[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ARSCLIST] Stereo records.
The subs are 17' apart. I listen near field. So, am I fooling myself? If
you draw a line between the subs, I'm closer to that line than the subs are
far apart. I can hear, or at least I think I can hear, stereo bass on good
classical recordings. On some CDs, I get the sense of a wave emanating from
the right that spreads out and bounces back from the back wall of the hall.
My room isn't THAT big. I'm pretty sure it's a good recording.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Richter" <mrichter@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, June 17, 2006 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Stereo records.
phillip holmes wrote:
I mean below 40Hz. And the early stereo microphone techniques were at
least 10' apart.
I have "full range" speakers, but I added subwoofers because the room
volume was too large. After adding the subs, I noticed less of a problem
with standing waves (but created other problems with crossover between
the subs and the fullrange speakers and distance between the two--very
hard to get right). A friend pointed out that "sub" woofers should be
pointless since they are "below" bass. But I never felt like I could
hear the hall without subs. Concert halls add as much character to the
bass as the midrange and up.
The wavelength at 40 Hz is about 25 feet. That means that subs 10' apart
are separated by less than half a wavelength. Therefore, your sound should
be at least as good with one subwoofer as with two.
There's plenty of signal available in the octave below 40 Hz with the
right material. I've a monaural recording of pipe organ that shakes the
place with its 32-foot stop - 16 Hz fundamental.