Why the fascination with subwoofers?
Here’s a great vinyl, containing some sustained, 16Hz, pedal notes. They also did a great job of capturing the hall acoustics. It worked nicely, in concert with a Spectrum Analyzer, for testing my woofer cabinets. Much more enjoyable, than Pink Noise. https://www.discogs.com/Virgil-Fox-The-Fox-Touch-Volume-One/release/2356270 |
@rauliruegas When I make comments regarding the sound or effectiveness of a thing in audio, if they are subjective in nature I use recordings that I made since I was there at the recording session and know how they are supposed to sound. I had the recordings produced on LP and CD. It is the nature of this sort of thing that only I know how they are truly supposed to sound as would be the case for anyone who was at those recording sessions. For example if I say the Triplanar arm reproduces bass better than any other tone arm I've heard its because I was there and have the master tapes; other arms simply don't seem to get the bass right. So my suggestion to you is simple- get some good quality recording gear and make your own recordings so you can make accurate statements about things rather than speculation posed as fact. |
@rodman99999 used the term "tight" in regard to a subject near and dear to my heart, that of musical cohesion within the rhythm section of a band. That is one of the foremost criteria in assessing the quality of that section, and his use of the term tight in this instance was in regard to musical tightness, not bass tightness in a purely audio sense. However, the bass quality of a woofer or subwoofer can and does also effect the perceived "tightness" of a rhythm section. One point about Ralph’s argument regarding bass tightness can be discussed in the terms speaker designers use: a woofer can be critically damped (0.7), over-damped (a lower number), or under-damped (a higher number). A designer who wants to get more perceived bass out of his speaker will under-damp it---at the cost of bass "looseness", while a designer who intends for his loudspeaker to be paired with a subwoofer may over-damp his speaker, knowing that the bass quantity sacrificed to achieve a higher bass quality will be compensated for by the sub. An over-damped woofer may not reproduce all the timbre, tone, and resonance produced by a, say, upright bass, as the over-damping will mute those qualities. An under-damped one may produce lots of bass quantity, but it’s lack of bass quality may result in the loss of the touch and timing of the bass player (and the drummer's playing of his bass drum). That’s why the best speaker designers aim for the critically damped figure of 0.7, the optimum compromise. |
@rauliruegas wrote, about the AudioKinesis Swarm: "For a 10" woofer (as the four subs array posted here. ) is almost imposible to handled frequencies below 20hz at over 100dbs ( SPL. ) and with low THD kind of distortion." I didn’t design the Swarm to go below 20 Hz, but several customers who have measured the in-room response report -3 dB in the upper teens. For deepest loudest bass at the same price point (three grand for the system), a single monster sub is the way to go. I have designed a Swarm that can do well over 120 dB at 13 Hz, but it’s not very practical and I don’t think there would be much market for it. Each individual 10" Swarm unit can do about 100 dB at 20 Hz in-room at one meter without approaching x-max or amplifier clipping, assuming "typical" boundary reinforcement. I don’t know what the THD number would be, as imo that’s not a problem that needs solving. The in-room frequency response is of vastly greater audible consequence as long as neither woofer nor amp is driven beyond its linear limits. * * * * My fascination with subs dates back about twenty-five years, to my simultaneous fascination with Quads and music with bass. Duke |
