To sub, or not to sub. That is the question.

[GMichael]

I know that many feel that a powered sub is like the kiss of death for stereo music. Others feel that you get more for your money with satellite speakers and a sub. Still others feel that good full range (or close to full range) towers with a good sub to supplement the very low lows is the best way to go. Which way do you do it and why? Would you change your method if price was no object?

[Rich-n-Texas]

Choice #C because that's what I've got and probably all I'll ever have.

[JohnMichael]

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune.


I owned a sub once and almost went nuts trying to integrate it into the system and room. If I had a larger listening room I would go for fullrange speakers and not bother with a sub.

[GMichael]

I would like to have a good set of full range speakers with a sub crossed at about 40 htz. The towers I have now do not go low enough for that. I have them crossed at 80. If I had enough cash, I'd get full rangers with amps to drive them. But I'd never give up my sub for movies.
Right now, I'm still looking at the mini's (who have their own bult in subs). I would use my pure direct setting on the receiver for music there by cutting out the main sub. Then switch back to DTS for movies.

Oh, and Tex, "C" is not a number.:incazzato:

[kexodusc]

I have a set of full range multi woofer towers that sound pretty good down into the low 30's, high 20's range. They use 2 vifa wood-fiber woofers and a nice Scan-Speak tweeter. They sound even better with a good, properly implemented subwoofer.
It's a bit of a paint to figure out how to integrate them well (ie, what frequency), but my sub has a 4th order low pass filter which greatly simplifies things. A lot of subs only have 2nd order filters unfortunately. This system is connected to my integrated, so I can't use my receiver's digital LFE crossover. Subs are much easier to incorporate with those!
A few years ago I tried matching my subwoofer - then a Paradigm PW-2200.
This wasn't a good move. The Paradigm was powerful, played loud, low and shook the house, but it had a hard time sounding as good as my speakers for music, seemed a bit sloppy, and didn't really do so well in my small studio/room. It's a ported design, and isn't really tailored made for this application, to be fair. It had a 2nd order filter on it too (which I believe has since been upgraded to a 3rd order, still not enough IMO).

Fast forward a few years, my current sub(s) are 15" sealed models, and are much better suited for this application. Tighter, better transient response, none of the exaggerated boom that ported subs often have. It's just a totally different experience. On the flipside, they may not have as much SPL or hit 15 Hz like a ported 15" model but that's okay.

Right now I'm experimenting with dual subs in my home theater, so it's out of my stereo system for the time being. It seems like such a small range of frequencies, but it sure added a great deal of realism to the music experience. I don't miss it so much with rock music as much as classical and jazz...or anything with big ol' acoustic bass.

In my home theater, my subwoofer also improves the performance of my bookshelf speakers, just by removing the "burden" of bass duty. I noticed greater clarity and resolution in the midrange in particular. SACD wouldn't be the same without it.

A few years ago I was pretty much of the mind that subs had no place in 2 channel systems, only home theater. I think slowly the industry is opening its mind to the possibilities and subwoofers continue to be made better, and cheaper.

[GMichael]

I was hoping for a bigger turn out. Maybe some will be along later.


Hello? Is this thing on?

[Luvin Da Blues]

Oh, and Tex, "C" is not a number.:incazzato:


Not much gets by you GM! :cornut:

I have my towers Xover'd at 60Hz to dual subs. Dunno but sounds good to my tin hearin' organs.:1:

[Luvin Da Blues]

Right now I'm experimenting with dual subs in my home theater, so it's out of my stereo system for the time being. It seems like such a small range of frequencies, but it sure added a great deal of realism to the music experience. I don't miss it so much with rock music as much as classical and jazz...or anything with big ol' acoustic bass.

I know what you mean. After spending at least 5 minutes(:prrr:, hours upon hours) with the meter and tone CD, I'll put on some tunes with a nicely recorded standup bass that I know real well and just run the subs alone to fine tune the placement and play with the xover until it's as smooth as I can get it. Then I go back to all speakers and fine tune even more. I think by running 2 ported subs you can minimize the "chuffing" of the ports.

But WTF do I know... I do know what sounds good to me.

[E-Stat]

I know that many feel that a powered sub is like the kiss of death for stereo music. Others feel that you get more for your money with satellite speakers and a sub. Still others feel that good full range (or close to full range) towers with a good sub to supplement the very low lows is the best way to go.
Depends. Ideally, I favor full range designs for their superb coherency. The wave emanates from a single pebble in the pond. Questions of matching driver radiation patterns, range, distortion, etc. simply do not apply. I get flat response down to 25 hz with the stats which is good enough for me (I'm not a pipe organ freak - but do enjoy the "feel" of a genuine 32 foot pedal note). In my dreams, I would have a far larger room using four Pro-Stat 945s driven with a couple of kilowatts of tube power.

From a practical standpoint, however, I enjoy dual powered subs supplementing the satellites in the HT. The reason is that I can apply EQ to the subs without compromising the full range signal. As with any matching, it took many hours to get an optimum combination of sub level, high and low pass crossover frequencies, and EQ settings to flatten out the system response.

rw

[basite]

no sub here, if I get a bigger room then a sub will be in consideration, but I think I need a pretty big one though...

[Jimmy C]

At this point, I subscribe the the REL philosophy - i.e., a low x-over point to only come up and meet the mains. My cut-off is 41 cycles, and I feel it blends beautifully.

To deny oneself that extra foundation simply because it isn't "purist audiophile approved" is silly, IMO. A judiciously implemented sub can expand the soundstage as well. C'Mon... you NEED bass to complete the aural picture.

A few things...

1) I have heard the Reference 3A de Capos with a Hsu sub - not sure if it was set-up or the sub itself, but I preferred the Refs alone. Point is, a subwoofer can sometimes do more damage than good. IMO, of course.

2) Obviously, if you're running full-range mains, you don't NEED the extra extention! My guess would be speakers that are flat to 30 or so.

Sometimes my Strata is indeed a bit redundant, but more often than not, she feels good!

[pixelthis]

I was hoping for a bigger turn out. Maybe some will be along later.


Hello? Is this thing on?
Thats what my girlfriend keeps asking me.
Truth is the ONLY reason I have a sub is for HT, HAVTA have a sub to properly
blow crap up and piss off the neighbors.
My receiver has a "pure" mode that is just two channel with the front display turned off.
Best of both worlds, truckboy, best of both worlds.
But if I ever am able to afford A audio only system it will be strictly two
"big ol speakers":thumbsup:

[GMichael]

Thats what my girlfriend keeps asking me.
Truth is the ONLY reason I have a sub is for HT, HAVTA have a sub to properly
blow crap up and piss off the neighbors.
My receiver has a "pure" mode that is just two channel with the front display turned off.
Best of both worlds, truckboy, best of both worlds.
But if I ever am able to afford A audio only system it will be strictly two
"big ol speakers":thumbsup:

So you're saying, "I have a sub now but would switch to full range only if I had the $$."?

[DEVO]

Two subs is the perfect setup! BALANCE...
Whether it's a stereo or multichannel system...
However, placement is the most difficult part of this equation! And it may take months or longer to find this location.
If you have the patience, and the equipment...this is the way to go.
Just my two cents worth...

[GMichael]

Two subs is the perfect setup! BALANCE...
Whether it's a stereo or multichannel system...
However, placement is the most difficult part of this equation! And it may take months or longer to find this location.
If you have the patience, and the equipment...this is the way to go.
Just my two cents worth...

How about 3?

One in each tower for stereo, and a third for HT.

[Woochifer]

I'm with Kex on the subs.

IMO, the primary improvement that a sub offers is the versatility of placing the sub where the low frequency response is more optimal, and the option of independently EQing the subwoofer to address any room-induced issues in the lows. Coupled with relieving the main speakers from having to reproduce the extreme lows, I found that using subwoofers can audibly improve the midrange coherency and create a smoother and fuller sounding bass (not just lower extension).

Subs definitely represent a fair share of tradeoffs -- the placement/integration issues that JohnMichael cited will linger somewhat even in a good setup, and any kind of digital parametric EQing will add delay (not an issue if the processor can compensate).

But, the front wall placement that optimizes the imaging for most speakers is also the location where the bass is typically least optimal. Plus, any room-induced low frequency problems with speakers running at full range cannot be independently EQ'd without the risk of coloration in the higher frequencies. In my listenings, the benefit of a properly setup and EQ'd subwoofer significantly outweighs any tradeoffs.

[filecat13]

I work both sides of the street.

For stereo, I keep things pretty pure with a pair of JBL Performance Series stacks (PS1400: 14" ported woofer; PT800: 8' Ti inverted dome midbass, 4" Ti inverted dome midrange, 1" Ti dome tweeter with waveguide).

For multichannel music, the stacks stay in play, augmented with four additional PT800s, a PC600 center, and a single HTPS400 sub.

As an HT, the multichannel speakers are complemented with a pair of HTPS400 subs, set up according to the Harman International white paper on multisubs.

Okay, I guess I work both sides and the middle of the street.:cool:

[pixelthis]

So you're saying, "I have a sub now but would switch to full range only if I had the $$."?
mY KLIPSCH speakers were "full range" as are my 602's2 B&W speakers I have returned to. Money is no object as I dont drive a GM PRODUCT THAT BREAKS DOWN ALL OF THE TIME:ihih:
What I am saying is that a sub is probably best for a HT system but for audio accuracy
full range would be nice for an audio only system.
I am currently "between" subs right now, and dont miss one really, just hit double bass on my receiver for movees and "pure" for music:1:

[Pat D]

I have good mini-monitors in both the main and HT system, so I chose the second option. But I have also had speakers with good bass down to 30 Hz and have used a sub with one of those, too. The disadvantage with mini-monitors is that they won't play as loudly as many larger speakers, but then, ours will play plenty loud enough for us.

One can put the main speakers where they sound the best and put the subwoofer where the bass response is most even, and these are seldom the same place. As well, with the crossover, one can notch out the highest room resonance, which is about 70 hz for an 8 foot ceiling (565/8 = 70.6). I have never had that much difficulty in integrating subs and sats either at home or in a store.

Also, very few speakers can match the extension and output of even a good mid-priced sub.

[shane2468]

I am not a good expert on subs. But maybe try rel because they can really go low down to the edge. My father use to have a rel stadium sub for his old acoustic energy reference speakers. Because they were base shy in our old big living room. So the best key figure is mabey a rel or mabey not?.

Hope this helps:confused5:

[emorphien]

Well I was going to get a sub a year ago, wound up getting new speakers instead. I'd like a full range pair of speakers, and if I can integrate a sub with it well then I'd include a sub in a system as well.

[GMichael]

Wow, a sub thread from the past sticks it's head out of the sand.
I've got a huge sub for HT and two full range mains now. They work and play well with each other. For music the sub only kicks in below 40 htz. For HT it does it's work from 80 htz down. Swithing from one set up to the other is just a press of a button.

[drseid]

I guess I will go with "it depends" as a couple other folks have. I personally go with two full-range mains that are flat to 25hz and down 6db at 20hz, so a sub would not help much... That said, I have nothing against using a properly integrated quality sub even with nearly full-range mains for music to fill in the lowest octave.

In some cases, a sub/sat system is really the best way to go (like in a relatively small room for instance). Not all rooms can handle the proper placement of a true full-range pair of speakers as they can sometimes be quite large and deep.

As for HT, I use a sub for LFE, but everything else is full range... Definitely I feel subs come in handy for HT.

---Dave

[pixelthis]

And dont forget that most "subs" are actually "bass modules".
Few subs actually go down deep to real "sub" levels:nonod:

[kexodusc]

And dont forget that most "subs" are actually "bass modules".
Few subs actually go down deep to real "sub" levels:nonod:

What? Bass Modules? Dr. Amar, that you? :D

What exactly is a "sub" level?
These things are called subwoofer for good reason. You've been around long enough, you should know, and understand the history.

[GMichael]

And dont forget that most "subs" are actually "bass modules".
Few subs actually go down deep to real "sub" levels:nonod:

Huh? My sub goes down to 20 htz. Are you saying that subs should go below human hearing? AKA sub-audible? Maybe one of these transducers would make a better "sub" then. http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=300-864
5 htz to 800. Now THAT'S a sub!?

[musicman1999]

For ht my mains cross over at 50htz,the center at 60,the rears at 80.The system runs clear and clean down to the low 20's and the sub is invisible.For stereo i usually don't run with the sub but have the option of turning it on.My processor allows for a cinema speaker configuration and a music configuration.

bill

[PeruvianSkies]

I think (and this is going against what I used to think) that the best combination is to have NO sub for a strictly 2-channel system, on the premise that you are using speakers that you are happy with the low end on. Otherwise you might want to integrate a sub.

For HT purposes I used to think that floorstanders and sub was the best of both, but lately I feel that I am shifting between smaller fronts on stands with a sub. Shocking as it may seem I actually prefer (for the size room that I am using) my Polk Monitor 40's in HT application over my PSB Platinums. Again, if the room was larger and perhaps if I was using matching Platinums with the other speakers, than this might change, but nonetheless at this moment I like having the Monitor 40's.

[pixelthis]

Huh? My sub goes down to 20 htz. Are you saying that subs should go below human hearing? AKA sub-audible? Maybe one of these transducers would make a better "sub" then. http://www.partsexpress.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?&Partnumber=300-864
5 htz to 800. Now THAT'S a sub!?
the lower the better, just like good porn.
True 20hz info is rare at any rate, they are counting on that when they rate these things.
It takes a hugh deal for extended bass output in the lower regions

ever hear about the russian plane that could survive two minutes of a nuclear
blast?
It was made of concrete and you pushed it off of a cliff, took it two minutes to
hit the ground.
Something like that
20hz at 500 watts...for about a minute.
Then your amp resembles campbells vegetable soup.
Or maybe you have a sub that can do true bass, if you do so I congradulate you.
And the guy who sold it to you (I'm sure he's quite well off)

[GMichael]

the lower the better, just like good porn.
True 20hz info is rare at any rate, they are counting on that when they rate these things.
It takes a hugh deal for extended bass output in the lower regions

ever hear about the russian plane that could survive two minutes of a nuclear
blast?
It was made of concrete and you pushed it off of a cliff, took it two minutes to
hit the ground.
Something like that
20hz at 500 watts...for about a minute.
Then your amp resembles campbells vegetable soup.
Or maybe you have a sub that can do true bass, if you do so I congradulate you.
And the guy who sold it to you (I'm sure he's quite well off)

It's a little hard to follow this rambling.

I'll be testing my sub in a few days. Then I'll post the results. But there are other subs out there claiming 15 htz and below. They have already posted graphs to show it. I'd look them up for you but you seem to know so much that I wouldn't want to waste your time like that.

Oh, and my 1000w rms sub cost me $500. Some assembly was required.

Yippy!!!! Wifey just called. My sound meter finally showed up! Testing to begin soon.

[bfalls]

I have two HT systems which are setup differently than most I've read about here. The first system has full-range Legacy Focus mains. The Focus have three 12" woofers/side. They're efficient (94db/w/m), but I thought I could get better midrange and power if I bi-amped. The mid/highs are driven by my Denon AVR-3300 105w/ch receiver and the subs by a Yamaha M-65 (170w/ch) amp. This configuration provides great mid-range and better control of the bass. I have no problems with placement or filling my 12.5'x25' room.
The second system is primarily Yamaha/Klipsch system with a custom-build ACI Saturn compound sub. The sub has two 12" with dual VC drivers in a push-pull configuration (mounted together face-to-face). The mains are Kg4s with dual 8" mid/woofers. In this 5.1 system the 5 are driven by my Yamaha RX-V2095 (100w/ch) and the .1 Saturn is driven by a Marantz M-700 mono amp. I also have an extra Klipsch SW8 powered sub which I use in the rear of the room to supply bass with the surrounds. The SW8 doesn't go very low, but provides adequate low end with the surrounds and better overall tonal balance.
So my Denon/Legacy system has full-range mains, but are set up as sub/satellite and my Yamaha/Klipsch system is a sub/sat system set up running the KG4s full-range. Both systems have their benefits and sound great. I can't really say one is better than the other, only different.

[GMichael]

I have two HT systems which are setup differently than most I've read about here. The first system has full-range Legacy Focus mains. The Focus have three 12" woofers/side. They're efficient (94db/w/m), but I thought I could get better midrange and power if I bi-amped. The mid/highs are driven by my Denon AVR-3300 105w/ch receiver and the subs by a Yamaha M-65 (170w/ch) amp. This configuration provides great mid-range and better control of the bass. I have no problems with placement or filling my 12.5'x25' room.
The second system is primarily Yamaha/Klipsch system with a custom-build ACI Saturn compound sub. The sub has two 12" with dual VC drivers in a push-pull configuration (mounted together face-to-face). The mains are Kg4s with dual 8" mid/woofers. In this 5.1 system the 5 are driven by my Yamaha RX-V2095 (100w/ch) and the .1 Saturn is driven by a Marantz M-700 mono amp. I also have an extra Klipsch SW8 powered sub which I use in the rear of the room to supply bass with the surrounds. The SW8 doesn't go very low, but provides adequate low end with the surrounds and better overall tonal balance.
So my Denon/Legacy system has full-range mains, but are set up as sub/satellite and my Yamaha/Klipsch system is a sub/sat system set up running the KG4s full-range. Both systems have their benefits and sound great. I can't really say one is better than the other, only different.

Nice systems you have there. I'm very jealous.

[pixelthis]

It's a little hard to follow this rambling.

I'll be testing my sub in a few days. Then I'll post the results. But there are other subs out there claiming 15 htz and below. They have already posted graphs to show it. I'd look them up for you but you seem to know so much that I wouldn't want to waste your time like that.

Oh, and my 1000w rms sub cost me $500. Some assembly was required.

Yippy!!!! Wifey just called. My sound meter finally showed up! Testing to begin soon.
Lets just say that I have become somewhat leery of specs and claims from audio manufacturers, a philidelpia laywer would be jealous of the way they wiggle around.
Ever heard the saying, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics"?
Well, the same applies to specs in the audio world:1:

[GMichael]

Lets just say that I have become somewhat leery of specs and claims from audio manufacturers, a philidelpia laywer would be jealous of the way they wiggle around.
Ever heard the saying, "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics"?
Well, the same applies to specs in the audio world:1:

That's the smartest thing I've seen you say yet.

After testing my system it seems that my sub does go down to 20 htz. That is, if you can count -20db as a response. But by 25 hts it's up to -3 db. I'll accept that. By the way, 77 db at 25 hts does a good job of shaking the whole house. I found out what items in the house need to be tightened down. Our blinds on the door almost fell off.

[E-Stat]

And dont forget that most "subs" are actually "bass modules".
Few subs actually go down deep to real "sub" levels:nonod:
Absolutely. The powered subs in my HT system fit that description. Or simply the woofers in a biamped three way system with the Polk RTi-35's 6" woofer acting as midrange. 30 hz is -4db down relative to the octaves above, but dives below that.

My next door neighbor in Georgia had a different arrangement with his HT. Used in wall speakers as mains / center which may have reproduced down to say 100 hz or so. He matched (or didn't as the case may be) those with a single massive 18" sub that was capable of subterranean response. The result was a giant suckout in the upper and mid bass and then the thump below which clearly emanated from the left corner of the room. I'll take my balanced and neutral sounding pair of almost-subs over that approach any day.

rw

[Feanor]

I know that many feel that a powered sub is like the kiss of death for stereo music. Others feel that you get more for your money with satellite speakers and a sub. Still others feel that good full range (or close to full range) towers with a good sub to supplement the very low lows is the best way to go. Which way do you do it and why? Would you change your method if price was no object?

This category is the winner, eh? It's what I selected; I might have selected Full Range but that would be misleading.

First, I use a sub with my HT driven by the LFE output with a setting of "Large" for fronts, center, and rears. I feel this is a no-brainer: though "large" my other speakers don't go down any below 50 Hz, nor can there output equal that of the 12" woofer.

On the other hand I also have a sub in my stereo setup. However I use my main speakers full range. For them that's down to about 45 Hz with about an 18dB/octave roll off. The sub is set with a 50 low-pass with, as I recall, a 18dB/oct roll off. Hence there is little overlap and integation is good. The sub is only supplying sound below 45-50Hz where the mains don't go. If I have mains that were flat to 25Hz I'd dispense with the sub for sure.

[DEVO]

I have never been a "big" fan a thunderous bass. I just want it to be controlled and clean. If I had some of the full range towers like some of the guys in this forum, then I would go w/ my ears...but w/ my ATF speakers by ML. They are not deep enough...they are VERY clean and w/ the addition of the Depth there is no noticable rolloff between the mids and lows. I would like to get another Depth, then turn down the vol. and the balance would be even better.

[emorphien]

The depth is a great sub, easily one of my favorites. It seems to blend and disappear very well.

[jt1stcav]

For my 2-channel system I am currently using bookshelf monitors in my small music room with a frequency response of 42Hz - 20kHz. Since I listen mainly to classical pipe organ music (with fundamental bass notes that can go all the way down to 16Hz at full tutti), my monitors alone cannot reproduce the music faithfully as intended. Therefor, I use two powered subwoofers that can produce bass into the 20's and still maintain a near-realistic projection of the recorded performances!

I have no HT system, so blasting out the neighbors with thunderous bass while watching explosions or jet fighters zoom by is not a concern for me.

I still own fullrange loudspeakers that will go down to 38Hz, but they're too big for my present room to tune in properly; even when I was using them, I still used a DIY 15" sub my brother built for me (tuned to 20Hz) so I could enjoy my pipe organ recordings in all their dynamic splendor! If I just listened to string quartets, small jazz ensembles, or a girl with a guitar, then I doubt I'd need or want a subwoofer...then again...

Sure, fiddling with phase and crossover controls, plus decent sub placement can be a PIA (corners aren't always the best places IMO, unless you like boom...it depends on your room). But once you have your sub(s) dialed in just right, they can blend in perfectly and disappear until they're needed with whatever loudspeakers you use, at least in my experience.

YMMV...:)

[hydroman]

Me? Full range mains with a 8" ported (soon to be a 15" sealed) sub is the best combo. The music rarely goes down to the sub, but movies do! I love the disconcerted looks from people as they experience movie theater sound in a home. My in-laws actully freaked a little as the house shook on the first big hit watching a movie.

[GMichael]

Me? Full range mains with a 8" ported (soon to be a 15" sealed) sub is the best combo. The music rarely goes down to the sub, but movies do! I love the disconcerted looks from people as they experience movie theater sound in a home. My in-laws actully freaked a little as the house shook on the first big hit watching a movie.

I love when the cats run out of the room and hide under my bed.
Put in Polar Express and even the most energetic kids will stop what they are doing and start watching the movie. (that is, if they don't run and cry)

[Rich-n-Texas]

The never ending poll...

I've come to the realization that despite my current situation with... *room modes*(I HATE saying that!) when listening to music, movies in Surround sound pretty good at the low end. If I had in-laws and needed to shake them up, what hydroman describes would be the perfect tool.:devil:

[pixelthis]

Nobodys mentioned the reason subs got started in the first place.
It was thought that if you could produce just bass from a single speaker it would improve the sound, because bass is nondirectional, and this would lessen distortion in
the mains, since they could now produce only treble and midrange.
In other words full range is a bit much for a speaker, you need a sun that is specialized
in bass, and a pair of mains that do mid and treble, and do it even better because
there is no distortion caused by bass.
That was the theory, anyway.
So, according to this theory a system with proper crossover and a sub should be more accurate.
In theory:1:

[kcramer]

I guess for me, the sub has always been a compliment to my mains(speaking strictly in stereo mode). An "extension" of the sound. I pretty much turn the x-over all the way down (because I have relatively large mains) and keep it's volume low so it only "supplements" my mains. I ask people when they come over if they can hear the subwoofer and I always get "NO". Then I turn it off and they all say "ok something changed", then I turn it back on and they say "ohh, ok NOW I hear it"

The hate part is when I want to watch a movie. My center and surrounds are cut off at 60hz which means I have to turn my sub's x-over UP to watch flicks. Then in stereo mode, i have to turn the x-over back down again. I hate that but am not sure of a good way to avoid having to turn that crossover nob whenever I switch to a different format. One thing I could do is stop using the sub in stereo mode, but that's no fun. Well either way, my "system" is working, stereo sounds great as do movies. I guess I'm pretty happy with the sub always on...

[GMichael]

I guess for me, the sub has always been a compliment to my mains(speaking strictly in stereo mode). An "extension" of the sound. I pretty much turn the x-over all the way down (because I have relatively large mains) and keep it's volume low so it only "supplements" my mains. I ask people when they come over if they can hear the subwoofer and I always get "NO". Then I turn it off and they all say "ok something changed", then I turn it back on and they say "ohh, ok NOW I hear it"

The hate part is when I want to watch a movie. My center and surrounds are cut off at 60hz which means I have to turn my sub's x-over UP to watch flicks. Then in stereo mode, i have to turn the x-over back down again. I hate that but am not sure of a good way to avoid having to turn that crossover nob whenever I switch to a different format. One thing I could do is stop using the sub in stereo mode, but that's no fun. Well either way, my "system" is working, stereo sounds great as do movies. I guess I'm pretty happy with the sub always on...

Some receivers with built in LFE crossovers will let you store more than one set-up in memory. I switch from an 80 htz crossover for movies to a 40 htz crossover for music. I leave the sub's crossover turned all the way up. My mains have powered woofers that go down to 27 htz. You can barely tell that the sub is on or off with music. Often, I use the Pure Direct mode that leave the sub completely off.

If your receiver doesn't have multiple memory settings, you may be able to go into it's manual settings and set your center to large. Also make sure that the base output is going to "both" your mains and your sub.

[L.J.]

Some receivers with built in LFE crossovers will let you store more than one set-up in memory. I switch from an 80 htz crossover for movies to a 40 htz crossover for music. I leave the sub's crossover turned all the way up. My mains have powered woofers that go down to 27 htz. You can barely tell that the sub is on or off with music. Often, I use the Pure Direct mode that leave the sub completely off.

Hmm.....didn't know you could store diff xover settings. GM, are there limitations to what the Yammy can store (xover,eq,tone) in each of it's 6 memory savings? Also, did you note any improvements after running the auto eq and did you go with the "flat" or "natural" setting?

[GMichael]

Hmm.....didn't know you could store diff xover settings. GM, are there limitations to what the Yammy can store (xover,eq,tone) in each of it's 6 memory savings? Also, did you note any improvements after running the auto eq and did you go with the "flat" or "natural" setting?

You can save anything, and everything. You can go into manual settings and pick input types, surround preferences, decay rates, x-overs, volume levels, EQ settings, anything. You can save one that puts you in Straight mode with "these" X-over settings, another one that's DTS with "those" X-over settings. The world is at your finger tips. Limited only by the limits of your imagination.

I did notice a difference after running the auto EQ. It helped me to blow up the tweeters in my Mini's. (See my thread about tragedy strikes)
I ended up resetting all the EQ's to flat. I then went back in and manually cut a few peaks that I have in the room. Very little boosting was done.

[GMichael]

Let's see if I can remember most of what I have set on my 2500:

Memory setting:

1) Used for movies and most TV -
When the input is on cable, DPLII or whatever the letters are for that.
When the input is the DVR player, it's on DTS. It's easy enough to change that when the DVD doesn't have DTS.
The EQ is set to flat (haven't got around to modding this yet)
X-overs at 80 htz
The sub and center are both bumped up 2 db to give movies a little more punch without loosing the dialog.


2) Used for music and sports
Straight mode! (Pure Direct is a click away from any setting if wanted)
X-over at 40
The sub and center are both turned down 2 db from the original levels.
EQ is flat with minor changes do defeat a few peaks.
I switch from here to DPLII for sports. (I don't like the announcers as much as the effects. That's why I do this over number 1)

3) Experimentations for possible future use.

Skip to 6

6) The original results from the auto set-up so I don't have to re-run it every time I screw something up.
5) The original settings with the EQ set flat.
4) Number 5 with the x-overs set and speakers set to correct sizes.

[L.J.]

You can save anything, and everything. You can go into manual settings and pick input types, surround preferences, decay rates, x-overs, volume levels, EQ settings, anything. You can save one that puts you in Straight mode with "these" X-over settings, another one that's DTS with "those" X-over settings. The world is at your finger tips. Limited only by the limits of your imagination.

I did notice a difference after running the auto EQ. It helped me to blow up the tweeters in my Mini's. (See my thread about tragedy strikes)
I ended up resetting all the EQ's to flat. I then went back in and manually cut a few peaks that I have in the room. Very little boosting was done.

Thanks GM. I plan on setting the eq manually as well. I don't know....I just don't trust the auto eq. I guess I'd have to do measurements eventually to see if there are any improvements or not. I will say that the Audyssey on the Onkyo 805 was sweet. VERY good for music but soso for HT. The response was sooo smooth, but at the same time it seemed like it took some of the dynamics away from HT.

That's good news about the memory settings. I will have to take the time to experiment now.

[Lance B]

The question should be:
"Does your system sound good to you however you have it set up?"
Whether you have a sub or not is not really the issue rather that you are happy with what you have.
You may like the addition of a sub due to your requirement of that extra octave, or half an octave, that they can provide and no amount of convincing will alter that desire.
Conversely, you may not have a sub and do not like the way they sound and therefore no amount of convincing will alter that perception.
I do not have a sub and I doubt that I ever will have one, but that is the way I like it. My speakers and amp have plenty of bass grunt for my requirements.
Having said all of the above, I have listended to a variety of sub installations and find that they are generally not implemented very well. Some tracks may sound ok or very good whereas others the bass is boomy and/or overpowering, disjointed, sloppy and very unnatural. It would need to be a very well set up sub to seemlessly work with my current full range speaker set up and this is a notoriously difficult thing to achieve. Realistically, a sub needs to be designed in conjuction with the full range speakers and room acoustics combined.

[GMichael]

Thanks GM. I plan on setting the eq manually as well. I don't know....I just don't trust the auto eq. I guess I'd have to do measurements eventually to see if there are any improvements or not. I will say that the Audyssey on the Onkyo 805 was sweet. VERY good for music but soso for HT. The response was sooo smooth, but at the same time it seemed like it took some of the dynamics away from HT.

That's good news about the memory settings. I will have to take the time to experiment now.

Anytime LJ. I found about the same thing. The auto EQ seemed to make everything sound a little softer. But it was too agressive and rolled off the highs too much for me.
You'll like those settings. Lot's of tweeking can be done. Just keep the volume low when running that set-up CD.

[GMichael]

The question should be:
"Does your system sound good to you however you have it set up?"
Whether you have a sub or not is not really the issue rather that you are happy with what you have.
You may like the addition of a sub due to your requirement of that extra octave, or half an octave, that they can provide and no amount of convincing will alter that desire.
Conversely, you may not have a sub and do not like the way they sound and therefore no amount of convincing will alter that perception.
I do not have a sub and I doubt that I ever will have one, but that is the way I like it. My speakers and amp have plenty of bass grunt for my requirements.
Having said all of the above, I have listended to a variety of sub installations and find that they are generally not implemented very well. Some tracks may sound ok or very good whereas others the bass is boomy and/or overpowering, disjointed, sloppy and very unnatural. It would need to be a very well set up sub to seemlessly work with my current full range speaker set up and this is a notoriously difficult thing to achieve. Realistically, a sub needs to be designed in conjuction with the full range speakers and room acoustics combined.

Thanks for your input Lance. Many people feel the same way you do about subs. Some want no part of them. Others just want to turn them on, and turn them up. Nothing wrong with that if that's what they like. But they could sound so much better if a little time and effort was put in to setting them up corectly.
I think that if more people with subs were to take that time, then there would be fewer people who want no part of them.
Does any of this make sense, or am I just rambling again?

In any rate, I've found that I don't need a sub when listening to music. My speakers do a good job of getting down to 27 htz on their own. But for HT? There's no sub for a sub IMO.

[Lance B]

Thanks for your input Lance. Many people feel the same way you do about subs. Some want no part of them. Others just want to turn them on, and turn them up. Nothing wrong with that if that's what they like. But they could sound so much better if a little time and effort was put in to setting them up corectly.
I think that if more people with subs were to take that time, then there would be fewer people who want no part of them.
Does any of this make sense, or am I just rambling again?

In any rate, I've found that I don't need a sub when listening to music. My speakers do a good job of getting down to 27 htz on their own. But for HT? There's no sub for a sub IMO.

No, you're not rambling at all! :-)

Correct speaker placement is VERY undervalued by many people.

In years past, I have used a sine wave generator and a sound level meter to ascertain how a room can play havoc with the frequency response ESPECIALLY the bass region. High frequecies are not as affected as they are directional and it is only really the reflected sound that is affected here, which of course is important in itself, but obviously in a different way.

With these instruments, I plugged the generator into the line level input of my amp and I set it to various bass frequency and measured the resultant output with the sound level meter at various points in the room. It is amazing to see how low frequencies like say 60Hz can double up in one spot and then I move 2 feet to the left and it completely disappears!!!

Interestingly, I have used two different sets of speakers in my home Hi Fi and they both sound the best when situated in the same position. It took me many hours of listening to achieve the best speaker placement and I am talking about moving them only inches to achieve what I consider the best sound.

In some situations subs are beneficial, like with bookshelf speakers which require the augmentation in the bass region. If set up well, they can sound excellent and can be a good compromise when a large floor standing speaker is not possible due to the room sixe/decor or not condoned by the partner. :wink5: The best set up requires a sub that does not sound disjointed from the rest of the system, nor is over powering, muddy or boomy, IMO. Of course, there are some that like the "larger than life" bass sound as you say.

I am not a real HT afficionado, but I must say that when listening to the right movie sound tracks, a good sub is very beneficial.:thumbsup:

[GMichael]

I remember years ago, back when subs were not a household word. It seemed that getting a speaker to hit really low was one of the hardest things to get right. You'd have to spend a good chunk of change to get real base. Somehow, that became the mark of a good stereo to many people. Somewhere along the way, that got exagerated. First in cars, and then in homes. Now most average people expect a "good" system to crank out 110+ db at 60 htz. Nevermind what the rest of the system sounds like.