Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Lowest bottom octave.

Expand Messages
  • HM
    Hi Barnet I put some foam into the reflex ports of my woofers after I autitioned Livingston Taylors Grandmas Hands (Chesky). The foot stomping on the wooden
    Message 1 of 51 , Nov 26, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Barnet
      I put some foam into the reflex ports of my woofers after I autitioned Livingston Taylors "Grandmas Hands" (Chesky). The foot stomping on the wooden stage is a wideband noise reching down 14 Hz and this can cause some dominant boom. Can the stomping be located back left side? Is it covered by the DSP working range?
      The stomping is the lowest frequency in my recordings that is naturally atteched and should not be removed. It is a challenge to the system.
      BR HM

      >
      > While I'm glad that Stereophile had a less-than-full-range-but-otherwise-Class-A category, my M-40s are supplemented by a subwoofer that extends the low end of the system flat to 25 Hz. The subwoofer is blended with the M40 woofers using empirically-determined DSP settings. I doubt that a critical listener would detect any subwoofer-induced artifacts, but it's always possible that someone else might hear what I can't.
      >
      > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Tom Mallin <tmallin4@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Any roll off of low bass tends to limit the perceived accuracy of the bass
      > > that the speaker system DOES reproduce at or near the midrange reference
      > > level because the roll off phase shifts the bass above the roll off
      > > frequency. The KEF experiments show that extending low bass right on down
      > > to near DC improves bass quality in both electronics and speakers as long
      > > as the speakers can handle such reproduction.
      > >
      > > And therein lies the rub. There are disadvantages of so extending the
      > > bass, which others have mentioned or hinted at, such as: wasted amp power;
      > > over-excursion of drivers with resultant bass distortion of the actual bass
      > > present in the music range; usually very high cost; and large size for any
      > > system which can reproduce low bass at adequate levels. Getting around
      > > these problems is why may listeners use separately powered subwoofers to
      > > accomplish the task.
      > >
      > > Perhaps it is different in rooms such as REG's which seem to naturally
      > > support low bass in such a way as to allow the M40s to reproduce the bottom
      > > octave at full level. That just doesn't happen in my room. The M40/40.1
      > > bass output drops like a stone below 60 Hz in my room. When I add stereo
      > > subs to the M40/40.1s, the additional bass depth is clearly audible on most
      > > material as both additional bass punch and shudder and expansion of the
      > > apparent size of the recording venue.
      > >
      > > Yes, it is tricky to blend subs with main speakers in such a way as to not
      > > muddy the bass range. My TacT does that task as well as anything else I've
      > > heard and better than most. There is a small amount of deterioration in
      > > the inherent quality of the M40/40.1 bass range when subs are added via the
      > > TacT's electronic digital crossover and time alignment, but overall the
      > > addition of stereo subs is five to ten steps forward (depending on
      > > material) and only one step back.
      > >
      > > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 8:52 AM, barnet.feingold <
      > > barnet.feingold@> wrote:
      > >
      > > > **
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > To be fair to Stereophile, speakers that reproduce low bass have generally
      > > > been much larger and more expensive than speakers with more limited low
      > > > frequency capabilities. I was among those to whom accuracy in the rest of
      > > > the spectrum (where most of the music happens) was important and who didn't
      > > > have the funds or space for a full-range system. I knew what I was
      > > > (reluctantly) missing, but was grateful to Stereophile for their
      > > > willingness to accommodate me, and those like me for whom accurate,
      > > > full-range systems were out of reach.
      > > >
      > > > Barney
      > > >
      > > >
      > > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "k3ox" <kolson@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > So far, my pulse is fine despite my 60+ years on this planet. But it's
      > > > true, when I was young, I dreamt of someday having a system that would
      > > > plumb the lowest of low bass. Fortunately, puberty arrived and I outgrew
      > > > that (LOL).
      > > > >
      > > > > If you have a system like say, the Harbeth Monitor 40, that will get to
      > > > a good honest 40hz, that's (IMNSHO) the vast majority of the necessary
      > > > range for most normal music. Of course, if you have good ol' JBL L50s
      > > > miracle speakers, all bets are off...
      > > > >
      > > > > Seriously, yes, there are some benefits to having the lowest bottom
      > > > octave in terms of hearing the "room sound" of the hall. But considering
      > > > the rest of the concert hall sound that the recordings and (most) playback
      > > > systems miss, I think that's a minor thing.
      > > > >
      > > > > When Stereophile divided their "Class A" speakers in their Recomended
      > > > Components list (itself a dubious premise in my view) into "Full Range" and
      > > > "Restricted Extreme LF", some reader pointed out why not Class A "Unable to
      > > > reproduce proper tonality" or "Too bright HF extension" etc. It seems there
      > > > are so many other far more interesting issues in home audio reproduction,
      > > > the lowest octave is the last of our problems.
      > > > >
      > > > > Kevin
      > > > >
      > > > > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, Fred <glenndriech@> wrote:
      > > > > >
      > > > > > I can agree that the lowest bottom octave is not needed...if you lack
      > > > a pulse!
      > > > > > :-)
      > > > > > Fred.
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > >________________________________
      > > > > > > From: k3ox <kolson@>
      > > > > > >To: regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com
      > > > > > >Sent: Saturday, 24 November 2012, 15:36
      > > > > > >Subject: [regsaudioforum] Re: Lowest bottom octave.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >Â
      > > > > > >Yes.
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >--- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "mm" <yipmangmeng@> wrote:
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >> Does anyone in the group think that the lowest bottom octave is not
      > > > needed for truthful reproduction of large symphonic music?
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >> Yip
      > > > > > >>
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Russell Dawkins
      1. I think the frequency of 2.3 and 2.7 Hz said to be underlying the signal on the Waterlily Mahler 5th suggests microphone stand oscillation which might well
      Message 51 of 51 , Nov 28, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        1. I think the frequency of 2.3 and 2.7 Hz said to be underlying the signal on the Waterlily Mahler 5th suggests microphone stand oscillation which might well be in that range. Even though a figure-of-eight ribbon microphone starts to roll off typically from around 50Hz it will still have some output at 3 Hz, especially as a reaction to what must be equivalent to a massive signal (the ambient air moving back and forth to the tune of, say, 1/4 to 1/2 inch.

        2. I am satisfied if I have flat (if slightly down-tilted) reproduction from 20Hz to 20kHz but, given the choice, would opt for 5Hz - 80 kHz. This would satisfy my current feeling that it is prudent to exceed apparent needs as regards both dynamic capability and bandwidth by some orders of magnitude, when feasible. A reasonable spec, to me, would be 110 clean dB available at the listening position and 5Hz to 80 kHz bandwidth, in accordance with the 1940's thinking at Bell Labs which was that the product of the upper and lower bandwidth limits should be 400,000.
        Apparently this is why the old telephones sounded so natural with their severely limited bandwidths: 200 - 2,000Hz.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.