Do you think you need a subwoofer?

Hi Raul, since you did not want to play in my thread "In room response", I am back. First off I have nothing against you. Just the bull--it you keep expounding. You are contradictory, not just with me and others who post here, but with yourself (perhaps the biggest sin. Next to lying to yourself?), in almost all of your posts and I find it offensive. Especially when you are unable to verify or answer the most simple, albeit hard, questions. This thread "do you need a subwoofer",by itself, is full of it.

You say, "My audio/sound reproduction priorities are: neutral and natural tonal balance/pitch, Accuracy ( low distortion, low noise, no colorations, no cliping, grain free, liniarity, no compression, etc...), timbre, dynamic, focus and soundstage . My whole audio system target is to be nearest to the recording!!!"

"My audio/electronics priority is: accuracy/synergy/confidence/constant/."

Tell me Raul, How do you have any of those priorities when your in room freq response is +- 20db? Accuracy, how is that accurate? Natural tonal balance and pitch, how does one have accurate pitch and a natural tonal balance when related freq are +- 20db? No cororation, isn't a plus 15db or minus 20 db freq response a coloration?
Dynamics, you can't have maximum dynamics when you have dropouts of -5 to -20 db across the sound spectrum and +50 to +20db peaks limiting your volume levels.

Raul, you know for a fact that a resonably good, or better yet, a great freq response is one of the most important properties for audio reproduction. One of the basic tenets of audio reproduction is a response of 20-20,000hz. Thats why you do it in your preamp, thats why you want full range speakers or subs and super tweeters, because it does not matter where the error takes place the result is the same. One of the reasons why, if I were to buy your $12,800 preamp, I would pay for a +-001% freq response. Where there are changes in freq response you do one of two things. In a dip you loose detail, decay, dynamics, and the ability to get pitch and a "natural sound" amongst other things.
Where there are peaks you obscure detail by overpowering other freq and it makes the music sound "too loud" amongs other things.
Combine these two problems and and you can hear why it is so important and it does not matter where the comes from! The effect is still the same.

Another problem, of modal ringing, needs to be addressed. And there is only one way to obtain this, and it aint frilly curtains and doilies. You have to stop the low freq reverb that obscures music and imaging.

.
An in room response of 20-20,000hz response is preferable, within reason +-2.5db (and thats debatable) along with a subjective in room response that is pleasurable to the ear. And please please don't hang me with a numbers game.

Also the importance of modal ringing is not to be underestemated. This must be obtained at a certain volume level if it is to approach anything like a real "audiophile" level of dynamics and realism. Those are two goals that are hardly unreasonable.

So, how do you have all of these important priorities?
The answer is you don't. You cannot have those priorities in a room with pretty curtains, doilies and a pure wool virgin rug. It ain't happening and untill people like yourself stop fostering this false info and admit the truth, you and others will not be even close to any accurate reproduction. You said, "thanks God I have a good room" "I am really lucky about", well you better be thanking God or some virgin saint of acoustics. And luck? I am pretty sure that as a scientist you really don't believe that luck has something to do with room acoustics, and its effect on audio reproduction, because the acoustics for your room are no different than any other room. Now you can continue to foster this bull that you have a great room and an accurate system to others but I for one don't believe anything you say. An untreated room is a disaster pure and simple! And yours is untreated.. so guess what? It is a disaster. Now you may treat the room up to a point that is good for you, with frilly curtains and sofas in front of your speakers but untill you admit the reality you will never progress.

Why is this such a "hard" subject? I don't know, but my guess is that you really dont want to see the Emperor Wears No Clothes. It will force you to admit certain truths that you find disturbing and against your belief system and dogmas. And it will reveal the hard cold fact that any system in an untreated room is a mess, which will be enable you to continue to foster overpriced equipment to an unsuspecting public.

What do I find all of this so disturbing? It is that your desires (in you stated goals) are exactly the same as mine! Why do we find it so hard to come to a meeting point?

In this thread you veered off course to save face, make contradictions and false claims even when others are agreeing with you. I am sure IMD is a problem, but please show me the problem and then reveal to me the answer, how do I lower IMD? How low do I need to go? How do I measure this? Or do I need your calibrated golden ears?

Raul, why do you find it so hard to answer my questions? Are they not relevent? Do they reveal too much that you are uncomfortable with? You are a manufacturer of very expensive equipment, do you not want me to believe that you have nothing but the best? Do you not want me to believe that when you test certain equipment, worlds best tonearm and 25 phono cartridges etc.. that you system is so inaccurate that it is useless. Would it not let the cat out of the bag to reveal that you system can not sound even anything like accurate when you have frequency deviations of plus/minus30db?

I say to you, lets start over with some meaningful dialog. And while we can continue to agree to disagree we can also be truthful with ourselves and others, in that way we can progress toward our quest.
I am sorry if you really did not know any of this, and really are ignorant of room acoustics and their effects. If that is the case you really need to do some searching.

Bob

Acoustat6, I must confess that I use two velodyne DD12 subs in stereo to my Talon Hawk monitors and the sound is fantastic. I was wondering if there are two distinct prioritisations between you and Raul here:

Raul focuses on the system from front (cartridge, cdp, tuner etc) to back (speakers and subs). Your concern seems more with what happens to that sound when it leaves the system. Of course the problems of acoustic fluctuation also often applies to the actual venues at which one hears live performances.

I do agree though that room acoustics are a critical issue. I just prefer to focus on having the best system I can and allowing it to grow into the differing listening environments that I will be able to afford over our lives.

Hi Dgob, I too believe, that the front end components are very important, you can't have "good" sound without them. The problem is audios dirty little secret and it inability to admit that without great in room response you cannot get even remotely close to great sound. And it is continually perpetuated through statements like "I Have a great room" when no acoustic treatment is applied.

The difference between a live venue and a "reproduced" venue is that the live venue sound only alters the sound at that theater, move to another theatre and the sound changes. At home, the recordings take on the colorations of the room and every recording is affected equally. Worse yet is comb filtering and decay times, treat the room properly and all of these proplems are decreased, and yes, then you are finally able to "listen to the music". If you remove these distortions then you are truly hearing the recordings and your equipment for what they are, and therefore accuracy (at least as accurate as your system allows) is obtained.

Bob

Hi Acoustat6,

I still feel that the vehemance in the argument is a bit disproportionate. I just read the thread that seems to create many of the current issues and Raul states that he HAS treated his room: "I'm very luckily and don't have (I fix it) many room problems related." I'm not certain how extensive or successful this 'fix' now is in his system but it hardly seems grounds for assuming a complete acoustic disaster!

I feel that there are potential compromises in our efforts to capture live music and distinctions along the whole audio chain: original performance; unique venue; particular recording process; replay system (Hifi); receptive environment (both 'subjective' - hearing ability, preferences and expections - and 'objective' - listening room, stands etc). Our two most manageable and consistent parts in this chain would be the hifi and listening room. Maybe this typifies your argument and I do agree concerning the industry but we are all aware that Turkeys rarely vote for thanksgiving?

However, your point about the "live venue" could make any argument for neutrality redundant. If our "reproduced venue" becomes our individual "theatre" then the question of the performers that appear there would largely remain one for our hifi systems. This on the basis of your argument that there is no one, absolute "live venue" and performers will sound different at distinct venues/theatres. Such questions of compromise and individual judgement might therefore affect all points in the audio chain.

I probably have to say this however, as I have lived with my hifi in various and distinct acoustic environments and know that I can get a consistency through the best equipment and worse of environments. A customised listening room would however be the icing on my cake. Maybe for fairer times!

I happen to have a carefully voiced dedicated room(thank goodness)of which I am very satisfied finally,but after alot of sweat/experimentation....However I have heard "some" room/set-ups that have little actual treatment,or attention to acoustics,which sound "marvelous"!

A close friend, owning new Magico Minis,lives in an apartment building.His room is also a general living room,and has ordinary furniture,a T.V. and over sized coffee table,full rug etc...But he is a dedicated hobbyist!

Of course his "biggest problem" in getting a good sounding acoustic is his "wife" -:)...Just kidding,but you get my point!....She actually deserves a medal,for allowing the "hobby" to develop to such an extent in the ONLY spare room available(there is a kitchen and bedroom too).....But there are still acoustic issues which will "never" be addressed....Yet,and yet..it sounds "fabulous"...What can I say? It really does!....My friend is a "wine collector",so maybe his generous offerings are one reason I like his sound SO much -:)..I'm going there soon,I hope.

My friend Sid Marks(of Mercury Living Presence fame,as the reviewer for TAS....and I "ONLY" mention him in the context of his "expertise and high standards",an understatement actually)is NOT one to go out of his way to treat a listening room....He actually puts his efforts into still acquiring interesting LP's,to add to an almost unmatched collection,which takes up most of "his" premises(he is a bachelor).But he is VERY critical of "anything" taking away from musical authenticity.I don't question him anymore.He's proven himself too many times.

Yet(like Raul most likely is very fortunate to have),his room is "absolutely" fabulous!!I mean everyone lucky enough to hear his set-up(which defies logic,it is just SO GREAT)cannot believe how good the "basic" room "allows music to develop"!Who knows for sure how these things "always" work?...Looks can be deceiving!

He(Sid) has a big,bold,dynamic system which puts out alot of energy("probably" similar in energy output to Raul's)....but the acoustic energy just happens to be very well controlled,from the overall room dimensions/wall material,outer room openings etc.Yet,as I mentioned before,not much by way of acoustical treatment.Go figure!!

One cannot really assume a picture of a room,or description tells us everything about it's sound.I have NO reason to believe Raul has anything less than superb sound,really!The guy has been at this for a long time,and is passionate,like so many of us.

Also,a "true" friends group of hobbyists are usually relentless in being worse than "catty women" in critique!So,not to worry....if anyone has audio pals,they will keep you honest......And in my case,caused me to "build from scratch" a dedicated room!Lucky for me,interest rates were cheap at the time it was built.

I was unlucky(lucky in the long run,actually)in that when I bought my home,I thought the "first room" would be OK,but when my friends came over for a listen,they made the criticism on this thread look like a "peace rally"!!-:

Especially Sid who said..."It is a disaster Mark,and some day you will thank me for being SO honest"!!

The comments absolutely embarrassed me,in the poor attention I had paid to things(not to the actual acoustic,but the room's ability to let my speakers "breathe").

I've since solved my problem,but the ONLY way to know if one is successful,is from actual "in person auditioning"!

Best to all.