# Subwoofer blending



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Let's discuss subwoofer blending, and how one some "blends better" than another.

There is another thread in which I was told I was being condescending for claiming that there is not inherent, magical parameter that makes one sub blend better than another.

My claim is that blending a subwoofer to the rest of the system is simply a matter of tuning, and not a hidden parameter of a particular subwoofer. Some subwoofers may blend better "out of the box" but this isn't anything particularly special to the subwoofer, it simply a matter of the tune and the environment. A subwoofer may be better without tuning than another, in a particular environment, but I'm not convinced that claiming a subwoofer blends better than another subwoofer is a fair blanket statement to make. 

I'm suggesting that blending a subwoofer into a system is simply a matter of setting levels appropriately, setting crossovers properly, and getting everything in phase via time alignment. 

There are a lot of purely anecdotal claims of some subwoofers blending better than others, but these are purely anecdotal, and not supported by any real information. I would like to discuss this process and see if perhaps there are other variables in play, or special parameters that do in fact make some subwoofers blend better than others. My hypothesis is that it's purely subjective and psychological, and with basic tuning techniques any reasonable subwoofer can blend as well as any other. 

Despite what tyroneshoes says, I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm trying to provide a real explanation of what's going on when blending a subwoofer to the rest of a system. I've stated my hypothesis, which is based on my current knowledge and experience, but I am (of course) here to learn, and in the spirit of this forum, I'd like to provide people with real, technical knowledge, instead of perpetuating anecdotal claims. 

What makes a subwoofer blend well? Is it all in the tuning? Or is there something else?


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

subd


----------



## stills (Apr 13, 2008)

Sounds silly to me. If you change a component, you change frequency response. Be it a little or a lot.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

my guess, would be the lower the distortion the sub naturally has, the easier it will be


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

stills said:


> Sounds silly to me. If you change a component, you change frequency response. Be it a little or a lot.


theres gotta be more to it than that, like i said. theres distortion among other things


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

The premise of the other thread was just that some subs are "easier" to blend...and that has been for me a very true statement.


----------



## Jepalan (Jun 27, 2013)

miniSQ said:


> The premise of the other thread was just that some subs are "easier" to blend...and that has been for me a very true statement.


Do you mean some 'drivers' are easier to blend, or some finished subs (driver + enclosure) are easier to blend?


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

I pretty much agree with the first post. I've had subs that I thought would be hard to blend turn out to be very easy such as the ID MAX15s. The only thing that's been true every time is a lower Q subwoofer setup has always been easier for me to blend. Also, those "invisible" rattles make it much harder to blend. The ones you don't realize you have until you turn the front stage off.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

Jepalan said:


> Do you mean some 'drivers' are easier to blend, or some finished subs (driver + enclosure) are easier to blend?


finished subs...


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

miniSQ said:


> The premise of the other thread was just that some subs are "easier" to blend...and that has been for me a very true statement.


The only problem that I have with this is that a vehicles size, and the rest of the speakers involved must play a role.

Making a statement about how well a sub blends doesn't seem like it would hold true in every situation. Perhaps a sub blended better, with less tuning, in a particular vehicle, but that to me is just coincidental. Put that same subwoofer in a Suburban, and a small car, each one having different midbass speakers, and I believe the results will be different.

I don't think a subwoofer inherently has the ability to blend well. One may blend better than another with less work in one car, but worse than another in a different car. That's my theory anyway. I don't see how a subwoofer has some strange ability to blend better than another subwoofer.

I speculated in the other thread that distortion could play a role, but I have a feeling this is minor, and likely only relevant near the crossover point.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

gijoe said:


> The only problem that I have with this is that a vehicles size, and the rest of the speakers involved must play a role.
> 
> Making a statement about how well a sub blends doesn't seem like it would hold true in every situation. Perhaps a sub blended better, with less tuning, in a particular vehicle, but that to me is just coincidental. Put that same subwoofer in a Suburban, and a small car, each one having different midbass speakers, and I believe the results will be different.
> 
> ...


i think you totally are missing the point in the other thread...noone is saying speaker X will blend easier in all cars and in all boxes.

What they are saying, or at least what i am saying is that in a given car, its a fact that some speakers blend easier than others.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

miniSQ said:


> i think you totally are missing the point in the other thread...noone is saying speaker X will blend easier in all cars and in all boxes.
> 
> What they are saying, or at least what i am saying is that in a given car, its a fact that some speakers blend easier than others.


I don't think I'm missing the point. I just see a lot of people making blanket claims that sub X blends better than sub Y. I also see people asking, "which sub will blend better?" I'm saying that it's all about the tune. Sure, you may have a subwoofer that just so happens to blend better than the previous subwoofer, with your particular settings, in your particular vehicle, but blending a sub is all about basic tuning.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

gijoe said:


> I don't think I'm missing the point. I just see a lot of people making blanket claims that sub X blends better than sub Y. I also see people asking, "which sub will blend better?" I'm saying that it's all about the tune. Sure, you may have a subwoofer that just so happens to blend better than the previous subwoofer, with your particular settings, in your particular vehicle, but blending a sub is all about basic tuning.


Yup you are totally missing the point, while you are making your own point.

i don't see any blanket statements being made, other than people maybe saying that in their personal experience they have run across one or two subs that work great for them.

back you "your" point...sure the tune is going to be the final piece of the puzzle, but what about the guys who dont know how to tune a sub, or dont have the gear to do it. Should they be allowed to hear from guys who say that sub X has worked well for them?


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

That thread, and many others, imply that you can purchase a subwoofer based on how well it blends. I'll dig up posts if necessary, but there is have been many post by people talking about you should choose sub X over sub Y, based on how well it blends.

You can't simply take somebody else's experience with how well a sub blends for them and think that it will blend just as well for you. I'm not saying that one subwoofer can't blend better than another, in a particular environment, with the same settings. I'm saying that you can't purchase a subwoofer due to how well it blends. 

This is a fair statement, "X sub blended really well with my system, with little effort."

This is not a fair statement, "get X sub, you'll love how easily it blends."

There are plenty of posts making similar claims as the later statement and all I'm doing is trying to point out to people that a subs ability to blend with the rest of your system is not something you can predict. Each vehicle has a different frequency response, just because a subwoofer fits with your current settings, just means that it's very similar to your previous subwoofer, or you didn't optimize your previous subwoofer and the new one is just better suited for the settings you have.


----------



## hurrication (Dec 19, 2011)

Blending is nothing more than the phase coherency at the crossover point.

You can change this by manipulating the crossover point and slopes of the two drivers to be crossed over, or you can get lucky and have your sub and mid end up being phase coherent without needing to tweak anything. Different subs will have different phase responses based on their parameters and enclosures, and that also changes once it's placed in a vehicle. Time alignment is not a method of changing phase.


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

I was very clear in stating that one sub (the alumapro) was easier to blend than all the others I had in the same car. You brought in another argument (I can make sosche subs sound as good as any others cus I know how to tune well). I just stated it takes 5 minutes with phase to blend in this MX sub and a lot longer with that type x sub. 

Anyone with experience with numerous subs and tuning knows this to be true. Some speakers are easier to work with and more forgiving than others for various reasons.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

gijoe said:


> This is not a fair statement, "get X sub, you'll love how easily it blends."


show us some of these posts....


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

When I think of people saying a certain sub blends well, one sub comes to mind, the Ultimo 12. For me it was the 12W6 IB. No matter how much I cranked it up, it always blended. It was like I could not make it not blend. For what its worth, Qtc was .46 for that setup. Worst ever in my car was my Tempest X with a Qtc >.8. Maybe coincidence but every setup has followed this. Mid Qtc has fallen in the middle difficulty wise. I know Erin has had great luck with the home version of the IB15 where Qtc is almost certainly greater than .7 but he's many decades ahead of me in tuning know how. I don't recall how easy it was to make blend, only that he was happy with the end result. 

The odd thing is even with a 9" mid bass with over an inch of excursion, it was no easier to make the subs blend than with the 6.5" except when I had them playing to 35hz and the subs cut off by 40hz. Maybe it's just me but it seems like it's a lot more than just level matching and phase coherence over a wide frequency range is most important. Doesn't Qtc change this? It would explain why having a midbass that could truly keep up with the subs didn't help much


----------



## stevemk07 (Jan 3, 2012)

BuickGN said:


> When I think of people saying a certain sub blends well, one sub comes to mind, the Ultimo 12. For me it was the 12W6 IB. No matter how much I cranked it up, it always blended. It was like I could not make it not blend. For what its worth, Qtc was .46 for that setup. Worst ever in my car was my Tempest X with a Qtc >.8. Maybe coincidence but every setup has followed this. Mid Qtc has fallen in the middle difficulty wise. I know Erin has had great luck with the home version of the IB15 where Qtc is almost certainly greater than .7 but he's many decades ahead of me in tuning know how. I don't recall how easy it was to make blend, only that he was happy with the end result.
> 
> The odd thing is even with a 9" mid bass with over an inch of excursion, it was no easier to make the subs blend than with the 6.5" except when I had them playing to 35hz and the subs cut off by 40hz. Maybe it's just me but it seems like it's a lot more than just level matching and phase coherence over a wide frequency range is most important. Doesn't Qtc change this? It would explain why having a midbass that could truly keep up with the subs didn't help much


My .02:

Totally agree about the phase matching. I think the crossover points and slopes can also help with phase matching, depending on how the two drivers transition from one to the other across various frequencies. For instance my Hertz sub does not sound very good above the first two and a half octaves (IMO) so when it is allowed to play frequencies in the 100Hz and higher range it is painfully easy to localize so I end up setting the crossover low (around 60Hz and 12 dB/octave). I am mostly just speculating because it's the only sub I've had in years but I think if it sounded better in the upper frequencies I could play it higher with less ability to localize the source (behind me) but I also like the overall response of the whole system with it set low. The other thing too I think is both the sub and the mid-bass need to be putting out clean output, meaning installed correctly, sufficient volumes of air to operate as intended, etc. If ported, having the ports operating properly can be tricky, especially if you made the box yourself. I did a bunch of experimentation with ports facing all different directions and I found they worked best one way in my car (meaning, I think, the frequencies were in phase across a broad spectrum of all their combined outputs: subwoofer, ports, mid-basses).

But who knows if you don't?


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

The Qts for the system will determine the shape of the bottom end roll off...which happens at about 2x Fs.


----------



## stevemk07 (Jan 3, 2012)

thehatedguy said:


> The Qts for the system will determine the shape of the bottom end roll off...which happens at about 2x Fs.


Does someone know where I could find graphs to show the shape of this roll-off at various Qts/Qtc? 

I like the response of my current system but I want more output on tap. For a 10" in a sealed box it puts out tonnes of output at 30Hz. I realize most of that is due to cabin gain and I also have it corner loading at the very back of the vehicle on the driver side. It is actually quite a nice slope downwards to 60 and I think that is what I would like to keep when I switch to a new system. I do not have processing and I would rather get everything close to where I want it before adding any.


----------



## legend94 (Mar 15, 2006)

Edit

Thanks to PPI my thread has been cleaned up so I posted my question there.


----------



## SkizeR (Apr 19, 2011)

stevemk07 said:


> Does someone know where I could find graphs to show the shape of this roll-off at various Qts/Qtc?
> 
> I like the response of my current system but I want more output on tap. For a 10" in a sealed box it puts out tonnes of output at 30Hz. I realize most of that is due to cabin gain and I also have it corner loading at the very back of the vehicle on the driver side. It is actually quite a nice slope downwards to 60 and I think that is what I would like to keep when I switch to a new system. I do not have processing and I would rather get everything close to where I want it before adding any.


you can model any sub in winisd. even mess with all specs to see how it effects the response and everything else


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

so, the idea that one sub's phase coherency to the woofer is different from another sub, etc. makes me draw a blank. 

the ability of a sub to remain in a BL plateau through the woofer's range, or stroke, seems to make more sense. Like, as long as your woofer has an Xmax of say, 3.5 mm, then you'd want your sub to remain at low distortion up to that point at least, in it's range of motion.

To do that, you'd need a sub that could play harmonics without ringing, leaving just the true tone of an instrument. To test, you could play synthesized tones that have no natural harmonics, and whatever does come out, is part of the distortion curve of the sub's normal response. The harmonics are the key to blending. If a sub cannot play a fundamental tone at 30 hz, and leave no harmonics ringing at 60 hz and 90 hz, then it will draw attention to itself and even if that is considered "blending" from the sound, the localization is what will make people assume it is, instead, not blending.

A low Qts sub usually has better transient performance, probably because it either has more motor strength or it has a lighter moving assembly, if you put both together you get really low Qts.

The transition from woofer to midrange, is very similar to the transition from sub to mid bass, but you can choose not to run drivers through their Fs which decreases problems that end up affecting "blending." 

A sub you almost always run down to Fs, but at the low 20's, you can't really discern distortion or even the ringing harmonics of 40 hz, since our hearing mechanism is still underperforming at those frequencies.

So by the time it really counts, somewhere around 45 hz or so, the sub that is being hammered by 30 hz fundamentals is leaving big traces of 60 hz harmonics, which we can appreciate and do hear, and does direct our attention from the 80 and up in the doors, to the back of the vehicle where 60 hz is coming in at 30 db down, or in a nice loud system, around 95 db in the bass, if you're getting 125 db on 30 hz.

As the sub rings, it "thickens" the note and if you cross high, with a heavy cone, high Qts sub, it will not "blend" as well, this is just the way the sub performs, this is all happening at the frequencies we normally allow most 6.5" and 6X9" drivers to play down to, without added subs.

I haven't heard a system that didn't blend, when there was no sub involved. Now that sounds like a moronic statement, but the point is that the sub introduces harmonics that bring attention to the sub's location, and muddy the response from the woofers' output by introducing destructive interference at wavelengths that aren't truncated by the cabin's dimensional constraints.


----------



## stevemk07 (Jan 3, 2012)

SkizeR said:


> you can model any sub in winisd. even mess with all specs to see how it effects the response and everything else


Sorry, yes I do that. I have been modeling all kinds of subs but the problem is cabin gain is not accounted for.... so like with my Hertz sub which I have in a .9cuft sealed box in the corner of my car. I can model this in WinISD which tells me it has little output at 30Hz compared to 60Hz or 80Hz when in reality it has plenty when measured at my listening position. 

Part of the problem is I am seriously considering an IB setup with either one or two 15" drivers... possibly 2 12"s but it all depends on what I could expect from them. I really do not want to have to buy new subs or modify my setup once it is done so I am trying to figure out how to account for the cabin gain in an IB setup. My intuition tells me I will have less cabin gain this way due to the lack of corner loading although there will still be plenty due to the pressurized and horn-like environment. I would also hate to have tonnes of 40-50 Hz output and none below or above. I was considering getting the JBL GTO1514d subs but I think that two of these may be overkill for my needs. Just one GTO models flatter (higher output at 30Hz) due to the larger volume of air for the one driver but also 6 dB quieter in terms of overall SPL... I wish there was a way to calculate cabin gain as I am trying to determine the slope of the in car response before actually installing the drivers somehow.

Perhaps if BuickGN (same car) were to post a frequency response of his subs (without EQ) I could get some idea of what to expect by also modeling his subs and observing the graphical difference between the model and actual in car response. This should give me a good indication of the cabin gain at various frequencies with subwoofers in a trunk IB configuration similar to what mine might be.

Thinking about it some more maybe one 15" will do as it will likely be closer to the response I am looking for. There is also a guy who just bought a BMW who wants me to upgrade his stereo for him which allows me to still take advantage of that 50% off the second GTO deal that's on right now.

http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/60/nr-noise-rating-diagram.png

If you look at the above picture, my target response actually stems from these noise curves and you can see they all have a fairly steep slope from 30-60Hz. I may just be an idiot but I figure if you want realistic, noise is pretty realistic and so I am shooting for this type of response. I have very close to that now without any added processing and it sounds very good to my ears so I may as well keep going. :shrug:


----------



## stevemk07 (Jan 3, 2012)

cajunner said:


> so, the idea that one sub's phase coherency to the woofer is different from another sub, etc. makes me draw a blank.
> 
> the ability of a sub to remain in a BL plateau through the woofer's range, or stroke, seems to make more sense. Like, as long as your woofer has an Xmax of say, 3.5 mm, then you'd want your sub to remain at low distortion up to that point at least, in it's range of motion.
> 
> ...


I like it. Now tell me about how to calculate the cabin gain in IB config. 

Seriously, that makes lots of sense. Perhaps it also explains why I like to cross my sub in the low 60s too.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

stevemk07 said:


> I like it. Now tell me about how to calculate the cabin gain in IB config.
> 
> Seriously, that makes lots of sense. Perhaps it also explains why I like to cross my sub in the low 60s too.


something as simple as having a 12 db/oct slope on your sub amp's internal crossover, can make you want to cross lower because the electrical response from the amp is not reduced before hitting inaudibility.

having a DSP come in and cross over with a 24 db/oct slope, at the same set frequency can help quite a lot and the extra definition, is just chalked up to the magic of the DSP when in reality it was just the change in slope, that an analog crossover could have done just as well.


so, in the blending game I would either cross low and always blend easily (as long as you aren't mismatched level-wise) or you move your crossover up higher and the upper response of the sub becomes more important.

I think a lot of people who choose to cross low have run into problems with the sound of crossing high, because of some of these issues in the past tainting their understanding of how to blend, or just want to have good sound without the extra work of it, but it could also be that their subwoofer's performance is strictly designed for low frequency use, and they are tired of trying to fit the square peg into the round hole.


----------



## Jepalan (Jun 27, 2013)

miniSQ said:


> finished subs...


In that case, I agree - to a point...

It seems to me that blending depends so much on combined factors of the install (each speaker's installed response, cabin characteristics, speaker positions, etc). Therefore I find it hard to believe there are subs that are easier to blend in *every* situation, but I can see that certain subs might drop into a given install and require less tuning than others.

I agree with gijoe - if we believe that there are subs that are *universally* easier to blend, then I certainly would like to understand why, because in my mind it is very install-specific.


----------



## Jepalan (Jun 27, 2013)

hurrication said:


> Blending is nothing more than the phase coherency at the crossover point.
> 
> You can change this by manipulating the crossover point and slopes of the two drivers to be crossed over, or you can get lucky and have your sub and mid end up being phase coherent without needing to tweak anything. Different subs will have different phase responses based on their parameters and enclosures, and that also changes once it's placed in a vehicle. Time alignment is not a method of changing phase.


I think level matching would be very important as well - yes?

There are some excellent discussions here on using time-alignment settings to help achieve sub blending (one of ErinH's threads I believe.) You certainly can change the sub to midbass driver phase relationship by adjusting the sub's time delay.


----------



## Jepalan (Jun 27, 2013)

tyroneshoes said:


> I was very clear in stating that one sub (the alumapro) was easier to blend than all the others I had in the same car. You brought in another argument (I can make sosche subs sound as good as any others cus I know how to tune well). I just stated it takes 5 minutes with phase to blend in this MX sub and a lot longer with that type x sub.
> 
> Anyone with experience with numerous subs and tuning knows this to be true. Some speakers are easier to work with and more forgiving than others for various reasons.


tyroneshoes - I have to admit, I share some of gijoe's confusion when I read this post and your posts in the 'other' blending thread.

Are you saying these subs are easier to install in *your* car, or are easier to install in *all cars*?


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

This sub or the morel if you want in the proper enclosure is usually easier to blend in to the majority of cars as it has no issues playing midbass notes without drawing attention to it like many bass heavy high power subwoofers. In the alumapro, In my opinion its due to the lighweight and rigid cone, lowdistortion and fast sounding transients where some subs sound muddy and needs lots of attention to play the 90-60hz frequencies and sound natural. Basically, some subs make the job much easier. I dont think theres any way you can argue with that statement if you have done many cars.

Im not alone in this. Going way back there was this review with the same sentiments

http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...12-subs-idmax-flatline-alumapro-rsd-w6v2.html


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

I agree with everyone that says tuning is the biggest factor and it can be the most difficult. But lets assume you have the tuning and environmental equations in your vehicle figured out, now the bar gets raised much higher and any additional improvements will need to come from the capabilities of the drivers themselves. We're at a point where we can more easily observe (hear) how different quality subs + mids can blend and match.
You can eq the crap out of a low quality woofer but it won't magically turn it into a better one, one that naturally has lower inductance, smooth linear stroke throughout it's range and flat fr. 
The midbass is just as critical if not more to getting the seamless transition than the subs are. I've tried a lot of different midbass drivers but it wasn't until I dropped in the 18WU's that I felt like I was finally able to get a perfect sub / midbass transition. One that sounds like 20Hz - 350Hz range is coming from a single pair of drivers in front of me on every song and genre. with only an occasional slight adj of the bass knob.


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

Right. Ive been able to blend certain subs to where they sound like theyre coming from my midbass 100% 

I can create a pretty good blend with the majority of good subs and I use 7" midbass. 

These subs:

Alumapro
IDQv2
Audiomobile Evo
Morel SC

made blending so easy, all I had to do was adjust phase. I also used a variable phase adjustment with on the 24xs in the same setup as 0 or 180 usually isnt enough and frankly, I dont want to be adjusting my tuning for a 2 week or so period.

Trying to blend in the Audiomobile Mass 12 in the same system was not easy at all. I was forced to lower my crossover point for good coherency


----------



## Jepalan (Jun 27, 2013)

tyroneshoes said:


> This sub or the morel if you want in the proper enclosure is usually easier to blend in to the majority of cars as it has no issues playing midbass notes without drawing attention to it like many bass heavy high power subwoofers. In the alumapro, In my opinion its due to the lighweight and rigid cone, lowdistortion and fast sounding transients where some subs sound muddy and needs lots of attention to play the 90-60hz frequencies and sound natural. Basically, some subs make the job much easier. I dont think theres any way you can argue with that statement if you have done many cars.
> 
> Im not alone in this. Going way back there was this review with the same sentiments
> 
> http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...12-subs-idmax-flatline-alumapro-rsd-w6v2.html


^^ this all makes sense to me. Thanks a lot for the clarification. 

I haven't done enough builds to have a personal viewpoint - I'm just trying to make sense out of what I'm reading. I don't play my systems super loud and I tend to cross pretty low (55~65 Hz), which (to me) makes blending a little easier. For me minimizing rattles (proper dampening & isolation) is also key - in order to eliminate any queues coming from the back of car. 

Honestly, I've had more challenges blending midbass & tweets than subs - but that's a different thread


----------



## 14642 (May 19, 2008)

So long as the sub doesn't make a bunch of odd order distortion and there are no rattles, it's all tuning. 

In order for tuning to work, it's helpful to have the required tools. Third octave EQ is often insufficient.


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

Would you say it would be easier to tune some subs more than others Andy regarding blending with midbass and transparency?
Example, some subs wouldnt require more than 3rd octave eq to blend in well?


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

I'm going to make a comparo/blanket statement here, so people can flame me, haha...


the same reason why some subs blend better is the same reason why some midbasses can integrate with a 2-way design using normal tweeters.


it's the relationship between motor strength and moving mass, and excursion.

the more motor strength, the higher it appears, most drivers will play in frequency.


you can see this relationship in Lowther's slew of fine drivers, with each step of Tesla upgrade spec the curve moves a bit higher in the high end of the driver.

same basket, soft parts, change motors and the highs get better with more powah.

so, the reason why a long excursion sub has trouble making midrange frequencies is often tied to the relative level of flux in the gap, if you spread it out too far using long winding width or tall top plates/XBL topology, the energy just isn't there for the small wavelengths. 

The AlumaPro blends so well because they were designed with lower excursion, their motors concentrate energy in the gap in the useful range.

This is the reason why huge motors on drivers like the Anarchy, which should have the Gauss to choke a soprano, can't squeak up above 1Khz.

It's a weird thing with neo-radial though, you also have low-ish excursion compared to the biggest throw competitors but they will play pretty high up, due to the low inductance and the underhung coil gives you that, with less moving mass/inductance material choking out the highs.

So if someone were to develop an XBL product with a very narrow gap, giving you maybe just 25% more excursion than simple underhung instead of going for the maximum throw that can fit inside a spider's stretch to the landing, the efficiency goes up, the output goes up, and finally we can have > 2500 hz on the smooth.

I would imagine that the Audience, for all it's long throw, should also fall victim to the low flux condition but it gets up into the 20 Khz range, so maybe there's more to it than that...


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

Agreed that low xmax subs tend to play the upper sub registers better.


----------



## chithead (Mar 19, 2008)

Question. If we are suggesting a low Xmax driver can play midbass frequencies better, how does that affect the lower register? I know the argument is out there about who listens to music with 20-30Hz in it, but that's a different discussion for another thread. My question is, do you have to increase cone area to compensate for low Xmax, and if so, does the larger cone add weight, decreasing its effective "blending capability?" 

Guess what I'm getting at, is there a balance between these parameters that does indeed create a subwoofer with an easier integration ability? Cone size, motor strength, Xmax, etc.


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

Yes, lower xmax reqires more cone area to move the same amount of air down low which is why Alumapro did 22" mx subs that were only 35 lbs each. Lil ridiculous but its a trade off.

check out the sub, crazy next to a 15" HCCA



















http://www.diymobileaudio.com/forum...-audio-discussion/123188-alumapro-22-sub.html


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

chithead said:


> Question. If we are concluding a low Xmax driver can play midbass frequencies better, how does that affect the lower register? I know the argument is out there about who listens to music with 20-30Hz in it, but that's a different discussion for another thread. My question is, do you have to increase cone area to compensate for low Xmax, and if so, does the larger cone add weight, decreasing its effective "blending capability?"
> 
> Guess what I'm getting at, is there a balance between these parameters that does indeed create a subwoofer with an easier integration ability?


the same reason why sub lines that use the same magnet ring and pole piece/coil/top plate for each size from the 10" to the 18", have specs that drift from low Qts on the small cones, to high Qts on the large cones.

You just need more motor strength for a larger cone, if the gap height is the same, the excursion remains the same but the larger cone with heavier mass, along with higher air mass, will raise Qts which affects the upper bass of the sub and then affects "blending" in the frequencies where our hearing can differentiate distortion from sheer noise.

If you go listen to some tracks with 10% THD embedded, at 25 hz, and try to A-B the response to clean tracks, it's really not that easy to tell.

So, it's possible that the race to build the longest stroking sub, or the longest stroking mid bass, is just going too far because we can get better performance by throwing in a midrange and taking away mid bass's need to go high, and as another way, throwing in a mid bass to a 2-way system plus sub, taking the sub's need to go higher than 50 hz, away...


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

"Need a sub that blends like the DIYMA R12!"

Just the title of the thread itself was enough to justify my claims. The OP is asking for a subwoofer that blends like the R12, but how can we answer that question? The title implies that subwoofers come packaged with an ability to blend well. I'm saying that they don't and that blending is simply the transition from the subwoofer to the midbass. So to answer that question I would respond with, "any quality subwoofer will blend as well as the DIYMA, assuming you have even basic tuning capabilities, pick the one that meets the rest of your criteria, and you can blend it just as well as any other subwoofer." 

I will pull some more examples later, but I don't have all the time I'd like to spend on DIYMA.

I still stand behind the points I made in the previous post. I said before that blending is a matter of SPL, crossover points, and phase. I also mentioned that the distortion profile could be a factor as well. 

I believe some of your experiences with having different subs blend better than others is valid, but that doesn't mean that same sub will blend well in a different environment, with different settings. So how do we recommend a subwoofer to someone when they ask which subwoofer will blend well? I also never said that all subwoofers are created equal, I am defining blending as the transition point, not the total response. Saying a sub blends well just doesn't make sense since that transition point is going to vary from install to install.


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

Its pretty clear, you respond with subs that numerous people said have blended well for them as an obvious starting point. Its not a ridiculous question.


----------



## BuickGN (May 29, 2009)

For Cajunner

Wouldn't inductance play the largest role in how high a sub can play? I've had subs like the W6 and W7 that were pretty much dead above 80hz and some HT subs I wan also. The IB15 I had, had the same Le as my midranges and would play pretty much full range. My Max15s (and this was the big surprise) 28mm linear, 4" p-p before damage, and a big, heavy cone plays female vocals surprisingly well for a sub. It sounds like there's a midrange hidden in the back somewhere. Inductance is unknown but it's a pretty long throw underhung sub. The IB15s had little motor strength but moving mass was lower than many 10" subs and they were in a large box so I think it all evened out.

Sorry this is all over the place, I'm typing as fast as I can in between people walking by. No time to form logical thoughts lol.


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

BuickGN said:


> For Cajunner
> 
> Wouldn't inductance play the largest role in how high a sub can play? I've had subs like the W6 and W7 that were pretty much dead above 80hz and some HT subs I wan also. The IB15 I had, had the same Le as my midranges and would play pretty much full range. My Max15s (and this was the big surprise) 28mm linear, 4" p-p before damage, and a big, heavy cone plays female vocals surprisingly well for a sub. It sounds like there's a midrange hidden in the back somewhere. Inductance is unknown but it's a pretty long throw underhung sub. The IB15s had little motor strength but moving mass was lower than many 10" subs and they were in a large box so I think it all evened out.
> 
> Sorry this is all over the place, I'm typing as fast as I can in between people walking by. No time to form logical thoughts lol.


I think you made my point, the design from the W6/W7 guys, is to maximize stroke and you get less in the mid bass.

the underhung sub has lower mass from the short coil, lower inductance, which means less filtering up high from high Le.

but using typical overhung topology, when you make the winding width too long, it thins out the flux available in the gap, which means less motor strength in a small area, which is the area that small wavelengths occur.

even-hung topology has more distortion but you get good efficiency and upper range response, or more for midranges and such...

I'm not saying inductance doesn't play a large part in how well a sub can blend, because I already covered that when I talked about harmonics and how big heavy subs have a tendency to ring, and create 2nd order and 3rd order tones that aren't part of the source content.


----------



## stevemk07 (Jan 3, 2012)

cajunner said:


> something as simple as having a 12 db/oct slope on your sub amp's internal crossover, can make you want to cross lower because the electrical response from the amp is not reduced before hitting inaudibility.
> 
> having a DSP come in and cross over with a 24 db/oct slope, at the same set frequency can help quite a lot and the extra definition, is just chalked up to the magic of the DSP when in reality it was just the change in slope, that an analog crossover could have done just as well.
> 
> ...


Blending is not a problem for me. My amp has a 24dB setting as well but I prefer the 12dB slope on the sub. It help fill in a lack of output from my midbasses (which have 4" diameter cones) below 80Hz and it also blends better this way. These RS150 drivers are pretty amazing for their size. I cross them at 69Hz 24dB and they have a very clean sounding mid-range up to around 2.5-3k where an inductor coil and the physics of off-axis response begin to taper the sound off and the tweeter starts to take over.

I think you are right about some subs not sounding good at higher frequencies as I believe this Hertz model is one of them. It was, apparently, engineered to sound best in the lowest 2 octaves, but perhaps second and third harmonic distortion is part of this equation. Anyway, blah blah blah..


----------



## cajunner (Apr 13, 2007)

stevemk07 said:


> Blending is not a problem for me. My amp has a 24dB setting as well but I prefer the 12dB slope on the sub. It help fill in a lack of output from my midbasses (which have 4" diameter cones) below 80Hz and it also blends better this way. These RS150 drivers are pretty amazing for their size. I cross them at 69Hz 24dB and they have a very clean sounding mid-range up to around 2.5-3k where an inductor coil and the physics of off-axis response begin to taper the sound off and the tweeter starts to take over.
> 
> I think you are right about some subs not sounding good at higher frequencies as I believe this Hertz model is one of them. It was, apparently, engineered to sound best in the lowest 2 octaves, but perhaps second and third harmonic distortion is part of this equation. Anyway, blah blah blah..


getting more from the sub is a bonus, if you can bring them up to 80 hz without losing anything in the process.

first ring, or second order distortion at that frequency comes in at 160 hz, which is pretty high and will be enough on a high mass cone, to detect or localize.

so having a sub up front that just makes enough output to equal the second harmonic distortion of the main sub out back, is easy enough considering how it should be at least 20 db below the fundamental, and the precedence effect takes over making the sound, sound like it's coming from up front where the mid basses are driving 160 hz pretty good.


that's where the theory comes in, I have had up-front sub enclosures before and it's hard to do well without tactile vibrations making the sub location obvious, especially in center console sub boxes that are part of the seat structure.

going with 4" cones, I'm sure you can detect a drop off of impact when crossing that low, at 69 hz they might reach excursion limits with less than 50 watts of input.


----------



## stevemk07 (Jan 3, 2012)

cajunner said:


> getting more from the sub is a bonus, if you can bring them up to 80 hz without losing anything in the process.
> 
> first ring, or second order distortion at that frequency comes in at 160 hz, which is pretty high and will be enough on a high mass cone, to detect or localize.
> 
> ...


Yes they can reach excursion limits but only if I play a 40 Hz sine wave signals with no HPF at a loud volume level (volume control, not decibel level). I tested them out little while ago and they play fine down to 50 Hz but just with relatively low output, dropping off around 80Hz. I am feeding them and the tweeters 150w per pair and they sound great for any type of music at loud volumes in my car. Loud being around 103dB. After that they start losing composure. Impact is very good. I am a musician so I know what drums and other instruments should sound like. Like I said, great for their size. I am planning on upgrading them sometime and this time I will get a more heavy duty driver like a B&C 8" neo midbass or even a larger Dayton.... I am just a bit Leary I will be sacrificing mid-range clarity for output potential in a two-way system.

Anyone try those new Esoteric series drivers from Dayton?


----------



## stevemk07 (Jan 3, 2012)

Cajunner, actually they sound good way past 103dB.... Think it's just the microphone input on my phone that doesn't like anything above 103dB. My guess is they sound good and clean til around 110dB with my current filter but I did not try to take them above that as they only have a 1" vc and I like them.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

gijoe said:


> "Need a sub that blends like the DIYMA R12!"
> 
> Just the title of the thread itself was enough to justify my claims. The OP is asking for a subwoofer that blends like the R12, but how can we answer that question? The title implies that subwoofers come packaged with an ability to blend well. I'm saying that they don't and that blending is simply the transition from the subwoofer to the midbass. So to answer that question I would respond with, "any quality subwoofer will blend as well as the DIYMA, assuming you have even basic tuning capabilities, pick the one that meets the rest of your criteria, and you can blend it just as well as any other subwoofer."
> 
> ...


Yes!

That term "This sub blended better with my mids" or " this sub will blend better" has been used in the forum a lot, maybe I used it too. 

But when I really analyze it, it is not correct because it is all about tuning according to the sub's parameters and specs to make it blend and sometimes be more conservative setting the xover points on the mid bass to make it blend.


----------



## thehatedguy (May 4, 2007)

It's also probably from an up sloping FR causing a decrease in output on the very bottom end.

And the low xmax thing...come on now.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

Since I was asked to provide examples, here are a few that I found with a quick search. I didn't take the time to add the people who made these statements, because I've already justified my opinion. But for those of you who don't think people are asking the wrong questions, here are a few. 

"There is something to be said about a subwoofer that blends seamlessly, and still has decent output" It's all in the tuning. 

"I currently own an iDQ10v2 and looking to possibly blend a little better and get a little more upfront bass" Tuning!

"You did mention you want a sub that blends-in better than the one you are using. Seems logical to me." Don't buy a new sub, tune!

"If SPL isn't a concern and you want a great SQ driver that will blend easily with your front stage and work in those airspace constraints it sounds like you've almost perfectly described the DIYMA R12" This one at least addresses the fact that the enclosure is important. 

"The Max is gentle when needed, blends well, has great detail and a warm sound while being able to get brutal when needed" So, the Max has an inherent ability to blend well?

"I'd like to find something that blends well but has output..my front stage is finally solid L8se, L3se, L1se" ...Tuning. 

"Has anyone that has used a DIYMA 12 found another sub that blends as well with the front stage?" Here was the original post in the previous thread that started all of this. 

See, tyroneshoes, the exact situation I described happens here a lot. People make posts asking for, and recommending subwoofers based on some mythical ability for one subwoofer to blend better than others.


----------



## stevemk07 (Jan 3, 2012)

thehatedguy said:


> It's also probably from an up sloping FR causing a decrease in output on the very bottom end.
> 
> Guessing this was to me? Of course. They are 6" midbasses with 4" diameter cones.
> 
> And the low xmax thing...come on now.


Guessing this one was to someone else as I like lots of xmax. I used to take the grills off the set of my old Paradigm 9se mk3s just to watch the woofers vibrating. I miss those speakers....


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

Alrojoca said:


> Yes!
> 
> That term "This sub blended better with my mids" or " this sub will blend better" has been used in the forum a lot, maybe I used it too.
> 
> But when I really analyze it, it is not correct because it is all about tuning according to the sub's parameters and specs to make it blend and sometimes be more conservative setting the xover points on the mid bass to make it blend.


Then what you're saying implies that every sub is just as capable as the next and it's all about tuning. That's where I disagree. Maybe the correct terminology should be "the sub blends easier" or " it was easier to blend with the mids". and if you break it down further it means the subs were easier to tune. maybe due to smoother response, less peaky, less distortion etc.


----------



## Ultimateherts (Nov 13, 2006)

gregerst22 said:


> Then what you're saying implies that every sub is just as capable as the next and it's all about tuning. That's where I disagree. Maybe the correct terminology should be "the sub blends easier" or " it was easier to blend with the mids". and if you break it down further it means the subs were easier to tune. maybe due to smoother response, less peaky, less distortion etc.


Given the ideal enclosure and power... One might sound better, but "better" is in the ear of the beholder. Also I'm late to the thread so I'm guessing it's not say four 18" subwoofers to one set of 6" midbass.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

gregerst22 said:


> Then what you're saying implies that every sub is just as capable as the next and it's all about tuning. That's where I disagree. Maybe the correct terminology should be "the sub blends easier" or " it was easier to blend with the mids". and if you break it down further it means the subs were easier to tune. maybe due to smoother response, less peaky, less distortion etc.


If we change what you said to, "the sub blends easier in my system" and "it was easier to blend with MY mids" then I wouldn't have a problem, but there are too many acoustic variables that make a subwoofer one size fits all. 

I think, in the passband that a subwoofer is used, as long as it's of reasonable quality and has a relatively smooth response up to the crossover point, all subwoofers are equally as easy and difficult to blend. A subwoofer that blends perfectly in your car, without requiring you to make adjustments, won't necessarily blend perfectly in a different car. Unless the subwoofer has terrible response at the crossover point, they will all be the same with regard to blending. That's my theory anyway, and the reason I started this thread.


----------



## miniSQ (Aug 4, 2009)

gijoe said:


> Since I was asked to provide examples, here are a few that I found with a quick search. I didn't take the time to add the people who made these statements, because I've already justified my opinion. But for those of you who don't think people are asking the wrong questions, here are a few.
> 
> "There is something to be said about a subwoofer that blends seamlessly, and still has decent output" It's all in the tuning.
> 
> ...


If you are referring to me, i said show my some examples of people saying this:

"get X sub, you'll love how easily it blends."


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

miniSQ said:


> If you are referring to me, i said show my some examples of people saying this:
> 
> "get X sub, you'll love how easily it blends."


I wasn't specifically referring to you, but most of the examples I provided exhibit enough likeness to the above statement to imply that people, in general, believe that subwoofers have an innate ability to blend (as if blending is a T/S parameter). My point through all of this is:

A. Blending is simply the transition point from the sub to the rest of the system.
B. Optimizing this transition point is a matter of tuning, regardless of the subwoofer used. 
C. A subwoofer that blended easily for one person's install in not an indication of how it will blend in any other install.
D. Any subwoofer with a controllable FR at the transistion point will blend with the rest of the system, the tuning may need to change, but you're going to need to set levels and crossovers with the swap anyway. What difference does it make if you need to adjust the LPF and the slope, or just the LPF?

I am not suggesting that I believe all subwoofers are created equal, only that they are equal with regard to how they blend.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

Another one, " My morel components will match better with Morel subs"


----------



## tyroneshoes (Mar 21, 2006)

I dont think anyone believes that matching company components and subs results in better sound. Outta left field with that one.

Still not convinced . I believe some subs are easier to blend in than others in the majority of vehicles.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

I have seen that posted, or if not using those words. Blending better, or integrating better or, a signature sound. A smooth combination. 

But that tends to be having a preference to a certain brand. Or salesman lines used to sell.


----------



## sqshoestring (Jun 19, 2007)

For me the hardest sub to blend is one with a peak in the FR, aside from rattles and distortion that is fixable or user error that has always been the pita for me. With a sub like that for example, a little work with a good PEQ would blend it out. But I'm old school and like to tune (when possible) with install, so I tend to not like subs like that and get rid of them if possible. I don't really want to add a PEQ to my system usually, even my big EQ in my 880prs does not compare to a good PEQ, and its work to figure all that stuff out and install stuff and get it to work right.

Another issue is obvious, and that is lack of midbass from the mids/high side. That can also cause you to xover higher on subs, then they localize and don't blend. An ancient example is old cars back in the day used to run 6x9 in the rear deck, then we would run 10s IB or quad 10s maybe 12s. I could get some of the best sub blends ever maybe because the 6x9s can make some midbass unlike common 6.5s. Given the lower power levels then, some could punch out great midbass that I have always had a hard time matching in a system FR with smaller (normal) mids.

If a sub is easy to blend, then likely you have a good FR out of it for your system and you did some install tuning if even by accident. By install tuning I mean your sub/box/install was tailored to the proper response that would work in the system, or close to it as one can get without changing it all a hundred times, and you don't have to EQ it that much. And yes that is why I love me some IB subs (plus they dig deep).

I agree with Gijoe except I don't think an FR issue has to be right in the xover range to be a problem. Just my $.01.

Aside from my IB subs, one of the best blending I have had is a mtx4500 10" in a mtx sealed box. Its my temp sub I keep around, for some reason in a few cars now I toss it in and for a single little 10 with 225rms max it works pretty well with no EQ even. Thinking the box is around .8cf. Hey its better than nothing when you have nothing installed yet.


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

gijoe said:


> If we change what you said to, "the sub blends easier in my system" and "it was easier to blend with MY mids" then I wouldn't have a problem, but there are too many acoustic variables that make a subwoofer one size fits all.
> 
> I think, in the passband that a subwoofer is used, as long as it's of reasonable quality and has a relatively smooth response up to the crossover point, all subwoofers are equally as easy and difficult to blend. A subwoofer that blends perfectly in your car, without requiring you to make adjustments, won't necessarily blend perfectly in a different car. Unless the subwoofer has terrible response at the crossover point, they will all be the same with regard to blending. That's my theory anyway, and the reason I started this thread.


This is a very interesting thread you started and I agree with the first part quoted above and I pretty much always frame somebody's description of how a speaker performs that way in my mind. It's in their car and their environment. But I also think I've tried enough midbass drivers and subs, maybe 10 or more different pairs in the last 2 years, and spent enough hours tuning them to know that it's not just about the tuning. The capabilities of the drivers themselves play a role. They can be easier or more difficult to "blend". And if we're going down this road we may as well call out the term "transparent" how times has that description been thrown around? Search "transparent sub" and there's over 3000 hits on this site. Isn't transparency just another description of how well the subs blend in with the rest of the sound stage? But I bet my money that there are some subs really are more transparent for the majority of people than others subs are.


----------



## Alrojoca (Oct 5, 2012)

A good starting point is having midbass components that can play clean at 80-90 hz. If we get some that rattle with 30 watts at 100 hz not playing clean, it will be near impossible to tune and blend.


----------



## nanohead (Oct 21, 2013)

Jepalan said:


> I think level matching would be very important as well - yes?
> 
> There are some excellent discussions here on using time-alignment settings to help achieve sub blending (one of ErinH's threads I believe.) You certainly can change the sub to midbass driver phase relationship by adjusting the sub's time delay.


Level matching seems to get me results I like more often than not. It usually takes me dozens of tweaks with xover and slope between sub and midbass to get it where I like it.

On the Time delay for the sub, I'm curious about whether people run their subs through their DSPs or not. I've done it both ways, and I'm not convinced that there's a material difference. I have one car that does it, and one car that doesn't. They both blend well, and I personally can't localize the sub on either. I'm not a rocket scientist when it comes to tuning, even though I do know my way around a DSP. I'm not sure that my ear can detect the subtle differences in signal delivery times in the car that doesn't pass the sub through the DSP.

Andy has talked about it here and there, and I do notice that when I run an MS-8, and run the sub through it, it sounds pretty solid. I often wonder though, that subtle differences in source material, and ear fatigue during long tuning sessions doesn't contribute more to the sound variability that I either hear, or hallucinate that I'm hearing.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

gregerst22 said:


> This is a very interesting thread you started and I agree with the first part quoted above and I pretty much always frame somebody's description of how a speaker performs that way in my mind. It's in their car and their environment. But I also think I've tried enough midbass drivers and subs, maybe 10 or more different pairs in the last 2 years, and spent enough hours tuning them to know that it's not just about the tuning. The capabilities of the drivers themselves play a role. They can be easier or more difficult to "blend". And if we're going down this road we may as well call out the term "transparent" how times has that description been thrown around? Search "transparent sub" and there's over 3000 hits on this site. Isn't transparency just another description of how well the subs blend in with the rest of the sound stage? But I bet my money that there are some subs really are more transparent for the majority of people than others subs are.


I agree that the capabilities of the driver play a role, but I also think that the passband of a subwoofer is so small, usually only around 2 octaves (20-40, 40-80Hz), that most subwoofers are capable of this, whereas a mid (in a 2-way at least) covers closer to 5 octave (80-160, 160-320, 320-640, 640-1280, 1280-2560). 

If we are strictly talking about blending, then the only part that is of concern is the transition point (crossover point) or any overlapping frequencies. Like we mentioned before, harmonic distortion in the frequencies above the crossover point could be problematic. 

Transparency is a tricky audiophile term, so describing it is a bit subjective, but I see transparency as being low distortion, and I'll agree that a low distortion subwoofer (a "transparent" subwoofer) could blend better than one with a nasty distortion profile. But, then again, that is simply based on my definition of tricky, subjective, audiophile jargon. 

One thing I want to point out again is that blending a subwoofer is only a matter of the FR around the crossover point. Even if you get this right, you may have bad bass because of the rest of the FR of the subwoofer. I'm not saying all subwoofers perform the same, I'm simply saying that any subwoofer (that isn't absolute garbage) can be made to blend as well as even the highest end subwoofers on the market. But, I admit that blending isn't the only thing we are concerned with for getting good bass. This thread isn't intended to say that blending is the only thing you need to worry about. There is more to getting good bass response than simply getting the subwoofer to blend with the mids. 

I'm just trying to get to the bottom of this perception that some subwoofers blend better than others. I don't think this is true. Some subwoofers sound better than others, but blending is a matter of tuning, and purchasing a subwoofer based on it's "ability" to blend doesn't make sense, unless you have absolutely no tuning tools, in which case you're going to spend a lot of time and money trying new subs, in new enclosures, just to do what a few very basic tuning tools can do for you. 

I'll admit, I've always done a lot of research, and purchased quality gear, so perhaps my opinion is biased. Yet, I still think that even the most budget friendly subs can be made to blend as easily as the class leading drivers. They may not sound as good overall, but they'll blend just as easily. 

Perhaps some of the disagreements come from different opinions of what "blending" means. I take blending as not the overall FR, but simply the transition point, the blending from sub to mid. This very small part of the FR is completely controllable by tuning, in my option, and therefore, there is no advantage from one subwoofer to another, within this small, tune dependent portion of the FR.

Also, as mentioned, the blending portion is equally dependent upon the driver that the sub is being blended to (the midbass). Getting the two to work together is important, but you can get the subwoofer that everyone says blend well (the DIYMA sub, in this case) and without proper midbass abilities, it won't blend well.


----------



## gijoe (Mar 25, 2008)

nanohead said:


> Level matching seems to get me results I like more often than not. It usually takes me dozens of tweaks with xover and slope between sub and midbass to get it where I like it.
> 
> On the Time delay for the sub, I'm curious about whether people run their subs through their DSPs or not. I've done it both ways, and I'm not convinced that there's a material difference. I have one car that does it, and one car that doesn't. They both blend well, and I personally can't localize the sub on either. I'm not a rocket scientist when it comes to tuning, even though I do know my way around a DSP. I'm not sure that my ear can detect the subtle differences in signal delivery times in the car that doesn't pass the sub through the DSP.
> 
> Andy has talked about it here and there, and I do notice that when I run an MS-8, and run the sub through it, it sounds pretty solid. I often wonder though, that subtle differences in source material, and ear fatigue during long tuning sessions doesn't contribute more to the sound variability that I either hear, or hallucinate that I'm hearing.


I think it makes a difference. There are harmonics that can be played as high as the tweeters. It may be worth experimenting by turning off the midwoofers, and blend the subwoofer to the tweeters. If you get this correct with TA, your subwoofer will sound better. Sometimes the subwoofer frequencies don't seem to be dependent upon TA, the wavelegths are very long so a couple of ms doesn't do much. Try turning the mids off, and turning the sub down to match the level of the tweeters. Now tune the TA on the sub to blend with the tweeters. If the bass is in time with the music from the tweeters it should pull everything together. The ultimate goal when using TA is to have all drivers aligned with each other, that means if you align the mids and tweets together, and the mids and sub together, the sub and tweets should also be in alignment. Sometimes you need to mute the mids to see if you need to make some minor adjustments.


----------



## SPLEclipse (Aug 17, 2012)

I agree with a lot of what shoestring said a few posts above.

My take on it: If you don't have any wacky linear distortion issues and no rattles you're good. Seriously that's it. All this talk of phase and non-linear distortion and everything doesn't matter unless it's detrimental to the above qualifications.


----------



## sqnut (Dec 24, 2009)

For a start I bet blending means 20 different things to the folks running around in these two threads. When folks are talking different languages there's bound to be confusion. If you believe that X sub in a random box in a random car blends well without tuning, while Y sub doesn't, then maybe you need to raise your bar on your definition of 'blending'. 

Blending a sub with the other speakers is down to how you manage the timing from the drivers and the shape of your FR from 30-200.


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

gijoe said:


> I agree that the capabilities of the driver play a role, but I also think that the passband of a subwoofer is so small, usually only around 2 octaves (20-40, 40-80Hz), that most subwoofers are capable of this, whereas a mid (in a 2-way at least) covers closer to 5 octave (80-160, 160-320, 320-640, 640-1280, 1280-2560).
> 
> If we are strictly talking about blending, then the only part that is of concern is the transition point (crossover point) or any overlapping frequencies. Like we mentioned before, harmonic distortion in the frequencies above the crossover point could be problematic.
> 
> ...


This is a good discussion and I don't disagree with you or anybody else that blending sub with midbass is mostly all about proper installation and tuning. All I'm saying is based on my experience some drivers can do it better and easier than others. I don't think its a fluke that the drivers I've used that kippel and test extremely well are easier to integrate with the rest of the sound stage.
The person who posted the question about blending used a poor choice of words to describe what he was looking for. I think I would have said "Looking for a transparent, clean, low distortion sub that can blend more easily with my midbass".


----------



## Babs (Jul 6, 2007)

Phase and alignment are everything when making two midbass drivers and one or two subs play in unison. Blending is all about making sine waves all hit the driver seat simultaneously and waves all peak together from three or more drivers at the same instant. From my very limited education on it. I was amazed recently when Erin did a tweak to timing on one mid, and phased up my sub once the two mids were dialed in. All sudden all three drivers came alive with output, coherence and clarity. And it's amazing if any are slightly off how it'll kill your freq response with phase cancellation cutouts in the response curve. Mids especially are prone to this as while highs are all about time alignment and lows are about phase, mids must have both nailed well. 


Sent from iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## gregerst22 (Dec 18, 2012)

Yup when you get everything aligned pretty good it sounds wonderful. I have a process I work through to get crossovers, t/a, phase, eq that seems to work pretty well for me. Part of it is playing sine waves at the acoustic xover frequencies and watching the db increase or decrease in trurta as I adjust t/a on a driver.


----------

