|
Speaker Asylum General speaker questions for audio and home theater. |
|
|
|
Speaker Asylum General speaker questions for audio and home theater. |
|
In Reply to: Re: some comments posted by twelti on March 11, 2007 at 15:54:39:
Show me blind comparisons of a typical left-right "stereo" subwoofer position versus four mid-wall subwoofers in a variety of typical two-channel stereo listening rooms by audiophiles, where the listeners generally agree that that four mid-wall subwoofers are a better choice for two-channel stereo.These data do not exist.
Therefore the conclusion that four mid-wall subwoofers will sound better than the typical left-right subwoofers is nothing more than JUMPING TO A CONCLUSION.
That's not objective.
That's not science.
If there are no blind listening evaluations, at least show me measurements of sine waves, at the ONE stereo sweet spot seat preferred by the stereo's owner, in a variety of two-channel stereo listening rooms that SUGGEST four-mid-wall subwoofers measure significantly better than left-right subwoofers.
These measurements would not help us evaluate subjective satellite speaker- subwoofer integration, and they may not correlate with subwective auditions, but they might at least suggest POTENTIAL audible benefits of four mid-wall subwoofers.
Your white paper fails only because so many two-channel stereo owners read it and then believe four mid-wall subwoofers is the right answer for the highest quality bass at their ONE sweet-spot seat.
Of course your paper does not specify this goal, and your goals obviously apply to home theaters with multiple rows of seats, but when so many readers get the wrong impression over many years, it is ALWAYS the writer's fault. Can we blame George W. Bush for this?
Tom Nousaine posted online several years ago that he tested your four mid-wall subwoofer recommendations in a real room, versus a corner subwoofer, and does not agree.
In fact, it appears that no two speaker "experts", from Tom Nousaine, Earl Geddes and Dave Clark in Michigan ... to Sigmund Linkwitz and Floyd Toole in California, etc. agree on four on the floor mid-wall subwoofers, based on what is in their homes, or what they recommend in their articles and papers!
So there is clearly no agreement among "experts" on the number of subwoofers, much less their "optimum" locations.
I could stop right here with the obvious conclusion that optimum subwoofer placement and quantity for two-channel audio may vary from room to room, may vary with different measurement methodologies, may vary depending on listener priorities, and may not apply to surround sound audio in the same room!
But no one here ever stops arguing, or allows another inmate to get in the last word, on these LIFE and DEATH issues!
The important question for readers here at the Asylum is whether buying a third or fourth subwoofer would be a good investment for TWO-CHANNEL AUDIO. And never mind the added cost, or opportunity cost of failing to upgrade more important components.
A primary goal of two-channel audio owners is perfect subwoofer-satellite speaker integration at the stereo sweet spot position. This is entirely subjective, but is not helped by side and rear subwoofers.
A second goal is a decent bass frequency response at the stereo sweet spot position. At least no worse than a pair of expensive full-range speakers. This is somewhat subjective because bass peaks and partial nulls can be measured at any listening position, but their subjective effect on the bassline is affected by our ear's one-third octave smoothing, and bass peaks are much more noticeable than partial nulls while listening to complex music.
The correct answer to the question is that buying a third or fourth is a "flip a coin" gamble for two-channel audio.
If all the three or four subwoofers were placed on the floor, and all included the first-order axial standing wave center frequency in their range, then the liostener will most likely hear a bass peak from that room mode with typical ear heights in an 8-foot tall room ... and with all ear heights in a 10 foot or taller room.
Tom Nousaine's AES paper comparing five surround subwoofers with one corner subwoofer first identified this problem. It would apply just as much to your "four on the floor" subwoofer recommendations in a typical two-channel audio room.
Ears would have to be close to the partial null of the first-order floor to ceiling axial standing wave to avoid a bass boom. With a typical listening chair ,and a listener of average height, the ears are not close enough to avoid coupling with that room mode. Even more coupling if the listener is below average height, his chair is below average height and the listener doesn't sit up straight.
So if none of my arguments convince you that your surround sound subwoofer placement recommendations do not apply to two-channel audio in a typical two-channel audio room (much smaller than the room you used) ... if for no other reason than you did not test this goal, then I must resort to my ultimate rational argument:
Your Mother wears Army boots!
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Your paper applies to surround sound but many readers assume 4 subs are best for two-channel - Richard BassNut Greene 08:31:20 03/12/07 (2)
- Re: Your paper applies to surround sound but many readers assume 4 subs are best for two-channel - twelti 21:45:37 03/12/07 (1)
- My mind is open on a third or fourth subwoofer for two channel audio. You seem to have only conclusions. - Richard BassNut Greene 08:53:53 03/13/07 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
