@williewonka wrote:
" IMO - the more "sources" the less detailed the bass gets and it I do not believe it equates to FASTER BASS.either
"I always found the fewer drives the better - when it comes to HiFi.
"I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one - sorry"
Willie, I have NO PROBLEM with agreeing to disagree. Let’s do that.
But I hope you don’t mind if I try to explain myself a bit. Heaudio123 pretty much already said it, but here’s my version:
In the bass region, frequency response peaks take longer to decay than the rest of the spectrum, and therefore are literally and perceptually "slow". Also, the longer it takes for a sound to fade away, the louder we perceive it to be. So not only are the peaks louder, but they hang around for longer. Double whammy. By smoothing out the frequency response in the bass region a distributed multisub system results in much smaller peaks, so we no longer have frequencies which decay significantly slower than the rest of the spectrum. So we no longer have boom, overhang, muddiness from notes taking too long to decay. Hence my statement that "smooth" bass = "fast" bass.
Smooth bass also results in more DETAILED bass because frequencies which linger for longer (those nasty peaks) are what blur subsequent bass notes. The key to clarity in the bass region is how the notes decay - what we don’t want is notes which decay too slowly thereby masking subsequent notes. Bass trapping also addresses the decay of the notes, via a different mechanism. It is not at all obvious that multiple subs and bass traps have this common ground, so let me explain that as well.
According to multiple experts on acoustics and psychoacoustics (such as Floyd Toole and Sean Oliver and Earl Geddes), at low frequencies, speakers + room = a "minimum phase" system. What this means is, the frequency response tracks the time-domain response, and vice-versa. So where there is a frequency response peak, there is slow decay. And where there is slow decay, there is a frequency response peak. The good news is: When we fix one, we have simultaneously fixed the other.
Bass traps absorb energy and therefore reduce the decay time, and the more often a sound wave strikes the bass trap the more it is absorbed by it. This is how bass traps absorb more of bass energy that is decay more slowly (and thus striking it more often), thus smoothing out the in-room frequency response. I’ve already described that a distributed multisub system smooths out the in-room response, but in doing so, it simultaneously improves the time domain response, resulting in more uniform decay times across the bass region. Therefore, counter-intuitive at it may seem, bass traps and distributed multisub systems are working on the exact same problem but coming at it from different angles.
In my experience a distributed multi-sub system usually makes a larger improvement than bass trapping, but there may be situations where the opposite is true. And we can use both.
Like I said, I’m perfectly okay with agreeing to disagree. No need for you to explain your position, but I hope you don’t mind if I explained mine.
Duke
" IMO - the more "sources" the less detailed the bass gets and it I do not believe it equates to FASTER BASS.either
"I always found the fewer drives the better - when it comes to HiFi.
"I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one - sorry"
Willie, I have NO PROBLEM with agreeing to disagree. Let’s do that.
But I hope you don’t mind if I try to explain myself a bit. Heaudio123 pretty much already said it, but here’s my version:
In the bass region, frequency response peaks take longer to decay than the rest of the spectrum, and therefore are literally and perceptually "slow". Also, the longer it takes for a sound to fade away, the louder we perceive it to be. So not only are the peaks louder, but they hang around for longer. Double whammy. By smoothing out the frequency response in the bass region a distributed multisub system results in much smaller peaks, so we no longer have frequencies which decay significantly slower than the rest of the spectrum. So we no longer have boom, overhang, muddiness from notes taking too long to decay. Hence my statement that "smooth" bass = "fast" bass.
Smooth bass also results in more DETAILED bass because frequencies which linger for longer (those nasty peaks) are what blur subsequent bass notes. The key to clarity in the bass region is how the notes decay - what we don’t want is notes which decay too slowly thereby masking subsequent notes. Bass trapping also addresses the decay of the notes, via a different mechanism. It is not at all obvious that multiple subs and bass traps have this common ground, so let me explain that as well.
According to multiple experts on acoustics and psychoacoustics (such as Floyd Toole and Sean Oliver and Earl Geddes), at low frequencies, speakers + room = a "minimum phase" system. What this means is, the frequency response tracks the time-domain response, and vice-versa. So where there is a frequency response peak, there is slow decay. And where there is slow decay, there is a frequency response peak. The good news is: When we fix one, we have simultaneously fixed the other.
Bass traps absorb energy and therefore reduce the decay time, and the more often a sound wave strikes the bass trap the more it is absorbed by it. This is how bass traps absorb more of bass energy that is decay more slowly (and thus striking it more often), thus smoothing out the in-room frequency response. I’ve already described that a distributed multisub system smooths out the in-room response, but in doing so, it simultaneously improves the time domain response, resulting in more uniform decay times across the bass region. Therefore, counter-intuitive at it may seem, bass traps and distributed multisub systems are working on the exact same problem but coming at it from different angles.
In my experience a distributed multi-sub system usually makes a larger improvement than bass trapping, but there may be situations where the opposite is true. And we can use both.
Like I said, I’m perfectly okay with agreeing to disagree. No need for you to explain your position, but I hope you don’t mind if I explained mine.
Duke