• RE: that never happens - hemholtz 12:34:18 09/10/12 (3)
  In Reply to: RE: that never happens posted by triamp on September 09, 2012 at 23:37:44

  i think you're on to it. that's what i think i'm hearing. i'm just stumped that i can't see it on a graph.
  maybe the resolution just isn't there, or i'm not measuring the right thing at all.
  
  "but to my ears, it sounds like they're humming along with the notes rather than reproducing them"
  
  that's what's missing, it's the box humming. it's so hard to tell what you're really hearing, but without the boxes it does sound "faster" (i can't believe i typed that)
  
  
  

  ---

  • RE: that never happens - triamp 16:12:48 09/10/12 (1)
    In Reply to: RE: that never happens posted by hemholtz on September 10, 2012 at 12:34:18

    
    
    

    
    "faster," "tighter" etc are all descriptors used to convey the time-domain behavior of bass reproducer systems, and with the lower frequencies the "reproducer system" includes the cabinetry (if any) and also stuff in the room that may be set to vibrating at these low frequencies. I think furniture etc probably DOES get put in motion by bass, but I don't think it gives back much of that stored energy as sound. The room itself- by this I mean the floor, walls, etc- I think this DOES release some of it's stored energy back as sound. The walls / floor etc of a room will "bulge out" slightly when there's a pressure wave crest in the room, and the elasticity of the walls etc will want to relax back to their unstretched state and so the room will "bounce back" a bit, compressing the air in the room - all of this will be frequency dependent and very complex.... a room with rigid boundaries will do LESS of this, so a room with concrete floor will sound "tighter" "more solid" etc, and if the walls are also concrete- even more so. But I think these effects are much smaller in magnitude than those from the cone, cabinet enclosed volume (if any) and cabinet wall behavior. I think we can hear the release of energy that gets stored in the subwoofer cabinetry and that's why baffle-less subs can sound "faster" than box subs.

    
    I don't think magnitude vs frequency graphs will show this directly, you'd probably need some kind of TONE BURST measurement to see this- you'd need to see how actual bass tone pulses behaved in time, not just impulses or steady-state waves. Like a repeated train of pulses of 7 cycles of a 20 Hz signal, with a pause between them say of 50 ms or something, and watch the build-up and die-off characteristics on a 'scope,
    

    ---

    Edits: 09/10/12   09/10/12   09/10/12

    • RE: that never happens - hemholtz 17:41:24 09/10/12 (0)
      In Reply to: RE: that never happens posted by triamp on September 10, 2012 at 16:12:48

      

      it's always the time axis i look at first. a mode that decays quickly isn't a bad problem. i like to see it drop off pretty quickly - like 10db in 20ms. that midbass sounds "fast".
      on this graph i think part of the problem with the bottom 2 modes is timing of 2 subs. 2 subs are nice, but can add a couple ms to the decay if they're off a couple feet. that stuff at the bottom is down almost 20db and is not a decay problem (probably a light fixture or something rattling a little).
      
      
      

      ---
  • RE: that never happens - Emsquare 13:48:20 09/10/12 (0)
    In Reply to: RE: that never happens posted by hemholtz on September 10, 2012 at 12:34:18

    " ... but without the boxes it does sound "faster" (i can't believe i typed that)"
    
    I think I know what you mean. The whole concept of a 'fast sub' is a bit of an oxymoron. If you attend a tortoise race would you exclaim "Wow, now that is one fast turtle" over the one that won? We could split hares (pun intentional) over which sub is faster than the other but what would that really be saying? There's any number of audio descriptives in common use that should be removed from the lexicon. Expunged, even. Not that I am any less guilty for having used them myself. IMHO, musical is another one.
    
    "That's one really musical pre-amplifier you bought yourself there, Tom"
    
    To think about it for a moment it should be a little amusing as opposed to something to argue about. At least I think.
    
    Tom Waits, Cooler than you for thirty years.
    
    

    ---
• RE: that never happens - josh358 06:34:39 09/10/12 (15)
  In Reply to: RE: that never happens posted by triamp on September 09, 2012 at 23:37:44

  In an 8' tall room with a sharp crossover slope, I think a line of two woofer is sufficient to take you to an XO of 80 Hz. It's hard to say because while this satisfies the Nyquist criterion you still have the finite crossover slope, reconstruction errors (the equivalent of pixelation in an LCD TV owing to the absence of a spatial low pass filter), etc.
  
  Anyway, I know what you mean about the hangover. I'm not sure whether that's the planar itself or not. Planar woofers do ring, they're designed to, to compensate for the 1/f dipole cancellation. So the question is -- if the planar woofers ring, why does planar bass sound better? I've read contradictory things about ringing in box woofers and haven't ever measured it myself, but to my ears, it sounds like they're humming along with the notes rather than reproducing them. But then, that's the way I feel about the typical box throughout its frequency range.
  
  I think it may have to do with the fact that room modal ringing is a good deal worse than planar woofer ringing and dipole line sources significantly reduce excitation of room modes through three mechanisms:
  
  1. A dipole radiation pattern eliminates excitation of horizontal and vertical axial modes to the extent the driver is parallel to the front wall. Tympanis can be set up this way but the single panels will compromise it because they need toe in.
  
  2. A line source eliminates all vertical modes including oblique and tangential by creating a shaded infinite line wave. In effect, it co-opts the floor and ceiling reflections to create a line source of infinite length (shaded in practice). This is a step beyond Mechanism 1.
  
  3. A line source allows you to create a bass array. This isn't the same as multiple subs. A bass array creates a plane wave in a rectangular room, up to the spatial Nyquist frequency. When you sit at the same distance from the rear wall as dipole line source speakers are from the front wall, all room modes disappear below the spatial Nyquist frequency. This is something I've done with my Tympanis and you should be able to do it with the dynamics, but it does require a plane wave so you'd want to array them in a line source.
  
  I'd be a bit concerned about the paper cone and overall mass. One of the nice things about a planar woofer diaphragm is that it's fast. This wouldn't matter if crossovers were completely sharp but in practice there's a good deal of overlap with the midrange. There's also the issue of cone breakup and self noise (not that Mylar doesn't have self noise but I think paper self noise is worse).
  

  ---

  • Interesting observations - Emsquare 14:11:34 09/10/12 (12)
    In Reply to: RE: that never happens posted by josh358 on September 10, 2012 at 06:34:39

    I can always count on you to raise some interesting observations.
    
    I'm sure you have this sized up better than I do but I'm working on understanding why excellent bass is so difficult to nail down. And, more importantly, what can be reasonably done about it. Reasonably refers to expense and form factor.
    
    The friendly form factor is a small box, low bass unit. Which I think is almost self defeating to begin with. It's not even the choice between sealed or ported. Either way you are chosing either a series or parallel mechanical resonator, each with its own comparable drawbacks. So if these two answers are ultimately rejected then what?
    
    This is the kind nonsense I turn over in my mind while no one is looking.
    
    Tom Waits, Cooler than you for thirty years.
    
    

    ---

    • RE: Interesting observations - josh358 15:07:14 09/10/12 (11)
      In Reply to: RE: Interesting observations posted by Emsquare on September 10, 2012 at 14:11:34

      One of the most intriguing things I've read is that when you put a woofer near the listening position, the room aberrations are minimum phase. This is remarkably news since it means that you should be able to use equalization to eliminate completely not just amplitude aberrations but modal ringing from the sweet spot. Which, I think, for most of us, is enough. So you should be able to save money on woofers and get away with a smaller box and less disturbance to the neighbors, while completely eliminating room modes. Where do I sign up? It's in the bottom three paragraphs of the world's best dipole woofer page here:

      http://www.musicanddesign.com/Dipole_modesA.html

      I'm thinking I may give this a whirl with my sub before I sell it (I got it for the MMG's, it's too small to help out the Tympanis).

      Otherwise, so many problems -- 10% harmonic distortion, thermal compression, reflections from within the enclosure emerging from the front, cone breakup, group delay, eigenmodes, woofer enclosure and building structure resonances, ringing from underdamped alignments, dipole cancellation, Allison effect proximity cancellation, etc., etc.

      I'd like to hear a dipole woofer made with decent drivers like the GR Research, the Linkwitz, or Davey's subs (not sure what drivers he used) because I have no idea how they compare to the Tympani woofers that are my personal choice for best midbass ever, but, really, not the most practical things if you want to keep your marriage.

      Two of the more interesting developments I've seen are the SBA and DBA, since below the spatial Nyquist frequency they can completely eliminate room modes in a rectangular room. Not terribly intrusive, either, you can build the woofer arrays into the walls (or ceiling). But kind of elaborate and expensive, and it's limited to lower frequencies (unless you want to use a zillion drivers and listen in mono).

      I don't think most people have caught on to the fact that you can make a passive single bass array with a pair of Maggies. Harry Pearson, whose ear never ceases to amaze, hit upon it empirically, with his rule of thirds. I hit upon it with my 1-D's without really knowing what I was doing -- I figured that you'd get some cancellation of rear wall reflections if you were the same distance from the rear wall as the speakers were from the front, since the polarity-reversed reflection from the front wall would be delayed by the same time as the positive-polarity reflection from the rear, and when I tried it it worked. But in those days I didn't understand that the room surface reflections were creating a plane wave, it wasn't until I read about the DBA that I came to understand why it was so effective.

      But why bother with any of that if you can get away with the box-near-the-chair technique? If it works as well as the calculations suggest, and you can make a really high quality enclosed dynamic sub (a bit questionable, I'm really not sure), it could put bass trap manufacturers out of business.
      

      ---

      Edits: 09/10/12

      • RE: Interesting observations - Emsquare 16:38:15 09/11/12 (6)
        In Reply to: RE: Interesting observations posted by josh358 on September 10, 2012 at 15:07:14

        Interesting link you refer to at musicanddesign.com. I'm still processing information from 'WBF Discussions with Roger Sanders' you suggested at an earlier time. More horse sense in that thread than most. And has had a good deal to do with why I want to get away from itty, bitty woofer box format at some point. Perhaps the Open Baffle H or W frame might be the practical answer. Or perhaps I'm overlooking one of the obvious solutions in the DW1/DWM speakers but they're not really built to get you to the 20's. And I still would like to implement a stereo sub arrangement.
        
        The upside is that I have lots of time to look at the idea before I make a move. The single 15" Velodyne does a credible job of it most of the time and I'm happy I didn't lose it. It still needs to be retired in favor of something that is an order of maginitude better.
        
        Oops, I apparently have guests so I'll have to continue this later...
        
        Tom Waits, Cooler than you for thirty years.
        
        

        ---

        • RE: Interesting observations - josh358 10:15:05 09/13/12 (5)
          In Reply to: RE: Interesting observations posted by Emsquare on September 11, 2012 at 16:38:15

          That's quite a thread, isn't it? I had the tab open for something like a month before I'd read all the way through it.
          
          I don't know of anyone who's compared an open baffle dynamic with the DWM's. I'm sure the guys at Magnepan have, though.
          
          One possible issue I can think of is that even in an open baffle arrangement, dynamics are going to sound different, they just have a different aural signature. And since with dynamic woofers you pretty much have to use a sharp crossover that could result in audible discontinuity even with a dipole approach. Not only is the DWM in the same driver family, but it's a low mass driver so can be crossed over with a single pole crossover, or at a higher frequency, as in the approx. 300 Hz crossover that's used with the Minis.
          
          Wendell also points out, rightly I think, that the midbass is more of a limit on the performance of the typical system than the deep bass, and this is something the DWM's can help with. He's had trouble getting that message out despite the fact that many respected acousticians and designers are on record as saying this.
          
          I'm thinking though that if you went with the DWM's you'd still want to use an LF sub. What about keeping the Velodyne for bottom octave duty? Also, the bottom octave may not have modal problems in all rooms. Dipoles I think become less attractive when you're dealing with the bottom octave (actually it seems you have to go down to 14 Hz to get the full spatial benefit), because judging by Linkwitz's results anyway you're going to run out of amp power in a critically damped alignment or Xmax in either a critically damped or underdamped one.
          

          ---

          • RE: Interesting observations - Emsquare 17:13:23 09/14/12 (4)
            In Reply to: RE: Interesting observations posted by josh358 on September 13, 2012 at 10:15:05

            Ya it is. I appreciated the link to that, Josh. And I still need to go back and absorb the discussion on digital audio. Roger is good at presenting information in a way that is useful and not difficult to absorb. I would like to hear one of his systems for myself. I do not doubt that it's very good.
            
            As far as using an OB H-frame like the GR it would seem intuitive that a dipole bass transducer has potential to match with Magnepan's bass panels. The DWM's should be a nice fit specificly because of the uniform driver behavior. Being a bit of a gear hound it's hard to let go of that 20 Hz. placeholder that's supposed represent full bass reproduction. But I am startinng to suspect that it isn't quite the gold standard that I may have thought. It gets trickier when the wavelengths near the dimensions of listening room. And far more difficult to visualize for me. Corret me if I have forgotten but isn't it the 1/4 wavelengths to the wall(s) that starts to play havoc with bass nodes? Wish I can express the concept a little better than that.
            
            I can see the appeal of using a sub/bass driver at the listening position. Perhaps it's a potent solution to the problem but it would seem to imply a DSP type of delay to get the impulse response right. This is part of the hingepoint to the way that I think about the problem. If we had single transducers that could do it all it would make the task all so easy. Dividing up the spectrum between multiple drivers becomes necessary but opens up all the problems that go with that. To my mind if you can't get the impulse response near perfect then there's always going to be tell tales that go with it. I have to think that DSP is the tool to solve much of these problems. I'm trying to delay launching into that for various reasons. A lot of it is trying to make the effort far more focussed with time, money and knowing more about what I'm doing before I go off half cocked with it. And I am thinking/writing out loud again...
            
            I like Rogers reasoning with his speaker system concerning a transmission line bass implementation. It avoids the problem with the sealed box air spring effect. And although it is a type of ported box design it's a little less compromised than the simpler ported tube builds. I think I can place one behind each speaker and use the vertical tube as a absorber/defractor. Perhaps what little if any localization occurrs at those frequencies would play well with the 2.6's if place directly behind them. In an 11x13 room floor space is hard to come by so there is that appeal to the idea. I can try a couple of tubes behind the speakers before I commit to the build to judge if it's a bad idea to start with.
            
            Tom Waits, Cooler than you for thirty years.
            
            

            ---

            • RE: Interesting observations - josh358 18:00:10 09/14/12 (3)
              In Reply to: RE: Interesting observations posted by Emsquare on September 14, 2012 at 17:13:23

              Actually, I'm not even sure that 20 Hz is low enough. That figure has been used for years, but it apparently reflects the limitations of the early experimental apparatus rather than the actual low frequency limit of our ears. I've read that response down to 14 Hz is necessary for optimum recreation of ambiance.
              
              So -- nothing against the bottom octave (and a half), it's just that the midbass is more important. Which it is. And it's a very problematic area because of proximity effects. The quarter wavelength you mention would give you a half wavelength delay, which would result in a complete null with the direct sound, so you're spot on, however, this is for omnis -- dipoles cancel at a full wavelength delay since the backwave has inverted polarity, which means the speaker is half a wavelength from the surface.
              
              I think it's a fair bet that dipole woofers will match dipole speakers more closely, though I'm not sure how significant that is unless you're listening way off axis. Line source vs. point source is likely very significant for full height line sources, since in the former case the bass drops off as 1/R and in the latter as 1/R^2. In practice, this means that you can balance them for only one listening distance, which may or may not matter in any given installation. To make matters a little more complex, Maggies aren't quite full height and point source speakers (dipole or not) behave as line sources below the spatial Nyquist frequency, which for an 8' tall room and the woofer on the floor would correspond to a 32' wavelength but with the woofer 4' off the floor a 16' wavelength. So the woofer's transition from point to line occurs within the audible range. (It's actually a bit more complicated than that owing to reconstruction errors.)
              
              I think you're right that DSP would be needed to get a minimum phase solution to that woofer response deviations, though it's possible you could do it with minimum phase analog filters. Kind of a complicated curve, though, and DSP can automate the process. It does add to the complexity but I think you really need DSP for the best bass anyway, even with trapping and careful placement.
              
              I've heard some good things about transmission line bass. I have heard that you can hear the transition in his hybrids, but that's probably unavoidable with any dynamic/planar combination, if nothing else cone breakup sounds different than stretched membrane resonances.
              
              
              
              
              

              ---

              • RE: Interesting observations - Emsquare 09:10:57 09/15/12 (2)
                In Reply to: RE: Interesting observations posted by josh358 on September 14, 2012 at 18:00:10

                I have no strong opinion about the limits of LF audibility. I'll need to break out the test disc again but I know I can't hear a 20 Hz. sinewave on the Velodyne. I wish I would have thought to try the other LF tracks in the 20's to see what how low I can reasonably hear. Perhaps later today now that its come up. Of course that doesn't mean that the subaudible stuff has nothing to add to the picture.
                
                Good point about backwave cancelation with dipoles. I had forgotten about that. You mentioned previously about a passive bass array. Since I have an untasked set of 1.5's to play with perhaps I could try a temporary mounting at the 1/3 room length points. The idea would be to use the side walls to be an extension of the baffle on one side of each speaker. Keep the current LF crossover point and equalize the 1.5's only and see what that's like. I can't be sure what to expect from that or even if it's a good idea or not. Just something to ponder while I'm thinking about possibilties. I'm pretty sure that I want to use a stereo sub arrangement when the time comes. Hemholtz's GR's should be significantly better than my current set up but I'll never really know till I try it. Looking at the cabinet dimensions it comes in at 13" x 23.5" which is pretty easy to work with. Hmmm... that's attractive. Could always start with one and go from there. If I can only get into it without making myself half nuts in the process. There does seem to be a point where I question my sanity for obsessing over this stuff.
                
                Tom Waits, Cooler than you for thirty years.
                
                

                ---

                • RE: Interesting observations - josh358 09:42:21 09/15/12 (1)
                  In Reply to: RE: Interesting observations posted by Emsquare on September 15, 2012 at 09:10:57

                  I learned about being able to hear below 20 Hz from the Eminent site. Of course, he has a reason to say that since he's selling rotary woofers, but I read about the 14 Hz limit elsewhere so I don't think it's just him, though.
                  
                  Just another thing I've never had time to research more deeply. And most of us don't have access to subs with that kind of performance, mine certainly won't do it. Maybe I could ask the guy across the street with the boom car. :-)
                  
                  Your side wall idea will definitely work, it's the same baffle-width-doubling principle they use with the DWM and the Tympani IVa split woofer arrangement. I've tried it with the MMG's. However, you'll end up with very boomy bass because the 1.5's woofers are tuned for use away from the side walls. So you'd have to use EQ to get flat response.
                  
                  Still, it would be an interesting experiment.
                  
                  Open baffle GR's would definitely be high on my short list of subwoofer approaches.
                  
                  The general consensus seems to be that stereo is important in subs for audiophile applications, although I suspect that some of that is room and placement sensitive (based on a paper I read on subwoofer localization and also my personal experience). However, most recorded bass is essentially mono, this was done because you can't cut stereo bass on an LP. So I think the effect may have more to do with higher frequencies that are still being reproduced by the woofer owing to the finite crossover slope. You can hear stuff until it's more than 20 dB down so if you have a crossover of 80 Hz, say, even with a four pole crossover you're going to be hearing some signals up to 160 Hz from the woofer.
                  

                  ---

                  • RE: Interesting observations - mmlrot1 12:24:25 04/09/13 (0)
                    In Reply to: RE: Interesting observations posted by josh358 on September 15, 2012 at 09:42:21

                    I have a test disc with recorded sine waves from 10 hz on up to 25 hz,
                    Each individual sine wave, starting at 10 hz can be heard easily with
                    my rotary subwoofer. It is simply not true that one can not hear below
                    20 hz; ones hearing does not just stop at 20 hz as it has been reported
                    in many audio articles. The problem is conventional subwoofers are
                    incapable of reproducing these infra frequencies with authority.
                    One could use many subwoofers in a infinite baffle arrangement (I have
                    heard 8 18 inch woofers that are also capable with clean and powerful bass
                    that is easily heard down to 10 hz.
                    Below 10 hz I can still feel and hear these infra sounds, but this is where the
                    rotary is king and low frequency transients are stunning.
                    

                    ---
      • RE: Interesting observations - Emsquare 17:49:03 09/10/12 (3)
        In Reply to: RE: Interesting observations posted by josh358 on September 10, 2012 at 15:07:14

        I have questions for ya but it's the opening to Monday Night Football, so...
        
        I'll check in tomorrow evening.
        
        Tom Waits, Cooler than you for thirty years.
        
        

        ---

        • RE: Interesting observations - hemholtz 17:57:47 09/10/12 (2)
          In Reply to: RE: Interesting observations posted by Emsquare on September 10, 2012 at 17:49:03

          since when does monday night football start so early? bah, thursday's better. go bears.
          

          ---

          • RE: Interesting observations - Emsquare 16:09:29 09/11/12 (1)
            In Reply to: RE: Interesting observations posted by hemholtz on September 10, 2012 at 17:57:47

            I suppose you're close enough to pull for "da Bears". And it just occurred to me that they're playing GB on Thursday night. I have no problem with them hanging a second loss on the Packers. You have to beat those kind of teams down when you can before they become a problem later in the year. The Pack isn't quite a scary as they were a few short months ago. But you know they're going to get really good again sooner than you might like.
            
            Tom Waits, Cooler than you for thirty years.
            
            

            ---

            • RE: Interesting observations - hemholtz 16:59:38 09/11/12 (0)
              In Reply to: RE: Interesting observations posted by Emsquare on September 11, 2012 at 16:09:29

              only 30 miles to soldier field. been a bears fan since i was a kid. the colts are from baltimore...
              

              ---
  • RE: that never happens - Norman M 09:05:37 09/10/12 (1)
    In Reply to: RE: that never happens posted by josh358 on September 10, 2012 at 06:34:39

    "3. A line source allows you to create a bass array. This isn't the same as multiple subs. A bass array creates a plane wave in a rectangular room, up to the spatial Nyquist frequency. When you sit at the same distance from the rear wall as dipole line source speakers are from the front wall, all room modes disappear below the spatial Nyquist frequency. This is something I've done with my Tympanis and you should be able to do it with the dynamics, but it does require a plane wave so you'd want to array them in a line source."
    
    You actually meant to write Tympani's or Tympanis', didn't you? :-))
    

    ---

    • RE: that never happens - josh358 09:37:49 09/10/12 (0)
      In Reply to: RE: that never happens posted by Norman M on September 10, 2012 at 09:05:37

      I don't think you could speak of one Tympano, people would think you'd had too much to drink. And if you used "Tympani" as the plural, that would elicit confusion as well.
      
      Strictly speaking, each speaker is a timpani anyway, since the name refers to the tuned diaphragm segments by analogy to tuned drums. So maybe it does make sense to pluralize the plural.
      
      Anyway, I suspect none of this applies to proper nouns, whatever their metaphoric intent. So if you had a "Mr. Oxen," you would refer to his family as "the Oxens."
      
      In any case, no 'postrophe, "Tympani" is a proper noun, not an alphanumeric model designation.
      

      ---

Post a Followup:

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

VH Audio

---

[ Top of Page ] [ Contact Us ] [ Support/Wish List ] [ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]

---

[ General ] [ Speakers ] [ Tubes ] [ Vinyl ] [ Digital ] [ Hi-Rez ] [ Video Asylum ] [ Cables ] [ Tweaks/DIY ] [ Music ] [ Films ]

---