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.

[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.

[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 ) 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

[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.