Quote Originally Posted by jrhymeammo
It's just lower frequency so the tonal quality isnt that significant. I still don't see why everyone uses it. Since I purchase a preamp( still no amp) the idea of SubEQ has been popping inside of my head again.
I would disagree that tonal quality isn't significant. Maybe you've either never heard a good sub, or never heard a bad sub and are taking good sound for granted?

EQ'ing, IMO can produce far more benefit to sound quality than even an upgrade in pre-amp or amplifier. And it certainly doesn't cost nearly as much. It's nice to see more subs are coming with it integrated (though not very well). Someday, every sub should have it built in. It's a necessary function for a sub.

Everybody's room plays a role in preventing the sub from playing like it would in an anechoic chamber, the results are large peaks and booms that force you to do 1 of 2 things when setting the levels and integrating with your mains:
1) set the sub to the loudest frequency bands, in which case a great deal of bass could be 20-30 dB lower in volume, or
2) set the bass to a lower level, in which case you have a large peak across another band that is incredibly distracting, as it drowns out and overpowers the rest of the music. This why a lot of people find their subs boomy, poor for music, and can locate them directionally. They're not set up right!

Bass is important, especially subwoofer bass which accounts for around 2 octaves when best implemented. That's no area to go short on. A good sub, well integrated of quality equal to your main speakers will deliver better, more musical bass than woofers can for a variety of reasons. Most people never take it that far.

I always use speakers as a comparison. You wouldn't own a speaker with a frequency response of +/- 18 dB. Why do you allow that for your subwoofer?