Split discussion on subwoofers

Dedicated to those large boxes at one end of the room
User avatar
Greg
Social outcast
Posts: 3198
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 11:14 am
Location: Bristol, UK

#16 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by Greg »

Does not some modern music incorporate effect as part of it's completeness? Infact, to one degree or another, I suggest effect has always been a feature of most music. So are not low frequency sounds in a composition music? I suppose it depends on what you listen to.
chris661
Shed dweller
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:29 am
Location: Sheffield

#17 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by chris661 »

Dr Bunsen Honeydew wrote: Mon Apr 03, 2017 6:25 pm Well Cressy just told you you are wrong as well, so you obviously wont listen. Anyone who is pursuing music and not effects will know who is right when they listen.
No, Steve said where he chooses to make his compromises. It takes a lot of work to get a sub integrated (I find DSP pretty much the only way, since it'll need EQ for the room modes, often steep crossovers, and delays), and for him, the extra effort, complexity and expense isn't worth the last few notes at the bottom.
That's okay, I get that. Adding a sub to my system needs a DSP processor, another amp, etc etc.

I suppose you're going to tell me that all the studio engineers (the ones that produce the music we listen to) are all wrong for wanting systems with flat responses, too.


Good point, Greg, thanks for the new angle.

Chris
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Old Hand
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:50 am
Location: Muppet Labs

#18 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

"That's okay, I get that. Adding a sub to my system needs a DSP processor, another amp, etc etc."

Even more shite sitting in the signal path. Just throw more and more components and money at a non existent problem and actually create problems - makes a lot of sense :roll:
chris661
Shed dweller
Posts: 2556
Joined: Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:29 am
Location: Sheffield

#19 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by chris661 »

The problem is simple: no sensibly-sized driver can get down to 20Hz at useful SPLs and still go high enough to meet a tweeter.

That is the singular problem that subwoofers are trying to solve. You say they're not necessary. Maybe your music doesn't demand much LF extension. The music I like does demand LF extension, so I look into ways of achieving that. If you think you can just "fix" the main speakers to give that extension, look at the first sentence of this post again.


I've given some thought to this, and decided you simply must be trolling. It's subtle, and maybe you don't even realise you're doing it. Here's my reasoning:
- Your tendency to pick on small bits of posts is quite frustrating, since you'll only pick on the bit you think you can argue, and completely ignore the rest. I (and others) tend to post in a fairly complete way, yet you relentlessly avoid addressing the bulk of the argument.
- Every thread you post to goes off-topic. You quote very small bits of posts, and comment on those. Rinse and repeat until the thread is just you and whoever can be bothered to deal with you, just like this one.
- You quite obviously aim to get emotional responses from people.
- You either don't understand as much as you say you do, or you're intentionally playing dumb. Neither are becoming or, indeed, useful.

I feel I made my point about subwoofers some time ago in this thread and others, and replying to you further is simply a waste of time. See my reasoning above.

Nick, if you're reading this, I'd like you to close this thread. In hindsight, it's pretty pointless. If you'd like to leave it open for entertainment value, though, that's okay.

Doc, you're going on my ignore list. If you'd like to understand more about speaker design and how humans react to different acoustic phenomina, Earl Geddes and Lydia Lee have done some great studies. Be careful, though - there's measurements and repeat data and actual scientific method. You might not like that. Tom Danley has come up with some great ideas and shared them with the DIY world, too.

Steve (and the rest of you), I'll see you at Owston.

Chris
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Old Hand
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:50 am
Location: Muppet Labs

#20 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

Its simple, it is sledgehammer to crack a nut, and the music really doesn't like having to carry that sledge hammer around, it makes it tired :lol: :lol:
User avatar
shane
Social outcast
Posts: 3403
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: Kept in a cool dry place.

#21 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by shane »

We know that it's possible to build a decent domestic loudspeaker with a good bass response because they exist, so I have two probably naive questions. To Chris, why build a subwoofer/satellite system when a single unit could be built instead? Is it just portability, or do you think it's an inherently better way of doing things? And toRichard, why isn't it possible to build a sub using the same principles as a single speaker? Why is the act of separating the bass section into a separate box always completely destructive?
The world looks so different after learning science. For example, trees are made of air, primarily. When they are burned, they go back to air, and in their flaming heat is released the flaming heat of the Sun which was bound in to convert air into tree.
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Old Hand
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:50 am
Location: Muppet Labs

#22 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

Because that is my experience, a number of possible reasons, but I really can't be bothered to investigate more deeply. It is simple, they pull the music apart, make it disjointed. Where it show the most is with acoustic instruments and especially an orchestra. "why are the bassoons and double bass coming out of the arse of the conductor and seem to be being played in a different time".
User avatar
shane
Social outcast
Posts: 3403
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: Kept in a cool dry place.

#23 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by shane »

So do you think it's mainly just the physical separation of the bass from the rest of the music?
The world looks so different after learning science. For example, trees are made of air, primarily. When they are burned, they go back to air, and in their flaming heat is released the flaming heat of the Sun which was bound in to convert air into tree.
User avatar
pre65
Amstrad Tower of Power
Posts: 21373
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 11:13 pm
Location: North Essex/Suffolk border.

#24 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by pre65 »

According to what I have read 200Hz was traditionally taken as the omni point for human hearing , so if bass lower than 200Hz is omnidirectional should that make integrating a low bass speaker (or speakers) less of a problem ?
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Edmund Burke

G-Popz THE easy listening connoisseur. (Philip)
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15707
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#25 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by Nick »

I know I am not the you in your question but I think the problem is partly that but its a bit more complex. I think the problem is maths, well in fact Fourier. We certainly can view any signal as the sum of individual frequencies, so we can put those frequencies into bands, then join all the bands together and end up with the original signal. and thats provably true. But only in the world of maths. In the real world, its not the same, Once we split the sound up into slices and give each slice to a driver, each driver will have its own set of faults, both amplitude and phase, its own set of resonances so its own little sources and sinks of energy. Once we join all these different sources together we are no longer doing what we can in maths, and the joints start to show. The only way around this is to find a way of making each source so similar that the joins are invisible (that’s what Mark is trying to do with his horn system, get each part so similar and at the same time so good that the joins don’t show), or we let the individual bands leak into each other. We can do this by making the drivers see each other both mechanically (same cabinet) and electrically (same crossover and amp). A subwoofer works against this and makes both an electrical and physical split, so its very very hard to not see the join. James knows this and its why his OB's (and mine as he designed them) have two drive units that can see each other mechanically (same baffle) and electrically (series crossover).

Just IMHO of course.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
Old Hand
Posts: 1358
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:50 am
Location: Muppet Labs

#26 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by Dr Bunsen Honeydew »

Image
User avatar
shane
Social outcast
Posts: 3403
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: Kept in a cool dry place.

#27 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by shane »

Ok, I get the physical separation bit, but most multiway speakers have separate electrical paths to the individual drivers, so from that point of view they're the same as a sub and satellite, assuming for the moment that we're talking only about passive crossovers. I take the point that Richards speakers and Nick's OBs don't work this way, so is it just a case of "they're all out of step except our Fred"?
The world looks so different after learning science. For example, trees are made of air, primarily. When they are burned, they go back to air, and in their flaming heat is released the flaming heat of the Sun which was bound in to convert air into tree.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15707
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#28 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by Nick »

but most multiway speakers have separate electrical paths to the individual drivers, so from that point of view they're the same as a sub and satellite
There you go assuming a perfect amplifier again.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
User avatar
shane
Social outcast
Posts: 3403
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 12:09 pm
Location: Kept in a cool dry place.

#29 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by shane »

Que?
The world looks so different after learning science. For example, trees are made of air, primarily. When they are burned, they go back to air, and in their flaming heat is released the flaming heat of the Sun which was bound in to convert air into tree.
User avatar
Nick
Site Admin
Posts: 15707
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 10:20 am
Location: West Yorkshire

#30 Re: Split discussion on subwoofers

Post by Nick »

IMHO, its a spectrum. On one side we have full range, single drivers that are great at playing simple music, but fail if asked to play complexity and or frequency extremes. At the other side we have multi driver, complex or active xover, separate enclosure systems, that can handle anything that is asked of them, but dont have the ability to play music that fools the ear into forgetting its listening to a hifi. Between the two extremes you have real world system that hopefully you pick to suit what you want.
Whenever an honest man discovers that he's mistaken, he will either cease to be mistaken or he will cease to be honest.
Post Reply