[Gary Eickmeier]

Just got a new used Velodyne F-1800 subwoofer. Sensational! Wham, Slam, and
IMPACT like I have not heard in my system.

However, a most interesting side effect - I immediately noticed that the
surround sound is much improved with the sub in the system! I am running all
of the channels as "Small" with the sub doing the bass chores for all
channels plus the LFE channel. My theory is that this has made all channels
much more alike in their sound because they are using the same sub, so they
are all full range now and the bottom end is the same and the top is
reasonably similar. Thus, all I have to do is adjust levels to get very
evenly matched channels all around.

Gary Eickmeier

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
Just got a new used Velodyne F-1800 subwoofer. Sensational! Wham, Slam,
and
IMPACT like I have not heard in my system.

However, a most interesting side effect - I immediately noticed that the
surround sound is much improved with the sub in the system! I am running
all
of the channels as "Small" with the sub doing the bass chores for all
channels plus the LFE channel. My theory is that this has made all
channels
much more alike in their sound because they are using the same sub, so
they
are all full range now and the bottom end is the same and the top is
reasonably similar. Thus, all I have to do is adjust levels to get very
evenly matched channels all around.

Gary Eickmeier


What you're saying isn't at all surprising. Firstly, by setting all
'speakers to "small" you're removing the extreme bass from the 'speakers.
which lowers the distortion and raises their effective power handling.
Secondly, by adding LF extension to the system, one picks up on ambient
clues in the recording, things like aircon noise, distant traffic rumble
which was missed previously and which gives a feeling of live presence.

When added a pair of subs to my mains, (Meridian DSP5000) I found that
speech and music like string quartets was greatly improved, not because of
the music or speech had any LF that was previously not being reproduced, but
because the recordings had.

S.

[Audio Empire]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:37:22 -0800, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

Just got a new used Velodyne F-1800 subwoofer. Sensational! Wham, Slam, and
IMPACT like I have not heard in my system.

However, a most interesting side effect - I immediately noticed that the
surround sound is much improved with the sub in the system! I am running all
of the channels as "Small" with the sub doing the bass chores for all
channels plus the LFE channel. My theory is that this has made all channels
much more alike in their sound because they are using the same sub, so they
are all full range now and the bottom end is the same and the top is
reasonably similar. Thus, all I have to do is adjust levels to get very
evenly matched channels all around.

Gary Eickmeier


Hmmm. Makes some sense, perhaps. Have you tried using the sub with the system
set in the "large speaker" mode to see if that added spaciousness that you
have noted is diminished with the main speakers operating full range? Seems
to me that this experiment ought to give you some insight into what, exactly,
is going on here.

What I have found is that two subs are always better than one, however. I
know that the conventional wisdom has it that a single sub, with all of the
system bass below about 200 Hz or so summed to one channel, is sufficient
because low frequencies are non-directional, but like so much audio "wisdom",
this does not seem to be the case in practice. I have tried my two subs in
all possible combinations: both subs summed as one, one-channel (first the
left, then the right) operating only, and stereo bass. Stereo bass ALWAYS
sounds better in my listening room whether I'm using one of my woofers
monaurally or both of them monaurally. It's weightier (as one might expect)
and is more articulate and more spacious. I have also noted that even though
most of the imaging cues for bass instruments originate in the bass
instruments' upper harmonics, that having the lower fundamentals originate on
the same side of the soundstage as the harmonics does help with low-frequency
placement. It seems to me that if the bass viols, for instance, are on the
right side of the orchestra (standard practice) and the harmonics for those
instruments originate in the right channel while the fundamentals originate
summed in the left channel, this cannot help but confuse the image somewhat.
The viol WILL be more solidly anchored on stage right if BOTH the
fundamentals and the harmonics emanate from stage right.

I suspect the notion that summed bass is acceptable comes from the old stereo
LP practice of summing all of a recording's bass to the left (lateral) groove
wall in order to make a mono-compatible stereo LP. The wisdom here was that
if bass, with it's large groove excursions were kept out of the vertical
component, then a stereo record could be traced with a mono cartridge without
harming the record. This allowed the record companies from the early 60's
forward, to eliminate the hated "double inventory". I know that record
companies did this for years. What I do not know is whether this practice
continued into the CD era. They may have kept the practice because so many
systems are set-up with subwoofers connected only to the left channel because
it was "traditional" to do so.

[Serge Auckland[_2_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

I suspect the notion that summed bass is acceptable comes from the old
stereo
LP practice of summing all of a recording's bass to the left (lateral)
groove
wall in order to make a mono-compatible stereo LP. The wisdom here was
that
if bass, with it's large groove excursions were kept out of the vertical
component, then a stereo record could be traced with a mono cartridge
without
harming the record. This allowed the record companies from the early 60's
forward, to eliminate the hated "double inventory". I know that record
companies did this for years. What I do not know is whether this practice
continued into the CD era. They may have kept the practice because so many
systems are set-up with subwoofers connected only to the left channel
because
it was "traditional" to do so.

Mono bass was never on the left channel only, as that would still cause a
vertical movement of the stylus. If it was there at all as mono, it was
equally on both channels, so the stylus motion would be only horizontal.

S.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...

Just got a new used Velodyne F-1800 subwoofer. Sensational! Wham, Slam,
and
IMPACT like I have not heard in my system.

Gary, given all the time you've spent at the *House Of Bass* (and I mean
that in a good way), I mean Dave Clark's place' I can't believe it took you
this long to get a decent subwoofer! ;-)

Of course the F-1800 is about a 2.2 on the ten point scale of Dave's 2-sub
super-system.

However, a most interesting side effect - I immediately noticed that the
surround sound is much improved with the sub in the system!

Well first off, I'd respectfully ask that you live with the whole thing for
about a month and try some fine tuning before you go public with some
far-reaching conclusions.

I am running all
of the channels as "Small" with the sub doing the bass chores for all
channels plus the LFE channel. My theory is that this has made all
channels
much more alike in their sound because they are using the same sub, so
they
are all full range now and the bottom end is the same and the top is
reasonably similar.

Could be.

Thus, all I have to do is adjust levels to get very evenly matched
channels all around.

You still can't fight the fact that every speaker in a surround system works
into a unique environment, and therefore it just about has no choice but to
sound different.

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

What I have found is that two subs are always better than one, however.

I would trot out a little logic of rhetoric and point out that any such
global statement is more than a little suspect.

I've heard two subs sound worse than one, and I've hard more than a few
cases where two subs and one sub sounded different, but could find no
preference for either.

I know that the conventional wisdom has it that a single sub, with all
of the
system bass below about 200 Hz or so summed to one channel, is sufficient
because low frequencies are non-directional,

That's way off, because it is well known that subs crossed over much above
85 Hz can generally be located in the room.

I have tried my two subs in
all possible combinations: both subs summed as one, one-channel (first the
left, then the right) operating only, and stereo bass. Stereo bass ALWAYS
sounds better in my listening room whether I'm using one of my woofers
monaurally or both of them monaurally.

Well, if you are crossing them over at 200 Hz, no mystery. Come back after a
few weeks of listening with them crossed over at say 50 Hz.

It's weightier (as one might expect)
and is more articulate and more spacious. I have also noted that even
though
most of the imaging cues for bass instruments originate in the bass
instruments' upper harmonics, that having the lower fundamentals originate
on
the same side of the soundstage as the harmonics does help with
low-frequency
placement.

Again, an obvious artifact of what seem to me to be very strange choices of
crossover frequencies.

I've long had subwoofer crossovers that allowed me to move the crossover
point around, and speakers that allowed me to do so without creating obvious
artifacts. No surprise - moving crossover frequencies down and using the
right slopes make most of the obvious artifacts go away. I would say that
everything listed in the paragraph above namely

"...more articulate and more spacious. I have also noted that even though
most of the imaging cues for bass instruments originate in the bass
instruments' upper harmonics, that having the lower fundamentals originate
on the same side of the soundstage as the harmonics does help with
low-frequency
placement."

are easily dismissed as being artifacts of suboptimal choices.

It seems to me that if the bass viols, for instance, are on the
right side of the orchestra (standard practice) and the harmonics for
those
instruments originate in the right channel while the fundamentals
originate
summed in the left channel, this cannot help but confuse the image
somewhat.

Again, something that looks very much like an artifact of suboptimal choices
of crossover frequencies.

The viol WILL be more solidly anchored on stage right if BOTH the
fundamentals and the harmonics emanate from stage right.

Which is possible with appropriate choices of speakers, crossover points,
and crossover slopes.

I suspect the notion that summed bass is acceptable comes from the old
stereo
LP practice of summing all of a recording's bass to the left (lateral)
groove
wall in order to make a mono-compatible stereo LP.

Because of the well-known bass dynamic range issues that are inherent in the
LP, the effective crossover points for bass summing were generally too high.
Besidies the amazing amounts of audible jitter, the vinylphile acceptance of
the audible problems associated with bass summing at too high of frequencies
raises a lot of questions in my mind.

The wisdom here was that
if bass, with it's large groove excursions were kept out of the vertical
component, then a stereo record could be traced with a mono cartridge
without
harming the record.

Only part of the story. It's no secret that vertical tracking was a far
tougher nut to crack than horizontal tracking. After all, you can wiggle the
stylus back and forth quite a bit, but if you try to move it up and down too
much, you either punch a hole in the disc or send the cutting edge flying
into the air. In one case you tear the stylus off of the cartridge, and in
the other you have nasty clipping.

This allowed the record companies from the early 60's
forward, to eliminate the hated "double inventory".

Only part of the story. While cheap mono phongraphs continued to be sold
during the stereo era, the cartrdige manufactuers started building mono
cartrdiges with vertical compliance.

I know that record companies did this for years.

But the reason was a desire for trackability and low distortion, not mono
compatibility.

What I do not know is whether this practice continued into the CD era.

I'm sure that many mastering engineers knew that they could often clean up
messy bass with a little LF mono summing. If it works, it has far less
adverse audible effects than simply rolling off both channels in the bass.

They may have kept the practice because so many
systems are set-up with subwoofers connected only to the left channel
because
it was "traditional" to do so.

Never heard of such a thing.

[Edmund[_2_]]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:27:46 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

What I have found is that two subs are always better than one, however.

I would trot out a little logic of rhetoric and point out that any such
global statement is more than a little suspect.

I've heard two subs sound worse than one, and I've hard more than a few
cases where two subs and one sub sounded different, but could find no
preference for either.

I know that the conventional wisdom has it that a single sub, with
all of the
system bass below about 200 Hz or so summed to one channel, is
sufficient because low frequencies are non-directional,

That's way off, because it is well known that subs crossed over much
above 85 Hz can generally be located in the room.

I have tried my two subs in
all possible combinations: both subs summed as one, one-channel (first
the left, then the right) operating only, and stereo bass. Stereo bass
ALWAYS sounds better in my listening room whether I'm using one of my
woofers monaurally or both of them monaurally.

Well, if you are crossing them over at 200 Hz, no mystery. Come back
after a few weeks of listening with them crossed over at say 50 Hz.

It's weightier (as one might expect)
and is more articulate and more spacious. I have also noted that even
though
most of the imaging cues for bass instruments originate in the bass
instruments' upper harmonics, that having the lower fundamentals
originate on
the same side of the soundstage as the harmonics does help with
low-frequency
placement.

Again, an obvious artifact of what seem to me to be very strange choices
of crossover frequencies.

200 Hz doesn't seems strange to me at all, as a matter of fact it seems
quite right to me. Many speakers and certainly surround stuff don't produce
much noise under 200 Hz let alone music!

Edmund

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Edmund" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:27:46 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

What I have found is that two subs are always better than one, however.

I would trot out a little logic of rhetoric and point out that any such
global statement is more than a little suspect.

I've heard two subs sound worse than one, and I've hard more than a few
cases where two subs and one sub sounded different, but could find no
preference for either.

I know that the conventional wisdom has it that a single sub, with
all of the
system bass below about 200 Hz or so summed to one channel, is
sufficient because low frequencies are non-directional,

That's way off, because it is well known that subs crossed over much
above 85 Hz can generally be located in the room.

I have tried my two subs in
all possible combinations: both subs summed as one, one-channel (first
the left, then the right) operating only, and stereo bass. Stereo bass
ALWAYS sounds better in my listening room whether I'm using one of my
woofers monaurally or both of them monaurally.

Well, if you are crossing them over at 200 Hz, no mystery. Come back
after a few weeks of listening with them crossed over at say 50 Hz.

It's weightier (as one might expect)
and is more articulate and more spacious. I have also noted that even
though
most of the imaging cues for bass instruments originate in the bass
instruments' upper harmonics, that having the lower fundamentals
originate on
the same side of the soundstage as the harmonics does help with
low-frequency
placement.

Again, an obvious artifact of what seem to me to be very strange choices
of crossover frequencies.

200 Hz doesn't seems strange to me at all, as a matter of fact it seems
quite right to me. Many speakers and certainly surround stuff don't
produce
much noise under 200 Hz let alone music!

200 Hz is a possible but relatively high crossover frequency for surround
speeakers.

I checked the specs of a number of surround receivers and processors and
found that a typical selection of crossover frequencies might be:

40Hz / 60Hz / 80Hz / 90Hz / 100Hz / 110Hz / 120Hz / 150Hz / 200Hz /250Hz

The above was taken from the specifications for a mid-range Denon reciver,
but is typical for modern receivers and surround processors.

Thus, 200 Hz is at the high extreme end of the range of usable crossover
frequencies for surround speakers.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:37:22 -0800, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

Just got a new used Velodyne F-1800 subwoofer. Sensational! Wham, Slam,
and
IMPACT like I have not heard in my system.

However, a most interesting side effect - I immediately noticed that the
surround sound is much improved with the sub in the system! I am running
all
of the channels as "Small" with the sub doing the bass chores for all
channels plus the LFE channel. My theory is that this has made all
channels
much more alike in their sound because they are using the same sub, so
they
are all full range now and the bottom end is the same and the top is
reasonably similar. Thus, all I have to do is adjust levels to get very
evenly matched channels all around.

Gary Eickmeier


Hmmm. Makes some sense, perhaps. Have you tried using the sub with the
system
set in the "large speaker" mode to see if that added spaciousness that you
have noted is diminished with the main speakers operating full range?
Seems
to me that this experiment ought to give you some insight into what,
exactly,
is going on here.

What I have found is that two subs are always better than one, however. I
know that the conventional wisdom has it that a single sub, with all of
the
system bass below about 200 Hz or so summed to one channel, is sufficient
because low frequencies are non-directional, but like so much audio
"wisdom",
this does not seem to be the case in practice. I have tried my two subs in
all possible combinations: both subs summed as one, one-channel (first the
left, then the right) operating only, and stereo bass. Stereo bass ALWAYS
sounds better in my listening room whether I'm using one of my woofers
monaurally or both of them monaurally. It's weightier (as one might
expect)
and is more articulate and more spacious. I have also noted that even
though
most of the imaging cues for bass instruments originate in the bass
instruments' upper harmonics, that having the lower fundamentals originate
on
the same side of the soundstage as the harmonics does help with
low-frequency
placement. It seems to me that if the bass viols, for instance, are on the
right side of the orchestra (standard practice) and the harmonics for
those
instruments originate in the right channel while the fundamentals
originate
summed in the left channel, this cannot help but confuse the image
somewhat.
The viol WILL be more solidly anchored on stage right if BOTH the
fundamentals and the harmonics emanate from stage right.

I suspect the notion that summed bass is acceptable comes from the old
stereo
LP practice of summing all of a recording's bass to the left (lateral)
groove
wall in order to make a mono-compatible stereo LP. The wisdom here was
that
if bass, with it's large groove excursions were kept out of the vertical
component, then a stereo record could be traced with a mono cartridge
without
harming the record. This allowed the record companies from the early 60's
forward, to eliminate the hated "double inventory". I know that record
companies did this for years. What I do not know is whether this practice
continued into the CD era. They may have kept the practice because so many
systems are set-up with subwoofers connected only to the left channel
because
it was "traditional" to do so.

Hello again AE -

Well, I guess now is the time to check out stereo vs mono bass, because I
still have the two JBL B-380 subs in the system. I disconnected them to try
the Velodyne and haven't looked back. I swear Ray Brown's bass is still
positioned exactly where it should be, because the mids and highs are what
causes the imaging.

But let me back up a minute. The way I had my system was receiver out to
Richter Scale crossover, thence to satellites (thru 901 equalizer) and subs.
Thus, the receiver was set to "Large" because front channel consisted of
main and subs. Rear 901s and an extra pair of side speakers were operated on
"Large" as well.

When I installed the Velodyne, I wanted more than just the LFE channel from
the movies; I wanted all of the musical bass and effects to come thru as
well, and I didn't want to operate it in addition to the JBLs, I wanted the
receiver's crossover/bass management system to do all the frequency response
chores. Smoother crossover point etc etc. So that dictated telling it that
the fronts, and while I was at it the rears, were all "Small" so that I
would get ALL of the bass freqs that were in every recording, two channel or
surround, music or movie, going to the Velodyne.

With four 901s and the Velodyne I now have unlimited power - 600 watts per
channel all around, and all speakers can take any amount of power I can give
them and get louder without distortion. I'm there! Wall to wall pinpoint
imaging with cavernous depth and speakers totally disappearing and revealing
whatever soundscape was recorded. I didn't think I could improve on it this
much, but it's all true about a good sub adding more than just deep bass.

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 16:04:18 -0800, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:37:22 -0800, Gary Eickmeier wrote
(in article ):

Just got a new used Velodyne F-1800 subwoofer. Sensational! Wham, Slam,
and
IMPACT like I have not heard in my system.

However, a most interesting side effect - I immediately noticed that the
surround sound is much improved with the sub in the system! I am running
all
of the channels as "Small" with the sub doing the bass chores for all
channels plus the LFE channel. My theory is that this has made all
channels
much more alike in their sound because they are using the same sub, so
they
are all full range now and the bottom end is the same and the top is
reasonably similar. Thus, all I have to do is adjust levels to get very
evenly matched channels all around.

Gary Eickmeier


Hmmm. Makes some sense, perhaps. Have you tried using the sub with the
system
set in the "large speaker" mode to see if that added spaciousness that you
have noted is diminished with the main speakers operating full range?
Seems
to me that this experiment ought to give you some insight into what,
exactly,
is going on here.

What I have found is that two subs are always better than one, however. I
know that the conventional wisdom has it that a single sub, with all of
the
system bass below about 200 Hz or so summed to one channel, is sufficient
because low frequencies are non-directional, but like so much audio
"wisdom",
this does not seem to be the case in practice. I have tried my two subs in
all possible combinations: both subs summed as one, one-channel (first the
left, then the right) operating only, and stereo bass. Stereo bass ALWAYS
sounds better in my listening room whether I'm using one of my woofers
monaurally or both of them monaurally. It's weightier (as one might
expect)
and is more articulate and more spacious. I have also noted that even
though
most of the imaging cues for bass instruments originate in the bass
instruments' upper harmonics, that having the lower fundamentals originate
on
the same side of the soundstage as the harmonics does help with
low-frequency
placement. It seems to me that if the bass viols, for instance, are on the
right side of the orchestra (standard practice) and the harmonics for
those
instruments originate in the right channel while the fundamentals
originate
summed in the left channel, this cannot help but confuse the image
somewhat.
The viol WILL be more solidly anchored on stage right if BOTH the
fundamentals and the harmonics emanate from stage right.

I suspect the notion that summed bass is acceptable comes from the old
stereo
LP practice of summing all of a recording's bass to the left (lateral)
groove
wall in order to make a mono-compatible stereo LP. The wisdom here was
that
if bass, with it's large groove excursions were kept out of the vertical
component, then a stereo record could be traced with a mono cartridge
without
harming the record. This allowed the record companies from the early 60's
forward, to eliminate the hated "double inventory". I know that record
companies did this for years. What I do not know is whether this practice
continued into the CD era. They may have kept the practice because so many
systems are set-up with subwoofers connected only to the left channel
because
it was "traditional" to do so.

Hello again AE -

Well, I guess now is the time to check out stereo vs mono bass, because I
still have the two JBL B-380 subs in the system. I disconnected them to try
the Velodyne and haven't looked back. I swear Ray Brown's bass is still
positioned exactly where it should be, because the mids and highs are what
causes the imaging.

if you have the Velodyne connected to the "point one" port on your A/V
receiver, I'm not sure how easy that would be, but I do encourage such
experimentation to be sure. I'm not sure what differences you will hear
(except that I suspect that the bass through the Velodyne will be better
QUALITY bass than through your older JBLs), but the actual directionality of
the bass and the imaging differences with bass instruments such as bass
viols, and bass drums and contrabassoons et al, will depend an awful lot on
your signal source (many phonograph records have single-channel bass content,
possibly many pop and Jazz CDs do as well, in which case stereo subwoofers
won't buy you much, if anything), and, of course, your own particular
listening room acoustics and speaker placement.

[Gary Eickmeier]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

if you have the Velodyne connected to the "point one" port on your A/V
receiver, I'm not sure how easy that would be, but I do encourage such
experimentation to be sure. I'm not sure what differences you will hear
(except that I suspect that the bass through the Velodyne will be better
QUALITY bass than through your older JBLs), but the actual directionality
of
the bass and the imaging differences with bass instruments such as bass
viols, and bass drums and contrabassoons et al, will depend an awful lot
on
your signal source (many phonograph records have single-channel bass
content,
possibly many pop and Jazz CDs do as well, in which case stereo subwoofers
won't buy you much, if anything), and, of course, your own particular
listening room acoustics and speaker placement.

Yes, of course Velodynes attached to the .1 jack, which is the only way to
get the LFE channel, but I am also shoving all bass below 100 Hz to the sub.
As I said, as soon as I put the Velo in, there were improvements in bass and
surround sound. Experimenting with the JBLs in stereo vs the Velodyne is a
little pointless, because the JBLs do not even have output low enough to
compare. In any case, it really does seem that the bass is non-directional
and does not hurt imaging to have just one sub. I may take up your
experiment before I get rid of the JBLs, but I still haven't had time to
play with the Velodyne settings yet!

Gary Eickmeier

[Audio Empire]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:51:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Edmund" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:27:46 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

What I have found is that two subs are always better than one, however.

I would trot out a little logic of rhetoric and point out that any such
global statement is more than a little suspect.

I've heard two subs sound worse than one, and I've hard more than a few
cases where two subs and one sub sounded different, but could find no
preference for either.

I know that the conventional wisdom has it that a single sub, with
all of the
system bass below about 200 Hz or so summed to one channel, is
sufficient because low frequencies are non-directional,

That's way off, because it is well known that subs crossed over much
above 85 Hz can generally be located in the room.

I have tried my two subs in
all possible combinations: both subs summed as one, one-channel (first
the left, then the right) operating only, and stereo bass. Stereo bass
ALWAYS sounds better in my listening room whether I'm using one of my
woofers monaurally or both of them monaurally.

Well, if you are crossing them over at 200 Hz, no mystery. Come back
after a few weeks of listening with them crossed over at say 50 Hz.

It's weightier (as one might expect)
and is more articulate and more spacious. I have also noted that even
though
most of the imaging cues for bass instruments originate in the bass
instruments' upper harmonics, that having the lower fundamentals
originate on
the same side of the soundstage as the harmonics does help with
low-frequency
placement.

Again, an obvious artifact of what seem to me to be very strange choices
of crossover frequencies.

200 Hz doesn't seems strange to me at all, as a matter of fact it seems
quite right to me. Many speakers and certainly surround stuff don't
produce
much noise under 200 Hz let alone music!

200 Hz is a possible but relatively high crossover frequency for surround
speeakers.

I checked the specs of a number of surround receivers and processors and
found that a typical selection of crossover frequencies might be:

40Hz / 60Hz / 80Hz / 90Hz / 100Hz / 110Hz / 120Hz / 150Hz / 200Hz /250Hz

The above was taken from the specifications for a mid-range Denon reciver,
but is typical for modern receivers and surround processors.

Thus, 200 Hz is at the high extreme end of the range of usable crossover
frequencies for surround speakers.


Where did the idea come from that anyone in this discussion was using (or
even contemplating using) 200 Hz as a crossover frequency for a subwoofer?
200 Hz was only mentioned as the frequency that conventional audio wisdom
cites as the frequency below which bass is supposed to be sufficiently
non-directional (in a domestic listening environment) that a single subwoofer
would adequately serve as the low-bass source for any audio system from mono
through 7.1 surround.

[Audio Empire]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:27:46 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

What I have found is that two subs are always better than one,
however.

I would trot out a little logic of rhetoric and point out that
any such global statement is more than a little suspect.

Perhaps I should have stated it as this is what *I* have found to be
the case....

I've heard two subs sound worse than one, and I've hard more than
a few cases where two subs and one sub sounded different, but could
find no preference for either.

........ and that's how you have found it.

I know that the conventional wisdom has it that a single sub,
with all of the system bass below about 200 Hz or so summed to
one channel, is sufficient because low frequencies are
non-directional,

That's way off, because it is well known that subs crossed over
much above 85 Hz can generally be located in the room.

I never believed it was fact even though I have read it often enough!
The fact that it doesn't seem to be true was my main reason for
bringing it up.

I have tried my two subs in all possible combinations: both subs
summed as one, one-channel (first the left, then the right)
operating only, and stereo bass. Stereo bass ALWAYS sounds
better in my listening room whether I'm using one of my woofers
monaurally or both of them monaurally.

Well, if you are crossing them over at 200 Hz, no mystery.

Where did I say that I was doing that? I merely stated that
conventional wisdom is that frequencies BELOW about 200 Hz are said to
be non-directional.


Come back after a
few weeks of listening with them crossed over at say 50 Hz.

Been there, done that. My crossover point between my main speakers
and my subs is chosen by a DSP program that has me using a microphone
placed at various points in the room while the system plays
calibration tones through both my main speakers and my subs. The
crossover frequency and the turnover and slope are chosen by the
computer. I suspect that it's somewhere around 80 Hz. THis system not
only optimizes the crossover between sub and main speakers but it also
(supposedly) contours both to the room (at my listening position).

It's weightier (as one might expect) and is more articulate and
more spacious. I have also noted that even though most of the
imaging cues for bass instruments originate in the bass
instruments' upper harmonics, that having the lower fundamentals
originate on the same side of the soundstage as the harmonics does
help with low-frequency placement.

Again, an obvious artifact of what seem to me to be very strange
choices of crossover frequencies.

Again, I never said that my crossover frequency was 200 Hz. You're
jumping to conclusions.

I've long had subwoofer crossovers that allowed me to move the
crossover point around, and speakers that allowed me to do so
without creating obvious artifacts. No surprise - moving crossover
frequencies down and using the right slopes make most of the
obvious artifacts go away. I would say that everything listed in
the paragraph above namely

"...more articulate and more spacious. I have also noted that
even though most of the imaging cues for bass instruments
originate in the bass instruments' upper harmonics, that having the
lower fundamentals originate on the same side of the soundstage
as the harmonics does help with low-frequency placement."

are easily dismissed as being artifacts of suboptimal choices.

Nobody has made a "suboptimal choice", here. Perhaps you
misunderstood my argument?

It seems to me that if the bass viols, for instance, are on the
right side of the orchestra (standard practice) and the harmonics
for those instruments originate in the right channel while the
fundamentals originate summed in the left channel, this cannot help
but confuse the image somewhat.

Again, something that looks very much like an artifact of
suboptimal choices
of crossover frequencies.

Again, your conclusions are not supported by the facts. Actually your
conclusions seem to based solely upon your misunderstanding that:
1) I believe the oft stated "wisdom" that frequencies below 200 Hz
are non-directional, and 2) your incorrect assumption that I am using
200 Hz as the crossover point between my main speakers and my
subwoofers. Since neither supposition on your part is true, then your
conclusions are likewise in error.

The viol WILL be more solidly anchored on stage right if BOTH the
fundamentals and the harmonics emanate from stage right.

Which is possible with appropriate choices of speakers, crossover
points, and crossover slopes.

I suspect the notion that summed bass is acceptable comes from the
old stereo LP practice of summing all of a recording's bass to the
left (lateral) groove wall in order to make a mono-compatible stereo
LP.

Because of the well-known bass dynamic range issues that are
inherent in the LP, the effective crossover points for bass summing
were generally too high. Besidies the amazing amounts of audible
jitter, the vinylphile acceptance of the audible problems
associated with bass summing at too high of frequencies raises a
lot of questions in my mind.

The wisdom here was that if bass, with it's large groove
excursions were kept out of the vertical component, then a
stereo record could be traced with a mono cartridge without
harming the record.

Only part of the story. It's no secret that vertical tracking was
a far tougher nut to crack than horizontal tracking. After all, you
can wiggle the stylus back and forth quite a bit, but if you try
to move it up and down too much, you either punch a hole in the
disc or send the cutting edge flying into the air. In one case
you tear the stylus off of the cartridge, and in the other you
have nasty clipping.

While what you say is certainly true, it is irrelevant to the point
of my comment which merely addressed the fact that for many years
during the LP era, audio types were told that a single sub, on the
left channel only, was sufficient because low bass was non-directional
and that LPs were cut with all bass summed to the left.

This allowed the record companies from the early 60's
forward, to eliminate the hated "double inventory".

Only part of the story.

Perhaps, but it is THE only part of the "story" that I'm addressing
here.

While cheap mono phongraphs continued to be sold
during the stereo era, the cartrdige manufactuers started building
mono cartrdiges with vertical compliance.

Again, while you are correct, it is, once more, a point irrelevant
to this discussion.

I know that record companies did this for years.

But the reason was a desire for trackability and low distortion,
not mono compatibility.

While improved trackability was likely a welcome side benefit, the
desire to stop pressing dual-inventory WAS, without question, the
overriding business reason for the move. Think about how many
millions the record companies saved by eliminating the need to have
TWO different versions of every record title produced on sale at the
same time!

What I do not know is whether this practice continued into the
CD era.

I'm sure that many mastering engineers knew that they could often
clean up messy bass with a little LF mono summing. If it works, it
has far less adverse audible effects than simply rolling off both
channels in the bass.

And I'm sure that many early CDs were mastered from analog and digital
tapes originally mixed for LP cutting and therefore had the bass
summed to the left channel for that reason. But that's not to what I
was referring. I meant was bass summing a practice that continued even
after LP stopped being a major part of commercial recording?

They may have kept the practice because so many
systems are set-up with subwoofers connected only to the left
channel because it was "traditional" to do so.

Never heard of such a thing.

Oh, well, that answers it. If you haven't heard of it, then there's no
chance that such a thing was ever even considered. 8^)

[Arny Krueger[_4_]]

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:51:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Edmund" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:27:46 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

What I have found is that two subs are always better than one,
however.

I would trot out a little logic of rhetoric and point out that any such
global statement is more than a little suspect.

I've heard two subs sound worse than one, and I've hard more than a few
cases where two subs and one sub sounded different, but could find no
preference for either.

I know that the conventional wisdom has it that a single sub, with
all of the
system bass below about 200 Hz or so summed to one channel, is
sufficient because low frequencies are non-directional,

That's way off, because it is well known that subs crossed over much
above 85 Hz can generally be located in the room.

I have tried my two subs in
all possible combinations: both subs summed as one, one-channel (first
the left, then the right) operating only, and stereo bass. Stereo bass
ALWAYS sounds better in my listening room whether I'm using one of my
woofers monaurally or both of them monaurally.

Well, if you are crossing them over at 200 Hz, no mystery. Come back
after a few weeks of listening with them crossed over at say 50 Hz.

It's weightier (as one might expect)
and is more articulate and more spacious. I have also noted that even
though
most of the imaging cues for bass instruments originate in the bass
instruments' upper harmonics, that having the lower fundamentals
originate on
the same side of the soundstage as the harmonics does help with
low-frequency
placement.

Again, an obvious artifact of what seem to me to be very strange
choices
of crossover frequencies.

200 Hz doesn't seems strange to me at all, as a matter of fact it seems
quite right to me. Many speakers and certainly surround stuff don't
produce
much noise under 200 Hz let alone music!

200 Hz is a possible but relatively high crossover frequency for surround
speeakers.

I checked the specs of a number of surround receivers and processors and
found that a typical selection of crossover frequencies might be:

40Hz / 60Hz / 80Hz / 90Hz / 100Hz / 110Hz / 120Hz / 150Hz / 200Hz /250Hz

The above was taken from the specifications for a mid-range Denon
reciver,
but is typical for modern receivers and surround processors.

Thus, 200 Hz is at the high extreme end of the range of usable crossover
frequencies for surround speakers.


Where did the idea come from that anyone in this discussion was using (or
even contemplating using) 200 Hz as a crossover frequency for a subwoofer?

200 Hz came from a post made here by "Audio Empire" on 11/27/2011.

200 Hz was only mentioned as the frequency that conventional audio wisdom
cites as the frequency below which bass is supposed to be sufficiently
non-directional (in a domestic listening environment) that a single
subwoofer
would adequately serve as the low-bass source for any audio system from
mono
through 7.1 surround.

The above is not a generally-accepted fact. The generally-accepted number
is in the 80 Hz range.

One example of literally 100s on the web:

http://axiomaudio.com/bassmanagement.html

"80 Hz
Why 80 Hz? Because deep bass below that frequency (the aforementioned energy
of the bass drum) is not directional; it's just low-frequency energy that
needs the big woofer of a subwoofer (plus its powerful self-contained
amplifier) to generate. So that's the process you trigger when you set your
center and surround speakers to "Small". The receiver's bass management
circuit routes the deepest bass to the subwoofer and all the upper bass and
highs to the center and surround speakers (and to the main speakers if they
are bookshelf models)."

I don't know if the most mentioned number is 75 or 80 or 85, or perhaps even
90 or 70, but no way is it even within an octave of 200 Hz.

My own experiences would qualify this number by noting that "non
directional" is dependent on what you think *directional* is. There are a
number of relevant variables including the spacing between the two sources
to be differentiated spatially, the room, and what the listener requires to
perceive the desired levels of sameness or different, and the program
material.

If you have two small direct radiators 12 feet away in a reverberant room
and with very little spacing, then even 200 Hz could in this extreme case be
called "non directional' If you have a subwoofer that is exactly between two
main speakers that are say 9 feet apart, and 12 feet away from the listener,
then perhaps even 85 Hz is "non directional" If the subwoofer is way off
center and much closer to the listener than the mains and the room is
well-damped, then 65 Hz might be a more reasonable number. Then there are
other issues like the actual coherency of the signal being listened to. If
we are listening to sine waves then the ear is more sensitive, while the
sound of a typical acoustic bass playing jazz at a rapid tempo is usually
far harder to distinguish.

[VasiliY_Honda]

êòî íàõ ñêàæåòü ÷òî ÿïîíñêàÿ õîíäÿ ýòà ãàíî? àààà áëåàòü? ....

[VasiliY_Honda]

êòî íàõ ñêàæåòü ÷òî ÿïîíñêàÿ õîíäÿ ýòà ãàíî? àààà áëåàòü? ....

[Audio Empire]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 15:09:01 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 15:51:09 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Edmund" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:27:46 +0000, Arny Krueger wrote:

"Audio Empire" wrote in message
...

What I have found is that two subs are always better than one,
however.

I would trot out a little logic of rhetoric and point out that any such
global statement is more than a little suspect.

I've heard two subs sound worse than one, and I've hard more than a few
cases where two subs and one sub sounded different, but could find no
preference for either.

I know that the conventional wisdom has it that a single sub, with
all of the
system bass below about 200 Hz or so summed to one channel, is
sufficient because low frequencies are non-directional,

That's way off, because it is well known that subs crossed over much
above 85 Hz can generally be located in the room.

I have tried my two subs in
all possible combinations: both subs summed as one, one-channel (first
the left, then the right) operating only, and stereo bass. Stereo bass
ALWAYS sounds better in my listening room whether I'm using one of my
woofers monaurally or both of them monaurally.

Well, if you are crossing them over at 200 Hz, no mystery. Come back
after a few weeks of listening with them crossed over at say 50 Hz.

It's weightier (as one might expect)
and is more articulate and more spacious. I have also noted that even
though
most of the imaging cues for bass instruments originate in the bass
instruments' upper harmonics, that having the lower fundamentals
originate on
the same side of the soundstage as the harmonics does help with
low-frequency
placement.

Again, an obvious artifact of what seem to me to be very strange
choices
of crossover frequencies.

200 Hz doesn't seems strange to me at all, as a matter of fact it seems
quite right to me. Many speakers and certainly surround stuff don't
produce
much noise under 200 Hz let alone music!

200 Hz is a possible but relatively high crossover frequency for surround
speeakers.

I checked the specs of a number of surround receivers and processors and
found that a typical selection of crossover frequencies might be:

40Hz / 60Hz / 80Hz / 90Hz / 100Hz / 110Hz / 120Hz / 150Hz / 200Hz /250Hz

The above was taken from the specifications for a mid-range Denon
reciver,
but is typical for modern receivers and surround processors.

Thus, 200 Hz is at the high extreme end of the range of usable crossover
frequencies for surround speakers.


Where did the idea come from that anyone in this discussion was using (or
even contemplating using) 200 Hz as a crossover frequency for a subwoofer?

200 Hz came from a post made here by "Audio Empire" on 11/27/2011.

But not as a crossover frequency, only as the frequency below which bass is
supposed to be non-directional. I have never even intimated that anyone would
use it as a crossover frequency for a subwoofer! You are twisting my words
(again),.

200 Hz was only mentioned as the frequency that conventional audio wisdom
cites as the frequency below which bass is supposed to be sufficiently
non-directional (in a domestic listening environment) that a single
subwoofer
would adequately serve as the low-bass source for any audio system from
mono
through 7.1 surround.

The above is not a generally-accepted fact. The generally-accepted number
is in the 80 Hz range.

Sorry, many sources over the years have cited 200Hz.

One example of literally 100s on the web:

http://axiomaudio.com/bassmanagement.html

"80 Hz
Why 80 Hz? Because deep bass below that frequency (the aforementioned energy
of the bass drum) is not directional; it's just low-frequency energy that
needs the big woofer of a subwoofer (plus its powerful self-contained
amplifier) to generate. So that's the process you trigger when you set your
center and surround speakers to "Small". The receiver's bass management
circuit routes the deepest bass to the subwoofer and all the upper bass and
highs to the center and surround speakers (and to the main speakers if they
are bookshelf models)."

I don't know if the most mentioned number is 75 or 80 or 85, or perhaps even
90 or 70, but no way is it even within an octave of 200 Hz.

Have heard 200 Hz all my life. I don't agree that 200 Hz bass is all that
non-directional, but I certainly have seen it stated so many times that it
stuck in my mind.

My own experiences would qualify this number by noting that "non
directional" is dependent on what you think *directional* is.

I don't disagree with your opinion at all - never said that I did. I'm just
saying that conventional "audio" wisdom is that bass below about 200 Hz is
largely non-directional.

There are a
number of relevant variables including the spacing between the two sources
to be differentiated spatially, the room, and what the listener requires to
perceive the desired levels of sameness or different, and the program
material.

If you have two small direct radiators 12 feet away in a reverberant room
and with very little spacing, then even 200 Hz could in this extreme case be
called "non directional' If you have a subwoofer that is exactly between two
main speakers that are say 9 feet apart, and 12 feet away from the listener,
then perhaps even 85 Hz is "non directional" If the subwoofer is way off
center and much closer to the listener than the mains and the room is
well-damped, then 65 Hz might be a more reasonable number. Then there are
other issues like the actual coherency of the signal being listened to. If
we are listening to sine waves then the ear is more sensitive, while the
sound of a typical acoustic bass playing jazz at a rapid tempo is usually
far harder to distinguish.

Again, I do not disagree with your conclusions and would never cross-over to
a subwoofer at that high a frequency (but I believe that the those Bose
"Acoustamass" cube systems do use a frequency of around 200 Hz to crossover
to their common woofer. (these systems sound lousy, IME, BTW).