A theoretical approach to cardioid subwoofers (with practical

consequences)

The use of cardioid subwoofers in large sound reinforcement systems is common practice today, thanks to
the availability of digital signal processors.
Many loudspeaker system manufacturers offer presets that users can put in operation without having to
dwell in the theoretical aspects of this technique.
However, this technique is well-documented in its principle, but not in regard to its limitations and caveats.
This paper intends to dig a little deeper, without having to resort to a lot of mathematics.

The basic principle(s)

When questioned about the operating principle of cardioid subwoofers, many sound operators describe only
one set-up, and very often add that the delay value that is used in the electronic delay line must be
calculated in accordance with some "wavelength of the system". The next paragraph shows that the delay
setting depends only on the physical placement of the system.

Optimizing rear rejection

The basic train of thought is that, by

introducing in the rear space an out-of-
phase image of the spillage from the front,
the rear wave would be cancelled. A
practical implementation is shown on Fig.
1.

The rear subwoofer is fed with an out-of-

phase version of the front signal, the
electronic delay is adjusted to achieve
exactly the same delay as the time the
front wave takes to reach the rear space.

Many users are satisfied with this

description and think there is nothing else
to it.
In fact, a simulation shows that, although
the rear rejection is as expected, the front
response of the resulting system suffers
serious reduction in performance and
limitations.
The model used for simulation is shown in Fig. 1b: Model of "rejection-optimized" set-up
Fig. 1b.

The model is then entered into a

simulation software (LTSpice IV by Linear
Technology). The resulting schematic
diagram is shown in Fig. 1c.

In this example, and in many of the

following, we have set the distance at
1.27m (50"), corresponding to 3,7ms of
delay, typical of the array of Fig. 6

Fig. 1c: Diagram of "rejection-optimized" set-up

The resulting frequency responses of the
front and rear SPL are plotted in Fig. 1d.
One can see that the optimum rejection
goal is achieved, but at the expense of the
front response which shows a lack of
efficiency at VLF (+1dB coupling at 30Hz,
instead of the expected 6dB), and a severe
notch effect at 135Hz.
In fact, due to a number of acoustic
interferences, it is impossible to achieve
the expected rejection figures. Practically,
Fig. 1d: Response of "rejection-optimized" set-up
achieving 12dB of rejection is a
commandable feat.

Optimizing the front wave

Taking the problem by the other side, the

idea is processing the rear speaker signal
insuch a way that its spillage into the front
zone comes exactly in phase with the front
signal. Since the signal from the rear
subwoofer is dealyed by the back-to-front
path, it ensues that the front signal must
be delayed. This could appear as an
unwelcome feature, as sound engineers
are very reluctant to add delay in their set-
ups, but in fact, very often, and mainly for
practical reasons, subwoofers are
mounted in front of the main speakers, so
that should not be a big issue.
A practical implementation is shown on
Fig. 2.

The front subwoofer is fed with a delayed

version of the rear signal, the electronic
delay is adjusted to achieve exactly the
same delay as the time the rear wave
takes to reach the front space.

Now it is time to check the performance of

this configuration.
The model used for simulation is shown in
Fig. 2b.

The resulting schematic diagram is shown

in Fig. 2c.

Fig. 2c: Diagram of "front-wave-optimized" set-up

The resulting frequency responses of the
front and rear SPL are plotted in Fig. 2d.

As expected, the front response now

shows perfect coupling at +6dB, but the
rear rejection is not as good as it used to
be. Or is it?
In fact the rejection at VLF is not very
good, with only about 1dB at 20Hz, 4dB at
30Hz and 7dB at 40Hz.
At 100Hz, which is the limit of operation of Fig. 2d: Response of "front-wave-optimized" set-up
most subwoofers in large installations, the
rejection is about 8dB.
So apparently this configuration does not
look very impressive. However, let's have
a look at the frequencies between 45Hz
and 80Hz, which is where most of the
subwoofers activity is concentrated. The
rejection is always superior to 10dB, with a
whopping notch at 65Hz, which is probably
the most problematic frequency in terms of
stage pollution.

As we shall see, this set-up is the basis of

the end-fire arrays, which are the subject
of the next paragraph.

The end fire array

The end-fire array is just an extension of

the preceding system, using a larger
number of elements.
A practical implementation, using three
subwoofers, is shown on Fig. 3.

The front subwoofer is fed via an electronic

delay tuned to the length of the back-to-
front acoustic path. The mid subwoofer is
fed via an electronic delay tuned to the
length of the mid-to-front acoustic path.

The model used for simulation is shown in

Fig. 3b.
The resulting schematic diagram is shown
in Fig. 3c.

Fig. 3c: Diagram of 3-element end-fire array

The resulting frequency responses of the

front and rear SPL are plotted in Fig. 3d.

The front response shows the expected

increase of about 10dB, and the rear
rejection is better than 10dB in the 33Hz-
100Hz frequency range, with deep notches
at 45 and 90Hz.

Fig. 3d: Response of 5-element end-fire array

Because it looks promising, here are the

results of a simulation of a 5-element end-
fire array (Fig. 4d).

Indeed the results are impressive, with 12

dB rejection in the 22Hz-110Hz frequency
range.

12dB doesn't seem like a lot, but in fact, in

comparison with the best practical results
achieved by the "rejection-optimized"
configuration, it is probably the best
solution, provided there is enough depth to
install 5 rows of subwoofers.

An interesting variant: the

hypercardioid pattern
The "rejection-optimized" configuration is
characterized by a good rejection of sound
in the rear axis of the array, which is not
always the ultimate goal. In fact, the actual
goal is reducing stage pollution, and very
often, the speakers are located on the
sides of the stage. So it becomes evident
that the direction of maximum rejection
should be directed towards the stage. One
of the possible solutions is to orient the
subwoofer arrays radially in reference to
the stage. The obvious consequence is
that the main front axis would also be
divergent, which may not be to the likings
of the SE and the public.
The operation of the array can be very
easily modified to offer a hypercardioid
pattern. Such a pattern has two null rear-
axis, at the detriment of on-axis rear
rejection.
Since we want to do with as little math as
we can, let's consider the case where the
electronic delay were zero. The subs
would be driven by out-of-polarity signals.
It ensues that total cancellation would
occur in any postion that is at the same
distnace from both subs. The totality of
these locations (mathematically the locus)
is a plane passes at mid-distance between
subs and that is perpendicular to the axis.
In fact, this configuration is very well
known as a dipole, exhibiting the equally
well known "figure-of-eight" directivity
pattern. Rejection is optimized on the sides
of the array, which may be a good thing,
but the front-wave efficiency is 6dB down
and the rear-wave is equal to the front.

The angle is given by the formula cos

alpha = T/delta

T being the electronic delay, delta the time

equivalent to the distance between subs,
converted using the formula delta = d/c

It is easy to demonstrate that, except for

very short distances, the locus of optimum
rejection is a cone with a projected angle
of alpha x 2.

This is true for free-standing subwoofers.

When the subs are floor-mounted, which is
often the case, a distortion of the 3D
pattern occurs, but still the basic
calculation works.

In conclusion, reducing the delay steers

the pattern from true-cardioid (180°
rejection) towards figure-8 (90° rejection)
via all variations of hypercradioid.

The simplicity of this process makes

experimentation very easy: simply variyng
the delay controls the aiming of the
rejection zone.

How do parameters influence the

performance?

Now is the time to evaluate the influence of

the different parameters in regard to the
expected performance.

As we've just seen before, modifying the

delay time provides useful control of the
directivity pattern.

Let's evaluate the importance of the rear-

to-front power ratio. Until now, we have
considered that the power of the rear sub
was the same as the front one.
In view of the quite-common
recommendation of many speaker
manufacturers to establish a 2:1 ratio, as
shown in Fig. 6, let's examine the
consequences. In order to do so, we use
our good old simulation package, and we
drive the rear speaker with 6dB less signal,
which gives the response graph of Fig. 6b.

We can see that the front SPL is reduced

by 2,5dB, which was to be expected
because the overall power has decreased,
but also that the rejection has drastically
diminished, being now a mere 9dB in the
70-90Hz range.

How can this be acceptable?

First, let's be realistic. What is the point in

achieving 20 or 30 dB rejection in the 30-
100Hz range if there is a lot of spillage Fig. 6b
from the low-mids? Achieving a practical Green: Front response with full-power on both subs
rejection of 15dB is a feat! Red: Rear response with full-power on both subs
Cyan: Front response with half-power on rear sub
Second, we have assumed perfectly Magenta: Rear response with half-power on rear sub
omnidirectional subs. In fact, they aren't.
Their size confer subwoofers some
directional properties. With 700mm (27")
height, a subwoofer shows -3dB rear
rejection at 120Hz (700mm is the quarter-
wavelength at 120Hz). At 60Hz, it shows
about 1dB rear rejection, which is not
much and not terribly significant. But when
the subwoofers are assembled in a three-
high array, the -3dB directivity goes lower.
In fact there, the width is the limiting factor.
Most subwoofers are about 1.2m wide,
which makes the 3dB point down to 70 Hz, Fig. 6c: Simulation taking "natural" directivity into
which is the frequency zone which we account.
want to improve.
If we enter that in our simulation package,
we obtain the graph in Fig. 6c.

Now the rejection is about 9dB in the

50Hz-80Hz range, which seems an
acceptable performance.

Now, how does one choose the distance

between sources?

A very important aspect of this study is the

fact that with the "rejection-optimized"
configuration, the VLF response shows a
significant drop. It can be easily
demonstrated that the effect is the same
as a 1st-order (6dB/octave) high-pass filter
with a cut-off frequency which wavelength
is 4 times the distance between subs, or
which period is 4 times the delay. In our
case, 4x3,7ms => F = 67,5 Hz.

As well, the upper limit of operation is

directly related to the distance separating
the front and rear sources. The notch
appears at twice the cut-off frequency, 135
Hz in our example.
Basically a "rejection-optimized" array has
a very restricted range of about one
octave.

It seems that most operators are content

with that, the benefit of reducing stage
pollution largely exceeding the drawback
of restricted bandwidth.

Let's analyse the consequences of placing

the subs further appart, as is the case
when set up back-to-back, according to
Fig. 7.

The delay has now doubled, to 7,4ms, and

the simulation results can be seen on the
graph at Fig. 7b.

The VLF response has improved

notiveably (the LF cut-off is now 34Hz) and
the upper limit is still 135Hz, but there's a
BIG notch at 67Hz!

Fig. 7b. Response of back-to-back sub array

It looks like this is completely unusable,
but this set-up, used in conjunction with
the array of Fig. 6, which has its maximum
efficiency at 67Hz, could be a perfect
complement.

Such a combined system is represented in

Fig. 8.

Simulation of such a combination can be

seen on Fig. 8b.

This system is flat within +/-1dB in the

range 22-110Hz and the rejection is close
to 20dB!

Fig. 8b: Response of combined array

Conclusion

Until now, sound engineers have used

ready-made receipes for their cardioid
subwoofer experimentations. These
theoretical explorations will help them in
the understanding of the mechanisms
involved, and encourage them to
experiment.

On a theoretical point of view, the end-fire

array is less flawed than the "rejection-
optimized" one, but it is impractical in
many cases, so it seems that the latter will
still be used in a majority of cases.
However, the combined array seems to
overcome most problems, whilst being
usable in most situations.

A number of real life issues have not been

taken into account, such as the effects of
reflections, but the practical implications of
theory are nevertheless valid.

Copyright Jean Luc Moncel 2011