Audio Forums


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

Anyone running Stereo Subwoofers?

 
 
T
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-17-2005, 10:23 PM


It never sat well with me the whole 'low frequencies are
non-directional' thing.

And then I was introduced today to a gal who's web site talks not of 5.1
but 5.2 surround sound.

This makes more sense to me, having perhaps a lesser rated sub, each to
a side, and really filling in the bottom end.

This'll be what I'm working on next, I have some reconfiguration of the
room to do anyway.

Thoughts?


TBerk
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
The Open Sourceror's Apprentice
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-18-2005, 12:15 AM
T <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:JVWGd.11496$wZ2.3567
@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com:

> This'll be what I'm working on next, I have some reconfiguration of the
> room to do anyway.
>
> Thoughts?


Watch out for "comb filter" effects. Easiest solution is to slap both drivers
into a common enclosure, with the usual caveats for phasing, etc.

--
Tired of spam in your mailbox?
Come to http://www.spamblocked.com
Who is Brad Jesness? http://www.wilhelp.com/bj_faq/
To the spammers, my motto: FABRICATI DIEM, PVNC.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Cyrus
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-18-2005, 08:14 AM
In article <JVWGd.11496$(E-Mail Removed) >,
T <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> It never sat well with me the whole 'low frequencies are
> non-directional' thing.
>
> And then I was introduced today to a gal who's web site talks not of 5.1
> but 5.2 surround sound.
>
> This makes more sense to me, having perhaps a lesser rated sub, each to
> a side, and really filling in the bottom end.
>
> This'll be what I'm working on next, I have some reconfiguration of the
> room to do anyway.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> TBerk


Multichannel HT doesn't contain sub bass stereo information. The .1 part
is a mono signal.

Although you could use an active xo to split the mains and feed that to
a sub amp. Dunno how you'd want that set up along with the .1 channel
though.

--
Cyrus

*coughcasaucedoprodigynetcough*


 
Reply With Quote
 
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      01-18-2005, 03:40 PM

"T" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JVWGd.11496$(E-Mail Removed) om...
>
>
> It never sat well with me the whole 'low frequencies are non-directional'
> thing.
>
> And then I was introduced today to a gal who's web site talks not of 5.1
> but 5.2 surround sound.
>
> This makes more sense to me, having perhaps a lesser rated sub, each to a
> side, and really filling in the bottom end.
>
> This'll be what I'm working on next, I have some reconfiguration of the
> room to do anyway.
>
> Thoughts?


I wouldn't call them "stereo" subwoofers; just call them "two" subwoofers,
because that's essentially what they are.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Erik S
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-06-2005, 08:53 PM
It is a good idea, BUT, setup is far more difficult.

You don't want to put them symmetrically in a room. You want them offset,
the problem is offsetting them properly.

If you put two subwoofers symmetrically in a symmetrical room, they will
both produce the same peaks and valleys in frequency response. You are
better off setting up one subwoofer first using proper measurement
equipment, and then setting up the other subwoofer with the express purpose
of filling in nulls that the first one will have.

A good trick is to put the subwoofer in your listening location, and then
walk around area where you plan on putting the subwoofer, until you hear the
best bass response.

Also, again, good acoustical materials make a far bigger improvement in the
response you hear than the number of subwoofers you buy, or hte quality of
the speakers you purchase.

Regards,


Erik

"T" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:JVWGd.11496$(E-Mail Removed) om...
>
>
> It never sat well with me the whole 'low frequencies are
> non-directional' thing.
>
> And then I was introduced today to a gal who's web site talks not of 5.1
> but 5.2 surround sound.
>
> This makes more sense to me, having perhaps a lesser rated sub, each to
> a side, and really filling in the bottom end.
>
> This'll be what I'm working on next, I have some reconfiguration of the
> room to do anyway.
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> TBerk



 
Reply With Quote
 
Frank Berryman
Guest
Posts: n/a

 
      02-10-2005, 03:29 AM
Erik S wrote:
>
> A good trick is to put the subwoofer in your listening location, and then
> walk around area where you plan on putting the subwoofer, until you hear the
> best bass response.
>


I know this is convention wisdom, but I never have understood it. If I
put the subwoofer at my listening position, it is going to react much
differently to boundaries, furniture, etc. than if it is placed at the
point where i may hear the best bass response.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Got C5 up and running....Cubase6 anyone??!! lancelightning Cubase 4 03-25-2009 01:46 AM
Anyone running Sonar 7 on a Quadcore? kitekrazy Cakewalk 7 04-29-2008 12:04 AM
Mackie Monitors? Anyone running a special? Stephen Pro Audio 7 02-02-2005 10:35 PM
Anyone running Sonar 3 @ 1600 x 1200 resolution ? Timboe Cakewalk 6 12-30-2003 04:30 AM
I'd like to talk to anyone running their own business gene Pro Audio 3 07-05-2003 04:43 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:13 AM.