• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

AudioKinesis Cabs Part VI...

Wow. THAT is one of the coolest pics of my Thunderchild cabs that I've seen. Thank you sir!!

VERY nice studio!

Is that a subwoofer below the small keyboard near the screen? If so, I have some unorthodox subwoofer/room interaction ideas that might be useful.

Hey thanks Duke!

It is a sub I built and tuned using winISD, has a scan speak 12 in it.

My room, while treated, definitely suffers from some issues as I can hear nulls etc during REW sweeps etc. I'd very much appreciate any advice you may have regarding placement etc!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DukeLeJeune
It is a sub I built and tuned using winISD, has a scan speak 12 in it.

My room, while treated, definitely suffers from some issues as I can hear nulls etc during REW sweeps etc. I'd very much appreciate any advice you may have regarding placement etc!

Well there is no secret to positioning a subwoofer... you will inevitably have a big peak-and-dip pattern no matter where you place the sub, and no matter where you sit. You can move your chair or move the sub and that will change the peak-and-dip pattern, and you might make some improvement, but it will never go away. You can equalize for your listening position and make a significant improvement at that location, but at the same time you will be making the bass region WORSE at other locations within the room. This may not matter, but if one of your system's duties is "impress the clients", you don't want your clients to hear lumpy bass.

The problem is not that there are too many room-induced peaks and dips - the problem is that there are TOO FEW! Up in the midrange region the reflection-induced peaks and dips are spaced so close together that they essentially form a continuum (and they look like "grass" on an unsmoothed response curve), but unless we have an unusually large room, that situation doesn't extend down into the bass region. The ear/brain system tends to average out peaks and dips that are within about 1/3 octave of one another, but when they are further apart, they are more likely to stick out like sore thumbs. In general the smaller the room, the fewer and farther apart the bass region's peaks and dips are going to be.

If we look at a set of equal loudness curves, we can see that they bunch up south of 100 Hz:

screenshot.jpg

One of the things these curves tell us is that a roughly 5 dB change in SPL at 40 Hz SOUNDS LIKE as big a change in loudness as a 10 dB change at 1 kHz! So our ears actually have a heightened sensitivity to dips and peaks in the bass region! This is one of the reasons why it normally takes a long time to dial in the correct level for a subwoofer - a small change in SPL makes a relatively large chance in PERCEIVED bass loudness.

At low frequencies, speakers + room = a system. In the size rooms we have in our homes, the ear literally cannot hear the bass apart from the room's effects on it (I can explain why if anyone would like). And those effects are typically huge.

One more bit of theory before we get to the solution: Perceptually, smooth bass is FAST bass. Speakers + room = a "linear phase" system at low frequencies, which means that the time-domain response tracks the frequency response (and vice-versa). So an in-room bass peak is ALSO where the bass energy takes longer to decay to inaudibility. I'm going to propose something that most directly addresses the in-room frequency response, but at the same time it's improving the time-domain response, so the net result is perceptually FAST bass.

Okay enough theory. The solution is, take multiple subs and spread 'em around the room asymmetrically. Each will generate a unique peak-and-dip pattern at the listening position. But the SUM of these multiple dissimilar peak-and-dip patterns is far smoother than any one alone. We end up with not only a lot less total variation, but also a much denser net peak-and-dip pattern, so the ear/brain's smoothing mechanism can kick in.

The ear/brain system doesn't hear the slight variation in arrival times; at low frequencies the ear's time-domain-resolution is quite poor, but (as the equal-loudness curves show) its frequency-response-domain (or loudness-domain) resolution is heightened at low frequencies.

This can be done working with the subwoofer you already have. Maybe build three small subs to go with the one you have, same impedance as the one you have, probably not going as deep and/or not being as efficient. That's okay. Connect the four subs in series-parallel and drive them all with the same amp (to avoid the expense of needing three more channels of amplification).

Caugh....swarm..caugh caugh...

Yeah, I make a commercial four-sub system called the Swarm. It got a 2015 "Product of the Year" ("POTY"?) award from The Absolute Sound magazine. But there are many ways you can apply the general principle of smoothing the in-room bass by having a lot of bass sources distributed around the room.

In general the more bass sources you can spread around the room, the smoother the in-room bass will be. And recalling that small rooms have worse bass response than big room, we come to the highly counter-intuitive conclusion that the smaller the room, the more subs you should have if accurate bass is the goal! Of course they can be small subs.

Regarding distributed multisubs vs EQ vs room treatment, it's NOT either/or. You can do all three! And because distributed multisubs significantly reduce the spatial variation (variation in frequency response from one location in the room to another), any EQ that is needed is probably going to make a global (room-wide) improvement rather than merely a local one.

There are a few things you want to watch out for if you're going to "roll your own" distributed multisub system, just let me know if you'd like me to describe them.

Credit to Earl Geddes for the asymmetrically distributed multisub concept, which I use in the Swarm with his permission.
 
Last edited:
Well there is no secret to positioning a subwoofer... you will inevitably have a big peak-and-dip pattern no matter where you place the sub, and no matter where you sit. You can move your chair or move the sub and that will change the peak-and-dip pattern, and you might make some improvement, but it will never go away. You can equalize for your listening position and make a significant improvement, but at the same time you will be making the bass region WORSE at other locations within the room. This may not matter, but if one of your system's duties is "impress the clients", you don't want your clients to hear lumpy bass.

The problem is not that there are too many room-induced peaks and dips - the problem is that there are TOO FEW! Up in the midrange region the reflections are spaced so close together that they essentially form a continuum, but unless we have an unusually large room, that situation doesn't extend down into the bass region. The ear/brain system tends to average out peaks and dips that are within about 1/3 octave of one another, but when they are further apart, they are more likely to stick out like sore thumbs. In general the smaller the room, the farther apart the bass region's peaks and dips are going to be.

If we look at a set of equal loudness curves, we can see that they bunch up south of 100 Hz:

View attachment 2846661
One of the things these curves tell us is, a roughly 5 dB change in SPL at 40 Hz SOUNDS LIKE as big a change in perceived loudness as a 10 dB change at 1 kHz! So our ears arguably have a heightened sensitivity to dips and peaks in the bass region! This is one of the reasons why it normally takes a long time to dial in the correct level for a subwoofer - a small change in SPL makes a relatively large chance in PERCEIVED bass loudness.

One more bit of theory before we get to the solution: Perceptually, smooth bass is FAST bass. Speakers + room = a "linear phase" system at low frequencies, which means that the time-domain response tracks the frequency response (and vice-versa). So an in-room bass peak is ALSO where the bass energy takes longer to decay to inaudibility. I'm going to propose something that most directly addresses the in-room frequency response, but at the same time it's improving the time-domain response, so the net result is perceptually FAST bass.

Okay enough theory. The solution is, take multiple subs and spread 'em around the room asymmetrically. Each will generate a unique peak-and-dip pattern at the listening position. But the SUM of these multiple dissimilar peak-and-dip patterns is far smoother than any one alone. We end up with not only a lot less total variation, but also a much denser net peak-and-dip pattern, so the ear/brain's smoothing mechanism can kick in.

The ear/brain system doesn't hear the slight variation in arrival times; at low frequencies the ear's time-domain-resolution is quite poor, but (as the equal-loudness curves show) its frequency-response-domain (or loudness-domain) resolution is heightened at low frequencies.

This can be done working with the subwoofer you already have. Maybe build three small subs to go with the one you have, same impedance as the one you have, probably not going as deep and/or not being as efficient. That's okay. Connect the four subs in series-parallel and drive them all with the same amp (to avoid the expense of needing three more channels of amplification).



Yeah, I make a commercial four-sub system called the Swarm. It got a 2015 "Product of the Year" ("POTY"?) award from The Absolute Sound magazine. But there are many ways you can apply the general principle of smoothing the in-room bass by having a lot of bass sources distributed around the room.

There are a few things you want to watch out for if you're going to "roll your own" distributed multisub system, just let me know if you'd like me to describe them.
Cool stuff Duke! I've always wondered how the fact that the as you approach lower to sub frequencies we are able to physically feel as well as hear the sound plays into this. In other words our brain is delivered more sensory inputs to work with from low frequency stimuli than from higher frequencies. Maybe this helps explain that bunching phenomenon in the 100Hz and lower regime. And I would add that even if the tones are delivered via headphones there is still likely a vibro-acoustic effect that is not just perceived by the ear itself.

From my work around aircraft relative to human protection from the significant vibro-acoustic energy their engines generate, we had serious concerns regarding what high levels of low frequency energy did to the human body over time. IME extreme high frequencies at high SPLs can be painful to disorienting and extreme low frequencies at high SPLs can have significant effects as it literally couples into the human body. Louder mid frequencies seem more one dimensionally problematic in terms of being just a straight forward hearing protection concern.

I'm curious if you see some correlations here.
 
Cool stuff Duke! I've always wondered how the fact that the as you approach lower to sub frequencies we are able to physically feel as well as hear the sound plays into this. In other words our brain is delivered more sensory inputs to work with from low frequency stimuli than from higher frequencies. Maybe this helps explain that bunching phenomenon in the 100Hz and lower regime. And I would add that even if the tones are delivered via headphones there is still likely a vibro-acoustic effect that is not just perceived by the ear itself.

From my work around aircraft relative to human protection from the significant vibro-acoustic energy their engines generate, we had serious concerns regarding what high levels of low frequency energy did to the human body over time. IME extreme high frequencies at high SPLs can be painful to disorienting and extreme low frequencies at high SPLs can have significant effects as it literally couples into the human body. Louder mid frequencies seem more one dimensionally problematic in terms of being just a straight forward hearing protection concern.

I'm curious if you see some correlations here.

I hadn't really thought about the contribution of physical sensation to low frequency perception, but now that you mention it, obviously it is a major part of it. At least it's a major part of how much we enjoy it!

From spending time on recording engineer forums, I've gotten the impression that it's just about impossible to judge bass region sounds well through headphones (my electronica-composing son says the same thing). The beginner amateurs on the forums all start out asking, "what headphones are the best for mixing on", and the old-timers and professionals say, in effect, "none of them". The difference is probably the tactile aspect, so I think you are right about it playing a major role.

Also, the ear has poor time-domain resolution at low frequencies, and that may be in part because it takes longer for a tactile signal to travel from the skin to the brain than it takes for a sound signal to travel from the cochlea to the brain. (The ear's poor time-domain resolution is why the slight difference in arrival times that you get from multiple subs doesn't matter.)

I remember my Marine aviator step-father (fixed-wing and rotary-wing) saying that low frequencies were more likely to cause hearing damage than high frequencies because the low frequencies cannot be adequately blocked by earmuffs. He essentially couldn't hear anything below 100 Hz (nor above 4 kHz). I'm not aware of any other long-term health problems that he suffered from aircraft noise exposure, but then I'm looking at a sample size of one. And nowadays the engines are a lot more powerful.
 
I remember my Marine aviator step-father (fixed-wing and rotary-wing) saying that low frequencies were more likely to cause hearing damage than high frequencies because the low frequencies cannot be adequately blocked by earmuffs. He essentially couldn't hear anything below 100 Hz (nor above 4 kHz). I'm not aware of any other long-term health problems that he suffered from aircraft noise exposure, but then I'm looking at a sample size of one. And nowadays the engines are a lot more powerful.
Precisely what prompted my thoughts here. That low frequency sound content, if high enough, actually can cause all kinds of physical effects from extreme fatigue up to and including injury to tissues in the body. My possibly logical conclusion was that our perception of lower frequencies was via multiple sensory inputs to the brain whereas HF sound tends to be more directly related to hearing.

I really believe that approaching design as you do from that physiological standpoint as a baseline has allowed you to be more creative than those who might just start with design parameters for a certain type of cabinet and go from there. Your Changelings certainly are a product of out of the box (pun intended) thinking that would have been hard to imagine otherwise.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DukeLeJeune
From spending time on recording engineer forums, I've gotten the impression that it's just about impossible to judge bass region sounds well through headphones (my electronica-composing son says the same thing). The beginner amateurs on the forums all start out asking, "what headphones are the best for mixing on", and the old-timers and professionals say, in effect, "none of them". The difference is probably the tactile aspect, so I think you are right about it playing a major role.

Duke I can attest to this being true. Without a scientific explanation to base it on, my guess is that it's about spatial or other comparison in the listener's perception: headphones don't convey the kind of info needed for making accurate comparisons. The bass info is there, but the "there" is nowhere (so to speak).

In my experience, open air headphones are better, but no type is truly good enough.

That said, in two episodes (one current) I trained myself to compensate for the effect, learning by trial and error, in comparison to studio monitors or MI amps how to estimate what I was really hearing in the headphones.

But that approach only works for a given setup: the headphones, monitors, etc... everything has to be constant. And even in the best execution of it, the listener never gets to feel the bass they are hearing.
 
scroll down to sub-head " Noise. "
Republic XF-84H - Wikipedia

Wow.

Fortutnately we pulled the plug on the single-engine ThunderScreech, but the Soviets put their big intercontinental bomber with FOUR supersonic turboprops into production and the Russians are still flying it today. Who knows how many Soviet and Russian crew members got their hearing hammered - or worse - flying in that thing. I've read that the Bear could even be heard by submarine crews.

Here's a clip of a TU-95 Bear fly-over. Notice that the didgeridoo drone of the supersonic propellers carries much farther than the engine noise, which is approximately the same loudness as the didgeridoo as the plane passes directly overhead, but at distance the engine noise (which is kinda like a white noise) is nothing compared to the propellers. You can hear the engine noise fade rapidly after the plane passes overhead while the didgeridoo holds up pretty well.



I speculate that this may be in part because of the vortices generated by the supersonic propeller tips. My understanding is that sound energy propagated via high-energy vortices exhibits a more gradual fall-off with distance than normal point source theory would predict.
 
Last edited:
Cool...recent developments in this thread were making me think "Thunderscreech" also. I guess the vomiting, debilitating-headache-suffering XF-84 ground crews I read about were a real issue.
I didn't realizr the TU-95 had supersonic props. I think they were/are equipped with contra-rotating props though; I'd think the "scissor action" of the blades passing each other in such close proximity must add quite a bit of racket.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DukeLeJeune
Howdy;
Long time ago I had one of Duke's 112T with the rear firing tweeter option and reviewed it for BGM. @tombowlus can probably point you to that review.

I have the latest iteration here at the moment, and it's just great.
Really, really great.
Solid lows, tuning and delivery of which are adjustable via four pluggable/unpluggable rear facing ports.
Really sweet mid and high content from the front and rear firing tweeters.
Tweeter portion of the cabinet
Has open, upwards facing slots that let that content get up to your ears with a little more ease.
On the back of the cab you will find three switches. UP is LOUDER for each of the switches. Flipping the top switch down gently rolls off the top end north of about 3.5 kHz, and flipping the bottom switch down smooths the otherwise somewhat growly upper mids.
The middle switch is labelled "0/-7", and in the down position, it shelves down the output of the rear-firing mid by about 7 dB.
I prefer them all up, but cool that you can tailor what it does these ways.

Cool, refined, well done concept.
APPROVED!!!
 
Howdy;
Long time ago I had one of Duke's 112T with the rear firing tweeter option and reviewed it for BGM. @tombowlus can probably point you to that review.

I have the latest iteration here at the moment, and it's just great.
Really, really great.
Solid lows, tuning and delivery of which are adjustable via four pluggable/unpluggable rear facing ports.
Really sweet mid and high content from the front and rear firing tweeters.
Tweeter portion of the cabinet
Has open, upwards facing slots that let that content get up to your ears with a little more ease.
On the back of the cab you will find three switches. UP is LOUDER for each of the switches. Flipping the top switch down gently rolls off the top end north of about 3.5 kHz, and flipping the bottom switch down smooths the otherwise somewhat growly upper mids.
The middle switch is labelled "0/-7", and in the down position, it shelves down the output of the rear-firing mid by about 7 dB.
I prefer them all up, but cool that you can tailor what it does these ways.

Cool, refined, well done concept.
APPROVED!!!
I just finished about three weeks with a 112T Changeling version cab and echo every one of your thoughts Chef.

What truly surprised me is how capable it was for a single woofer cab, especially given the size. I also did not expect those two top driers to make a big difference in anything but a more quiet acoustic type venue. I was surprised again to find that even in a moderately loud rock situation the bass cab was much more stage filling without being too much bass. The band noticed the difference, particularly the drummer who felt he got a recorded bass sound versus just my low frequencies. We both also liked how the bass sat in the mix very nicely with the kick drum.

I've never played a cab that had so many voicing options, and surprise number 3, they all sounded great (all switches up and a couple ports open was my preferred operation). I'm not typically a sealed cab player, but this cab sounds great sealed. It also seems to retain some of the sealed cab vibe/sweetness when you start opening ports - not sure how Duke pulled that off.

I did notice that the cab likes to be fed some power, but in the current world of cheap Watts I see that as a non-issue. It did very well for me with both the Mesa D-800 and GK MB800 heads. I was very busy rehearsing for and playing gigs while I had the cab so I didn't get a chance to try out different heads. My sense is that much like my Berg CN212 it would sound fine with most any head.

Playing this cab in a rock setting on stage (with FOH support due to size of the venue) was eye opening. I've never played that venue with anything but a 212 or a 112/115. The single 12 carried the day just fine and probably had a bit more to give had I needed it. I liked the cab enough to order one from Duke and the last thing I need is another bass cabinet. However, I convinced myself through weeks of playing that it was not simply "another bass cabinet" - it's different and it's very addictive!
 
Howdy;
Long time ago I had one of Duke's 112T with the rear firing tweeter option and reviewed it for BGM. @tombowlus can probably point you to that review.

Yup! Here is a Invalid Link Removed.