To Sub or not to Sub

[Masterlu]

Let's here about what sub(s) you use in your primary system. If you don't use a sub, why not?

[gregswaim]

No subs for either one of my systems. I have no interest in adding subs. I'm very happy with my British speakers(Spendor Monitors & Castle bookshelf speakers) the way they are. I like the BBC monitor sound. I'm not into home theater stuff.

[Alberto]

Originally Posted by Masterlu

Let's here about what sub(s) you use in your primary system. If you don't use a sub, why not?

I spent 2 years trying a bunch of different subs (from $200 to $3K) before settling on a $800 Rel T2 and an ancient Triad (I forgot how much I paid for it.)

What I've learned (and it's a well known fact) is that integration with your speakers and system is the most important factor. Faster, deeper, more $, does not necessarily mean better - it all depends on your room, speakers, etc.

I am also convinced that 2 subs are better than one, because you can work with more positioning variables to minimize room modes.

Finally, I've learned that I am not a fan of VERY deep bass, it actually find it disturbing and distracting. In "The Trinity Sessions" recording, for example with some subs and settings I could hear a foot tapping time on the stage - it was cool at first, then it became annoying.

Alberto

[gregswaim]

Originally Posted by Alberto

I spent 2 years trying a bunch of different subs (from $200 to $3K) before settling on a $800 Rel T2 and an ancient Triad (I forgot how much I paid for it.)

What I've learned (and it's a well known fact) is that integration with your speakers and system is the most important factor. Faster, deeper, more $, does not necessarily mean better - it all depends on your room, speakers, etc.

I am also convinced that 2 subs are better than one, because you can work with more positioning variables to minimize room modes.

Finally, I've learned that I am not a fan of VERY deep bass, it actually find it disturbing and distracting. In "The Trinity Sessions" recording, for example with some subs and settings I could hear a foot tapping time on the stage - it was cool at first, then it became annoying.

Alberto

I checked into subs about 10 years ago and all of the literature indicated that 2 subs vs 1 are needed- something to do with being in phase. Also, every dealership that I went to that demo'd subs for 2 channel audio always had 2 subs in place for the demo.

[PHC1]

Well integrated subs are a must for any serious system. Without them, if your speakers can't do 20Hz flat, you are missing what's on the recording and what the musicians/recording engineers intended for you to hear, period.

I wasn't a very big fan of subs, I've heard some setups that were impressive REL Stentor III and Studio III but thought I could live without the $10k sub... Still, I've always wanted to see what a pair of well designed subs can bring to the table in my own system. When the JL Fathoms came out and started getting all those stellar reviews, I decided to pull the trigger and give them a try. The "tweakophile" in me also wanted to experiment with a high quality crossover, so the Bryston 10B was selected for the project. All I can say is that I can never go back to listening without subs again.

I will agree on one thing though, if the subs can't be integrated in a way that they become sonically invisible and simply a smooth extension of your speaker, I would rather live without them. The artificial bloat and bass heaviness and overhang would drive me crazy. The Fathoms are anything but that, they are the most musical subs I have ever heard.

Right now I am listening to Hugh Masekela "Hope" album and let me tell you, this recording has tremendous dynamic range and very well recorded drums, without the subs, I would be missing much of the "musical impact".

[Vintage Pete]

Originally Posted by PHC1

Well integrated subs are a must for any serious system. Without them, if your speakers can't do 20Hz flat, you are missing what's on the recording and what the musicians/recording engineers intended for you to hear, period.

What PHC1 said, +1.

JBL B460 18" Sub, powered by McIntosh MC501 amp. Crossed over with JBL BX63A Dividing/summing network.

Pete

[Still-One]

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)

Sub-Bass The very low bass between 16Hz and 60Hz that encompasses sounds that are often felt more than heard, such as thunder in the distance. These frequencies give the music a sense of power even if they occur infrequently. Too much emphasis on this range makes the music sound muddy.

Bass The bass between 60Hz and 250Hz contains the fundamental notes of the rhythm section, so EQing this range can change the musical balance, making it fat or thin. Too much boost in this range can make the music sound boomy.

As I noted in a discussion with Dan I have tried 3 different subs in past iterations of my system a Def Tech, then a F-112 and last a Martin Logan. They all added something but I preferred most music without it. The sub that is part of my system integrates well and goes low enough for the music I listen to.

[Masterlu]

I am in the camp of Subs are a must. Even with Mac's Flagship XRT2K's that have twelve 12" drivers & specs that state they go down to 16hz, Subs are a must.

I have two Mac HT2's in the front corners (each containing two 12" downfiring Subs) driven by 500 watts each. Crossed over at 80hz.

Two JL Audio Gotham's in the rear corners (each containing two 13.5" Subs) driven by 3800 watts each. Crossed over at 82hz.

Seemlessly integrated for "par excellence"...

[gregswaim]

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)

Sub-Bass The very low bass between 16Hz and 60Hz that encompasses sounds that are often felt more than heard, such as thunder in the distance. These frequencies give the music a sense of power even if they occur infrequently. Too much emphasis on this range makes the music sound muddy.

Bass The bass between 60Hz and 250Hz contains the fundamental notes of the rhythm section, so EQing this range can change the musical balance, making it fat or thin. Too much boost in this range can make the music sound boomy.

As I noted in a discussion with Dan I have tried 3 different subs in past iterations of my system a Def Tech, then a F-112 and last a Martin Logan. They all added something but I preferred most music without it. The sub that is part of my system integrates well and goes low enough for the music I listen to.

+1. I got the same results Jim. My Spendors go down to 47Hz and my Castles down to 55Hz. I'm very happy with their performance.

[Still-One]

Originally Posted by Masterlu

I am in the camp of Subs are a must. Even with Mac's Flagship XRT2K's that have twelve 12" drivers & specs that state they go down to 16hz, Subs are a must.

I have two Mac HT2's in the front corners (each containing two 12" downfiring Subs) driven by 500 watts each. Crossed over at 80hz.

Two JL Audio Gotham's in the rear corners (each containing two 13.5" Subs) driven by 3800 watts each. Crossed over at 82hz.

Seemlessly integrated for "par excellence"...

Ivan

I do not disagree that they can improve the sound of most systems in the lower ranges. It is just there is so little music down there that most of the time they are doing nothing even crossed over in the 80Hz range as you have them. They are making sounds that are not normally there when you listen to live music.

General Acoustics

Jim