Is it time that Klipsch Heritage marketing a subwoofer?

I own a Klipsch sub and it is working great in my setup. There were no subwoofers back in the day so I think if you have a "Heritage" sub it would be from the nineties and not really fit their retro branding for the Heritage line. The regular subs already perform well, no need to fix and this way they only need one category of subs for all of their lines (heritage, wireless, RP, etc). Their outdoor sub would be the exception.

I use 2 REL subs from the "Q" era bought "previously owned" for peanuts. A Q150e and a Q108MK2 that work perfectly with a pair of Heresy IIIs. The REL thing (and some other subs seemingly) called "high level," using the speaker outputs instead of a preamp line out, appeals to me and works great. I make my own REL cable from Canare and Neutrik stuff.  My Pass XA-25 has a damping factor of 500 that keeps the subs tight I suppose. The Heresy IIIs roll off pretty steeply around 58hz so that's where the subs are adjusted to, again to great effect. Not sure what the point of "Heritage" subs would be since there were no subs in 1957 (I think...don't know the actual history). 

I think the point would be a <$1k sub generically designed isn't as attractive to someone shelling out $6k, $12k, $25k for the upper end of Heritage speakers. I'm talking about a sub designed to compliment the Heritage line specifically. Certainly there was no sub in 1957. Some of the tech in the Heritage line wasn't around in 1957 as well.  Corvettes didn't have anti-lock brakes in the 50's either. 

I think it's time for Klipsch to do it.  The bass rolloff on so many models leaves much to be desired, and for every Heritage lover that says I have tons of bass coming out of my LaScala, Cornwall, etc., there are plenty others who use quality subs with them that are not in Klipsch's other lines. 

I use two JBL B460 sub-woofers I bought new in1982, the walnut finish will match the Cornwall IV's. See below:

Mike

https://www.lansingheritage.org/html/jbl/specs/home-speakers/1983-b380-b460.htm

I have a REL sub,  its been good but I would love a sub that matched and complemented my Forte IV.    

I would be interested in Klipsch Heritage subwoofer that would pair up with my La Scala AL5s. I am using a Rythmik sub at the moment (works well) and looking at a REL 212/SX because it can take two separate feeds (2 channel and HT). One stupid reason that is holding me back from the REL is it only comes in glossy black, and I hate that finish and the silver trim. I know it's a ridiculous reason, but it would bother me forever. 

Subwoofers are a relatively new thing compared to the vintage design models that the Klipsch Heritage line offers. So not sure it makes much sense to have a Heritage powered subwoofer. Would a heritage subwoofer look different than any other with the proper desired finish? But hey, if there is a market for such a thing, why not.

I sought out and use this discontinued Klisch powered sub Klipsch SW-308 Ultra-compact powered subwoofer at Crutchfield. It’s a very compact big hitter down to below 30hz with its 3-way 8" active/passive driver design and is suitable for use with most any speakers to fill in the lower octaves in a smaller to modest size room.

It is relatively small and has a very clean design aesthetic that can easily fit in most anywhere. Highly recommended if you can find one or newer equivalent!

A Heritage sub in the true sense of the word would have to be horn loaded. And for it to add anything substantial to the upper end Heritage speakers it would have to be very large. I think aesthetics and practicality prevent Chief Bonehead from pursuing this. I, for one, would love to see Klipsch do this.

Yeah, a 15" horn loaded sub would be awesome !

A subwoofer offered from the Klipsch Heritage line would be an interesting addition. It’d definitely need to be horn-loaded in some variation (both with regard to the need for very high efficiency as well as the specific sonic imprinting of horn-loaded bass), with the only solution really being the front loaded horn.

Problem with that though is size; if, say 20-25Hz is desired here - and it would seem to be mandatory with at least ~25Hz extension for it to make any sense - a truncated 1/4 wave FLH with a restricted mouth area to save overall size will still be 18-20 cubic feet in volume per cab with a 15" woofer, with diminished (though still high) efficiency and limited bandwidth to boot, not to mention potential frequency response irregularities.

Being a non-truncated variant of a FLH, certainly insofar mouth area goes, will see a definite uptick in efficiency and better bandwidth upwards and overall FR smoothness - that is, at the expense of even bigger size with a similar tune. Sharp horn path bends with a folded horn is another matter wrt. upper bandwidth limitation, but is usually only an issue above ~150Hz with a full mouth area, so nothing to really worry about with subs usage. Air velocity build-up can be an issue with 180 degree horn path bends and path restrictions near the throat, but only below tune (so a high-pass filter is in place here) and at SPL’s that would see the typical audiophile run screaming from the scene.

So, a non-truncated (mouth-wise) 1/4 wave FLH with very high eff. (i.e.: ~105dB’s) and a tune no higher than 25Hz? That’s gonna be BIG - i.e.: in the vicinity of ~35-40cf. A truncated 1/4 wave FLH (95-100dB eff.) would be a relatively sound compromise size-wise at ~20cf. with a tune at or just below 25Hz, while still providing the type of horn-bass response that gels particularly well with Klipsch’s all-horn main speakers. Personally I’d go with a tapped horn vs. the truncated FLH (and, in some respects, the non-truncated version) for a variety of reasons, but that principle is patented by Danley Sound Labs commercially, so a no-go here.

My take is Klipsch may find a sub option in their Heritage series, certainly a horn variant, to be a tough sell, while also blurring the distinction and "hierarchy" of their model line. To me it’s strange learning how many an audiophile fuzz about the stated (lack of) extension of the La Scala’s, let alone Khorns in the face of their excellent bass reproduction with music as is (notwithstanding the "character" of the upper bass), but I can see why those who do cherish their bass quality would want an octave more to lavish. Having owned the Belles homage speakers from Simon Mears, the Uccello’s, I know the difference this can make.

[Horn sub implementation may seem complicated at first and practically less than doable in a domestic environment, and it certainly can be a challenge to get your head around; indeed, you have to know what you’re dealing with and be willing to accept what it takes (and not least that which you didn’t foresee), one way or the other, but it comes down to hearing for oneself the difference they can make, and then will their inclusion in one’s setup. I for one am not going back to direct radiation with subs.]

@phusis +1

Mike

A proper bass horn not a sub would be best but it won't get made it would be large and costly.

With todays driver and amplifier tech with dsp, a dual-opposed 15” arrangement in a sealed enclosure wrapped in matching veneers to compliment the Heritage line would be a winner and marketable, imo. 

They listened but it not what you expected or wanted.

Heritage subwoofer system.

Just upgrade to the Jubilee's which play down to 18hz. No sub required. All you need is:

1. $35k

2. A caverous space

3. A wildly understanding domestic partner

@bigburban ,  you are correct!  Wow. That system is pretty cute and good looking.  But, not what we were looking for specifically. 

@mcslipp , HAAAAAAA! 

I still don't understand the whole concept of a (2) full range speaker needing a sub. If the engineers designed it for x to y Hz, didn't they take care of a what a sub would/should/could do already?