Destructively Driving Modes

Nyal Mellor

Industry Expert
Jul 14, 2010
590
4
330
SF Bay Area, CA, USA

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
That's not what I measure. To drive 1,0,0 destructively, the subs need to be in opposite polarity. When I measure and they are in the same electrical polarity the 1st gets much bigger. If they are in opposite electrical polarity, the 1st goes away. I read that bluray forum post before and I don't think that's accurate info.

I will post a REW plot later showing this.
Technical correction from acoustics geek...

There are two polarities here....

If you place the subs with same electrical polarity in opposite polarities of the room mode then you will drive it destructively. This is the best online resource that explains it: http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=48286. Also explained well in the Toole book.

I think what you did is different, which is what Klaus refers to as "Single Source-to-Sink" (though have not read that AES paper).

The above assuming both subs are run with no electrical delay. The Welti simulations are based on all subs fed same signal, no delay, same polarity.

With electrical delay (e.g. delay rear xx ms) then you are changing how the subs are driving the standing wave. Different delays will cause different effects. You can use this to your advantage along with individual sub level adjustments to "move" the peaks and dips in the room modes where you want them.

Some simulations: two subs on front wall (dots in middle of room are seats, this is a HT). You can clearly see the 20Hz 1st axial length room mode (low SPL center of room, high walls front and back)
View attachment 25222

four subs, two on front wall, two on rears (rears delayed 2ms and run -3dB relative to fronts)
View attachment 25223

One interesting thing about multi-subs is the debatable importance of time alignment. People like Geddes are purposely advocating NOT aligning the subs in order to control the room modes. The Welti methods also have no delay adjustments for individual sub channels relative to any listening position.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
That's not what I measure. To drive 1,0,0 destructively, the subs need to be in opposite polarity. When I measure and they are in the same electrical polarity the 1st gets much bigger. If they are in opposite electrical polarity, the 1st goes away. I read that bluray forum post before and I don't think that's accurate info.
You have bad water in Texas so it screws up everything including your audio equipment....
 

Nyal Mellor

Industry Expert
Jul 14, 2010
590
4
330
SF Bay Area, CA, USA
That's not what I measure. To drive 1,0,0 destructively, the subs need to be in opposite polarity. When I measure and they are in the same electrical polarity the 1st gets much bigger. If they are in opposite electrical polarity, the 1st goes away. I read that bluray forum post before and I don't think that's accurate info.

I will post a REW plot later showing this.

I'm not sure what is going on in your setup but reference Toole pg. 221 diagram (b). "two subwoofers, one on each side, radiating identical signals, destructively drive the mode reducing the amplitude. This is "mode cancellation".

This is the behavior I get from acoustical modeling simulations.

Are the subs fed exactly same signal (no digital delay of rears)? If you are using the old F112 front and the new F112v2 rear it's possible that the amplifiers are different and one is polarity inverting and the other is not. It's more likely something in your setup than the physics being wrong.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
No. I think the polarity is reversed on my front subs because I get cheap electricity. :D
That too. And you kept defending the guy who did your wiring despite my feedback to the contrary:

 

DonH50

Member Sponsor & WBF Technical Expert
Jun 22, 2010
3,947
306
1,670
Monument, CO
I am using four subs spaced roughly to provide the best overall frequency response, within the limits of the room and furniture. Two are on the side near the front wall, 3 or 4 feet out (beside the mains), and the other pair is on the back wall with each sub about 1/4 in from the side wall. I used REW and the multisub program by andyc56 on AVS (hope that's not a problem, if so I'll delete this and find my link to his site later) ti dial things in, then did lots of measurements and playing with sub phase and Dirac Live filters. Decently flat and with room gain down 3 dB around 7 Hz or so, though I have more fiddling to do, just no time!
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
That too. And you kept defending the guy who did your wiring despite my feedback to the contrary:


Yes, I do accept payment-in-kind. I once had my bathroom remodelled for a fee. I'm not above engaging in medieval economic transactions. I believe economists call barter a "coincidence of wants."
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
I'm not sure what is going on in your setup but reference Toole pg. 221 diagram (b). "two subwoofers, one on each side, radiating identical signals, destructively drive the mode reducing the amplitude. This is "mode cancellation".

This is the behavior I get from acoustical modeling simulations.

Are the subs fed exactly same signal (no digital delay of rears)? If you are using the old F112 front and the new F112v2 rear it's possible that the amplifiers are different and one is polarity inverting and the other is not. It's more likely something in your setup than the physics being wrong.

"An effective method to equalize low frequencies
in rectangular rooms has been simulated
and implemented in these three rooms. The system
uses two loudspeakers in the front wall of the room
to create a traveling plane wave and an extra two
low frequency loudspeakers in the back wall delayed
and in opposite phase to remove the reflection of
that wall. "

Low frequency sound field enhancement
system for rectangular rooms using multiple
low frequency loudspeakers

Adrian Celestinos and Sofus Birkedal Nielsen

You can see what I'm talking about in section 3.2. "Removing the Reflection from the Back
Wall"

This deals with the method I'm using to destroy modal ringing by running a rear sub in "antiphase."

In the paper's discussion:

"By first creating a plane
wave in only one direction of the room which implies
exiting only the axial modes of that direction
and secondly canceling that plane wave using loudspeakers
delayed at the end wall in opposite phase
with the traveling sound, optimal equalization can
be obtained."
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
Nyal,

Here's some more from the AES paper authored by Fazenda et al to which Klaus originally made reference with regard to the "sink" method to cancelling room modes:

"The ‘active’ aspect of this control configuration comes
into place as the plane wave reaches the rear wall. At
this location, the ‘sink’ speakers reproduce the same
signal in anti-phase which has the effect of cancelling
its reflection from the rear wall and thus any modes
generated along this dimension."

The rear subs act to absorb or "sink" the so called "plane wave" from the front of the room. My understanding of all this stuff and my own measurements makes me pretty confident that the rear subs need to be in "anti-phase" to the front subs. IOW, the rear subs can either be in opposite phase or opposite polarity and they act to "sink" the modal ringing between those two walls.

To be sure, I will measure the impulse peaks for all four of my subs to make sure the polarity switch on each sub corresponds with the sub's actually polarity.

Here's the "sink" configuration in the paper.

sink.JPG

Michael.
 
Last edited:

RayDunzl

New Member
Jun 26, 2014
289
2
0
Tampa
Taking it one step further, and assuming a rectangular room, if you were to place one sub in a corner and an out-of-phase sub in the diagonally opposite corner (ceiling mount), you could in theory kill multiple resonances.

Here's a simulation two corner subs in and out of phase at (or near) a problematic frequency:

 

andy_c

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2010
189
0
921
www.andyc.diy-audio-engineering.org
I used REW and the multisub program by andyc56 on AVS (hope that's not a problem, if so I'll delete this and find my link to his site later) ti dial things in, then did lots of measurements and playing with sub phase and Dirac Live filters. Decently flat and with room gain down 3 dB around 7 Hz or so, though I have more fiddling to do, just no time!

That's me. :) A link to the program is in my profile, or you can just click my user name to visit my homepage. It requires time-synchronized measurements, so at present it can't be used with a USB mic. A loopback timing reference is needed. However, John Mulcahy is apparently working on something in REW to get a timing reference of some kind with a USB mic. The REW update was originally supposed to be ready sometime this month, so I'd expect it to be available soon.
 

Nyal Mellor

Industry Expert
Jul 14, 2010
590
4
330
SF Bay Area, CA, USA
"An effective method to equalize low frequencies
in rectangular rooms has been simulated
and implemented in these three rooms. The system
uses two loudspeakers in the front wall of the room
to create a traveling plane wave and an extra two
low frequency loudspeakers in the back wall delayed
and in opposite phase to remove the reflection of
that wall. "

Low frequency sound field enhancement
system for rectangular rooms using multiple
low frequency loudspeakers

Adrian Celestinos and Sofus Birkedal Nielsen

You can see what I'm talking about in section 3.2. "Removing the Reflection from the Back
Wall"

This deals with the method I'm using to destroy modal ringing by running a rear sub in "antiphase."

In the paper's discussion:

"By first creating a plane
wave in only one direction of the room which implies
exiting only the axial modes of that direction
and secondly canceling that plane wave using loudspeakers
delayed at the end wall in opposite phase
with the traveling sound, optimal equalization can
be obtained."

That's a valid cancellation technique, but different to the one you referred to in your first post. Welti is not talking about cancelling plane waves. Also you said you were not delaying the rears, which means you weren't doing the "plane wave cancellation" technique.

Just trying to make sure everyone is referring to the same cancellation technique.
 

dallasjustice

Member Sponsor
Apr 12, 2011
2,067
8
0
Dallas, Texas
That's a valid cancellation technique, but different to the one you referred to in your first post. Welti is not talking about cancelling plane waves.

Just trying to make sure everyone is referring to the same cancellation technique.

Bear with me, I'm learning out loud. :p
 

andy_c

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2010
189
0
921
www.andyc.diy-audio-engineering.org
One interesting thing about multi-subs is the debatable importance of time alignment. People like Geddes are purposely advocating NOT aligning the subs in order to control the room modes. The Welti methods also have no delay adjustments for individual sub channels relative to any listening position.

In Table 3 of Low-Frequency Optimization Using Multiple Subwoofers, Welti and Devantier specify that for each subwoofer channel, individual delays of 0, 5 and 10 ms are evaluated in the search grid.
 

Nyal Mellor

Industry Expert
Jul 14, 2010
590
4
330
SF Bay Area, CA, USA
Bear with me, I'm learning out loud. :p

I shouldn't be on your back about it really, because it's great to have people experimenting with this stuff!

One very cool thing I've been meaning to do a video on for a long while is how when you do the mode cancellation if you play a sine wave at the cancellation frequency you turn the volume UP on the rear sub and the SPL decreases at the modal frequency. Very cool stuff.
 

Nyal Mellor

Industry Expert
Jul 14, 2010
590
4
330
SF Bay Area, CA, USA
In Table 3 of Low-Frequency Optimization Using Multiple Subwoofers, Welti and Devantier specify that for each subwoofer channel, individual delays of 0, 5 and 10 ms are evaluated in the search grid.

But in the final analysis the one they recommend were playing same signal to each subwoofer, right?
 

andy_c

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2010
189
0
921
www.andyc.diy-audio-engineering.org
But in the final analysis the one they recommend were playing same signal to each subwoofer, right?

It is a mono source signal, but after it is split into multiple paths, there is one adjustable PEQ, one adjustable delay, and one adjustable gain per channel. These are adjusted to minimize the Mean Spatial Variance of the combined sub outputs.

Table 3:
Gain: 0, -6, -12 dB
Delay: 0, 5, 10 ms
Filter Q: 1, 4, 16
Filter attenuation: 0, -12 dB

I'd have to go back and re-read more completely to see how they select the PEQ center frequency.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
It is a mono source signal, but after it is split into multiple paths, there is one adjustable PEQ, one adjustable delay, and one adjustable gain per channel. These are adjusted to minimize the Mean Spatial Variance of the combined sub outputs.

Table 3:
Gain: 0, -6, -12 dB
Delay: 0, 5, 10 ms
Filter Q: 1, 4, 16
Filter attenuation: 0, -12 dB

I'd have to go back and re-read more completely to see how they select the PEQ center frequency.
There are two papers by Welti and I think you are talking about the second one, "In-Room Low Frequency Optimization," Todd Welti, Allan Devantier, 115th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc. Preprint 5942" and Nyal is referring to the first, "“How Many Subwoofers Are Enough,” Todd Welti, 112th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc. Preprint 5602."

I cover the technique for the one you mention with a number of real measurements in my article here: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/Computer Optimization of Acoustics.html
 

andy_c

Well-Known Member
Sep 24, 2010
189
0
921
www.andyc.diy-audio-engineering.org
There are two papers by Welti and I think you are talking about the second one, "In-Room Low Frequency Optimization," Todd Welti, Allan Devantier, 115th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc. Preprint 5942" and Nyal is referring to the first, "“How Many Subwoofers Are Enough,” Todd Welti, 112th Convention, Audio Eng. Soc. Preprint 5602."

I cover the technique for the one you mention with a number of real measurements in my article here: http://www.madronadigital.com/Library/Computer Optimization of Acoustics.html

I was referring to a third one, Low-Frequency Optimization Using Multiple Subwoofers, which describes the SFM algorithm, at least how they conceived of it at the time.
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing