Og derfor låter det mye bedre med subwoofere

[Kvålsvoll]

Et subwoofersystem rett satt opp gir bedre bassgjengivelse over hele bassområdet, det blir ikke bare mere og dypere bass.

Her er et ekspempel på et oppsett der lyden forbedres markant på alle punkter når subwoofersystemet kobles inn.
Det gjelder selvfølgelig for alle typer programmateriale - filmer, musikk.

Kun frontht som full-range har tildels ekstreme utsving i både nivå nedover i bassområdet, og også kraftige resonanser.
Dette avsløres ved å se på frekvensrespons og utklingning - her vist i decay og vannfall plot:

Uff uff.. målinger er en uting..

Med subwoofersystemet innkoblet forsvinner alle disse ekstreme utsvingene, og responsen over det meste av bassområdet er innenfor noen få dB i nivå, fasen er tilnærmet flat, og decay er kraftig forbedret:

Disse forbedringene oppnås i eksempelet kun ved bruk av subwoofere og oppsett av disse, det er ikke gjort endringer med akustisk demping i rommet.
For veldig lave frekvenser så er det - som en ser her - fullt mulig å bruke subwoofere til å redusere problemer med resonanser og ujevn bassrespons ved lave frekvenser.

Foruten det åpenbare - mere og dypere bass - så er kvaliteten på bassen mye bedre.

Vel, det var det jeg fant på å poste om nå i dag.
En myte mindre.

 

[liliya]

Overbevisende, og i tillegg verifisert med målinger.

Eivind Stillingen

 

[tommykh]

Jim Smith skrev følgende om temaet for en tid tilbake:

Full-range speakers need subs too…
But not neccesarily to achieve someone’s notion of “better bass”.

No matter how deep or authoritative the bass from a “full-range” speaker may be, no matter if it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, it’s probably not going to let you have your (audio) cake and (hear) eat it too.

For example, here are just a few of the large and/or expensive speakers that have benefited from subs: Wilson, YGA, Magico, Vandersteen, Tannoy, etc.

Are they somehow deficient in the bass? Absolutely not. It’s about having the smoothest and deepest bass speaker location coincide exactly with the other requirements for great sound. Coincide is a good word, because it would be a huge coincidence if it ever happens!

It’s really simple. When you place your speakers for the absolute best overall presentation, with maximum intimacy, presence, tone, etc., as well as a convincing spatial reproduction, there is almost no chance that the same place will be the best position for the best bass. In fact, I’ve never seen it happen. Sometimes it can be close, but I’ve never heard a system that didn’t perform at a higher level with properly matched and integrated subs. Of course, properly matched and integrated is the key…

That does not mean that you have to go out and buy a pair of subwoofers. Perhaps your budget or room couldn’t easily accommodate them.

It does mean that you do have to make YOUR best choice for the most acceptable compromise. For me, I’ll take the smoothest bass I can get and opt for the best intimacy, presence, tone, spatial performance, etc., instead of getting deeper bass.

For example my Tannoy Canterburys are relatively flat in my room to a bit below 30 Hz.

I have a pair of REL subs that are placed for their highest performance. They are rolled off at 23 Hz. They are never audible as a source of sound. But there is no disputing the system’s reproduction of the sense of the venue and the presence of seemingly live persons & instruments in the room.

In my case, I did it for a more compellingly musical sound, not for “better bass”. Maybe on 1-2% of the recordings that I play, I might notice the bass being a bit deeper or more authoritative, but the rest of the time, I’m never aware of the subs.

Well, except for the fact that the listening experience is so much more involving, and I know one of the reasons why.