To Sub or not to Sub

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Stillone

I am sorry I have to disagree a bit with Serge and Pete. There is very little sound below 50hz in 99.9% of recordings and from what I know you do not hear it as much as feel it. Musical instruments just do not go that low. (I do not listen to organ music)

Well, I must have lots of music with deep bass. In all reality, the speaker's response in the room is never linear and the subs help to fill out the dips along the way. The subs also help recreate the pressurization of the acoustical space on the recordings from the instruments. Don't forget that instruments don't just start and stop at their resonant frequency, there is always harmonic content present that goes way below, just not at the same amplitude. If you strike a triangle for example, it will "ramp up" from the very bottom to the resonant frequency very quickly, that low level, low frequency information adds up to the "pressurization" of the room which subs are very good at recreating since you are not -6dB or -9dB at 20Hz like most speakers out there, even though their makers will have you believe they do 20Hz.

[gregswaim]

Subs in my case are at best only a marginal improvement. From a sonic point of view, my money would be better spent on a source/component upgrade in my opinion. Speakers rank 4th in order of importance in 2 channel audio- source ,preamp,& amp, all take priority over speakers.

[jdandy]

I love to listen to organ, especially the Hammond B3 on good blues music, and jazz recordings. The peddle bass on these organs routinely make use of the octave below 55Hz. That being said, you don't have to listen to organ to need the octave below 55Hz. There are plenty of notes on the piano keyboard below 55 Hz, eleven more notes to be exact. There is plenty of action under 47 Hz with acoustic double bass, bass peddle drum, and all kinds of room harmonics and reverberations that add impact and dimension to an audio performance. There are many recordings that use synth bass that goes into the lowest octave. Speakers that roll off at 55 Hz or even 47 Hz are not full range speakers, although they are close if they truly go there and are flat at those lowest claimed frequencies. Most are not. These speakers may very well please an owner, but there is more to be heard below those points. Subwoofers in a two channel audio system are not about home theater explosions and crashes, they are about recreating the full range of musical enjoyment that has been recorded.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by gregswaim

Subs in my case are at best only a marginal improvement. From a sonic point of view, my money would be better spent on a source/component upgrade in my opinion. Speakers rank 4th in order of importance in 2 channel audio- source ,preamp,& amp, all take priority over speakers.

Now there is a puzzling statement.... All the speakers I've ever had were very different from each other while digital sources these days has a very marginal difference at best and you pay through the nose to get the last ounce of difference out of them.

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by gregswaim

Subs in my case are at best only a marginal improvement. From a sonic point of view, my money would be better spent on a source/component upgrade in my opinion. Speakers rank 4th in order of importance in 2 channel audio- source ,preamp,& amp, all take priority over speakers.

Greg
I have to disagree with you here. I think that the order is: 1) speakers 2) amp (and how it works with the speakers) 3) source 4) pre-amp. I think many people still believe Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn in the '70's that source is King. I am not one of them.

[Masterlu]

Wow, a controversial sub thread.

[gregswaim]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Now there is a puzzling statement.... All the speakers I've ever had were very different from each other while digital sources these days has a very marginal difference at best and you pay through the nose to get the last ounce of difference out of them.

We hear things differently. The next time you go out for a audition for some component/speakers use a mass produced source component and run it through a reference preamp,amp,& speakers and you'll should hear a difference.
On the other hand, if you run a reference source through mass produced components and it will always sound better. A lot of speakers are,in my opinion, poorly made from the get go and make noise rather than music.
I'm not sure what kind of sound that you expect to hear from a digital source- for me it needs to be very analog and natural sounding. I've found only one brand that can accomplish this for me. If it weren't for this particular brand I'd still be using vinyl playback as a main source and have only one system rather than 2.

[Still-One]

Dan and Serge
This is getting too technical for me, but I thought the second, third etc harmonics were always doubling of the fundamental tone or first harmonic. So even with Dan's example of the lowest piano key, the second harmonic would be a 56hz, then 112hz.

[PHC1]

Originally Posted by Stillone

Greg
I have to disagree with you here. I think that the order is: 1) speakers 2) amp (and how it works with the speakers) 3) source 4) pre-amp. I think many people still believe Ivor Tiefenbrun of Linn in the '70's that source is King. I am not one of them.

Jim, that is the order I would have agreed with except when I came across the Ayre KX-R preamp, now I consider the preamp to be just as important as the speaker/amp synergy. The preamp can make or break the whole system since it can bottleneck the source upstream from it and not allow the amp/speakers to reproduce what's on the recording faithfully either.

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by Masterlu

Wow, a controversial sub thread.

Yeah, besides maybe I do not like subs 'cause I am claustrophobic.