Dave (Sogood) said
Generalising, this set up seems the best so far as things stand (and as far as I can tell, which may not be very far): one "full range" speaker. This will be used to cover, as well as possible, the range between ¬100 - 10kHz give or take some.
THEN, you need to go down & to go up.
Especially if you want to reproduce piano which, in the unlikely event of a good recording, will play percussively from ¬17Hz up there with the dogs if not bats.
IMO Detlof's approach, i.e. to add both an upper tweet is most opportune. I've tried it myself, with outstanding results.
Thereafter the two separate units to deal with the 2-3 bass octaves is an excellent way of dealing with a difficult subject; it seems that Sogood is doing the same thing with his 4x external woof units.
Couldn't such a set up be replicated in a cheaper version?
DetlofActually the complexity Detlof refers to may stem from his use of 2x the product we usually refer to as "sub-woofer" (one as woof, the other as subwoof) AND a super-tweet which enhances the lower register when done right.
I guess I just don't find subwoofers, that complicated an animal to tame.
Generalising, this set up seems the best so far as things stand (and as far as I can tell, which may not be very far): one "full range" speaker. This will be used to cover, as well as possible, the range between ¬100 - 10kHz give or take some.
THEN, you need to go down & to go up.
Especially if you want to reproduce piano which, in the unlikely event of a good recording, will play percussively from ¬17Hz up there with the dogs if not bats.
IMO Detlof's approach, i.e. to add both an upper tweet is most opportune. I've tried it myself, with outstanding results.
Thereafter the two separate units to deal with the 2-3 bass octaves is an excellent way of dealing with a difficult subject; it seems that Sogood is doing the same thing with his 4x external woof units.
Couldn't such a set up be replicated in a cheaper version?