Thinking I need a Sub...

Well, at least you've kept your sense of humor.

Sorry if any post I've contributed here reads as condescending - that was never my intention. I've tried to keep it civil but on point. Guess I came up short. What can I say? Sorry.

You can doubt what you like, but these test results are completely consistent with pretty much every other published set of #s I've ever seen on subwoofer tests. I 've reviewed a lot of test results on a lot of sites over the years and they all show the same thing: Most subs (regardless of brand) produce large amounts of THD as excursion increases, which was my point.Have a go at Google, if you like. Maybe there's been an epidemic of poorly calibrated test mics out there - who knows? (Alright, that might be condescending - but you earned it.)

I chose a REL sub as an example, not because it fared poorly (tho most RELs did consistently fare poorly vs the pack back when I was current on the data), but because it's a brand you know. It was simply to limit the debate a bit. It's entirely possible that newer REL models fare better, but none will fare particularly well, because -other than a few absolute monster efforts in no holds barred design - no subs fare particularly well on this test.

That point isn't meant to be condescending. You made the observation about powerful subs, room overload, etc. In fact, that was the condescending statement in this thread. My response was only meant to demonstrate the reasoning behind running powerful dual subs at settings designed to minimize excursion. I still think it's a pretty reasonable point - neither humorless, condescending, nor "douchebag-ish".

As to the guitar amp comment - that was largely context for other readers here. So, give it a break.

I've never stated that my opinion as to best practices for subwoofer installation are gospel. I acknowledged your credentials and stated that qualified evaluators - like you - disagree with me. I've consistently stated that anyone interested in making a determination should try an A/B and decide for themselves.

You might want to reconsider before pointing fingers again.

I suppose NOW you want those points back...no way man...and everybody distorts when their excursion increases. On that we agree.

I guess we do.

01-21-14: Wolf_garcia
...and everybody distorts when their excursion increases. On that we agree.

Soooo … if you want to lower distortion, you add more subwoofers to reduce driver excursion, right?

I was referring to digital bass management (I even used those exact words), like Audyssey's and others, in the part of my post you highlighted...this IS a form of active EQ. And, I know multiple subs work fine for many as I've also stated, a point that you seemingly CAN'T get. Rational universe indeed...

I'm feeling a little hungry too.

My beef isn't with crossovers, and I don't "bash" the idea of multiple subs, I simply (!) say that a single sub without some form of active room correction is a less expensive and often cleaner alternative to running everything through a digital nanny device. I may have seemed to be "bashing," but as an evil and mean spirited maniac, I was merely attempting to draw those with apparent differing hobbyist needs into an impassioned discussion to reveal their insecurities and possible semantic roadblocks.

Lol, damn I feel dumb around here sometimes...wait, scratch that, it's most of the time.

I look forward to reading if the OP is able to successfully integrate the sub into his system/room and get a better sound. Its obviously possible to do. I just suspect its going to take a fair amount of tweaking, which some audiophiles enjoy.
But for me, I think that its easier to go to a speaker that is designed to be more full range instead of trying to integrate a sub... if the those speakers are well-designed of course.

Either approach has its positives and negatives. Interesting thread.

There is an interesting characteristic noticed by many sub owners (substers? subheads? sub-humans?) where the sub seems to "charge" the room...the low frequency "ambience" supplied by a sub gets the room warmed up in a sense, and even with music not necessarily bass heavy there appears to be a more "live" sound. I can verify this by simply turning my sub off...all music appears to be more sterile and far less warm without the sub. Also note that full range main speakers (large or multiple woofers) don't allow for bass adjustment (without some sort of soul destroying EQ...heh) if they overwhelm the room, where a good sub easily allows for that if only by turning it down a little, if necessary. So Karl, get a sub. Go...do it now...I'll wait here.

Lol Wolf!

I want a sub also, but setting them up with digital eq's or whatever sounds expensive and daunting. I wish you lived close by so you could help me set up a single sub to blend seamlessly and not have strange bumps or suckouts in my 11x13 listening room...

B-limo, check out my posts re Tom Tutay's impedance buffer. This little piece of kit enables me to use a single self-powered sub. Of course my sub has fine tuning controls which enable me to adjust phase alignment, cut-off frequency and loudness. I fiddle from time to time with the fine tuning controls, but always wind up coming back to the same place.

Now Wolf ...., you just posted something about "substers, or sub-heads" using subs to "energize" their sound rooms. A slight correction if I may -- and sorry to quibble. I use my sub to **pressurize** my sound room when I'm not listening to my system in a hyperbaric chamber. When I go hyperbaric, I use an oxygen mask. Doesn't everyone???

:) :) :) (Three smiley faces)

I would get a sub or two if I was truly stuck with monitor speakers in my 2 channel system. I do use a Vandersteen sub in my HT (with an audyssey capable proc :)) but that a different ball o wax.

If a sub is made of a ball of wax, don't place it near a tube amp.

An Update: I'm very happy with the REL T7. It's doing exactly what I'd hoped and was pretty easy to set up. I put it in the corner behind the left speaker. I messed with the knobs for about 10 minutes and haven't touched it since. It really added the extra punch and depth that I'd read about. Also, I'm really happy that I can't tell where the sub is. I was worried I'd be focused on it but sometimes I have to go over and feel the driver to see if it's working.

Keep in mind I am a total novice and have heard almost no high-end systems. But I do know that I really love what I hear. Some day maybe I'll try a full range tower but this set-up will keep me happy for awhile.

I still feel like the system is a little bright...not much just a tick. So I'm thinking about pre-amps and will post a question in the other forum.

:)

I stuck a "chicken head" knob on the level pot of my REL as some stuff needs tweaking...not enought bass, way too much...etc. The purpose of that knob is to be able to tell where it is by feel since it faces toward the wall.

@Wolf_garcia. If you were to buy a Rel sub or two, which model would you buy? I'm torn between two T7's/T7i's, two S2's, or one S5. My speakers are Casta Model C's, Audiozen tube pre, tube Dac, dual mono amplifier all with seperate power supplies. Full top Hidiamond fleet of cabling, Audiophelleo reclocker. My room is 19 deep x 13 across x 8ft high with carpeted floor.

The sub(s) would be used for 2-channel and home theatre. 65 music/35 movies. Thx.

I bought a REL Q150e for 200 bucks 4 or so years ago, and a Q108 Series II also for 200 bucks recently so I'm in the Sub Cheapskate camp (both subs work perfectly and sound amazing). New RELs seem well received so any of them should work, and one larger REL produces deeper bass generally although multiples of smaller subs can also work with less effort I suppose, but your room size indicates one should do the job…that new REL wireless gizmo seems like a great idea by the way.