Ron’s New System

[cjfrbw]

Isn’t ‘precision’ bass a bogey, or an artificial rendering of audiophile tastes and obsessions? Do fake or contrived precisions result in good listening results?

Listening spaces create beats that blend and disperse, cancel and reinforce, prominently in the lower frequencies. The primary notes will be modulated in 3D space by the beats. Stereo squishes any beats into the mains as a form of artificial sounding reverberant noise, or it creates ‘absolute’ bass as if it is devoid of an environment. Both tend to create forms of artificiality.

Bass in any given room will be a product of herbs and spices and to taste. Classical music lovers tend to like dry, tight bass that will give the tutti whomp while not obscuring the primaries or the imaging of the instruments. Rockers might prefer messy gut thumping bass.

So, a particular audiophile labors to ‘time align’ a perfect bass only to have the room demodulate it again with beats, or it stacks the 2D squished beats of the recording onto the beats of the room? Or, it’s impossible for the standard stereo pair to reproduce the bass environment of particular recordings because the venue is hammered into the stereo pair?

What exactly is the goal? A lab rendition of the mastering studio presentation? I can’t see that time alignment or any other audiophile conceit will not generate a mixed result. Bass in a large listening space will travel, backsplash, demodulate and blend.

So, bass for a given listening room will have to be adjusted to taste at the listening position, and aligned with the listening room, but it will never be ‘perfect’. ‘Imperfection’ itself might sound more ‘natural’. Does a perfect ‘tuning fork’ bass room sound good because it produces perfect tones without backsplashes or modulations? Dunno about that.

Musicians can be canny about ‘capturing the space’ when they perform, but that space will generally be flawed through two channel stereo and bass is no exception.

 

[PeterA]

Isn’t ‘precision’ bass a bogey, or an artificial rendering of audiophile tastes and obsessions? Do fake or contrived precisions result in good listening results?

Listening spaces create beats that blend and disperse, cancel and reinforce, prominently in the lower frequencies. The primary notes will be modulated in 3D space by the beats. Stereo squishes any beats into the mains as a form of artificial sounding reverberant noise, or it creates ‘absolute’ bass as if it is devoid of an environment. Both tend to create forms of artificiality.

Bass in any given room will be a product of herbs and spices and to taste. Classical music lovers tend to like dry, tight bass that will give the tutti whomp while not obscuring the primaries or the imaging of the instruments. Rockers might prefer messy gut thumping bass.

So, a particular audiophile labors to ‘time align’ a perfect bass only to have the room demodulate it again with beats, or it stacks the 2D squished beats of the recording onto the beats of the room? Or, it’s impossible for the standard stereo pair to reproduce the bass environment of particular recordings because the venue is hammered into the stereo pair?

What exactly is the goal? A lab rendition of the mastering studio presentation? I can’t see that time alignment or any other audiophile conceit will not generate a mixed result. Bass in a large listening space will travel, backsplash, demodulate and blend.

So, bass for a given listening room will have to be adjusted to taste at the listening position, and aligned with the listening room, but it will never be ‘perfect’. ‘Imperfection’ itself might sound more ‘natural’. Does a perfect ‘tuning fork’ bass room sound good because it produces perfect tones without backsplashes or modulations? Dunno about that.

Musicians can be canny about ‘capturing the space’ when they perform, but that space will generally be flawed through two channel stereo and bass is no exception.

This is a very interesting and refreshing post. Your questions are good and worth thinking about. I have found over my evolution in the hobby, that the quality of bass matters a lot to my overall enjoyment of the music in my collection.

Your post deserves its own new thread.

 

[Holmz]

Phil

Asking any single transducer to reproduce “what the microphone hears” is a tall order. When you divide the frequency range up into multiple drivers, with the lowest frequencies driven by a separate speaker (possible made by a different manufacturer) is even more difficult especially if they are in a different location from the mains. As has been discussed previously, if you are placing subs behind the mains, not using dsp to match the arrival time to the listener (by retarding the mains) leaves limited options. Without dsp, a good place to start is to aim for locating the sub so the voice coils of the drivers are in the same plane. Moving the sub front or back a bit can be helpful and for a variety of reasons, as you said, it might be that the best alignment of the subs might actually be to locate them a bit in front of the mains. (The problem with that is that it looks ridiculous and most audiophiles would never accept it.) But if you start off with the subs in, or reasonably close to the same plane as the low frequency diver of the mains, and with perhaps minimal use the phase control on the sub (if there is one), one might achieve an alignment that sounds good with minimal arrival time differences between the subs and mains. To reiterate, the best way to gain arrival time equivalence is to use dsp. Like many others, I’ve gone down that path for years as discussed elsewhere

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/dsp-one-persons-experience.520/

but ultimately abandoned it because, similar to your observations, there were trade-offs in the mids and highs I was not willing to accept, so back to analog I went.

Marty

If the group delay of the subs is high, then would they need to be in front of the main drivers?

 

[pjwd]

Isn’t ‘precision’ bass a bogey, or an artificial rendering of audiophile tastes and obsessions? Do fake or contrived precisions result in good listening results?

Listening spaces create beats that blend and disperse, cancel and reinforce, prominently in the lower frequencies. The primary notes will be modulated in 3D space by the beats. Stereo squishes any beats into the mains as a form of artificial sounding reverberant noise, or it creates ‘absolute’ bass as if it is devoid of an environment. Both tend to create forms of artificiality.

Bass in any given room will be a product of herbs and spices and to taste. Classical music lovers tend to like dry, tight bass that will give the tutti whomp while not obscuring the primaries or the imaging of the instruments. Rockers might prefer messy gut thumping bass.

So, a particular audiophile labors to ‘time align’ a perfect bass only to have the room demodulate it again with beats, or it stacks the 2D squished beats of the recording onto the beats of the room? Or, it’s impossible for the standard stereo pair to reproduce the bass environment of particular recordings because the venue is hammered into the stereo pair?

What exactly is the goal? A lab rendition of the mastering studio presentation? I can’t see that time alignment or any other audiophile conceit will not generate a mixed result. Bass in a large listening space will travel, backsplash, demodulate and blend.

So, bass for a given listening room will have to be adjusted to taste at the listening position, and aligned with the listening room, but it will never be ‘perfect’. ‘Imperfection’ itself might sound more ‘natural’. Does a perfect ‘tuning fork’ bass room sound good because it produces perfect tones without backsplashes or modulations? Dunno about that.

Musicians can be canny about ‘capturing the space’ when they perform, but that space will generally be flawed through two channel stereo and bass is no exception.

Thats a slightly depressing post !
If you have a well designed acoustic space, linear phase time aligned speakers and speakers and listner located in the optimum position you can get closer to the recorded sound.
Precision bass is a thing of beauty.

Of course folks achieve great sound by many other approaches ... each to their own ... however we now have relatively inexpensive equipment to do the above and I believe it will become more common.

 

[pjwd]

U

Phil

Asking any single transducer to reproduce “what the microphone hears” is a tall order. When you divide the frequency range up into multiple drivers, with the lowest frequencies driven by a separate speaker (possible made by a different manufacturer) is even more difficult especially if they are in a different location from the mains. As has been discussed previously, if you are placing subs behind the mains, not using dsp to match the arrival time to the listener (by retarding the mains) leaves limited options. Without dsp, a good place to start is to aim for locating the sub so the voice coils of the drivers are in the same plane. Moving the sub front or back a bit can be helpful and for a variety of reasons, as you said, it might be that the best alignment of the subs might actually be to locate them a bit in front of the mains. (The problem with that is that it looks ridiculous and most audiophiles would never accept it.) But if you start off with the subs in, or reasonably close to the same plane as the low frequency diver of the mains, and with perhaps minimal use the phase control on the sub (if there is one), one might achieve an alignment that sounds good with minimal arrival time differences between the subs and mains. To reiterate, the best way to gain arrival time equivalence is to use dsp. Like many others, I’ve gone down that path for years as discussed elsewhere

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/dsp-one-persons-experience.520/

but ultimately abandoned it because, similar to your observations, there were trade-offs in the mids and highs I was not willing to accept, so back to analog I went.

Marty

Ha 2010 I was messing around with deqx a bit before that ... kind of sobering that we have been plugging away at it for 20 years or so !
I have been using acourate with multi channel dac and amps in the last year or so and have been getting great results ... taking crossover components out of the chain just seems to allow more information to be presented and having each channel perfectly matched improves the soundstage ... as you would expect.
Very small adjustments in target curve can tune the mids to your liking .. tweeter is left alone apart from high pass filter
The main problem is infinite adjustability ... constraints are a handy.time saver
Maybe its time to go round again

Phil

 

[Al M.]

Bass in any given room will be a product of herbs and spices and to taste. Classical music lovers tend to like dry, tight bass that will give the tutti whomp while not obscuring the primaries or the imaging of the instruments. Rockers might prefer messy gut thumping bass.

No, great rhythm & timing is paramount in rock. "Messy" bass is anathema to that.

I am not sure what "dry, tight" bass in classical music is supposed to mean. Bass in the concert hall, from a good seat, is precise. Yet there is a saturation in the sound that does not allow for an impression of tight and dry, in my view.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Isn’t ‘precision’ bass a bogey, or an artificial rendering of audiophile tastes and obsessions? Do fake or contrived precisions result in good listening results?

the goal for me is not any particular flavor of bass in and of itself. it's realism. that i'm getting the feeling from the music that it's really happening. i'm captured. i want to hear what is in the music, in the recording, the feeling and pulse, not something warmed over, or stretched lean, to make it more palatable or logical or fit into a construct.

if the music is messy bass, fine. but sometimes bass heard 'live' is a mess that is really a mess and covers the musical truth. a proper recording can sometimes be much better, more clarity and musical flow, and the music better communicated. i don't want something live and wrong. i want the recording and reproduction to serve the musical intension. sometimes it works out like that......the advantage of the whole recording process.

so in my system i want "sneaky" bass. it does not impose itself over the music, or take things too far and blanket the musical flow, or get too lean and lose it's weight and tone and be something too objective and disconnected. but when it's suppose to be imposing.....then do it.

What exactly is the goal?

complimentary bass, of a piece with the music, with minimal technical limitations.

A lab rendition of the mastering studio presentation? I can’t see that time alignment or any other audiophile conceit will not generate a mixed result.

no rules. many legit roads to musical bass. and success not really about extension or any technical factor. but if a system can be optimal with time alignment then great. but time alignment is not the goal. the goal is sneaky bass that sneaks up on you and perfectly fits the music.

Bass in a large listening space will travel, backsplash, demodulate and blend.

complimentary bass, of a piece with the music, with minimal technical limitations.

So, bass for a given listening room will have to be adjusted to taste at the listening position, and aligned with the listening room, but it will never be ‘perfect’. ‘Imperfection’ itself might sound more ‘natural’. Does a perfect ‘tuning fork’ bass room sound good because it produces perfect tones without backsplashes or modulations? Dunno about that.

perfect bass is perfectly imperfect. it's never going to be exactly what happened. accuracy is down the list of essentials.

we want a version of perfect bass, that fit's into our system's capabilities.

 

[pjwd]

No, great rhythm & timing is paramount in rock. "Messy" bass is anathema to that.

I am not sure what "dry, tight" bass in classical music is supposed to mean. Bass in the concert hall, from a good seat, is precise. Yet there is a saturation in the sound that does not allow for an impression of tight and dry, in my view.

The ideal in concert hall is supposedly an 80ms delay in reflections followed by a reverberent tail and its the length of reverb time that defines the hall .. dry would be say 1.5 seconds and warm would be 2 seconds ( Boston) ... lots of variation in what folks like
Rock sounds great in a dry hall !

 

[tima]

I am not sure what "dry, tight" bass in classical music is supposed to mean. Bass in the concert hall, from a good seat, is precise. Yet there is a saturation in the sound that does not allow for an impression of tight and dry, in my view.

The 'tightness' of classical double-bass depends on how it is played, according to what the score requires. A hand-fingered pizzacato note is tighter (vibrates less) than a bowed note; eighth-notes are shorter duration than whole notes. The instrument has a large body whose interior and sounding board yield a nice woody resonance with decay if the performer does not stop strings or body vibrating with his hand.

we want a version of perfect bass, that fit's into our system's capabilities.

I suggest no meaning to the notion of perfect bass; each performance and performer for a particular hall or room is unique. As you suggest: realism.

 

[microstrip]

(...) I suggest no meaning to the notion of perfect bass; each performance and performer for a particular hall or room is unique. As you suggest: realism.

In stereo sound reproduction - individual realism. Everyone will be happy, particularly the high-end industry.

 

[Atmasphere]

The old adage that bass is not localized is totally fallacious. Anyone who attends classical concerts can easily point with one finger and their eyes closed to the source of an instrument with significant bass radiation such as a tympani, tuba, or single double bass from anywhere they sit.

This is correct. Such concerts occur in spaces much larger than home listening rooms so the bass notes have plenty of time to be sorted out by the ear before the bass notes bounce around and become reverberant.

FWIW I own Neumann U67s and have done plenty of on-location recordings; just pointing out that what the mic hears is in a room quite different from where the signal is played back. I'm sure you understand that Sheffield didn't record in tiny rooms.

That is why I said

This means in most rooms unless quite large

(emphasis added). In typical listening rooms there simply isn't time for the human ear to figure out what note is being played before the bass has bounced around the room several times.

The physics here is incontrovertible as are the rules of human hearing perception. By the time you can tell what bass note is being played, in most rooms everything below about 80Hz will be 100% reverberant.

Now WRT your comment which I quoted, even with multiple subs placed about the room, you can still close your eyes and point to where the bass note originates. This is because most bass notes have harmonics and those harmonics are coming from the same instrument. So they will be localized to the main speakers. That is why I said

It is harmonics of the note from the main speakers that let you know where the sound came from. As long as the subs do not make energy above about 80Hz, they will not attract the ear's attention.

.

I feel very much like I am repeating myself because I am. So put another way, it takes the ear about 0.05 second to know what note is being played and for that to happen the entire waveform must pass by the ear. In that amount of time the leading edge of the note has traveled about 56 feet.

You can see right away what the problem is. Most listening rooms are far to small for the bass to not be 100% reverberant; IOW time aligning below a certain frequency will do nothing to improve things other than satisfy the desire to time align.

 

[microstrip]

(...) The old adage that bass is not localized is totally fallacious. (...)

IMO it depends on what is meant by bass. Pure frequencies bellow 80 Hz can't be localized in our stereo systems. In music these bass frequencies are associated to other frequencies that allow localization.

 

[Atmasphere]

IMO it depends on what is meant by bass. Pure frequencies bellow 80 Hz can't be localized in our stereo systems. In music these bass frequencies are associated to other frequencies that allow localization.

I think you put this better than I did.

 

[marty]

This is correct. Such concerts occur in spaces much larger than home listening rooms so the bass notes have plenty of time to be sorted out by the ear before the bass notes bounce around and become reverberant.

FWIW I own Neumann U67s and have done plenty of on-location recordings; just pointing out that what the mic hears is in a room quite different from where the signal is played back. I'm sure you understand that Sheffield didn't record in tiny rooms.

That is why I said

(emphasis added). In typical listening rooms there simply isn't time for the human ear to figure out what note is being played before the bass has bounced around the room several times.

The physics here is incontrovertible as are the rules of human hearing perception. By the time you can tell what bass note is being played, in most rooms everything below about 80Hz will be 100% reverberant.

Now WRT your comment which I quoted, even with multiple subs placed about the room, you can still close your eyes and point to where the bass note originates. This is because most bass notes have harmonics and those harmonics are coming from the same instrument. So they will be localized to the main speakers. That is why I said .

I feel very much like I am repeating myself because I am. So put another way, it takes the ear about 0.05 second to know what note is being played and for that to happen the entire waveform must pass by the ear. In that amount of time the leading edge of the note has traveled about 56 feet.

You can see right away what the problem is. Most listening rooms are far to small for the bass to not be 100% reverberant; IOW time aligning below a certain frequency will do nothing to improve things other than satisfy the desire to time align.

Ralph, again, agree to disagree but perhaps some of the disparity is descriptive. You are correct is saying that it takes ~50msec to perceive an 80Hz note directly radiated from the stage (actually, this is true for any note as frequency does not affect how fast sound travels in air.). But that is not the basis of the discussion for aligning the time arrival of bass notes from multiple drivers such as subs and mains. Anyone who has played extensively with dsp and impulse alignment can easily discern arrival time differences from 2 drivers well under 50 msec; 25 msec is easy; 10 msec is harder, and 5 msec is extremely tough to discern. My point is that the perceptual differences in arrival of a bass note from 2 drivers that are separated in distance from the listener (such as with swarm subs) are going to possibly be very significant and if so, the resulting image localization of the source may vary considerably. If this doesn't bother some listeners, that's fine. Unfortunately, that doesn't work for me. Transparency to the source as the microphone hears it seems to matter to some more than others. However it's just one of several factors that go into the "listening funnel" with other attributes such as frequency response, timbre, distortion etc. What comes out of that funnel that determines what one perceives as satisfactory, good, or even better sound surely varies from individual to individual.

 

[Atmasphere]

Anyone who has played extensively with dsp and impulse alignment can easily discern arrival time differences from 2 drivers well under 50 msec; 25 msec is easy; 10 msec is harder, and 5 msec is extremely tough to discern

Right here is where your argument falls apart. At higher frequencies what you are saying is correct.

You are ignoring the fact that bass frequency waveforms are very long.

While what you are saying is mostly true, the problem is that bass is bouncing all around your room and by the time 0.05 seconds has passed, the bass is 100% reverberant. This means some of it is perhaps 5ms (directly radiated) and some of it is more than 50ms. All at the same time, coming from seemingly time-aligned woofers in front of you.

This is simply because at bass frequencies the waveforms are pretty long as I've been pointing out. I used 80Hz as that's a good example of the highest frequency that you can use with multiple subs. If your woofers are going higher than that, you will have to time align them.

I've been careful to point out that at about 80Hz, if you allow the sub to make output above that frequency, they will attract attention to themselves. When the subs are operating properly this simply does not happen. It sounds like its all coming from in front of you.

At 1KHz the waveforms are so short they've not had time to bounce before you knew the note was there. Its pretty different.

transparency to the source as the microphone hears it seems to matter to some more than others.

That's true.

I like to use reference LPs (or CDs) I recorded myself. So I was there when the recording was made. One recording I made, done with 2 microphones, has a pretty wide range of sounds, including the biggest bass drum that was available in the state at the time. The score (Canto General) calls for it to be played all the way from ppp to ffff. Using multiple subs it sounds like I expect; very similar to other rooms in which I've heard it that didn't have the advantage of multiple subs but did otherwise have speakers with flat response to 20Hz.

In those latter rooms though the proper bass was often not at the listening position.

In my room with the added subs, if I turn them off there's no bass at the listening position. When I turn the subs on its easy to hear how the bottom octave and a half simply starts working, with no change to soundstage depth or width.

 

[pjwd]

Ra

Right here is where your argument falls apart. At higher frequencies what you are saying is correct.

You are ignoring the fact that bass frequency waveforms are very long.

While what you are saying is mostly true, the problem is that bass is bouncing all around your room and by the time 0.05 seconds has passed, the bass is 100% reverberant. This means some of it is perhaps 5ms (directly radiated) and some of it is more than 50ms. All at the same time, coming from seemingly time-aligned woofers in front of you.

This is simply because at bass frequencies the waveforms are pretty long as I've been pointing out. I used 80Hz as that's a good example of the highest frequency that you can use with multiple subs. If your woofers are going higher than that, you will have to time align them.

I've been careful to point out that at about 80Hz, if you allow the sub to make output above that frequency, they will attract attention to themselves. When the subs are operating properly this simply does not happen. It sounds like its all coming from in front of you.

At 1KHz the waveforms are so short they've not had time to bounce before you knew the note was there. Its pretty different.

That's true.

I like to use reference LPs (or CDs) I recorded myself. So I was there when the recording was made. One recording I made, done with 2 microphones, has a pretty wide range of sounds, including the biggest bass drum that was available in the state at the time. The score (Canto General) calls for it to be played all the way from ppp to ffff. Using multiple subs it sounds like I expect; very similar to other rooms in which I've heard it that didn't have the advantage of multiple subs but did otherwise have speakers with flat response to 20Hz.

In those latter rooms though the proper bass was often not at the listening position.

In my room with the added subs, if I turn them off there's no bass at the listening position. When I turn the subs on its easy to hear how the bottom octave and a half simply starts working, with no change to soundstage depth or width.

Ralph
I dont believe it is as black and white as you describe. My understanding is that you hear (and feel) the pressure waves immediatly and can detect the frequency ... perhaps not precisely.
You do not have to wait untill the full wavelength has been travelled.
Low frequency from earbuds .. how does that work.
Your example from above suggests you have an amazingly broadband null in your seating position ... but to the point ... I agree that non time aligned bass can sound perfect .. untill you hear time aligned bass.
As this is only possible with a multi amped digital crossover I am not certain that the amazing lifelike clarity you hear in the bass is due to Improvements further up the fr range.
It is certainly the case that a linear phase crossover gives a perception of clearer bass than a minimum phase crossover.
Cheers
Phil

 

[Atmasphere]

Ra
Ralph
I dont believe it is as black and white as you describe. My understanding is that you hear (and feel) the pressure waves immediatly and can detect the frequency ... perhaps not precisely.
You do not have to wait untill the full wavelength has been travelled.

The last sentence is false.
You can detect vibration independently of hearing though.

Low frequency from earbuds .. how does that work.

Pretty well except I find them really uncomfortable

Your example from above suggests you have an amazingly broadband null in your seating position ... but to the point ... I agree that non time aligned bass can sound perfect .. untill you hear time aligned bass.

Having done both, the time-aligned bass loses since there's usually some sort of null at the listening position.

Its not that is so broadband, its just that I play bass and like to play recordings with bass, so I am using a bit of hyperbole in my description of 'no bass'.

 

[pjwd]

The last sentence is false.
You can detect vibration independently of hearing though.

Pretty well except I find them really uncomfortable

Having done both, the time-aligned bass loses since there's usually some sort of null at the listening position.

Its not that is so broadband, its just that I play bass and like to play recordings with bass, so I am using a bit of hyperbole in my description of 'no bass'.

You must have unusually long ear canals

 

[Holmz]

You must have unusually long ear canals

That’s subtle.

 

[pjwd]

That’s subtle.

As was that .. but fair enough .. just trying to break through the false barrier