Subwoofer with music: Yes or No?

[Smokey]

The question is simple:

If you have two channel system with floor standing speakers and listening to music only, would you integrate a sub into your system or not?

My answer would be a definite yes. Even if main speakers are capable of producing bass frequencys, it lack advanatges of having a dedicated sub. Such as ideal subwoofer location for best bass frequency responce, and more "sonic" control over those frequency range.

Not to mention less stress on the main amplifier if a subwoofer take care of the bass :)

[Feanor]

The question is simple:

If you have two channel system with floor standing speakers and listening to music only, would you integrate a sub into your system or not?

My answer would be a definite yes. Even if main speakers are capable of producing bass frequencys, it lack advanatges of having a dedicated sub. Such as ideal subwoofer location for best bass frequency responce, and more "sonic" control over those frequency range.

Not to mention less stress on the main amplifier if a subwoofer take care of the bass :)

I say 'yes'. My main speakers are -3dB at about 45Hz and roll off at 18dB/octave. I run them full range but use a subwoofer to carry the bottom octave -- not that there's a lot of music down there,

[markw]

Yes, as long as the user has the proper use of a subwoofer clear.

1) It's not supposed to augment within the range that the mains already reproduce. It's to extend the low end where the mains naturally fall off.

2) It's not going to add any notes or sounds that aren't already in the recording.

Personally, I find a subwoofer isn't really needed for most music, assuming decent "full range" speakers to begin with.

[JoeE SP9]

My answer is yes. I use two TL subs for two channel playback.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Unless you have a VERY big speaker for two channel(the larger Wilsons, Revel Salon's, and other speakers capable of extended range output) then a subwoofer is a must.

They have so many integration tools these days, the excuse of integration issues is basically moot.

[Smokey]

1) It's not supposed to augment within the range that the mains already reproduce. It's to extend the low end where the mains naturally fall off.That is true. But with moderrn amplifier's bass management options such as setting main to "small" or "large", we are no longer "slave" to extend of main's low end where it naturally fall off.
Unless you have a VERY big speaker for two channel(the larger Wilsons, Revel Salon's, and other speakers capable of extended range output) then a subwoofer is a must.Even with VERY big speakers with extended range output, wouldn't say a subwoofer is must?---as dedicated subwoofer still have advantage of location superiority for better bass responce.

[E-Stat]

If you have two channel system with floor standing speakers and listening to music only, would you integrate a sub into your system or not?
I think it is a matter of priorities. For me, first octave response is the last priority. I'd much rather direct funds towards improving the overall system first. Precious few recordings have genuine first octave bass.

I use a sub in the garage system with the Acoustats because it was left over from an HT purchase from long ago.

[markw]

That is true. But with moderrn amplifier's bass management options such as setting main to "small" or "large", we are no longer "slave" to extend of main's low end where it naturally fall off.HT is one thing but for music, why would you not want that? It would make a more coherent sound stage.

[Hyfi]

HT is one thing but for music, why would you not want that? It would make a more coherent sound stage.

Modern Amplifiers have no bass management. Modern HT Receivers do and it is intended for HT and not 2ch music, although it's there to make you think that. Good Modern Amplifiers do one thing, take an input signal and amplify it. Garbage in = Garbage out.

As for the original question, sometimes yes and sometimes no. When I use my Dynaudio 82s, I never even think of turning on the sub. When I use my Clearfields, I sometimes do flip it on if recording is bass shy and I am listening at lower levels in Passive mode.

I much prefer to hear the detail and clarity that a good speaker displays then have bone thumping bass without. There are good musical subs out there and it takes a lot of time, placement and playing to get them properly integrated and un-noticed in the mix.

[markw]

Modern Amplifiers have no bass management. Modern HT Receivers do and it is intended for HT and not 2ch music, although it's there to make you think that. Good Modern Amplifiers do one thing, take an input signal and amplify it. Garbage in = Garbage out.This is my point exactly. What I finds works best, particularly with music, is to run the amp and main speaker full range and simply use the crossover in the powered sub as a low-pass filter that comes into play right about where my mains start to fall off, keeping in mind that it's not a brick wall fiter. In the case ofthe Maggies, that was somewhere around 50 - 60 hz.

[Hyfi]

This is my point exactly. What I finds works best, particularly with music, is to run the amp and main speaker full range and simply use the crossover in the powered sub as a low-pass filter that comes into play right about where my mains start to fall off, keeping in mind that it's not a brick wall fiter. In the case ofthe Maggies, that was somewhere around 50 - 60 hz.

Well as you heard the other day with my Clearfields, when the music had good bass, and it was cranked enough, it needed no sub and with the sub on it did not make things way better, maybe less detailed if anything. But thats just my sub and setup, I'm sure others may have better luck to their own ears.

[markw]

Well as you heard the other day with my Clearfields, when the music had good bass, and it was cranked enough, it needed no sub and with the sub on it did not make things way better, maybe less detailed if anything. But thats just my sub and setup, I'm sure others may have better luck to their own ears.And your system is very nice. I did notice minimal effect when the sub was kicked in simply because that particular piece of music really had no "sub-worthy" information in it to begin with. I didn't note a smearing of clarity and the effect I did hear I attributed to the slope of the subs crossover allowing a bit of creep into the range of your fine mains.

As I said earlier, given good speakers, which yours most certainly are, I don't really think most music really benefits from a sub excepting, of course, organ, synth and other rarities.

[harley .guy07]

My opinion is that it is dependent on the speakers used for one thing and only if installed and crossed over right should a sub be used to music. I agree that a sub will have capabilities that all but the most expensive and large speakers have and if set up right with the main speakers will add to the experience it is rare that a system using a sub has a perfect blend with the main speakers. This is something I have been thinking about a long time and have come to the conclusion that I will need to build my own sealed enclosure custom built sub in order to get everything I want a sub dedicated to music to do. Most subs that companies build have either home theater yon the mind or music with also a home theater capability. You hardly ever see subs that only are built for music. While they are out there they are way to expensive for what they have in them component wise so I have decided that building my own will give me the most for my money.

[Smokey]

HT is one thing but for music, why would you not want that? It would make a more coherent sound stage.

School of thought is that ideal system for music is two bookshelf speakers with a sub--base on assumption that sub can produce better bass than main speakers. But for full range speakers as main, that argument does not hold true unless we can manipulate its natural falling low frequency.


Well as you heard the other day with my Clearfields, when the music had good bass, and it was cranked enough, it needed no sub and with the sub on it did not make things way better, maybe less detailed if anything.

Your sub probably is not in ideal room location. I did an experiment where I place the subwoofer in the listening chair and turn on a heavy bass music, and then I start crawling on the floor on hands and knees (like a dog :D) with my ear listening to bass in different room locations.

It is amazing how much bass will sound diiferent from one location to the next. One corner of the room the bass is overwhelming, while in another corner it is just thumping sound, and some other corner it is just perfect. You just have to find that perfect spot.


You hardly ever see subs that only are built for music.

You probably have better luck with sealed subwoofer for music than ported sub :)

[markw]

School of thought is that ideal system for music is two bookshelf speakers with a sub--base on assumption that sub can produce better bass than main speakers. But for full range speakers as main, that argument does not hold true unless we can manipulate its natural falling low frequency.I do wonder what school you went to but, hey, whatever turns you on.

[Hyfi]

I do wonder what school you went to but, hey, whatever turns you on.

Isn't that the "Bose - School of Thought?"

I have heard many a system where you would not want or need a sub. I have also heard some incredible "Bookshelf" speakers that you would swear were floorstanders.

Smokey, you need to get out more and really listen to some quality gear as opposed to just reading about it. You may be surprised.

[Feanor]

School of thought is that ideal system for music is two bookshelf speakers with a sub--base on assumption that sub can produce better bass than main speakers. But for full range speakers as main, that argument does not hold true unless we can manipulate its natural falling low frequency.

I thinks this is true, but the necessity for "manipulation" depends on having complementary high- & low-low pass crossovers. Typically vented speakers roll off at 18 dB per octave; typically subwoofer low-pass filter is a 12 or 18 dB per octave. Good result is possible likely if the sub's low-pass is set to the mains' natural -3 dB point. So I have Magneplanar MG 1.6QR's that I run full range; their roll off is about -3 dB @ 45 Hz with -18 dB/octave so I set my sub's low-pass correspondingly

Of course there is the option of having a have a external active crossover component such as a Behringer CX2310, (here (http://www.behringer.com/EN/Products/CX2310.aspx)).

When I was using Magneplanar MMG's and my PSB Subsonic 6, I used the Subsonic 6's built-in 80 Hz high-pass to feed only frequencies above that to the MMGs, and the complementary low-pass. The results were highly satisfactory. I got deep, solid bass without the inherent bass limitations of the MMG.

[blackraven]

Smokey, I have heard plenty of speakers that put out plenty of satisfying bass without out a sub. The PSB Synchrony's, Salk Veracity HTR3's, Theil's, Paradigm, Dyn Audio to name a few. With that being said, I run a sub with my Magnepan 1.6's much in the same way Feanor does but I could live without it. Certainly I can see the benefit or running a sub with bookshelf speakers.

[Smokey]

Isn't that the "Bose - School of Thought?"

Dr Bose did base his cubic and modulare sub system on that school of thoughts, but he geared it toward HT rather than music.


Good result is possible likely if the sub's low-pass is set to the mains' natural -3 dB point. So I have Magneplanar MG 1.6QR's that I run full range; their roll off is about -3 dB @ 45 Hz with -18 dB/octave so I set my sub's low-pass correspondingly.

I know it is alot of work, but have you tried to manipulate the roll-off of MG 1.6QR's from 45hz to higher roll off point.

Alot of people set their subwoofer cross over settings according to main speakers natural fall off. But alot of factors such as room acoustics and location of main speakers can throw a curve as how main speakers can handle bass frequecy vs where a sub can be manipuletd to address those acoustic shortcomings.


Smokey, I have heard plenty of speakers that put out plenty of satisfying bass without out a sub. The PSB Synchrony's, Salk Veracity HTR3's, Theil's, Paradigm, Dyn Audio to name a few.

There is no denying that alot of speakers out ther have satisfying bass without sub. But my argument was does quality of those speaker's bass can match the bass of sub that is in ideal room location. My answer would be no :)

[blackraven]

I would put the Salk HTR3's with their 10" sea's woofer up against most subs for best integration with the speaker.

[Feanor]

I know it is alot of work, but have you {Feanor} tried to manipulate the roll-off of MG 1.6QR's from 45hz to higher roll off point.

Alot of people set their subwoofer cross over settings according to main speakers natural fall off. But alot of factors such as room acoustics and location of main speakers can throw a curve as how main speakers can handle bass frequecy vs where a sub can be manipuletd to address those acoustic shortcomings.
...

There is no denying that alot of speakers out ther have satisfying bass without sub. But my argument was does quality of those speaker's bass can match the bass of sub that is in ideal room location. My answer would be no :)
It is a very good point that the sub can be place any place in the room that offers the best possible performance, (whereas the woofers of a full-range mains have to to where the tweeter/mids deliver best performance). Although I suppose the main - sub crossover ought not to be higher than 80 Hz to assure full channel separation.

No, I haven't tried to manipulate my MG 1.6 to sub crossover. I don't perceive the need in my instance. And, unlike the MMG's, the MG 1.6's can provide enough bass output down to their natural roll-off that their lower frequencies don't benefit by being replaced by the subwoofer's.

[Hyfi]

There is no denying that alot of speakers out ther have satisfying bass without sub. But my argument was does quality of those speaker's bass can match the bass of sub that is in ideal room location. My answer would be no :)

I am confused. The bass that a sub puts out, or that it is supposed to be crossed over at, is not the same frequencies as what the main speaker is putting out. So how can you compare the "quality" of the two? A sub can go deeper.

So yes in many speakers, the quality of the bass frequencies put out can far outmatch the quality of "most" subs on the market. There are a few mega-buck subs, like the Rock of Gibralter, that put out very high quality LFE. Main speakers are not supposed to do LFE.

Now I have no idea what speakers you have or what you drive them with, but I again urge you to Listen as much as you Read.

[blackraven]

I'll take these speaks that go down to 19hz-

SoundScape 12 specifications (http://www.salksound.com/soundscape%2012%20specifications.htm)

[Smokey]

I am confused. The bass that a sub puts out, or that it is supposed to be crossed over at, is not the same frequencies as what the main speaker is putting out. So how can you compare the "quality" of the two? A sub can go deeper.Some times they do overlap, particulary between 40 to 80hz. Natural cut off frequecy for most sub is around 70 to 90 hz, and if your receiver have bass managment options, you can set your main speaker cross over frequecy at around 80 hz. Ofcourse room acoustics will throw a monkey wrench at those settings :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'll take these speaks that go down to 19hz-

SoundScape 12 specifications (http://www.salksound.com/soundscape%2012%20specifications.htm)

This speaker has a built in sub module. Without it, the speaker is not full range.

[Hyfi]

Some times they do overlap, particulary between 40 to 80hz. Natural cut off frequecy for most sub is around 70 to 90 hz, and if your receiver have bass managment options, you can set your main speaker cross over frequecy at around 80 hz. Ofcourse room acoustics will throw a monkey wrench at those settings :)

Thanks, I have read the manuals that come with my gear. And, I don't usually listen to music via a Home Theater Receiver. The one regular receiver is a 2 channel Rotel, after that it's all separates.

[Worf101]

Welp... I look at it this way. When listening to 2 channel music in the sweet spot, I just use my big, dual 8-inch woofed ADS mains. When smoking a cigar on the porch or puttering around the house I go All Channel Stereo and that kicks in my recently re-amped HSU. Newer records tend to be recorded much louder and deeper but my ADS 1280's need no help. On older music where bass and mids were often "sketchy" some recording truly need the help a sub can give. Like anything in music, it depends.

Worf

[Glen B]

My PSB Stratus Gold i's are ± 3dB at 31Hz. No sub needed except on some pipe organ music.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I really understand the myriad of responses here, but I do think for the most part many are uniformed and inexperienced. We can rely on personal preferences, or measured performance standards in room. Take your choice.

Very few speakers whether we are talking hi-end or mass market are actually extended range speakers(20hz capability with low distortion and high output). It is one thing to define our low frequency needs based on our taste in music, and it is another to define extended range performance. Unfortunately, there is no definition of performance with stereo music programs like there is with multichannel and hometheater sources.

With multichannel music and movies there is the following performance certifications.

For extended range the speaker must be able to play from 20-20khz+ with low distortion and high output. Let's be real, that requires a subwoofer/satellite system, or a very large speaker with large drivers and cabinet.

Full range requires a output of 40-20khz+ which means the cabinet and drivers can be smaller - but still require high output and low distortion within that bandwidth.

Then there is limited range mains (80-20khz+) coupled with a high output low distortion subwoofer(s) to cover the lowest bass frequencies.

You also have to look at room size as well, and the distance any speaker is placed from the walls of the room - and the compromises to performance that it presents.

Let's take Glen example(not picking on you). He states his PSB Stratus Golds reach down to 31hz at +3db. Is that an actual measurement in his room, or the manufacturer rated response in a undefined room? We don't know. However a Dunlavy SC-V is rated down to 20hz in a anechoic chamber, which means the bass will be a bit higher in a 2pi or 4pi room when you account for room gain. Can Glen's PSB's really pressurize a room at 20hz when you account for room air leakage, and poor coupling at low frequencies as a result of driver/cabinet size and speaker positioning?

This is why a subwoofer is really needed, no matter if we are talking stereo or multichannel audio(movies and music). Subwoofers offer the flexibility of efficiently coupling the driver to the room via placement - can be designed optimally for a very limited range with high dynamics and low distortion. That is very difficult to do with two speakers placed far enough from walls for accurate imaging.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Modern Amplifiers have no bass management. Modern HT Receivers do and it is intended for HT and not 2ch music, although it's there to make you think that. Good Modern Amplifiers do one thing, take an input signal and amplify it. Garbage in = Garbage out.

I disagree with this comment because bass management has one single intent, and it is not HT. It is to optimize the deep bass in music AND movies. Two channel sub/sat systems were invented long before HT became popular. It was introduced to give big speaker performance in small rooms with small main speakers. Denon's DSP based system introduced in the mid eighties is a prime example of that. It was made for music, not HT.

[Smokey]

This is why a subwoofer is really needed, no matter if we are talking stereo or multichannel audio(movies and music). Subwoofers offer the flexibility of efficiently coupling the driver to the room via placement - can be designed optimally for a very limited range with high dynamics and low distortion. That is very difficult to do with two speakers placed far enough from walls for accurate imaging.

+1 :thumbsup:

Based on your post, would you conclude that ideal system for music is bookshelf/subwoofer system?

[Hyfi]

+1 :thumbsup:

Based on your post, would you conclude that ideal system for music is bookshelf/subwoofer system?

The ideal system is the one that sounds best to you, not ones you read about or ones someone tells you are the most ideal.

Not everyone wants or needs the deepest of bass to enjoy the music, just like many prefer rolled off highs or silk tweeters over metal. I played the bass for many years and what I want to hear is the note, the characteristics of the specific bass and pickups and the tone. It does not need to rumble the windows or pound my chest. But that is just me and my personal experience. Like Glen's Stratus Golds, my Dyn 82s produce similarly satisfying bass without a sub.

How many high end 2 Chanel pre-amps provide a dedicated sup output? Some of the newer low end receivers have one with a bunch of other bells and whistles.

[Hyfi]

Smokey,

Since nobody knows what your gear is, other than your profile says you have Athena speakers, we don't know what you are hearing and why.

Here is a little test you can try. Assuming that whatever you drive your Athena speakers with recreates the sound of a Rickenbacker Bass, and you more than likely have heard of a band called Yes and another named Renaissance, you have an idea the tone and sound that a Rick delivers. Chris Squire and Jon Camp play what I call Lead Bass and with the commanding unmistakeable tone of a Rick.

However you have to get a decent copy, I would be glad to hook you up, play back the live version of Ashes Are Burning, by Renaissance. Do this first without your sub. Find the Bass solo near the middle and study the tone. Then either play it back with the sub, or switch back and forth, and see if the tone gets degraded in any way or obscured with the sub in play. My gut feel is that you will have deeper-boomier bass and the tone of the Rick will slightly degrade.

If it in fact maintains the proper tone and sounds every bit as clear and distinct, and the lower bass does not muddy the mid bass, you have one hell of a setup hidden out there in the hills and I would love to hear it.

I listen to a majority of bass laden music and most have their own distinct sound. Not just deep pounding muffled notes. I can suggest a whole list of test tracks to see how bass sounds, and sounds different. When I played, I used a Sunn 200wpc Tube Head and an SVT cabinet that had 8- 10" drivers and a 60s era fret-less Rickenbacker. So when I hear a Rick played back right, I know the sound.

9491

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

+1 :thumbsup:

Based on your post, would you conclude that ideal system for music is bookshelf/subwoofer system?

Well Smokey, not really. Ideally both a bookshelf/subwoofer(s) system, or two very big speakers(with large woofers) can accomplish the goal of wide frequency response(at least 20-20khz), wide dynamics, and low distortion. For me it is not about the design, it is about the performance in real rooms. Sometimes a bookshelf/subwoofer system works better in a certain room than two very large speakers do: and sometimes the opposite. That is why I work with performance characteristics, and established performance parameters in my systems.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The ideal system is the one that sounds best to you, not ones you read about or ones someone tells you are the most ideal.

Dr. Peter Toole would disagree with you based on his listening test at the Canadian Radio Associations lab. It included a very large sample of listeners, and established scientific criteria and standards that passed scrutiny within AES.


Not everyone wants or needs the deepest of bass to enjoy the music, just like many prefer rolled off highs or silk tweeters over metal. I played the bass for many years and what I want to hear is the note, the characteristics of the specific bass and pickups and the tone. It does not need to rumble the windows or pound my chest. But that is just me and my personal experience. Like Glen's Stratus Golds, my Dyn 82s produce similarly satisfying bass without a sub.

Everyone has a performance standard. Some are high, and others not so much. Rolled off highs are a preference, just like rolled off bass. Some of us like an accurate representation of the source rathered than a shaped one based on personal preferences.


How many high end 2 Chanel pre-amps provide a dedicated sup output? Some of the newer low end receivers have one with a bunch of other bells and whistles.

Sorry, but the world is no longer based around two channel. Short sighted perspective IMO.

[markw]

Of course, we're listening to someone who honestly believes that two channels matrixed through Neo:6 sounds the same as true, discrete channels originally recorded separately do.


Everyone has a performance standard. Some are high, and others not so much. .... Some of us like an accurate representation of the source rathered than a shaped one based on personal preferences.

[Smokey]

Do this first without your sub. Find the Bass solo near the middle and study the tone. Then either play it back with the sub, or switch back and forth, and see if the tone gets degraded in any way or obscured with the sub in play.

My gut feel is that you will have deeper-boomier bass and the tone of the Rick will slightly degrade.

That is a good test to run, but my bookshelf have 5.5 inch woofer so it be definitely missing something without the sub. I agree though that booming sound of sub can obstruce mid-bass details if it is not rein in right.


Sometimes a bookshelf/subwoofer system works better in a certain room than two very large speakers do: and sometimes the opposite.

I will take the former system since room acoustics are funny that way :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Of course, we're listening to someone who honestly believes that two channels matrixed through Neo:6 sounds the same as true, discrete channels originally recorded separately do.

And of course your comments are based on old cheap low performing equipment not able to distinguish a difference anyway.

Even my dog understands that better performing IC decoding chips will have better more detailed resolution than the cheap ones.

One mans ceiling is another mans basement.

[Hyfi]

That is a good test to run, but my bookshelf have 5.5 inch woofer so it be definitely missing something without the sub. I agree though that booming sound of sub can obstruce mid-bass details if it is not rein in right.



Thats a shame, my Dyn 42s and JMs can reproduce decent bass for small drivers. You may want to try it anyway just to get an idea of tone.

[markw]

And of course your comments are based on old cheap low performing equipment not able to distinguish a difference anyway.

Even my dog understands that better performing IC decoding chips will have better more detailed resolution than the cheap ones.

One mans ceiling is another mans basement.Yeah, fake multi-channel is as good as the real stuff. Same goes for sex. right?

We've been through thisbefore, and it was a riot.

Dude, "resolution" doesn't exist in a made-up signal. Two channels is two channels. You can mix it up any way you want but it ain't EVER gonna be more "real" channels than that.

Whatever you say. If it makes you feel better, you just keep right on beleivin' that.

...but we all know the truth, though. :out:

[Hyfi]

Dr. Peter Toole would disagree with you based on his listening test at the Canadian Radio Associations lab. It included a very large sample of listeners, and established scientific criteria and standards that passed scrutiny within AES.


Correct me if I am getting this wrong.

We should all have a system that meets someone else pre-determined scrutiny no matter if it sounds good to each of us or not.

That does not sound too bright to me if that is what you are saying, IMO.

I would rather have something that sounds good TO ME, rather than a setup that someone tells me I should have configured in a certain way. But that's just me. I'm sure others here will +1 your directives.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Yeah, fake multi-channel is as good as the real stuff. Same goes for sex. right?

No stupid, encoded matrixed material derived from a discrete multichannel mix does a great job of reproducing discrete multichannel mix because the spatial cues are phase and amplitude related. I know this is beyond your basement level technical understanding, and quite frankly I have learned to consider the ignorant source in this area.


We've been through this before, and it was a riot.

I called it painful, because of your level of ignorance.


Dude, "resolution" doesn't exist in a made-up signal. Two channels is two channels. You can mix it up any way you want but it ain't EVER gonna be more "real" channels than that.

Thank you for making my point. I profoundly recognize you don't have a clue about encoding and decoding technology, so I can excuse your airheadedness in this area. Encoding a discrete source to a matrix source is not making up anything. It is just another delivery system that has various levels of resolution based on the chipset, and the analog stages of the playback system. Your system has a cheap low quality chipset, and a noisy analog stage, so I can understand your cheap opinion about the end outcome. As I have said to you before, garbage in, garbage out.


Whatever you say. If it makes you feel better, you just keep right on beleivin' that.

...but we all know the truth, though. :out:

Unfortunately your version of the truth is cheap, low quality, and low resolution with cheap equipment. Not my version of the truth, or anyone else with better equipment.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Correct me if I am getting this wrong.

You know I will because you are often quite wrong.


We should all have a system that meets someone else pre-determined scrutiny no matter if it sounds good to each of us or not.

Well no, sound quality is subjective. What sounds good to you, will likely not sound good to me. Floor meet roof. However, there is understood sound quality parameters established by long term highly established listening test by Dr. Floyd Tool at the Canadian Radio society labs. 10,000 listeners were used, and their conclusions on sound quality are closely established based on that testing.


That does not sound too bright to me if that is what you are saying, IMO.

Well, since I have never considered you all that bright when it comes to audio and video, gotta slap your comment aside. We are on completely different levels when it comes to these subjects, so one again your ceiling is my quite frankly dirty floor.


I would rather have something that sounds good TO ME, rather than a setup that someone tells me I should have configured in a certain way. But that's just me. I'm sure others here will +1 your directives.

It is easy to convince oneself that something sounds good. It is a lot more difficult to convince someone else that what you consider good is actually so. Since you find it convenient to delude yourself, welcome to a empty bathtub. If you don't follow any standards set by those who mix audio, and who master video, then expect nothing to either sound or look good.

[Hyfi]

That didn't take too long :)

[markw]

No stupid, encoded matrixed material derived from a discrete multichannel mix does a great job of reproducing discrete multichannel mix because the spatial cues are phase and amplitude related. I know this is beyond your basement level technical understanding, and quite frankly I have learned to consider the ignorant source in this area.



I called it painful, because of your level of ignorance.



Thank you for making my point. I profoundly recognize you don't have a clue about encoding and decoding technology, so I can excuse your airheadedness in this area. Encoding a discrete source to a matrix source is not making up anything. It is just another delivery system that has various levels of resolution based on the chipset, and the analog stages of the playback system. Your system has a cheap low quality chipset, and a noisy analog stage, so I can understand your cheap opinion about the end outcome. As I have said to you before, garbage in, garbage out.



Unfortunately your version of the truth is cheap, low quality, and low resolution with cheap equipment. Not my version of the truth, or anyone else with better equipment.Thanks for playing. You lose. ...again.

But, being DTS pays your salary I can see why you might be blinded by the hype.

Buh bye.

PS I understand they've made great strides in vinyl doll making lately. Lemme know what your opinion is on this.

[Smokey]

Please no name calling. We are all adults here :)

[ken88]

I have a pretty good system overall ( I think) with a a pair of Totem Sttaf as my main front speakers powered by an Anthem MRX 700 receiver used for music listening. The system is complemented with a Totem Mite T as Centre and a pair of bookshelves Totem Mite for surround sound. For serious listening, I always use 2 channel only and for HT, I engage all the speakers. I am very happy with the music reproduction with the 2 channel as the sound is very detailed and clear. However, it is lacking some bass. Thus, I added a Polk PSW 505 subwoofer, which comes with a 12" driver, to enrich the bass. To my ears, it makes quite a difference as the sound is now fuller and the bass sounds pretty good, not booming and rumbling, but tight and crisp. I am very pleased with this combo, but there is always room for improvement, as you know, in this expensive hobby!!! Is there a better musical sub to make the music listening even better without breaking the bank? What subs would be better? Thanks to all your input.

[markw]

I'm sure ther are, Ken but you should really specify a price range. As you might have noticed from some of the equipment lists in this thread alone, "break the bank" is a pretty relative term.

But, just for starters, Hsu and SVS offer some subs you might want to consider. Check out their web sites.

[ken88]

My budget would range from $500-$700. Does a sub with a 12" driver give a better bass sound than a 10" one, in terms of better clarity and higher overall performance? Thanks.

[markw]

Not necessarially. You can't make any snap judgments simply from the driver size. A lot has to do with the design. For instance, some people swear that sealed box subs are better for music than ported box subs.

Look at the SVS SB-1000 and PB-1000 for a manufacturer who covers both bases at a reasonable price point.

[blackraven]

For a musical sub consider this Martin Logan Dynamo 700. I own the original dynamo and it is a very musical sub that can keep up with my Magnepans. HSU and SVS make good subs. Also, check the used market on AudiogoN - The High-end Audio Community (http://www.audiogon.com)

MartinLogan - Dynamo 700 - Wireless Capable Subwoofer-Audio Advisor (http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=MLDYN700)


There are a few nice REL subs, a Rhythmik sub and an Epic Legend sub for sale on audiogon in the $300-600 range. Any of them would be better than your current sub.

[Smokey]

However, it is lacking some bass. Thus, I added a Polk PSW 505 subwoofer, which comes with a 12" driver, to enrich the bass. To my ears, it makes quite a difference as the sound is now fuller and the bass sounds pretty good, not booming and rumbling, but tight and crisp. I am very pleased with this combo, but there is always room for improvement, as you know, in this expensive hobby!!!

That is pretty decent subwoofer with plenty of power. Before purchasing, you may want to play around with sub location to see (to hear) if you get better result. Even a small sub displacement makes a difference.

Best way to do this to turn off your main speakers (with sub on), and use a familiar heavy bass tone as your guide.


For instance, some people swear that sealed box subs are better for music than ported box subs.

Sealed box sub do have steeper roll off frequencys, so their bass is little bit tighter than ported sub. Ofcourse that is according to the School of Thoughts :D

[bob r]

Thanks to everyone here i did enjoy reading this Thread about all sub's two channel for music

i was told when i brought my two M&K Sub's that if it's music that you are going to be using them for then small drivers would be better

so my two M&K Sub's have two 8 inch drivers in each one 1 firing out and 1 firing down

a large driver wont recover as quickly IMHO that makes since to me

With video i would use 12 inch drivers i also have one M&K Sub that i use for HT in my garage but that Sub has a switch on it for (PHASE) + and -- but most here would know better then i what it is used for.

Sometimes i do switch it back and forward on different
Movies i may watch but i am unsure of why i guess it's because it's there to switch for other reasons then i know of

Anyway i sure do like being here on this site and the people that post

[TheHills44060]

I use a sealed 15 inch sub for music. I just set the crossover really low so most of the time its not even in the equation but it's nice to have. I've never had the feeling that it gummed up the sound from my main speakers at all.

[Hyfi]

My budget would range from $500-$700. Does a sub with a 12" driver give a better bass sound than a 10" one, in terms of better clarity and higher overall performance? Thanks.

Check out 3LBs review of his new Rythmik sub.

Official Rythmik Audio Subwoofer thread - Page 360 (http://www.avsforum.com/t/1214550/official-rythmik-audio-subwoofer-thread/10770#post_23744786)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks for playing. You lose. ...again.

But, being DTS pays your salary I can see why you might be blinded by the hype.

Buh bye.

PS I understand they've made great strides in vinyl doll making lately. Lemme know what your opinion is on this.

Mark, everyone knows how stupid your are, so I am not going to belabor that point. However, DTS does not pay my salary, Disney does.

See how wrong a dummy can be......