[Table of Contents]


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [ARSCLIST] Stereo records.



Hmm,
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.
Phillip
----- Original Message ----- From: "Mike Richter" <mrichter@xxxxxxx>
To: <ARSCLIST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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.
Phillip

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.

Mike
--
mrichter@xxxxxxx
http://www.mrichter.com/




[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents]