Why the fascination with subwoofers?

Seems to me that because the recording of LP’s during the cutting proccess the bass information must goes in MONO due to the analog/LP limitations the producers/engeneers accustom to never think to make CD recordings taking advantage of the digital alternative that has no limitations about ! ! ? ? ? ? Maybe exist something in those very low bass information that the microphones pick-up that could or can makes useles doing it in Stereo fashion, who knows?

Its not so much the limitations of the format as it costs a lot of money to pay an engineer to work a way around  "out of phase bass". If you spend the time with the recording, you can usually find a way to master it without having to process it. But that takes time and at $500/hour most often bass processing is used. This is a simple circuit that senses when bass is out of phase and makes it mono below about 80Hz for a few milliseconds until the event has passed. This makes mastering LPs less expensive!

But CDs do exist where out of phase bass exists. This can happen because a microphone is out of phase with the rest of the recording when a bass guitar or bass drum is recorded. For this reason, the recording engineer has a phase inversion switch on every channel of his mixer but he may not have thought to use them.


If the recording is done in its entirety with only two mics, out of phase bass will not exist.

Dear @atmasphere  : What I really mean was not a LP limitation perse but an analog rig limitation because cartridges just can't track with applomb very low bass grooves.

Telarc 1812 is a good example where I own over 120+ cartridges and only a few can track those cannon shots with clean and pristine true applomb.
Between other things cartridge self abilities is always a limitation and not only at very low bass.

"""  For this reason, the recording engineer has a phase inversion switch on every channel of his mixer but he may not have thought to use them. """

So, recording engineers do not really care about and even to check the microphones phase in between.

Thank's for your explanation, makes sense.

R.

What I really mean was not a LP limitation perse but an analog rig limitation because cartridges just can't track with applomb very low bass grooves.

Telarc 1812 is a good example where I own over 120+ cartridges and only a few can track those cannon shots with clean and pristine true applomb.
Between other things cartridge self abilities is always a limitation and not only at very low bass.

@rauliruegas More depends on the tone arm's ability to track the cartridge than it does on the cartridge itself. Its a good bet that when they cut that track they played it on a very ordinary turntable to make sure it was playable.

Dear @atmasphere : All cartridges has its own tracking abilities determined not only for its compliance level but the tip mass, cartridge weigth and ceratinly how good is matched with its couple tonearm ( resonance frequency in between. ) but today tonearm that are well damped and even not very good damped but with good bearing design does a good work about.
Of course that the TT platfform has something to says: if good damped or not so good, speakers sound vibrations and overall room vibrations. Analog rig is very complex to achieve a " perfect " job.

Ok, for my part is all on these regards because the main bass thread subject is different.

R.

mijostyn:
 "Hey Noble, Real Bad Idea. I love Maggie 20.7s but adding two more bass panels is just going to give you a lot more of no bass.(below 40 Hz)
Dipoles make crappy subwoofers. There is this myth out there that you can not mate a dynamic sub with a dipole bass panel. That is because most are trying to do it the wrong way based on more mythology. I have been using dipoles exclusively since 1976. I would never live with out a sub woofer. There is no other way to reproduce that visceral you are there experience."

Hello mijostyn,
     
     I currently agree with what you posted.  I think we both know for certain it's possible to seamlessly integrate powerful dynamic subs with dipole panels because we've both done it in our own systems, in our own rooms and with our own dipoles. We both know how to do it well, although in somewhat different methods. 

     You're also likely correct that dipoles make poor subwoofers.  But my response, to trying Duke's concept on dipole sub arrays built into the front and rear walls, was hypothetical and prefaced on me winning the lottery.  Meaning I'd have the disposable income to give it a try.  If it didn't perform better than my current dba, I'd probably just use a custom dba with 4 dynamic subs that could each reproduce bass accurately well below 20 Hz.  I do enjoy visceral bass in music and ht.

Thanks,
Tim