On 06/22/05 22:26 ET, Vincent Delpino said...
what about the sub is my only concern.the paradigm
hits down to 17 hertz and ive had great success
using these. looks like all the triad stuff is
only rated down to 20. is this a conservative
rating? I have triad available and would like
to offer a 3rd speaker line. Dyn audio being my
secound.
Vincent, as far as 17Hz vs. 20Hz low frequency extension ratings on the subwoofers... it's 3 cycles man...
The octave of 20Hz to 40Hz used to be called "first octave", because it was the first octave within the accepted audible range of 20Hz to 20,000Hz.
Now people are getting all bent over sub-20Hz response and if they knew the reality of capturing and reproducing low frequencies, they could see that it's a joke really.
First a myth about the rated rolloff point, or F3, of a subwoofer. Many subs are rated to reflect in room performance, but almost all brands are rated differently and those different ratings are generally nowhere near equivelant to each other or to actual in-room response in your room.
Companies like Triad and Paradigm use Pi loading and DIN 45 500 references that are based on well defined parameters, while others use generic "in room" ratings that are not defined and are basically BS because they can easily be manipulated by adding additional reinforcement through placement before making the measurement for the specification.
The thing with Pi rated response vs. DIN 45 500 response ratings is that they are not apples to apples. Both are widely accepted in the speaker design world, but they are not exactly equivelant ratings...
Rating the difference in the LF extension of subs that are rated as closely as these would really be dependant on the room dimensions, the amount of reinforcement given by the boundaries, and placement to optimize minimization of the room modes.
Subwoofers like the Triad PowerSubs in sealed enclosures have a shallow roll off (6-9dB/octave) compared to the steeper rolloff (12-18dB/octave) of ported designs or passive radiator designs like the Seismic.
This means you will have more usable output 1/2 octave below the rated -3dB point of a Triad than at the same point below any ported design, even if it's rated to play lower.
The bottom line is that unless you heard them in the same spot of the same room, with the same track, and with the levels dialed in using a tone well above the F3, it would be tough to declare one model as the low frequency extension king over the other.
Things like transient response are much easier to hear easily. Which one SOUNDS better, and I am confident that Triad will hold it's own with anything out there in anywhere near it's price range.
Besides, 20 Hz is lower than you will likely ever hear.
The tweaks on the DIY "science" forum say that the "tank tapping" seen on Nemo goes to below 15 Hz, and that may be, but the sequences that everyone thinks have the super deep bass are usually in the 30-40Hz range.
Only the synthesized sounds like movie sound effects are even cabable of going below 20Hz...
Actual recordings of sub-20Hz information recorded live is hard to capture, and harder to place on recording media. Instances of recorded sub-20Hz from a non-synthesized source can literally be counted on one hand.
First there are issues with accurately capturing sounds that low.
A simplified description of a microphone is a moving diaphragm inside a tuned capsule, kind of like reverse tweeter. Even the finest and most expensive mics in the World have difficulty capturing live sounds that low with any accuracy.
The second reason is recording/storage.
Prodigious deep bass oversaturated the analog tapes used to make masters in the era before PCM digital masters, enginners had to weigh dynamic range with deep bass, because only one of those factors could be at it's best...
Recording equipment (even digital equipment) has historically not done a great job of getting ultra low frequency information on the LP or disc intact without compressing, chopping, or altering frequencies that low through all of the various processes used in the creation of commercial CDs and LPs.
The next reason is practicality, LPs couldn't be pressed with prodigious deep bass because it would literally cause the stylus to jump out of the groove and mistrack on all but the most meticulously set up turntables.
When CDs came along, they were a 16 bit format, and although it was leaps and bounds beyond what could be captured on tape or vinyl, there still was not enough resolution to accurately re-create low bass.
DVDs, DVD-Audio, and SACD will absolutely re-create very low frequency information, it's just that 100 years of masters are already compromised for the media of the day. Re-mastering only gets you so much, especially if the media that the masters in recorded on is not LF friendly.
Fully synthesized digital methods used in post houses to make DVD soundtracks have that ability, so this is where the majority of the ULTRA low demos are found.
There are some notable CDs, DVD-As and SACDs that have extremely low bass. My personal reference for evaluating subwoofers is the Telarc release of the Michael Murray rendition of Saint Saens Symphony No. 3 featuring the lowest live instrument that exists, a pipe organ. Of course, no discussion of LF recordings can pass without mentioning the ubiquitous cannons in the 1812 Overture by Tchaikovsky...
For deep bass synth tracks, you need some prog rock...
Pink Floyd, early Genesis, Rush, Yes, Dream Theater, etc. are good choices. I like "Sorrow" from Pink Floyd's Pulse CD. There is a section in that song that hits the bottom with some authority. "Love is Blindness" from U2's Achtung Baby CD is a pretty good low bass track as well, but doesn't go anywhere near as low as the pipe organs.
