High accuracy midrange is (to me anyway) important, so I tend to prefer smaller drivers (no offense to Serge, my valet). I have some Silverline Preludes (a bargain...trust me) and an old REL sub with the beefiest 10" I've ever seen. By dialing in a proper amount of bass (that amount changes from recording to recording it seems, as does my taste, mood, and earwax buildup) a little magic can break out. "Serge...my dancing shoes please!"
96 responses Add your response
What voodoo? Everyone offered very valid points whether agreed to or not. Your speakers may not be up to the task to reproduce everything in the manner intended so if you really lack bass at all then go ahead and add a sub. I couldn't care less. It isn't going in my system. But if you start saying Obeah verses while your tubes are warming up then no one can help you. |
It's amazing how much nonsense permeates the audiophile community. I swear if some of you guys chose medical treatments the way you choose your audio systems you would opt for foot reflexology over bypass surgery to cure blocked arteries. The problem with "sound" systems is that they are most often judged on a visual basis. If one sees a subwoofer in the system then most likely one will "hear" it. Based on what we have discovered about reproducing sound in small rooms all of the evidence suggests that using subwoofers is the best way to achieve accurate, full-range sound. Yes, it takes some work, but the results - both measured and heard - will speak for themselves. I think that when audiophiles refer to having "tight" bass in their system, it is often because they have very little bass. It's time we set aside the voodoo and turn to proven techniques to extract the most from our systems. |
Tigg, I'm pretty confident that subwoofers will produce better measurements below 150ish hz than virtually any (non-corrected) monitor or full range speaker. I'm also sure that I prefer the sound of a well executed sub/main combo to any full-range alternative that I've heard. I'm further sure that not everyone will share that opinion. You may never embrace the subwoofer solution. I didn't mean to suggest that a subwoofer is "better", merely that it's hard to argue against the approach with numbers (AFAIK, anyway). But I'd be the first to admit that numbers aren't everything in this game. Marty |
I think the biggest points brought up are probably the exact reasons why I couldn't stand a sub. Placement, cost/quality relative to main speakers, and active sub vs. speaker level and different amps running different speakers. Not least is the cabling as well. I can imagine that if you really did your homework and found the perfect high quality sub for your speakers to match, the right cables, the right placement and matching amps then I could concur that adding a sub would be a well worthwhile investment. Maybe in the future I'll put my righteous two-channel philosophy to the test. I'll be sure to let ya'll know if I switched sides. ;-) |
I believe there are a couple of issues with subwoofers in a 2 channel configuration. First, many people don't purchase subwoofers that match the sound quality of their main speakers so it's essentially putting a $200 bass driver in a $3,000 speaker (just an extreme example). The salesman at the store that I deal with indicated that the current JL Audio subwoofer were on the short list of "audiophile approved" subwoofers and is about all they have in the store for the high end customers. Second, every amplifier has its own sound and if an active subwoofer is used it isn't likely that it will perfectly match the sound of the main speakers. An audiophile isn't likely to hook up left and right channel speakers with different mono-block amplifiers and many, I suspect, wouldn't bi-amp speakers with different amplifiers either. In my case, my receiver forces me out of direct mode to use a subwoofer so for 2-channel critical listening the best configuration is two full range speakers. My Focal 836v speakers can reproduce 30 hz, but not at a loud enough volume to support home theater applications. I have a subwoofer that isn't an equal with my main speakers, but does a wonderful job of the .1 duties and for heavy bass non-critical listening. |
It is all a matter of critical system matching between components and taking the time with the room set up. There is much music in the 80hz region and below, not just movie soundtracks. For those who have a powered sub(preferably 2)that has the connection choice of rca in or speaker level in, I find the speaker level in is much more coherent with the mains. I learned this from Pierre at Mapleshade many many years ago. The quality of the speaker cable is as critical here as with the mains. Crossing over the mains or running them full range is also very system/listener dependent. I run my mains full range and have the bass systems from 60 hz down. Adds another level of musical realism to these ears...... |
Tigger, I will just add that I do think adding a well matched powered sub or two to monitors is quite capable of doing it all well and often at considerably lower cost than most single box full range speakers combined with similar suited amplification needed to match a powered sub. Plus from the perspective of setup flexibility and convenience, a separate powered sub for the low end helps a lot. Proper setup in the room is key to performance. Often there are things that prevent people from accomplishing optimal setup with big massive single box speakers in many situations. They are just too heavy to move or experiment with easily so people do not bother as much or the placement options within the room is just too limited to get it all right including the low end. When this is the case, there is a very strong case to be made for offloading the bass performance to a dedicated device (a sub) designed to handle only that. |
Incidentally, You don't want to measure the distortion in the bass on your (or any other) monitor. I'd direct you to any of the subwoofer forums, but the results might make you queasy. Suffice to say that even specialized 8" drivers tend to struggle below 50hz at volume. The large cone (12",15",18"), drivers in the better subwoofers will typically produce about 1/10th the THD of the best 8" drivers at highish SPLs <50hz. Pre-empting any comments re: "speed" in the bass, I'd personally look to group delay measurements (which tend to correllate with damping rather than driver size), but I'll acknowledge that some feel that these don't tell the whole story. |
Tigg, Feel free to stop by (SoCal) and check the RTA in-room readout of a 20hz to 200hz sweep. You'll note that the system is flat to 25hz on axis at the listening chair. Could go lower, but no need for music. You'll also see that the system is +/- 2db below 125 hz - pretty much impossible IME without subs and/or DRC. Marty PS If you take a listen to the program material of your choice, you may not hear much below the 43hz you get on your system (very little music goes there) but you will hear the lack of the typical suckout at 80 hz (usually north of 10db) and the missing hump in the 1/2 octave above that (usually north of 10db,as well). No offense taken at your post - just pointing out that the suggestion of upgraded speakers doesn't eliminate 1/4 wave cancellation, unless the speakers are in-wall, on wall, flush to the wall, and/or digitally corrected. |
Mapman - "I have yet to hear small monitors that can compete with equally good full range speakers for delivering the oomph that some music requires." No argument there. I love full range speakers, especially the Reference 3A. For an apartment dweller I just couldn't go full-range and found my monitors to be more than satisfying. But even then, with a full-range setup I still would not consider a sub. Again, that's just me. My car is a different story. I like it heavy and low and my JL 10W7 gets me just that. ;-) But then I'm not aiming for perfection in a mobile environment. |
I Dynaudio monitors that do a fantastic job with an extended low end for their size. Set up properly, they almost do it all but small speakers cannot move enough air to deliver a muscular low end as larger full range designs can. So I have to say they almost do it all, but do require a sub to really do it all to the extent of good full designs. All smaller monitors I have ever heard do, even Magico Minis. For many, they do it all enough that it does not matter which is fine, but I have yet to hear small monitors that can compete with equally good full range speakers for delivering the oomph that some music requires. |
LOL!!! No no. I wasn't trying to offend anyone or say you can't or that it's wrong. Forgive me for loving my two channels of joy. I just feel that adding a sub approaches the more is less philosophy. And I'm even taking cues from professionally installed with the top of the line products and sound isolation, room treatments....you name it. And I hated hearing the sub. It was so isolated from the rest of the music. I could hear where it was coming from even when it was turned down. Now on the subject of sound wave propogation. Those very low frequencies will never develop in your listening field. So why bother trying to produce it? I'm not going to start in on the numbers game but if you have a sub and have some specs, do the math. I'm perfectly happy with the bass response out of my monitors. My 43Hz is plenty low. My buddy came over just earlier today for a listen and asked where the sub was at or if there were any other speakers. I told him "yer lookin at it." And the sad part is I only had the volume up 1/6th of the way. And again, its just another speaker to add more distortion and I don't think the addition of more bass is congruent to the philosophy of resolution and clarity desired by hi-fi audio purists. Then again that is simply an opinion. If you are getting offended then take a deep breath, call me nuts, and move on. ;-) I really love topics like these. So stimulating. |
Most every speaker I know of suffers in imaging, transparency, sound stage and overall clarity when closer to a wall. Its true that an advantage of a separate sub or two is that the speakers can now be farther away from walls where most everything except bass performance often benefits. I don't understand any dogma that says subs are inconsistent with two channel stereo reproduction. That makes no sense to me at all. |
A couple of folks have indicated that you should just improve your speakers rather than add subwoofers. The problem is: The physics of wave propogation at low frequencies (i.e. long wavelengths) suggest that these frequencies will usually remain smoothest (minimized cancellation) when originated at, or near, the wall(s). So, unless your upgraded speakers work best in-wall/onwall/against wall, this "solution" doesn't address the issue. As to high-end 2 channel products failing to embrace .1 (or.2 or .3), that may indeed tell you something. Just something different than has been implied here. Subwoofers definitely do not hew to the "purist" 2 channel philosophy, but that doesn't mean that the choice of a subwoofer is "wrong". Maybe the philosophy needs to be re-thought. Marty PS - You could always forego the sub and smooth the bass region with Digital Room Correction, but I suspect that this is a greater transgression against the 2 channel orthodoxy than even the dreaded "s word". |
I agree with those who are opposed to the addition. IMO, if you are really a two-channel fan then you'll leave the ".1" out of it. Now home theatre? You better have one or at least capable speakers. Otherwise, unnecessary. On another note, I have to turn my music down most of the time when any really dynamic passage comes because the bass output from my little monitors is enough to shake the entire apartment and I'd rather not have the cops called for that. Now if I owned a house I might turn it up a little more but I still wouldn't dream of adding a sub. I think it also distorts the music a little too. Even a good one. It just doens't belong now matter how you tune it or where you set it up. But then we come full circle back around to this question. Are you a 2-channel fan? Or aren't you? If your speakers just aren't impressive or lack bass output of any kind then I can see where one would add a sub. But I think I'd put my money towards upgrading my speakers. Then you don't have to worry about a sub output on your two-channel amp. Which bears another note... I typically don't see many sub outputs on high-end dedicated 2-channel amps, do you? I think they're trying to say something. |
I've found that subwoofers are difficult to balance with the rest of the system. Like others have said, the bass level varies on recordings enough that no one setting works well. Another issue for me is that my receiver doesn't allow the use of a subwoofer in Direct Mode which is where critical listening is at its best. When the sub is active the receiver is actively processing the music. I love it for home theater and some "low rider" music demands loud bass. When I was listening to my speakers at the store I took in some song with heavy bass to listen to and found out that the clarity of the sound was more than enough to forget about the lack of bass compared to my previous speakers. I've heard the Focal Grande Utopia EM in combination with the JL Audio Gothom subwoofer and that's a pretty nice combination, but I'm not sure why the EM would ever need a subwoofer unless someone was just spending money to impress. |
I am using a Genesis S4/8 sub and 7.1c monitors with Core audio diffusers and bass control by a combination of diy, and a Guizu modular type product purchased through Grant Fidelity. I am still in the process of dialing evrything in, but the combination of my Genesis system and acoustic products gives me a lot of options in dealing with the acoustics of the room. I took to heart the advice I have read here, about the speaker and room interaction being paramount. I would suggest considering that advice rather than a yes or no mind set. |
Thomas Trouble Sub-woofers are fraught with problems in a High end system as so many attempt to use just one and don't like it. These problems can be minimized from the get go by making sure the sub has some mandatory features. 1st the most important is that a high pass must be used in order to maintain a linear transition is at least possible between the sub and main speakers. This will also lower distortion dramatically in what now will be a mid bass driver in the main speaker and IM distortion in the main amplifier. 2nd A sub that is not forward firing to eliminate the nonlinear spurious radiation from the surround and cones that interfere with mid range information and blur imaging. 3rd a Sub with a quality usually heavy enclosure that is sealed for optimum transient response. 4th If the system is to act as a larger system in a mid sized room Stereo Subs. If all of the previous requirements are met and with careful placement a Sub can be a major improvement in most systems. In large rooms there is no substitute for a full range loudspeaker as in the racing days there is no substitute for cubic inches Cheers Johnnyr |
Whether a Sub goes Boom Boom or it harmonizes and locks in with the room all depends on how you place it and dial it. I Have Rel Strata and it sings with the crossover set at 22 Hz !(I user merlin TSMs)the difference is not just in hearing the Foot stomps and deep bass in musing like Grandma's Hands (yup lot of sub 25 content there), but also in cds like Clapton unplugged. cannot live without a sub ( or a full ranger at 3X the cost) now |
I had a sub, Martin Logan and sold it to fund something that rarely comes up for sale.Well, you don't know what your missing until it's gone. The sub added foundation to the music and made the soundstage bloom.I will be in the future be buying 2 subs. I found with the sub in the system, it sounded better and more ingauging to listen to. |
I used to be skeptical of the advantage of a sub with 2 channel audio. Then, a system switch to 300B tubes and some vintage Altec 604 speakers brought a glorious lifelike midrange but a less than satisfying lower bass. Feeling I was getting closer to my goal soundwise, I thought I'd spend time tweeking further to try and get it closer to an ideal I held in my mind. First one sub helped, then a second was better. The room is fairly large and it wasn't until a third sub was added at the opposite end that things started to come together. I think the addition of more subs within the larger room environment was crucial as they really don't work very hard individually to load the area. The subs took a while to get phase,level and crossover correct. Using a radio shack analog meter and careful voicing helped. Also indispensible was that the subs are active but they are also volume and balance controlled seperately from the mains by an SS preamp. This allows full control to the exact level needed by the various music, room character, and degree of operator inebriation. Further, I found having the subs staggered at various crossover points seems to make for seemless transition. Each sub is a different unit, tho two are Velodynes. Each seems to have a different strength, as one will do better at 20-40 hz and the others seem to sound better crossed higher. True full frequency speakers with amps of differing character than the 300b units, combined with various room and other parameters will obviously give a different result than in my own. For the last few years I have been fully satisfied with the sound achieved here, even knowing and realizing of certain limitations within the current system. The system as a whole sounds quite good. The subs are well integrated and you aren't aware of the presence they provide until they are shut down. Then they are quite missed for the foundation they give to the musical content. My suggestion is to learn all you can by your own experience (with consideration given to the experience of others and on this forum especially) within your own room and system parameters and change as desired until you hit a better combination. Once you feel you are on the right path and getting closer, stop and enjoy what you have. Subtle tweeks within that range might just then take it to the next level. Cheers, RW |
I have a pair of very well integrated ACI Titans. Awesome. No interference with mains at all. Only augment LFs for complete satisfaction of 2-channel music. You'd never know they're used, unless you turn them off. Properly integrated such that they do not mess up sound from mains and their physical presence is unlocatable. |
"Done Right", is the key, being challenged physically, from an accident; I live in an apartment. I have for many years, not by choice.With a total of 4 sub-woofers, 3 Velodyne in my main set-up.One is a 18", the other two are 15"'s. With music around me, there is simply no need to "crank" the volume.In All the years, never 1 single complaint from anyone.My neighbor is a 94 year old lady. Even with Movies, I never need to worry about offending anyone.My computer audio, is not bad, I use a JBL small unit, thatis fine, but, is in no shape or form, even in the same class as the Velodynes. From the moment I first heard a Velodyne, I loved how it integrated with the mains, without making itself known at all! I Love Bass, but not when it is "boosted" to where, it is obvious, a sub-woofer is present. When folks leave, and say "I never knew You had 3 subs.! much less, even 1!" That is what I like to hear. Now, several times, I have had the neighbors ask, if I felt"the Earthquake earlier?"or if I heard any "gunfire"? I just look surprised... I Love Music! |
Given the lack of the brick wall that you described, why wouldn't that be clearly understandable that such an effect were possible?The question is not whether it is clearly understandable, but what does one do about it? There are multiple complexities at work. Not only is there the selection of the crossover frequency and slope between the subs and speakers, but one also has the issue of phase interaction since the speaker driver will be in a different physical spot than the sub. The sub and speaker may be additive at one frequency and subtractive at another. Move the distance between them and that may change. The room's interactive nodes are a related, but separate issue. Since there are multiple variables in play, what helps fix one problem may aggravate another. Hopefully that gives a bit of insight as to why some sub integrations are more successful than others. |
Misstl - I only meant "extraordinary" in that the crossover point is probably a full octave higher than most standalone subs would more likely crossover at. Highly satisfied with my system, but still struggling with the room. I've also included comments that reflect my past experiences with integrating standalone subs. Again, I've felt whether or not the range of the instrument dropped to the depths the sub was capable of, the sound occurred to me as different from without the sub on some occasions when I took the time to actually compare. Again, expectations could have come into play there. I've also had some struggle with integrating subs well, that made me want to scrap the whole thing. I don't think it's particularly easy. Given the lack of the brick wall that you described, why wouldn't that be clearly understandable that such an effect were possible? Marty - I have EchoBusters Phase 4 bass traps (discontinued I believe), in each corner behind my speakers, as well as some diffusion and absorption panels. They've made some audible differences, but where the peaks and dips are concerned, hardly any in the major suckout region. |
BTW, Jax, You asked about room position and the 80hz suckout. My understanding is that this response dip is usually due to 1/4 wave cancellation and is a function of the speakers' distance from adjacent walls. Subs can be placed flush to the wall which increases the frequency of the cancellation and reduces the severity of the effect - usually making it fairly benign. So unless you're willing to put your full range speakers right against the wall, changing the speakers' placement within the room is unlikely to do the trick. Marty |
My case is a bit extraordinary in that my subs are integral to the speaker design and the speaker itself. The midrange driver handles above 100hz, and the integral subs are 10hz-100hz. So indeed the 65hz frequency of a cellos low notes is changed by turning my subs on and off. Previous to this I've integrated subs into my system crossed over much lower (in the 45hz range). There also, it seemed to make a difference to me in how the cello and instruments occured that reached similar lows that are NOT necessarily included in the spectrum covered by the sub. Sorry that I can't explain it beyond that, but that's what I recall hearing. I certainly admit that I could be influenced by expectations. The mind is a powerful thing.I don't know that your situation is "extraordinary" as there are a number of speaker systems that are designed from the ground up with a sub. However, I think the general gist of the discussion has been toward the question of adding subs to stand-alone speakers. As for a lower crossover point, keep in mind that there is rarely a brick wall at a particular frequency. If your sub accurately crosses over at 45 Hz, it is almost certainly putting out a noticeable amount of sound one octave (90 Hz) and even two octaves (180 Hz) above the crossover point. The amount depends on the respective slopes of high and low pass filters involved for the speaker and sub respectively. (And, even if a sub crossover has extremely steep slopes, that in itself introduces another set of problems to deal with.) I sold stereos back in the days when most amps had tone controls and it was extraordinarily rare to find a customer who did not like the change in sound that came from nudging the bass and treble controls up to 1 or 2 o'clock. Whether or not this is the effect you're experiencing is hard to tell unless you can compare your system side-by-side with a live cello (to continue the example in use) or perhaps use some RTA analysis of your room response with each configuration. Ultimately, your only question is "are you satisfied?" |
Yes, having a cello sound like a cello certainly does make sense, and in that case, a cello does sound more authentic to it's natural sound when (well-)augmented at the low end. My case is a bit extraordinary in that my subs are integral to the speaker design and the speaker itself. The midrange driver handles above 100hz, and the integral subs are 10hz-100hz. So indeed the 65hz frequency of a cellos low notes is changed by turning my subs on and off. Previous to this I've integrated subs into my system crossed over much lower (in the 45hz range). There also, it seemed to make a difference to me in how the cello and instruments occured that reached similar lows that are NOT necessarily included in the spectrum covered by the sub. Sorry that I can't explain it beyond that, but that's what I recall hearing. I certainly admit that I could be influenced by expectations. The mind is a powerful thing. |
Yes, having a cello sound like a cello certainly does make sense, and in that case, a cello does sound more authentic to it's natural sound when (well-)augmented at the low end.The lowest note on a cello is C2 which is about 65 Hz. That doesn't require a sub unless your recording has noises that include something other than from the bow on the strings. The problem with many speakers is their response is ragged in this region due to room acoustics and speaker placement issues. Those issues can be addressed, but the answer isn't automatically a sub. |
Jax, I had a similar situation. First I added 2 bassbusters. This had the effect of lowering the output in the 1/2 octave above your suckout. IME, part of the suckout is real and part is actually a function of the hump that often occurs just above this frequncy and extends up to 120hz or 150hz. With 2 subs (crossed in the mid 70hz range), you can usually find a pretty smooth level match between the subs and the now "bassbusted" response at the bottom octave of the main speakers' (crossed and rolled off) range. DRC will allow you to address the smaller issues that occur (at least in my room) around 50hz and, if you wish, tailor response down in the deepest regions. I use: NHT x-2 to roll off bass in my mains Velodyne SMS-1 to provide DRC via parametric EQ and to optimize integration with mains via the VERY flexible High Cut Filter integrated into the unit. 2 12" Rythmik subwoofers 2 bassbuster knockoffs from The whole sub-woofin' enchilada ran just under $3000 (a fair bit more than the Ohm 100s I usually employ as my main speakers), but was - IMHO - a great investment. All products are available via money-back in-home trial period, so you might want to think about checking it out. Good Luck Marty |
Mapman's #2 appropriately addresses Lear's comment. The biggest impact of my subs - BY FAR - is the peak/dip between 70hz and 120hz. I use 2 DRC subs and bassbusters and the measured response of my sytem in this range went from +/-14db to +/- app 1.5 db. I assure you that this is audible. I'm in a discussion in another sub-centric thread and have been specifically addressing a consistent, room-generated dip/peak around 80hz(dip) that I've been battling for years with my room. Currently the two integrated subs in my speakers do not address it, nor has any speaker/sub combination (though I have not tried more than two subs at a time, which I think Duke is suggesting there). I was going to follow up some recent input there with this question: with such room-specific suckouts, will altering the position of the system in the room significantly alter where and whether that suckout occurs, or are they entirely independent of positioning? It seems to be more common than I was aware, and frequently in the low end of the music. My experience goes along with Marty's comment that, though you may not hear it specifically (BOOMBOOMBOOM), having the fuller range does augment instruments and sound that live in the lower spectrum - music, especially the stuff in the lower octaves, certainly sounds different with the subs on vs having the subs off, even though it does not fall into the depths that define the limits of the sub/system. More often than not (though, fortunately, not always), these days, I find live performances less than appealing in comparison to the intimacy that my system offers. Using live music as a sort of generic bar to achieve, therefore, makes no sense to me. Expecting to replicate a concert hall in your listening room is the stuff of huge, very expensive, speakers set up in larger rooms, moving a whole lot of air, and even then the experience falls short of the real thing in terms of shear scale (though the effect can definitely be breathtaking). Replicating "live" is the proverbial carrot on a stick attached to your head just out of reach. Yes, having a cello sound like a cello certainly does make sense, and in that case, a cello does sound more authentic to it's natural sound when (well-)augmented at the low end. Regarding the frequency range we can actually hear - there is also visceral impact that is not heard, especially in the low end. Those cues do go a long way in bringing the music home, as it were. Experiencing 28hz on headphones is not at all the same as experiencing the same in a room where the sounds wash over your body. |
Yes, also true that offloading bass to a separate powered sub provides potential for full range speakers to perform better in remaining range covered in many cases due to less demand on the speakers to cover a wider range and benefits now to amplifier driving the speaker now over a more limited range as well. |
Mapman's #2 appropriately addresses Lear's comment. The biggest impact of my subs - BY FAR - is the peak/dip between 70hz and 120hz. I use 2 DRC subs and bassbusters and the measured response of my sytem in this range went from +/-14db to +/- app 1.5 db. I assure you that this is audible. As to lowest frequencies: My Rythmiks aren't particularly optimized for this range, but they still outperform any full range loudspeaker that I've heard. While Lear is right about the limited content way down there in the deepest bass - I've never measured response below 30hz on any recording I own, even though a FR sweep shows my system flat to 25hz - there is still a real audible impact on deepest bass. An oversized bass drum which has a fundemental around 50hz sounds different when the subs are on board. It's almost a spacial character in which the sound expands and "blooms" in a way that sounds much more natural than on full rangers. This might be due to the "clean up" higher in frequency, or it might be some other phenomenon. I know that this isn't a particularly "granular" or technical analysis (and it certainly surprised me to experience it), but it does comport with the oft expressed belief that subs improve soundstage. IMHO, there really is an impact on low end info when good subs are deployed. Bottom line: Despite the dearth of truly low end musical info, subs can significantly improve a music only 2 channel set-up. IME and IMHO. Marty |
Two useful scenarios I see for using a powered sub: 1) handle the low end with smaller monitor speakers that do not do much below 50 hz or so. 2) provide greater flexibility for dealing with room acoustics and how that affects the low end in particular. Subs might be used to cover frequencies that full range speakers are capable of handling otherwise in this case in order to be able to fine tune the bass easier than dealing with alternate speaker placement, alternate equipment, room treatments, etc. Fewer subs are well suited for this scenario in that they must perform well at the lowest frequencies in order to add value over good full range speakers |
Learsfool brings up a good point about just how low in the bass frequencies a person needs to go to achieve high fidelity sound. Reading several articles online suggests that the range of 40-14,000 Hz is sufficient, with one article stating "the reproduction of orchestral music with perfect fidelity requires a frequency range of 40 to 14,000 cycles . . ." Age and hearing can be another factor. One article said that 50 Hz to 15 KHz used to be considered the range of human hearing and was a standard for hi-fi reproduction. The article goes on to say that the range of human hearing is now considered to range from 20 Hz to 20 KHz; "however once out of the first flush of youth we practically have a hearing range of ~50Hz to around 15/16KHz (G#1 to C10/C10#)." A reviewer of the Rega R7 had this to say about bass frequencies and room interraction: "34-years experience in the audio world have taught me that the most common system building error is mismatching the speaker to the room. Place a mini-monitor in too large a room and you get the bass-shy squawk box syndrome. Far more common in the US is buying a speaker whose bass response is more than the room can handle, resulting in various manifestations of boom, thud, and rhinocerine mud-wallowing. Its more than a simple matter of room dimensions and overall volume: wall and floor construction also play a crucial role. Its been my general experience that if you can get clear and tight response down to 40 Hz in-room, stop and count your blessings. And think very hard about pursuing response into the bottom octave. One is more likely to screw up everything achieved in the musically useful range of 40 Hz and above." So my under-appreciation for subwoofers could stem from my choice of music (various forms of classical, acoustic jazz and bluegrass) and age (over 50) as well as any problems with system or room integration with the subwoofer-reinforced systems I've heard. |
Certainly I completely agree that subs are not "necessary" to enjoy acoustic music, but in my experience they can enhance my enjoyment of it.The problem with these types of discussions is that people prioritize things in different orders. I'll agree with Learsfool that a very high percentage (but not all) of the sub-augmented systems I've heard over the years sound unnatural to me when playing acoustic music. Part of that is the nature of recordings while another part is that a living room doesn't have the same acoustics as a concert hall. Simply put, any system playing recorded music - regardless of cost - is a set of compromises when compared to a live acoustic performance. However, it is no surprise that some people are very happy with their added sub while others look at it as a complication that may or may not improve the situation. |
Well, perhaps some of my issue with subs and people's description's of "deep bass" is that almost no acoustically produced music goes anywhere near as low as 28Hz. Some pianos don't even go that low. An organ, some pianos, perhaps a doublebass provided with a low C extension, maybe a contrabass trombone, I'd have to look that up, or the very largest tuba, that's about it. And very rarely are those notes actually called for even on these instruments, and when they are, they don't sound anything like any sub I have ever heard, even a well-integrated one (I have heard them both in stores and in people's homes). So I do repeat that they are really only for movies and electronically produced music, and are simply not necessary for listening to acoustically produced music. In fact, if they are used for this, the result is invariably not realistic sounding, IME. The timbres are just not right. A sub is not limited in function to the lowest reaches of its range. It augments a range where certainly less of the music lives, but pointing at just the lowest realms of that range is viewing its purpose through blinders - you are not seeing the whole picture. It also takes some of the burden off of the midrange drivers by supporting part of that lower range that they'd otherwise have to handle. Certainly I completely agree that subs are not "necessary" to enjoy acoustic music, but in my experience they can enhance my enjoyment of it. The music I listen to is pretty wide in scope - much of it is acoustic and vocals. |
Well, perhaps some of my issue with subs and people's description's of "deep bass" is that almost no acoustically produced music goes anywhere near as low as 28Hz. Some pianos don't even go that low. An organ, some pianos, perhaps a doublebass provided with a low C extension, maybe a contrabass trombone, I'd have to look that up, or the very largest tuba, that's about it. And very rarely are those notes actually called for even on these instruments, and when they are, they don't sound anything like any sub I have ever heard, even a well-integrated one (I have heard them both in stores and in people's homes). So I do repeat that they are really only for movies and electronically produced music, and are simply not necessary for listening to acoustically produced music. In fact, if they are used for this, the result is invariably not realistic sounding, IME. The timbres are just not right. |
Most full range speakers still lack deep bass and I think a sub that is integrated well fills out the bottom regions when done right. Plain and simple most speakers just don't get below 28-30Hz. My last set of speakers played down to 30Hz but I knew there was much more bass in some of the CD's I played and it pissed me off sometimes because I wanted to feel it, knew it was there and they couldn't play it. Now I have floor standing monitors and a sub I KNOW the sub needs to be integrated better but when the music has the sub bass regions it hits but not like a thud or totally inaccurate bass. Takes time to get it to integrate but I will get it there soon and overall I like the sub and don't regret downsizing somewhat. Its basically a personal preference so be happy with what you got and enjoy the music. Happy 4th :) |
