# 2.0 or 2.1?



## wgmontgomery

I have a new "survey." How many people on this forum are using 2.0 (no subwoofer) and how many are using a sub (2.1)? I'm excluding HT use; this question just applies to when you are listening to music in stereo.

I have (more than, actually) 2 subs; 1 that is only used for HT (SVS) and another that's used when I listen to music in stereo (Kef PSW2500). Since my mains are Dynaudio BM5As, I use their internal crossover to limit the mains to 80Hz and above; the Kef picks-up ~80Hz and down. I find that it makes a HUGE difference in sq. While the Kef will not go as low as the SVS (f3 of ~28Hz vs. ~20Hz) it is much tighter and cleaner.

Any thoughts from other "two-channel-philes" out there?
(Stereophile would have been an obvious word to use, but I believe that it's taken!)


----------



## tonyvdb

I am blessed in that I have both systems. I listen to music on my theater system as well as my two channel system.
When listening to music in my theater I run my receiver in pure mode, my EVs go down to 30hz without any issues and that covers the dynamics of music very well.
My two channel system in my livingroom has a small yamaha sub even though my mains go down to 36Hz it just sounds better at low volume.


----------



## Twin_Rotor

When I listen to music, I use my SVA-1600s only. They sound way better without my current sub. 

My next sub is going to be for theater purpose, so I'm sure I'll continue to listen to music in 2.0.


----------



## wgmontgomery

I have found few subs that work well for stereo. Even though I use one, it is a trade off in some respects. I can't afford a JL Fathom, but the Kef works well. MOST subs are "too much boom and not enough tune."


----------



## jackfish

A Rythmik F12 relieves my loudspeakers of frequencies below 50Hz. I can't localize the subwoofer as most of the aural cues of the lower bass are likely generated by the loudspeakers. There is probably no subwoofer under $1000 that is better for music than the Rythmik.


----------



## wgmontgomery

I can't localize the Kef even at 80Hz, but lowering the crossover tightens the bass dramatically. It is, however, placed just behind the right main speaker.

I've heard (pardon the pun) _of _Rythmik, but never heard their subs. I'd like to upgrade my SVS (I have the crossover set for 45Hz on my SVS), so maybe I'll check out the Rythmik. Thanks!


----------



## tesseract

I have found that using properly integrated subwoofer(s) for music only systems enhances the experience greatly. Not only do you get the bottom octave, the soundstage has more width and depth.


----------



## wgmontgomery

A BIG *+1* on the soundstage; my only complaint is that (at times) the bass isn't "tight" enough. It can be "boomy and one-note."

Placement and proper crossover settings help a great deal.


----------



## tesseract

I have done this in many rooms over the years, so I know it usually takes a LOT of work to integrate subs with the mains. It is worth the effort if you like a solid foundation for your tunes. 

FWIW, I'll never have only one sub in my main system. :devil: Multiple subs help alleviate boominess, lower distortion and increase dynamics.


----------



## wgmontgomery

I'm currently using 3 subs. A SVS for HT, a Kef PSW2500 for stereo (also used for HT) and a NHT Sub-1 aka "The Octave" (f3 of ~50Hz, so not a REAL sub) on the rears. 

I have a passive DIY (f3 ~15hz) that I may integrate into the system. I have 2 channels on my HT amp that I'm not using. I've heard good and bad things about using multiple subs; stereo subs (of the same make and model) seem to be highly regarded.

Thanks!!


----------



## tesseract

wgmontgomery said:


> I'm currently using 3 subs. A SVS for HT, a Kef PSW2500 for stereo (also used for HT) and a NHT Sub-1 aka "The Octave" (f3 of ~50Hz, so not a REAL sub) on the rears.
> 
> I have a passive DIY (f3 ~15hz) that I may integrate into the system. I have 2 channels on my HT amp that I'm not using. I've heard good and bad things about using multiple subs; stereo subs (of the same make and model) seem to be highly regarded.
> 
> Thanks!!


You have the makings of a Geddes multi sub setup. http://mehlau.net/audio/multisub_geddes/


----------



## wgmontgomery

Thanks for the info; I'll check it out. THANKS!!


----------



## gdstupak

My mains can go lower than 40hz but I still use my subs all the time. I have several classical recordings that are specifically geared toward playing loud and low (i.e. _Pomp and Pipes_).


----------



## wgmontgomery

IMHO-there's no substitute for a powered sub. The best placement for mains isn't usually the location for a sub. It is, however, a trade-off. A quality sub isn't cheap, and proper set-up can be quite involved. You get added bass (of course) and more depth in the soundstage with a good sub, but sometimes the bass isn't as clean and detailed. Also, I've found that 2 channel is _much_ less forgiving than surround sound.

Given the choice, however, I'd rather have full range mains for stereo (as long as they image well). It also depends quite a bit on the type of music. For light jazz I'd rather hear the details of the bass player; for rock, I like the punch of the sub.


----------



## tesseract

I am strictly 2 channel, and have had many systems. Never again will I be without subwoofers.

If quality subs are not complementing quality mains, there is a set up issue that needs addressed. Integration problems are not the fault of the sub. Room, speaker placement and listening position are always the the Big 3. 

I do find it amusing that the sub always gets the blame for poor bass sound in a 2.1 system. The mains could just as well be the problem. onder:


----------



## wgmontgomery

"Room, speaker placement and listening position are always the the Big 3." +1

I would state, however, that if the sub is a piece of garbage there's not a lot that can be done about it. Many HTIAB "subs" have to reproduce frequencies >150Hz; that does not make for good integration regardless of sub position. 

That statement echos your observation of mains (_sometime_s) being the real culprit; if the mains were able to reproduce bass down to ~80Hz it would not be such a problem. There's just really no way that a 3 inch driver is going to produce 80Hz-20kHz, and "full range" drivers of that size are not uncommon in some "box" systems.


----------



## astrallite

I'm also using a Rythmik subwoofer. Very few monitor speakers will be able to handle to give you truly satisfying bass. If you are using a floorstander that is another topic altogether, but pushing down cabinet resonances is a lot harder with a speaker that has multiple drivers that dig down deep.


----------



## Jon Liu

Rythmik subs are very good. I heard a two channel system a year ago with not one, not two, not three, but four Rythmik subs and it sounded fantastic on the low end. Surprisingly it wasn't bass-heavy, it was powerful, quick, and wonderfully textured. I asked why so many subs in a 2 channel system, and he said that it was because any less made the low frequencies feel/sound too directional. Room treatment likely would've been a good alternative in his case, but he also really likes the kick drum punch, and the four Rythmiks gave him just what he wanted.

Odd situation, but, even with 4 of them, I can attest to how fast and good the Rythmik's sound!


----------



## gorb

I'm fine with either. I definitely prefer using a sub, but I'm not going to be upset or not enjoy the music if I'm not using one. When listening to music on my computer, it's just 2.0 (I sold my computer sub a couple months ago). When listening to music with the HT system, it's in 2.1. I did plan on getting a new sub for the computer, but I find myself listening to the HT speakers more often now so I don't think I'll bother.


----------



## wgmontgomery

If I could find a JL Audio Fathom at Goodwill I'd be set for life! I have a Kef PSW2500 (sealed design) on the mains, and the SVS is used for HT. The SVS goes much deeper, but the bass seems to lag a bit behind the Dynaudio mains' bass.

I'd guess that most people would be better off without any sub than using a very cheap one. I'll put the Rythmik subs on my short list. I just got laid-off from work, so any purchase will have to wait.


----------



## Jon Liu

Speaking of JL Audio... I would love to get my hands on a Gotham (or two  )! Those are some gorgeous looking subs!


----------



## astrallite

JL Fathom's use foam surrounds though rather than typical rubber. JL says it provides better performance, but on the other end, it has a limited shelf life and will rot. You definitely won't be set for life!


----------



## wgmontgomery

I'd be happy for quite a while. Although "set for life" was just a figure of speech, I'd_ imagine _it would be well worth re-foaming when/if the time came. It would probably be expensive to re-foam, but I think that my chances of finding one at Goodwill are so slim that it's a bit of a moot point; I can still dream! lol

I really do want to upgrade my sub(s), but I need to upgrade my HT amp, too. So many toys; not enough money!


----------



## JoeESP9

Put me in the 2.2 category. I've been using dual TL subs with my esl's for almost 12 years. When I built them the SPW-1 woofer cabinet that came with my Spectra 22's got transferred to the Model 1's I use as rear speakers.
That means I'm actually 4.4 for surround. THE SPW-1 is actually two separate woofers in one big box.


----------



## wgmontgomery

Multiple subs seem to be the rage; I have 3 in my system (2 are HT only) and am considering stereo subs for the mains. I found a pair of old Cambridge Soundworks passive subs for <$50; I have two unused channels on my HT amp. I can't find _any_ info on the subs and could not return them if I don't like them. What to do...?


----------



## GranteedEV

Gary, I suspect that until you can measure your response, you're really shooting in the dark with respect to subwoofer setup.


----------



## lovinthehd

wgmontgomery said:


> Multiple subs seem to be the rage; I have 3 in my system (2 are HT only) and am considering stereo subs for the mains. I found a pair of old Cambridge Soundworks passive subs for <$50; I have two unused channels on my HT amp. I can't find _any_ info on the subs and could not return them if I don't like them. What to do...?


Your post caught my eye. I have a pair of old Cambridge Ensemble speakers that had separate satellite and passive sub modules. Is that what you have by chance?

ps Oops, forgot to add my vote. I use a sub on my stereo setup. If the speakers were capable of lower frequencies I might not, but they're bookshelf speakers on that setup due to space issues.


----------



## gdstupak

wgmontgomery said:


> ...and am considering stereo subs for the mains.


The effectiveness of stereo subs would be dependent upon the crossover frequency. If the subs played frequencies above 80hz, then you could hear those higher frequencies coming from the left sub and right sub. Since most subs are crossed over 70-80hz, directionality would only come from the main speakers that played the higher frequencies.


----------



## wgmontgomery

"I have a pair of old Cambridge Ensemble speakers that had separate satellite and passive sub modules. Is that what you have by chance?"

Yes, but I don't own them; I found a pair and am considering buying them. They are, however, the sub model that you mentioned. 

"The effectiveness of stereo subs would be dependent upon the crossover frequency."

Yes, and it is the lack of information on these subs that make me wary of buying them. I have no idea what their frequency response is, and I'd have to run them full range (using their built-in crossover/natural roll-off) OR buy an outboard crossover for them. I just can't find any info on them, so I don't want to buy them and get stuck with 2 subs that will not work in my system.


----------



## JoeESP9

The true effectiveness of stereo subs comes from distributed bass. This presumes that the crossover frequency is below 100Hz. ~100Hz is generally considered to be the upper limit for crossing over a sub if bass directionality is to be ruled out. When the crossover frequency is low enough to preclude directional cues from the sub woofers, asymmetrical placement is used to help smooth out room response nodes and overall frequency response. More subs mean less cone excursion and more linear operation for each. Two subs are better than one and three are better than two. Four sub woofers are better still. 

With the four subs I use for HT, visitors (and me) have been fooled into thinking there is real thunder outside my listening room.


----------



## wgmontgomery

"The true effectiveness of stereo subs comes from distributed bass."

I agree; I think that it helps "tame" the room. Plus, 2 (or 3 or 4...) just simply move more air.

I have 3 for HT; I've found 2 *old* Cambridge Soundworks Ensemble subs for ~$50 that I'm considering adding for stereo. I'm currently using a Kef PSW2500 for stereo, but there is a big difference when the other subs are active. The Kef is active when my processor is in "direct" mode; the SVS is added in "stereo," and all 3 (an old NHT) in surround. 

I just don't have enough info on the Cambridge units (frequency response, etc.) to know if they'll work well in my set-up. I can't even find a decent review of them! The biggest problem is that I can't return them. I'd get a PSB Subsonic II that I also found for $99, but I don't know how well mis-matched stereo subs would work.


----------



## JoeESP9

Why not just try them? For $50 you can flip them if they aren't suitable. What have you got to loose other than some time?


----------



## lovinthehd

wgmontgomery said:


> "I have a pair of old Cambridge Ensemble speakers that had separate satellite and passive sub modules. Is that what you have by chance?"
> 
> Yes, but I don't own them; I found a pair and am considering buying them. They are, however, the sub model that you mentioned.
> 
> "The effectiveness of stereo subs would be dependent upon the crossover frequency."
> 
> Yes, and it is the lack of information on these subs that make me wary of buying them. I have no idea what their frequency response is, and I'd have to run them full range (using their built-in crossover/natural roll-off) OR buy an outboard crossover for them. I just can't find any info on them, so I don't want to buy them and get stuck with 2 subs that will not work in my system.


I wouldn't buy them, believe spec is only down to 40 and don't know how it was measured (try googling, there's some info out there, maybe even a manual). One of mine is fried, don't use them any more but as decorative ends to my Epik (looks nicer that way and hides connectors  ).


----------



## gdstupak

JoeESP9 said:


> The true effectiveness of stereo subs comes from distributed bass.


I just want to expand on this for readers that might not understand the difference between a stereo sub set up (which can be used to create a stereo effect between two subs (if using a high enough frequency of course)) and a standard multiple sub set up (which is used for equally distributing the sub audio throughout a space).
The effectiveness of distributed sub bass is best when using a mono sub signal. Using stereo subs (using a stereo signal) would not guarantee the positive effects of a multiple sub set up in which you describe.


----------



## TypeA

I would imagine, and this is just a guess, that the answers you get from this survey are greatly dependent on the speakers the person is running. When I had a pair of bookshelf speakers for my mains then, yes, I would use my subs with two channel music with a crossover of 70hz. However, when I changed my mains to 7-way towers, each with 8" powered woofers, suddenly my pair of decent 12" subs seemed sloppy and boomy by sound comparison. I would also guess sub design and quality has much to do with its ability to add or detract from the musical experience; is it ported or no, 8", 10", or 12" ect...


I dont consider myself a "two-channel-phile" by any stretch of the imagination but Ill happily sacrifice impact and frequency response if it means tighter transients and better decay. I guess when you consider the current gear Im running its no surprise I prefer 2.0. Since I have zero room treatments I would imagine my experiences should be taken with a grain of salt...


----------



## gdstupak

Hi Ty,
Somehow I missed it that you'd gotten new speakers. Sweeet!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------


TypeA said:


> I would imagine... that the answers you get from this survey are greatly dependent on the speakers the person is running.


Unless my main speakers can play faithfully down below 25hz, I will always use a sub. I listen to orchestra and pipe organ music which really digs deep and I don't want to miss any of it. But I do use a lower crossover than standard so my subs are only playing the lowest octaves.
----------------------------------------------------------------------


TypeA said:


> When I had a pair of bookshelf speakers for my mains then, yes, I would use my subs with two channel music, crossover was usually about 70hz. However, when I changed my mains to 7-way towers, each with 8" powered woofers, suddenly my pair of decent 12" subs seemed sloppy and boomy by comparison. Ill happily sacrifice impact and frequency response if it means tighter transients and better decay.


I know what you mean and I agree, but be careful describing your HSU subs as sounding sloppy and boomy (even though you've raved about their performance in the past). I said the same thing about my set up in another thread last year saying that I like to have a lower crossover (~50hz) because my floor standing JBL main speakers sound better in the 50-100hz region then my subs. I got lambasted by responders telling me there must be a problem with my subs or their set up for them to sound so bad. I had to keep repeating that I never said my subs sound bad, they sound great. But the main speaker's JBL 12" woofers had better transients and better decay. Again, responders kept suggesting that something was wrong with the subs. Ugh!
At least we've got Hsu on our side, he makes a separate 50-150hz mid bass speaker because "_a woofer optimized for low bass reproduction is not the best for mid to upper bass reproduction. A heavy cone is best for low bass, but that reduces the mid to upper bass efficiency. The MBM-12 MK2 [mid bass] woofer is optimized for mid to upper bass reproduction - a very light cone, low inductance voice coil, and a strong magnet yields extremely quick response with high efficiency. It demonstrates excellent micro-dynamics and an extremely wide dynamic range that no single subwoofer can provide_."

OK, rant over. Move along nothing to see here.


----------



## TypeA

gdstupak said:


> I know what you mean and I agree, but be careful describing your HSU subs as sounding sloppy and boomy (even though you've raved about their performance in the past).I said the same thing about my set up in another thread last year saying that I like to have a lower crossover (~50hz) because my floor standing JBL main speakers sound better in the 50-100hz region then my subs. I got lambasted by responders telling me there must be a problem with my subs or their set up for them to sound so bad. I had to keep repeating that I never said my subs sound bad, they sound great. But the main speaker's JBL 12" woofers had better transients and better decay. Again, responders kept suggesting that something was wrong with the subs. Ugh!
> At least we've got Hsu on our side, he makes a separate 50-150hz mid bass speaker because "a woofer optimized for low bass reproduction is not the best for mid to upper bass reproduction. A heavy cone is best for low bass, but that reduces the mid to upper bass efficiency. The MBM-12 MK2 [mid bass] woofer is optimized for mid to upper bass reproduction - a very light cone, low inductance voice coil, and a strong magnet yields extremely quick response with high efficiency. It demonstrates excellent micro-dynamics and an extremely wide dynamic range that no single subwoofer can provide."
> 
> OK, rant over. Move along nothing to see here.


:laugh: Totally understand and it makes a lot of sense, thanks.


----------



## wgmontgomery

"However, when I changed my mains to 7-way towers, _each with 8" powered woofers_..."

PLEASE don't take this as a flame, but wouldn't that mean that you are running a 2.2 system? 

As for buying the Ensemble subs: $50 isn't a lot of money to risk, and I probably could flip them. However, I just got laid-off, so money is tight. I have some to spend but need to be cautious about how it's spent. Also, if they don't work well I couldn't (in good conscience) sell them to someone else. Of course, just because they don't work well for me doesn't mean that they wouldn't work well for someone else.

Glenn, thanks for your post. There is a difference, so thank you for noting the distinctions to avoid any confusion.


----------



## TypeA

wgmontgomery said:


> "However, when I changed my mains to 7-way towers, _each with 8" powered woofers_..."
> 
> PLEASE don't take this as a flame, but wouldn't that mean that you are running a 2.2 system?


Sadly, no. The 8" drivers in the towers are _woofers_ and in no way pretend to be _subwoofers_. They will never achieve the impact or response of a 12" driver in a well-designed subwoofer configuration. 

Here's what one of the minds behind the design, Mark Schifter, had to say about the towers Im running... 



> The bass is equal parts speed, dexterity and tactile response. I want to convey to all of you that this speaker is NOT the last word in DEEP Bass… But as far as "progressive bass" is concerned, Houston , we have liftoff. VERY quick bass is what I found in my listener notes time and time again...


For the most part I agree with his assessment. My subwoofers reach lower, probably a good 5-10Hz lower. The subs give you more of what you would expect from a .1 channel and achieve much closer to that 'last word in DEEP bass' he alludes to. Are the 8" powered woofers in the towers good at what they do? Yes. But are they a direct substitute for a well-designed .1? Nope. 

Reference


----------



## JoeESP9

gdstupak said:


> I just want to expand on this for readers that might not understand the difference between a stereo sub set up (which can be used to create a stereo effect between two subs (if using a high enough frequency of course)) and a standard multiple sub set up (which is used for equally distributing the sub audio throughout a space).
> The effectiveness of distributed sub bass is best when using a mono sub signal. Using stereo subs (using a stereo signal) would not guarantee the positive effects of a multiple sub set up in which you describe.


Sorry I don't agree. I speak from experience. Truth be told there is very little stereo if any in the deep bass on most recordings.

My two front (stereo) subs run from 85Hz down. I've tried them in mono and singly. My experience is that running them in stereo does not detract from the distributed bass advantages but if fact enhances it. This is probably because as previously stated, "There is very little stereo if any in the deep bass on most recordings".


----------



## gdstupak

JoeESP9 said:


> Sorry I don't agree. Truth be told there is very little stereo if any in the deep bass on most recordings.
> My two front (stereo) subs run from 85Hz down... My experience is that running them in stereo does not detract from the distributed bass advantages but if fact enhances it. This is probably because as previously stated, "There is very little stereo if any in the deep bass on most recordings".


I agree that a deep bass stereo signal is probably very rare. 
Whether there is a deep bass stereo signal or not, how could using stereo subs enhance the 'distributed bass advantage' better than using multiple subs on a mono signal?
If you have the subs crossed over above 80hz, I could see how stereo subs could enhance the 'stereoscopic effect' since the subs will be putting out audio that can be localized, but I don't see how it could enhance the 'distributed bass advantage ' _better_ than if the two subs used a mono signal.


----------



## JoeESP9

Since low bass is usually not in stereo a pair of stereo subs are producing substantially the same signal (ie: mono). That's why the distributed bass approach works with subs operating in "stereo".

I use and recommend asymmetrical placement of multiple subs. This kind of placement helps with the distributed bass concept. Of course this makes proper integration more difficult. The results make the effort worth it. I use a Behringer DSP1124P connected only to my sub woofers to properly equalize them. The equalization curves are different for each one. 

Although my subs are asymmetrically placed they are both still quite close to their respective speakers. There is no reason to run them in mono. I have the capability of running them in stereo and no compelling reason not to. Besides, there are a few (mostly classical) recordings with stereo bass. I wish to take advantage of what I have and can do. 

If you could run multiple subs in stereo wouldn't you?

Thanks to REW and my trusty Rat Shack SLM!


----------



## gdstupak

Outlaw,
So you have your subs placed in their optimal location which is what allows for the distributed bass advantage, not because they are in stereo. OK.

If you want the best stereo effect, the speakers need a symmetrical placement. If you want the best distributed bass advantage, the speakers need an asymmetrical placement. Sounds like a conundrum. 
You mention using 2 different eq curves for your 2 subs. With my old set up I did the same thing. It was necessary to get the subs to work together and sound proper together. But the downside to that is that each sub sounded different from the other when played individually. Not good if listening to the subs in stereo. 

I could set up stereo subs but I'd rather not. I get the best possible stereo effect from my symmetrical mains which play from 50hz on up. Then I get the best possible distributed bass advantage from my mono signaled subs which are in their best location and they play from 50hz on down. 
Even if my subs were placed up front left and front right with a stereo signal, I wouldn't get any stereo effect from them because the frequencies are too low.


----------



## wgmontgomery

TypeA: I read the reference link that you provided; your statement that the 8" powered drivers do NOT constitute a 2.2 system makes sense. It seems that the powered drivers are (more-or-less) still woofers and NOT _sub_-woofers. "They just don't dig down deep enough to be subs" is what I gathered from it.

Outlaw: unless I'm misreading Glenn's post, a key part of it is the statement, "_if using a high enough frequency of course._" Sadly, it is not uncommon for set-ups to include a "subwoofer" that is crossed over well above 100Hz. Many 5.1 "in a box" speaker systems use the "sub" to cover 150 (and even higher) crossover points. 

I _think_ that's Glenn's point was to simply call attention to the fact that there is a difference between "stereo" subs and "multiple" subs, and that the crossover point is very important. Perhaps Glenn will chime-in and correct me as it is his post, but that's what I inferred.

I will note that (and you and I would _probably_ agree on this) a speaker designed to produce frequencies that high (>150Hz) isn't a _sub_-woofer at all. I do think that it was an important part of Glenn's post. FWIW-All of my subwoofers are set at or below 80Hz; , my SVS HT sub's crossover is set at 45Hz!. 

Anyway, that's just my 2¢.


----------



## gdstupak

wgmontgomery said:


> I _think_ that's Glenn's point was to simply call attention to the fact that there is a difference between "stereo" subs and "multiple" subs, and that the crossover point is very important. Perhaps Glenn will chime-in and correct me as it is his post, but that's what I inferred.


No correction necessary, that was exactly my point.


----------



## JoeESP9

gdstupak said:


> Outlaw,
> So you have your subs placed in their optimal location which is what allows for the distributed bass advantage, not because they are in stereo. OK.
> 
> If you want the best stereo effect, the speakers need a symmetrical placement. If you want the best distributed bass advantage, the speakers need an asymmetrical placement. Sounds like a conundrum.
> You mention using 2 different eq curves for your 2 subs. With my old set up I did the same thing. It was necessary to get the subs to work together and sound proper together. But the downside to that is that each sub sounded different from the other when played individually. Not good if listening to the subs in stereo.
> 
> I could set up stereo subs but I'd rather not. I get the best possible stereo effect from my symmetrical mains which play from 50hz on up. Then I get the best possible distributed bass advantage from my mono signaled subs which are in their best location and they play from 50hz on down.
> Even if my subs were placed up front left and front right with a stereo signal, I wouldn't get any stereo effect from them because the frequencies are too low.


I'm beginning to understand your point. I've run them both ways. As a mono feed from the mono sub woofer output on my electronic crossover and in stereo. They sounded so different that running them in stereo and equalizing them separately made sense. They now sound much better and virtually identical. 

With "distributed" subs connected in mono they still need to be individually equalized. Each one is working into a different acoustic environment. They will not have identical in room response unless equalized individually.

I don't understand why you seem to be hung up on "stereo". I never mentioned stereo bass. You brought it up. Please note; I've been running distributed bass "stereo" subs for 10+ years. Along the way I've tried just about every connection variation there is. My current (dedicated) room is the third room to have my dual subs.

It should be the last room. I'm now retired.

As for speaker placement (mains). They are placed symmetrically within 1/16" and aimed using a laser pointer. I can't go much lower than 80~85Hz for a crossover point with my current esl's. If I could I would. I've tried it and I need larger panels for it to work properly. I'm halfway looking for a pair of Spectra 44's.


----------



## gdstupak

This is the statement that got me hung up:


JoeESP9 said:


> The true effectiveness of stereo subs comes from distributed bass.


"Stereo" and "distributed bass" do not work together.
The distribution effect with multiple subs only works if the subs are putting out the same audio all the time. 
Stereo works by sending different audio to different speakers. 
So if the stereo subs are each receiving/playing a different bass signal, then the distributed bass enhancement is not happening.
Several times you have let us know that there is very little bass stereo material "if any"(so the stereo subs will be receiving a mono signal anyway), but then you mention once that you do have material with stereo bass, I also have material with stereo bass. It may not be common, but it's there.

One more thing:
You said that stereo enhances bass distribution.
I will say that 'stereo sub positioning' can enhance bass distribution, but the 'stereo signal' will hurt bass distribution.
Maybe when you said "stereo" you were referring only to stereo positioning and not the stereo signal. But when I see "stereo" I think of using both positioning and signal together.


----------



## JoeESP9

Sorry for any misunderstanding because of my inadvertent choice of words. :crying:

I've always been fully aware that almost no source material has stereo low bass. On LP's all bass below 100Hz or so is mixed and cut in mono because of the medium. The proliferation of .1 with surround playback systems has caused MC media to have mono low bass.:bigsmile: 

I'm aware that CD's, DVD's, VHS tape and BluRay etc. don't have this restriction as other than a choice of the engineer/producer.:nerd:


----------



## wgmontgomery

Wow...the "multiple sub" set-up has taken on a life of its own on this thread (not a bad thing...just an observation)! Anyway, I added another sub yesterday (a DIY passive sub ran off of my HT amp) and am enjoying the added bass. It's not just _more_ bass, it's also much cleaner. The two subs running off of the LFE outputs are in a very asymmetrical arrangement; one is behind the left main, and the other one is against a far right wall. So, I now have *4* subwoofers for HT. I'll be sticking to the single sub for stereo...for now.


----------



## gdstupak

Gary,
What's the DIY sub:
driver size&model....
type of sub enclosure, ported or sealed...
pics....

or have you already listed this stuff in a different thread?


----------



## wgmontgomery

Let's see...it's a 15 inch DD Audio (similar to JL Audio) driver in a sealed box. I think that I posted some questions/specs a long time ago, but I've made some changed since then. I believe it's a DD Audio 1515a driver; here's a link:

http://www.ddaudio.com/products/mobile-audio/woofers/1500-series.aspx

I actually pulled it out of my system several months ago when I bought the SVS sub and planned on selling it. Since it was sitting around and taking-up quite a bit of space anyway, I decided to hook it up and give it a go. I set the gain on my SVS to match the passive sub to within 1 or 2 db; I'm using the sub channel on my old THX HT amp to drive it. I still have an unused channel and have considered redoing the wires (it's a dual voice coil design) and driving each coil separately as two 4 ohm loads.

It's still a work in progress, and I may not keep it. I'm pretty happy with it though. The lady of the house abhors it. "Abhors" is probably not a strong enough word to convey her hatred! :devil: It IS ugly, but it makes a big difference in sq. It hasn't been in the system but a day or so, and it still could use some tweaking. A bigger/better enclosure would also be a plus. It will, however, hit <15Hz cleanly. It was a bit "boomy," but I re-did my room eq and changed a few things like crossover frequency (currently at 70Hz...up from 40Hz) and seem to have fixed that problem. I'm open to any thoughts/suggestions.

No pics yet. I did the "my system" thread, but this isn't on it. I guess that I need to add the drop down system link by my name asap. I can add it then...IF I keep it in the system. :dontknow:


----------



## Phillips

I use to be a 2.0 person but now moved to 2.2 due to the 2 Velodyne DDs. Set them up properly with a external measuring, like REW and the sound is amazing. Being a 2.0 listener i tried to keep the crossover to 40hz until finding alternative measuring systems and now have the crossover at 80hz. I quite often change back to 2.0 to recheck.


----------



## wgmontgomery

Phillips said:


> I use to be a 2.0 person but now moved to 2.2 due to the 2 Velodyne DDs. Set them up properly with a external measuring, like REW and the sound is amazing. Being a 2.0 listener i tried to keep the crossover to 40hz until finding alternative measuring systems and now have the crossover at 80hz. I quite often change back to 2.0 to recheck.


I, too, have multiple subs in my 2-channel set-up...actually 1 when my pre-pro is in "Direct" and 3 in stereo. A lot of people use the default 80Hz setting; I find (in my room) that the bass is much cleaner with the big subs set lower. I've gone as low as 40Hz; I believe they are set at 60 Hz now. My smaller Kef sub (in-line with the mains so it still functions in "Direct" mode) IS set at ~80Hz.

Thanks for you input!! :TT


----------



## Phillips

wgmontgomery said:


> I, too, have multiple subs in my 2-channel set-up...actually 1 when my pre-pro is in "Direct" and 3 in stereo. A lot of people use the default 80Hz setting; I find (in my room) that the bass is much cleaner with the big subs set lower. I've gone as low as 40Hz; I believe they are set at 60 Hz now. My smaller Kef sub (in-line with the mains so it still functions in "Direct" mode) IS set at ~80Hz.
> 
> Thanks for you input!! :TT


The two Velodynes are DD15 + DD12, they are both great on music, but the DD15 is exceptional, fast, clean and deep when the material is there. 
I always targeted flat response for the bass until i heard two system settings, flat response VS fast decay.
First i thought the flat response was great sounding until i heard the fast decay. The music bought on a different dimension. What was funny was seeing the frequency response, not flat at all. 
People put subs down because they don't put the time or energy to get them setup properly.


----------



## gdstupak

I've never heard of a fast decay setting.
Does that gradually reduce the SPL as the bass frequencies get lower? Where as a flat setting would keep the bass frequencies all equal?


----------



## Phillips

gdstupak said:


> I've never heard of a fast decay setting.
> Does that gradually reduce the SPL as the bass frequencies get lower? Where as a flat setting would keep the bass frequencies all equal?


Sorry i meant it was setup on the subs (Velodyne DDs) eq that has several manual peq settings.

Not necessary, it depends on the room, but yes it could do. Room modes (which are spikes in the frequency response) cause long decay. This results in boom etc. With my room i have a room mode at 35.8hz Q 7.4 gain -13. I also had 3 more filters to mainly reduce broad peaks which aren't as important, again depends on the scope. Enter this into the subs eq and it significantly reduced the room mode which resulted in alot better sound in the low bass region. This didn't show up in the Velodynes software, which is great, has alot adjustments. The Velodynes measuring software i don't use, i use all the rest.
I have been able to intergrate a pair of Proac Tablette Ref (mini monitors) with the Velodyne DD15 (15inch driver). The Proacs had i think around 5 inch driver. The sound was amazing with music which is how i setup subs. I turned the subs light off no one could understand how such little speakers could play such deep tuneful bass, until the sub was turned off. A good sign.


----------



## gdstupak

Phillips said:


> Room modes (which are spikes in the frequency response) cause long decay... With my room i have a room mode at 35.8hz Q 7.4 gain -13. I also had 3 more filters to mainly reduce broad peaks which aren't as important...Enter this into the subs eq and it significantly reduced the room mode which resulted in alot better sound in the low bass region.


An eq set up for a proper flat response should lower your 35hz room mode so that it is equal with the rest of the frequencies.
Does a fast decay setting lower that 35hz room mode so that it is lower than the rest of the frequencies?


----------



## Phillips

gdstupak said:


> An eq set up for a proper flat response should lower your 35hz room mode so that it is equal with the rest of the frequencies.
> Does a fast decay setting lower that 35hz room mode so that it is lower than the rest of the frequencies?


I rounded it off to 36hz
By getting it flat at 36hz did reduce the room mode but played around with the gain and compromised by listening. I reduced the gain to further improve the room mode without going to far. 
If you haven't already red Nyal Mellor (Acoustic Frontiers) white paper for 2 channel, i suggest you do, it is very good. He talks about decay etc.


----------



## pharoah

i use 2.1.my stereo is my movie watching system as well.my pc has a bluray drive.i also have a player that can add the lfe.back to the 2 channel stereo outputs.so full lfe effects are there.its also very nice for music.


----------



## jackfish

I guess if so-called low bass cannot be localized then it makes sense that it would be mixed in mono on most recordings. Now with upper bass I know that it is mixed in stereo as with many jazz recordings the bass player is fixed within the soundstage and when notes reach into the so-called low bass area the instrument can still be located in the same place within the soundstage because of aural cues in harmonics, string slap, etc.


----------



## pharoah

im crossed over at 40hz.so that is most likely omni-directional bass.playing alot of different styles of music.i can defo tell where the bass player is.even with some really low movie bass.i can hear directional ques.the movie boogeyman in particular.there is a low bass sound running across the wall and ceiling.i can defo track that sound from right to left.as it travels across the screen.


----------

