Subwoofer: should we even use them at all?


Dear Community,

For years, I looked forward to purchasing a subwoofer. However, I recently became friends with someone in this field who is much more knowledgable than me. His system sounds amazing. He told me that subwoofers should be avoided because of the lack of coherence that inheres in adding a subwoofer. What do you guys think? I currently use Verity Parsifol Ovations.
elegal

Showing 2 responses by rhyno

here's the thing about subs. you have to put them in a position to succeed.

what do i mean by that? first off, older subs are too slow. integration issues were rightly noted. thats not the case with the new 'super-subs' that are out there (JL Audio, REL, Velodyne, etc). these newer subs are very quick and can keep up and properly augment mains in the right circumstances, leaving a drastically improved playback for those who will put them in a position to succeed.

what circumstances are those?
1) sealed subs (no ports)
2) sealed mains (no ports)
3) sub position flexibility (but close to the front plane of the mains)
4) adequate setting flexibility (namely, LP filter freq and slope, phase and volume)
and finally
5) digital room correction within the subs (JL Audio has the ARO system).

and here's why:
one of JL Audio's designers wrote a white paper in which he astutely identified that each source of bass will make the integration of a sub more challenging. ports are a source of bass, and a non-linear one at that! main channels are typically designed using ports to make the speakers A) more dynamic B) louder and C) seemingly deeper in the bass (though its really just a port-tuning phenomenon which tricks the listener. the truth is that the frequencies roll off sharply below the port tuning frequency). ---the nonlinearities of the port (whether on the mains or the sub) create a host of problems (room nodes, freq bumps) that are tough to work around. ergo, #1 and #2 above...the fewer ports, the fewer sources of bass that you have to contend with. --this is reason #1 sub integrations fail.

positioning is a function of getting the timing relationships correct. subs tucked way behind the plane of the mains means their sonic impulse has to travel further to get to the listener--and this gives rise to timing errors. plan on putting the subs close to the mains to maintain timing relationships. this is reason #2 sub integrations fail.

setting flexibility is critical to getting the most out of your subs. when you start with sealed mains, you have speakers that will have a very linear rolloff in the bass (excl room nodes, but more on this later). the subs come from the bottom up...where you have to play with settings to get the subs to roll off quickly once you reach the frequencies that the mains handle properly. if your speakers roll off 3 or 6db at 50hz, then its natural to start the subs LP filter around 40-60 (experiment) and play with the slope (12, 24 db per octave) to get the subs to drop off quickly so as not to intrude on the mains. phase should be set before anything though---check phase w/ mains and dial in for least output when both mains and subs are running, and then reverse phase of the subs. now that phase, crossover and slope are all set, play with volume to your liking. ---improperly setting phase, x-over, slope & volume (with volume the least important factor) is reason #3 sub integrations fail.

(note the mains are running full range---no parts in the signal path is best, and its preferred, given sealed mains and their natural linear rolloff).

finally, some digital room correction is in order. most high end subs have some feature to do so, and generally they're about removing room nodes (points of elevated volume)..these are far more problematic than nulls (points of reduced volume). run the sub's digital correction which will identify the nodes and shelve these frequencies down in order to reduce the node...and the beauty is, with sealed speakers / subs, you only have room-generated nulls, not port-generated! the digital correction will eliminate the node for the sub, so even if the main still aggravates the room-node, it will be counteracted by the sub's digital correction which has nulled out this freq from the sub's playback.

i've done just this, using magico S3s w/ JL F110s, and the setup is startling---the above is best bang for the buck sonics possible (as big full range speakers are expensive, for one reason---bass is expensive! so save a bunch of $$ and get the bass into a diff box and put the subs in a position to succeed).

then again, YMMV.
martykl, appreciate your contribution and i think everyone benefits from it--too many people turn up their noses at subs, incorrectly. i can see your points and find truth in them in certain applications while not changing my mind (though mine are also incorrect in select applications too).

agreed that the port does do as you describe, but the quick rolloff in turn supports mine. 6 of one, 1/2 dozen of the other. a port is a bass bump at a given freq, and the room contributes enough of those without adding more via the port. and yes, some ported subs can sound great (wilson) without the huffing, i'm just offering a 'more likely to succeed' path, and a cheaper ported sub is less likely to succeed than a sealed sub for the same $. (further, if your mains have ports but your subs don't, you will need a darn good bass-optimization feature as you need it to address both room nodes and main-generated port nodes---the JLs ARO feature will not do this, FWIW).

if you have a preamp that can filter HP v LP or accommodate temporal shifts by delaying signal to mains / sub, great (as you describe) and its likely a benefit vs alt setups. but, if you have a pre like mine (ARC Ref 5se) and most other uber products which have no such features, you're not going to dump a great pre to move backwards to a good one in order to gain the features; furthermore, the notion of adding an outboard x-over (or using the half-assed one in the sub) is going to compromise the mids / highs---bad parts, bad results. one earlier poster mentioned his einstein preamp (great pre btw, spartan in its features), and folks w/ products like that are quite particular to transparency loss. running their mains full range and integrating a sub as i advocate is the likely best choice.

(of course, using an x-over and its resultant loss in transparency may be offset by the opp to switch amps to a lowered power, better sounding choice that doesn't have to contend w/ sub-80hz bass. YMMV).

room correction above 80hz is an entirely separate matter for room acoustics, not subwoofer bass management IMO. both are required in high end systems. (well, addressing room acoustics is ALWAYS required).

if nothing else, i hope folks realize that if their first sub integration doesn't work, think about what factors you've yet to try, as it can work exceptionally well if done right...i offered my original post as a most-likely-to-succeed route, but not the only route possible.