Comparison of Double Bass Array to Sound Field Management: THE MEATY PART!!!

twelti

WBF Technical Expert (Subwoofers In Rooms)
Apr 29, 2011
38
0
0
NOTE: this is a part 2 post. Read
http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...Bass-Array-to-Sound-Field-Management-Overview
first.


OK, now the meaty part: I want to compare the Double Bass Array to Sound Field Management on a point by point basis. Efficiency seems like a good place to start.

Efficiency
It might seem that the DBA approach would take an efficiency hit, since we are creating just a front to back plane wave (like in a free field), thus removing the room gain.

The intended effect of the DBA is to remove the room and create a free field plane wave response. We are removing the room modes. It is clear that the room modes increase the average sound pressure level in the room, so removing them must reduce the average SPL in the room. Of course it may not be easy to see this, since at some locations/frequencies, when we remove the modes we are removing cancellation dips.

Of course, subwoofer optimization can be said to rely on cancellation of room modes in one way or the other. For Sound Field Management, however, we are only trying to optimize the sound at a select number of seats, not the entire room. Remember that DBA effectively optimizes the entire room, there is no measurement at any particular seat. For SFM, it is entirely possible that efficiency can be increased at the selected seats even while the average SPL in the room is decreased. We are simply “moving the sound around”. With the “purest” version of SFM we ignore bass efficiency, and only try to optimize seat to seat consistency. However, if we change the selection criteria for SFM to choose among the best solutions, we can sacrifice a small amount of seat to seat consistency to get more bass efficiency and usually end up at least not losing any bass, often gaining. It’s a matter of changing one line of code.

Interestingly, at frequencies just below the first mode, where the room acts as a lumped element system, I will contend that in the case of DBA the delayed and inverted rear speakers will be in phase with the front. So, at these very low frequencies, DBA won’t lose any bass. I will leave this as an exercise for the reader! :eek:

Optimizing particular seats versus the entire room.
DBA in effect attempts to optimize the entire room, due to the plane wave produced. This would be a particular advantage if/when you don’t know where the listeners will be. So, if there are no fixed seats or designated seating area DBA would have an advantage.

Convenience
In the author’s opinion, DBA has a major disadvantage in this category. Implementation requires 2 or 4 subwoofers at very particular positions, duplicated on both front and rear walls, not just sitting on the floor either but in or on the walls. Very small rooms could use 2 subs each on front and rear wall, but otherwise 4 subs on front and rear walls, for a total of 8 subs, is required.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=837744

DBA requires 4 or 8 identical subwoofers. The SFM algorithm has no particular requirements that the subs be identical, though they should be within a few dB of each other in max output capability.

SFM normally uses subwoofers on the floor, measured at multiple locations, but locations which are preselected to meet WAF considerations. Normally 2 or 4 subwoofers are all that is required.

As for configuring the system, the SFM method is at a disadvantage, requiring multiple impulse response measurements (no 1/3 octave RTA’s here). Each possible combination of potential subwoofer location and seat must be measured. For DBA the delay and gain setting can be calculated (though measured values might give a slightly better result).

As for signal processing required, SFM does require a bit more. Level, delay and one biquad filter is required for each subwoofer channel. In DBA one global delay and gain would suffice.

Applicability to non rectangular rooms
SFM will work in any room, since it is based on actual room measurements and does not care about the shape of the room. DBA is based on the acoustics of a rectangular room and wont work in a non rectangular room. It also may not work as advertised in rooms which are acoustically non-rectangular. This could be the case for rooms with very different wall construction on different walls, for example.

Performance
Though no systematic comparison has been made between DBA and SFM, I will divulge my unbiased opinion on the matter and proclaim that SFM will give better performance. The reason I can say this is that if I allow longer delay values and polarity inversion in the SFM algorithm, the DBA solution will pop out if it indeed is the best solution. However, if there is a better solution, that alternate solution will pop out, and be an improvement over straight-up DBA. The author has done this and even in “rectangular” rooms (which are often not acoustically rectangular), DBA did not always give the best solution. DBA can thus be considered as a special case of the more general SFM approach. Still, to be fair, DBA does give a solution which is likely to be a very good one.

SUMMARY
I would summarize by saying that in rectangular rooms, if you don’t know where the seats will be, and you can get the subs located in/on the front and back walls, use DBA. Also if making impulse response measurements is too difficult, use DBA. In all other cases SFM is a better approach. For non-rectangular rooms, DBA is not an option.


Afterthoughts
Unfortunately, neither method discussed here is particularly easy to implement at present. For DBA, it’s because of the requirement for 4 or more likely 8 subs to placed in exact locations in/on the front and rear walls. For SFM it’s because the search algorithm is not widely commercially available yet. In the case of SFM, it is incorporated into the Harman Audio Test System, and available as part of a JBL Synthesis custom installation. An optimization algorithm which does what SFM does (albeit using a different method) is commercially available under the JBL Performance line. This is the BassQ 4-channel Automatic Room Mode Corrections Processor. Some other commercial algorithms have been around for a while (R.A.B.O.S for example), and more are coming on line all the time (Audyssey, Trinnov, Lyngdorf, etc., etc., etc., etc…..). Most of these do not address seat to seat consistency and/or do not use separate processing for different subs (or subwoofer groups).

OK, if you’re still with me, and don’t just accept everything I just said in this missive, good for you! Fire away….
 
Last edited:

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Ok let me get this out of the way .. I wasn't ever aware the DBA existed. How do I know more about it?

I have in the past obtained extremely good results by using what I would call the Geddes method .. Three subs in pseudo-random positions. I am interested in what it takes to implement the DBA. I tend to suppose it can be accomplished rather inexpensively ... If one goes in the direction of IB, pro amps and something like the Behringer DCX2496. A few questions:

What about the main speakers, should they be crossed-over or could they run in augmentation?
What should be the crossover points?
What should be the slopes in an DBA?
 

twelti

WBF Technical Expert (Subwoofers In Rooms)
Apr 29, 2011
38
0
0
Are you at liberty to discuss the difference in method between the "BassQ" and the JBL Synthesis approach?

Hi, well, I was involved in both product's development and did some comparisons, and both approaches seem to work well. The BassQ is a do it yourself, push one button and let 'er rip box. It uses FIR filters and a matrix inversion approach with some enhancements. It will attempt to make the responses at each seat similar and flat (then you can add you own global eq to taste). Synthesis allows for some human intervention, which can be a good thing. It tries to get the seats resposnes similar to each other but allows the installer to have more contol over the global eq. With the SFM algorithm itself, you can do horsetrading. That is you can say I'm willing to trade off a bit of seat to seat consistancy to get some more bass output. I've always liked this aspect.
 

twelti

WBF Technical Expert (Subwoofers In Rooms)
Apr 29, 2011
38
0
0
Ok let me get this out of the way .. I wasn't ever aware the DBA existed. How do I know more about it?

I have in the past obtained extremely good results by using what I would call the Geddes method .. Three subs in pseudo-random positions. I am interested in what it takes to implement the DBA. I tend to suppose it can be accomplished rather inexpensively ... If one goes in the direction of IB, pro amps and something like the Behringer DCX2496. A few questions:

What about the main speakers, should they be crossed-over or could they run in augmentation?
What should be the crossover points?
What should be the slopes in an DBA?

I'm not really sure I could answer your specific qustions, but if you want to find out more about DBA, read

http://forums.klipsch.com/forums/sto...mt2002_eng.pdf

The paper does not give much detail however. There is also some discussion and pictures of this technique at

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=837744

If you want to know more, you can look up papers by Celestinos and Nielsen on the AES website. They call it CABS.
 

twelti

WBF Technical Expert (Subwoofers In Rooms)
Apr 29, 2011
38
0
0
Ok let me get this out of the way .. I wasn't ever aware the DBA existed. How do I know more about it?

I have in the past obtained extremely good results by using what I would call the Geddes method ..

Maybe I will try to do a comparison of SFM to Geddes. But his method is not well documented...
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Maybe I will try to do a comparison of SFM to Geddes. But his method is not well documented...
You are right. Earl also has been evolving it form early days, going from no EQ to EQ. Still, any comparison would be appreciated.
 

twelti

WBF Technical Expert (Subwoofers In Rooms)
Apr 29, 2011
38
0
0
You are right. Earl also has been evolving it form early days, going from no EQ to EQ. Still, any comparison would be appreciated.

Hi Amir, if there's a particular thread where he discusses his method, let me know. Still, it is not really documented formally in any way that I know. It is based primarily on his experience. Don't get me wrong, Earl is a smart guy, but it is hard to evaluate somehting that is not rigorously documented.
 

Speedskater

Well-Known Member
Sep 30, 2010
941
15
368
Cleveland Ohio
We probably need a one paragraph or so definition of "DBA" and of "SFM" at the start of this thread.
Links to papers and web-sites would also be good.
 

twelti

WBF Technical Expert (Subwoofers In Rooms)
Apr 29, 2011
38
0
0

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Hi Amir, if there's a particular thread where he discusses his method, let me know. Still, it is not really documented formally in any way that I know. It is based primarily on his experience. Don't get me wrong, Earl is a smart guy, but it is hard to evaluate somehting that is not rigorously documented.
Hi Todd. There is a 70 page thread on AVS that kind of, sort of, talks about the technique :). I say that because if you read from the start, the technique changes a bit. I couldn't get to the end so don't know if Earl ever documented the whole process. If I get Earl in here, would you be open to discussing the technique with him?

For now, my understanding of it is the following:

1. No reason to care about frequencies below say, 50 Hz since there is likely a single mode there and increasing the number of subs makes no difference.

2. The focus then is on 50 to 150 Hz. To the extent that the more sub the merrier, he recommends letting the mains also contribute to that region and their response should not be filtered out at low frequencies.

3. Recommends a big sub to fill in the frequencies below 50 Hz.

4. Subs are essentially randomly placed but with some recommendations. The latter is based on averaged response over time. This is the hazy part but I believe his motivation is to make it easier for average person to perform such measurements.

5. He used to not worry about EQ but now he does. I assume this is used to tame the resonances below 50 Hz and elsewhere.

Net of his idea is to approximate the recommendations you all have made but without the absolute requirement of EQ, and precise placement of subs. As much as it is positioned as a different method to yours, I believe it is actually an approximation of the same designed to make it easier to do and less expensive to implement although as he moves to ward use of EQ and such, I am not sure how big the gap is.

Frantz, since you have implemented his scheme, do you have something to add to this? I understand the write up of the original fellow who tried to document the process no longer applies.
 

twelti

WBF Technical Expert (Subwoofers In Rooms)
Apr 29, 2011
38
0
0
I'm open to any discussions. As I said though, I think a re-statement by Earl of exactly what his method is, and rational, would be needed. I don't at present have time to go through a long (!) thread that in any case may be out of date. Sound fair? Of course that assumed Earl is willing.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
37
0
Seattle, WA
Oh, for sure I didn't expect you to go and read the thread. And hence not providing the link :). I have PM into Earl. Will let you know if I hear back and if he is willing.

For now, a question. How would SFM and DBA work together? Better than the standard placement of subs in your paper?
 

FrantzM

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
6,455
29
405
Hi

To my way of understanding what Markus Mehlau wrote in his site still applies. Geddes always maintained that multiple LF source placed pseudo randomly would provide a smoother response in different locations in a given room. Pseudo because from what I gleamed one woofer was to be placed at a corner behind the mains, the second midway between the listening position and the mains on a side wall and the third on the opposite side wall off the floor if possible closer to the main listening position than the second sub. He wasn't against EQ IMO: he stated that EQ was to be performed to further smooth out the response. In my implementation I only measured at the listening position which was what I was after, I became aware of the slow circular movement of the microphone measuring method, much later after I already had implemented it ... I didn't measure that way. It was IMO a crude way to average. I suppose the REW software averaging feature could be used to perform the averaging without resorting to moving the microphone.
I really would like Earl Geddes to chime in as this would make it, a very interesting discussion. Subjectively (listening) and objectively (measurements) this was the best bass I heard from any system. I used 3 subs and left the main running full range the mains the maggies were capable buy themsleves 25 HZ in the room extension ...
 

twelti

WBF Technical Expert (Subwoofers In Rooms)
Apr 29, 2011
38
0
0
For now, a question. How would SFM and DBA work together? Better than the standard placement of subs in your paper?

Interesting question. In rectangular rooms, you culd set up the DBA and then use it as a startiing solutin for SFM. It might be the case that SFM would find a better solution, particularly if the room was acoustically non rectangular. In a non-rectangular room, DBA doesn't really apply.
 

twelti

WBF Technical Expert (Subwoofers In Rooms)
Apr 29, 2011
38
0
0
If you only have one seat, the comparison is moot. SFM is really oriented towards multiple seats, and getting the seats consistant with each other. It would be possible, by changing a line or two of code to have SFM look for flat response at one seat, but that isn't really the intent.
 

Randy Bessinger

New Member
Jun 29, 2010
128
0
0
Hi, well, I was involved in both product's development and did some comparisons, and both approaches seem to work well. The BassQ is a do it yourself, push one button and let 'er rip box. It uses FIR filters and a matrix inversion approach with some enhancements. It will attempt to make the responses at each seat similar and flat (then you can add you own global eq to taste). Synthesis allows for some human intervention, which can be a good thing. It tries to get the seats resposnes similar to each other but allows the installer to have more contol over the global eq. With the SFM algorithm itself, you can do horsetrading. That is you can say I'm willing to trade off a bit of seat to seat consistancy to get some more bass output. I've always liked this aspect.
Cool thanks Todd.
 

Mark Seaton

WBF Technical Expert (Speaker & Acoustics)
May 21, 2010
381
141
390
47
Chicago, IL
www.seatonsound.net
Hi, well, I was involved in both product's development and did some comparisons, and both approaches seem to work well. The BassQ is a do it yourself, push one button and let 'er rip box. It uses FIR filters and a matrix inversion approach with some enhancements. It will attempt to make the responses at each seat similar and flat (then you can add you own global eq to taste). Synthesis allows for some human intervention, which can be a good thing. It tries to get the seats resposnes similar to each other but allows the installer to have more contol over the global eq. With the SFM algorithm itself, you can do horsetrading. That is you can say I'm willing to trade off a bit of seat to seat consistancy to get some more bass output. I've always liked this aspect.

Thank you for highlighting the differences between these two.

The BassQ looks to be quite interesting as a point-n-shoot solution for multiple subwoofers. The biggest limitation I generally see with most automated systems is the lack of any way for a user to tell if the chosen location is in any way desirable or not. Does the Synthesis system integrate with some form of measurement system that the installer can view and use to adjust the targets, or is it choices in target responses?

One reason I suspect some are attracted to the DBA (pitch-catch) approach is that the concept makes it clear as to what *should* be the locations for the subwoofers. Of course throw in significantly different wall constructions and that could easily not hold true. The next hurdle I see for all of the automated systems is helping the user determine if they should try moving 1 or more of the subwoofers to another location. Have you considered such options for future efforts?
 

twelti

WBF Technical Expert (Subwoofers In Rooms)
Apr 29, 2011
38
0
0
Thank you for highlighting the differences between these two.

One reason I suspect some are attracted to the DBA (pitch-catch) approach is that the concept makes it clear as to what *should* be the locations for the subwoofers. Of course throw in significantly different wall constructions and that could easily not hold true. The next hurdle I see for all of the automated systems is helping the user determine if they should try moving 1 or more of the subwoofers to another location. Have you considered such options for future efforts?

Well, SFM sort of does that. Sort of, because you measure the alternative locations first, then select the best. The Synthesis system will allow you to see the prospective curves of different alternatives. The other general approach would be to have some sort of criterion, measure a basic set of sob locations, and only then suggest trying new sub locations if the criterion is not yet met. Haven't tried that yet.
 

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