GoodSoundClub - Romy the Cat's Audio Site

In the Forum: Horn-Loaded Speakers
In the Thread: Macondo’s lowest channel.

Post Subject: The ULF debate: time-alignmentPosted by Romy the Cat on: 3/5/2011

I have today a local audio guy stop by at my place for some listening. He never was in my new place and was curios what have done with my new room and my new installation; he was in my old room. When I asked him to criticize what he heard he mention that he would like to have the very lower bass slightly heavier. There were a number of opinions exchange but in the end I disagree with him. I feel the amount of bass I have is fine and in my point of view it is in very precise and very deliberate amount. My bass in a way unique among many playback basses out there. It is absolutely no audio impact. It has proper and necessary music impact but it does not go for audio “audio overkill”. You need to hear it to understand how it done. There is no more auditable bass necessary and in my view the demand for more bass is coming from fatly expectation that audio shall produce some kind of added bass that does not exist in real world. What might be usable in my room is the non auditable, let say 12Hz bass, but the bass that does not interacts with my current bass.

I did some demonstration to my visitor of the different bass type that I am able to get in my room. I think he saw my point and the negative impact my current ULF cheval has to my sound. They he said something that made me to think. He asked how I deal with ULF time-alignment. I deal with is in some ways but near not as serious as I deal with MF. So, I am wondering: are my problems with ULF are in fact the problem of time-alignment? In my old room I had no problem with bass, the same ULF, well they were not ULF but just bass channels, but they were time-aligned. So, I wonder…..

The Cat

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site