Skip to main content
Topic: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response (Read 1119 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Just wanted to get your opinions on what you think is better - a pair of big full range, expensive main speakers or a smaller floor stander with a subwoofer or two for music?

 


Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #1
Depending on your room, a pair of genuinely full-range speakers (ie. frequency response to below 30Hz at -3dB or better) can provide bass response to rival competent subwoofers, for musical content. Some speakers do this by integrating an active subwoofer.

The tricky part is that for most rooms, the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers. So in the context of real-world rooms, I would go with two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers, some room treatments as necessary and room correction.

For movies with LFE content, at least one subwoofer is absolutely mandatory.

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #2
I think it depends on the particular speakers...  

A subwoofer does give you an extra-separate adjustment for the bass and it gives you the freedom to place it separately from the main speakers (to optimize the sound and/or the visual esthetics).   But the lack of adjustment in a full-range speaker means you're more likely to get good sound out-of-the box without tweaking or measuring.

In pro recording studios they don't use a "subwoofer" when mixing/mastering 2-channel stereo, but they might have separately powered woofers (bi-amped, etc.), and perhaps woofers in separate cabinets.

As KozmoNaut says, you "need" a subwoofer for DVDs & Blu-Rays.   The "point one" LFE channel is NOT included in the 5.1 or 7.1-to-stereo downmix.   Of course, you do get all of the "regular bass".  

High-end home theater systems use 5 or 7 full-range speakers and those handle the regular bass and the subwoofer is ONLY used for the Low Frequency Effects.    But, most home theater systems use 5 or 7 smaller speakers and the receiver has an option to route ALL of the bass the sub.


Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #3
High end HT systems use more than one subwoofer too.

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #4
Was staying clear given the OPs posting history, but this is www viewing, so...

The tricky part is that for most rooms, the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers
That is a internet audio forum parroted myth. There is no statistical data to support that claim. Nor does the Welti study cited by the confused. In fact, its near statistically impossible to get smooth, peak (amplitude) free bass in a "sweet spot" area for stereo (music) triangle listening, much less a wider area. As such, the mains position is as good as any other 2 random "sub" positions, However, unlike 2 random sub positions, there will be no full bandwidth integration problems due to spatial displacement. If the speakers are non-audiophile designed, they may even have attributes to counter overall LF room effects, such as stacked height LF sources (Revel Salon), and/or rotatable gradient (Gradient Revolution).

So in the context of real-world rooms, I would go with two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers, some room treatments as necessary and room correction.
With the exception of "bass eq", no. Not for music. We been through all this before.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #5
Nobody is talking about random positions. Subwoofers do require some care in their placement and settings, for the best results.

So in the context of real-world rooms, I would go with two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers, some room treatments as necessary and room correction.
With the exception of "bass eq", no. Not for music. We been through all this before.

Your precious music is no different from a movie soundtrack, it's still just sound.

Properly-integrated subwoofers will help any system, regardless of the number of channels and the content that is played.

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #6
Nobody is talking about random positions.
Nobody should be. Somebody admits to do so ...

Has any manufacturer tried to make speakers in separate boxes and stands the size of the sub enclosures? Then user could start with them as were they full-range speakers and see if that is optimal.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #7
The tricky part is that for most rooms, the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers.

Nobody is talking about random positions. Subwoofers do require some care in their placement and settings, for the best results.
Ok, what are the specific, ideal, non random, science evidence based placements for 2(+) subs not at the mains positions, for stereo music.
Hand waving isn't scientific evidence, please provide links.

So in the context of real-world rooms, I would go with two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers, some room treatments as necessary and room correction.
With the exception of "bass eq", no. Not for music. We been through all this before.
Your precious music is no different from a movie soundtrack, it's still just sound.
At least your anti-science positions are consistent.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=109862.msg904977#msg904977
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conferences/?elib=17270
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=114769.msg946153#msg946153
Tooles book, chapter on stereo vs HT rooms. Buy it, read, try to be less ignorant. Its been nearly 4 years!
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #8
Ok, what are the specific, ideal, non random, science evidence based placements for 2(+) subs not at the mains positions, for stereo music.
Hand waving isn't scientific evidence, please provide links.

As you should very well know, they are best found by a combination of measurements, trial and error. They may very well be at the main stereo positions, or they may not. The room shape and layout is the determining factor.

I don't care about stereo bass below ~100Hz, and neither should you. It's irrelevant outside of a few pathological audiophile test cases.

Tooles book, chapter on stereo vs HT rooms. Buy it, read, try to be less ignorant. Its been nearly 4 years!

Please try to be less arrogant and condescending, thank you.

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #9
Ok, what are the specific, ideal, non random, science evidence based placements for 2(+) subs not at the mains positions, for stereo music. Hand waving isn't scientific evidence, please provide links.

As you should very well know, they are best found by a combination of measurements, trial and error. They may very well be at the main stereo positions, or they may not. The room shape and layout is the determining factor.

I don't care about stereo bass below ~100Hz, and neither should you. It's irrelevant outside of a few pathological audiophile test cases.
So you don't have a shred of evidence to support all your anti-scientific claims, just hand waving as expected.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #10
I don't care, you win.

Congratulations.

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #11
So in the context of real-world rooms, I would go with two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers, some room treatments as necessary and room correction.
With the exception of "bass eq", no. Not for music. We been through all this before.

At least your anti-science positions are consistent.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=109862.msg904977#msg904977
Herein you refer to https://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/AAS2008/papers/p47.pdf.  I read the abstract and the conclusions section, which do absolutely not support your claims:
* It contradicts rather than supports your "no" to "two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers".
* It does not support your "no" to room treatment.
* It does not give any support to your claim that the standard loudspeaker position is ideal. Rather it contradicts your argument for the mains speaker position (which is not the same as the conclusion).

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conferences/?elib=17270
The abstract is free for anyone to read, and does absolutely not support your claims:
* It contradicts rather than supports your "no" to "two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers".
* It does not support your "no" to room treatment.
* It does not give any support to your claim that the standard loudspeaker position is ideal due to any other being as "random".

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=114769.msg946153#msg946153
This one refers to the previous reference. In addition, you outright recommend "two", yourself contradicting your own "no" to "two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers".
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar


Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #13
Just wanted to get your opinions on what you think is better - a pair of big full range, expensive main speakers or a smaller floor stander with a subwoofer or two for music?

The tricky part is that for most rooms, the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers. So in the context of real-world rooms, I would go with two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers, some room treatments as necessary and room correction.

I don't care about stereo bass below ~100Hz, and neither should you. It's irrelevant outside of a few pathological audiophile test cases.

So in the context of real-world rooms, I would go with two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers, some room treatments as necessary and room correction.
With the exception of "bass eq", no. Not for music. We been through all this before.

At least your anti-science positions are consistent.
https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=109862.msg904977#msg904977
Herein you refer to https://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/AAS2008/papers/p47.pdf.  I read the abstract and the conclusions section, which do absolutely not support your claims:
* It contradicts rather than supports your "no" to "two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers".
* It does not support your "no" to room treatment.
* It does not give any support to your claim that the standard loudspeaker position is ideal. Rather it contradicts your argument for the mains speaker position (which is not the same as the conclusion).

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conferences/?elib=17270
The abstract is free for anyone to read, and does absolutely not support your claims:
* It contradicts rather than supports your "no" to "two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers".
* It does not support your "no" to room treatment.
* It does not give any support to your claim that the standard loudspeaker position is ideal due to any other being as "random".

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=114769.msg946153#msg946153
This one refers to the previous reference. In addition, you outright recommend "two", yourself contradicting your own "no" to "two (or four) capable and well-placed subwoofers".
Obviously reading comprehension isn't your forte.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #14
Obviously reading comprehension isn't your forte.

I take for granted that if you had anything better to come up with, you would have posted it already.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #15
Quote
The tricky part is that for most rooms, the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers

some room treatments as necessary and room correction

I don't care about stereo bass below ~100Hz, and neither should you. It's irrelevant outside of a few pathological audiophile test cases.

Herein you refer to https://www.acoustics.asn.au/conference_proceedings/AAS2008/papers/p47.pdf.  I read the abstract and the conclusions section, which do absolutely not support your claims:
You read but failed to comprehend anything in the article.
* It contains nothing supports your anti-scientific "the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers".
* It does not support your "yes" to stereo music room treatment.
* It does not give any support to your claim that the standard loudspeaker position is non-ideal for stereo bass.
* It completely contradicts your nonsensical claim about stereo bass below 100hz being unimportant. Its the central theme to the paper you completly failed to read and/or comprehend. It agrees with the JJ slide which went totally over your head.

Quote
The tricky part is that for most rooms, the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers

some room treatments as necessary and room correction

I don't care about stereo bass below ~100Hz, and neither should you. It's irrelevant outside of a few pathological audiophile test cases.

https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conferences/?elib=17270
The abstract is free for anyone to read, and does absolutely not support your claims:
It is a free read, but reading comprehension is required, unfortunatley for you.
* It contains ZERO support of your anti-scientific "the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers".
* It does not support your "yes" to all rooms must treatment.
* It does not give any support to your silly claim that the standard loudspeaker position is non-ideal for stereo bass vs totally random sub placement.
* It completely contradicts your nonsensical claim about stereo bass below 100hz being unimportant.
All of this undoubtedly points to a lack of comprehending when reading actual paper contents.

https://hydrogenaud.io/index.php?topic=110549.msg911808#msg911808
Why are you still mad about this and trolling again 4 years later?? You still have zero evidence for room treatments, random subs instead of full ranged mains, 100hz mono bass is ideal for music. Until you do...
Loudspeaker manufacturer


Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #17
* It contains nothing supports your anti-scientific "the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers".

And where did I write what you quote?

I did not. You are making it up, and everyone can verify it.

The same goes for every single part of what you posted. You are consistently lying about your sources - not only the research, but even the quotes from this forum. Even the "Quote from:" is fake.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #18
Quote
The tricky part is that for most rooms, the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers

some room treatments as necessary and room correction

I don't care about stereo bass below ~100Hz, and neither should you. It's irrelevant outside of a few pathological audiophile test cases.

And where did I write what you quote?
All from this thread that you are peanut gallery trolling
You can't address a single thing with scientific evidence because these discussions are way over your head. All the links I provided debunk each point quoted above that you anti-sientifically support and either falsely claim to have read, or totally failed to comprehend.
* the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers is unsupported by science.
* some room treatments as necessary and room correction (for stereo music, with exception of "Bass EQ")  is unsupported by science. You are also clearly still mad about being outed and slapped for having zero science to support your beliefs.
* I don't care about stereo bass below ~100Hz, and neither should you. It's irrelevant outside of a few pathological audiophile test cases -  is your typical anti-science position, completely undercut by the papers you either falsely claim to have read, or totally failed to comprehend.

You are consistently lying about your sources - not only the research, but even the quotes from this forum. Even the "Quote from:" is fake.
And your lack on reading comprehension belies you, unable to discern between "Quoted by" and "Quoted text" for reference, not to mention repeated lying about my position, because you are simply a  known and exposed troll from the peanut gallery

I should have the common sense to ignore, but that just annoy me.)
Tis the nature of trolls. Your words quoted for brevity.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #19
Of course, your strategy right now is perfectly rational: spewing forth a signal-to-noise ratio < 0 dB does indeed improve your average. Being caught lying over trivialities serves you better than being exposed lying where it hurts your source of income.

It isn't very original, you are out-ajinfla'ed at the "lying quack trying to disguise himself as a lying asshole" game every day by 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Sorry, you aren't even excelling at it.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #20
Quote
what you think is better - a pair of big full range, expensive main speakers or a smaller floor stander with a subwoofer or two for music?

Quote
The tricky part is that for most rooms, the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers

some room treatments as necessary and room correction

I don't care about stereo bass below ~100Hz, and neither should you. It's irrelevant outside of a few pathological audiophile test cases.
Of course, your strategy right now is perfectly rational: spewing forth a signal-to-noise ratio

Exposed peanut gallery troll
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #21
Trying to divert attention from your own professional dishonesty.

You just gravely misrepresented scientific research, directly related to your own business. 
Of course you want to bury that in noise, so you go on a spree filling in wrong quotations to make it look like you are lying just randomly over trivialities.
Of course you and your wallet are better off being taken for a lying asshole than for a professionally lying quack. 

If you think your professional reputation is not harmed by this, go ahead name the business that you run and the loudspeakers that you manufacture.
High Voltage socket-nose-avatar

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #22
Quote
what you think is better - a pair of big full range, expensive main speakers or a smaller floor stander with a subwoofer or two for music?

Quote
The tricky part is that for most rooms, the best location(s) for bass response are not the same as the ideal locations for stereo speakers

some room treatments as necessary and room correction

I don't care about stereo bass below ~100Hz, and neither should you. It's irrelevant outside of a few pathological audiophile test cases.
You just gravely misrepresented scientific research, directly related to your own business. 
Dunning-Kruger prevents you from addressing any of the technical contents of the links provided, debunking your nonsensical beliefs quoted, which is what the thread is about. You have not read any of links, because you are an Exposed peanut gallery troll

And it has also been said repeatedly by the community (not just by the moderators!) that if you aren't able to provide evidence then STFU.
Are we done trolling from the peanut gallery yet, Porcus?
Clearly you are a troll, confirmed.
If you think your professional reputation is not harmed by this, go ahead name the business that you run and the loudspeakers that you manufacture.
The same Dunning-Kruger effect is preventing you from knowing what anyone on this forum with functional brains cells already knows  :))

my home's upload speed is slow,  I have more bandwidth available elsewhere (off-site backup at mom's, she has an ultra-fast connection).

I should have the common sense to ignore, but that just annoy me.)
Thanks for admitting your lack of common sense. Now, get out the basement, go upstairs for better connection and stop trolling threads child. you've been outed. This thread is for adults, discussing stereo bass. The links have been provided.
Run upstairs now.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #23
To divert this thread back onto the rails.

In my opinion, for general audio in a living room setting, you should start with a set of full range speakers which have good specs and decent reviews. Unless you are planning on major remodeling to gain a slight increase in perceptible audio quality, going bonkers blowing money on ludicrously expensive speakers isn't advisable or necessary. I'd argue that beyond the midrange of speaker pricing you are paying more and more for brand names and gimmicks than objectively better audio quality. A good reasonably priced set of full range speakers will give you good performance now, and the flexibility to add to them in the future. Any decent AVR will allow you to somewhat tune what ranges are sent to which speakers down the road.

Adding more speaker locations creates more reflections, dead zones, etc. The more complicated you make the system, the more it and the room have to be tuned to accommodate a single seating position within the room for optimal performance. I've heard stupidly expensive systems and rooms where sitting up in a chair in the optimal position was audibly amazing, but leaning back in that same chair changed it to tinny mud. That optimal audio setting was subjectively 10% better than a good AVR driving a decent set of speakers in an average room, but the former rang in at about 10000% the cost of the latter. That's an expensive 10% gain.

A decent set of full range speakers and use some basic common sense and trial and error to find the locations which provide the best overall sound in the room at large. As you grow you can add satellite speakers if you want surround, and a subwoofer if you want to more optimally place one for LFE to shake the walls as needed.

Beyond that then you need to start looking into dedicated listening spaces tuned specifically for that purpose.

Re: High end ($$) speaker vs subwoofers for the bass response

Reply #24
I've heard stupidly expensive systems and rooms where sitting up in a chair in the optimal position was audibly amazing, but leaning back in that same chair changed it to tinny mud. That optimal audio setting was subjectively 10% better than a good AVR driving a decent set of speakers in an average room, but the former rang in at about 10000% the cost of the latter. That's an expensive 10% gain.
It's entirely possible to get better 2ch sound than heard from those expensive systems, using the same inexpensive AVR (even if one has to disguise it on occasion ;) ) in the "90%" system above. The key is knowledge. Dr Toole's book is <$50 and will parlay that knowledge, along with <$150/yr (iirc) for AES membership. Good speakers, combined with that knowledge can get great sound with whatever non pathelogical budget and room is available, as you note, by careful positioning also. Tooles research found that speaker rankings were largely unaffected by different rooms. Which means they are the dominant factor. Well designed ones do not have a tiny sweet spot.
Loudspeaker manufacturer

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019