Printer Friendly Forum Posts - Why so much bass?

I've always wondered this about most people with stereo systems.

Why is it that most of the people with car stereo systems have a disproportionate amount of bass? I mean, there bass is usually atleast 20dB higher then their Mids and Highs! IMO, when I hear a car drive by with a crap load of bass and no mids/highs, I wonder what the point is.

Now, I have heard vehicles that have their sound level pretty well equalized across the entire frequency. IMO, those vehicles sound the best. When they drive by you, you can actually hear what the song is saying, and not just bass. Now don't get me wrong, the bass is still there, but they brought the level of their mids/highs up to match it.

My question is: Why are people so concerned with bass and yet they seem to have very little concern with the rest of the frequency range?

Now, I can understand having the bass 3~6db higher then the rest of the frequencies because of the inefficiency of the human to hear low frequencies causes them to seem quieter then a mid/high frequency at the same dB.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this subject please. Oh, and let's try not to turn this into a political "anti-boom law" thread.. again

Thank you

-Brien

-------------

My take on this comes down to dollars. Its not that hard or that expensive to be able to hit 130db off an SPL meter, but to match the highs to that level of sound is expensive and hard. To really be able to keep up to some of these systems you are either looking at multiple sets of large driver based speaker sets in the front like for example 2 sets of 6 1/2 inch components running off a large amount of power working off an amp with a good deal of head room. Then you must be able to install these speakers in ideal positions. To any of us who install we just say "well thats easy, Ill either buy a high end set of 6 1/2's at my cost anyways or Ill buy a couple sets of mid line speakers and build kicks and door pods". See its easy for us because we have the knowleadge to build these things and the perks that come from working at and/or owning a shop allow us to afford them. I think thats one reason why You dont see as many systems matched up. Second is that some people simply have different preferences. Some people, primarily younger people, just like having the sh*t rattled outta there brains and thats fine if thats what they want. Third is that some people insist on driving around with their stereo playing at 140 db and iff thats what they choose to do then its gonna be real damn hard, regardless of budget, to match up speakers that can keep up and balance that out. And my last point is that you must remeber that Bass carries much further than what your mids and highs do, so If you are basing this on the cars you hear drive by then you have to take into account that most of the music just isnt carrying itself to your position.

-------------
double-secret reverse-osmosis speaker-cone-induced high-level interference distortion, Its a killer

My answer, because it's fun. I personally don't like the 145dB plus systems. Those things just hurt. But having about 130 now and then is kind of fun. However for actual quality listening I always turn the bass WAY down.

Have you ever sat in a vehicle with those types of capabilities? That might answer your question for you. Now I agree that they should work on their front stage first. My best friends system was like how you describe, all bass with blown front speakers. I would refuse to ride with him with the stereo on because it sounded so bad. But then I don't balk at people who do enjoy a little massage with their music. posted_image

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

First of all, I'd like to say WOW! I was aiming this thread towards the resident experts and two of you replied within 20 minutes. Thank you.

Ravendarat wrote:

And my last point is that you must remeber that Bass carries much further than what your mids and highs do, so If you are basing this on the cars you hear drive by then you have to take into account that most of the music just isnt carrying itself to your position.

Yeah, that might be part of the reason, but even when sitting in some of these "bass head's" car the mids and highs are drowned out.

Low frequency = long wave length = longer distance, high frequency = short wave length = shorter distance.

I completely understand about the cost of mid and high frequency drivers.

IIRC, the guy that had the well balanced system had to use Two sets of horn loaded tweeters for the highs and 8in or 10in drivers for the mid-range.

Steven Kephart wrote:

Have you ever sat in a vehicle with those types of capabilities? That might answer your question for you.

Yep, an old friend of mine had a Cerwin Vega 18inch stroker powered by a big arse Zapco amp in the back of his Diamante. That thing pounded the crap out of you if you got within 10~20 feet of it posted_image , but unfortunately his mids and highs were really drowned out :(

Again, thank you for the responses. Hmm, it would be nice to have some of the "regular" members who have these two types of systems to chime in here

-------------

My answer, Why ask why when how is so much more fun?

-------------
Certified Security Specialist
Always check info with a digital multimeter.
I promise to be good.
Tell Darwin I sent you.

I've been sick lately, sorry I won't be on much.

Alot of the people i have installed for have either just wanted nice speakers and no subs, , , or big subs, and factory speakers. Its rare to find someone interested in car audio to tackle all aspects for the sound field. I personally start will sick speakers, cd player, speaker amp....then subs and amp. Thats how i have always built my systems, , bass sounds like ass if there's no music to set the groove.....people just don't understand that unless they actually here a system like mine, , , but they never get the chance to hear my kind of system, because no one else has an all around system, so the trend just goes on and on, and people keep building crappy systems.

-------------
2003 Chevy Avalanche,Eclipse CD7000,Morel Elate 5,Adire Extremis,Alpine PDX-4.150, 15" TC-3000, 2 Alpine PDX-1.1000, 470Amp HO Alt.

because people want bass, then when they have it they want sq in the front stage. When beginners start out that is all they think about is bass, they just want somehting loud. Then when they learn more they upgrade components etc..., that's what I did anyway. I am just barely getting a mid amp and better components for my front stage. It is all a learning experience, IMO.

I'm definitely no SPL guy and I'm only a wannabe SQ guy...but to be fair about making judgements of someone's system that you can hear when their car is beside you or passing by.....most of the time you can't tell what the sound really is like inside their car. You only hear the bass because of the nature of the low freq sound waves travelling farther and staying louder for a greater distance.

Makes me wonder sometimes when I'm zoning in my car to some great music what people in the other cars think of me because all they hear is the bass.......

("look at that [insert adjective] guy, wonder what he's on?")

I can't say why. It's a fact that most people put a lot of emphasis on bass in their vehicle. It doesn't matter about anything else, just get the biggest and baddest subs and amps and boom till you see smoke. Then after a couple of years they usually just quit completely or start trying to get some type of eveness in their system. I guess thats just how it's supposed to be!

-------------
'85 Toy

Hmm, I understand what you're saying Stevdart, but I've sat in alot of these "bass" vehicles and they're not really any better on the inside then the outside.

Now, I've also heard system that sounded great when you were in the car, AND sounded good outside the car. I'm talking the full frequency range being heard from outside the vehicle, along with the bass. And nothing really seemed to overpower each other.

-------------

Why? Easy.

Sub bass is additive, quantifiable, and easily perceived.

Sound quality has none of these elements.

Additive:
Sub bass actually ADDS frequencies to the system that wouldn't be present otherwise. Sub bass ADDS characteristics described with terms like "hitting" "booming" "pounding" to the music. This additive nature impresses us and it impresses others. Sub bass instantly jumps out at even the most inexperienced listeners. "WOW! My car doesn't do that!"

Quantifiable:
Not only is bass additive, it is quantifiable, so we can compare bass against our buddies. We can make more of a sport of it. We can hit specific numbers. We can say, "car A has more bass than car B." Our nature is to compare. Our nature is to win. Our nature is to want more. This is very easy to do with bass.

Easily Perceived:
When is the last time your chest cavity shook because of sound quality? Your rear view mirror? When is the last time you turned heads on the street or annoyed grumpy guys like me with your sound quality? We like easily perceivable bass for the same reason someone wears gold chains outside of his shirt. We desire to be seen a certain way.

-------------------------------------------

Anyway, I think it is easy to see why so many folks gravitate towards bass. We live in a world of limited resources. People, young men in particular, would rather dump money into bass than into sound quality. This makes a lot of sense given the three characteristics I described above. Young men, in general, are very competitive, want to be noticed, and want to impress others.

---------------------------------------------------

I can see why some folks are interested in sub bass SPL. I simply can't get excited about it. Why?

How much sport is there really to get an impressive amount of bass? Not much. More driver area, more power, semi-intelligent application. Repeat. Woo hoo. (Yes, I agree, there is _some_ sport. The most woofers don't always win.)

The additive nature of bass only makes it fun with a couple kinds of music. I like vocals. I want to hear vocals. It is hard to hear vocals over heavily added bass.

Perception? Most adults are annoyed by extreme sub bass and think it is an unnecessary joke. Hence the noise laws.

-------------------------------------------------

Sound quality, on the other hand, is an almost unreachable nirvana. Undefinable and perfection is unattainable. The nuances matter more. It makes ALL music sound better. It is more cerebral. It is more challenging.

On the negative side. It can be freaking expensive and there's almost more misinformation, strangely enough, in the sq world than the SPL world.

Anyway, sorry for the rambling post. Blah. Stream of consciousness. You can tell I don't want to do work.

-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

I think a lot of it is the "look at me" factor. Big booming bass replaced the rumbling exhaust and wide tires in muscle cars from my youth. Every time I get mad and want to strangle some kid in a Civic shaking every window in my house with his insipid low-C drone I flash back to my 1971 Dodge Challenger with cutouts on the headers and how I loved to pop those babies open at midnight and nail the 440 and smoke the rear tires through 3 gears just to set off the buglar alarms at a local jewelry store...

-------------
Support the12volt.com

For me, I crave the deep strong bass. My highs simply could never match the stength of my bass. SO when I am in the car it sounds ok because I am close enough to hear the highs but sure people on the outside can't hear exactly what is playing. Another fact is that if you had highs that matched that kind of power from a sub, the intensity of such a dramatically higher frequency would surely make you go deaf. The bass floods out in a way that high frequencies won't do...... highs that would be of that intensity to overcome my subs just enough to hear outside would for sure be deaftifying in the car.

Well...I'm not sure why I started with the bass, but I can tell you why I have continued. It's simple really. I'm almost deaf and pounding bass is the only thing I can hear anymore.

-------------
Nik
Jeeputer Progress
[|||||||||||-] 90%
Check it out.

Alien509 wrote:

Another fact is that if you had highs that matched that kind of power from a sub, the intensity of such a dramatically higher frequency would surely make you go deaf. The bass floods out in a way that high frequencies won't do......

WWhere are you getting this information from?

-------------

Ya, when I read that statement I was kinda confused as well. I would like to know what is your basis for that statement

-------------
double-secret reverse-osmosis speaker-cone-induced high-level interference distortion, Its a killer

Originally I though I could offer some insight on the topic, being one who is totally addicted to probably dangerous levels of spl, and who is now working on an sq system, that was all until kfr01's post. He pretty much summed up anything I had to say, mostly that its measurable and theres a "cool factor" to it. Me and two other guys at my school are in constant competition to hold the title of "loudest system"; mine is honestly louder than any sane person would realyl want to listen to on a day to day basis, but those two keep me upgrading. On top of that is the just pure pleasure sometimes of cranking it up and feeling the pulse the back of your seat, especially when someone is in your car for the first time, that look of pure shock on their face when they hear it. Sq is quite a bit more challenging in a few ways (not saying that spl systems are simple, I know there is a lot behind them), there is so much more tuning, so much more uncertainty of "does this sound better or worse" when you change something. SQ can be very very rewarding for you, but for others to get into the car it often goes unnoticed; and we all know that when we spend thousands of dollars and countless hours on something it damn well better get noticed by at least someone.

If Alien509 is speaking in SPL terms he is correct. If you made your comps match the SPL of your subs, you would have a very overpowering sound. If thats even possible. I've never seen it.

-------------
Nik
Jeeputer Progress
[|||||||||||-] 90%
Check it out.

Dyohn hit on a realistic parallel of how it is now compared to how it was then. There are so many emissions requirements in cars now that you can't build the engine and get your horsepower in the same way you did then. Now your horsepower comes from the BASS because about all you can do now is Pep Boys the little machine up with fart can tailpipes and oversized minimal rubber tires. I would probably be building an SPL system today if I were 25 or 30 years younger...and the more chrome the better! And I might have gone half deaf 10 years earlier too..

for me, when i first started getting into car audio i was all about the "boom factor" one of those high school clique-ish type things almost. seeing how that was only 4 years ago i'm more into makin everything sound good. i sat in my friends ride the other day and even he said that his bass is too loud, but yet he refuses to turn it down so he can hear his mids and stuff.

though, i also think that with music, especially the kind you hear coming from "booming" cars playing rap, hip hop, techno type stuff, something about bass is mesmerizing. when you go to a club you keep beat with the bass. bass keeps the rhythym going. girls shake their butts to the bass. i dont know how to explain but you almost get entranced by the bass.

just my two cents.

I agree with hightek. I like listening to music just fine with a moderate amount of bass (no bass sounds like even more ass than too much bass....ever had a guy pull up beside u with his stock system cranked way up and the bass turned way down so he could actually turn the music up that loud...sounds like ass) but even though i cant drive with heart stopping bass i love the feel of it. Theres also the factor of some guy with lotsa bass pulling up to u and his bass is drowning out your tunes...so u gatta be able to out do him in the volume and db levels posted_image

hightek wrote:

girls shake their butts to the bass.

lol - it all comes back to the fact that men like women shaking ass

-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

yeah it does, especially when in you're in college like me posted_image

and when they shake it in your car, the more better

Poormanq45 wrote:

Alien509 wrote:

Another fact is that if you had highs that matched that kind of power from a sub, the intensity of such a dramatically higher frequency would surely make you go deaf. The bass floods out in a way that high frequencies won't do......

WWhere are you getting this information from?

A higher frequency means a power output over a dramtically small length of time. The output can be graphed and it will look like a very steep and sharp spike in the sound spectrum. If you graph the same bass note with the same intensity you will find out that the bass note is leveled out over a longer period of time. Hence the whole Hz system. That is why fast sharp high frequencies are filtered out before they are amplified to a subwoofer. The subwoofers can't move fast enough to create the sudden intense spikes of higher frequencies. The force of a note over a longer period of time means the force is less concentrated. Therefore the intensity you expierence physically by lower frequencies is spread out over more time per note. While with the higher frequencies your ears are getting spiked to death very rapidly. Sorta make sense or do you need me to give more info?

Alien509 wrote:

A higher frequency means a power output over a dramtically small length of time. The output can be graphed and it will look like a very steep and sharp spike in the sound spectrum. If you graph the same bass note with the same intensity you will find out that the bass note is leveled out over a longer period of time. Hence the whole Hz system. That is why fast sharp high frequencies are filtered out before they are amplified to a subwoofer. The subwoofers can't move fast enough to create the sudden intense spikes of higher frequencies. The force of a note over a longer period of time means the force is less concentrated. Therefore the intensity you expierence physically by lower frequencies is spread out over more time per note. While with the higher frequencies your ears are getting spiked to death very rapidly. Sorta make sense or do you need me to give more info?

That, my friend, is a load of misinformation.

-------------
Support the12volt.com

In the 30 plus years I've been around home and car audio , including classes at an Ivy league University this is the only time I've heard of High Freq. explained in this manner. Is the Easter Bunny coming soon?

Once again it apears that people are drinking from the fountain of Misinformation.

-------------
double-secret reverse-osmosis speaker-cone-induced high-level interference distortion, Its a killer

Gulp, Gulp. Emmm....Better than spring water.

-------------
Nik
Jeeputer Progress
[|||||||||||-] 90%
Check it out.

Higher frequencies can be heard farther away because of their initial intensity at any given amplitude when compared to lower frequencies. If you are blind to intensities then you will eventually whitness their effects. I've seen experiments done where high frequencies at extremely low powers have cause immense shattering damage over a very short period of time. The same amplitude at a lower frequency didn't do a thing. The idea with peoples' windshields flying out of their cars because of subwoofers is usually air pressure and that has nothing to do with the frequency. Its sad that you have not seen what high frequency can do at a lower power when compared to a lower freqeuncy. They now use high frequency fields rapidly pulsed to make gull stones in people shatter. If you don't believe me then I don't care. Initial intensities are what create the most damage per unit of time at constant rate. I personally would rather my bass take the edge of my highs even if people outside can't hear it playing.

I understand what you are talking about, and it's called ultra-sonics. It has NOTHING to do with the audible spectrum. Your initial arguement was simply wrong. Your analogy between ultrasonics or RF frequencies and pressure waves in the audible spectrum is absolutely falacious, as are your contentions about how loudspeakers work..

-------------
Support the12volt.com

Ravendarat wrote:

Once again it apears that people are drinking from the fountain of Misinformation.

Or maybe their brain is turned to mush from too much bass...

-------------
Support the12volt.com

Mush and Tonic, sounds like a balanced diet.

-------------
double-secret reverse-osmosis speaker-cone-induced high-level interference distortion, Its a killer

DYohn] wrote:

p>I understand what you are talking about, and it's called ultra-sonic. It has NOTHING to do with the audible spectrum. Your initial agruement was simply wrong. Your analogy between ultrasonics or RF frequencies and pressure waves in the audible spectrum is absolutely falacious, as is your contentions about how loudspeakers work..

The analagy suggests something that is "audible" by that specific object. Where something is not "Audible" in relation to something else there is no sound. Hence the RF waves you are thinking of that act like light through us but not something like a gallstone. I think the analogy was correct when refernced on the basis of the "audible" spectrum where people can hear. I am pleasantly disagreeing with you and I have many accounts, even energy equations that link the relation of energy intensities between different time intervals.

It is SPL that destroys hearing, not frequencies within the audible spectrum.

https://www.abelard.org/hear/hear.htm#loud-music

https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9735

And here's one that's pretty interesting and relates to the original thread of "why so much bass."

https://www.omnisonic.com/bbillings.html

-------------
Support the12volt.com

Alien dude, I have read that last link before and right now I got DYohn in the lead here. You need to come back with some of those "many accounts, even energy equations that link the relation of energy intensities between different time intervals." that you have up your sleave because right now you are probally not gonna sway anyone your direction.

-------------
double-secret reverse-osmosis speaker-cone-induced high-level interference distortion, Its a killer

SPL and Freq go hand in hand...

Frequency = force \ time

Force is larger when time is shorter and frequency is in result higher.

(reverse) Higher frequency means time interval is shorter and force is larger

Physical work = Force times the distance the force is applied over

Force is greater with the same distance, more physical work occurs.

Not to mention the higher/midrange frequencies are at extremely high BeatsPerMinute, if they weren't then the complexity of music its self would not exist. Bass on the other hand is usually simplistic, low BPM when compared to what it takes just to say a word in any song. I don't know if anyone has any visual music software but if you visually look at 120hz and compare it to 60hz you can clearly see the higher frequencies cause more change over a shorter period of time. Hit a wall 1 time with a hammer really hard in 5 seconds. The hit the same wall just as hard in a new location 2 times in 5 seconds, which dose more damage? That is why I prefer my bass to cancel some of the peak my mids and highs create. Reguardless of if the people outside can hear it.

the BPM of a bass note is entirely dependant on the music, Have you ever heard a talented metal drummer on a good system??

hmmmm, I re-read that and I think I missed your point entirely, always think before you post posted_image

, I'm way to tired for this.

Wow, Alien509 that last post was so, how can I say this, full of crap that I don't even know where to begin. Wherever you are getting your information it is wrong. You are mixing up several basic principles of physics that have not much to do with sound, and certainly nothing to do with any relative differences between lower and higher frequency sound waves. BPM has nothing whatsoever to do with any of the things you are trying to link it to. Nada.

How often one hits a wall with a hammer has nothing to do with how HARD one hits it or how much if any damage it might do. Your basic premis is simply, utterly, incorrect.

-------------
Support the12volt.com

alien] wrote:

igher frequencies can be heard farther away because of their initial intensity at any given amplitude when compared to lower frequencies.

I don't mean to be rude, but are you smoking crack? Higher frequencies have a shorter wave length relative to low frequencies. For a given distance, the high frequency will lose the strength of its compression and rarification wave compared to that of low frequencies.

alien] wrote:

've seen experiments done where high frequencies at extremely low powers have cause immense shattering damage over a very short period of time. The same amplitude at a lower frequency didn't do a thing. The idea with peoples' windshields flying out of their cars because of subwoofers is usually air pressure and that has nothing to do with the frequency.

Incorrect, the only time a windsheild will break is when you play a constant frequency that matches its natural frequency, a.k.a. resonating frequency.

I have conducted a test like you speak of. It involved to velodyne 24inch home subwoofers and a 50w RMS x 2 sony amplifier. I fed them a test tone ranging between 15Hz and 45Hz. No to see the effect that the compression and rarification waves had, I placed an 8ft by 8ft pain of glass in front of them. Note that this was mounted in a house so the air space it was playing in to was basically sealed. Anyway, the glass began to resonate and around 18Hz. It began moving ~1in peak to peak. Side note, the glass actually acted as an acoustic panel and shook the crap out of everything :D. ANyway, after about 45 seconds of that the glass shattered into a few thousand pieces.

So, SPL did not break it, frequency did posted_image

ANyway, about the force/time crap that you mentioned... I think that you should go study fluidic Mechanics sometimes. Most principles that apply to fluids apply to speakers. .

IIRC, the force/time = Impulse

-------------

alien, man...I have to say it, quit while your ahead, or at least quit while your still on the track. You've gotten confused or lied to at some point. I'm not trying to flame on you, but quite frankly, its sad to see you continue with this argument.

-------------
Nik
Jeeputer Progress
[|||||||||||-] 90%
Check it out.

ya dude, your in a battle you cannot win. I appreciate the time you put into your arguments but you seem to have lot of tech data mixed up. Where are you actually sourcing all this from. Were you told this by someone else, did you read it in a book or on the net or what, cause its all messed up.

-------------
double-secret reverse-osmosis speaker-cone-induced high-level interference distortion, Its a killer

what is the resonant frequency of our ear drums anyways? or what frequency causes the most harm? not to side with the alien of the forum, but that would prove his point even though he couldnt prove it himself

-------------
Pioneer PEH-9660mp
Mb Quart PCE-216 biamped
JL 12W6v2
Sony XM-4026 amp for tweeters
Kenwood KAC-7251 amp for mids
JL-4100 amp for sub

Damn. This thread started out really good. Alien, call home.

on topic with this post, damn i wish my bass was much louder than my mids/highs considering im still a bit of a basshead. im still in college and i can say that i impress many more college and high school kids with my sq oriented system than i did with my old high school thumper. i can still rattle the windows of the local grocery store, but what the thing that will really attract people to my car when i feel like destroying my ear drums is that my highs can keep up and still sound good. i think it has everything to do with money and how much people are willing to earn and spend for their system. bass is cheap

-------------
Pioneer PEH-9660mp
Mb Quart PCE-216 biamped
JL 12W6v2
Sony XM-4026 amp for tweeters
Kenwood KAC-7251 amp for mids
JL-4100 amp for sub

Alien509 wrote:

SPL and Freq go hand in hand...
Frequency = force \ time
Force is larger when time is shorter and frequency is in result higher.
(reverse) Higher frequency means time interval is shorter and force is larger
Physical work = Force times the distance the force is applied over
Force is greater with the same distance, more physical work occurs.
Not to mention the higher/midrange frequencies are at extremely high BeatsPerMinute, if they weren't then the complexity of music its self would not exist. Bass on the other hand is usually simplistic, low BPM when compared to what it takes just to say a word in any song. I don't know if anyone has any visual music software but if you visually look at 120hz and compare it to 60hz you can clearly see the higher frequencies cause more change over a shorter period of time. Hit a wall 1 time with a hammer really hard in 5 seconds. The hit the same wall just as hard in a new location 2 times in 5 seconds, which dose more damage? That is why I prefer my bass to cancel some of the peak my mids and highs create. Reguardless of if the people outside can hear it.

This just isn't making any sense. So let's start at the basis of your theory. Please define force. What is it measured in? As far as I can tell, there is no "force" in the definition of frequency. Frequency is cycles per second. So where are you getting this force from? SPL? Because that has nothing to do with the definition of frequency. And that is the only thing I can think of that would associate with your sledge hammer analogy.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

Steven Kephart wrote:

Alien509 wrote:

SPL and Freq go hand in hand...
Frequency = force \ time
Force is larger when time is shorter and frequency is in result higher.
(reverse) Higher frequency means time interval is shorter and force is larger
Physical work = Force times the distance the force is applied over
Force is greater with the same distance, more physical work occurs.
Not to mention the higher/midrange frequencies are at extremely high BeatsPerMinute, if they weren't then the complexity of music its self would not exist. Bass on the other hand is usually simplistic, low BPM when compared to what it takes just to say a word in any song. I don't know if anyone has any visual music software but if you visually look at 120hz and compare it to 60hz you can clearly see the higher frequencies cause more change over a shorter period of time. Hit a wall 1 time with a hammer really hard in 5 seconds. The hit the same wall just as hard in a new location 2 times in 5 seconds, which dose more damage? That is why I prefer my bass to cancel some of the peak my mids and highs create. Reguardless of if the people outside can hear it.

This just isn't making any sense. So let's start at the basis of your theory. Please define force. What is it measured in? As far as I can tell, there is no "force" in the definition of frequency. Frequency is cycles per second. So where are you getting this force from? SPL? Because that has nothing to do with the definition of frequency. And that is the only thing I can think of that would associate with your sledge hammer analogy.
Steven Kephart
Adire Audio

A cycle is the force you are making per instance of time. If there were no forces acting then time would not matter and therefore freqeuncy wouldn't matter. High freqeuncy tuned sounds therefore have more instances where the amplitude of the sounds are changed. All I am saying is that rapid change in notes of high freq. must contribute to hearing loss more effectively than minor changes in the sound wave, given that the power of each sound produced is the same.The equations I used are wrote this way:

Time Period	T = 1/f	s
Frequency	f = 1/T	1/s or Hz

to mathematically solve for force in the correct way- The 1 is a bit confusing if you don't understand the concept behind how time and force relate. Force is the ability to change the acceleration of a mass. At 120hz the driver will be accelerated forward and back at a rate of 120 times per second. The changes the ear drum experience must be equivilant. The same force delivered at 50 hz will flux the ear drum back and fourth 50 times per second. If my mids and highs had a force equivilant to my subs to be heard on the outside I do believe I would be doing more damage to my ears over a shorter period of time than just blasting bass.

Alien,

Where are you getting your information from?

-------------
New Project: 2003 Pathfinder

"The 1 is a bit confusing if you don't understand the concept behind how time and force relate."

All of this is confusing if your not the one pulling it out of your ass.

-------------
Nik
Jeeputer Progress
[|||||||||||-] 90%
Check it out.

What moves more air? Bass or highs?

And you still haven't answered my question. What is this "force" measured in? My guess by your description is dB. However your definition of frequency is wrong because when you change the output (higher/lower dB) you do not change the frequency.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

alien] wrote:

cycle is the force you are making per instance of time. If there were no forces acting then time would not matter and therefore freqeuncy wouldn't matter. High freqeuncy tuned sounds therefore have more instances where the amplitude of the sounds are changed.

Incorrect on pont A and point B.

About the high frequency changing amplitude, this is just totally bullsh*t. You can play a constant test frequency of 15k Hz at 120db from a tweeter and a constant test frequency of 20Hz at 120db from a subwoofer. So now tell me, if the frequency remains the same, and the electrical AND acoustical power remain the same, where are you saying that the amplitude is changing? It's not posted_image

alien] wrote:

t 120hz the driver will be accelerated forward and back at a rate of 120 times per second. The changes the ear drum experience must be equivilant.

OK, if you're so smart, then why don't you calculate the actual acceleration if the driver were moving, oh lets say 2in peak to peak.

And no, the ear drums will not always be affected at the same frequency that the driver is producing. The surrounding environment can alter the frequency that is actually heard compared to that of which is being produced.

-------------

Alien, screw these clowns, I think ur onto something.

You're just not expressing it very well.

This whole started, before everyone jumped all over Alien, because he made the observation that higher frequencies were more damaging to hearing than lower frequencies, given the same SPL. This is, from my own experience, correct. EVERYONE in here will have to admit that 140 dB ripping off of a pair of Infinity EMIT tweeters will be TORTUROUSLY PAINFUL while 140 dB pounding off two Perfect12's would be a MASSAGE.

Now, because I have a feeling Alien is on the right track, if a bit vague..

Steven Kephart:
Alien is not wrong about his definition of frequency, just muddled. Please believe me, frequency is the number of vibrations or oscillations in units per second, measured in cycles or Hertz per second. The rate of repetition in cycles per second (Hertz) of musical pitch as well as of electrical signals. For example, the number of waves per second a vibrating device such as a piano or violin string moves back and forth each second of time to produce a musical tone. Frequency or Cycles or Hertz = Motion/Time. The "Force" he is talking about is motion, since, physically speaking, they are both one and the same. Force = Mass*Accerlation. You would agree that something that has mass and is accerlating is "in motion," wouldn't you?

Poormanq45:
I *LOVE* math!
When you state that Alien is "Incorrect on pont A and point B." not only are you making an egregious typo, but you are actually, totally incorrect yourself. Alien CORRECTLY asserts that if there is no force, everything else is irrelevant. Alien is MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT; when you place a zero for Motion where Frequency = Motion/Time, the rest of the equation becomes.. thats right! null and void and equal to zero.

Alien is not saying the amplitude is dynamic (changes at the same frequency) just that when you look at a frequency response curve of a higher frequency, there are alot more "waves" for a given period of time over a low frequency ... the wavelength is shorter. (...and Alien's English is real muddled..)

Oh, even though you already know this I'm sure, you don't provide enough information to answer the "acceleration" of a driver, since Accleration = DeltaVelocity/DeltaTime.
Or, the Change in Velocity/Change in Time. But, you actually low ball the velocity itself. At 120 Hz and 2-inches peak-peak you would get about 240 inches/second, or about 13.5 mph.

DYOhn:
I read, with utter facination, your thought exercise a few days back about the peak-excursion behavior of a driver while playing a flat, distorted wave and the resulting affect on heat dissapation within the driver.

How can you go from providing such an outstanding explanation like that to telling Alien he's pushing a load of misinformation and then leaving it at that? Then saying that he's misapplying physics and such.. you know, you always explain yourself real well.... how about this time? How is he "mixing up basic principles of physics?" To be blunt, loudspeaker operation is an excercise in basic physics. Alien is posting equations and citing specific physical laws.. you're just telling him he's wrong and mixed up. Again, as specifically as you can muster (I can take the techno-talk), how so?

Alien:

OKAY I think I know what you are trying to say but not managing to, at all:

Higher Frequencies have MORE power than lower frequencies because they MATHEMATICALLY have to. Higher Frequencies have a SHORTER wavelength, resulting in MORE motion over the same period of time. By the MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION OF FREQUENCY when you hold TIME constant, and INCREASE power, THE FREQUENCY MUST INCREASE.

Is that why higher frequencies hurt hearing more than lower frequencies holding constant for volume? They inherently must contain more power for dB level?

sedate wrote:

Steven Kephart:
Alien is not wrong about his definition of frequency, just muddled. Please believe me, frequency is the number of vibrations or oscillations in units per second, measured in cycles or Hertz per second. The rate of repetition in cycles per second (Hertz) of musical pitch as well as of electrical signals. For example, the number of waves per second a vibrating device such as a piano or violin string moves back and forth each second of time to produce a musical tone. Frequency or Cycles or Hertz = Motion/Time. The "Force" he is talking about is motion, since, physically speaking, they are both one and the same. Force = Mass*Accerlation. You would agree that something that has mass and is accerlating is "in motion," wouldn't you?

Speakers are a constant acceleration device. So if acceleration is constant, and mass is obviously constant, force MUST be constant. Force does not change with frequency. You are correct that some higher frequencies do hurt our ears more than lower frequencies. But this is because our ears are more sensative to these frequencies. Our ears are most sensative to IIRC 1 kHz to 5 kHz, and the sensetivity decreases as the frequency decreases from there AND increases. So higher frequencies actually hurt us less. But this is a function of the ear, and has nothing to do with "extra force" of those frequencies.

sedate wrote:

Alien is not saying the amplitude is dynamic (changes at the same frequency) just that when you look at a frequency response curve of a higher frequency, there are alot more "waves" for a given period of time over a low frequency ... the wavelength is shorter. (...and Alien's English is real muddled..)

A frequency response curve has no time reference. It is strictly how loud the speaker is playing in the audible bandwidth.

sedate wrote:

OKAY I think I know what you are trying to say but not managing to, at all:

Higher Frequencies have MORE power than lower frequencies because they MATHEMATICALLY have to.

Actually they mathematically can't. 90 dB at 50 Hz is the same output (same preasure) as 90 dB's at 15 kHz.

Which is heavier; a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks? Are you going to tell me that mathematically a pound of bricks is heavier?

sedate wrote:

Higher Frequencies have a SHORTER wavelength, resulting in MORE motion over the same period of time.

Actually that is false. For every halving of frequency excursion must increase by a factor of 4 to keep the same SPL level. So in fact there is greater motion at lower frequencies than at high frequencies.

sedate wrote:

By the MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION OF FREQUENCY when you hold TIME constant, and INCREASE power, THE FREQUENCY MUST INCREASE.

That makes absolutely no sense. Do you mean increase cycles? Power has absolutely no relevance to the formula.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

This has become very tedious, but let me say one last thing since we have a new player.

Amplitude and frequency are independent factors in waves. One does not change the other. This is the basic physics error in the original poster's proposition. "If you hold time constant and increase power" the decibel level increases. Frequency will remain constant as it is dependent on other factors. This is high school physics.

https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/sound/soundtoc.html

Now while frequency and amplitude are independent of one another, the vibratory energy needed to produce a sound wave is indeed frequency dependent. As stated earlier, it is an inverse square function. It requires far more energy and far more physical movement to generate lower frequencies than it does to generate higher frequencies at the same decibel level. To generate a 20Hz pressure wave at any given db level requires approximately 100 times more power input as producing a 20KHz pressure wave at the same db level. This is why woofers are large and move a lot of air and eat up gobs of power, and tweeters are small and don't move a lot and don't require as much power. Alien's supposition implies the exact opposite. The vibratory energy imparted by a sound wave into a physical medium is similarly inversely frequency dependent.

I'm not a doctor, but my understanding is that our ears are damaged more in the upper frequency perception ability first because the cillia inside our ears that convert the sound pressure waves into electrical impulses are much smaller than the ones that perceive lower frequencies, and are much more fragile and more easily damaged. It is SPL, not the frequency, that damages them. Any SPL above 85dba will cause hearing damage.

-------------
Support the12volt.com

Hi all, A few thoughts...

SPL is Sound Pressure Level. It is a logarithmic measure of pressure relative to 20 microPascals (20 * log(measured pressure / 0.00002)). Inherent in that is the simple fact that pressure is pressure. Regardless of frequency. There is ZERO time dependency in the equation. 94 dB SPL at 1 kHz, 100 Hz, or 2 Hz is 1 Pascal of pressure. Pure and simple.

Drivers operating above Fs are constant acceleration devices (below Fs they are constant velocity devices). F=ma. If acceleration is constant, and mass is constant, then force must be constant. Simple Newtonian physics. Note again there is ZERO time dependency in the equation, meaning that frequency is irrelevant.

The reason 115 dB SPL is "so much louder" than 125 dB SPL @ 50 Hz is the way our ears work. Look at the Fletcher Munson (or Robinson Dadson) curves. You'll see that our ears are much more sensitive to frequencies between 1-5 kHz than it is to frequencies below or above that range. This isn't an indication that there is more "power" - all it means is that you hear those frequencies better, and you need less pressure to hear those tones. Thus they "seem" louder (the Fletcher Munson curves are equal-loudness curves, that show what SPL is required for a tone to appear as loud as another tone; a 2 kHz, 0 dB SPL sounds as loud as 80 dB SPL @ 20 Hz). This is not an indication that 90 dB SPL @ 5 kHz has more "power"; rather it shows that your ear picks up the 5 kHz signal a LOT better than the 50 Hz tone.

Dan Wiggins
Adire Audio

Man, I'm not a scientist. But I do love the way you 2 guys are making up your own laws of physics. Could you help me out with this gravity problem I'm having?

-------------
Nik
Jeeputer Progress
[|||||||||||-] 90%
Check it out.

oonikfraleyoo wrote:

Man, I'm not a scientist. But I do love the way you 2 guys are making up your own laws of physics. Could you help me out with this gravity problem I'm having?

OK, sure that might be funny - gravity problem... (a little bit), but if you are being serious about the "making up your own laws of physics", you might want to know that the man who just gave you that information is the mad scientist behind the kick-ass drivers brought to you by Adire Audio. The XBL technology included in most (if not all) of their drivers is HIS brainchild - he does not just "work there". Show some respect, man...

Making it up? I don't think so... Listen to what he has to say... learn something. That he spends his valuable time to come here and post EXCELLENT information like he has done, shows a lot about the character of the man. Dan and Steven are damn good people, and smart too! I had the pleasure of meeting them at the CES, and in the 30 minutes I was in their booth/demo room, I learned quite a bit from them both.

If you ONLY trying to be cute, please accept my apology, Nik, but I thought you might not know who you were talking to...

Thanks, Dan!

(BTW Dan, the Extremis 6.8 is a SMOKIN' driver! As if you didn't already know!) posted_image

-------------
It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."

haemphyst, I wasn't refering to Dan, Steven, DYohn, or anyone else who was making any kind of since. I was just joking though. Unless of course someone can help me fly.

-------------
Nik
Jeeputer Progress
[|||||||||||-] 90%
Check it out.

Cool, then...

I'd like to know how to fly as well...

-------------
It all reminds me of something that Molière once said to Guy de Maupassant at a café in Vienna: "That's nice. You should write it down."

I solved the gravity thing and it's not as fun as you might think, but I now have a time disease. It moves too fast.

-------------
Support the12volt.com

Well that sucks. I have the same disease and still can't fly.

-------------
Nik
Jeeputer Progress
[|||||||||||-] 90%
Check it out.

haemphyst wrote:

(BTW Dan, the Extremis 6.8 is a SMOKIN' driver! As if you didn't already know!)

Hey, I was hoping to hear how you used them and your thoughts. If you don't mind sharing, you can e-mail me at skephart@adireaudio.com.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

wow, it's amazing how this thread took a twist, for the tecnically advanced better :) .

Dan from adire audio, thank you from posting here. Unfortunately this wasn't one of your really advanced posts, you just posted the basis for a decibel posted_image

.

Anyway, thanks to all of you for posting here. To ALien dude, you seem to be a smart person, but you just got your physics mixed up

-------------

sedate wrote:

Alien, screw these clowns, I think ur onto something.

You're just not expressing it very well.

--edit --

The whole time to change ratio is what I have been comparing. The higher frequencies produce more change per unit of time in comparison with any note lower. This guy knows what I am trying to show. Sorry for getting all technical on the forums here.

-------------

No no, don't be sorry. It gave us all a chance to read the intelligent posts that followed...there are things to learn when the likes of Dan Wiggins, Steven Kephart and DYohn get "all technical".

Alien] wrote:

..intensity to overcome my subs just enough to hear outside would for sure be deaftifying in the car.

I like "deaftifying". Now THAT'S all technical!

posted_image

-------------
Build the box so that it performs well in the worst case scenario and, in return, it will reward you at all times.

Man, I almost paid tuition for this physics class. But here is a link to clarify all of the misunderstandings. And yes, low tones can be heard further do to there freq., the distance of sounds are also determined by the temperature of the environment which they are heard in. https://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae557.cfm

Now on to the car boom that you hear. With higher frequencies being directional you may not hear the high frequencies do to there placement in the car. Also, if the windows are up you might here the bass and some vocals much better than the higher pitch sounds. Just take a walk into your local theather and listen real good. You only hear the boom on the outside and more of the tonial variations when in the theather. This is do to the ability of certain frequencies to bend just as light does to it's frequencies.

Associations of theories with tests normally go good together. Alien, you are doing the numbers but don't forget about the effects that other objects have on them. All particles on earth have motion, some faster than others that is why we have solids, liquids and gases. 'kinetic theory'

Why didn't I become a engineer?

Alien509 wrote:

The whole time to change ratio is what I have been comparing. The higher frequencies produce more change per unit of time in comparison with any note lower. This guy knows what I am trying to show. Sorry for getting all technical on the forums here.

That is correct, and is the definition of frequency as I pointed out originally. However you were trying to add "force" into this equation as well which is incorrect.

And it's no problem to get technical on here. Just be prepared to back up your stance if you are going to argue it. Just making stuff up doesn't convince people of your position.

Steven Kephart

Adire Audio

-------------

Chad: Stands up and hands everyone a brew, and a KOOL-AID!!! to those who don't drink in rewards for the thoughts and brain strains of those who have participated in this intriguing thread.

To DYohn: Well, as I have said before, you never seize to amaze me, with the knowledge and contributions you bring to this forum.

To Dan Wiggins and Stephen Kephart: Also a big thanks in the information that you have contributed. And when are you going to get some more dealers here in Louisiana?? I personally like your products, but there is only one dealer in Thibidaux, in which I and many others would rather drive 100 miles to listen to it/purchase, then the 30 to the only dealer we have down here. I'll leave that at that. Though I do come here representing one audio shop, I still keep an open mind to others' products, as we do not deal ALL the best equipment. And with technology as that of yours, I wish we had someone else I could go to check out your products.

And to the many others, thanks for the efforts in trying to put all of this in perspective, it is rare we get a thread that does indeed get in this "deep". As I enjoy a little brain twister from time to time, I look forward to reading these when they do occur. So thanks to everyone!!!

-------------