To Sub or not to Sub...?

Hey guys forget about how low/HZ certain passages go. Especially if you own monitors, there is FULLNESS you can achieve by intergrating a sub. I own a pair of Sonus Faber Electa Amatours which go down to 45HZ. There really is not much recorded material that has information below that, but still a sub adds that certain fullness I'm referring to. I'm with the REL boys. I own the Stadium II which intergrates seemlessly in my system. Not many if any full range speaker can image & soundstage like a good monitor & will be as flexible as far as room dependency with the adjustments REL/monitor combo offers. I feel I have the best of both worlds by using a sub.

Sub ... no doubt. I agree that it is the single most difficult thing to add to your system and if the rest is marginal at the start you'll be throwing gas on a fire. The thing that's usually missing for me from real live music in the hall to ANY system is the signature of the room the recording was made in. I made lots of recordings in college ... choirs, orchestras, soloists ... all types of groups, all kinds of equipment ... ALWAYS, I would find that I couldn't 'feel' the room unless I had a system in front of me with true full range extension.

Before you discount my college recording experiences, know that the department head and guru of all things audio at the school was a guy named Gary Galo ...

Definitely Sub. Onhyw61 is correct. All instruments have a larger sound signature than the note being played. The same reason a large regular speaker will sound fuller and richer that a small one. The Sub will fill in the lower half of the sound signature that most all speakers lack. It is amazing how a good sub will improve the detail and space between all of the instruments (even wind instruments). After I got one (a REL Storm III), I quickly discover what I was missing in the lower octaves. Recordings that once had strings playing low (Bass & Cello), all of a sudden had the Bass and Cellos clearing playing different notes in harmony.

Some speakers (usually very expensive) really don't need subs or a sub makes very marginal difference. Then there's the question of power. Bass frequencies require lots of power while higher frequencies do not. By adding a sub with active cross-over and its own amp, you free the other amp to reproduce just the less power demanding higher frequencies. Two benefits: more head room less clipping and usually more phase coherence due to the coil-less electronic cross-over. Bottom line--much clearer sound with the subsonic signature alluded to above. If you need bass, this definitely the way to go.

Definitely sub. Just try it. Especially with classical, and particularly with organ music. It's one of those "makes a bigger difference than science can explain" kind of things, in my opinion.

chas

Once you have it you can't go back. The excellent points noted in the first post on this thread over focus on the lowest possible note. A great sub isn't only producing the lowest note, its giving you great sound across a broad range (and HT explosions). And since bass spreads out, you are filling out the sound throughout your listening room. I use Talon Khite monitors, which are great on violins, going down to 35Hz. But once you've heard them do Edgar Meyer's double bass or YoYo Ma's cello accompanied by the ROC sub, you'll never go back to just main speakers. REL are very good, too, and made to blend with other speakers unlike a lot of subs which are made for HT.

Well, I certainly disagree with Lindeman. Deep bass response (as a minimum flat to 30Hz) is a critical element to the musical listening experience. Even if musical instruments do do go that low, the acoustic space in which they are recorded adds a low frequency signature to the sound. It's not rumble. Futhermore, linear frequency response into the deep bass contributes to a system's smooth phase response throughout the frequency spectrum. My recommendation to Tinfoi is to get a reasonably full range speaker and to then add a subwoofer (stereo pair, if possbile). Personally, I strongly favor the REL approach to sub design and implementation. Lindeman does make a good point about getting bass to work in a room. Obtaining good deep bass, whether from a main speaker or a sub, is a time consuming and difficult project. I would recommend that you get the rest of your system to an excellent level (get the mid-range right) before pursuing deep bass. However, in the end, the musical results are more than worth the effort. Good luck!

Wow.....Great response!!

The lowest note produced by any orchestral instrument is 29Hz, from contra-bassoon, while piano goes down 27.5Hz. Actually, it only rarely that those instruments get down that far. When they do, fundamental is very weak anyway, and most of the character is imparted to the tone by the harmonics. The lowest harmonics, which is the second, is in the above cases 55Hz and 58Hz respectively! The bass drum is about the only orchestral instrument that really needs a deep bass response to do it justice, as it has few harmonics beyond the starting transients.
To reproduce down to the lowest frequencies, it is by no means essential. In fact, SUB-bass response it reveals nothing but the rumble! Bass response within a few dB dowen to 45Hz can be considered desirable to give depth and richness to the reproduction, little is gained by going lower. And even higher limit can often be preferable to a lower one gained at the expense of naturalness. Also listening room dimensions may not permit the propagation of bas much lower than this anyway.