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 shadorne

Unfortunately it is expensive to produce ultra low frequencies with minimal distortion, an order of magnitude more costly than for bass/mid frequencies and two orders of magnitude harder than for a simple tweeter.

This is why a good sub usually costs so much.

If you wish to purchase an active sub woofer with similar distortion figures as attained in your passive high-end speakers then you should expect to pay at least as much as you paid for the pair of high-end speakers. The sub typically needs three or four times more amplification than a single speaker and includes a heavily damped cabinet, large driver and adjustable x-over settings.

As far as I know, there is no cheap way to get low distortion sound in a sub. If this seems like a crazy expense just to augment a couple of the lowest octaves in the audible range then it is quite sensible to remain without a sub. However, I wouldn't recommend the cheap sub coupled with expensive high-end speakers as the sub distortion will indeed mask one of the major benefits of a high-end speaker, which is a good clean and accurate bass.