Bass Traps

or

How to Cheat the Laws of Physics

The standard answer to managing bass issues is to put bass traps in the corners of your room. Let’s step back a minute to analyze this. What is the problem? The problem is too much bass (boomy sound) and/or too little bass (thin sound) at specific frequencies. What’s the cause? Room reflections meeting up with the original waves either constructively, summing to make them twice as loud as produced by the speaker, or destructively, canceling the sound. How can we control this? Obvious, get rid of the reflections. There are three ways to absorb sound waves; resistive absorption, fibrous material that traps air converting the acoustic energy into heat; mechanical absorption, a membrane that moves with the wave to absorb its energy (like a speaker driver in reverse, or the shock absorber on a car); acoustical absorption, a resonant cavity to dissipate the energy (like a ported enclosure in reverse). Mid to high frequencies are easy to absorb with fibrous materials, carpet, foam, fabrics. Low frequencies can be absorbed too, except they require huge amounts of resistive material, not millimeters, not centimeters, but much more. The longer wavelengths require thicker and denser materials. For effective control of bass frequencies below 100 Hz, wavelengths longer than 4 meters (13 feet) resistive materials would take up meters of space—not very practical. Corner bass traps have nowhere near the needed absorption capacity necessary unless they are very large. Other types of bass traps are designed to mechanically dampen. They need to be large enough to absorb a sufficient amount of the low frequencies, essentially covering an entire wall. In addition, the interior of the trap must have enough resistive material to dampen the internal energy. One hundred millimeter (4″) mechanical traps are ineffective below the upper bass region, about 150-200 Hz. That’s not good enough to manage the trouble area below 100 Hz. Acoustic absorbers, Helmhotz resonators, need to be carefully tuned for each room and for each of the problem frequencies in the room. You can’t buy an off the shelf resonant absorption unit. Another non-acoustical technique for managing bass is equalization. It can help with boomy bass by reducing the output of the source, but even with that, because summing and nulling varies from point to point within a room, can only fix the problem at one listening position. And no amount of EQ can overcome a null. Bass problems come down to room size. Rooms with dimensions less than a full wavelength will always have problem frequencies. Eliminating the problem requires a VERY large room with each dimension greater than 15 meters (50 ft) to accommodate the longest waves, or a room large enough to accommodate the custom engineered products built specifically for your custom engineered room. Translation : $$$$$.

What to do? There is no easy answer. The best results for me have been three fold. First, keep the subwoofers away from the corners—just the opposite of the most common recommendation. Corner placement guarantees every room mode is excited to its fullest, which does result in the loudest bass, but also the most uneven, spotty bass response. Second, use two subwoofers. Multiple sources create more, yet conflicting, interference which helps to produce a more even room response. Third, use EQ below 100 Hz on the strongest peaks. Simply leveling off the peaks helps to even out the in-room bass response. Unless you can enlarge your room, the best and the only real solutions use the laws of physics rather than futile attempts at cheating them. And that’s worth repeating, you can’t cheat—the laws of physics always win.

Learn more at [Parallel Audio]

Posted in Audio, Discover | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Retrograde

Shifting into reverse to head back two hundred years takes a little extra effort. Sometimes it’s good to make an about face, but it also takes something out of the ordinary to trigger the effort. That’s what the string quartets of Luigi Cherubini (Ke-roo-BEE-nee) have done.

On the surface Cherubini’s quartets are straight ahead classical period music that adhere to the ideals of the age of reason. The guiding tenants of the age were symmetry, structure, discipline, order, form, logic. Music and all the arts of the period followed suit, rejecting the frivolous embellishment of the Baroque, thus establishing a new, more restrained, intellectual approach. But these confining attitudes didn’t choke Cherubini’s emotions or his imagination. He mastered the rational framework of classical music by molding it to his vision, then turned its restrictions around to instinctual advantage. Willingly accepting and consciously applying limitations can be a powerful tool in the creative process. Very few artists unearth this superficially counterintuitive, and consequently, rare technique. Cherubini shaped a cognitive spade out of the constraints of classicism to dig into his own creative depths. The way of any artist who makes the grade is to take the style of the day, put it under a stress-test, then push it to the breaking point—not to smash it entirely—just enough to crack the edges, to find the limit within the limits.

Cherubini lived from 1760 to 1842, a contemporary of Mozart and Beethoven, he was well known and highly respected in his time, but over the subsequent centuries the names Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven would come to overshadow him, regretfully. His quartets, composed between 1814-1837, are all from his later years. All show personal as well as stylistic maturity that moves towards Romanticism. His quartets have a spirit of freedom and creative innovation that clearly exceeds Mozart and challenges Beethoven’s long held seat as the King of Breaking Bounds. Each quartet brings new surprises. The 2nd and 3rd quartets are to me particularly inviting. Filled with bravado, contrasts and stark transitions, they keep my ears at attention. Yet, it’s not easy choosing favorites. On another day, in another mood, another one may become my favorite.

The recordings are a box set of all six quartets, performed by HAUSMUSIK London on the CPO label. On the technical side, the performances are just shy of impeccable, but on the interpretive side they radiate. HAUSMUSIK London’s sense of rhythm, their subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, rubato is executed with such precision it seems like the music is taking control of the performers—as if there’s a single mind manipulating all four musicians. This kind of synchrony comes from years of playing together, but also from an innate sensitivity to each other as their individuality dissolves into the group and the music takes command. It’s a strange and amazing phenomenon to hear.

The recordings bring more good news. Through skillful engineering they present an excellent balance between reverberation and presence that lends us a sense of space while maintaining the intimacy expected of chamber music. We can hear the musicians’ breathing, their fingers on the strings in precisely the right amount. They also exhibit the most well defined imaging of any string quartet recordings I’ve heard. Frequently quartet recordings have a lopsided soundstage, the violins to the far left and the viola and cello seemingly sitting on top of each other in the center. But these recordings clearly and evenly space each performer—1st violin, 2nd violin, viola, cello—from left to right. Add in the lively spiritedness of Cherubini’s music with the energy of HAUSMUSIK London and you have an outstanding musical experience with a refreshing view of classicism.

Music : A ║ Performance : A- ║ Recording : A+ ║ HAUSMUSIK London, Luigi Cherubini, Complete String Quartets, CPO 2003

Posted in Discover, Music reviews | Tagged , | Leave a comment