2. speakers
  3. 1142117953

Ruining music with a cheap sub

Hi, just want some general consensus on subwoofers. Will a cheap but decent subwoofer ruin a good system? The sole purpose of a sub is to supplement the lower octave of the spectrum by pushing air through. Please correct me if I am wrong, from a tech perspective, bass is non-directional, it can't be listened but can only be felt. I agree that a high quality fast sub is needed to reproduce good tight bass when listening in high volume. But in moderate volumn, there shouldn't be any significant difference between a $100 sub comparing to a $5000 sub. Your thoughts?
kilsho

Showing 1 response by kilsho

kilsho OP
12 posts
 
03-11-06: Mdhoover

"Sloppy loose bass from a cheap sub is worse than no sub at all IMO."
Chadnliz
In my opinion too.

With respect to subwoofer directionality, there's a wonderfully funny thread where some of the participants get into a SPIRITED debate about that very topic. It also seems to have some pretty good info. Here's the link:

Stereo versus monaural subwoofers debated right here on Audiogon

Md, thanks for the link.

I totally agree and believe me, I know how a bad woofer sounds like. Perhaps I used the wrong word, maybe decent but relatively low cost(below $200 used?) would be the right phrase. Isn't it true that distortion is proportional to volume? If I am not looking for something to knock the stucco off my house, and as long as I watch the distortion threshold, then I shouldn't have to go break the bank to get a highend sub. I just don't quite understand why someone would spend thousands on a sub. Wouldn't it make more sense to spend that extra money to get better speakers?

I remember someone once told me that two subs are no better, if not worse, than a single sub(in a stereo setup) because one might cancel the other one out. Is that true?
More to discover