What is the truth with the BASS?
Posted by: Arye_Gur on 09 January 2004
I read the thread about the subwoofer and I wish to as k you a question:
I don't think that the IBL have a problem with bass – especially when I compare them to live music. A live jazz band with a contrabass doesn't seem to have (to my ears) more bass than my system with the IBLs. But it is obvious, when you listen to other speakers than Naim's, most of the times you get more bass than with the IBLs – and when the system does it right, it gives more pleasure to the listening (only I don't know a system that sounds better than Naim in all the other aspects).
The problem is not with the electronics. When I had a CDX/102-Hi-Napsc/140, I took for a listening Obelisk by Shahinian, and these speakers went very low – only the 140 couldn't control them.
Few friends, in order to prove to me that my speakers are bass less, brought to my home Rell Stadum – but nada! With all their affords, the rell gave nothing, and they couldn’t bring the system to play more bass with the Rell.
Few days ago I read that the IBL goes down to 45 HZ. I also know that our brain can recuperate low frequency if the ear receives the second harmonic. So if the loudspeaker plays 45 Hz, you can "hear" a source sound of 22.5 Hz and this is low! It is a fact that you can hear lows even when you are listening to a small radio-transistor because of the facility of our brain to "rebuild" the sound out of its harmonics.
So the question is, what are we missing with the IBLs compare to other speakers. I was told that the problem is with the upper lows, that Naim treat this area differently than other manufacturers.
Arye
I don't think that the IBL have a problem with bass – especially when I compare them to live music. A live jazz band with a contrabass doesn't seem to have (to my ears) more bass than my system with the IBLs. But it is obvious, when you listen to other speakers than Naim's, most of the times you get more bass than with the IBLs – and when the system does it right, it gives more pleasure to the listening (only I don't know a system that sounds better than Naim in all the other aspects).
The problem is not with the electronics. When I had a CDX/102-Hi-Napsc/140, I took for a listening Obelisk by Shahinian, and these speakers went very low – only the 140 couldn't control them.
Few friends, in order to prove to me that my speakers are bass less, brought to my home Rell Stadum – but nada! With all their affords, the rell gave nothing, and they couldn’t bring the system to play more bass with the Rell.
Few days ago I read that the IBL goes down to 45 HZ. I also know that our brain can recuperate low frequency if the ear receives the second harmonic. So if the loudspeaker plays 45 Hz, you can "hear" a source sound of 22.5 Hz and this is low! It is a fact that you can hear lows even when you are listening to a small radio-transistor because of the facility of our brain to "rebuild" the sound out of its harmonics.
So the question is, what are we missing with the IBLs compare to other speakers. I was told that the problem is with the upper lows, that Naim treat this area differently than other manufacturers.
Arye
Arye,
Those who ask for more bass than that offered by smaller boxes are looking for rather more than a facsimile of the music. They are looking for greater reality. At least I am.
There is a great deal missing in the reproduction from small speakers that is not immediately obvious. Organ notes, plucked acoustic bass, kick drum & percussion in general are all incredibly demanding of bass fundamentals. In order to have any grip on reality.
I believe strongly that the fundamentals form the leading edge of all transients. This reminds me of an early review of the Linn Sondek. The reviewer said that he believed that every note has to have a starting point. As it is beginning from a standing start it has no frequency. It must start therefore at DC = 0Hz and work upwards. To fill the sound envelope expected by the brain. If the speaker cannot start at a low enough frequency then every single note and sound heard lacks a true leading edge. The brain must work harder to fill in the gaps. Reality is lost. The words are mine. The sentiments are partly his.
I would set the <upper> starting limit for fundamentals at 20Hz from 8 years experience with subwoofers with just that capability. My Mission 753Fs have bass but lack real fundamental depth compared with my subwoofers. So I plan to set up a second system just to enjoy the reality of my subwoofers and Kans. Note that these subs are <flat> down to 20Hz in my large listening spaces & not Home Theatre bloated bass in a small room.
Those who think they have real bass are probably judging it on the bass guitar in rock music. This needs plenty of power to reproduce well but no great bass depth.
Consider yourself incredibly lucky that you are satisfied by 'virtual' bass. Just think of the money you'll save over the coming years on bigger boxes and subwoofers.
Nime
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
Those who ask for more bass than that offered by smaller boxes are looking for rather more than a facsimile of the music. They are looking for greater reality. At least I am.
There is a great deal missing in the reproduction from small speakers that is not immediately obvious. Organ notes, plucked acoustic bass, kick drum & percussion in general are all incredibly demanding of bass fundamentals. In order to have any grip on reality.
I believe strongly that the fundamentals form the leading edge of all transients. This reminds me of an early review of the Linn Sondek. The reviewer said that he believed that every note has to have a starting point. As it is beginning from a standing start it has no frequency. It must start therefore at DC = 0Hz and work upwards. To fill the sound envelope expected by the brain. If the speaker cannot start at a low enough frequency then every single note and sound heard lacks a true leading edge. The brain must work harder to fill in the gaps. Reality is lost. The words are mine. The sentiments are partly his.
I would set the <upper> starting limit for fundamentals at 20Hz from 8 years experience with subwoofers with just that capability. My Mission 753Fs have bass but lack real fundamental depth compared with my subwoofers. So I plan to set up a second system just to enjoy the reality of my subwoofers and Kans. Note that these subs are <flat> down to 20Hz in my large listening spaces & not Home Theatre bloated bass in a small room.
Those who think they have real bass are probably judging it on the bass guitar in rock music. This needs plenty of power to reproduce well but no great bass depth.
Consider yourself incredibly lucky that you are satisfied by 'virtual' bass. Just think of the money you'll save over the coming years on bigger boxes and subwoofers.
Nime
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
That's why they have smaller cones for higher frequencies Goeff. It is only a theory that I found interesting and it has stuck in my mind for several decades. It seems plausible enough. An audio frequency spectrum analyser could probably disprove it at a single stroke.
We are all surrounded in incredibly deep bass all day long: Trains, lorries, carts on concrete floors, supermarket air-conditoning and the pallet truck brought to fill the shelves, are a few obvious examples.
Listening to satellite TV with my subwoofers & Kans <running at normal speaking voice level> is often startlingly real. The mundane detective series suddenly has a real train arriving at the platform, the deep rumble & racket of a steel-wheeled, wooden truck carrying luggage across the concrete platform. The old lorry, bus or car pulling away all excite the senses. These things are hardly noticed on normal speakers yet add so much to the reality of the story telling.
I am talking about speakers/subs with a flat frequncy response down to 20Hz in a large space. Not HT boost with the wick turned up in a small room which has nothing whatsoever to do with everyday reality or music. Even if it is great fun!
So why do many deny themselves the same everyday low frequncy response when they listen to music? Don't they even want to hear the conductor walking onto the wooden stage during a classical music radio broadcast? You won't believe the racket a string quartet can make on a Radio 3 Lunchtime concert as they plod about and adjust their chairs and music stands between pieces.
The human ear response falls off as bass drops in frequency. As do virtually all loudspeakers (just to make life even more tiresome). To enjoy deep bass requires a flat frequency response into the very deep bass. Otherwise the wick has to be turned up just to make the deep bass even audible. But this high volume level just submerges it in everything else that is happening. A subwoofer simply offers deep bass at <natural everyday levels> without excessive volume. But only when adjusted correctly and perfectly matched to the satellite or main speakers. Not an easy trick to carry off successfully.
http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/equal_loudness.html
(Offers a nice graph of the equal loudness problem)
Nime
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
It is only a theory that I found interesting and it has stuck in my mind for several decades. It seems plausible enough. An audio frequency spectrum analyser could probably disprove it at a single stroke.We are all surrounded in incredibly deep bass all day long: Trains, lorries, carts on concrete floors, supermarket air-conditoning and the pallet truck brought to fill the shelves, are a few obvious examples.
Listening to satellite TV with my subwoofers & Kans <running at normal speaking voice level> is often startlingly real. The mundane detective series suddenly has a real train arriving at the platform, the deep rumble & racket of a steel-wheeled, wooden truck carrying luggage across the concrete platform. The old lorry, bus or car pulling away all excite the senses. These things are hardly noticed on normal speakers yet add so much to the reality of the story telling.
I am talking about speakers/subs with a flat frequncy response down to 20Hz in a large space. Not HT boost with the wick turned up in a small room which has nothing whatsoever to do with everyday reality or music. Even if it is great fun!
So why do many deny themselves the same everyday low frequncy response when they listen to music? Don't they even want to hear the conductor walking onto the wooden stage during a classical music radio broadcast? You won't believe the racket a string quartet can make on a Radio 3 Lunchtime concert as they plod about and adjust their chairs and music stands between pieces.
The human ear response falls off as bass drops in frequency. As do virtually all loudspeakers (just to make life even more tiresome). To enjoy deep bass requires a flat frequency response into the very deep bass. Otherwise the wick has to be turned up just to make the deep bass even audible. But this high volume level just submerges it in everything else that is happening. A subwoofer simply offers deep bass at <natural everyday levels> without excessive volume. But only when adjusted correctly and perfectly matched to the satellite or main speakers. Not an easy trick to carry off successfully.
http://replaygain.hydrogenaudio.org/equal_loudness.html
(Offers a nice graph of the equal loudness problem)
Nime
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
I agree entirely with James on the unique quality of all bass notes and sounds. The remarkable diversity of bass notes when heard clearly. Must bring into doubt ideas of the brain being truly able to fill out the missing bottom octave(s). Another hifi myth bites the dust?
Another fascinating area of enjoyment (if only for brief periods) is 'techno'. The lightning speed & timbral character of their electronically produced bass sounds can be quite remarkable when one can really plumb the depths. I wonder how they monitor their own bass lines?
Nime
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
Another fascinating area of enjoyment (if only for brief periods
) is 'techno'. The lightning speed & timbral character of their electronically produced bass sounds can be quite remarkable when one can really plumb the depths. I wonder how they monitor their own bass lines?Nime
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
I think I should concede that my gushing enthusiasm for my own Kan matched DIY passive subwoofers has absolutely no relevance to most members of this forum.
If you want to get quality sub bass and all its advantages into your own system then you should really be auditioning a Rel active subwoofer with your own speakers. Or rather two Rels.
Their very low cutoff points are able to match floorstanders with already adequate upper bass. If you are serious about realistic sound quality you owe it to yourself to ivestigate active subwoofers. Whatever your preconceived notions about them.
I have just been trying to enjoy some organ CDs again with my late model Mission 753Fs via my 72/180. The Missions really don't have what it takes unaided. Despite my open plan listening space. The Missions are bolted to heavy cast iron Blackfeet stands. (for a large footprint without lifting them off the floor) These sit on large heavy duty concrete paving slabs via huge spikes. But despite all this the missing bottom 20Hz really is essential to the full enjoyment of the music. As my wife keeps pointing out!
If I had a couple of Rel subs I could perfecty match the sub-bass to my Missions. But of course my two passive subs are totally incompatible with the 753s or any other speaker. Mere plant stands. My wife could even use an AV setting for Metallica with a Rel sub (or two)! Peace at last!
Don't let my over-enthusiastic waffling about sub-bass put you off having a serious listen to active subwoofers.
My problem now is finding a Rel dealer in Denmark. The one on the Rel website is actually in Sweden.
Nime
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
If you want to get quality sub bass and all its advantages into your own system then you should really be auditioning a Rel active subwoofer with your own speakers. Or rather two Rels.
Their very low cutoff points are able to match floorstanders with already adequate upper bass. If you are serious about realistic sound quality you owe it to yourself to ivestigate active subwoofers. Whatever your preconceived notions about them.
I have just been trying to enjoy some organ CDs again with my late model Mission 753Fs via my 72/180. The Missions really don't have what it takes unaided. Despite my open plan listening space. The Missions are bolted to heavy cast iron Blackfeet stands. (for a large footprint without lifting them off the floor) These sit on large heavy duty concrete paving slabs via huge spikes. But despite all this the missing bottom 20Hz really is essential to the full enjoyment of the music. As my wife keeps pointing out!
If I had a couple of Rel subs I could perfecty match the sub-bass to my Missions. But of course my two passive subs are totally incompatible with the 753s or any other speaker. Mere plant stands. My wife could even use an AV setting for Metallica with a Rel sub (or two)! Peace at last!
Don't let my over-enthusiastic waffling about sub-bass put you off having a serious listen to active subwoofers.
My problem now is finding a Rel dealer in Denmark. The one on the Rel website is actually in Sweden.
Nime
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
Any audible delay in response from the subwoofer would indicate too high a roll-off point to match the main speaker's bass roll-off. The subwoofer should never be asked to augment the bass by overlapping for serious music listening. It should merely extend the lower frequency response of the main speakers. Imagine a response graph with another half an inch added to the left of the previous cut-off line.
That Rel should recommend a corner position (to best load the room) may rest entirely on their luxury of having such a low cut-off point available to the demanding listener. Any higher cut-off pount will quickly draw attention to the newly introduced hump in the bass response and "slow" the bass.
My adherence to a close position for the exit ports of my passive Kan matching Subwoofers might well be due to their extended upper response. Though this could be much reduced with a notch filter. Simply spacing the subwoofers another couple of feet apart greatly affected the sound of the system even in a relatively large room. From long experience I can confirm that one cannot simply dump a subwoofer in a room and expect instant success. Any more than finding the perfect spot for the main speakers is a five minute affair.
But if you don't get to play with the toys between listening sessions, then what is there left?
Nime
Everyone has the right to be wrong.
That Rel should recommend a corner position (to best load the room) may rest entirely on their luxury of having such a low cut-off point available to the demanding listener. Any higher cut-off pount will quickly draw attention to the newly introduced hump in the bass response and "slow" the bass.
My adherence to a close position for the exit ports of my passive Kan matching Subwoofers might well be due to their extended upper response. Though this could be much reduced with a notch filter. Simply spacing the subwoofers another couple of feet apart greatly affected the sound of the system even in a relatively large room. From long experience I can confirm that one cannot simply dump a subwoofer in a room and expect instant success. Any more than finding the perfect spot for the main speakers is a five minute affair.
But if you don't get to play with the toys between listening sessions, then what is there left?
Nime
Everyone has the right to be wrong.