Subwoofer speed is in the room, not the box
First, if you like swarm, that’s fine, please start a thread somewhere else about how much you like swarm.
I want to talk about the impression that subs are fast or slow compared to planar or line sources.
The concern, and it’s correct, is that adding a subwoofer to say a Martin Logan or Magneplanar speaker will ruin the sound balance. That concern is absolutely a valid one and can happen with almost any speaker, not just speakers with tight dispersion control.
What usually happens is that the room, sub and main speakers aren’t integrating very well. Unfortunately for most audiophiles, it’s very hard to figure out exactly what is wrong without measurements or EQ capabilities in the subwoofer to help you.
So, there’s the myth of a small sub being "faster." It isn’t. It’s slower has worst distortion and lower output than a larger sub but what it does is it doesn’t go down deep enough to wake the dragons.
The biggest problems I’ve heard/seen have been excessively large peaks in the subwoofer range. Sometimes those peaks put out 20x more power into a room than the rest of the subwoofer. Think about that!! Your 1000 W sub is putting out 20,000 watts worth of power in some very narrow bands. Of course that will sound bad and muddied. The combination of sub and main speaker can also excessively accentuate the area where they meet, not to mention nulls.
A lot is made about nulls in the bass but honestly IMHO, those are the least of our worries. Of course too many of them can make the bass drop out, but in practicality is is the irregular bass response and the massive peaks that most prevent any good sub from functioning well in a room.
Bass traps are of course very useful tools to help tame peaks and nulls. They can enable EQ in ways you can’t do without it. If your main speakers are ported, plug them. Us the AM Acoustics room mode simulator to help you place your speakers and listening location.
Lastly, using a subwoofer to only fill in 20 Hz range is nonsense. Go big or go home. Use a sub at least at 60 Hz or higher. Use a single cap to create a high pass filter. Use EQ on the subwoofer at least. Get bass traps. Measure, for heaven’s sake measure and stop imagining you know a thing about your speaker or subwoofer’s response in the room because you don’t. Once that speaker arrives in the room it’s a completely different animal than it was in the showroom or in the spec sheet.
Lastly, if your room is excessively reflective, you don’t need a sub, you need more absorption. By lowering the mid-hi energy levels in a room the bass will appear like an old Spanish galleon at low tide.
One should not confuse my argument as support for anything less than a systems engineering approach to the sub / room problem. The solutions i mention in a previous post include MUCH more than 3 x 8” drivers in a domestically attractive 90# box….. Obviously, i’m a Vandy owner and fan…. I’ve owned the big block gear, starting w Hartley … Infinity servo….Beveridge, etc ( i am…an old bastard… )carry on….and enjoy the music gents !,,,,,,
|
@clio09 - Using a high crossover point to fix a low frequency bump is sound. I've done the same while making internal crossovers. It avoids extra EQ components. My recommendation is usually to ask users to plug any ports for kind of the same reasons. It makes integration a little easier. @tomic601 Don't use a laser scanner to prove what you can easily see in distortion. |
agreed that measurements and acoustic panels and traps are critical to a near perfect integration. i do believe that some subs give the impression of being faster than others in the same room. i tried several subs and came to the following conclusions- subwoofers need to have low audible enclosure resonance above your crossover region or they can blur the midrange clarity of the mains. subwoofers with parametric eq are excellent for taming peaks and to even the response between left and right subs, especially when one is near a corner. deep flat response down to 20hz makes a huge difference and makes them worth the effort. sealed subs are less efficient but have lower distortion in critical frequencies. some overlap between subs and mains is ok but not much. putting the subs inside the main speakers makes integration much easier. spread your mains wide if you have to! |
I agree with @avanti1960 except in one technical nitpick:
The efficiency of a driver in a cabinet is determined by the driver, not the box. Sealed and ported cabinets will have the exact same efficiency if they use the same driver. The difference is the -3 dB location will shift down for a ported cabinet. Also, the optimally flat solution for a sealed cabinet can be much smaller than for the optimally flat ported solution. I recently made a sealed center channel, and using sealed cabinets reduced the volume by about half, and raised the -3 dB point a little, but since I was going to crossover at 80 Hz, the -3 dB point of 45 vs. 60 Hz was moot. |
@gdaddy1 wrote:
This is a very revealing quote that only exposes a misunderstanding: it states that "newcomers" sets the low-pass frequency of the sub(s) too high while - as we can deduce - running the mains full-range, in which case of course there'll be an overlap, with all that implies when too severe. From that I take it REL is really only considering the scenario where the mains are run full-range with the subs then "added" on, and thus the only variable here is centered on the subs and their low-pass frequency that will be dictated by the bass extension and overall character of the mains; all things being equal, the lower they reach, the lower the low-pass, and that explains REL's position of a highly set low-pass as generally bad because of the resultant overlap with the bass performance of the mains (when run full-range). Except some of us here are advocating high-passing the main speakers, and this changes everything with two variables to consider - that is, both a low-pass and a high-pass frequency. This being the case a, say, 90Hz subs low-pass can be a perfectly sound choice when the mains are high-passed accordingly. Some overlapping between the subs and mains, which is inevitable, isn't necessarily a bad thing, but obviously when taken to the extreme can be detrimental. I'm not saying REL's approach with the mains run full-range and the subs fittingly (low) low-passed is a bad choice (albeit, to my mind, a lesser one compared to high-passing the mains), only that making a blanket statement on the deficiency of a higher crossover point between the subs and mains is downright incorrect, and taken out of context with your quote above. |
