@akgwhiz that’s interesting? It would be much easier for because the speakers’ bindings are modern - easy to access.
thanks @mashif - that's a good price. (And then I clicked on the 77K speaker cable)
speakers and cables
this is about me being a loser and problem creator.
I finally got a 2nd subwoofer and I was excited to hook it up. Well, not too excited. I knew it would be a pain to hook it up. I was excited to hear it. I spent over 90 minutes connecting the speaker wires to my power amp. When I turned it on, the left channel was gone. It blew the fuse. I disconnected everything, replaced the fuse, hooked it up again. It worked for 10 seconds, blew the fuse again.
The way I hooked them up was I went from the sub speaker out from both subwoofers, rolled the left and right side wires together so I had 4 wires that I connected to the left and right plus and minus channels - speaker binders on the power amp. What are my options? My preamp has no sub out. Nor my amp.
Stupid question: should I just go from left to left on one sub and right to right on the other sub?
183 responses Add your response
I will not argue the impressions of audiophiles but I don’t believe there is any electrical difference between preamps with two rca outputs and what is accomplished by the splitter. If it feels more audiophile-ish, order the fancier AudioQuest splitters I linked in my first post here. 😎 Consider that you might be over-thinking this. |
@grislybutter , not only are they cheaper than a box, they may well provide a less blemished signal than a box with poteniometers, and a box that also requires an extra pair of RCA cables to connect it between the preamp and the amp.. And I would feel the same way as you do about the speaker wires--I’d prefer to have them going directly from my amp to the speakers. Which I guess is why I always ran my sub with RCA cables. @mitch2 , I really don’t know the answer to that. I have no doubt that if a thread was started on the subject, there would be a lot stating just that POV. And that may well be the case. I will say this, however, at one time I was running a Muse Model Two dac, and that particular dac was set up with a BNC input for the digital cable. Which I had to have made, because the digital out on the component that was feeding it were NOT BNC. Anyway, after years of use, my custom made digital cable started going bad and the dac would come unlocked from the incoming signal. BUT: in their infinite wisdom, Muse had provided a BNC to RCA adapter that could be inserted into the BNC port of the dac and then could be connected to the component in front of it with a cable that was RCA on both ends (which I just happened to have a couple of). So I was thinking, "Great," and that’s what I did. Even with my ears I could hear that it didn’t sound as good that way. But, I am in no way saying that a ’Y’ splitter out of a preamp is the same as a BNC to RCA adapter for a digital cable. |
@immatthewj I also thought of this. I know it’s lame but fairly cheap and maybe by Christmas I can budget for it; it could be nice visuals and a speaker "multiplier". If it could handle it. |
Welllll, @griz . . . unless I am missing something, it appears as if it’s main function (besides providing the meters) is to give one the option of quickly switching between two amps and between two sets of speakers (simply by flipping a switch)? I suppose if that function would make your life easier. . . . A lot of my preconceived notions (which I do keep an open mind about, and which are frequently debunked here) were formed when I started buying "better" gear back in ’94, and at that time I did not have a PC (and even after I did get a PC I didn’t start checking out audio forums until maybe around ’20), so these notions that I am referring to came from telephone conversations with manufacturer’s tech support people and . . . (wait for it) . . . reading Stereophile (Yuk). As I typed a few sentences ago, I do keep an open mind and I do read a lot of threads/posts here on A’gon and I try to digest and consider seriously a lot of what I read. But that was a lot of typing to say that my notion about "purity of signal" was formed way back when, and after reading the arguments (for example) about speaker wire and interconnects (which I had always in the past thought that the benefits of were accepted and a given, and you can see that I was wrong--not universally accepted OR a given) I have no doubt that the "purity of signal" notion is wide open to debate. So wide open, in fact, that if it ever came up, I’d stay out of it--I’d read for a while, but I’d stay clear. However, my theory has always been I’d rather keep stuff out of the signal path unless its benefits (whatever they might be) outweighed what I felt was the risk of degrading the signal. I am going to type a bit more than I planned when I started: so I know that there is going to be an argument--"Put in in the signal path, and if you hear degradation then remove it; if you don’t hear degradation, you were wrong and it didn’t have an effect on anything." But I have never bragged about my hearing and I don’t think I hear stuff that way. For example, put a teeny tiny scratch or pit, one that may be nearly invisible, in my glasses and then give me a pair of identical glasses with flawless lens and ask me to do a blind (no pun intended) test. It would probably be a guessing game. But that doesn’t mean that there is no affect on my visibility that might become just a teeny bit noticeable on, for example, a ten hour road trip. Not so much noticeable that at the end of ten hour drive I’d be like, "OMG!! My left eye hurts and everything is blurry!" but just enough that my visual fatigue was a tiny bit worse than in might have been otherwise. And then throw in another tiny scratch and another tiny pit. . . . Generally I hate analogies, but that was the best I way I could think of to illustrate part of my theory on listening and hearing. And someone will probably read this and comment on what a pile of crap my theories are, but that doesn’t usually bother me. So back to putting stuff in the signal path: if it makes your life easier and being easier is not obvious audible degradation, I wouldn’t find fault in someone doing it. The ’Y’ splitters, for example, make hooking your sub up way way easier and also allow you to go straight from your amp with your speaker wires, which in itself may outweigh any blemish they add to the signal. I honestly don’t know, but if it was me, I’d certainly be willing to try it. As far as the high pass filter I went on and on ad nauseam about, a tech support guy suggested I try that. He explained the benefits of cleaning up the point where the sub integrates with the speaker, and also how the amp would appreciate not having to drive anything below 80 hZ and how the speakers would appreciate not being fed a signal below 80 hZ. I don’t remember being instantly amazed by the sub/speaker integration (it’s quite possible I didn’t know all what I was listening to back then) but what did strike me IMMEDIATELY was how much more dynamic things instantly became. But then a dealer and also a different tech support guy (at different times) infected me with the "purity of signal" notion, and I had bought bigger amps that were more dynamic without the filter, and I had equipment with truly balanced circuits and using those precluded RCAs in the high pass filter . . . anyway, I went another route. But at the time I was using it, I believe that the benefits truly out weighed the possible degradation caused in the path by a "crappy box" with its poteniometers and extra pair of interconnects. That took me way too many words to say that if it was me I’d be inclined not to put in that switching box that I started this reply out talking about . . . but it comes down to whether the possible negatives are outweighed by what it does to your own personal enjoyment of your system. Oh well . . . Ramble On. . . . |
@immatthewj The short answer is I don’t know. I follow your train of thought and I believe in the shortest path and signal purity too. Electricity is a mystery to me though so I just believe what I read. I think I have a compromised system (a nice way of saying "crappy") and using your analogy, it’s a glass with dirt on it, an extra layer of dirt won’t make a huge difference. These passive components are essentially cables/cable connectors. The signal will degrade for sure, but maybe not much. In my system, the amp and the speakers make 90% of the difference (assuming my records are clean). I can hear the difference in the turntable but preamps, amps and speakers are 30% each. Cables, interconnects, electricity, vibration control, barely noticeable. Having said that, everything counts, still:
I agree with that and you significantly reduced my desire for it, thank you! Long story short, I enjoy and learn a lot from your comments. And despite my limitations, I love listening to my rig, it sounds awesome. It’s all relative.... |
Too bad @erik_squires has left the forum. This is an area where he could answer in his sleep. I believe the correct way to wire it is not in parallel but in series. Take the left speaker wire to the left input of your sub "speaker level input’ and then go from "speaker level output" to your speaker. same on the right. Do not hook anything to the right speaker on the left sub and vice versa. And I don't think you need a high pass filter, The sub has all it needs between the speaker level input and output. Jerry |
thank you @carlsbad2, I am a big fan of Erik but I had a lot of good advice and options so far including yours. Once my coffee kicks in, I will try and compare them. Wiring-wise yours is the least stressful. |
Step one is to determine if the output of your amp is balanced or single end. If it is balanced the negative is not ground. If you don’t know the. The safest thing to do is connect the black to the chassis. If you have REL line subs then you need to combine the two positive wire to the right sub s x connect if to the right positive terminal. Then repeat this for the left. Black goes to chassis. This should work. |
I am also a member of that club.
That is absolutely one way to look at it. Of course, the other way to look at it is. . . .
And that’s a healthy attitude and one I try live by myself. If there is something I think that I can easily and affordably correct, I will give it a try. But sure, there are always compromises and certain sacrifices to be made in an imperfect world. I think that ’Y’ connectors out of a preamp MIGHT be a degree of a compromise that MIGHT sacrifice the siganl to a degree (to what degree I won’t venture, and "might" was an operative word), but what you get for that compromise is the ability to hook your subs up with RCAs and go straight to your speakers from the amp. That might be worth the compromise, and I guess the only way to know for sure would be to try both ways and compare. And I, personally, hate making audio comparisons, although some members seem to literally thrive on it. As far as my analogy . . . that applies to the way I believe that my hearing works and not necessarily yours or anyone else’s. After I was thinking about it for a while, I actually thought of a better analogy for myself. Do you remember quite a long time ago hearing about when movie theaters were doing something to the effect of slipping in a quick frame of a cheese burger or something delicious every so many frames of the movie they were showing? The frame of the cheeseburger (or whatever it was) came and went so quickly that no one in the audience actually realized that they saw it. But, cheeseburger sales at the concessions counter increased dramatically. Or something like that--I don’t remember the exact details. But where I am going with that is that I believe my own hearing works kind of like that. I may not think I hear something that incrementally improves or degrades the performance of my system, but over time I start to realize that I am experiencing an increased level of comfort in my listening experiences (note the plural form) or, on the other hand, an increased level of listening fatigue and less desire to go back to my room and listen. Just my own personal theory on my own personal hearing is all. Not long ago I posted a question about power cords, and what one of the respondents replied with was mind blowing to me. Mind blowing in the differences he said he heard with different cords. That ability to hear (and identify what I hear) is wayyyyy beyond me.
|
@immatthewj I think your ear can train your brain, and your brain can work with your ears to look for more details. But it truly only matters with discerning systems, "anyone" can hear the difference between a bluetooth pill and and car radio. We are in this hobby because we look for the perfect sound. So you can probably hear a lot more than you think :) I remember your example from Colombo. I also like Andrew Jones’s explanation that everything is determined to be flawed from the source to the speaker and what engineers do is fixing errors along the way. (Paraphrasing)
|
Which is picture #2 of the pictures you posted, correct? Are you still going to try out a pair of "Y" splitters from Amazon just to see if you like RCAs to subs better? For what those splitters (probably?) cost, I would. And, more importantly, how is the sound of (now having) TWO subs (count ’em!) sounding? Kickass? |
. . . sorry about this, but one last thing: I just did some cursory searches, and apparently it was "subliminal messaging" related to coke (the cola kind) and popcorn that may or may not have been successfully done back in ’57 to get people at the movie to subconsciously crave coke and popcorn. Whether or not that experiment was truly performed as claimed, I still believe that a lot of my hearing works in that manner--I do not consciously realize all that I, personally, am hearing, although I believe that it may register in my subconscious and have a positive or negative long term affect on my listening experiences. Sorry about that, but I did feel the need to type a correction to that post. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming. . . . |
Okay, that’s as described previously and what i was thinking and looks like pic 2 of your picture post (except that you didn’t have the speakers in that diagram):: speaker wire out of L speaker post in amp into L sub and speaker wire out of L sub out to L speaker & repeat for R side. But, MORE IMPORTANTLY: how do TWO subs sound?
|
@immatthewj I need to find the right gain but they sound good. A bit shaky/buzzy on their flimsy legs so I should find a better platform. I listened to a pair of $60 Celestion F3s for 6 weeks and I just switched back to my Evoke 20s, they sound extremely bright, suddenly. I like the Celestions overall better but I am going to give them a week. What I like about the subwoofers is that they very subtle. (Unlike others I tried they wanted to crack the ceiling.) I don't need a lot of bass, just that little extra the bookshelf speakers can't fill. |
I would stay away from y splitters. Y splitters hook 2 sets of drivers in parallel, which halves the inductance. So the amp current doubles going into the low impedene load and it trips. You are lucky your amp has a breaker and does't just fail from the high current. Never hook 2 loads up in parallel to one set of speaker outputs. Jerry |
But the ’Y’ splitters are not going to be connected to the amp, they are going to be used in the RCA outs of the preamp in order to send a full frequency signal to the subs and then also the RCA ins of the amp? |
previous Y connector discussion Klipsch forum discussion of Y connectors from preamp AVS Y splitter from preamp discussion AV forums discussion on Y splitters from preamp I feel like a kid with a new toy with this url thing that @Dill showed me how to use! Anyway, @griz, I don't know enough about this stuff to say you can or cannot safely do this, but I do know that back in my days of HT I called Cary Audio and asked the tech guy whether it would be okay to split the signal from pre with a 'Y' splitter, and the tech guy was okay with it. What I was doing is not the same as what you are doing, however, I wanted to try (and did actually do this for a while) splitting the center channel signal from my HT preamp and sending 1/2 to one side of my Cary tube amp, and then sending the other half to the other side of that same Cary amp, and then basically using that to biamp (so to speak) my center speaker. Which is not what you are doing, as you are wanting to send one signal to two different amps, and do that two times (signal split to main amp L RCA in and also to L sub RCA in and then the same for the R side). Maybe post that question on amps and preamps forum and maybe @atmasphere may see it and provide an answer. |
@immatthewj Your Klipsch link is the most applicable to what the OP is doing. The person on that link who suggested running the line level connectors to the subs first and then a second line level connection from the subs to the amps, was using the sub’s crossover as a high-pass filter. That does have its benefits but the trade-off is essentially adding additional crossover parts in the signal path. I have a fairly high-end, balanced Marchand passive high-pass filter here and, with my speakers, I like running them without the filter better than with it, so it sits in a box. The level of benefit from using a high-pass filter will depend on the bass capabilities and roll-off characteristics of the specific main speakers being used as well as the behavior of the amplifier powering the main speakers. However, since the main speakers are intended to be run full out normally, the benefits of a high-pass filter can be subtle or perhaps not audible or, in some cases, may even make things sound worse. |
@grisly: hopefully someone will chime in and offer an explanation I can wrap my head around. For the time being I will say that it is my understanding that the dial on back of your sub where you adjust frequencies is the low pass filter, and that this adjustable low pass filter is what determines at what frequency the subwoofer starts trying to reproduce bass. In other words, if you set the low pass filter at, for an example, 60, theoretically your sub would reproduce 60 hZ and LOWER. In a perfect world your main left and right speakers, and this is just a hypothetical example, would reproduce bass down to 60 hZ and then quit, and in that same perfect world, your sub would reproduce NOTHING higher than 60 hZ, and this would be perfect sub/speakers integration (as I understand that when the sub and speakers start reproducing the same range of certain frequencies, using another hypothetical example: sub and speakers overlapping from 50 to 70 hZ this OVERLAP is when bass gets "muddy"). (So to "muddy" the waters some more, remember when I was attempting to explain the high pass filter? Using my high pass filter as an example, it is preset to pass on frequencies of 80 hZ and HIGHER to the main speakers. In the perfect world that I understand does not actually exist, if one was using a high pass filter that was passing on frequencies of 80 hZ and HIGHER to the mains, , then setting the lowpass filter on the sub to 80 hZ would mean that the sub is going to make bass from 80 hZ and LOWER. Perfect integration. But I understand room acoustics and other variables usually prevent frequencies from being lopped off EXACTLY where the filters are set.) I did a search using does a subwoofer have a crossover for a search engine. Found a forum where someone provided this answer:
So if I understand that correctly, and it seems quite possible that I do not, if the sub does have a crossover, it would come into play if and when one was using speaker wire from L and R speaker posts in amp out to L & R speaker inputs in subs, and then speaker wires out of subs into main speakers. And the crossover would determine at what frequency the signal would cross over to the main speakers. Don’t take that last paragraph I just typed to the bank yet. Let’s hope some one who is knowledgeable on this subject weighs in and clarifies how this works.. |
@immathewj OK. that would make sense. I will check out the manual for the PSW10 if indeed it matches the crossover. (I also might just open up the beast and see if there is a crossover). It does sound "thinner" maybe because I am keeping the low frequency from the speakers and I should dial it down. And overall, the "sound chaos" I sometimes had when I set the frequency on the sub too high is gone. Incredible how simple minded I can be and clueless about such simple things. Until I am not! Thanks for figuring out my limitations One benefit would be, if the frequencies were split, for the bookshelf speakers to have to produce the sound in a smaller range - which then makes the sub placement even more important. |
I am assuming from this comment above that you are using speaker level input at this time, and if the way I interpreted that quote is accurate, the quote that I provided in my last post, what would be going on in that mode is the crossover in the sub is determining at what frequency the signal makes it to your mains. (Which actually should provide better integration, I would think.) However, as I also typed in my last post, I may not be understanding that correctly. If it’s sounding "thinner" I guess there are a few possibilities. Subwoofer break in, meaning the amp, the driver, the crossover, probably the whole shebang of the new sub, probably enters into it. I am assuming that now you have one sub that is well broken in and one that is brand spanking new. You could play with the ’level" adjustments (NOT the frequency adjustments, which I am still assuming is aka the low pass filter) on back of the subs and see if that changes anything to your liking, but I am assuming that you have already done that. With everything I have just typed, I do not know if a sub would have both a low pass filter and a crossover or only one or the other. It seems to me, and as I always say--I could very well be wrong, that in order to be able to use the RCAs, in that mode, it would have to have a low pass filter. Because if you think about it, in that mode your sub is operating independent of the mains. Your mains are not directly connected to the sub when you are using RCAs, therefore, a crossover in the sub would have no effect on the mains. So in the RCAs mode, what you would want to do is figure out how low (at what frequency) your mains are going down to, and then use that as the basis to start playing with the frequency adjustment of the low pass filter on back of the sub. So if I’ve got that part right, then if you were using the speaker wires-from-amp-to-sub-then-out-to-mains-mode, then in that scenario it would be the crossover in the sub that would determine where the frequency that arrived at the main speakers would be. It would no longer be a full frequency signal the mains are seeing. And if I’ve got all that right, which it is quite possible that I don’t, in the speaker wire and crossover of sub mode, it almost seems as if the frequency adjustment on back of the sub (the low pass filter) would not be active? But then again, I may have all of that completely wrong.
You and me both.
That certainly seems as if it would be a benefit IF I have got that right about the speaker wire mode and the crossover. And yes, I can absolutely see that in either mode (RCAs/lowpaass or speaker wire/crossover) placement of the subwoofer is going to make a difference. But now I think I just realized what you are saying about that? If there is a crossover that lets frequency cross over from the sub to the mains at a fixed point, if you have your sub placed badly and there is a "hole" up around the crossover point of the frequency that the sub should be reproducing, then you are going to hear that hole as a bass deficit? Versus if you were using RCAs and the adjustable low pass on the back of the sub to adjust frequencies, that "hole" would be less likely to occur with your mains getting a full frequency signal?
|
. . . hmmmm. Before you were using the speaker wire from amp out to sub and then speaker wire out to mains mode before, right? So maybe that shoots down my theory about crossover in sub to speaker wire from sub to mains theory making the frequency adjustment on back of the sub inactive. |
Now, when it comes to this business, bulbs don't come much dimmer than me. I'm talking night light here. But, wouldn't you just simply do this: Wouldn't you just run the speaker wires from the amp to the inputs of subwoofer 1, then run speaker wires from the subwoofer 1 outputs to the inputs of subwoofer 2. Then run speaker wires from the outputs of subwoofer 2 to your speakers?
|
@carpathian , I am not a bright light when it comes to this stuff, but what the manual for my M&K sub indicates for one sub (using speaker wire mode) is L speaker wire from amp to L speaker wire IN in sub and then from L speaker wire OUT in sub to L speaker. And then repeat for the R speaker wire. That’s with ONE sub. But it makes me think that the way to go with two subs is: from amp/to L speaker wire to IN in L sub/R speaker wire out of amp to R speaker wire IN in R sub/and then from L speaker wire OUT in L sub/out to L main speaker/and from R speaker wire OUT in R sub/out to R main speaker. And I believe that this is the way @grislybutter is presently up & running with. |
@thecarpathian, It’s really not that complex, and I guess I just did a poor job of describing it. My fault. Instead of the speaker wires going from the amp to the L & R speakers, instead the speaker wires goes to the L & R subs. Then from the L sub to the L speaker, and from the R sub to the R speaker. (So each speaker is sort of an extension of each sub.) I am pretty sure that’s the way @grisly is now wired. I only have one sub, and since I am using the balanced circuit from my preamp in to the balanced circuit of my amp, I used the RCA OUTs in my preamp to go to the L and the R RCA INs in my sub. I've been thinking about it since this thread started, and I think I can see where speaker wire connections from amp/to sub/out to main speakers MIGHT be desirable for myself. But the thing is, I was also thinking, the quality of signal that might give me to my speakers (which is the termination of that signal) MIGHT be affected by the quality of parts in the sub which I am sure is affected by the quality of the sub . . . and my sub is pretty much obsolete. |
@immathewj I think this is a @thecarpathian suggestion:
One thing I have read was about the wiring was strong advice about parallel wiring. The Y splitters should arrive tonight, will be interesting how it sounds. At this point I am embarrassed about a number of remaining questions, so I will just keep them to myself and play with it to try to confirm my assumptions...
|
@griz, going back a few posts--I don’t claim to be a bright light on this. But to me it just makes more sense to go from the L speaker post of amp into the L sub and from there in to the L speaker and then the same for the R side.
Please post your findings; at this point I am quite curious and interested about this.
I am also curious about what you are going to hear when you experiment with that. Please post your feelings about what you hear. But I also think that your sonic perceptions may change as the new sub breaks in.
I can relate to that myself (being embarrassed about some of my questions, that is), but a long time ago someone once told me that, "The only stupid question is the one you didn’t ask." But I am still frequently inhibited anyway, and people still make fun of questions that they perceive as being stupid. So I understand where you are coming from. However, I actually learn a lot from threads like these, so I personally benefit from these questions, so I personally hope you ask your questions here on A’gon. Here is an example of a question I didn’t ask because I thought the answer was obvious and I was sure that some one would say it was a stupid question: whenever there was a T’storm threatening, because when I put my system circuit in, the best place for me to put the outlets turned into a bit of a PITA, I used to just trip the circuit breaker for my system, but I was always wondering if a big enough surge could jump across a tripped breaker, but I thought, "Nahhhh, so I am not going to ask because I don’t need the derision." Then there was a "surge protector" thread on misc and that came up, and @JEA confirmed that a big enough surge certainly could jump across a tripped breaker. Now I unplug in bad weather, no matter how much of a PITA it is. But that’s just an example of a question that I should have asked but didn’t because I thought it was stupid. As I often say: Ramble On. . . .
|
No budget sub or expensive sub i’ve torn into has ever had anything for ’bass management’. If your sub has both speaker level in and speaker level out terminals, it is just a straight passthrough. In a hi-fi application, you don’t want to use that lousy pass through terminal on a subwoofer into a speaker. You also don’t want to use a y splitter on any line stage analog interconnect. For low-fi, mid-fi and ASR-fi, anything goes.
|
@grizly, I am going to plead ignorance on that one at this point. When I came up with my crossover hypotheses I was basing it on the answer that @mitch2 posted earlier and then the discussion I found on another forum in answer to the question of whether a sub has a crossover. If the last answer you got is accurate, the speaker wire connection feeds a full frequency signal from the amp through the subs and to the main speakers. And if that is accurate, then I also ASSUME that the adjustable low pass filter on the back of the sub is also utilized in the speaker wire mode. So I guess if all that is true, the closest one could get get to having a crossover (for the subs) would be the high pass filter that I had been talking about in this thread, as it would cut frequencies off to the main speakers below whatever frequency it was set at. So I honestly don’t know, if @deep says he has taken subwoofers apart, he has done way more than I ever have to them, and therefore would know way more than I about them, so if he is saying there is no crossover, I guess that’s the best I have to go on at this point. I’ll continue to watch this thread and see what else anyone might have to say on the subject. |
After I took my aspirin, I thought deeper into my way of doing it and I don't think it will work. @grislybutter you're right in your diagram, that's what I was thinking. The only way my way will work is if the output on sub1 sends the full signal to sub2, which it won't. It's low pass filter at the input I believe will stop the lows there and only pass on the higher signal through the high pass filter on its output to sub2 negating what having a second sub in the mix is for in the first place since no low Hz signal will be going to it. |
@grislybutter, There's only filters on your subs, not active. I guess you can call them really simple crossovers. They work whether the subs amp is on or off. I believe what @deep_333 is saying is; in a higher end system, unless your gear has a 'sub out' to go directly to your sub so your amp speaker outs can go directly to your speakers so you can bypass the subs sound degrading outs, it's always the way to go since your speakers will receive a much 'cleaner' signal than if also run through the sub. |
Might not be the smartest guy in the room, I don't understand why this is so difficult. You have 1 amp, 2 subs and 2 speakers. You are going to be using line level inputs on the subs. You have L/R subs Amp has L/R outputs There are L/R speakers. Easy way is to go.... amp-LSub-Lspeaker Amp-Rsub-Rspeaker You can do that a few ways run speaker wire to the sub, speaker wire from sub to speaker. Or you can bi-wire sub/speaker The other way if you want speaker fist to not degrade the signal is... amp-Lspaker-Lsub You can us a spade from the speaker to the sub. Keep it simple, don't overthink it, don't think you need to buy a bunch of things and have a tangled mess to hook up. Also use the crossovers and filters on the subs. I don't have subs on the 2ch stop, but have 2 big subs on my HT setup. Hooking them up was easy, getting the XO point, location and level set was the most difficult. Also when done, make sure the subs are in phase. That will kill this entire process. |
@immathewj @mswale @thecarpathian I apologize if I confused or frustrated anyone. I know it's a simple issue for people who know what they are doing. I clearly don't. In the process, I learned a few things though. The silver lining is that if I had a sub out or pre out on my component, I wouldn't have gone down in these rabbit holes and would not have learned anything. I also learned many ways to degrade a signal |
Now you’ve got me going for my own supply of baby aspirin, @thecarpathian.
I am not at all frustrated, but I can understand how anyone could be confused after reading through all of this. On edit: but be sure to let us know how you feel about the sound when you put the 'Y' splitters in.
|
@mswale , if OP hooked up to both of his subs from amp + to + and - to -, and then he went from his subs to his speakers in the same manner (+ to + and - to -) is there any reason that his subs (or speakers) would be out of phase with each other? That is a serious question; OP did report that he felt that things sounded "thinner." On edit: if OP uses 'Y' splitters from preamp and goes out to his subs via RCAs, there is no way the subs could wind up out of phase? |
. . . @griz: I don’t know if you’ve happened upon it yet, but if not, at this very moment there is a thread/discussion on the amps/preamps forum (right here on A’gon) about merging the sound of subs with the main speakers. (This thread is NOT about how to connect the speaker wire.) You may find it an interesting read and helpful to you for dialing your own subs in with your speakers. On edit: you will probably also find the discussion interesting that is going on here in the 'speakers' forum about which input to use hooking up REL subs.
|
and educating me.
I don't think there is such a smart crossover inside this cheap sub that would split the signal. I think the full signal goes out, but that's just my assumption. I will post a question on the polk forum, it's always very active. 
