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

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?

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

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.

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:

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.

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


Hello? Is this thing on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kexodusc

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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...

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelthis

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 $$."?

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

How about 3?

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

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.

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

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:

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelthis

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.