Acoustic reproduction of percussion

Jump to Small Speaker Bass Discussion
Eric Jones Woofer Problem and Possible Solutions

Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: Roman Bednarek <roman@twcny.rr.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 6:32 p.m.

Speakers are known to fall short when it comes to reproducing percussive instruments like drums and pianos. There is a lack of realism and dynamics.

I'm wondering what shortcomings of the drivers and speaker systems in general that contribute to this. I suspect that some has to do with transients and if this is the case, are transient perfect designs more successful at reproducing these types of sounds? What type of driver or speaker would be best in this case?

I just thought that I would start a topic in this direction and see where it goes. Please contribute.

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: �
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 6:40 p.m.

In Response To: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Roman Bednarek)

> There is a lack of
> realism and dynamics.

Because of having only flat on axis response, but poor off axis (power) response.
If you had a live band in your living room, the percussion could be heard in practically every room throughout the rest of your house. We build loudspeakers that beam all the high frequencies straight ahead. If you ever have the chance to listen to a pair of omni directional loudspeakers while outside the "sweet spot" you will notice quite a difference.

Surface area . . .

Posted By: Pete Schumacher � <pete_schumacher@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 6:57 p.m.

In Response To: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Roman Bednarek)

> Speakers are known to fall short when it
> comes to reproducing percussive instruments
> like drums and pianos. There is a lack of
> realism and dynamics.

> I'm wondering what shortcomings of the
> drivers and speaker systems in general that
> contribute to this. I suspect that some has
> to do with transients and if this is the
> case, are transient perfect designs more
> successful at reproducing these types of
> sounds? What type of driver or speaker would
> be best in this case?

> I just thought that I would start a topic in
> this direction and see where it goes. Please
> contribute.

I've found (and I know Rudy Jakubin would concur) that percussion sounds quite visceral as you add more woofers to the mix. Going from a single pair of DA175 to a pair of quad DA175 mini arrays transformed drum sounds from OK to !THERE! in my living room. And depending on the recording, piano can come through to the point of creating that resonant feel that only close proximity to a piano can produce. I know that my other 7" two ways, TM or MTM, just don't quite keep up. It's really in that bass/mid-bass area that the arrays excel and add a certain realism to percussion, especially drums.

But I do understand the "attack" of the piano key on string is quite demanding from a dynamic range point of view, at least as demanding on the amp as the speakers. Do transient perfect designs sound different? That would be an interesting investigation. But I've heard a number of very good non TP systems that had no problems with transients and sounded quite natural. But without exception, the larger ones were required to make a drum really sound like a drum.

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: J Kim <kim_woojae@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 7:09 p.m.

In Response To: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Roman Bednarek)

Not about speakers. But I think limited dynamics we hear from speakers are also related to recordings. I don't have good knowledge about recording. I heard that CD's 16 bit PCM technology has sufficient potential for reproducing realistic dynamics. But also heard that in most cases recording engineers do not use it to its full potential. Some people think that SACD or DVD-A is an overkill. Theoretically, it may be. But I do hear much more, and often times incredible realism from some of SACDs and DVD-As I own.

Just my thought.

-jAy

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: Bill Fitzmaurice
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 7:19 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (J Kim)

> But I think limited
> dynamics we hear from speakers are also
> related to recordings.

True. Recordings are highly compressed, and the instruments that are compressed the most are those with the widest dynamic range, ie., those with a percussive attack. Speakers capable of extreme dynamic range help. That pretty much means horns and line arrays.

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: BFB
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 10:45 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (J Kim)

> I heard that CD's
> 16 bit PCM technology has sufficient
> potential for reproducing realistic
> dynamics.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here! Before deciding on which digital media to convert (ruin) everything to, let's record the right way first: Onto a stereo Hi-Fi VHS deck with metal tape!

http://www.tdk.com/consumer/vhs/xpsuperpro.html

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: mikebw <mike.buckhout@gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 7:38 p.m.

In Response To: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Roman Bednarek)

Ribbon tweeters help immensely with reproducing realistic cymbal sounds and higher order harmonics from any instrument.

Since I do have my preference for ribbons I'm sure part of my experience is now psychological, but when I listen to dome tweeters it always seems like there is a mask in front of the sound, especially, for example with acoustic guitar or drums.

Even a low drum will have a high frequency slap and reflections of sound that just don't come through on most systems that I have heard.

I agree with the more woofers thing too. I mean how do you expect to reproduce a 20" bass drum kick with a pair of 6.5" woofers? It's just not gonna be the same.

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: Paul K. <pkitt@columbus.rr.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 7:51 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (mikebw)

I've found that mating a 2-inch dome midrange (MDM55, RS52, etc.) with either a small-dome tweeter (XT19, Hiquphons, etc.) or a ribbon tweeter makes the higher frequency percussive sounds much more realistic as compared to a cone midrange and 1-inch dome tweeter. In fact, all of the higher frequency sounds are improved IMO.
Paul

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... *PIC*

Posted By: Rudy Jakubin § <rjakubin@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 9:01 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Paul K.)

That first whack on the skin is rich in harmonics.
All the statements above are true.
Amp Power for headroom in reproducing the transient harmonics along with the large drain from the woofer's motor.
A good crossover so the harmonics match the fundamental.
Radiation pattern i.e. Line arrayed drivers or Omni's (Spacial Qualitys).
High Sensitivity drivers 15" or larger. For some reason they just have it in them.
You also need drivers that will rattle your chest cavity (Chest Resonance).

None of the above will ever reproduce a real drum but it sure is nice to try and get as close as possible.

Picture of a time sampled drum kick;

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... *PIC*

Posted By: tktran <tktran303@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 8:02 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (mikebw)

> I agree with the more woofers thing too. I
> mean how do you expect to reproduce a
> 20" bass drum kick with a pair of
> 6.5" woofers? It's just not gonna be
> the same.

Yup. Agree completely. Here's another testimonial. I was attending a friends concert and watching with great curiosity when he was playing the tympani (kettle drums). Now those things are HUGE- I later found that that a standard set contains 4 drums ranging from 23" to 32", and I thought "No wonder it sounds incredibly dynamic!"

When I come home to listen to my stereo, it falls down flat on it's face in comparison.
There's no way my 7" 2-way that sound realistic playing back that.

Now I haven't done exactly SPL calculations but I think I'd need something with at least a quad of 10 or 12" woofers, or a whole stack of of 7" (8 per side line array), or a single or pair of horn loaded 12-5" woofers.

You can forget about the 5" 2-way...

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: Dj just-ice
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 9:13 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... *PIC* (tktran)

A big issue is with how it is recorded. Your ears can pick up all of the sounds that come at you, but I do not think that even the highest end microphones can take every sound at once and record it accurately. Putting the microphone at the distance creates a sound stage, but then when you play it at home on your HT system, you create another sound stage, which is what messes up the sound.

What they need to do is to have microphones that only pick up sound from the immediate direction they are being pointed in, so that when you play it back on your system, it actually sounds like the speakers are creating the instrument sounds. To me the people who record music these days are mostly morons. They don't have any idea what they are doing. Most of my classical recordings sound like I am looking through a window (the speakers) into the concert hall. Another way to fix this, is to have each instrument acoustically separated from the other instruments by using a sound proof glass wall on stage (or something of that sort). Then, there should be 5 microphones, each tuned for a different frequency, right in front of the instrument, as in only about a foot in front of the player. That would be costly though, so it would be okay if you put maybe 3 sets of them in front off all the players of a section. And, for all of the percussionists, the microphones should be only 3 inches away from the drum head, (etc...) so that it can pick up the impact. Later on, I would mix all of the sounds together and use a program to create a very large sound field where each of the sounds consistently come from a certain direction.

But of course you need a hell of a system. I actually think my XT25 Vifa tweeter handles the highs in percussion music very well, but I don't feel any of the snap of the other sounds. This is because certain higher pitched percussion sounds really pierce the sound stage, allowing it to be portrayed much better from a distance. I remember during my pre-summer concert our composer continually got angry with us percussionists for playing things like the bells and chimes to loud. We didn't think that the audience would be able to hear us though-but we eventually listened to him. A week later while listening to the recording we found out that he was right! Our sounds were very apparent and went strait to the back of the hall. But unfortunately allot of the other instruments do not have that effect, that is why you need a microphone right on their equipment. To be able to handle the timpani, I think a line array of 6 10'' woofers would suite it well. For the snare and the other high impact sounds, you would need quite a few tweeters with large magnets and diaphragms, and quite a few midrange's with over sized magnets and VERY stiff cones.

If I could be given a grant for the money to get the equipment, and were given the job to do so, I think I could get a recording better than 99.99% of all ever made...but I am still yet to listen to one of the "Master" DVD audio recordings, that companies like Mcinstosh make to demonstrate the quality of their speakers and amps.

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: mikebw
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 5:29 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Dj just-ice)

You have the right ideas, but I think you would be surprised to know that this is how many engineers are in fact recording some performances. You do need several microphones to pickup the different sounds present and then be able to mix them together to create a final product.

Not everyone can do this well, and even fewer record labels are interested in spending the time or effort required to achieve such high quality. Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: BFB
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 10:59 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (mikebw)

I think there is some overkill mentioned there. You can get a great sound from a stereo pair a few feet in front of the drum set.

But in a basement band setting like I have, with all the noise, it's easier to close mike the drums and the cymbals from above. The stereo overheads present a very realistic image in space, and by blending in the bass and snare, you add enough dynamics to get the punch.

Incidentally, when the stereo overhead channels are mixed into the single channel recorded bass, vocal and guitar (with the latter two maybe panned a little) the psychoacoustic effect "lends" the real stereo image for the cymbals to the rest of the instruments.

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: the real Biff <biff_jennings@charter.net>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 8:02 p.m.

In Response To: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Roman Bednarek)

> Speakers are known to fall short when it
> comes to reproducing percussive instruments
> like drums and pianos. There is a lack of
> realism and dynamics.

> I'm wondering what shortcomings of the
> drivers and speaker systems in general that
> contribute to this. I suspect that some has
> to do with transients and if this is the
> case, are transient perfect designs more
> successful at reproducing these types of
> sounds? What type of driver or speaker would
> be best in this case?

> I just thought that I would start a topic in
> this direction and see where it goes. Please
> contribute.

As an avowed fan of TP designs I can say that I have not noticed any relationship between percussive capability and those systems. The best reproduction I can remember of drum kicks for example was from good large 3 ways and from Pjays 2 ways using the Vifa wood pulp cone. What I have noticed is that in every instance where that kick in the chest or flutter of the pants leg happened the system had a HUGE amount of power or good power combined with very high sensitivity speakers leading me to beleive that proper amplifier dynamics and high damping factors play at least a big part of the equation. Pjays system was at the time being driven by (IIRC) a Denon that was cresting around 250 or 500 WPC. We also get this in some PA setups that I know have to be anything but TP, but usually have kilowatts through 95 db or better rigs.

As a side note, I am usually a big fan of first order properly designed systems at reasonable continuous level but find they tend to get compressed (imagine that!) at realstic volumes and this makes me think the majority of TP (1st, 2nd 1st 2nd) would be less likely to get percussive sounds correct. Just my own thoughts and observations - good thought provoking topic Mr. B!

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: JRT
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 8:05 p.m.

In Response To: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Roman Bednarek)

> Speakers are known to fall short when it
> comes to reproducing percussive instruments
> like drums and pianos. There is a lack of
> realism and dynamics.

> I'm wondering what shortcomings of the
> drivers and speaker systems in general that
> contribute to this. I suspect that some has
> to do with transients and if this is the
> case, are transient perfect designs more
> successful at reproducing these types of
> sounds? What type of driver or speaker would
> be best in this case?

> I just thought that I would start a topic in
> this direction and see where it goes. Please
> contribute.

I think some of it has to do with the nature of musical instrument acoustics in combination with the nature of nonlinear distortion in the recording/playback system (especially in the loudspeakers).

Harmonic distortion is integer related. And for a lot of musical instruments, frequencies in the timbre are also integer related to the fundamental(s). So in those cases, I think some of that distortion is masked because it sounds a little like some of the natural timbre of the instrument.

In a drum, I think the fundamental shifts lower in frequency while the harmonics on the initial fundamental continue to resonate. So you get some content in the timbre that is not integer related to the fundamental. Yet that new fundamental is leading to integer related harmonics being generated in the woofer, affecting the resulting timbre.

I think that some distortion that might be masked with some instruments is not so well masked with other instruments, and I think that drums might be an example of this.

Just my opinion and I am no expert on the subject.

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: tktran <tktran303@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 8:16 p.m.

In Response To: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Roman Bednarek)

> Speakers are known to fall short when it
> comes to reproducing percussive instruments
> like drums and pianos. There is a lack of
> realism and dynamics.

> I'm wondering what shortcomings of the
> drivers and speaker systems in general that
> contribute to this. I suspect that some has
> to do with transients and if this is the
> case, are transient perfect designs more
> successful at reproducing these types of
> sounds? What type of driver or speaker would
> be best in this case?

> I just thought that I would start a topic in
> this direction and see where it goes. Please
> contribute.

Hi Roman,

Unless I ever build speakers that take up as much space as grand piano or a standard drum set, in my mind there's no chance of sounding of even getting close.

I think hitting transients of 110dB at the listening position is a minimum, with full frequency range (20Hz-20KHz)

Although a "good" 3-way, with 85dB/W sensitivity driven by 100W amps would likely hit 110dB in- room at 1m it probably suffers from power compression. I wonder what the FR and HD would vary when measuring at 70dB vs 90dB vs 110dB at say 1m...

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: Thomas Zarbo <tomzarbo@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 9:25 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (tktran)

I have a friend at work who is a drummer, and some of our conversations are kind of amazing. To hear him talk of the different nuances he can hear from one drum set to another, or even with a slight adjustment of the head leads me to believe that I will never 'hear' drums like he will.
His 20" bass drum's head doesn't move as a single piston, it's surface fluctuates as it vibrates, so I can only imagine how difficult it would be for a woofer to reproduce this loud enough to sound realistic while at the same time capturing the nuances of the 'fluctuations'. I guess more woofers might get the dynamic range up to realistic levels, but those small 'fluctuations' are the difficult part to get right. I would tend to agree with Mr. Fitzmaurice that a horn would be the natural choice to get the volume high enough to sound real volume-wise, while still maintaining the subtle 'fluctuations' that make it sound real texture-wise... if that makes any sense. It's really hard to describe sound with words!

TomZ

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: Bill Fitzmaurice
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 9:37 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Thomas Zarbo)

> His 20" bass drum's head doesn't move
> as a single piston, it's surface fluctuates
> as it vibrates

As do driver diaphragms. The main difference is that a drum head you can see.

Re: Topic: Acoustic focal 7w mtm does well

Posted By: PHILIP ARCARIO <philiparcario@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, 25 October 2007, at 10:37 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Bill Fitzmaurice)

> As do driver diaphragms. The main
> difference is that a drum head you can see.
I have a pair of zalytron focal 7w mtm with focal TLR tweeters. They get most of the drum sounds just right except the deeper kick drum notes. Even the the pair of nht 1259's for the stereo sub stands. Need to be two pair as stands under the mtm's .but waf rules that out.

I could write a book!

Posted By: Undefinition <Undefinition@aol.com>
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 12:50 a.m.

In Response To: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Roman Bednarek)

I may not be a veteran or guru speaker builder, but this IS one area I do have knowledge and experience in. I have been playing percussion for over 15 years, I have a degree in it, and I still love to play. So hear me out.

First of all, there are two different types of percussion recordings: close-mic'ed and ambient mic'ed. Let's address the more familiar one first, Close mic'ing.

For all pop, rock, country, and general studio and live recordings you hear, close mic'ing was used on the drums. And certain mics have become "standards" for recording those drums. For instance, on most studio recordings around the world, you will most likely find a Shure SM-57 on the snare drum, or perhaps an AKG D-112 on the kick drum, or maybe a Sennheiser 421 on the toms or kick, and most likely an AKG-414 on auxiliary percussion. Sure, for special recordings, other mics are swapped in for flavor, but certain mics are so ubiquitous that I'd argue that they CREATE the sound of modern drums. The other thing that has created the sound of modern drums is studio effects: namely compression, gating, and EQ. In rock music, country music, and pop music, you're not so much hearing the drums themselves at all, as much as you're hearing a specific sound that's practically "triggered," and fits in the mix like a jigsaw puzzle.

But why overproduce the drums so much? (because yes, it happens even on the most "accurate" recordings) There are two answers, both of which I figured out relatively early in my drumming career:
1. Drums are loud. Really loud. They're so loud that human ears can't even keep up with the dynamic difference between attack and decay. Go stand next to a drummer playing. It's pretty much unbearable, and even if the guy is incredible, it will mostly sound like noise. This brings me to the second reason...
2. Drums don't really sound that good up close. As I said, I found this out when I was young. In the drumming magazines, I'd see my favorite drummers advertising such and such kits and cymbals, but when I'd try them, they hardly sounded as awesome as the recording. Are they pulling a bait and switch on the listener? Of course not. It's just that even if the kit has a really "sweet" sound, heads have to be damped, and mics have to be padded, and mixes have to be gated and EQed. What I realized that was that if I owned a crappy kit, it was gonna sound bad no matter what. But even if I owned and expensive kit, it was gonna sound bad up close. The only way to get it to sound like a "real drummer" was to properly mix it... or have someone else play it while I stand on the other side of the room.

Because the other type of mic'ing used for drums is ambient mic'ing. This is more common with classical music, for the obvious reason that we hear classical music from a position in the audience. You will pretty much never hear ambient mic'ing of drums on a rock or pop tune, unless it's done for effect.

Why do I go through all this trouble explaining how drums are recorded? Well, I'm trying to make a point that it's nearly impossible for speakers to truly re-create drums because the real thing is not recorded on the original source tape. And it can't be... and you don't want it to be. Remember, drums sound pretty bad up close. It's not until you move away from them that the attacks aren't so severe, and you can finally hear the various parts of the kit (and their timbres) mix and blend in a room.

It's a compromise, I suppose. Ideally, you want that blended sound you get from a distance, but at the same time, the mix engineer wants room to mix other instruments around the drums. So we close mic them, and then attempt to create some sort of blended sound that either approximates the sound of the drums from a reasonable distance--or an entirely new "kick ass" sound is created (two examples: the drum sound of Steely Dan is entirely a studio creation and not possible without mics and outboard equipment... and the same goes for the fat drum sounds of a metal group such as Metallica or Pantera.) Obviously, a lot of ears across the world (audiophiles included) are okay with this sound. But just realize that in an effort to "perfectly recreate percussion," what you're really doing is "perfectly recreating the sound the studio engineers created."

And that's okay, folks. Trust me, real drums don't sound good up close. If you don't believe me, I'll bring a kit to Iowa and play, and you can stand next to me. ;-)

So I blame drum sound that I hate on the producer?

Posted By: Mark65 <houseomiller@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 7:34 p.m.

I have no doubt that you know exactly what you're talking about, as I like to play with the guitar a little bit, while my brother is an excellent drummer. Years ago we used to jam in a garage that was converted to a studio in the house we rented and I had to turn my amp up to 11 just to hear what I was playing. The thing that bugs me is: why, if they have to produce the sound of the drums, do so many of them suck? I used to love the sound of Lars Ulrich's drums, but they started to get weird on the Black album, and just flat out bad after that. I guess since Bob Rock produced all those records, it's his fault, but I don't understand how professional musicians can sign off on sounds that just hurt to listen to. The other thing is I absolutely LOVE the crisp, clipped sound of Steely Dan's drums, and they prove your point exactly, since they used a myriad of drummers, and it all sounds like Steely Dan (I don't have much patience for the tracks without Elliot Randall on guitar, but that's another story)!

Mark

Great reply- I enjoyed reading...

Posted By: tktran <tktran303@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 6:11 a.m.

In Response To: I could write a book! (Undefinition)

...your contribution. I have always thought that when we obsess about our playback chain, we forget about the other 50% of the puzzle.

With all the complexities of the recording process, the only thing the end-user can do is to trick oneself that one is listening to the real thing...

Re: Great reply- I enjoyed reading...

Posted By: Shaun Onverwacht
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 7:05 a.m.

In Response To: Great reply- I enjoyed reading... (tktran)

Yep, it's nice to hear the naked truth for a change...

It doesn't matter how they sound to the drummer.

Posted By: BFB
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 11:07 a.m.

In Response To: I could write a book! (Undefinition)

> Trust me, real drums
> don't sound good up close. If you don't
> believe me, I'll bring a kit to Iowa and
> play, and you can stand next to me. ;-)

I'll take your word for it. Certainly, they tend to sound different from the drum throne than they do from the other players' positions. So, drummers have to get used to projecting their experience of what the kit really sounds like to the listener and to the mixing board while they hear what they are playing. Cymbals especially sound much better to someone about 6 feet away, than to the drummer.

So, drums should sound better from in front, where the drummer isn't. And in a cramped room, you will get a lot of early reflections, and they won't sound as open as in a big room...and again they'll especially sound poor with me...I mean you...playing them!

Wide frequency and dynamic range...

Posted By: BFB
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 8:35 a.m.

In Response To: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Roman Bednarek)

...pretty much sums it up. You have the cymbals and the bass drum anmd everything in between. Sizzling softly and then smashed hard. Still, I can get a pretty convincing recording with a snare mic, bass drum mic and stereo overheads...played through a sub/sat monitor system.

Re: Wide frequency and dynamic range...

Posted By: Don Radick <joetekubi@yahoo.com>
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 9:19 a.m.

In Response To: Wide frequency and dynamic range... (BFB)

> ...pretty much sums it up. You have the
> cymbals and the bass drum and everything in
> between. Sizzling softly and then smashed
> hard. Still, I can get a pretty convincing
> recording with a snare mike, bass drum mike
> and stereo overheads...played through a
> sub/sat monitor system.

The very best speakers I've ever heard were recording studio mains. I worked at the studio for about a year, and spent hundreds of hours in that control room. IIRC, each side, they had 2 X 15s for bass / mid bass, 2 X 8s for mids, and a compression tweeter. Rane and Orban EQ, phase matched at crossover frequencies. A couple of thousand watts of amps to drive them.

Man, those mains could deliver drum transients like no one's business! Snare sounds that hit you right in your chest.

You I would say that dynamic range is the most critical factor.

Over in HTGUIDE, Lynn Olsen has a huge thread on "after the Ariel". He also has a primary design goal of huge dynamic range.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=100392

For most of our living rooms, 110dB peaks pretty well cover the range, but 120dB (clean) peak capability is better.

FWIW,
-Don

Buy a Pair of...

Posted By: Mike1234
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 1:13 p.m.

In Response To: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Roman Bednarek)

...the larger Martin Logan curvilinear ESL's. Nothing beats a large panel in reproducing percussive instruments. The ML's have very good off axis reasons compared to other panels due to their shape so that's not an issue. If percussion is REALLY important to you, you might consider by-passing the built-in bass drive with a line array of smaller (faster) mid-bass drivers.

Posted By: Deward Hastings <dewardh@pacbell.net>
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 2:43 p.m.

In Response To: I could write a book! (Undefinition)

The phrase “high fidelity” used to be in vogue . . . I don’t see it so much any more. There are several reasons for that . . . I like to think that one of them (in this era of “studio produced” music) is the natural question “fidelitous to what?”. When a “hit” recording is made with a dozen mics (or more) on a six piece band, the signal from each modified and meddled with differently, and often through instrument speakers or direct patch from a synth (and not necessarily recorded on the same take, or even the same day or in the same studio) why should one care about a little speaker “coloration”? Even more so now that many recordings are deliberately mixed so they’ll sound “good” on an i-pod or in a car . . .

Orchestral (classical) recordings are different (I work with a small orchestra) . . . still commonly recorded with just two or three mics and specifically with the intent of re-creating the sound *as heard in the audience* on a reasonably good “hi fi”. The recording engineer (and producer) have much less leeway in messing with the sound, and (if your speakers are good enough) a tympani sounds rather like . . . a tympani.

If you want drums to sound like the drums at the last rock concert you attended take a look at the speakers you listened to those drums through (at that concert). Replicate those speakers in your listening room and (recording permitting) all will be well.

Re: EXCELLENT post

Posted By: Andy_G <gradds55@optusnet.com.au>
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 3:19 p.m.

In Response To: EXCELLENT post (Deward Hastings)

> If you want drums to sound like the drums at
> the last rock concert you attended take a
> look at the speakers you listened to those
> drums through (at that concert). Replicate
> those speakers in your listening room and
> (recording permitting) all will be well.

yeah..like they would fit.! you are NOT trying to reproduce the same volume level, that would be crazy !!

actually, I work regularly with live bands in pubs, usually I don't mic up the drums at all, I know what live pub band drums sound like.... all too well !! ;-))

a lot of the stuff I do is often a softer style of performance, acoustic with vocal, or jazz sometimes. These are actually harder to work than a rock band, because you have to make the amplified sound reasonable real. whatever that is ;-))

yep

Posted By: Deward Hastings <dewardh@pacbell.net>
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 3:32 p.m.

In Response To: Re: EXCELLENT post (Andy_G)

It is *very* hard to "augment" an acoustic performance in a hall that is too large for the band . . .

Re: Wide frequency and dynamic range...

Posted By: Andy_G <gradds55@optusnet.com.au>
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 3:23 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Wide frequency and dynamic range... (Don Radick)

> Lynn Olsen has a huge
> thread on "after the Ariel". He
> also has a primary design goal of huge
> dynamic range.

and they may actually get built by 2050 !!!

Re: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion...

Posted By: Roman Bednarek <roman@twcny.rr.com>
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 4:04 p.m.

In Response To: Topic: Acoustic reproduction of percussion... (Roman Bednarek)

I think that the fundamental answer, as suggested above, is in how dynamic the speaker is and frequency extension plays a role as well. I agree that for large drums you really need to move a lot of air fast and a small driver won't do that. However, what about the case of a piano? There is still quite a transient but I wouldn't think this would be quite as demanding as a drum hit.

I agree that a lot of the problem has to do with the recording chain of events. The CD "Sister Sweetly" by Big Head Todd and the Monsters has terrible drums because they are way over processed and even flangers are used on the cymbals and snare drum.

What if you were to record a piano through a mic. Then play that recording back through a set of speakers and mic that. Then compare the signals. I suspect that a transient perfect speaker would be required to reproduce the same waveform without any phase distortion. The frequency extension of the speaker would also come into play as well as the linearity of the frequency response. I recall Dunlavy doing similar experiments while designing his speakers and perhaps that is why he chose the complex, shallow slope crossovers that he used. He used to compare his speakers to the real thing in a blind test and try to get people to pick out which one was real.

Thanks to everyone for contributing to this post. I think there is a lot of valuable info here and quite a few different angles on the subject.

Small Speaker Bass

FAST BASS

Small Speaker Bass

Small Speaker Bass.

Posted By: Daryl <quasar@frontiernet.net>
Date: Monday, 22 October 2007, at 10:14 a.m.

In Response To: Small Vs. Large woofers *PIC* (Dj just-ice)

Small speaker bass is loved and sought out by many and they wonder "why can't I find a large speaker with bass like my small speakers".

The common notion is that smaller woofers are 'faster' and that is why their bass sounds so rich and alive.

The reality is that these small speakers can't reach very low and to compensate they emphasise the frequencies in a narrow band around 100hz or a little below.

Subjectively this type of response described as extending to 35hz or so and being very 'fast'.

Neither of these is true.

The frequencies emphasised by these small speakers is more audible, more tactile and more present in music than lower frequencies and their emphasis imparts a warm, tactile, livelyness to music so long as you don't over do it and do it just the right way.

When such a system is compared to a flat extended system you will notice that the instruments that were providing the bass in the small system don't always stand out as bass sounds with the flat and extended bass system and the bass is often coming from other sources which weren't so apparent in the small system.

There have been large speakers that feature a peak near 100hz and claim they have small speaker bass. Posted By: Roman Bednarek <roman@twcny.rr.com>
Date: Monday, 22 October 2007, at 10:40 a.m.

In Response To: Small Speaker Bass. (Daryl)

> Small speaker bass is loved and sought out
> by many and they wonder "why can't I
> find a large speaker with bass like my small
> speakers".

> The common notion is that smaller woofers
> are 'faster' and that is why their bass
> sounds so rich and alive.

> The reality is that these small speakers
> can't reach very low and to compensate they
> emphasise the frequencies in a narrow band
> around 100hz or a little below.

> Subjectively this type of response described
> as extending to 35hz or so and being very
> 'fast'.

> Neither of these is true.

> The frequencies emphasised by these small
> speakers is more audible, more tactile and
> more present in music than lower frequencies
> and their emphasis imparts a warm, tactile,
> livelyness to music so long as you don't
> over do it and do it just the right way.

> When such a system is compared to a flat
> extended system you will notice that the
> instruments that were providing the bass in
> the small system don't always stand out as
> bass sounds with the flat and extended bass
> system and the bass is often coming from
> other sources which weren't so apparent in
> the small system.

> There have been large speakers that feature
> a peak near 100hz and claim they have small
> speaker bass.

Have you considered the notion that smaller drivers often have higher non-linear distortion as you go lower in frequency. When bass notes are played through a smaller driver, the fundamental tone may begin to diminish but you still hear the harmonics that play higher in frequency. These harmonics can make bass notes sound more defined and sometimes more localizable.

The concept of a "fast" woofer makes sense to me in one way only. If you consider linear distortion and your driver suffers from it, then in the region where the response peak exists the notes will sustain longer and I wouldn't consider that to be a very "fast" driver in that region. I don't like the word either but I can see where it might apply to this specific application (although I doubt that it is ever used in that context).

Hi Daryl,

I don't disagree with anything you say, but you're making a lot of assumptions that may not be true for many people, myself included.

The original poster was referring to 7" seas drivers - hardly woofers that are likely to be used in a boomy, high Qtc alignment.

The chances are that these 7" Seas drivers also have deeper extension than the 12" MTX. Additionally, they are probably lower distortion above 50Hz when not driven at insane levels. I've actually tested some cheaper MTX speakers (car subs a friend brought over) and they were horrible.

The value and need of a subwoofer is highly overrated with music sources played through woofers of modest size. (7-8") This is particularly true with cheaper subs that use simple, higher distortion motors. Like the original poster, I also listen to music on a 7" Seas system (and a 7" Scan Speak system too) and I don't miss a sub at all.

Of course, my needs change a bit for video sources.

John Posted By: Daryl <quasar@frontiernet.net>
Date: Monday, 22 October 2007, at 3:06 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. (jkrutke)

> Hi Daryl,

Hi John,

> I don't disagree with anything you say, but
> you're making a lot of assumptions that may
> not be true for many people, myself
> included.

Assumptions is a harsh term, let's just say I'm making a number of generalizations so to facilitate a shorter message (I was generalizing now I'm rationalizing).

> The original poster was referring to 7"
> seas drivers - hardly woofers that are
> likely to be used in a boomy, high Qtc
> alignment.

> The chances are that these 7" Seas
> drivers also have deeper extension than the
> 12" MTX. Additionally, they are
> probably lower distortion above 50Hz when
> not driven at insane levels. I've actually
> tested some cheaper MTX speakers (car subs a
> friend brought over) and they were horrible.

DJ's comments described a pretty common perception and scenario and I chose to focus on that and let my concerns over what might be going on with his car-audio subwoofer go unaddressed.

I did think reading DJ's post how many car subs Fs's are above 40hz and many have Qts's close to 1.

I was not necessarilly implying a boomy alignment for the small speakers, just that if a speakers response is going to extend only to 65hz it will need a little emphasis in order to sound full (Qtc slightly high).

Making the speaker sound full without also sounding boomy is the challenge presented to the designer of small speakers and the resulting compromise is indicative of their values.

Bass emphasis is pretty well the rule for small high end speakers and imparts qualities which are associated with the genre.

I also understand that 7" drivers may be used in full range alignments that extend toward 30hz.

> The value and need of a subwoofer is highly
> overrated with music sources played through
> woofers of modest size. (7-8") This is
> particularly true with cheaper subs that use
> simple, higher distortion motors. Like the
> original poster, I also listen to music on a
> 7" Seas system (and a 7" Scan
> Speak system too) and I don't miss a sub at
> all.

Yup,

Bass 101, PROPERLY align a subwoofer with your system and play some loud music while watching the cone.

Wheres the bass?

Not what you thought is it?

I have 6.5" MTM's and like to have some SPL capability so I do think the subwoofer is important for music since 6.5" drivers run out of steam really quick below 100hz.

I use drivers with a high GBW (133) in tiny sealed enclosures and use the 80hz highpass filter of an home theater processor to limit their excursion.

My subwoofers (two 15" with hyperextended pole-pieces and full length copper sleeves) handle 80hz and below even though the deep bass folks like to speak of is few and far between and even then is more often novelty than necessity.

Posted By: Roman Bednarek <roman@twcny.rr.com>
Date: Monday, 22 October 2007, at 4:03 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. (Daryl)

I guess that I am looking at this issue the wrong way. I agree that frequency response anomolies can alter the perception of bass, but I like to consider the case where the band of interest is similarly flat between the drivers being compared.

If you were to high pass filter the sound going to two different woofers so that they now had the same f3, would they sound different? I'm pretty sure that two drivers with identical frequency responses often sound quite different due to other "unseen" factors. I think that harmonic distortion is one of these factors.

Another issue to consider is the motion of the cone and the weight of the cone. Will a larger, heavier cone create more back EMF when coming to rest after an impulse and will the extra motion create an audible difference? I understand that the motor is often stronger with a larger cone but does a lighter cone have a better chance of following the signal during large excursion transitions?

I suppose that cone flexing is another thing that could influence the performance and sound of a woofer.

There are probably plenty of other factors as well. Perhaps if there is a trend and judging ears agree then maybe larger drivers do have a slightly different sound "in general." I wouldn't use the terms "fast" or "slow" to describe them though. I'll agree that what he is hearing is most likely due to response issues for the most part.

Posted By: Daryl <quasar@frontiernet.net>
Date: Monday, 22 October 2007, at 5:14 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. (Roman Bednarek)

Hi Roman,

> I guess that I am looking at this issue the
> wrong way. I agree that frequency response
> anomolies can alter the perception of bass,
> but I like to consider the case where the
> band of interest is similarly flat between
> the drivers being compared.

The identical transfer function (frequency response) comparison could be done also.

It's just that there is a very real reason typical small speaker bass sounds different than typical large speaker bass (generalizing again) and the reason isn't that small speakers are faster as so many 'experts' teach us.

> If you were to high pass filter the sound
> going to two different woofers so that they
> now had the same f3, would they sound
> different? I'm pretty sure that two drivers
> with identical frequency responses often
> sound quite different due to other
> "unseen" factors. I think that
> harmonic distortion is one of these factors.

Once transfer function is removed you have only noise and distortion left.

The effects are more subtle than the gross deviations in transfer function required to restore the low frequency weight of limited bass extension system but definately there.

> Another issue to consider is the motion of
> the cone

Climbing onto my high horse,

Cone motion will contribute to non-linearity (distortion) placing additional burden on the smaller cone.

> and the weight of the cone.

Mass is not an issue.

> Will a
> larger, heavier cone create more back EMF
> when coming to rest after an impulse and
> will the extra motion create an audible
> difference?

Back EMF should only be discussed when first learning about inductance and motors, from then on you forget about it and speak instead of impedance which describes back EMF in full.

You don't need to worry about the cone coming to rest after an impulse.

SPL is proportional to accelleration not velocity or position.

Accelleration happens only when force (input signal) is present.

Once said force is removed accelleration ceases regardless of mass.

This of course doesn't include resonant modes of the diaphram but you wouldn't use a diaphram near a resonant mode anyway.

EMF and motion are moot because a systems impulse response is it's transfer function (just presented differently than the standard frequency/phase response chart) and we already said both would have the same transfer function for this comparison.

> I understand that the motor is
> often stronger with a larger cone but does a
> lighter cone have a better chance of
> following the signal during large excursion
> transitions?

Again mass is unimportant.

So long as you stay away from resonant modes the burden will be on the smaller driver since it has to move so much further and it is more difficult to make a driver move farther and retain the same linearity.

> I suppose that cone flexing is another thing
> that could influence the performance and
> sound of a woofer.

Cone flexing would add to non linearity.

Posted By: John k...
Date: Monday, 22 October 2007, at 6:49 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. (Daryl)

> Accelleration happens only when force (input
> signal) is present.

> Once said force is removed accelleration
> ceases regardless of mass.

Daryl, your slipping. Of coruse there is a force applied to the driver after the input signal is removed. If there wasn't the woofer would just keep moving at what ever velocity the cone had when the signal stoped. You know, according to Newton! :)

Posted By: Daryl <quasar@frontiernet.net>
Date: Monday, 22 October 2007, at 7:56 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. (John k...)

Hi John,

Glad your still around.

> Daryl, your slipping. Of coruse there is a
> force applied to the driver after the input
> signal is removed. If there wasn't the
> woofer would just keep moving at what ever
> velocity the cone had when the signal
> stoped. You know, according to Newton! :)

That was precisely my point John.

There is no need to worry about how a heavy cone is going to stop when the signal stops because it doesn't need to because SPL is proportional to acceleration not velocity.

Natural signals of course are symmetrical so position, velocity and acceleration would begin and end at zero.

Even with unnatural signals the drivers frequency response is finite and the cones suspension would eventually bring it back to zero.

But you are exactly correct that if you extend the frequency response of a driver flat to infinity in both directions and then feed it an unnatural positive only pulse it's cone will accelerate in the forward direction for the duration of the pulse and when the pulse ends SPL will go to zero but the cone will continue at it's present velocity indefinitely and eventually exit our solar system.

That was the point, the cone doesn't need to stop with the signal.

Daryl's Speaker Stuff.

Posted By: Roman Bednarek <roman@twcny.rr.com>
Date: Monday, 22 October 2007, at 9:10 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. (Daryl)

> Hi John,

> Glad your still around.

> That was precisely my point John.

> There is no need to worry about how a heavy
> cone is going to stop when the signal stops
> because it doesn't need to because SPL is
> proportional to acceleration not velocity.

> Natural signals of course are symmetrical so
> position, velocity and acceleration would
> begin and end at zero.

> Even with unnatural signals the drivers
> frequency response is finite and the cones
> suspension would eventually bring it back to
> zero.

> But you are exactly correct that if you
> extend the frequency response of a driver
> flat to infinity in both directions and then
> feed it an unnatural positive only pulse
> it's cone will accelerate in the forward
> direction for the duration of the pulse and
> when the pulse ends SPL will go to zero but
> the cone will continue at it's present
> velocity indefinitely and eventually exit
> our solar system.

> That was the point, the cone doesn't need to
> stop with the signal.

One thing that I should have realized but overlooked was that if any of the issues I described occured then it would most likely show up in the frequency response.

Posted By: Daryl <quasar@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 5:27 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. (Roman Bednarek)

Hi Roman,

I cooked up a little chart to show the relationship between cone accelleration/SPL, cone velocity and cone position.

The system has a flat response with LR2 cuttoffs at 20hz and 2khz.

The Red curve represents cone accelleration and SPL.

At the left you see that the impulse is delayed aproxamately 0.1 mS and has a duration of about 0.3 mS.

Both the delay and duration are due to the high frequency cuttoff of the system.

If the systems high frequency response were infinite then the impulse would occur at t=0 and it's duration would be infintessimal.

The blue curve represents cone velocity and the green curve represents cone position.

Looking at the cone position curve (green) you can see what I mean about the cone not needing to stop when the signal is removed.

By the time that the impulse has concluded the cone has only begun to move and continues on it's way for some time.

Not until 8.5 mS after the initial impulse does the cone reverse direction and start to head back to it's rest position.

This behaviour is due to the low frequency cuttoff of the system.

If the low frequency response were infinite then velocity would remain at it's peak and the cone would stay in motion forever.

If the cone were to come to an immediate stop following an impulse that would imply the the system had no bass extension at all.

Response.

Posted By: Roman Bednarek <roman@twcny.rr.com>
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2007, at 6:02 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. *PIC* (Daryl)

> Hi Roman,

> I cooked up a little chart to show the
> relationship between cone accelleration/SPL,
> cone velocity and cone position.

> The system has a flat response with LR2
> cuttoffs at 20hz and 2khz.

> The Red curve represents cone accelleration
> and SPL.

> At the left you see that the impulse is
> delayed aproxamately 0.1 mS and has a
> duration of about 0.3 mS.

> Both the delay and duration are due to the
> high frequency cuttoff of the system.

> If the systems high frequency response were
> infinite then the impulse would occur at t=0
> and it's duration would be infintessimal.

> The blue curve represents cone velocity and
> the green curve represents cone position.

> Looking at the cone position curve (green)
> you can see what I mean about the cone not
> needing to stop when the signal is removed.

> By the time that the impulse has concluded
> the cone has only begun to move and
> continues on it's way for some time.

> Not until 8.5 mS after the initial impulse
> does the cone reverse direction and start to
> head back to it's rest position.

> This behaviour is due to the low frequency
> cuttoff of the system.

> If the low frequency response were infinite
> then velocity would remain at it's peak and
> the cone would stay in motion forever.

> If the cone were to come to an immediate
> stop following an impulse that would imply
> the the system had no bass extension at all.

Thank you very much for your informative response. It is starting to get a bit clearer. I can see where frequency response and group delay come into play as well.

I think that part of my problem was that a lot of things that go on electromechanically with a driver often show up in the frequency response somehow and I was making incorrect assumptions.

Posted By: Deward Hastings <dewardh@pacbell.net>
Date: Monday, 22 October 2007, at 9:13 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. (Daryl)

I think you're missing John's (somewhat humorous, but real) point. When you remove the signal the cone *is* accelerated . . . by the spider, by the surround, and by the back emf (damping) of the motor. It may also be accelerated by pressure or resonance in the cabinet in which the driver is mounted. And that acceleration does produce an acoustic wave.

Posted By: John k...
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 6:30 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. (Deward Hastings)

> I think you're missing John's (somewhat
> humorous, but real) point. When you remove
> the signal the cone *is* accelerated . . .
> by the spider, by the surround, and by the
> back emf (damping) of the motor. It may also
> be accelerated by pressure or resonance in
> the cabinet in which the driver is mounted.
> And that acceleration does produce an
> acoustic wave.

Exacxtly. However, Darly is correct in that we would expect any natural time continuous signal that starts from zero to end at zero and also have a net displacement integral of zero. But, unfortunately, drivers also "walk" off the zero position due to suspension nonlinearities so even if the input signal has the characteristic of a net zero displacement there is no guarantte that the driver will end up at the zero position as well, particularly at higher play back levels.

Still, how the woofer stops really has little impact on the sound. The Q of a sealed box alignment, and boomy bass for higher Q system, has more to do with the corresponding frequency response boosts at or around cut off, or room interaction, than the systems transient resposne and decay back to rest.

I prepaired a discussion of this a few years back, http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/Box-Q.html, where you can see how systems with Q = 0.5 and Q= 1.0 follow an input signal and on page 2 you can see the effect of abruptly cutting off the input.

Re: Small Speaker Bass.

Posted By: John Nail <SpkrNuts@aol.com>
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 9:40 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. (John k...)

> Exacxtly. However, Darly is correct in that
> we would expect any natural time continuous
> signal that starts from zero to end at zero
> and also have a net displacement integral of
> zero. But, unfortunately, drivers also
> "walk" off the zero position due
> to suspension nonlinearities so even if the
> input signal has the characteristic of a net
> zero displacement there is no guarantte that
> the driver will end up at the zero position
> as well, particularly at higher play back
> levels.

> Still, how the woofer stops really has
> little impact on the sound. The Q of a
> sealed box alignment, and boomy bass for
> higher Q system, has more to do with the
> corresponding frequency response boosts at
> or around cut off, or room interaction, than
> the systems transient resposne and decay
> back to rest.

> I prepaired a discussion of this a few years
> back,
> http://www.geocities.com/kreskovs/Box-Q.html
> , where you can see how systems with Q = 0.5
> and Q= 1.0 follow an input signal and on
> page 2 you can see the effect of abruptly
> cutting off the input.

My response to Daryl is: "D'What?" lol
Hi John... I would like to put my 2 cents worth in here and say that where I think the term "fast" comes from is more simple and ordinary. Those of us who don't know all that John K. and Daryl know...how all this stuff interacts at the engineering level, would try to make a rationalization of it.....we know that the smaller driver has a bit more of a punchy bass to it....so our simple logic makes us go through our limited knowledge base to find a reasonable explanation for it....we come up with a "since the cone of the smaller woofer should weigh less, then like a car that weighs less, it can be accelerated faster from a dead stop". It is a simple logicalization (is that really a word?), but I imagine that it is very much how the term got started and how it is used today by those of us who don't know what is really going on.
Punchy bass could be interpretted as having a "faster attack" of the sound. I have heard that term regularly.

John

Posted By: John k...
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 1:54 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. (John Nail)

> My response to Daryl is: "D'What?"
> lol
> Hi John... I would like to put my 2 cents
> worth in here and say that where I think the
> term "fast" comes from is more
> simple and ordinary. Those of us who don't
> know all that John K. and Daryl know...how
> all this stuff interacts at the engineering
> level, would try to make a rationalization
> of it.....we know that the smaller driver
> has a bit more of a punchy bass to it....so
> our simple logic makes us go through our
> limited knowledge base to find a reasonable
> explanation for it....we come up with a
> "since the cone of the smaller woofer
> should weigh less, then like a car that
> weighs less, it can be accelerated faster
> from a dead stop". It is a simple
> logicalization (is that really a word?), but
> I imagine that it is very much how the term
> got started and how it is used today by
> those of us who don't know what is really
> going on.
> Punchy bass could be interpretted as having
> a "faster attack" of the sound. I
> have heard that term regularly.

> John

Actually I find that the term fast bass is usually associated with systems which have limited low frequency extension. In other words, fast woofers tend to emphasize the harmonics of the lower frequencies while the fundamental is reproduced at reduced amplitude. Then, for example, when reproducing a kick drum you get a sense of impact and quickness because the harmonics of the strike of the drum head are exaggerated compared to the fundamental. It sounds fast because the fundamental isn't there to rumble on. The same argument applies to low Q woofer systems with extended response (in bigger rooms). This is also probably why many people feel a dipole woofer is tight and fast since many dipole woofer systems are running low Q or aren't equalized to very low frequency. Add that to the absence of room pressurization with dipoles and the dipole woofer with the same alignment as a sealed box often sounds faster and tighter.

Posted By: wingnut <t_stevens@charter.net>
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 2:22 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Speaker Bass. (John Nail)

> My response to Daryl is: "D'What?"
> lol
> Hi John... I would like to put my 2 cents
> worth in here and say that where I think the
> term "fast" comes from is more
> simple and ordinary. Those of us who don't
> know all that John K. and Daryl know...how
> all this stuff interacts at the engineering
> level, would try to make a rationalization
> of it.....we know that the smaller driver
> has a bit more of a punchy bass to it....so
> our simple logic makes us go through our
> limited knowledge base to find a reasonable
> explanation for it....we come up with a
> "since the cone of the smaller woofer
> should weigh less, then like a car that
> weighs less, it can be accelerated faster
> from a dead stop". It is a simple
> logicalization (is that really a word?), but
> I imagine that it is very much how the term
> got started and how it is used today by
> those of us who don't know what is really
> going on.
> Punchy bass could be interpretted as having
> a "faster attack" of the sound. I
> have heard that term regularly.

> John

Excellent point, John. Like it or not, reality is all about perception. Like it or not, small bass drivers produce a more believable bass experience for most people. I don't think it's entirely FR that's the reason for the "bass magic" of small drivers. Again, this phenomenon is very real. Why can't we give it a name like "fast bass":-) Maybe "fast-Debbie" would be more appealing?

I think the engineering-oriented camp is driven nuts by the term (and others like it) because it's wholly subjective - but isn’t that the nature of spoken language? Written language is even worse because the original meaning is lost unless the writer is there with the reader to interpret (with subjective spoken words and body language). On the other hand, the engineering camp believes they can explain all physical phenomenon of the universe in a neat little box of numbers and graphs.

Both sides drive me nuts! :-)

Toby

Re: Small Vs. Large woofers

Posted By: Dj just-ice
Date: Monday, 22 October 2007, at 7:59 p.m.

In Response To: Small Vs. Large woofers *PIC* (Dj just-ice)

I felt people were saying that I called the bass slow; when I said lag I put the word "feel" in, so its only a descriptive indirect verb in this case.

I while ago, I read an article that somebody posted that scientifically described how "slow" woofers are impossible, then a few months later another person posted something where an "expert" once again used a variety of facts and math to prove in his own way that woofer "speed" does exist.

One thing though, is it possible that the difference is this- Smaller woofers say at 50 HZ receive the electrical pulse causing the cone to move forward at its designated amplitude. .01 seconds later it gets to its highest point (1 second/ 50 = .02 for the full revolution, so its .01). At that point it (I'm not sure) waits at the apogee of its revolution until the signal pulls it back to wait again for the signal to pull the cone out. (By wait I mean at the less steep area of the sine wave)

-So, a lighter cone gets there in the right amount of time so it in a sense has time to spare. But, my idea is that a larger woofer instead struggles to keep up with the signal, causing it to actually get near the pinnacle of the turn slower, then, to compensate for this so that it is still 50Hz, instead of "waiting" at that point it immediately feels the electromagnetic withdrawal and gets pulled back. This action could snap it back while it is in the process of going forward in order to maintain the frequency; not only would this prevent it from reaching its intended peak, but the spider and surround would fully be utilized to cushion the force, and instead the jolt from the electrical signal would cause distortion in the cone due to the sudden snap back. It might also be possible that since the spiders and surrounds QMS aren't fully effecting the woofer, that the resonant frequency could change. Doesn't the QMS which along with the QES forms QTS have something to do with it? It does, so if it is messed with it will hurt the woofers characteristics. By the woofer not using the QTS to pull it back and stop it as much as it should, you could be effecting the value.

Don't insult my reasoning! I just wanted to get this possibility out there for CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

There are a other factors you're not considering.

Posted By: Pete Schumacher ® <pete_schumacher@yahoo.com>
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 2:06 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Vs. Large woofers (Dj just-ice)

> I felt people were saying that I called the
> bass slow; when I said lag I put the word
> "feel" in, so its only a
> descriptive indirect verb in this case.

> I while ago, I read an article that somebody
> posted that scientifically described how
> "slow" woofers are impossible,
> then a few months later another person
> posted something where an "expert"
> once again used a variety of facts and math
> to prove in his own way that woofer
> "speed" does exist.

> One thing though, is it possible that the
> difference is this- Smaller woofers say at
> 50 HZ receive the electrical pulse causing
> the cone to move forward at its designated
> amplitude. .01 seconds later it gets to its
> highest point (1 second/ 50 = .02 for the
> full revolution, so its .01). At that point
> it (I'm not sure) waits at the apogee of its
> revolution until the signal pulls it back to
> wait again for the signal to pull the cone
> out. (By wait I mean at the less steep area
> of the sine wave)

> -So, a lighter cone gets there in the right
> amount of time so it in a sense has time to
> spare. But, my idea is that a larger woofer
> instead struggles to keep up with the
> signal, causing it to actually get near the
> pinnacle of the turn slower, then, to
> compensate for this so that it is still
> 50Hz, instead of "waiting" at that
> point it immediately feels the
> electromagnetic withdrawal and gets pulled
> back. This action could snap it back while
> it is in the process of going forward in
> order to maintain the frequency; not only
> would this prevent it from reaching its
> intended peak, but the spider and surround
> would fully be utilized to cushion the
> force, and instead the jolt from the
> electrical signal would cause distortion in
> the cone due to the sudden snap back. It
> might also be possible that since the
> spiders and surrounds QMS aren't fully
> effecting the woofer, that the resonant
> frequency could change. Doesn't the QMS
> which along with the QES forms QTS have
> something to do with it? It does, so if it
> is messed with it will hurt the woofers
> characteristics. By the woofer not using the
> QTS to pull it back and stop it as much as
> it should, you could be effecting the value.

> Don't insult my reasoning! I just wanted to
> get this possibility out there for
> CONSTRUCTIVE criticism.

The mass of the cone is only one factor. The strength of the motor is another. A heavy, stiff, massive cone driven by a powerful motor will be able to accelerate just as fast as the lighter cone with a weaker motor. And the massive stiffer cone may have the benefit of less distortion due to flexure under load.

Then, you have to consider surface area. To reach a specific SPL, you have to displace so much air, and a 7" woofer will have to move a LOT farther than a 12" woofer to produce 50Hz. The 12" woofer will have to accelerate only one quarter what the 7" woofer needs to. Advantage, 12"!!!

Posted By: HappyGene
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 12:52 a.m.

In Response To: Small Vs. Large woofers *PIC* (Dj just-ice)

Hi DJ,

In my experience, alone and with others, bass response termed lagging, muddy, slow or having no slam can be mostly corrected if it's from a separate driver operating as a woofer/sub-woofer, whether small or large.

Group delay and phase at the transform's fulcrum are appropriately obviated from this by the fine explanations below mine.

However, you can reclaim the "slam" by adjusting the colloquial "phase" (phase angle) via larger caps below the xover or smaller coils above the xover and toying with the driver's electrical phase (how it's connected.) And none of it has to be scientifically matched or pre-determined, just tested.

In combination with that, if you are using one, adjusting the phase and crossover controls on the sub amp will yield even more combinations.

The goal is to rotate a large enough portion of the frequencies (at least a half octave) right below the intended xover point to match the mids right above and allow the ear/brain phenomena make up the differences.

Finding best phase at the nominal xover point was not as pleasing, which really surprised (and maybe disappointed) me.

As examples, my last home theatre subs were vented and passive. I stuffed them and that helped. Then I put them on a plate amp bypassing the passive xo. Then I reversed the driver phase and put the passive back in line. Bingo, tight bass!

At the office, the same subs were "faster" vented in an extended alignment, no passive components and the amp's crossover turned way down. Different room, amps and mains; but still tunable to slam.

Not quite as good as having it all designed together, as is appropriately suggested, but still pleasing and cost efficient.

:) Gene

Posted By: Dj just-ice
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 2:21 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Small Vs. Large woofers (HappyGene)

What if by having another circuit in the system (the plate amp) causes the delay? Maybe its not the woofer itself, and just the plate amps ability to push it correctly.

Also, don't smaller drivers have larger sound dispersion fields? I know subs are considered "omni directional" but the size of the cone could effect that factor.

As for my Seas driver, one thing I forgot to mention, is that the only reason why I can use it alone is because I managed to find an ideal spot for it and an ideal listening spot. Any other place in the room does not get very good response. Unfortunately regardless of where I put my sub woofer I still can't get the direct deep response.

And yes, I have tried putting the sub in the same position as my speaker but it didn't change a thing.

Human Hearing Is Extremely Acute...

Posted By: Mike1234
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 9:22 a.m.

In Response To: Small Vs. Large woofers *PIC* (Dj just-ice)

...with regard to TIMING. Try listening to identical sharp clicks or ticks one played 1/10,000 of one second following the first. I guarantee most people will hear the second click if they compare a singal-click signal sound with the double-click one.

A speaker with a weak motor coupled with a heavy cone will have slow acceleration. If a person "feels" as though a woofer is "slow" or "sluggish", then just let it be :-) I think we all understand what he/she is trying to say.

Posted By: Daryl <quasar@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 1:11 p.m.

In Response To: Human Hearing Is Extremely Acute... (Mike1234)

> A speaker with a weak motor coupled with a
> heavy cone will have slow acceleration.

Accelleration is proportional to SPL which means both will have the same accelleration once you set their loudness to the same level.

Posted By: Mike1234
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 1:57 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Human Hearing Is Extremely Acute... (Daryl)

...there is time lag between disparate drivers and distortions of the audio signal.

I'm not intending to sound facetious here. Are you saying you can't hear differences between underpowered underdamped drivers and well-controlled speakers with appropriately strong motors?

Posted By: Daryl <quasar@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 3:10 p.m.

In Response To: Yes, however... (Mike1234)

> ...there is time lag between disparate
> drivers and distortions of the audio signal.

Not shure what you mean.

Specificly which time lag and which distortions.

> I'm not intending to sound facetious here.
> Are you saying you can't hear differences
> between underpowered underdamped drivers and
> well-controlled speakers with appropriately
> strong motors?

Now your talking of something different.

My point was that mass and cone size are not at issue until you get near the cones breakup modes.

Obviously high distortion motors and peaky response are issues.

Posted By: BFB
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 3:46 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Yes, however... (Daryl)

> My point was that mass and cone size are not
> at issue until you get near the cones
> breakup modes.

But larger cones will break up lower in frequency. A theoretical very large, heavy and non-stiff cone, and/or one with a lower-powered motor will always be breaking up, with parts of the cone lagging behind others. And so fast clicks will not resolve, and people will call the woofer "slow", by which they mean slow to recover from transients.

> Obviously high distortion motors and peaky
> response are issues.

As are non-stiff, heavy cones. Or are you saying that quality is so high nowadays that there are no "slow" woofers. You may be right.

Posted By: Daryl <quasar@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 4:19 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Yes, however... (BFB)

> But larger cones will break up lower in
> frequency.

So long as the transfer function is flat throughout the band of interest it is not an issue.

> A theoretical very large, heavy
> and non-stiff cone, and/or one with a
> lower-powered motor will always be breaking
> up, with parts of the cone lagging behind
> others.

The cones flexibility will effect the drivers non-linearity.

The phase differential across the diaphrams surface is one and the same as it's breakup modes.

The term 'breakup' refers to the diphrams surface 'breaking up into individual vibrating regions'

So long as you stay away from these there is no issue.

> And so fast clicks will not resolve,
> and people will call the woofer
> "slow", by which they mean slow to
> recover from transients.

By "fast clicks" you would mean transient (impulse) response which another way of viewing frequency response.

Again so long as frequency/phase response is flat within the band of interest the impulse will be reproduced properly.

> As are non-stiff, heavy cones. Or are you
> saying that quality is so high nowadays that
> there are no "slow" woofers. You
> may be right.

I am saying there never were any 'slow' woofers, just a lot of BS.

So long as frequency/phase response is flat and non-linearity (distortion) and noise are low you have a winner.

Re: Yes, however... *PIC*

Posted By: Dj just-ice
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 8:42 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Yes, however... (Daryl)

But look at this....lets just say in a nut shell that you took a Seas 7'' woofer magnet, and placed a 12'' heavy cone on it? What would be the effect?

I would think it would be harder for it to respond correctly to the signal. I mean, you have to admit this.

I think most people are going off of the assumption that all driver companies adequately increase the magnet size per size and weight of the cone, but in reality, most don't! If every company did that, sub woofers would be way to expensive for the market....every woofer would look and cost as much as this!

I still think that most woofers are not engineered ideally-this is what causes lag.

Posted By: Daryl <quasar@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tuesday, 23 October 2007, at 10:55 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Yes, however... *PIC* (Dj just-ice)

Hi DJ,

It is simply that all timing issues are a matter of frequency/phase response.

Most importantly frequency/phase response is the exact same information as impulse response just presented differently and both are the linear transfer-function.

Diapharam size and weight aren't part of the equation.

If the frequency/phase is flat or EQ'ed to be flat that's it.

The common perception of small speakers sounding faster actually has nothing to do with speed but instead is due to the signal being modified by a specific type of transfer function which sounds rather nice but is not an accurate interpetation of the signal.

The above is quite common but as John Krutke said you might simply have trouble with your MTX sub being less than optimal and the above might not apply to you at all.

Posted By: Dj just-ice
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2007, at 12:03 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Yes, however... *PIC* (Daryl)

Ok, ok, ok...many posts later and I think I see what you are getting at.

At least I made one truthful point.

I think more companies that use smaller woofers have adequate magnet sizes compared to ones who make larger woofers.

BFB
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2007, at 10:43 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Yes, however... *PIC* (Daryl)

> Hi DJ,

> It is simply that all timing issues are a
> matter of frequency/phase response.

> Most importantly frequency/phase response is
> the exact same information as impulse
> response just presented differently and both
> are the linear transfer-function.

Really? I thought that depends on how frequency response is measured.

Posted By: BFB
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2007, at 10:36 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Yes, however... (Daryl)

> So long as the transfer function is flat
> throughout the band of interest it is not an
> issue.

You mean the impulse response. FR curves do not show response to transients.

> The term 'breakup' refers to the diaphragm's
> surface 'breaking up into individual
> vibrating regions'

And that's what will happen to a large, flexible cone. And it will contribute to, for example, double-click sounds being unresolvable. And people may describe that as "slow". OTOH, I take your point that A LOT of the time, "slow" just means high Q, muddy/boomy bass.

> So long as you stay away from these there is
> no issue.

You'll never "stay away" from those!

> By "fast clicks" you would mean
> transient (impulse) response which another
> way of viewing frequency response.

Yes, yes.

> Again so long as frequency/phase response is
> flat within the band of interest the impulse
> will be reproduced properly.

It never is!

> So long as frequency/phase response is flat
> and non-linearity (distortion) and noise are
> low you have a winner.

See previous response after defining "low".

Posted By: Dj just-ice
Date: Wednesday, 24 October 2007, at 7:32 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Yes, however... (BFB)

Wow, I think my post got the most views ever on this forum...and picture didn't even work!

Another thing, a high Q woofer would be easier to push in and out, right? And a low Q would be much harder to move. Could you sat that tenser woofers should sound better then? Because there have been a few easy to move woofers that have been on very expensive speakers and sounded good, such as on many B&W speakers.

Re: Yes, however...

Posted By: BFB
Date: Friday, 26 October 2007, at 11:31 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Yes, however... (Dj just-ice)

> Another thing, a high Q woofer would be
> easier to push in and out, right?

How hard a woofer is to push in, assuming it's not in a sealed box (because the stiffness of the air volume contributes to the springiness of the cone in a box) is only a measure of the mechanical contribution to Q, and to some extent, the excursion. In pretty much every woofer, the lion's share of the damping of resonance is due to the motor, through the effect of back EMF. A woofer that continues to resonate more after a signal has stopped will sound worse, fl;abbier, murkier..."slower"?... than one which recovers quickly. And I don't understand how this can be measured by a simple frequency response.

Still, I'm not even saying that highly damped woofers that respond to transients very well sound better. I just don't think it's true that all people who use the term "slow" or "fast" to describe woofers are using the term so loosely. I use to think that about people who rattled on about the soundstage of their amplifiers...until I heard them A/B-ed!

Woofer Problem by Eric Jones

Woofer

Posted By: Eric Jones <ericjoffroad@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wednesday, 6 February 2008, at 10:44 p.m.

Can you help me? I am trying to get some base out of my home system. I have 2 high end JBL's but they only have 6 1/2" woofers. I have tried various powered sub but they always have more of a low vibrating hum to them. I want something with a low heavy and punchy sound, without the funky vibrating sound. I hope that makes sense. Should I just use regular woofers with not so low of a crossover?

Re: Woofer

Posted By: Nick29498141
Date: Wednesday, 6 February 2008, at 10:45 p.m.

In Response To: Woofer (Eric Jones)

Can you give us your system details?

Speaker Name/ model #
Amp/Receiver
Sources
Music preference?
Room dimensions

Thanks

NK

Re: Woofer

Posted By: Eric Jones <ericjoffroad@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Wednesday, 6 February 2008, at 11:14 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Woofer (Nick29498141)

> Can you give us your system details?

> Speaker Name/ model #
> Amp/Receiver
> Sources
> Music preference?
> Room dimensions

> Thanks

> NK
I have a high end HK preamp tuner
A Carver 400w amp
2 Jbl L6 towers, with 6 1/2" speakers for the biggest
2 bookshelf Jbl's
I am trying a 10" yamaha powered sub currently and hate it, there is no
punch to it?
My room is 24' by 20' or so, avg liv rm.
I like rock music kinda loud with good base
I tried hooking up to 12" phosgate p2 12" car subs with an amp, but they
needed a lot more than 400 watts and still weren't punchy
I used to run 2 reg good quality home speakers with the same HK and Carver
amp, they had 12" in them and had nice base, but they wore out along time
ago
Thank's
Eric

Re: Woofer

Posted By: chrisn <cdnarkiewicz@msn.com>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2008, at 3:34 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Woofer (Eric Jones)

> I have a high end HK preamp tuner
> A Carver 400w amp
> 2 Jbl L6 towers, with 6 1/2" speakers
> for the biggest
> 2 bookshelf Jbl's
> I am trying a 10" yamaha powered sub
> currently and hate it, there is no
> punch to it?
> My room is 24' by 20' or so, avg liv rm.
> I like rock music kinda loud with good base
> I tried hooking up to 12" phosgate p2
> 12" car subs with an amp, but they
> needed a lot more than 400 watts and still
> weren't punchy
> I used to run 2 reg good quality home
> speakers with the same HK and Carver
> amp, they had 12" in them and had nice
> base, but they wore out along time
> ago
> Thank's
> Eric

Car subs make use of the cars cabin gain so the cabinet and tuning aren't ideal in a larger room. For loud music in a room that size you need a larger sub or possibly 2 subs. I like the Dayton RSS315HF, one or two of these and a decent amp should be good for your room, depending on how loud you consider loud:)

HTH

Re: Woofer

Posted By: chris roemer <cjroemer@netzero.com>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2008, at 1:14 a.m.

In Response To: Woofer (Eric Jones)

> Can you help me? I am trying to get some
> base out of my home system. Are you looking to build something? What do you want to know exactly? Most likely your 10" sub isn't doing a strong 30 Hz. Your $300? mains are only rated down to the mid 50s.

punch isn't a bass issue per se

Posted By: Mantak
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2008, at 7:59 a.m.

In Response To: Woofer (Eric Jones)

Punchy doesn't involve your bASS. Its usually a bump at 200hz or 5Khz. Its usually a midrange issue backed up by the bass. See below:

Speaker Tone Words:

Airy: Spacious. Open. Instruments sound like they are surrounded by a large reflective space full of air. Good reproduction of high-frequency reflections. High-frequency response extends to 15 or 20 kHz.

Bassy: Emphasized low frequencies below about 200 Hz. Blanketed: Weak highs, as if a blanket were put over the speakers.

Bloated: Excessive mid-bass around 250 Hz. Poorly damped low frequencies, low-frequency resonances. See tubby.

Blurred: Poor transient response. Vague stereo imaging, not focused.

Boomy: Excessive bass around 125 Hz. Poorly damped low frequencies or low-frequency resonances.

Boxy: Having resonances as if the music were enclosed in a box. Sometimes an emphasis around 250 to 500 Hz.

Breathy: Audible breath sounds in woodwinds and reeds such as flute or sax. Good response in the upper-mids or highs.

Bright: High-frequency emphasis. Harmonics are strong relative to fundamentals.

Chesty: The vocalist sounds like their chest is too big. A bump in the low-frequency response around 125 to 250 Hz.

Clear: See Transparent.

Colored: Having timbres that are not true to life. Non-flat response, peaks or dips.

Crisp: Extended high-frequency response, especially with cymbals. Dark: Opposite of bright. Weak high frequencies.

Delicate: High frequencies extending to 15 or 20 kHz without peaks.

Depth: A sense of distance (near to far) of different instruments.

Detailed: Easy to hear tiny details in the music; articulate. Adequate high-frequency response, sharp transient response.

Dull: See dark.

Edgy: Too much high frequencies. Trebly. Harmonics are too strong relative to the fundamentals. Distorted, having unwanted harmonics that add an edge or raspiness.

Fat: See Full and Warm. Or, spatially diffuse - a sound is panned to one channel, delayed, and then the delayed sound is panned to the other channel. Or, slightly distorted with analog tape distortion or tube distortion.

Full: Strong fundamentals relative to harmonics. Good low-frequency response, not necessarily extended, but with adequate level around 100 to 300 Hz. Male voices are full around 125 Hz; female voices and violins are full around 250 Hz; sax is full around 250 to 400 Hz. Opposite of thin.

Gentle: Opposite of edgy. The harmonics - highs and upper mids - are not exaggerated, or may even be weak.

Grainy: The music sounds like it is segmented into little grains, rather than flowing in one continuous piece. Not liquid or fluid. Suffering from harmonic or I.M. distortion. Some early A/D converters sounded grainy, as do current ones of inferior design. Powdery is finer than grainy.

Grungy: Lots of harmonic or I.M. distortion.

Hard: Too much upper midrange, usually around 3 kHz. Or, good transient response, as if the sound is hitting you hard.

Harsh: Too much upper midrange. Peaks in the frequency response between 2 and 6 kHz. Or, excessive phase shift in a digital recorder's lowpass filter.

Honky: Like cupping your hands around your mouth. A bump in the response around 500 to 700 Hz.

Mellow: Reduced high frequencies, not edgy.

Muddy: Not clear. Weak harmonics, smeared time response, I.M. distortion.

Muffled: Sounds like it is covered with a blanket. Weak highs or weak upper mids.

Nasal: Honky, a bump in the response around 600 Hz. Piercing: Strident, hard on the ears, screechy. Having sharp, narrow peaks in the response around 3 to 10 kHz.

Presence: A sense that the instrument in present in the listening room. Synonyms are edge, punch, detail, closeness and clarity. Adequate or emphasized response around 5 kHz for most instruments, or around 2 to 5 kHz for kick drum and bass.

Puffy: A bump in the response around 500 Hz.

Punchy: Good reproduction of dynamics. Good transient response, with strong impact. Sometimes a bump around 5 kHz or 200 Hz.

Rich: See Full. Also, having euphonic distortion made of even-order harmonics.

Round: High-frequency rolloff or dip. Not edgy.

Sibilant: "Essy" Exaggerated "s" and "sh" sounds in singing, caused by a rise in the around 6 to 10 kHz.

Sizzly: See Sibilant. Also, too much highs on cymbals.

Smeared: Lacking detail. Poor transient response, too much leakage between microphones. Poorly focused images.

Smooth: Easy on the ears, not harsh. Flat frequency response, especially in the midrange. Lack of peaks and dips in the response.

Spacious: Conveying a sense of space, ambiance, or room around the instruments. Stereo reverb. Early reflections.

Steely: Emphasized upper mids around 3 to 6 kHz. Peaky, nonflat high-frequency response. See Harsh, Edgy.

Strident: See Harsh, Edgy.

Sweet: Not strident or piercing. Delicate. Flat high-frequency response, low distortion. Lack of peaks in the response. Highs are extended to 15 or 20 kHz, but they are not bumped up. Often used when referring to cymbals, percussion, strings, and sibilant sounds.

Telephone-like: See Tinny.

Thin: Fundamentals are weak relative to harmonics.

Tight: Good low-frequency transient response and detail.

Tinny: Narrowband, weak lows, peaky mids. The music sounds like it is coming through a telephone or tin can.

Transparent: Easy to hear into the music, detailed, clear, not muddy. Wide flat frequency response, sharp time response, very low distortion and noise.

Tubby: Having low-frequency resonances as if you're singing in a bathtub. See bloated.

Veiled: Like a silk veil is over the speakers. Slight noise or distortion or slightly weak high frequencies. Not transparent.

Warm: Good bass, adequate low frequencies, adequate fundamentals relative to harmonics. Not thin. Also excessive bass or midbass. Also, pleasantly spacious, with adequate reverberation at low frequencies. Also see Rich, Round. Warm highs means sweet highs.

Re: punch isn't a bass issue per se

Posted By: Mantak
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2008, at 10:10 a.m.

In Response To: punch isn't a bass issue per se (Mantak)

Note that transient response is part of it. Transient response is often hard to put clearly into words. Your amp may not be able to deal with the issues. If the amp is having trouble dealing with the under 50hz bass responses, then sound energy for the midrange punch may be missing. Your speaker sensitivity is also in the mix in my opinion.

Its much easier to get the required punch from a multi-amped electronic crossed system than it is from a passive crossed single amp system in my opinion, having listened to both on the same set of speakers(I listened and later disconnected the passive crossover and substituted and a pre amp and three separate amps and an electronic crossover. "Punch" was dramatically different.

But punch is in the eye of the beholder to some extent.

Mantak Keays

Re: punch isn't a bass issue per se

Posted By: Rudy Jakubin ¿½ <rjakubin@yahoo.com>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2008, at 11:19 a.m.

In Response To: Re: punch isn't a bass issue per se (Mantak)

> Note that transient response is part of it.

I think he might be after chest resonance. That slam in the chest & gut. It's usually around 80 hz with it's associated harmonics. i.e. 160, 320, 640 etc.

The quad DA175's provide this punch very well.
The quad RS180's I have playing now provide that vibration he is referring to but do it very cleanly.
A whole different experience.

Re: Woofer

Posted By: DarrenK <darren_kuzma@hotmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2008, at 4:08 p.m.

In Response To: Woofer (Eric Jones)

From my experience, "punch" when talking about bass response is almost always talking about output in the 60 - 80 Hz range, as Rudy pointed out. I would contend that it is in this 60 Hz sense that most people use the term "punch".(sometimes you hear "slam" too)

Either way, it is indeed very difficult to get this "punch" out of a normal home theater sub, especially in a setup like you have. You need to be able to move significant amounts of air at 60 - 80 Hz, which neither of your current speakers or sub can do. Most likely your current sub is totally clipping the amp or operating in high distortion most of the time, which gives it an even more muddy, vibratey sort of sound. You've got a big room to deal with!

You can try a sub with a higher crossover point, but you're still limited in surface area, and it'll hard to get the sub to blend with the mains.

You can try, and I hope it works, but I'm afraid any sub isn't going to give you that "slam" that you may be looking for. Some mains with dual 10's or dual 12's might do the trick!!!

Good luck!

Darren

Re: Woofer

Posted By: Eric Jones <ericjoffroad@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2008, at 4:33 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Woofer (cj)

> "Mains" are your primary (main)
> left and right front speakers.

So if I were to get a pair of these Dayton RSS315HF, and then an amp(which one?)this would do it?

Re: Woofer

Posted By: chrisn <cdnarkiewicz@msn.com>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2008, at 8:03 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Woofer (Eric Jones)

> So if I were to get a pair of these Dayton
> RSS315HF, and then an amp(which one?)this
> would do it?

Any of the larger dayton RS subs should work, I like the HF's. I am no amp expert, I'll leave that to those better versed than I. The subs linked below (I think) have positive reviews as well.

Here are some mains from the project showcase that should work good in a large room: http://www.partsexpress.com/projectshowcase/indexn.cfm?project=MagnaCumLaude

RS1200 from the project showcase: http://www.partsexpress.com/projectshowcase/indexn.cfm?project=Rs1200

Regards:)

Re: Woofer you need more subs. *link*

Posted By: philip ARCARIO <philipARCARIO@YAHOO.COM>
Date: Thursday, 7 February 2008, at 4:20 p.m.

In Response To: Re: Woofer (DarrenK)

> From my experience, "punch" when
> talking about bass response is almost always
> talking about output in the 60 - 80 Hz
> range, as Rudy pointed out. I would contend
> that it is in this 60 Hz sense that most
> people use the term
> "punch".(sometimes you hear
> "slam" too)

> Either way, it is indeed very difficult to
> get this "punch" out of a normal
> home theater sub, especially in a setup like
> you have. You need to be able to move
> significant amounts of air at 60 - 80 Hz,
> which neither of your current speakers or
> sub can do. Most likely your current sub is
> totally clipping the amp or operating in
> high distortion most of the time, which
> gives it an even more muddy, vibratey sort
> of sound. You've got a big room to deal
> with!

> You can try a sub with a higher crossover
> point, but you're still limited in surface
> area, and it'll hard to get the sub to blend
> with the mains.

> You can try, and I hope it works, but I'm
> afraid any sub isn't going to give you that
> "slam" that you may be looking
> for. Some mains with dual 10's or dual 12's
> might do the trick!!!

> Good luck!

> Darren
my home theater is 24 by 12 by 8. I have three subs. a pair of nht's 1259 12inch. they act as speaker stands for my mains. I run them from 50hz to 80hz just ot get that punch. and 1 15 inch dayton rss390hf-4 from 20hz to 50hz for deep sounds. Look into a pair of of dayton 12 inch sub-120 on sale for 148 296 for two see link. if they don't do it they are returnable. if 296 is too much try sub-100 124 a piece 248 a pair.

http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=300-635

Re: Woofer

Posted By: Scholl
Date: Friday, 8 February 2008, at 5:56 a.m.

In Response To: Woofer (Eric Jones)

> Can you help me? I am trying to get some
> base out of my home system. I have 2 high
> end jbl's but they only have 6 1/2"
> woofers. I have tried vaius powered sub but
> they always have more of a low vibrating hum
> to them. I want something with a low heavy
> and punchy sound, without the funky
> vibrating sound. I hope that makes sense.
> Should I just use regular woofers with not
> so low of a crossover?

Hi Eric,

Over the years I've tried a lot of different speakers and found the starting point for solid bass with good hit (punch) is a 15" woofer in 3.5 or larger box. The sens should be 95DB or higher. 86DB 6 and 8" woofers have nice mids but just don't cut it for hit.

I've used JBL 2226H and B&C prosounds but found them to be too stiff and needed some power to open up. That's because they are designed to be used in small boxes with big amplifiers. For home use they needed to be played too loud.

I started working with 15"ers for home use and found the 15 from the Pioneer CS99A and Cerwin Vega S2 to be a better match to smaller rooms and lower power. Keep in mind these are 10 times more efficient then many home hifi speakers and 10 watts is very loud. This lead me to a beleive that there maybe a trend with 15s with higher Vas low Fs sounding better at low power than 15s with tight suspensions, small Vas and 35-45hz Vas. The high Vas 15s might not need the power to overcome the suspension stiffness low Vas 15s do.

Anyway, a good combo would be the Altec 416-8c from GreatPlains audio, the Audax PR170MO and Vifa H26bla bla horn tweeter from Madisound in a 5 cubic foot BR tuned to 35hz.

The bad news is that parts costs would be about $1100.00.

I use the audax and vifa wiht a Cerwin Vega 15 now and really like the combo. I get home hifi sound with efficiency and punch.

Cerwin Vega 15" three ways sell for next to nothing locally. They get a bad rap because they have poor crossovers and poor driver integration leaving them to sound hard, obnoxious and rought. Simply adding Lpads to the mids and highs is an improvement but they need propery designed crossovers too. They are a good place to start if you can't build boxes or aford 1100.00.

The next step would be horn loading but that's for another day.