Where have you positioned your subs? I have found for max clarity that they need to be next too and slightly ahead of the main speakers for timing reasons...sticking them into a corner or far away from the main speakers may get a smoother frequency response but it will ruin the timing and this will also impact clarity.
Today a special listening
- Thread starter gian60
- Start date
Where have you positioned your subs? I have found for max clarity that they need to be next too and slightly ahead of the main speakers for timing reasons...sticking them into a corner or far away from the main speakers may get a smoother frequency response but it will ruin the timing and this will also impact clarity.
Of course, Brad. You must have missed where I said that I consider a sub essential.
First, you are talking about horn speakers, I had more in mind a comparison of monitor/sub combos with regular floor standers. Second, it depends on the room. As I conceded already in my 'opening statement' (post #83), in a really large room monitors probably won't cut it.
The first attempt was with two JL Audio F110s. They were placed outside and slightly behind the main speakers. They were rotated a full 360 degrees in small increments and each time Jim Smith and I played around with phase, volume and crossover settings. We finally got it to sound pretty good, but as I said, there were slight trade offs, and we both agreed that the sound was better without them. We spent hours trying to get it right.
The second attempt was with Al M's very own REL subwoffer with his sub stand platform. We tried it between the speakers in various locations and then off to the side firing into the middle of the room. Again we played around with various settings.
I discussed this issue with Magico, and Mr. Wolf, and a rep at the company both told me independently that they do not suggest integrating their two way speakers with subs. I realize that is only one opinion, and as I mentioned earlier, it may come down to personal preferences and making choices between trade-offs.
This is not entirely true. I do not always hear sub integration in your system. Only sometimes, depending on the music and recordings. You are very willing to adjust the level for me, and I appreciate it. I think you also adjust the level for others depending on the music. We may disagree about whether or not that reflects an integration issue. Our drummer friend also commented on the Green Day recording and I think you said he was not that impressed. I was impressed by the sheer thrill ride and overwhelming bass energy, but as far as accuracy or integration, who could know? It was so loud, but boy it was fun.
I also suggested to Ian that on some material the sub level in his system should be changed or turned off. We compared it both ways, and he seemed to agree on the differences and trade offs as I recall. When there is excellent integration, like many have expressed on this thread, there are few or no trade offs and subs help a lot. I agree with that because I have heard it a few times. It is rare, and a very real challenge to get right. When it is, the sound is elevated to a higher level for sure.
Although I generically agree with you, I would prefer to have a technical definition of "overload" in this case.
And provided the room is at less 400 square feet large I usually prefer large speakers - as Duke Lejeune (Audio Kinesis) once wrote "I use the analogy of a grand piano: Sure it will be at its best in a good recital hall, but it will still sound better in your living room than an upright will. "
Peter, you are right on when it comes to blending a sub with main speakers...regarding typically smaller box style speakers, but even with panels.
Right now, I am in the midst of dialing in a pair of REL subs with my mains....this is really no easy task! I believe the task is even more difficult than dialing in just one sub and the resulting timing issues are truly a challenge. While the overall sound is somewhat more defined in the bass, the timing factor is always present. Like Morricab correctly stated, placing the subs slightly in front of the mains has its benefits...unfortunately I cannot do this in my room. So, what is left is a little bit of a compromise...one sub is in the corner and another off to the side. Not ideal, but the bottom end impact is certainly, at least with my particular speakers, worth while. With a speaker that already has some reasonable ability to get down to about 40hz cleanly, like your Magico’s, the trade off may not be worth it. (As you found out). OTOH, I would be tempted again to try one smaller single subwoofer with the Mini’s and see if that could be made to work with no issues. You probably won’t get a lot in extension...maybe 5hz or slightly more, but this may increase the overall power envelope of the system....if nothing else, something to think about for the future.
Indeed, we do.
No, our drummer friend (also an audiophile) liked Green Day very much as well, and Ian only didn't like it last time, but did like it before on my system.
IMO, when it comes to matching a speaker to a room...it really is horses for courses. Too big a speaker and you are asking for trouble. While I think it is always the large speaker that most a’philes are attracted to, this speaker may very well be the worst solution if the room is inappropriate for the speaker. OTOH, too small a speaker and the overall ability to fill the large room with enveloping sound will be diminished, but personally I would much rather have too small a speaker in a large room than too big a speaker in a small room. IMHO.
Imo audiophiles invariably end up with a larger than required speaker. So I agree with you. For a full sized cone, I world want 5 to 7 feet behind, sufficient width, plus good acoustics like Marty or Mike. Speakers should be much smaller than they are for respective rooms
+1
For a larger speaker, I'd also like a larger room than I have (24 x 12 x 8.5 feet). And tons of money to spend on it, money that I don't have.
Adding a sub is really making the speaker big...you have simply detached the woofers to potentially make placement a bit easier.
Yes, horns load the room differently and while they don't usually go as deep they have a mid bass authority that is really heard live and not with most box speakers. All that air motion from a large mouthed horn I guess.
I have done the sub/sat and monitor/sub combos a number of times and while it can work well in small rooms there still seems to be no substitute for air motion to get scale. It does avoid a lot of coloration and timing/phase issues I hear with large mulit-way speakers though...
I liked what my Ref 3as did in a small room but the Odeons are in the same small room and work even better. A three-way horn though would need a significantly larger room. Small Odeon Orfeos with powered subs also worked pretty good but pale against the La Bohemes. The smaller Rigolettos would be great if they were more open and transparent in the upper range because they do bass and scale great...amazing for their size...again a large air movement thing I think.
I have not personally had a large cone/box speaker (the largest being a Genesis III and Genesis VI...ok Gen VI did have 3 x 8 inch powered subs built-in so it sounded really big) but I have had positively huge planars and hybrids (Infinity IRS Beta, Acoustats of various sizes but all big) and those can work very well in a modest (20 m2 ) room.
(emphases added)
After re-reading your posts, Peter, I was struck again by your calls for clarity, and that often you find it impaired with subwoofer. I do agree that your room is a special case where a sub may simply not work. Yet in general I don't think you look at the issue the correct way. The question is not how 'clear' it sounds, but rather, how real it sounds (we have had this discussion before).
For example, you have raved about being able to precisely hear the plucking of the double bass on some recordings. Yet this can also be due to the lack of deep bass which turns the attention to what happens at higher frequencies -- an artifact. When I hear double bass live, more often than not I can not hear the plucking of the instrument clearly, precisely because the full-range envelope of timbre, which involves deep bass, does not allow you to hear that.
Knowing this, I do not start from the angle of greatest clarity. Rather, I dial in the sub for greatest realism, at least as I perceive it. It must not be audible as such (as a disjointed intrusion that is), and if in doubt I often dial it down one notch (and yes, I will concede I make mistakes here and there). However, once that is achieved, I take the clarity as what it is. That mostly also conforms more with my memories of live sound.
Another example to illustrate the point: in a concert hall with a lighter tonal balance some aspects of the music are more easily perceivable, it is more detailed as it were. Yet if the same music is played in a hall with a fuller acoustic and some of those details are less apparent, less 'clear', does that make it less real? Of course not, it is real music in a real space.
The hunt for 'clarity' is not the same as the hunt for realism. When the two go hand in hand, great; if there is a clash, I choose realism.
Of course, if the subwoofer obviously intrudes with its presence that is not how it should be. But if you tend to stop with dialing in of the sub at the slightest loss of 'clarity', and find the sound impaired because of that, even though it may be more real, it is obvious that you will constantly find 'trade-offs' and issues with sub 'integration' -- even when there are none.
In my own experience of sub/no sub, big speaker/small speaker, I agree with Al M. To the extent that we are both perhaps saying that in our own systems with and without subs, we find that the actual detail of uppers/mids may actually be the same.
I am NOT saying all sub-enhanced systems actually do this...but in my 2-3 systems over the years, i consistently found that the treble/mids were the same...BUT the balance of the system skewed my ear to focus lower down in the range more...which made it subjectively seem at first that the upper/mids were compromised...when in fact, there was a fundamental directly underneath them that was creating a solid foundation. I did a note by note comparison over time and discovered that in fact, the treble/mid detail IS actually there in both designs...but my ear was drawn to listen further down the spectrum with a sub...with mids being less the brain's focus, it might have seemed less detailed, but in fact...it was same or better.
I am NOT saying all sub-enhanced systems actually do this...but in my 2-3 systems over the years, i consistently found that the treble/mids were the same...BUT the balance of the system skewed my ear to focus lower down in the range more...which made it subjectively seem at first that the upper/mids were compromised...when in fact, there was a fundamental directly underneath them that was creating a solid foundation. I did a note by note comparison over time and discovered that in fact, the treble/mid detail IS actually there in both designs...but my ear was drawn to listen further down the spectrum with a sub...with mids being less the brain's focus, it might have seemed less detailed, but in fact...it was same or better.
Clarity vs realism is often relevant to live music as well. At Geffen Hall in Lincoln Center, you'll get realism since by definition, what you hear is real, but it's rarely clear. Horrible comb filter effects from the hall render the midrange and top end somewhat muddy and ragged from most seats. If you want realism and clarity, go to Carnegie Hall.
Last edited:
I think we don't look at this issue in the same way. I don't know if one is more correct than the other. There are a lot of issues involved in this discussion, and this thread may not be the proper place to address them, but I will attempt to clarify my views.
It is not obvious to me that there is a distinction between clarity and realism. I think they are similar and closely related. If one hears less distinct sting plucking because he is too far away or the hall is absorbing some of those details, that just means that the real sound is less clear in that hall, or you are too far away to hear the details. Some recordings are very close mic'd and we don't often hear that either. I presume by "realism" you refer to the sound of real instruments. That obviously varies depending on many factors. So we are really talking about a range of actual sounds and when we are recalling that as a reference, we are talking about our memories of a range of sounds that we have heard over a period of time. The one overwhelming characteristic when I listen to orchestral sound at the BSO is "clarity". Regardless of where I sit, though it is usually up close in the center, what strikes me is the extreme clarity of each of the instruments. This is the same when I listen to a small ensemble in a living room or up on a small stage. Clarity, then energy. In my view, if the information is on the recording, then a system must convey these things for it to sound real, or close to real.
I am also conflicted about my goals. I do not know if I want my system to remind me of the sound of real instruments more than I want my system to try to more closely reproduce what has been captured on the recording. Regardless of the goal, I certainly do not want a system that inherently reduces clarity so that it sounds a bit more like some instrument that is in a warm, "fuller acoustic" so that "some of those details are less apparent, less 'clear'...." because I have heard a soft sounding cello once in a bad hall somewhere. If that acoustic is on the recording, I want to hear it. And clarity in a system is what will allow me to hear it from the recording.
I want my system to be clean, clear, transparent and neutral but I do not want it to impart a sterility or thinness, or sameness to every recording. This I think is the best way to reproduce the sounds captured on the recording. A really good full range speaker system in a great system can do that. So can a good two-way system, except that it is limited in frequency range which may rob it of some fullness, scale and weight. I have heard well integrated sub woofer systems which do not rob a system of clarity. But I have also heard subs that do, and I don't really know if it is because of integration issues, the alteration of tonal balance, or overall coherence. I just don't know how to better describe it, but I do know that my preference is for a cleaner sound than it is for one that is augmented by low frequencies if they sound unnatural or mask over details. Final resolution is the arbiter or me.
Perhaps it is the timing which people mention between disparate drivers. Perhaps it is tonal balance. Perhaps it is the obscuring of details or masking of some sort. I agree with you that not all live sound is super clear and detailed. The sound of a piano through a neighbor's window is one classic example. That is not about clarity, but we know it is real. It might have to do with dynamics and tone. Its sound still convinces us that it is real.
In my view, if one compares a system with and without a sub turned on, if the sub robs the system of clarity, something is wrong. I prefer the more clear sound. Others may prefer something else that the subs bring to the sound. Subs do not have to rob the system of clarity. Often, if well integrated, they both maintain system clarity and improve extension, fullness, weight and other nice things which make the system sound even more real. And in some cases, adding a sub will free up the lower drivers in a speaker and overall clarity will actually improve. But if turning on the sub decreases clarity, my preference is to turn it off.
I think we can agree that we both choose realism. I just think that we sometimes have a different notion of what realism sounds like. And that is fine, my friend.
Peter, IME it can take weeks to fully and accurately integrate 1 sub, 2 subs longer. Measuring and listening are required over and over to do it right. A day or two simply won't cut it.
Also, if mid - high clarity is lost when integrating the sub, it's not done correctly. Worse case depending on the room you may not be able to increase the sub level very much to avoid bloat / boom but you should still gain some low end extension and sound stage width / presence.
Yes, and sometimes it is not just that our ear at first seems to miss mid- or high-frequency detail because it focuses more on the lower frequencies, but when the overall frequency envelope changes, some aspects of sound are perceived differently, due to how the ear/brain interface works.
One example that I mentioned before was plucking of double bass. When low bass content is reduced, either by low frequency cut-off in a system or by acoustics in a live situation, you may hear the actual plucking sound on the strings more, and/or the vibration of the strings, once plucked.
Another example is the altered overall perception of lower frequencies in the music once general treble energy is increased. Once I played with the carpet around my listening area, while listening to rock. When I removed it, I heard more treble but there seemed much less mid-bass! When I put the carpet back, voila, more mid-bass again. Of course, the carpet itself does nothing to change mid-bass (it only absorbs treble frequencies), but I perceived relatively less mid-bass when there was more treble. It's not just me: someone else also constantly reported on trade-offs between treble energy and perceived mid-bass strength upon experiments with his system. Again, it's not that necessarily the bass actually changed, but apparently the perception of bass by the ear/brain interface changes in the context of more or less treble energy, i.e. as the overall frequency spectrum of the music changes.
Last edited:
I agree that it can take a long time. I spent over a month working on the problem before Jim Smith arrived. Jim and Al both know more about sub integration than I do, so I let them try to dial in the respective subs. One of the best integrated subs I heard was at a dealer and the guys from Magico did it in a day or two. So I think it depends on the difficulty of the particular conditions and on the level of experience the installer has. I don't know much about it.
Similar threads
Members online
- hopkins
- mtemur
- rad
- thedudeabides
- jazzdude99
- Armsan
- Hessec
- takacs75
- exupgh12
- dbeau
- Golum
- Lobster
- Holmz
- rocco1113
- TLi
- ClarisysAudio
- Elliot G.
- Bobofei86
- carrera
- delphi17
- John T
- PaulB
- Erikl
- kabrio69
- owen lawlor
- Norman Tracy
- RCanelas
- Kingrex
- nirodha
- andromedaaudio
- RdW
- vo.falcon
- gionaz
- MusicFellow
- DennisH
- Achilles
- Ricco275
- bonzo75
- austinpop
- kswanson27
- miniguy
- superelmar
- onur
- tubes59
- willgall
- Rensselaer
- patleguen77170
- DW101
- Ron Resnick
- tennisod
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Co-Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |