excellent points.

                  Comment

                  • Russ L
                    Senior Member
                    • Jul 2006
                    • 544

                    #10
                    Great job. I bookmarked this thread for future reference. Regards, Russ
                    Russ

                    Comment

                    • RebelMan
                      Ultra Senior Member
                      • Mar 2005
                      • 3139

                      #11
                      Thanks to everyone for their contribution to this thread.

                      Aussie Geoff - Velodyne has indeed come a long way in the last twenty years that I have know them. It was a much different story for them back in the day. Of course I am partial to B&W now.

                      Shadow - I couldn't agree with you more, subs all the way for home cinema. :T And you are right, subs are complicated animals that have to be tended to all of the time in a stereo environment, who wants that? Like you I am a music lover first and foremost. I prefer not to be a perpetual system tuner. Set it and forget it.

                      Caleb - Nice ride!

                      ZX10 Guy - Great contribution and thanks for your input. I took into consideration EQ's like the SMS-1 when I made my case. Here is the problem, in full disclosure, with EQ's.

                      What do EQ's try to solve? The intent is to address poor room acoustics. But do they? Absolutely... NOT! Their real purpose is to alter the constitution of the original signal to compensate for the behavior of the room. The EQ curve you so poignantly pointed to is the manifestation of altered states. It comes as no surprise to me that you and others like you have discovered the hidden truth buried deep with in the realm of EQ's. I'll tell you why they don't belong in a high performance system.

                      Different frequency response curves tell different stories. The flat response you get from a speaker is nothing like the flat response you get from your room, they are very different. When high-end companies like B&W set out to design a loudspeaker, their primary purpose is to produce one that contributes very little noise of its own to the signals it is expected to reproduce as sound. The way to measure the success or failure of this goal is by testing the speaker in an anechoic chamber and plotting the results at varying frequencies. The flatter the response, the closer to 0dB, the less the speaker is likely to impose it's own character at the points of excitation. This is to say that at any given instant when a 32 Hz note is generated at a listening level of say 72dB then a speaker with a flat response will preserve and produce a 32Hz note at 72dB. Conversely when the response is less than flat (say +/- 2dB), the same note would be altered and generated as 32Hz at 70dB or 74dB which is not what was intended by the original recording.

                      For the sake of this discussion let's assume for the moment that you bought a brand new pair of B&W's with a perfectly flat response curve. Now assume you brought those speakers home and placed them into your less than perfect listening room. The speakers are still going to behave the way they were intended too but now your room is going to make a contribution of its own to the sound that you hear. So what will you hear? A combination of direct and delayed sounds commonly referred to as ordered reflections. In a less than ideal room the 32Hz at 72dB note previously mentioned may sound something like a 36Hz at 76dB note. At this point it would be natural to question the quality of the speakers you just bought. But you astutely realize the room is imposing it's unique character on the sound. So how do you address the problem?

                      One option would be to measure the acoustic behavior of the room and then treat it accordingly thus minimizing the negative impacts the room would make. Effectively pealing away the unwanted reflections and minimizing negative reverberations and improving transient decays to reveal the directed sound that was intended to be heard in the first place. The other option would be to use an EQing system to alter the original signal to cooperate with the acoustics of the room and thus achieve a flatten measured response in the room. Effectively changing the characteristics of your speakers to compensate for the inadequacies of the room. Now what will you hear? The same resultant combination of direct and indirect sounds if everything goes well. That's if music consisted of nothing more than a few pure sinusoidal sound waves segmented at equal devisions of the frequency range. But music isn't a static sampling of test tones that starts at 20Hz and climbs to 200Hz in 1Hz increments.

                      Music is a dynamic and continuously changing wave form. Having the ability to boost or attenuate a few bands of the frequency spectrum is insufficient and harmful to the integrity of the entire signal. There just isn't enough granularity to account for all frequencies within a given band. This manifests itself in changes to pitch and timbre that I spoke of earlier. When you treat the room you are better able to cover the broad range of frequencies that escapes an EQ. The other problem with EQ's is gain control. Measured room results are best achieved when a fixed frame of reference is established first. You can't get a good reading if you simultaneously vary every parameter at your disposal. Some values have to remain fixed. So you boost the EQ volume to achieve the perfect response for your room. At this point I would say congratulations you just master the fine art of remixing your tunes. Are you familiar with the loudness wars? It's an attempt by the recording industry to equalize the audible band of frequencies and boost the volume to achieve what would appear to the untrained ear as an improved version of the original recording. People often mistaken flatted and amplified frequencies as quality sonics. What it really does is kill dynamics. That something you thought was missing really is.
                      "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                      Comment

                      • bigburner
                        Super Senior Member
                        • May 2005
                        • 2649

                        #12
                        Sound theory RebelMan, but I do wonder whether you actually listen to a lot of music (toddler or baby in the house perhaps?) and I suspect it's been a long time since you went out and listened to a live artist. Am I right? You'd be amazed how good the sound systems are at some live venues these days.

                        Nigel.

                        Comment

                        • RebelMan
                          Ultra Senior Member
                          • Mar 2005
                          • 3139

                          #13
                          Hey Nigel, I have semi-eclectic tastes. I don't have a vast library of music, as I am not a collector, but I do enjoy a wide range of selections. These days I spend the majority of my time in the Smooth Jazz genre. I have a date with Dave Koz and Friends next Sunday. It's an intimate "in-the-round" setting at the Celebrity Theatre. Are you asking for a picture of the little guy?
                          "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                          Comment

                          • sg2
                            Member
                            • Sep 2006
                            • 56

                            #14
                            Hi Rebelman,

                            100% in agreeance with you. After spending (too much) time trying to adequately blend my sub with my 802D's, I've gotten rid of the sub for good.

                            For music *in my room* it is useless, and the 802D's are able to produce enough HT bass *for my taste*, thus I've told my HT processor that I have no sub, and it sends all the bass (mains + LF) to the mains (which also solves all phase / level / speaker "merge" problems).

                            Regards,
                            --
                            Stéphane
                            Regards,
                            --
                            Stéphane

                            Comment

                            • bigburner
                              Super Senior Member
                              • May 2005
                              • 2649

                              #15
                              Originally posted by RebelMan
                              I have a date with Dave Koz and Friends next Sunday. It's an intimate "in-the-round" setting at the Celebrity Theatre. Are you asking for a picture of the little guy?
                              RebelMan, you take care that you're not knocked off the edge of your seat by the thunderous heart pounding bass from that loud and obnoxious sound system at the Celebrity Theatre. I'd wear a kevlar vest (yellow of course) just to be safe. The little guy needs a dad, and yes, I would like to see a photo of him.

                              Nigel.
                              Attached Files

                              Comment

                              • Karma
                                Senior Member
                                • Nov 2005
                                • 801

                                #16
                                HI All,
                                While I have had subs on all my systems since the early '70's, I don't think they are a panacea for all bass ills. Obviously, I like subs but they must be used with carefully chosen main speakers. I feel that main speakers that are capable of low thirties response with good power are not good candidates and subs are not really needed. Of course the lowest bass will be missing but for many people this is not an issue. For me, it is because I love music with low bass content such as pipe organ, percussion, and electronic. The bottom octave below 30Hz is what separates the men from the boys, metaphorically speaking.

                                To make a blanket statement that all B&W speakers do poorly with subs is simply not accurate. Generally, the type of speaker being discussed will determine the quality of the main/sub interface which is critical. For many years I have bought main speakers with limited bass response with the idea, up front, of adding subs. As an example I have B&W 805S mains in my bedroom HT system. I have written about this system on this forum many times. Mated with the 805's are two B&W ASW 800 subs. The combination integrates almost perfectly and results in honest 20Hz performance. I can live with this.

                                In my main stereo music system I have Martin Logan CLS IIA electrostatics. Again, this is a speaker with limited bass performance. Of course, I have dual Kinnergetics SW-800 subs (biamped) mated. The integration is again almost perfect and goes to 15Hz with power.

                                Based on reading this forum for quite a long time I conclude that most folks tend add subs as a band aid to their full range B&W's. Often, the results are disappointing due to poor integration. I'm not surprised.

                                Sparky

                                Comment

                                • Russ L
                                  Senior Member
                                  • Jul 2006
                                  • 544

                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by bigburner
                                  I'd wear a kevlar vest (yellow of course) just to be safe. The little guy needs a dad...
                                  :rofl: :rofl:
                                  Being new to the audio game I made the mistake of crossing over my B&Ws with my sub. It was at too high of a crossover frequency as well and I cut out the bottom midrange and below. Thought I was letting my sub only handle low bass frequencies. As RebelMan said I thought I was getting slammin' bass. I experimented and took the sub out of the mix altogether and discovered I had never really heard my B&Ws since the day I bought them. Suddenly there was glorious bass that my sub could never hope to produce, a lower midrange and a rock solid soundstage with great imaging. :E I thought the lack of soundstage was due to my monitor and equipment in between the speakers. I almost bought a new amp to get that soundstage. The life of a rookie in his first year in the big league. Anyone want to purchase an overused sub? ops: Anyways, its not all gloom and doom as I'm off to relisten to my CD collection on my new speakers! Best regards, Russ
                                  Russ

                                  Comment

                                  • ZX10 Guy
                                    Senior Member
                                    • Mar 2005
                                    • 198

                                    #18
                                    I've never stated an EQ was the primary end all to fix sub integration problems and to correct for room issues. As you've stated, the room is the primary consideration when it comes to the ultimate sound you will get. Period. But there are people who refuse to treat/fix the room acoustics. These are choices the individual makes due to their own considerations. I recognize not many people have the luxury to have dedicated rooms with no restrictions on how speakers are placed or how the use of acoustic treatments impacts the aesthetics of the room. Many have to deal with WAF. Many have to deal with kids. Many don't have the money to do what it takes. And some just plain don't want to deal with the headaches of fixing the acoustics of a room. With real world practical considerations in mind, the SMS-1 EQ I've mentioned becomes a very good and practical answer to problems of sub integration and performance in a room. The results I've posted have been without room treatments being deployed. I will be using room treatments but as I've stated above, life happened and I had to divert funds else where. I expect to be purchasing the necessary panels and bass traps within the next few months.

                                    The mention about how frequency sweeps are not the same as the dynamics of music is to me just wrong. Recording studios and bands all use some sort of test tones to dial in the sound of the artist in a particular room setting. A coworker of mine is a professional musician in his off time and has performed at various venues. He tells me the setup procedure they go through all the time when they perform in a new gig. I also mentioned the concept of the SMS-1 to him and he said it's awesome that technology like this is readily accessible for the typical home user. Also recording engineers play with the sound of the recording that ultimately hits the master tape. I would venture to say that you'd be very surprised how few recordings out there are just naturally mic'd down to the master without any mixing or eq'ing involved. The SMS-1 is a great tool. Remember that I said great tool. It's not a solution for audio issues. It's a great tool for those that want to squeeze out the best sound out of their system without having to be an expert in audio engineering. The other alternative I know of is to use a Behrringer with a RTA. How many people have that kind of equipment, the time, or the expertise to properly use that kind of setup? The SMS-1 provides real time feed back on how your sub and main speakers are performing in room. The only thing I can think of that would cause some skewing of the response curve results of the SMS is the microphone. But the microphone can be changed out if you find it to color/alter the in room response curve. There was also a mention about B&W speakers being tested in an anechioc chamber. The testing is also done in the exact same fashion with a signal sweep and a mic. So why is this testing any different than what is being done with the SMS-1? The SMS-1 allows you to move the sub around the room while watching the affect on the response curve. This is an absolute and scientific way of getting the proper placement position without the guessing of doing it by ear because you're just guessing. Because we can't ignore the room's contributions to the ultimate sound, the placement of the sub to get the best bass performance is usually not the same spot where you would place your speakers for the best mid/highs. Using the EQ sliders of the SMS is best done by attenuating than using gain. I've done this with how I've set the SMS-1 and DD. Wher possible, I've tried to attenuate at a EQ frequency and if I had to provide gain it was done sparingly with as little as possible.

                                    The last thing I want to address is the whole physics behind bass reproduction. I've already talked about how placement of a sub in a room is critical with respect to any resonances/modes that are a natural characteristic of the room. But depending on the room size and whether the room opens up to other open areas of the house will dictate how much air needs to be displaced to get proper bass reproduction. The bigger the room and the deeper you want to go, the more air you're going to have to move. Period. To ask a floor standing speaker with dual 10" or a big 15" woofer to (800D and 801D respectively) crossed over at 350 Hz to produce frequencies from that point on down is a lot to ask from a speaker. If anything, you're going to have issues with coloration as pushing these speakers to produce say a 30 Hz tone is going to require significant amounts of cone movement. The louder you raise the volume, the more cone movement to the point where the ideal pistonic movement of the cone becomes non-linear. This behavior was well documented in various college classes like differential equations and Lumped Parameter Systems. With the woofer flapping around trying to reproduce deep bass, wouldn't you think anything higher up in the mid bass isn't going to be colored? All this leads to distortion, plain and simple. Not only does this issue impact bass performance but it can affect the rest of the sound too in the mids and highs. How? Your amp. The biggest power robber is bass reproduction. Depending on volume levels pushing the amp to deliver power to the speaker to produce big bass is going to affect mids and highs as the amp is straining to keep up with the power demands. There's no coincidence that people who do true biamping will see an immediate increase of about 6 dB (if memory serves me correctly) of headroom due to the power robbing nature of bass reproduction.

                                    Comment

                                    • dmccombs
                                      Senior Member
                                      • Sep 2006
                                      • 306

                                      #19
                                      I have tried just about every crossover setting from 20hz to 100hz with my various B&W speakers and I have to agree with Rebelman (and my local dealer). They seem to sound best when run full range. I find that when I do any crossover it sounds a little thin, even though my SMS-1 shows a flat curve.

                                      With that in mind, for music, I am running my speakers full range and I also send the frequencies to the sub where the Front speakers start to fall off (27hz with my 802Ds).

                                      This allows the speakers to work at is should, and allows the low bass that the speakers can't deal with, to be handled by the sub. To get a smooth response, I have the SMS-1 EQ the signal from 16-27hz.

                                      To me this is a good compromise as the 802Ds are allow to do what they do best, and I still end up with a flat bass response. The 16-27hz signals are EQd a bit but I can't hear the difference with music, as so little infomation is in that band.

                                      For movies it works out well as the speakers still get to work as they should (no crossover), and the sub picks up the low stuff.

                                      Regards,
                                      Darrell

                                      Comment

                                      • RebelMan
                                        Ultra Senior Member
                                        • Mar 2005
                                        • 3139

                                        #20
                                        Hey Sparky, I appreciate your input, thanks. Making an unqualified blanket statement could be seen as stretching the truth a bit. That’s why I prefaced the content of this thread with the term usually in the title. Technically speaking your 805S (and electrostatics too) are exempt from this discussion as they are not considered full range, by definition. They play good quality bass just not enough of it. They weren’t designed to play the first octave and are limited in the mid-bass too which partially handicaps them right out of the box. But like you said you already knew this and what you were doing. :P
                                        "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                                        Comment

                                        • RebelMan
                                          Ultra Senior Member
                                          • Mar 2005
                                          • 3139

                                          #21
                                          Hey ZX10 Guy, I don’t disagree that the SMS-1 is a convenient tool for covering up (not fixing) room born acoustical problems. It just doesn’t belong in a high-end system. Note: I said high-end not high price. I also don’t disagree that recording studios are guilty for mixing their own recordings, especially making ill mastered ones.

                                          However, I do not agree that it is within our place to tamper with the final rendition of the artisan/musician’s work regardless of “who” touched it last in the process of making it available to you and me. If you believe in artistic integrity, in all of its forms, then you’ll believe that it is only our responsibility to get the most accurate performance from our systems. EQ’s and tonal controls of any kind do not fix the root of the problem whether it come from the original source, the equipment, the room or hearing aptitude.

                                          With respect to your musician friend, it is his prerogative to manipulate the outcome of the performance he gives on stage. It is his work of art or he is part of the team that is responsible for it. Unless you bring along your SMS-1 to the show, some of your remarks could be viewed as contradictory. After all you said you use the SMS-1 to tailor the sound to your tastes. If you want to play recording/mixing/mastering sound engineer extraordinaire then make some sweet music or participate in that part of the industry which does. It’s their job to make the music. It’s our job to listen to it, not manipulate it.

                                          As to the science behind sound, I leave those issues up to the engineers at B&W to tackle and I trust their judgment as well as my ears. B&W has well documented some of the distortion issues they faced and what they had to do to resolve them, or better yet tame them. While I am no stranger to mathematical principals involving diffeqs, Laplace Transforms and Fourier Series Analysis that deal with amplitudes and time and frequency domains (I was a EE major), it has been too long for me to speak eloquently about them today. Suffice it to say, far be it from me to disagree with some of the theoretical principles you presented involving woofers and bass output. I paid B&W good money to address those issues for me.
                                          "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                                          Comment

                                          • ZX10 Guy
                                            Senior Member
                                            • Mar 2005
                                            • 198

                                            #22
                                            Well, we'll have to disagree then. Because you will never have the environment that the artist set their recordings to unless you built the exact same room in your home. To say the SMS-1 doesn't belong in a high end system is, forgive me when I say this, foolish. I think the likes of Kal Rubinson would whole heartedly disagree with you since he uses one in his system. The eqing that I'm doing and many other people are doing is not to change the sound the recording but to create a uniform baseline for which the music can begin from. That's the only way you can attempt to recreate a performance accurately. Whether you do this with acoustic treatments or with acoustic treatments and the use of room correction devices, it's up to you. There are other devices out there that not only correct the bass frequencies but also do mid and high frequency adjustments based on room conditions. One of the most praised devices that do this is the new line of Meridian gear. So based on your defintion, because someone uses MRC, they don't have a high end system and they are corrupting the music.

                                            I have to defend my statement about using different eq contour curves since you brought it up. On the default setting which is pretty much where I have it most of the time when listening to things like jazz, it's the curve you see posted above. No artificial bumps in any part of the bass response. I have the other curves set when I am watching action movies where I want that extra slam in explosions or when I'm rocking away with some R&B music. So I really only have two eq curves I use flat and a bump from 40 Hz on down.

                                            As far as my friend goes, he has to dial in the sound he wants because every venue has a different audio signature. My statements are not contradictory and in fact reinforces the need that you have to compensate for the room acoustics to get the true sound of what the artist intends in their recordings. With your stringent definition of tampering, I can say you're altering the intent of the music by the artist if you don't have the studio speakers in your home that the artist used to mix down the music. Not all studios use B&W speakers as their reference.

                                            As an aside, I've had a musician come by my home and audition my system. She was blown away by how good the system sounded. I don't need any more validation that I'm on the right track than the endorsement I got from her.

                                            Comment

                                            • RebelMan
                                              Ultra Senior Member
                                              • Mar 2005
                                              • 3139

                                              #23
                                              Originally posted by bigburner
                                              RebelMan, you take care that you're not knocked off the edge of your seat by the thunderous heart pounding bass from that loud and obnoxious sound system at the Celebrity Theatre. I'd wear a kevlar vest (yellow of course) just to be safe. The little guy needs a dad, and yes, I would like to see a photo of him.

                                              Nigel.
                                              I love your sense of humor bigburner. If you are making an inference to the Meyer M3Ds they use you'll notice they only go down to 30Hz +/- 4dB. Then again the Meyer M1Ds they use with them aren't full range either. My 800D hits 32Hz +/- 3dB, not too bad comparitively. Your CDM 9NT's come pretty close too. Just don't go looking for pipe organs there. LOL

                                              On a lighter note here is a pic of the little guy...
                                              Attached Files
                                              "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                                              Comment

                                              • hd99yr
                                                Member
                                                • Apr 2007
                                                • 43

                                                #24
                                                If you want to play recording/mixing/mastering sound engineer extraordinaire then make some sweet music or participate in that part of the industry which does. It’s their job to make the music. It’s our job to listen to it, not manipulate it.

                                                Don't we all do this when we choose our equipment?

                                                If not than some amps aren't bright or have the characteristics of a tube amp and the rotel 1092 sounds the same as the 1090. Same thing applies to speakers.

                                                Subs are no different!!!!!!!!!
                                                " Just when I thought I was out, THEY PULL ME BACK IN "

                                                Comment

                                                • RebelMan
                                                  Ultra Senior Member
                                                  • Mar 2005
                                                  • 3139

                                                  #25
                                                  Originally posted by ZX10 Guy
                                                  Well, we'll have to disagree then.
                                                  Someone once said "High-end audio is like the fluent linguist---a transparent conveyance of the music's meaning." If you establish a normalized room response you minimize the impacts of spurious interference allowing the music to convey it's true meaning. Remember your interests should lie in reaching optimal directed sound not altered reflected sound. Unless your intentions are to reproduce the musical hall experience with your system and in your room, then something is a miss. I respect Kal as much as I do anyone with a passion for quality sound reproduction. I really can't speak on his behalf but what I have come to know of him might surprise you on the subject of EQ's. I am aware of some of the EQ's Kal has used and the one case where he made a personal recommendation. But only he can confirm whether he uses one (to date) and for the applications, I discussed, full time. He also had been wrestling with room conditions too. Coincidence?

                                                  Anything you can do to improve the quality of sound reproduction by removing the elements corrupting it, I support. Anything you do to directly change the authenticity of the original signal to compensate elsewhere in the environment, I do not support. Tampering with the signal is not a surrogate for tampering with the room, your system or your ears. If you believe it is then indeed we are on opposing sides.

                                                  You make a true statement about the types of monitors used in the sound room. If I had the same monitors they used, I would be one step closer to realizing the ideal. But some compromises are unavoidable. Though its more foolhardy to think you can forcible create the sound intended by deliberate and artificial means with dissimilar speakers. Though having done so I don't doubt your system sounds very good to you.
                                                  "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                                                  Comment

                                                  • audioqueso
                                                    Super Senior Member
                                                    • Nov 2004
                                                    • 1930

                                                    #26
                                                    Great write-up! I think the key word here is "musical". I have a Nautilus 805 + Velodyne SPL-R 800 combination. I love it, but yes I know that it's missing that something sometimes. But once I play a movie, it rocks again!

                                                    One thing I don't get after reading everyone's reply... if you own the 802 or better, why use a sub for music? It's not enough????? ha ha
                                                    B&W 804S/Velodyne SPL-1000R/Anthem MRX720

                                                    Comment

                                                    • RebelMan
                                                      Ultra Senior Member
                                                      • Mar 2005
                                                      • 3139

                                                      #27
                                                      Originally posted by hd99yr
                                                      Don't we all do this when we choose our equipment?
                                                      I think we are starting to veer off course from the main topic. I will simply make an analogy and leave it at that. A Toyota will get you from point A to point B comfortably. A Lexus more so. Would changing the fuel improve the ride of the Toyota to match that of the Lexus? No, but you might think it does. Likewise, better equipment will deliver a better ride to your ears.
                                                      "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                                                      Comment

                                                      • ZX10 Guy
                                                        Senior Member
                                                        • Mar 2005
                                                        • 198

                                                        #28
                                                        Originally posted by RebelMan
                                                        Someone once said "High-end audio is like the fluent linguist---a transparent conveyance of the music's meaning." If you establish a normalized room response you minimize the impacts of spurious interference allowing the music to convey it's true meaning. Remember your interests should lie in reaching optimal directed sound not altered reflected sound. Unless your intentions are to reproduce the musical hall experience with your system and in your room, then something is a miss. I respect Kal as much as I do anyone with a passion for quality sound reproduction. I really can't speak on his behalf but what I have come to know of him might surprise you on the subject of EQ's. I am aware of some of the EQ's Kal has used and the one case where he made a personal recommendation. But only he can confirm whether he uses one (to date) and for the applications, I discussed, full time. He also had been wrestling with room conditions too. Coincidence?

                                                        Anything you can do to improve the quality of sound reproduction by removing the elements corrupting it, I support. Anything you do to directly change the authenticity of the original signal to compensate elsewhere in the environment, I do not support. Tampering with the signal is not a surrogate for tampering with the room, your system or your ears. If you believe it is then indeed we are on opposing sides.

                                                        You make a true statement about the types of monitors used in the sound room. If I had the same monitors they used, I would be one step closer to realizing the ideal. But some compromises are unavoidable. Though its more foolhardy to think you can forcible create the sound intended by deliberate and artificial means with dissimilar speakers. Though having done so I don't doubt your system sounds very good to you.
                                                        To say the only thing one needs to focus on is directed sound is also not paying attention to the huge affects of reflected sound and the room's contribution to the ultimate sound achieved. By your definition, adding room treatments are also tampering with the sound. It seems they're held in a much much higher esteem because they're not some algorithm in a processor. Before you read anything more into the previous statement, I fully believe the biggest and best impact you can do is to properly treat a room and then fine tune the results if one chooses with a processor with room correction. Unless you listen in an anechoic chamber, you're not going to get just direct sound from the speaker.

                                                        With respect to Kal, he's spoken a great length how good the SMS is as a tool to help dial in bass reproduction in a room. Much of his experience and write ups are on AVS Forum in the sub woofer sub forums. He also runs his 802Ds as small which is contrary to what many here would advocate. But I won't speak any further about Kal as he's the only one that should speak to this. But most would agree his system is high end and it is a fact he has an SMS-1 in his system. Another reviewer that I have come to respect is John Kotches. He has played at great length with both the SMS functionality in the DDs and MRC with his Meridian gear. He has said the benefits of both are real.

                                                        hd99yr raises a good point. There are those here that have selected various components for the "sound" of a particular device. Whether it be a CD player, surround processor, amp, cabling, whatever. By your definition, the people that have done so are tampering with the sound. What I'm trying to achieve and others that are doing the same as me is to objectively create as neutral an environment for audio as we can. Measurements via a signal sweep picked up by a mic don't lie; the same method that is used by B&W engineers when testing and evaluating their designs.

                                                        Ultimately, the only way to have 100% accuracy and purity is to have the artist perform in your room. Even the most expensive system out there with the best technology still hasn't been able to create the actual performance with 100% accuracy. At least with the SMS, I know that I'm not going to have notch in bass response or a huge hump where the resonant frequencies are created a bloated bass sound.

                                                        Comment

                                                        • ZX10 Guy
                                                          Senior Member
                                                          • Mar 2005
                                                          • 198

                                                          #29
                                                          Originally posted by RebelMan
                                                          I love your sense of humor bigburner. If you are making an inference to the Meyer M3Ds they use you'll notice they only go down to 30Hz +/- 4dB. Then again the Meyer M1Ds they use with them aren't full range either. My 800D hits 32Hz +/- 3dB, not too bad comparitively. Your CDM 9NT's come pretty close too. Just don't go looking for pipe organs there. LOL

                                                          On a lighter note here is a pic of the little guy...
                                                          Have you actually measured that your 800Ds have a response of 32 Hz +/- 3 dB in your room?

                                                          Comment

                                                          • Kal Rubinson
                                                            Super Senior Member
                                                            • Mar 2006
                                                            • 2109

                                                            #30
                                                            Originally posted by ZX10 Guy
                                                            With respect to Kal, he's spoken a great length how good the SMS is as a tool to help dial in bass reproduction in a room. Much of his experience and write ups are on AVS Forum in the sub woofer sub forums. He also runs his 802Ds as small which is contrary to what many here would advocate. But I won't speak any further about Kal as he's the only one that should speak to this. But most would agree his system is high end and it is a fact he has an SMS-1 in his system. Another reviewer that I have come to respect is John Kotches. He has played at great length with both the SMS functionality in the DDs and MRC with his Meridian gear. He has said the benefits of both are real.
                                                            Well, at the moment, I do not have it in my either of my systems, except as a display. The reasons have less to do with my positive feelings about the unit than about practicality. The CT system has the Audyssey SEQPro which pretty much obviates the need for the SMS-1. The NYC system is in need of new hardware/cables to enable effective bass management since the control unit is an all-analog MCH preamp. (The bass management/controls in the players inadequate.)

                                                            So, as RebelMan implies, I have no philosophical issues about using EQ, even with B&Ws, but I need a more coherent setup before deciding on how/whether I need the SMS-1 as part of it.

                                                            Kal
                                                            Kal Rubinson
                                                            _______________________________
                                                            "Music in the Round"
                                                            Senior Contributing Editor, Stereophile
                                                            http://forum.stereophile.com/category/music-round

                                                            Comment

                                                            • ZX10 Guy
                                                              Senior Member
                                                              • Mar 2005
                                                              • 198

                                                              #31
                                                              Originally posted by Kal Rubinson
                                                              Well, at the moment, I do not have it in my either of my systems, except as a display. The reasons have less to do with my positive feelings about the unit than about practicality. The CT system has the Audyssey SEQPro which pretty much obviates the need for the SMS-1. The NYC system is in need of new hardware/cables to enable effective bass management since the control unit is an all-analog MCH preamp. (The bass management/controls in the players inadequate.)

                                                              So, as RebelMan implies, I have no philosophical issues about using EQ, even with B&Ws, but I need a more coherent setup before deciding on how/whether I need the SMS-1 as part of it.

                                                              Kal
                                                              Thanks Kal for clarifying.

                                                              Comment

                                                              • RebelMan
                                                                Ultra Senior Member
                                                                • Mar 2005
                                                                • 3139

                                                                #32
                                                                I'm sure the mods are watching this thread closely. I'll respond to clarify some earlier points but lets not to lose focus of this thread about subs and full range B&W loudspeakers.
                                                                Originally posted by ZX10 Guy
                                                                To say the only thing one needs to focus on is directed sound is also not paying attention to the huge affects of reflected sound and the room's contribution to the ultimate sound achieved. By your definition, adding room treatments are also tampering with the sound. It seems they're held in a much much higher esteem because they're not some algorithm in a processor. Before you read anything more into the previous statement, I fully believe the biggest and best impact you can do is to properly treat a room and then fine tune the results if one chooses with a processor with room correction. Unless you listen in an anechoic chamber, you're not going to get just direct sound from the speaker.
                                                                Do you own a high quality headset? Have you ever tried examining a piece of gear using a high quality headset? I think it would surprise to learn you just how good a quality head set can sound and how well it can reveal the sound quality of the equipment under review. The reason is simple, minimal external influence causing minimal reflections and resulting in minimal distortion. In short pure and unadulterated direct sound. Of course this technique fails to work when you are evaluating a pair of loudspeakers but another technique is helpful in situations like this. It's called near-field testing. The concept is simple and scientific. You position yourself with respect to the speakers in relative short proximity so as to eliminate any opportunity for the room to smear the initial sound-wave with initial reflections, reverberations and transients. Reviewer's like Kal will frequently exercise this type of listening technique because it allows them to hear more of the speaker and less of the room. Adding treatments is not tampering with the signal in far-field testing any more than not adding treatments is to near-field testing. Room treatments are designed to negate the negative aspects of the room on sound quality not to eliminate all aspects of the room on sound quality.

                                                                With respect to Kal, he's spoken a great length how good the SMS is as a tool to help dial in bass reproduction in a room. Much of his experience and write ups are on AVS Forum in the sub woofer sub forums. He also runs his 802Ds as small which is contrary to what many here would advocate. But I won't speak any further about Kal as he's the only one that should speak to this. But most would agree his system is high end and it is a fact he has an SMS-1 in his system. Another reviewer that I have come to respect is John Kotches. He has played at great length with both the SMS functionality in the DDs and MRC with his Meridian gear. He has said the benefits of both are real.
                                                                Of course Kal has a high performance system, that was never in question. He's quite fortunate to have a high calibre center that I can only lust for. Unfortunately, Kal has a formidable challenge on his hand taming a nasty mid-bass hump. It's quite possible that his room treatment endeavors are/will be insufficient, given other pressing priorities like room esthetics. What other options will he have at his disposal to tame the mid-bass beast? Here we enter another fork in the road and another decision between compromises must be made. If it were me I can think of a few options some perhaps more and some perhaps less feasible but none would require an EQ. For as long as I have been in this hobby I never once heard anyone say achieving high-end audio is easy. It's a labor of love.

                                                                hd99yr raises a good point. There are those here that have selected various components for the "sound" of a particular device. Whether it be a CD player, surround processor, amp, cabling, whatever. By your definition, the people that have done so are tampering with the sound. What I'm trying to achieve and others that are doing the same as me is to objectively create as neutral an environment for audio as we can. Measurements via a signal sweep picked up by a mic don't lie; the same method that is used by B&W engineers when testing and evaluating their designs.
                                                                Most likely in cases like this people are learning about sound. You have to start somewhere and build your way up. The art of listening is a learned process that can take years or decades to master. Like I said I am a 40 year old but I entered this hobby at the tender age of 11. I was exposed early on having the benefit of parents that were professional ball room dancers; they know their music! I didn't realize overnight what constituted great sound and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either. Learn to be a great listener and you'll learn to assemble a great system. (This of course assumes certain biological capabilities.)

                                                                Just keep it simple... sweep the room, fix the room and then enjoy your room. Perpetually tinkering with EQ's is not simple and it's not about the music.

                                                                Ultimately, the only way to have 100% accuracy and purity is to have the artist perform in your room. Even the most expensive system out there with the best technology still hasn't been able to create the actual performance with 100% accuracy. At least with the SMS, I know that I'm not going to have notch in bass response or a huge hump where the resonant frequencies are created a bloated bass sound.
                                                                True but unrealistic. No system is perfect and I never professed that one was either. There will be variations of the theme some closer to ideal than others so it's great to have choices.
                                                                "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                                                                Comment

                                                                • miner
                                                                  Senior Member
                                                                  • Mar 2005
                                                                  • 900

                                                                  #33
                                                                  RebelMan,
                                                                  If ever in the Houston area let me know; I invite you over to listen to my 2 ch setup: Rotel & B&W. I could use your expertise in fine tuning my music. I'll even introduce you to my BBQ technics. No fine tuning need there.

                                                                  Comment

                                                                  • ZX10 Guy
                                                                    Senior Member
                                                                    • Mar 2005
                                                                    • 198

                                                                    #34
                                                                    Originally posted by RebelMan
                                                                    Do you own a high quality headset? Have you ever tried examining a piece of gear using a high quality headset? I think it would surprise to learn you just how good a quality head set can sound and how well it can reveal the sound quality of the equipment under review. The reason is simple, minimal external influence causing minimal reflections and resulting in minimal distortion. In short pure and unadulterated direct sound. Of course this technique fails to work when you are evaluating a pair of loudspeakers but another technique is helpful in situations like this. It's called near-field testing. The concept is simple and scientific. You position yourself with respect to the speakers in relative short proximity so as to eliminate any opportunity for the room to smear the initial sound-wave with initial reflections, reverberations and transients. Reviewer's like Kal will frequently exercise this type of listening technique because it allows them to hear more of the speaker and less of the room. Adding treatments is not tampering with the signal in far-field testing any more than not adding treatments is to near-field testing. Room treatments are designed to negate the negative aspects of the room on sound quality not to eliminate all aspects of the room on sound quality.
                                                                    Yes, I do own some quality headphones. A set of Grados to be exact. No, I don't use them to evaluate gear because I don't use my headphones the majority of the time. The gear in question is typically used with speakers in a room. Also, I haven't spent money on a quality outboard headphone amp. So to use any of the built in headphone amps in any of the preamps isn't going to reveal anything as the built in headphone amps are weak....even with my Bryston BP 25 or what many reviewers in the past has said was a respectable headphone amp in my old Adcom GFP555II. To talk about near field listening is not even relevant here and you're straying from your initial topic. We are not reviewing the strict qualities of a speaker. We are talking about how a speaker and the room interact in the ultimate sound. As far as reviewing speakers to eliminate the room factor, the AV Talk guys do this with their sub tests by taking the sub out to a big parking lot where they perform their measurements there. Again, no one listens to their system in the near field so I don't get your argument here. Also here is a sample data sheet from an acoustical panel that shows the attenuation the panel has on various frequencies:



                                                                    SOUND ABSORPTION DATA (NRC VALUES)
                                                                    OCTAVE BAND FREQUENCIES (Hz)
                                                                    Product 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 NRC
                                                                    1 1/8" thick .12 .48 .71 .77 .71 .58 .65
                                                                    2 1/8" thick .14 .27 .80 1.11 1.14 1.14 .85

                                                                    SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS
                                                                    OCTAVE BAND FREQUENCIES (Hz)
                                                                    Product 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 STC
                                                                    1 1/8" thick 14 17 25 39 44 42 29
                                                                    2 1/8" thick 18 23 27 41 57 60 33

                                                                    How can you say that isn't tampering with the sound and an EQ is based on your definition? And based on this quote of yours "Room treatments are designed to negate the negative aspects of the room on sound quality not to eliminate all aspects of the room on sound quality." How is using an EQ any different? I'm negating humps in the in room response as MEASURED by a mic. You think anyone with an EQ is just cranking up the gain across all the frequencies to get head banging bass. Again, I refer to the picture of my in room response that clearly shows nothing of the sort. Like I said an EQ is a tool to use to fine tune the sound in a room.

                                                                    Of course Kal has a high performance system, that was never in question. He's quite fortunate to have a high calibre center that I can only lust for. Unfortunately, Kal has a formidable challenge on his hand taming a nasty mid-bass hump. It's quite possible that his room treatment endeavors are/will be insufficient, given other pressing priorities like room esthetics. What other options will he have at his disposal to tame the mid-bass beast? Here we enter another fork in the road and another decision between compromises must be made. If it were me I can think of a few options some perhaps more and some perhaps less feasible but none would require an EQ. For as long as I have been in this hobby I never once heard anyone say achieving high-end audio is easy. It's a labor of love.
                                                                    Well, based on this statement you made, I would say you'd question it: "It just doesn’t belong in a high-end system. Note: I said high-end not high price." As I've said before, not many people have the luxury or the ability to build out a custom room. I've said repeatedly that room treatments first and then eq when needed to help dial in the final sound. But I think we can agree that the ultimate issue would be the foundation...which is the room. If the room is a perfect square, this isn't going to help in proper bass reproduction. Nothing is going to fix that issue. No amount of room treatments or eqing. The room would have to be torn apart and reconfigured to fix that problem. And I've never said by throwing in a EQ, that magically things get better. It took me a few hours to get that EQ curve I posted up. And as I've stated, I would still want to tweak it some more. An EQ is nothing but a tool. All tools can be abused even acoustic treatments. There are some rooms where people just have gone overboard with acoustic panels to the point where I can't help but think that room would be too dead.

                                                                    Most likely in cases like this people are learning about sound. You have to start somewhere and build your way up. The art of listening is a learned process that can take years or decades to master. Like I said I am a 40 year old but I entered this hobby at the tender age of 11. I was exposed early on having the benefit of parents that were professional ball room dancers; they know their music! I didn't realize overnight what constituted great sound and I wouldn't expect anyone else to either. Learn to be a great listener and you'll learn to assemble a great system. (This of course assumes certain biological capabilities.)
                                                                    Learning about sound? I didn't know people had to take a class to learn about what they are hearing. I never asked anyone about advice on what I'm hearing. I don't need anyone to tell me what I'm hearing. I've gone against the grain with many people on what they feel is better sounding equipment. My reference is and will always be attending live performances. Even at live performances there are times I can tell the sound engineer is getting a bit over zealous with some of the channels in his mix down. So in that situation I try to get closer to the performers in an attempt to reduce the effect of the sound coming out of the speakers. I don't see how being professional ballroom dancers is even relevant to this. But I'll bite. Growing up, I learned how to play the violin. So that started me on my musical journey. Now, I teach Salsa dancing. I teach in many venues where the club has a live band. So I don't know if this quote from you was a personal jab or not, "Learn to be a great listener and you'll learn to assemble a great system." But I'm just going to assume not. And with respect this quote, "(This of course assumes certain biological capabilities)" I've had my hearing tested as part of the annual physical when I was volunteering as an EMT. The results from the hearing test showed why I am so particular with my music and the sound of my equipment. My hearing was almost flat across the entire human audible range. I had a dip if I recall correctly around the 10k range in I think my right ear. I wanted to take the test results with me but the print out had to be included as part of my medical records. I didn't think to ask for a photo copy. I wish I had.

                                                                    Just keep it simple... sweep the room, fix the room and then enjoy your room. Perpetually tinkering with EQ's is not simple and it's not about the music.
                                                                    Again, when did I say the EQ comes first and that tuning the room is simple even with an EQ? And I would say trying to negate the audible nasties in a room is all about the music as I have visual proof how my room is behaving. And this is a follow on to another question I asked of you in another post, have you even measured the response of your speakers in your room? You made a claim that your 800Ds are producing 32 Hz +/- 3 dB. Was that verified via a signal sweep test or did you just quote from the B&W spec sheet?

                                                                    Comment

                                                                    • joetama
                                                                      Senior Member
                                                                      • May 2006
                                                                      • 786

                                                                      #35
                                                                      Great thread, good read.
                                                                      -Joe

                                                                      Comment

                                                                      • dknightd
                                                                        Senior Member
                                                                        • Mar 2006
                                                                        • 621

                                                                        #36
                                                                        I'm perfectly happy thinking that there is no right answer for all people.

                                                                        For one person, with their equipment, in their room, with their favorite music, there is absolutely no need for a sub, and in fact all it can do is subtract from their enjoyment. I have no doubt this is true.

                                                                        For another person, a sub may seem to be critical for their enjoyment. Perhaps
                                                                        the place they put main speakers works great for imaging, but not so well for bass. Perhaps they want to use subs to help even out the bass response of their room. Perhaps their full range mains are not quite full range enough. Yes, it is more work to include subs in a system, but for some people that extra work is worth it.

                                                                        I'm on the fence. My 703 have adequate bass if I sit in the magic seat. But I can't help thinking that perhaps - just perhaps - I could put subs in my room and improve the sound not only in my seat, but also elsewhere in the room. Maybe someday I'll try it if I have money and time to spare. If I had the 800 speakers perhaps it would not even enter my mind.

                                                                        Notice I said subs - with an s - I don't think I want to use just one sub for music (unless I listened to music with energy below 30hz). For music I'd want a sub for each speaker (in my case 2). Essentially they would be used to make my speakers 4 way - take a little load off the lower frequencies and extend them a little. Like I said, maybe one day when I have more time and money . . .

                                                                        Comment

                                                                        • RebelMan
                                                                          Ultra Senior Member
                                                                          • Mar 2005
                                                                          • 3139

                                                                          #37
                                                                          Guy, I think you missed the point I was making with the headset and near-field testing and are taking statements completely out of context, maybe to be argumentative? I see no need to rehash, the point of the message was very clear.

                                                                          I am familiar with the subwoofer testing that you point to. Though I have mixed feelings about the results. It does remove the room from the equation only to be replaced with uncontrollable atmospheric conditions. It’s impossible to control Mother Nature. Sound travels through space. Any obstructions will influence the propagation of the wave front. I think it is a worthy attempt but a vacuum would offer more precision but its difficult to realize and while an anechoic chamber is more practical it’s costly to construct properly. My system is not located in a wind tunnel, I doubt yours is either.

                                                                          I suggest you take a very close look at those numbers you provided from the acoustical panel datasheets and compare them with your EQ settings. What trends do you see? What differences do you see? Perhaps you see one that kills dynamics and one that doesn’t? See what the boys at Audyssey have to say about their competition. An astute reader will find they say the same thing that I already did about EQ’s like the SMS-1. Enough said.

                                                                          I have to applaud you that you have had real exposure to real music in real live settings. I assume free from mixing stations and amplification? My father-in-law was a music teacher when I met him 17 years ago and still owns a piano that sits in the same part of the family room today that it did back then. I can’t begin to tell you how refreshing it is to hear a real piano play right before you, naturally without any wave balancing systems, i.e., EQ's to correct the beautiful noise that is heard in the room. Same goes for any other string, percussive and wind instrument operating in a natural habitat, free from sound engineers. This is the standard by which I measure all things audio. Some systems come very close to delivering the real thing and none of them use wave shaping devices to get there. Enough said.

                                                                          Why do I get the feeling that you are desperately trying to justify the decision you made to include the SMS-1 in your system? To reiterate, EQ’s (of any kind) are unnecessary and do not belong in a high performance system. Including one certainly will not make a system perform high but rather hinder what lies beneath. You've already admitted to notice something missing in your system by using one, proof positive. At least we agree the room should not be neglected. Are we done yet? LOL.
                                                                          "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                                                                          Comment

                                                                          • dknightd
                                                                            Senior Member
                                                                            • Mar 2006
                                                                            • 621

                                                                            #38
                                                                            Originally posted by RebelMan
                                                                            a vacuum would offer more precision but its difficult to realize and while an anechoic chamber is more practical it’s costly to construct properly.
                                                                            Sorry, I have to comment on this. Sound does not propagate in a vacuuum.

                                                                            Comment

                                                                            • ZX10 Guy
                                                                              Senior Member
                                                                              • Mar 2005
                                                                              • 198

                                                                              #39
                                                                              Originally posted by RebelMan
                                                                              Guy, I think you missed the point I was making with the headset and near-field testing and are taking statements completely out of context, maybe to be argumentative? I see no need to rehash, the point of the message was very clear.
                                                                              How am I taking them out of context? I've read what you've said and I don't see how near field listening has any bearing on the core issue we're talking about. You mention doing near field listening minimizes the room in the sound equation. Fine. But again, I'm going to say it once more, no one listens in the near field unless you're a recording engineer sitting behind a mixing board. If you are reviewing speakers to do comparitive testing, then yes doing near field testing would help in discerning the differences between the two speakers. But we're not talking about comparing speakers. The launch of this discourse was spurred on by your comments that EQs have no place in a high end system or anyone who is doing so is artificially altering the sound and thus is not a true "audiophile."

                                                                              I am familiar with the subwoofer testing that you point to. Though I have mixed feelings about the results. It does remove the room from the equation only to be replaced with uncontrollable atmospheric conditions. It’s impossible to control Mother Nature. Sound travels through space. Any obstructions will influence the propagation of the wave front. I think it is a worthy attempt but a vacuum would offer more precision but its difficult to realize and while an anechoic chamber is more practical it’s costly to construct properly. My system is not located in a wind tunnel, I doubt yours is either.
                                                                              Well dknightd beat me to the punch on the vacuum thing. As far as I can tell, the testing they've done has been under ideal weather conditions. Even in their frequency response charts you don't see much of any environmental factors. Even if the mic were to pic up on some environmental issues, they would be minor and would just be lost in the "noise." Don't know what reference of a wind tunnel is about. But if you're suggesting they are testing in a situation where wind noise would be a problem, I suggest you look at their response charts again and point out where in the readings you see wind noise. If wind noise were an issue, it would jump out right at us in the response charts plus I would hang out on a limb and say this....wind noise is further up in frequency from where they're concerned with in sub testing.

                                                                              I suggest you take a very close look at those numbers you provided from the acoustical panel datasheets and compare them with your EQ settings. What trends do you see? What differences do you see? Perhaps you see one that kills dynamics and one that doesn’t? See what the boys at Audyssey have to say about their competition. An astute reader will find they say the same thing that I already did about EQ’s like the SMS-1. Enough said.
                                                                              The data I provided for the acoustic panels doesn't even have relevance here. But I'll dig up some data sheets on bass traps if you would like. The point which seems to be lost, is that the data I provided on acoustic panels (or bass traps for that matter) show at certain frequencies the ability for the panel (or trap) to absorb it. When you reduce the level of a certain frequency your attenuating it. So why is this any different than doing an attenuation with an EQ? Explain that to me, please. And if you look at the picture I posted, the EQ sliders are partually shown, You don't see any massive boosting of any of the EQ sliders. There's only one slider that has some minor boost. If I recall correctly its maybe 3 dB of boost. Everything is attentuating which introduces less audible artifacts than boosting. But in the ultimate grand scheme of things, give me the slight audible distortion from an EQ than a big resonance that is bloating the bass. And what's your point about Audyssey? Of course they're going to talk badly about a competitor. And if you think they're anything other than an EQ, I suggest you go to their website and re-read through it. Here's a quote from their website: "MultEQ is the first technology to properly measure sound information throughout your listening area, then combine this information to accurately represent the acoustical problems in the room. Based on these measurements, MultEQ calculates an equalization solution that corrects for both time and frequency response problems in every seat. The MultEQ solution results in a listening experience unlike anything you have heard before." Hmm...maybe my reading isn't astute but I seem to see a reference to equalization mentioned. Per the quote I referenced, isn't this type of equalization corrupting the music, per your definition? How is this any different than what the SMS does except for the SMS is focused strictly on bass eq while the Audyssey is attempting to do a wider frequency range and to accomodate multiple listening positions.

                                                                              I have to applaud you that you have had real exposure to real music in real live settings. I assume free from mixing stations and amplification? My father-in-law was a music teacher when I met him 17 years ago and still owns a piano that sits in the same part of the family room today that it did back then. I can’t begin to tell you how refreshing it is to hear a real piano play right before you, naturally without any wave balancing systems, i.e., EQ's to correct the beautiful noise that is heard in the room. Same goes for any other string, percussive and wind instrument operating in a natural habitat, free from sound engineers. This is the standard by which I measure all things audio. Some systems come very close to delivering the real thing and none of them use wave shaping devices to get there. Enough said.
                                                                              Yes, I've had experienced music performed without mixing or amplification.

                                                                              Why do I get the feeling that you are desperately trying to justify the decision you made to include the SMS-1 in your system? To reiterate, EQ’s (of any kind) are unnecessary and do not belong in a high performance system. Including one certainly will not make a system perform high but rather hinder what lies beneath. You've already admitted to notice something missing in your system by using one, proof positive. At least we agree the room should not be neglected. Are we done yet? LOL.
                                                                              I'm not desperate in my views and my responses to you. The fact that I'm providing a valid rebuttal to your statements means I'm desperate then I can't help you there. I take issue with your statements that an EQ is somehow mystically bad. Like I've said before, it's a tool. As long as you know how to use it and it's limitations, I see nothing wrong in utilizing it to achieve a neutral and balanced baseline for which you can then apply music to. I know how my system is behaving bass wise as it's measured and I can see it. You still haven't answered my question that I've asked two times about how you know your 800Ds are measuring 32 Hz +/- 3 dB in your room. And with regards to me admitting something is missing in my system. I will always say that and anyone who says their system is audio nirvana producing 100% of the live performance experience, I'll be the first to say their full of it. As it is now, technology (which it seems you snub your nose at) hasn't progressed to the point where I can magically think I'm at the live performance. My system gets me very close but it's still not a substitute for being at the performance.

                                                                              Comment

                                                                              • RebelMan
                                                                                Ultra Senior Member
                                                                                • Mar 2005
                                                                                • 3139

                                                                                #40
                                                                                Originally posted by dknightd
                                                                                Sorry, I have to comment on this. Sound does not propagate in a vacuuum.
                                                                                In the context of "free space" or a perfect vacuum I agree. My implication was that of a partial vacuum.
                                                                                "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                                                                                Comment

                                                                                • hd99yr
                                                                                  Member
                                                                                  • Apr 2007
                                                                                  • 43

                                                                                  #41
                                                                                  Originally posted by RebelMan
                                                                                  I think we are starting to veer off course from the main topic. .
                                                                                  I've noticed the same response in most of your posts when a valid point is made that contradicts your views or opinions. How could it be off topic if it's in response to one of your replies? Or are you off topic with this?

                                                                                  If you want to play recording/mixing/mastering sound engineer extraordinaire then make some sweet music or participate in that part of the industry which does. It’s their job to make the music. It’s our job to listen to it, not manipulate it.


                                                                                  Most likely in cases like this people are learning about sound. You have to start somewhere and build your way up. The art of listening is a learned process that can take years or decades to master.


                                                                                  I had no idea it took years of learning about sound to be able to tell if an amplifier sounds bright or warm. there is no real answer to this topic. Just opinions as we all have our personal preferences as to what sounds right to our ears.

                                                                                  Twenty years ago you could probably have had the same discussion about powered sub-woofers and tube versus Solid state amplifiers. Sooner or later we have to accept new technology as a tool to enhance our experience.
                                                                                  " Just when I thought I was out, THEY PULL ME BACK IN "

                                                                                  Comment

                                                                                  • RebelMan
                                                                                    Ultra Senior Member
                                                                                    • Mar 2005
                                                                                    • 3139

                                                                                    #42
                                                                                    Originally posted by ZX10 Guy
                                                                                    How am I taking them out of context? I've read what you've said and I don't see how near field listening has any bearing on the core issue we're talking about. You mention doing near field listening minimizes the room in the sound equation. Fine. But again, I'm going to say it once more, no one listens in the near field unless you're a recording engineer sitting behind a mixing board. If you are reviewing speakers to do comparitive testing, then yes doing near field testing would help in discerning the differences between the two speakers. But we're not talking about comparing speakers. The launch of this discourse was spurred on by your comments that EQs have no place in a high end system or anyone who is doing so is artificially altering the sound and thus is not a true "audiophile."
                                                                                    Of course no one listens in near-field on a regular basis. That wasn’t the point. The point was you bought those B&W's to hear them, really the sound they produce, not the room. How can you be sure you are doing that? One way to tell is by near-field examination which takes the room out of the picture. Isn’t it your goal to achieve the same results from where you comfortably sit? How can you do this when the room chooses not to cooperate? You can simply locate the influences and account for them with treatments. The more experience you have in this department the more successful the results will be.

                                                                                    Rives makes a good living doing this for people who don’t have the time and/or the interest and/or the expertise. These people want to hear their music. They don’t worry about how they can remix their tunes to suit their tastes because the room sounds sour. Personally I don’t see anything wrong with this for those people that do enjoy remixing their music. And I wouldn’t have come to the same conclusion that you did about audiophile entitlement. Just don’t kid yourself that directly changing the properties of the source signal with EQ’s is equivalent to indirectly changing the properties of the ambient sound with acoustic panels.

                                                                                    Well dknightd beat me to the punch on the vacuum thing. As far as I can tell, the testing they've done has been under ideal weather conditions. Even in their frequency response charts you don't see much of any environmental factors. Even if the mic were to pic up on some environmental issues, they would be minor and would just be lost in the "noise." Don't know what reference of a wind tunnel is about. But if you're suggesting they are testing in a situation where wind noise would be a problem, I suggest you look at their response charts again and point out where in the readings you see wind noise. If wind noise were an issue, it would jump out right at us in the response charts plus I would hang out on a limb and say this....wind noise is further up in frequency from where they're concerned with in sub testing.
                                                                                    I exercised a little liberty with the wind tunnel comment but you cannot neglect it’s presence. So I made a technical oversight by not fully qualifying my reference to a vacuum. Since you are well versed in then subject then you should already know a medium must be present for sound to carry. Given that the medium in this case is ever changing it is difficult to obtain reliable and consistent results from one moment to the next much less from one day to the next. Keeping (in context) with what I already said I have mixed feeling about the results. Not that I am completely opposed to them.

                                                                                    The data I provided for the acoustic panels doesn't even have relevance here. But I'll dig up some data sheets on bass traps if you would like. The point which seems to be lost, is that the data I provided on acoustic panels (or bass traps for that matter) show at certain frequencies the ability for the panel (or trap) to absorb it. When you reduce the level of a certain frequency you’re attenuating it. So why is this any different than doing attenuation with an EQ? Explain that to me, please.
                                                                                    The data couldn’t be more relevant if you can see it or if you can understand it. What do room treatments try to solve? Irregularities that impact the direct sound you should mostly hear. What are these irregularities? Any object that changes the original waveform and other waveforms still reacting within the room commonly know as reverberations. Reverberations take time to decay and are a measured quantity that describes how live or dead the room is. The rate of decay varies from room to room. The optimum rate of decay depends on the size of the room but in general the larger the room the more decay permissible. The key to controlling decay is by using a combination of materials that will maintain a constant rate of decay over the entire audible band.

                                                                                    Using the first set of values from your example what you’ll explicitly see are the absorption coefficients (percentages) at specific frequencies. A higher coefficient results in higher absorption. For instance at 500Hz 71% (.71) of the sound at that frequency is absorbed. Implicit from the example you gave is the rate of absorption at 1kHz and in between. Notice… it’s linear! If music occurred at discrete frequencies then EQ’s might be fine. This is the point I made about the lack of granularity earlier. EQ’s cannot compensate for frequencies in between the ones you change. Furthermore, acoustical (absorption) panels can broaden room resonances thus making them less audible. A feat unmatched by any EQ.

                                                                                    And what's your point about Audyssey? Of course they're going to talk badly about a competitor. And if you think they're anything other than an EQ, I suggest you go to their website and re-read through it.
                                                                                    My point is they concur with the issues I’ve made earlier in the discussion about your SMS-1. It was an opportunity for you to see another take on the subject. I didn’t say I agreed with their philosophy of EQ’s in general. I found it somewhat amusing that two philosophies on the same subject don’t agree. I should point out for re-clarification that EQ’s do not belong in a high performance system. By high performance system I am speaking in particular to stereo reproduction. There could be instances when an EQ would make sense (because of a lack of practical alternatives) in a multi-channel environment and to which I would be less opposed to, like cinema applications. But let’s not go there, as they are two completely separate agendas.

                                                                                    You still haven't answered my question that I've asked two times about how you know your 800Ds are measuring 32 Hz +/- 3 dB in your room.
                                                                                    My apologies, I haven’t metered the room because the room was undergoing some design/remodeling changes but that’s beside the point. Need I remind you that some measurements only tell part of the story. You've already observed this with yours.

                                                                                    And with regards to me admitting something is missing in my system. I will always say that and anyone who says their system is audio nirvana producing 100% of the live performance experience, I'll be the first to say their full of it. As it is now, technology (which it seems you snub your nose at) hasn't progressed to the point where I can magically think I'm at the live performance. My system gets me very close but it's still not a substitute for being at the performance.
                                                                                    I would be the last to say my system has reached its full potential. If I had to put a number on it I would say somewhere between 70-80% given my current conditions. But why rob yourself of the genuine article and limit dynamics when you don’t have too? I love my iPod just as much as my system but there’s a difference when I play the same tune.
                                                                                    "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                                                                                    Comment

                                                                                    • RebelMan
                                                                                      Ultra Senior Member
                                                                                      • Mar 2005
                                                                                      • 3139

                                                                                      #43
                                                                                      Originally posted by hd99yr
                                                                                      I've noticed the same response in most of your posts when a valid point is made that contradicts your views or opinions. How could it be off topic if it's in response to one of your replies? Or are you off topic with this?
                                                                                      It doesn't pertain to the topic of B&W loudspeakers and subwoofers specifically. And yes I am partially guilty.

                                                                                      I had no idea it took years of learning about sound...
                                                                                      Now you do. :T
                                                                                      "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                                                                                      Comment

                                                                                      • hd99yr
                                                                                        Member
                                                                                        • Apr 2007
                                                                                        • 43

                                                                                        #44
                                                                                        Originally posted by RebelMan
                                                                                        It doesn't pertain to the topic of B&W loudspeakers and subwoofers specifically. And yes I am partially guilty.

                                                                                        Now you do. :T
                                                                                        Do you really feel you need years of experience when comparing amps for 802's to determine if one is brighter than the other so you might not need a sub for your personal taste? I think not. :T

                                                                                        How could it be off topic when equipment you use to drive B&W speakers have an effect on the bass and you make this statement?

                                                                                        If you want to play recording/mixing/mastering sound engineer extraordinaire then make some sweet music or participate in that part of the industry which does. It’s their job to make the music. It’s our job to listen to it, not manipulate it.
                                                                                        " Just when I thought I was out, THEY PULL ME BACK IN "

                                                                                        Comment

                                                                                        • RebelMan
                                                                                          Ultra Senior Member
                                                                                          • Mar 2005
                                                                                          • 3139

                                                                                          #45
                                                                                          Originally posted by hd99yr
                                                                                          Do you really feel you need years of experience when comparing amps for 802's to determine if one is brighter than the other so you might not need a sub for your personal taste? I think not. :T
                                                                                          Discerning the difference between good and bad sound is trivial. Identifying the subtleties of sound and understanding why these subtleties make one component more musically gratifying than another is a learned skill. To answer your question, if the individual is one not likely to succumb to audiophilia nervosa then no I do not think it should take years.
                                                                                          "Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today."

                                                                                          Comment

                                                                                          Working...
                                                                                          Searching...Please wait.
                                                                                          An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because you have logged in since the previous page was loaded.

                                                                                          Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                                                                          An unexpected error was returned: 'Your submission could not be processed because the token has expired.

                                                                                          Please push the back button and reload the previous window.'
                                                                                          An internal error has occurred and the module cannot be displayed.
                                                                                          There are no results that meet this criteria.
                                                                                          Search Result for "|||"