I have some Nola Boxers that sound awesome but some of my favorite music has some fairly deep synthesized bass. At times, I hear the driver distorting and 'doubling over' is that the term?
So, my local high-end shop sells REL subs and I like the idea. I've been thinking of the T-7 or the R-218...
Advise would be great. I have McIntosh MC-60 amps and an Audio Research LS-3...and use an NAD CD player.
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.
@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 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.
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 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.
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???
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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 am always dismayed by the clearly humorless, but that's my cross to bear...do you really think I was serious about my guitar amp? Your points have been deducted for condescending douchebaggery. Man...in any case, I don't own a 305, and seriously doubt the veracity of the test you posted if only due to personal experience...I think this guy needs better microphones.
The mention of guitar was merely made to point out that my comments were subjective as well as empirical. I'm a musician (tho sadly not a terribly skilled one) and my subjective evaluations are based on many hours a day around live music (my own) - for whatever that's worth.
And, while I play more acoustic than electric guitar, if the distortion in your class A tube amp is anything like mine, it is to be treasured - talent in a box. Not quite applicable to the conversation at hand IMO.
If you scroll down to the THD graph, you'll see that this sub produces +/- 30% THD at +/- 30hz at 90db (quasi anechoic). BTW, this is hardly crushing SPL and as you turn it up, the story gets worse. The direction of these curves says a lot about what happens to THD as excursion increases, which was the real point of my OP.
Hope that this clarifies precisely the frequency/output levels at which a familiar sub reaches 30% + distortion.
Hi Gentleman, It is in my exsperience of listening, Getting one JL audio top model sub is, Game over!, No, I do not own a sub, listened to most out there, the awards and reviews got my attention to hear one, a small enclosure, accurate and deep beyond belief, stunning is the word! the sub can acommadate most rooms with the controls, I agree with most on this thread, more than one sub does over power a room, this single sub can over power most rooms!, the controls allow to tailor for the room it is installed in, Good luck fellow members.
Risking redundancy (or, more to the point...being redundant!), again, to attempt to simplify MY point...I get great sound without digital EQ in MY room with a single REL. Great, natural, non lumpy sound. It's been stated that others can't get good, non lumpy (!) tone with their multiple subs without digital assistance, and I understand why. Really...I do.
For the record: Digital bass management is not "just a crossover" or a crossover at all...it is digital limiting (or compression) of certain peak frequencies that are considered by somebody to tax woofers, or excite room nodes and standing waves. If it's NOT limiting those "undesireable" frequency peaks, what the hell IS it doing? And the statement, "A peek at measured distortion tests will reveal VERY large values (often well north of 30%) for most subs as driver excursion (and SPL) increases" is poorly stated and, as such, makes no sense unless you're more specific...the speaker fails at what point? The amp clips? Most? Some don't?...huh? I use digital and analog EQ in venues for live stuff all the time with large, extremely powerful subs so I'm not a Luddite...and I get that many home rigs need digital assistance (some of my best friends...)...I'm only emphatic about the fact that I don't need it, in my room, with my rig. And other might not either. See? Wasn't that simple? I'm not sure what guitar playing has to do with any of this, but I award Martykl an extra point for that anyway, and please don't measure the distortion of my class A tube guitar amp...I can't take it...
That is not - and never has been - the issue for me.
When setting up strictly by ear, I always start by attempting to level match at the x-over point. I have generally been good to within +/- 5db in that job (the most critical set-up element IMO as smooth response thru the "hand-off" is critical to seamless integration). That result is always verified by measurement after the fact (and subsequently tweaked).
The issue with the approach is generally "lumpiness" - I've always had 10+db peaks and/or nulls without EQ - despite exhaustive placement optimization efforts. Sometimes there's a somewhat excessive bass balance overall, sometimes it's a little light overall. It's never particularly smooth - as measured or (more importantly) as heard in A/B comparison with subsequently EQ'd bass.
The issue is virtually moot with bass management software. The Audyssey set-up protocol involves setting the average aggregated sub output at 75db per measurement on a bass sweep. The resulting measured on-axis FR is essentially flat across the entire range of the system. The difference between pre EQ and post EQ is not overall bass level, it's freedom of peaks and valleys in the response. The audible difference is not in overall bass level, it's in articulation through the bass and mids.
While my subs have the capability of producing much higher SPL (the 75db start point results in the gain pots being near the low end of their potential travel), the benefit here is less driver excursion and distortion. A peek at measured distortion tests will reveal VERY large values (often well north of 30%) for most subs as driver excursion (and SPL) increases, but I'll pass on the debate as to the audibility of this phenomenon. I will only note that the remaining potential clean output of the subs that is foregone by my set-up ensures that I've minimized distortion - for whatever you think that's worth.
The bottom line is: this ain't about overloading the listening room
Listen for yourself. Wolf is an experienced professional sound guy and I respect that credential, but I've always been surprised by his emphatic stated preference for non EQ'd subs. As noted, in my book this is a black and white issue, but - as also noted - I appreciate that other people's books are different from mine.
As a side note, I usually have a guitar in my hand 3 to 4 hours a day and feel pretty good about the subjective side of this evaluation as well as the measured evidence, The good news is, this is a very easy, very clean A/B testing opportunity - as long as there's a good, high-end AV place locally. IMHO, everyone who cares should satisfy themselves on this one.
I agree that when a room is overloaded with subwoofer bass energy resulting in crappy sound, the easiest solution to this issue is digital limiting. My point has always been that great sounding realistic and musical bass can be achieved with a single sub used properly, and since many think "more must be better" I understand why Taming Overkill With Digital Limiting/Compression has become popular. Every poster I've noticed advocating digital management has large, powerful, and often multiple subs that should utterly overwhelm the listening space without active limiting, which seems extreme, somewhat non musical, and unnatural...like buying a 600 hp V8 car and installing a device to disconnect 6 of the cylinders most of the time.
Since Bob and Wolf (both pretty convincing contributors here) are providing conflicting advice, I'd suggest that you find a good high end HT installer/retailer and do an A/B comparison with Digital Room Correction and without it. That's a simple bypass button and a very clean A/B.
You've got to find the right showroom so that the sub placement is optimized prior to room correction EQ. Then, you can decide for yourself.
For the record, I've done that in my dedicated listening room with two different pairs of subs (Rythmik and Velodyne) and in my HT room with B&W subs. The positioning of the subs in the listening room was optimized both by ear and - on a second pass - with the aid of a real time analyzer. In the theater room, the position of the subs was largely dictated by the room layout, so there was much less flexibility in optimizing location.
In all cases, room correction made a dramatic improvement - to my ear. In fact, by my reckoning, no other change to my system over the last two decades has come close. But there's a caveat.: Since Wolf's mileage seems to vary from that conclusion, be aware that yours may, too. Which is why an audition at a retailer who can do it right is probably your best bet.
Marty
As to the active/passive (distortion) debate, that's a tougher A/B since most systems (that I know of) kill the sub output entirely when you remove the active low-cut filter from the main speakers. That means you'll probably have to re-wire the system before you can compare active crossing to passive which makes the judgement more difficult IME.
I find the theoretical arguments for actively crossing a system pretty compelling, but my experience suggests that it's very much case by case dependent upon the main speakers. I've done it both ways and had good success with both - but the best results I've gotten have come from actively crossed systems. If in doubt, I'd say cross actively but would note again that YMMV.
Digital bass management compression/limiting nannys are not necessarily an advantage, they're simply designed as a "catch all" remedy for components that are badly matched to a room's acoustic properties. Of course things need to be "used properly," otherwise things are simply improper, if not tawdry.
I'm not in the Bob camp, in spite of how badly he wants me there. I'm merely speaking about the actual sounds of things, and if you adjust a REL to appear at the point where the main speaker starts to lose its ability to produce much bass and the REL takes it from there (below any main "crossover region" because that is irrelevant to the REL design), it works beautifully. There is no "muddying" of the main speaker's acoustic output because the main speaker is down some serious DBs at that point and (again, based on reality) blends fine if used properly. When you state things like, "The main speakers WILL MUDDY UP the clean bass produced by the REL, at least within the crossover region" you ignore the fact that there is no crossover region at the REL High Level input, simply a frequency point where you integrate the sub to assist the mains, and, clearly, you haven't heard a well set up REL or you would know this (maybe). I know other designs work well also, because I've heard them, and I'm IN the pro recording industry.
The "total distortion remaining the same" idea from claustrophobic Canadians in the context of REL sub use means nothing. Zero. Does anybody listen to good speakers and say, "wow, if only I could remove the bottom octaves of distorted bad things in my full range-ish mains?" No, they do not. The people who know how to design great speakers make crossovers that take into account the mechanical frequency limitations of the design. The REL dudes know how to make subs, they SOUND great (if set up properly they don't "muddy up" anything), and blend brilliantly with main speakers because that's all they're doing...blending...not truncating or slicing off the low frequencies, but blending in a suplemental way that makes the owners of RELs happier, better adjusted, and somewhat better looking than most Canadians. Most...not all...
I found more reviews of REL subs last night and they really do seem to have a different philosophy. Most reviewers seem to agree that they're very good with 2 channel stuff...which is what I'm doing. No HT for me...:)
Neo, it makes total sense if he's trying to sell you a sub...lol.
You ought to ask him if you can drive a speaker harder crossed over at 80hz vs. one that is not. I could get an extra 3-4db out of my studio 10's crossed over at 80hz vs not crossed over (running full range). That 3-4db made the difference.
Wolf, where can I order your book? Lol, hilarious...
Thanks Bob. Yeah, I understand and totally appreicate your advice. I still may need to do a crossover or buy bigger speakers. This was a start and I liked the idea of the REL piggybacking off the amp...it's seems more 'pure'.
Honestly, the music that beats up on the Boxers is pretty extreme and I kind of doubt I'll turn it up that much..
I'm probably going to try my old Klipsch KG4s to see how they do with bass....I'm curious!
Is there some possibility that my amps were causing the distortion? Am I in need of more power? How does that work?? I'm sooo new to this. I love these Macs and don't want anything different.
A single sub needs to be positioned properly to disappear...if you place it too far off in a corner or someplace you might notice it being out of the ballfield, so to speak. My setup has the sub directly behind the left speaker and since it's set to about 51hz it blends perfectly with the mains and all the aural cues for stereo come from the mains anyway when you're sitting it the sweet spot. If I had another sub with the right side speaker it would be too close to the gear rack which doesn't need any more vibration, although everything is on vibration absorbing pods and such. All of this follows natural laws of physics regarding bass rolloff which can be read in my famous white paper, "subwoofers and the tawdry overuse of them by unsophisticated boneheads overloading their rooms and being forced to use digital room correction"...by request, $12.95.
I agree that 2 subs are the ticket. I can tellwhere the bass is coming from with just one sub. My single svs ended up dead center between my speakers and sounded best there. I've had issues with integrating a sub into my system but will try again. I have heard subs integrate seamlessly, so I know its possible.
I would think that having control over your bsss seperate from your mids and highs would actually be beneficial. So a speaker measures flat from 20hz-20khz in an anechoic (sp?) chamber, doesn't mean it's going to have that same resonse in my 11x13 room or your 20x25 room...
Personally, so with my ears, subs have always sounded strangely additive, but they may not have been set up properly. Or, maybe they were'nt matched correctly. So, my listening winners have consistently been coherent full range speakers. Recently, there has been one exception, and that was the Volti/Border Patrol room at RMAF 2013. The sub, was simply not there, so I was not aware of its presence, so coherent.
Regarding, "Going full range "may not get a perfectly smooth sound" either..." I completely agree with you. Not all full range speakers are created equal. This is why my advice was to listen to the different setups within the same brand of speakers. So, compare for yourself and pick your own preference. Not the easiest thing to do, but the only way I trust to evaluate.
Well, I bought a REL T-7...I'll get it installed and post my thoughts. I was back and forth on this but adding a sub seems to be the consensus..and the REL seemed like the best for the money. Always a gamble!
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
