# To sub or not to sub in 2-channel system



## kingkip (Apr 20, 2006)

I can't really take credit for this question as it was posted on another forum, but I found it to be interesting.

What do you think about using a sub with 2 channel listening? I used to be in the no sub camp until I built my IB. Now I am thoroughly conviced that a good sub makes the music way better. I am actually going through a revival of my tunes lately, I love it when a new piece of gear makes that happen. The IB makes everything so real and viceral.

Anyway, thoughts?


----------



## Sonnie (Apr 11, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I'm not a two channel guy myself, but it seems most two channel enthusiast are very critical listeners. It makes all the sense in the world for IB in two channel to me... if in fact IB is as clean and accurate as everyone says it is.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

2 channel with sub is a definate yes in my book.:T 
I find that although my floorstanders go nice and low, there is always that moment when the extra bass from the sub is nice.
My sub is fed by twin RCA's from the bi-amp output on my power amp and has also made a big difference to watching films. My DVD player is hooked up to the Hi Fi as well.


----------



## Phil M (Apr 19, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

Yes, I bought a REL sub for 2 channel listening way before going down the HT route.
It reinforces the main speakers, not only for smaller moniter type speakers but also for full range speakers. My mains go down to about 30Hz and the REL sub cuts in about 27Hz.
It makes a noticeable difference.


----------



## Chrisbee (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I've been using subs with stereo for very many years. 

Not only for serious music but for satellite TV as well. Subs add greatly to the sense of realism and excitement on TV series as well as films. 

Even traffic sounds better with a sub. Especially the trains, busses, tuned V8s and Harleys!  

An IB is essential of course. Nothing else comes close for sheer realism. 

If you are listening to heavy metal at realistic levels then you need something powerful to cut right through the **** higher up just to make any impact at all! :devil:

I think this means a qualified yes? :laugh:


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I've actually never had a system without a sub.. but it seems like it's a must. 

Unless you have a SERIOUS amount of power feeding some BIG drivers, I can't see how mains are going to sound as good down low without a separate sub. Too much power getting sucked up with the low stuff, too much stress on the drivers too..

JCD


----------



## Exocer (Apr 19, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I've actually had a system without a sub and there was much to be desired in the bass department. Even though the towers in this system utilized a single 15" woofer each, they were only capable of good extension down to 40hz.

Nothing is as good in the bass ranges as a dedicated subwoofer :T


----------



## Danny (May 3, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I do think you need a sub in a 2 ch system but the level has to be set in line with the rest of the speakers. There is no point in setting your sub to crank out bass at 120dB while you are listening at say 95dB, while this is an extreme situation the level should be set so that the sound is reproduced with as flat a response as possible.


----------



## GregBe (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*



Phil M said:


> Yes, I bought a REL sub for 2 channel listening way before going down the HT route.
> It reinforces the main speakers, not only for smaller moniter type speakers but also for full range speakers. My mains go down to about 30Hz and the REL sub cuts in about 27Hz.
> It makes a noticeable difference.


Hi Phil,

I own Monitor Audio GR10's that are bookshelves that play down to 40hz. Many recommend a 80hz crossover, but to me it sounds better at 60hz. Are you saying that I should even consider a 40hz crossover?


----------



## Phil M (Apr 19, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

Greg, at the end of the day its down to individual tastes.
REL have been at the forefront of sub integration with mains speakers for 2 channel, and I once read a comment from them that most listeners have the sub set at too high a frequency and too low a volume. They are suggesting that a more subtle integration with the mains is more benefical.
I started with a higher frequency and have slowly cut it back to where it is today, but its taken me about 6 years to arrive at 27Hz! But the volume is cranked up higher than it used to be.

Their US importer, now owners, Sumiko used to post a sub setup guide which seems to have gone - but I did find this on the REL site:

http://www.rel.net/index2.htm

Look under products (try ST) and then setup, it might help.

The problem we all have is that we like subs to be cranked up for HT sound effects, its impressive but not necessarily realistic.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I vote for subbing a 2C system. It just helps provide a fatter lower end (which is ALWAYS good! ) And allows your mains to work on detail and the mids and highs!


----------



## nova (Apr 30, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*



Phil M said:


> G
> The problem we all have is that we like subs to be cranked up for HT sound effects, its impressive but not necessarily realistic.



This is my camp :R With the way I like my system set up for HT the bass does not sound right for music. I'm not a "critical listener", but I do just listen in two channel pure direct. If I had a better sub or two or an IB, maybe I would change my mind. :dontknow:


----------



## Wayde (Jun 5, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

Phil is definitely right, it's up to personal taste. But here's my 2 cents

You *can *hurt 2 channel sound with a sub. It really depends on the kind of music. 

If you like most music 2 ch plus sub can be compromised with a sub by setting the crossover too high (80hz is probably too high for critical 2 channel listening) I like 60hz but someone mentioned 40 in this thread and it's probably doable. 

The other way is too much volume sub and too big a driver. A 12" driver is impressive for HT but for music it often lacks sensitivity and the kind of speed for nice tight response.

If you like hip-hop, electronica and techno it would probably be difficult to compromise your audio with the sub. But I imagine it can be done. I happen to like ambient and techno sometimes (as well as a variety of other music) and way too much sub for other styles is fine with techno.

I've got an older 8" sub by Boston Acoustics. I use it as a secondary sub in my HT and keep the volume low. For 2channel music I still like it better than my Velodyne 250Watt 12" sub.


----------



## reed.hannebaum (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I am experimenting with 2 passive sealed 15" subs sitting directly behind and below my main bookshelf speakers which are on stands. I use a Paradigm X-30 subwoofer crossover to divide the pre-outs from my receiver between my sub and main amps. The mains are flat to 45 Hz, and I have the X-over set to 75Hz. 

The CARA ray tracing software told me this should be a pretty good setup. After smoothing out the lumps with BFD, both REW and my ears can attest to the benefits of adding the subwoofers. The sound is now richer, fuller and even more dynamic than my mains could offer by themselves.

I enjoy a wide range of music, but I mostly listen to jazz and classical. For 2 channel sound I don't need nor want a lot of heavy-handed bass (I have an SVS in the rear corner for HT), but do want to hear the full range and impact of sound as recorded on my CDs. These subs do that in spades by provide the lower end support that has been missing from my mains. They are a great addition to my system.

Based on what has been posted, I am going to try setting the X-over lower, maybe down to 60 HZ or 50 Hz and see what I get. Since the subs are about 66” apart, they mutually resonate from about 50 Hz on down, so a 50 Hz X-over point might be best.

At 18 db per octave, the X-30 has a fairly shallow roll-off. Eventually I want to try a Linkwist-Riley 2-way X-over and see how the subs sound in stereo. The Linkwist-Riley alignment will provide phase coherence across the X-over point, but the BFD will probably mess with that. At any rate, the steeper roll-off should make it easier to balance the subs and the main speakers.


----------



## Guest (Jul 14, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

My two cents:

I thought when I bought my subwoofer I wouldn’t be using it for two channel listening. I did try it several times but I didn’t like it – that was until I got a receiver with an adjustable crossover. My old receiver had a fixed crossover at 80 Hz which just did not work with my mains, -3db at 40 Hz (ported/vented). My new receiver allows for a 40 Hz crossover point (I still use 80 Hz for movies) and it works very well. The change is soundstage is remarkable – width, height and depth all improve dramatically with the sub on. Now I probably split my two channel listening 80% in stereo mode w/sub, 20% in pure audio mode n/sub. I say sub.

Question Kingkip; what is an IB?


----------



## laserman (Jun 9, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I guess I am in the "it depends" camp.

In my experience with visiting folks whose systems have a sub(s), 9 out of 10 have it set up incorrectly. I have often suggested they do as Phil has done and cross it over lower. To encourage them to live with it for a while and then, if needed, to gradually turn it higher. The BFD is a great tool but it still depends on personal preferences.

IMHO, most well engineered floor standing speakers do more than adequate without a sub. A sub may be required for monitors but this depends of a person's musical preferences, how loud they want to play them, and the size of the room they are in.

I purchased a Vandersteen 2W sub for my Magnepans and quite honesty have it turned down pretty low in it's current room environment. At my other home, I had it turned up higher to get it to be as intergrated as it is in my new home. So, room treatment or characterics play a key roll in whether one is needed or not.

A very long time ago a highly regarded and acclaimed audio engineer was conducting a clinic I attended and told the audience that subs are only good to use if they don't bring attention to themselves. They should also sound like a live performance (non-rock and jam band, of course). 

From what I have read on many of the HT threads (at this site too) is the constant references of shaking the windows and waking up the neighbors five houses down the block. Does this really have meaning? Personally, I don't get this line of thinking.:scratchhead: 

Another great sub, for anyone considering options, are the ones designed by Audire. They are sealed units which incorporate the new XBL^2 technology. A 10" or 12" driver does wonders and are very easy on the ear.

Have a great weekend.


----------



## Alan Brown (Jun 7, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

The physics of low frequency sound behavior in rooms is a fascinating and complex study. Small room acoustical theory and practice has been changing and improving in recent years, due to increased computing power available and accumulated advancements in the audio engineering community. 

Subwoofer performance in any system is wholely dependent upon device placement, room characteristics, crossover point, crossover slope, seating location, number of subs used, how the sub's crossover mates with the low end cutoff of the main speakers, besides the performance characteristics of the device itself. Simply moving the sub one foot further into the room, or moving your seating location one foot in any direction relative to the room boundaries, can have a greater effect upon how it sounds to the listener than any other single factor.

There is no way I could tell you what my opinion is on this subject that would help you in any way. Subwoofer performance is predicated upon far too many variables in any given system. If personal taste is going to be included in the criteria for recommending the practice of using a sub in a two channel audio system, then you are totally on your own. The likelihood that my system and room conditions would match yours is far too remote to be imagined. Add individual taste into the mix and the odds that my preference could help you would be a shot in the dark. 

The best advice I could offer anyone on the topic of this thread is to decide whether or not audio fidelity is more important to you than personal taste. If fidelity is vital, then attend a wide variety of live musical performances on a regular basis. Then study authoritative literature on low frequency sound reproduction theory and practice in small rooms, borrow or purchase the best contender(s) among subwoofers available, experiment with proper placement in your room, then make a decision for yourself. Listening to some other system, in some other room, does not help at all. An excellent subwoofer can sound poor in any system, if it's implemented poorly.

If personal taste is your primary criterion, then only you will know what works for you. All you will be left with is trial and error. Good luck! Many in this hobby find the challenge of experimentation and fiddling with gear quite enjoyable and fulfilling. 

Usually, you will get lower notes, at more realistic SPLs, for less money, with a powered sub vs. relying on two full-range speakers. Cabinet size affects price substantially. If money is not such a dominant limitation, a well designed full range speaker can sound better integrated throughout its operating range, independent of room characteristics. In theory, many systems would sound better if the lowest frequencies were originating from somewhere else in the room than the best location for the upper frequencies. That's REALLY hard to do with only two full range speakers. The room is as critical to sound reproduction as any other element in the system, two channel or multi-channel, especially when considering the lowest frequencies.

Best regards,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
ISF, THX, SMPTE, CEDIA


----------



## reed.hannebaum (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

Alan,

I have read several of your post and I find them well written, informative, and I agree with a lot of what you say. You tend to speak in generalities and site overall principles which is the best one can do when addressing the forum as a whole rather than an individual with a specific HT environment (I use environment in a broad sense; room, equipment, source material, personal taste).

However I do take some exception to what you just said. I don't believe partitioning HT advocates into the audio fidelity camp or the personal taste camp is a useful dichotomy. I would venture to say that the vast majority of us do what we do because we find this to be a fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable hobby. As such, personal tastes and preferences take front stage in our endeavor. This is not to say that audio fidelity is ignored by any means. BFD and REW are excellent tools we gladly use to transcend our audio perceptions into the realm of graphs and numbers we use to detect, quantify, and correct the deficiencies of our listening environment. But at the end of the day, we adjust, tweak, and fiddle until it sounds right to our ears.

A good example of what I am trying to say is Wayne Pflughaupt’s excellent thread on House Curves. He contends, and I agree from my experience, that most people don’t like the sound of a flat FR curve, hence the need for a house curve. I am certainly no expert on psycho-acoustics so I don’t have an explanation for this. Of course the measure of audio fidelity is multi-dimensional, encompassing many time domain and frequency domain relationships (some contentiously debated). But I would think that most people would agree that an FR curve is one indicator of audio fidelity. But who among us would resist adjusting the F3 point on our subwoofer if we felt the need, simply because it would further violate FR linearity? 

I didn’t mean for this to turn into such a long post but my point is that few if any of us would spend a week at Camp Audio Fidelity studying audio doctrinaire when all the Epicurean delights are at Camp Personal Taste.


----------



## Chrisbee (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I would just add that most listening rooms and HTs are very rarely on the same scale as the original studio/stadium/concert hall/great outdoors. 

Much programmes material does not even exist in reality and is as unreal as visual special effects, however clever.

To set strict rules for any of the parameters when listening in a domestic room is simply unrealistic. 

To take a simple example: However close we may approach to realistic sound levels. Few would want to listen at those levels for any length of time in our smaller evironments. It is quite simply exhausting to try to do so in a small space.

Even a small jazz trio playing in your room at normal levels would probably require ear defenders. Our smaller scale sound reproduction may be delightful but let us not fool ourselves that it truly represents reality. It is a clever and often very satisfying construction. However real it may actually sound it cannot do more than offer a small scale model of reality.

Perfection of sound quality may be the ultimate goal but it is still remote and may always remain so. If we can fool our eyes and minds for a couple of hours that watching a 42" plasma represents reality. The same must also hold true for the audio side of things.


----------



## JimP (May 18, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*



Chrisbee said:


> ...snip...
> 
> To take a simple example: However close we may approach to realistic sound levels. Few would want to listen at those levels for any length of time in our smaller evironments. It is quite simply exhausting to try to do so in a small space.
> 
> ...


Chris,
Just for discussion purposes, it sounds like you're comments are based on your personal listening experiences that did not approach reality. So does it reason that maybe you just haven't heard systems that were accurate?


----------



## JimP (May 18, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

On a seperate note (pun intended), what I hear with a main speaker crossed over and a sub picking up the low frequencies (presuming quality components properly calibrated) is less intermodulation distortion (a cleaner sound).


----------



## Chrisbee (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*



JimP said:


> Chris,
> Just for discussion purposes, it sounds like you're comments are based on your personal listening experiences that did not approach reality. So does it reason that maybe you just haven't heard systems that were accurate?


I can hardly believe you are being serious Jim. 

Define "accurate" in the context of stereo or multichannel AV?

It is a totally meaningless expression no matter whose product loyalty colours you nail to your own mast. Wilson, Krell, Velo, Quad, M&K, SVS, Naim, Dynaudio, B&O, Bose, digital, analogue, electrostatic, IB or whatever.

Sound reproduction is a clever illusion. Nothing more. No two human beings can even agree what it should really sound like! They will buy (or construct) equipment based on their own tastes, superstitions and pocket

Over 40 years of listening to reproduced music I have heard many hundreds of systems. Some were obscenely costly. Many others more affordable. Many were exciting with great rhythm so that I was "instantly locked into the beat". Or so eye-wateringly emotional that they "clutched at my heart strings". Or were incredily impressive so that "I was pushed back in my seat". Or sounded so real "you could put out your hand and touch them". What has this to do with "accurate"? Can you put your hand out to a real singer or violinist with pinpoint accuracy at 10 feet? I cetainly can't. Rather oddly; none of these sytems could do all of these magical things all at once. Why not?

Dynamics are never truly realistic and probably never can be without a major sea-change in reproduction equipment. Present transducer innefficiencies are far too low and alternatives suffer from serious colourations or limited power handling. 

We are only just getting into the reproduction of infrasonics using IBs and rotary subs. Yet we are all subjected to infrasonics every day of our lives. Who knows where this will lead in "accurate" sound reproduction? Perhaps up the same blind alleys as superweeters fed with limited bandwidth signals? 

Where is the everyday minutæ of detail in musical reproduction you can hear from simply picking up any instrument you may have to hand? Exactly how thick was that sock they put over the studio microphone?

The recordings you listen to are made in another environment from yours. Are you listening to their reverberation and decay or your own? Where was the microphone placed? Close or distant? Multichannel/multimike/multitrack? Digital or analogue? What about deliberate or accidental compression and upper or lower roll off points? 

If the recordings are monitored on another system than your own in another environment. What pet tricks did the engineer apply? What is his system frequency response and average SPL compared to yours? How good is is his hearing compared to yours? Did he use your own speakers & subwoofers in your own listening room to ensure the "highs","mids" and "bass" would sound "accurate" coming from your system when you played his carefully engineered "work" at home?

LP or CD or DVD? Name your poison.

I think that labours the point quite well enough. I've still been thoroughly enjoying my music as I typed the sunshiny day away.


----------



## Alan Brown (Jun 7, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*



> I don't believe partitioning HT advocates into the audio fidelity camp or the personal taste camp is a useful dichotomy. I would venture to say that the vast majority of us do what we do because we find this to be a fascinating and thoroughly enjoyable hobby. As such, personal tastes and preferences take front stage in our endeavor.


Excellent debate! There are far fewer standards in the music recording realm than in video. Perhaps this is another 'chicken vs. egg' problem. A recording engineer has no way of predicting what type of acoustical venue his program will be heard in. It's true that most audio consumers are left with personal experience, preference and taste as their primary qualitative rules of measure. I was first an audiophile before home theater became a viability for the average consumer. My first Imaging Science Foundation training was a revelation in that I discovered solid reference standards and reliable methods of measuring accuracy and fidelity in the imaging industries. The ISF's current president, Joel Silver, came from a high end audio background. He will be the first to tell you that it's much simpler to get consistent results with video than audio. There's also the dirty little secret that many recording engineers have serious hearing loss from a career of long hours of high SPL exposure. 

There are literally thousands of recording studios in the world with varying acoustical characteristics, but only scores of primary movie dubbing stages. Very few recording studios are built alike. Many judgements are made based upon the use of nearfield monitors or headphones. The major film industry dubbing stages all follow a standard type of construction design that emulates the typical commercial theater. Therefore it's much easier to achieve predictable results with multi-channel film sound in the home than music recordings. The multi-channel music recording industry is still struggling with establishing consistent standards and practices.

The only reference most of us really have to judge "reality" with recorded music is our experience with live musical performances. With video, "reality" is what the program producer viewed on his professional calibrated prost-production monitor. Due to the efforts of SMPTE, THX, the ISF, Joe Kane Productions, etc., consumer displays can come very close to reference performance with calibration. Thanks to George Lucas, THX, Dolby Labs, DTS, etc., in the case of multi-channel film sound, consumers can come pretty close to emulating the sound field of a commercial theater, especially in a rectangular dedicated home theater. Unfortunately, there is just no way to determine what a music recording engineer intended for us to hear outside of good headphones. When it comes to multi-channel music recordings, even headphones are eliminated as a reference.

Getting back to the topic of this thread, many home audio consumers don't have a desire to replicate the live audio perfomance in their listening room. They rely primarily upon what sounds good to them. Other consumers have musical training, performance experience, and/or very specific reference standards, and seek to duplicate what they consider accurate "reality." Advice or opinions about the suitability or desireability of using a subwoofer in a two channel speaker setup, has to be taken through a wide variety of analytical 'filters' before acceptance. By "acceptance" I mean spending one's money on a solution. 

We're all learning more every day in this field. That's why I love the challenge of debating these issues. 

Best regards,
Alan Brown, President
CinemaQuest, Inc.
ISF, THX, SMPTE, CEDIA


----------



## reed.hannebaum (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

A lot of good, thought provoking responses; some technical, authoritative, opinionated, and even maybe one metaphysical. Alan as moderator, its right for you to steer us back to the topic at hand but I can't resist making a few more remarks along this line of thinking.

My wife and I sometimes like to attend Powell Symphony Hall in St. Louis. If you look at their seating chart we can choose to sit right up front in the left/center/right Dress Circle Box seats (only if your rich), or further back in the left/center/right Grand Circle seats or up in the left/right Grand Tier seats, or back in the Terrace seats, or in the balcony. At each of these locations you will hear a unique orchestral sound. So which location do you chose to hear the most representative sound from the orchestra? You can't. The sound at each seating location is a valid if unique representation of the orchestra. Which location do you chose to hear the best sound? That depends on personal taste. 

And then you take a look at where are the mics located; some are hanging from the ceiling, some are on stage, a few are scattered about the first string section, one is right by the piano, etc. Is any seat in the house remotely close to any of these mics? NO.

Later back at the studio some hapless engineer has to mix, equalize, cut, boost, fade, pan, expand, reverb, and... this multi-channel audio stream and turn it into a marketable item. And as Alan pointed out he is half deaf to begin with.

So months later you get home from work and there in the mailbox is this multimedia package from Telarc. You tear it open and gnaw off that stupid tape they put along the edge of the jewel case. You pop the SACD into your fiercely modded DVD player sitting on kryptonite blocks and sit back to relive that night Leonard Slatkin conducted the St. Louis Symphony to Beethoven's 6th. But you can't. 

My point in this little allegory is to illustrate that what we hear at home is not what you or any else would hear at a live concert. As Chris pointed out more aptly and certainly more succinctly than I is that we cannot faithfully re-create the past in any media. As technology and theory improve we do better at creating more convincing illusions, and as Alan stated we are a lot better at this with video than we are with audio. CD’s are infidels; beautiful un-faithful reproductions of sound.


----------



## Chrisbee (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

After decades of my struggling with huge DIY enclosures for a few Hertz more, commercial subwoofers are now taking ever-greater strides into the longer wavelengths. Still early days of course but they are showing steady progress.  

Ironically it was an FM radio, organ music broadcast that rekindled my interest in bass reproduction. Years of listening to shoebox monitors in very large rooms had been building frustration which I was cheerfully unaware of until that exact moment. 

I would come home from dealer demos and hifi shows insolently smug in the knowledge that my own system sounded infinitely better than anything I heard elsewhere. My bubble finally burst during that broadcast and a torrent of bass has poured out of my system ever since.


----------



## Guest (Aug 8, 2006)

*DUAL SUBS*

http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23139


----------



## Danny (May 3, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

CD's certainly sound a lot different than a live performance, a part of it might be the natural reverbertion of the room but there are probably other factors affecting the sound.


----------



## Ayreonaut (Apr 26, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I'm using my subwofer for music. I'm crossed over at 60Hz instead of 80Hz. It seems to anchor the bass to the mains better. I've played wtih my house curve and settled in with a set of parameters that sound the most *real* to me. 

We all have "personal taste" in "audio fidelity." That is to say, what sounds true to you?


----------



## ISLAND1000 (May 2, 2007)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I'm an ex musician and a long time proponent of home listening devices.
I just attended a live Ronnie MiLsap concert which also featured John Anderson and John Conlee.
The ONLY musician at that concert to get the "sound" balanced (bass boxes, mids, and treble arrays) was the blind guy.
It's true that what we are priviledged to hear at home is one man's opinion or creation of musical sounds or the sounds and noises of realistic action. The action can be quite "life like" . . . . . but music has a long way to go before we'll accept it as "life like".
My opinion, use a sub. Ronnie Milsap does.


----------



## jackfish (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I have Rock Solid (B&W) monitors in the basement family room for music listening and VHS (gasp!) movie watching. The bass out of these little speakers is pretty amazing, but their low end limits are evident. Several years ago I found one of the last new in box AR S112PS subwoofers. This particular sub is an overachiever and is well matched to the Rock Solids. Not only does it improve dramatically the movie experience, the music listening has been enhanced incredibly. The extended bass just seems to be there without detracting from the two channel mids and highs handled excellently by the Rock Solids. It would seem to me a perfectly acceptable solution to go with very high quality bookshelves and a good, well-placed subwoofer for two channel music.


----------



## gsmollin (Apr 25, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

Wide range speakers all have two, three or more speakers in them, so we are always listening to multiple drivers. A subwoofer adds one or two more, and further complicates the phasing between drivers at the crossovers. Whether this helps or hurts high fidelity sound reproduction depends upon the skill of the system integrator to add the components together.

I have a sub on my HT system, and none on my hi-fi system. I still think the hi-fi system sounds better for music than the HT system, but the HT system sounds reasonably good playing music, and the sub is a reasonable addition to that. I can add that on most symphonic music the subwoofer is not used. It's VU meter is off. Pipe organ music wakes it up, for sure, and I do enjoy the extra punch. Techno and hard rock of course gives the sub a workout, but that music is not critical to listen to.


----------



## JCD (Apr 20, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*



gsmollin said:


> Wide range speakers all have two, three or more speakers in them, so we are always listening to multiple drivers. A subwoofer adds one or two more, and further complicates the phasing between drivers at the crossovers. Whether this helps or hurts high fidelity sound reproduction depends upon the skill of the system integrator to add the components together.


Ultimately, I think that's the question/issue -- can you integrate the sub into your system properly. I so, even with wide range speakers, I think relieving the stress of the really low notes is going to improve the performance of the over all system.



gsmollin said:


> I have a sub on my HT system, and none on my hi-fi system. I still think the hi-fi system sounds better for music than the HT system, but the HT system sounds reasonably good playing music, and the sub is a reasonable addition to that. I can add that on most symphonic music the subwoofer is not used. It's VU meter is off. Pipe organ music wakes it up, for sure, and I do enjoy the extra punch. Techno and hard rock of course gives the sub a workout, but that music is not critical to listen to.


To make this comparison, I'd wanna know what equipment you have in the two different systems, room layout, acoustical issues, etc.

All that being said, I agree, for most music, we don't need to get below ~40hz unless you're pulling out that pipe orgain CD (I have one, and tried playing it on my computer speakers -- truly sad).

JCD


----------



## reed.hannebaum (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*



JCD said:


> All that being said, I agree, for most music, we don't need to get below ~40hz unless you're pulling out that pipe orgain CD (I have one, and tried playing it on my computer speakers -- truly sad).
> 
> JCD


The following link http://www.contrabass.com/pages/frequency.html reveals that the lowest note on many instruments is below 40Hz, including the piano at 27.5 Hz. Granted, these lower notes may be rarely used, but I like to think my equipment is capable of delivering the goods when called upon to do so.


----------



## jackfish (Dec 27, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

Even if the equipment has the potential to deliver such tones the room has to be able to accommodate the tone as well. Do you know the length of the wave produced with a 20 Hz tone? A 16 Hz tone has a wavelength of 72 feet!


----------



## ISLAND1000 (May 2, 2007)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*



reed.hannebaum said:


> The following link http://www.contrabass.com/pages/frequency.html
> 
> Hey Reed,
> Thanks for that Link. I wanted to see for myself what kind of instrument played down to 4Hz!
> ...


----------



## reed.hannebaum (Apr 21, 2006)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

Jay,
You are absolutely correct; of all the components that make up a good sound system, the listening room is the most critical (besides our own ears). I have used REW to adjust sub level, equalization and crossover to get a reasonably flat response down to 15 Hz at my favority listening position. 










Hey Phil,
It is an interesting link. Some of those instruments are pretty far off the wall. I think it would be tough lugging around a 64' clarinet from gig to gig.


----------



## warpdrive (May 6, 2007)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I've actually found music listening without a sub even on bookshelf speakers to be still satisfying, but a well integrated sub just adds that extra dimension that makes me believe in that realism of a recording. 

I don't believe that a bookshelf+sub system is going to replace the need for a top class floorstanding system, but for those of us that are constrained in space and/or budget, choosing a decent bookshelf speaker like my small CM or the NHT Classic 3 + a good tight sub like my SVS SB12, can be very satisfying even for critical music listening

Now if you have a good floorstanding system, adding a sub can just make the difference as long as you can integrate the sub properly into your system. Because bass interactions with the room are so pronounced, it's very useful to have some analysis tools such as REW to figure out what's going on in the room as far as peaks and nulls in your room.


----------



## tonyvdb (Sep 5, 2007)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

I think Warpdrive hit the nail on the head, There are some fantastic sounding "bookshelf" speakers available that wont break the bank. Most good receivers have a "pure" mode that turns off the sub anyhow so there must be a reason for them taking this measure. I think any speaker than can go down to around 25hz is plenty good for straight listening to music as there are few recordings that will use the octaves below that.
I do agree that the sub ads a bit more dimension to music even if its hardly working.


----------



## warpdrive (May 6, 2007)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*

Yes, any good bookshelf speaker can be very satisfying for music listening. For the longest time, I was using a Energy C3 which has output down to about 40Hz, I used it without a sub.


----------



## thxgoon (Feb 23, 2007)

*Re: To sub or not to sub*



jackfish said:


> Even if the equipment has the potential to deliver such tones the room has to be able to accommodate the tone as well. Do you know the length of the wave produced with a 20 Hz tone? A 16 Hz tone has a wavelength of 72 feet!


I've heard this before but if that is the case, there would be nothing below about 200hz listening to headphones and we all know that isn't true. My advice, go for the sub. The added extension and output will be nice and your mains will be happy when they don't have to strain as hard (read - less distortion) reproducing bass.


----------

