To Sub Or Not To Sub, That Is The Question

[Hear Here]

- Very rare is the room setup such that the best place for stereo imaging and soundfield is the best place for the subs (or deep bass drivers) to counter room modes and such. Having independent subs provides placement options to smooth the in-room response. It is almost impossible to counter a null without subs (typically must move the MLP or change the room's dimensions though there are purpose-built panels that can also work). This is one of the things that led me to subs despite having quite capable mains.

Having just purchased a pair of subs, this is what I was hoping for, but it is slow to arrive - if it ever does!

- Powered subs offload the main amplifiers of the need to provide deep bass energy, providing more headroom and cleaner sound from the amplifiers.

How come, unless you nobble the amp in such a way that the main speakers don't receive deep bass?

- Music (let alone action movies) often contains deep bass content even if it is not real obvious. Kick drums, tympani, organ, sure, but also piano hammer strikes, plucked strings, beat patterns from instruments playing together, etc. May not really notice when they are there but usually obvious when they are taken away. Having subs fill in the bottom octave or three can make a difference.

My own main speakers have twin 12" drivers and the subs have an additional 12" driver plus a 12" radiator. I've only had them a short while and more setting up work required, but unless I over-blow the subs (causing booming), I get virtually nothing from them to add what I get from my mains . Still hoping for better though.

- Purpose-built subs can provide high output cleanly at relatively low cost. The amplifiers and drivers need only cover a fairly limited frequency range so have fewer constraints upon them than woofers in a full-range system.

I wonder. My subs (500 watt amps) offer bass from 120 Hz down, though I've set them at about 60 Hz. The mains have self-powered bass sections (1000 watt amps) and handle from about 140 Hz down. These frequency ranges should be no problem for modern Class D amps, so I'm cautious about your claim.

I have never really understood the idea of running "passive" bi-amping as implemented by an AVR (sending full-range signals to multiple channels and letting the speaker's crossovers separate frequency bands -- wastes amplifier headroom and seems to me of little benefit).

Interesting that both the sub brand (REL) and my speaker brand (Avantgarde) recommend that the bass is provided from a high (speaker) level signal in preference to a low level (preamp) signal. That's what I'm still using at present. In fact, because of the extremely low preamp output (my amps require a minute signal as the speakers are 107 dB), the low level signal is too low for the sub's cones to move than a millimetre at their max volume setting!

I've been an advocate of "buy good full range speakers in the first place and you won't need subs", but fans, including yourself have put forward tempting other "advantages" than just extra or deeper bass, hence my somewhat rash and out-of-character purchase! I'm trying to find these advantageous effects, but so far, I'm yet to be won over.

By adding 6K worth of subs, I was hoping for a more obvious and convincing improvement in sound quality, but I'm thinking now that this pile of cash would probably have been better spent elsewhere to improve my system - on electronics. In most people's systems, I'd say add that extra cash to improve your main speakers so you don't need subs, but in my own case, the extra £6K appears not to improve existing excellent speaker performance to justify that outlay. Whether I should offer that suggestion to the OP depends rather on his existing speakers. I can't identify the brand or model from his Profile. All we know is their 87 dB sensitivity.

I'm still persevering with my new subs and hoping they'll eventually come good!

 

[Hear Here]

Totally agree with you. I had dual Gotham F213's in my room for years and no matter what I did, they were never dialed in correctly. In fact I had several members here who are speaker manufacturers and they both said the subs are competing with my speakers.. I dont care what you do to dial them in, they will never be properly in phase with your speakers . I dumped them several years ago and have never been happier with my sound

I seem to be experiencing much as you have. I've avoided subs until my very recent purchase of twin REL S812s, but I'm likely to ditch them unless they can do a lot more than they are at present - take up floor space and add so little to sound improvement that the money would be better spent elsewhere. But I'm still prepared to be swayed!

 

[Ron Resnick]

OBJECTIVE
I am seeming here a lot of brand partsanship and a lot of dogma.

The question of high level (speaker-level) REL-type connection versus line level connection has adherents on both sides. There is no right or wrong here.

The question of using a cross-over to roll off the full-range signal going to the full-range speakers versus keeping those speakers full-range and bringing the subs up underneath them has adherents on both sides. Ideally one would try both implementations.

The question is: is the slight loss of transparency suffered by running the full-range signal through a cross-over to roll off the bottom end of the full-range speakers more than offset by the improved integration of the subs and the avoidance of bass adulteration of the lower midrange (from the doubling up from bringing the subs up underneath the full-range speakers running full-range)?

SUBJECTIVE
Unless one's room is too small and the subs invariably overload the room I would put subwoofers on a ham sandwich.

As my high-end audio objectives are 1) recreate the sound of an original musical event, and 4) create a sound that seems live, I like the opened and broadened soundstage I hear from subwoofers.

I like the foundational bass "grounding" of the frequency balance afforded by the subwoofers. The argument that "well, that bass was not on the original recording" is specious to me.

I would start with speaker-level connection methodology.

__________________________________________________________________

Daniel - please feel free to private message me here.

 

[Steve williams]

I am seeming here a lot of brand partsanship and a lot of dogma.

The question of high level (speaker-level) REL-type connection versus line level connection has adherents on both sides. There is no right or wrong here.

The question of using a cross-over to roll off the full-range signal going to the full-range speakers versus keeping those speakers full-range and bringing the subs up underneath them has adherents on both sides. Ideally one would try both implementations.

The question is: is the slight loss of transparency suffered by running the full-range signal through a cross-over to roll off the bottom end of the full-range speakers more than offset by the improved integration of the subs and the avoidance of bass adulteration of the lower midrange (from the doubling up from bringing the subs up underneath the full-range speakers running full-range)?

Daniel - please feel free to private message me here.

I agree Ron. The other issue as I saw it was never being able to have my subs in phase with my speakers. The JL Audio controls were tiny little knobs where there were no detente positions to show your where you were in your setting. As much as a millimeter change in the knob caused major changes. To me they were good from far but far from good . There is no question they sounded good but the integration with my speakers or lack thereof was the key. Plus there was no way that I was going to use an external crossover to to roll off the full range signal. My speakers have 15" subwoofers. Some would argue that I am missing the lower octave to listen to full orchestral and to that I would agree . Once I finally admitted that those who heard my system were correct and I sold the subs, I have never looked back. The other caveat is ones system as well as room must be considered in the equation. One has to have realistic expectations rather than loving the boom box sound that might result. To many there is must have succussion splash hitting their chest before they can appreciate their systems. That's fine if that's their goal . In the end as you say there is no right or wrong decision....pick your poison.

 

[Al M.]

So interesting that there are these complete opposites:
-- Those who have report to have never had success in integrating subs
-- Those who report to have no problems with integration

I am in the latter camp. I have been able to integrate and fully blend my JL Audio 112v2 subs with both my previous stand-mount two-way monitors and with my current "full-range" (there is almost no such thing) floorstanders.

I do not use an external crossover, just the roll-off filter on the sub, with the speakers receiving full signal. With the floorstanders I use a slightly lower crossover frequency, (50 Hz vs 60 Hz) but importantly, the much steeper 24 db/octave roll-off rather than the shallow 12 dB/octave roll-off with the monitors.

I have set the subs so that they just support the music, not intrude in it. For example, the subs are now set with my floorstanders such that on Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon there is basically no difference with subs on or off *), whereas on Pink Floyd's The Wall the subs give support to the lower bass frequencies on this recording -- a nice difference.

I do have to say that in my mid-sized room sub integration would have been impossible without the option of e.l.f.. (extreme low frequency) attenuation. I have set mine to max: about -14 dB at 25 Hz. Without it, the room would overload and the subwoofers would very much intrude into the sound.

The people at JL Audio were very smart about that. They even say that the attenuation is designed for small to medium-sized rooms (voila). With a less flexible subwoofer that does not have this option I would not have been successful, and I would have had to ditch it.

__________________

*) it would have been tempting to accentuate the lower frequencies of the "heartbeat" at the beginning of the album with the subs, but that would intrude in all the other music

 

[Ron Resnick]

Al, if I remember correctly, the JL Audio subs have continuous phase adjustment? I know the top-of-the-line Gotham has continuous phase adjustment.

I do think this is one advantage the JL subs and the Von Schweikert Audio Shockwave subs have over REL which has only a fixed option of zero or 180°.

 

[Lxgreen]

Me, too. Their website seems to lack any technical information.

I have never heard a system with the Harbottles so I’m taking a leap of faith on this one.( expensive leap). I’ll let you know what I think once they arrive and set up. They are made to order so a four month lead time. I’ll probably get them sometime in August.

 

[Al M.]

Al, if I remember correctly, the JL Audio subs have continuous phase adjustment? I know the top-of-the-line Gotham has continuous phase adjustment.

I do think this is one advantage the JL subs and the Von Schweikert Audio Shockwave subs have over REL which has only a fixed option of zero or 180°.

That is correct, Ron.

Currently, with my floorstanders, I use 0 deg phase on my JL Audios. Yet with the monitors (in my specific room with its specific speaker/sub positioning) the best was 55 deg phase on the continuous adjustment scale. This gave the least cancellation with the main speakers as well as -- on the opposite spectrum -- the least doubling of frequency emphasis, i.e. ,overall the most linear response. At 0 deg phase the sub integration was less successful with the monitors.

As also DonH50 mentions, the flexibility of the JL Audio adjustments is definitely a big plus -- it is essential even.

 

[Tangram]

I agree Ron. The other issue as I saw it was never being able to have my subs in phase with my speakers. The JL Audio controls were tiny little knobs where there were no detente positions to show your where you were in your setting. As much as a millimeter change in the knob caused major changes. To me they were good from far but far from good . There is no question they sounded good but the integration with my speakers or lack thereof was the key. Plus there was no way that I was going to use an external crossover to to roll off the full range signal. My speakers have 15" subwoofers. Some would argue that I am missing the lower octave to listen to full orchestral and to that I would agree . Once I finally admitted that those who heard my system were correct and I sold thew subs, I have never looked back. The other caveat is ones system as well as room must be considered in the equation. One has to have realistic expectations rather than loving the boom box sound that might result. To many there is must have succession splash hitting their chest before they can appreciate their systems. That's fine if that's their goal . In the end as you say there is no right or wrong decision....pick your poison.

This brings up a good point. I think one reason people often struggle with sub integration is the user interface of the subs. I gave up with my JL Audio E110s but then tried again, this time with SVS SB2000 Pros, which have DSP built into an app. Being able to dial in the subs while seated at the listening spot has enormous advantages, as does the accuracy of the app controls vs. tiny knobs.

One other point: I see listening room photos where subs are often placed further away from the listening spot from the mains, when in fact they need to be placed closer, sometimes considerably closer. Checking arrival times should be considered a must do exercise when setting up subs.

 

[sbnx]

The OP is right on one thing for sure....People's opinions on subwoofers are all over the map. Do it, don't do it, this one's good, no that ones bad etc. etc.

Here are my thoughts based on my experience in setting up subwoofers. I am not trying to offend anyone but I am going to share my experience.

Ironically subwoofers aren't so much about the extra bass. They add a foundation to the music and produce a sense of real space. They also add body and dimension to the musicians. There is much to be gained by adding and integrating a pair of good subwoofers. There is no denying that it is hard work to get them integrated. It takes skill and the only way to get that skill is experience. It takes a lot of trial and error. Integrating a subwoofer is very, very far from plug-and-play. I think they are well worth the effort.

A stereo pair is far superior to a single subwoofer. 1+1 = 10. (Ha, Ha, Get it?) We want equal pressurization of the left and right half of the room. It is stereo after all. If you have a single subwoofer then IMHO the only real place to put it is centered on the mid-line between the speakers. If a single sub is placed in one of the corners you will always know something isn't right. I have played with 1,2,3 and 4 subwoofers in the same room and used different techniques (Welti, Geddes, and "normal"). I don't believe that more than 2 are needed for high end audio. I have been able to get flat frequency response with just 2 subwoofers even in a hostile environment such as a hotel room. I could go on about this but I don't think the OP has any interest in this anyway. And if someone is stuggling to integrate 1 or 2 subs then 3 or 4 will be harder.

I have owned the JL-CR1 and setup JL Audio F113's (Several times) and some other subs with it.. The CR1 is not very transparent and in fact is quite noisy. If you are trying to high pass your mains through it then that is certainly going to cause issues. I would never suggest anyone with a high end system to high pass the mains. If you want to do that for home theater then go for it.

The higher one sets the crossover point the harder it will be to get the sub well integrated with the mains. 30Hz and below is hard enough. Go up to 60Hz or 80Hz and it gets exponetially harder. Go up to 127Hz like my spacehorns and be preparted to spend 10-12 hours getting it to blend. Keep the crossover low and blend with the mains.

So if you are not going to high pass the mains then we need to find where your speakers naturally roll off in your room. Let's say that point is 28 Hz. Then you would set your crossover point somewhere around there. The natural question would be how do I find the point my mains roll off? The easiest way is to measure the frequency response of the mains at the listening position. You can do this with a mic and REW or you can use an SPL meter and test tones. You can also just try using your ears and guess at the crossover point but that is going to take a lot longer.

Crossover slope. Most things offer a choice of 6, 12, 18 or 24. For people getting started with subs pick the 24 option. Just try and get the sub out of the way as fast as possible. As you advance you may find that you like the lower slope options.

Find a good position for the subwoofers. People talk about the subwoofer crawl. That works if you aren't measuring with a mic. But measuring is far, far superior. Find candidate zones in your room and measure those positions to find one that is the closest to working. (Meaning it has the flattest response in the region you are wanting it to work and doesn't have a huge peak 30 or 40Hz above the crossover point. Once you find the best zone then you can move it around 6" at a time and see if you can fine tune the flatness within that zone.

After this you can apply a PEQ if you absolutely need to and adjust the volume to be close and fine tune the crossover. Play with the phase knob to find the setting the sounds right. But you aren't done. Phase and position aren't the same thing. You will have to listen to music and make small movements of the subwoofer to get it aligned. By small I mean millimeters. This is what is going to get the blur out. This is the part that nobody seems to do but is actually the most critical step. Once you have the blur out then you can fine tune the volume or crossover once again.

Not all subwoofers are equal in performance. I am not a fan of ported or passive radiator subs. They have more group delay and the passive radiator or port is just going to blur the sound more and make it even harder to integrate. I am not saying it can't be done if enough attention is paid to the design. e.g. Wilson Thor. Otherwise buy a sealed subwoofer that can go deep natively. I have owned and setup a lot of subwoofers -- Avantgarde Spacehorns, B&W, Velodyne, JL Audio, Funk Audio, Rhythmik, REL, WB Torus, and a few other really bad ones. Not to say all of the ones in my list are good. (Soon to add a pair of Pure Low GR's to the list.) Most are made for home theater. Few are made for high end audio performance. IMO, the better the speaker the better the subwoofer needs to be. This should be an obvious statement. I believe a large part of the issue is audiophiles seem to believe they can have a $100K+ speaker and spend $5K on a subwoofer and it is going to work and sound good with their speaker. I don't see too many that believe they can pair a $5k amplifier with that $100K speaker. Why should a subwoofer be any less critical. In fact, what a realy good, well integrated subwoofer does can not be achieved by simply spending more money on a preamp or amp or cable or anything else. Only the subwoofer can do what a subwoofer does.

One piece of advice to the OP. If you decide to go the REL route then do it like they suggest. Keep in mind there is no DSP in a REL. You have to do it with position only.

 

[thedudeabides]

Some people just like a lot more bass.

From my experience and, I hope others will agree, I believe your perspective is somewhat narrow and potentially misleading. I had the Joseph Audio Pulsars with one REL T/9X. High level input / no room treatments. Once properly integrated, the sub did provide predictable, addional low frequency support (foundation) but the principal benefit was the overall impact on the sound for all frequencies. The result was a much more liquid, saturated and involving sonic presentation with a substantial increase in sound stage three dimensionality and focus.

I was a newbie and skeptical on adding a sub but once properly placed and integrated, there was no doubt regarding its efficacy and positive impact in MY previous system. Simply put, a night and day difference. As with all things audio, YMMV. Best.

 

[Hear Here]

So interesting that there are these complete opposites:
-- Those who have report to have never had success in integrating subs
-- Those who report to have no problems with integration

I am in the latter camp. I have been able to integrate and fully blend my JL Audio 112v2 subs with both my previous stand-mount two-way monitors and with my current "full-range" (there is almost no such thing) floorstanders.

I do not use an external crossover, just the roll-off filter on the sub, with the speakers receiving full signal. With the floorstanders I use a slightly lower crossover frequency, (50 Hz vs 60 Hz) but importantly, the much steeper 24 db/octave roll-off rather than the shallow 12 dB/octave roll-off with the monitors.

I have set the subs so that they just support the music, not intrude in it. For example, the subs are now set with my floorstanders such that on Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon there is basically no difference with subs on or off *), whereas on Pink Floyd's The Wall the subs give support to the lower bass frequencies on this recording -- a nice difference.

I do have to say that in my mid-sized room sub integration would have been impossible without the option of e.l.f.. (extreme low frequency) attenuation. I have set mine to max: about -14 dB at 25 Hz. Without it, the room would overload and the subwoofers would very much intrude into the sound.

The people at JL Audio were very smart about that. They even say that the attenuation is designed for small to medium-sized rooms (voila). With a less flexible subwoofer that does not have this option I would not have been successful, and I would have had to ditch it.

__________________

*) it would have been tempting to accentuate the lower frequencies of the "heartbeat" at the beginning of the album with the subs, but that would intrude in all the other music

This discussion is proving very interesting to me and I'm learning more about why some people rate subs so highly, while others including myself (up till now anyway) avoid them on the basis that truly full-range floor-standers don't need additional bass depth or volume.

Let's put aside any Home Theatre reason for wanting, what 2-channel listeners may refer to as excessive bass, and look only at what's needed in 2-channel music systems. Certainly adding more speakers increases the complexity of accurately setting everything up and many users not competent or patient enough to do this job themselves often resort to "room correction DSP".

This is surely a misnomer as no DSP corrects the room - at best it messes with the nice flat signal the amplifier delivers, so that room anomalies are countered by the non-linear signal now being sent to the speakers. Is this a good thing? I personally don't like this practice and prefer to take other measures to reduce the adverse effects of the room.

You query whether any speaker is truly full-range. I must say that many modern speaker designs use multiple relatively small (typically 6-7") drivers to achieve what they claim as full-range. I visited an audio show some years ago where many exhibitors were using this type of design. Convincing as some were, it wasn't until I reached the Harbeth room where their 40 model was playing that I appreciated the shortcomings of the multiple small driver systems. They were "straining" to deliver good bass, while the Harbeth with its 12" driver was doing so in a far more "relaxed" and natural manner. Since the 1990s all my speakers (apart from ATC 50 Actives) have been genuinely full-range with single 15", twin 10", or twin 12" bass drivers. Do I really need subs?

I think if my main speakers were of multi small driver design, I'd be getting more convincing results from my new subs than I am. As my main speakers have twin 12" drivers, they seem to be taking the wind from the subs' sails. Also, if I was using multi-small driver speakers or stand-mounts, I'd fully agree with the idea of protecting them from the lowest frequencies. There's no point in requiring these small drivers to extend an inch or so to deliver low frequencies if the sub's 12" ones could do the job with 1/4" cone movement.

By the time I press Post, I'm sure there will be fresh and probably contradictory posts that throw other considerations into this discussion. Here goes..

 

[Elliot G.]

I believe a large part of the issue is audiophiles seem to believe they can have a $100K+ speaker and spend $5K on a subwoofer and it is going to work and sound good with their speaker. I don't see too many that believe they can pair a $5k amplifier with that $100K speaker. Why should a subwoofer be any less critical. In fact, what a realy good, well integrated subwoofer does can not be achieved by simply spending more money on a preamp or amp or cable or anything else. Only the subwoofer can do what a subwoofer does.

Todd,
I feel this is true for most everything that goes into making a great system. I don't look at it only via price however when you compromise in quality somewhere you usually compromise in quality at the total result.
First to say this I am not a subwoofer fan based on the attemps I have made in my past. Setting up 4 pieces in any room is very difficult even when those 4 pieces are made to work together.
Trying to integrate subs from other companies into the mix with a different brand speaker is extremely unrewarding and most subs I have tried are just not at the level of the speakers I was trying to use them with. THis history started with Quads, Acoustats, Maggies etc and continued through many years until today.
I do now use subs in my system and they integrate perfectly. Saying this it was not that easy but not truly hard either. The subs are designed to work with the speakers I am using and they come with much of the experimenting already done. I am not trying to do a commerical for them only saying that they made such that they can be readily integrated with our speakers. The subs are not small, not inexpensive,not light but they do work and work incredibly well. These subs changed my opinion and a closely held beliefs that I had previously possessed.
I have had a few of these beliefs changed in the last two years this was one. I also never believed in plugging my amplifiers into a power conditioner but I have been exposed to one that changed that opinion as well.
My point is its not the product but the execution of the product and then the set up of the product that determines the outcome.
Most subs , in fact almost all subs , are not made for music and then when you use them in that way you get results that are not what you want or need.
Just one last thing. The better your system the more you will hear and the more critical is every chnge or addition you make

 

[gleeds]

I'm glad to see the conversation moving back toward why and how a properly implemented subwoofer can make a huge difference. Mitigating room modes is equally important, and in some cases as important, as low-frequency augmentation.

 

[sigbergaudio]

I think one should start with considering WHY one is adding subs. What are you trying to achieve?

More bass? Deeper frequency response? More sense of ambience / immersiveness / sense of room? More even bass response?

It could be one or many of the above.

Somewhat counterintuitively, the larger your speakers are, the less sense it makes to NOT highpass them. The reason for this is because you probably already have enough bass, and perhaps also deep enough bass. What usually remains to fix is to get rid of room modes so that you get even bass. To achieve this, you need subwoofers working alone from 80-100hz and down, aka high pass the speakers.

Most people I talk to that don't feel subs are adding much, have relatively competent and large speakers, and no high pass.

A few are happy in this situation, they have crossed the subs really low, and experience some added sense of room and space, and are able to integrate the subs since they're barely present, and just in the very lowest frequencies. That is well and good, but you're wasting a lot of the potential of the subs.

Good integration and full potential requires high pass, measurements, equalizing and competence to get it all set up correctly for that specific room and setup.

 

[Al M.]

This discussion is proving very interesting to me and I'm learning more about why some people rate subs so highly, while others including myself (up till now anyway) avoid them on the basis that truly full-range floor-standers don't need additional bass depth or volume.

Let's put aside any Home Theatre reason for wanting, what 2-channel listeners may refer to as excessive bass, and look only at what's needed in 2-channel music systems. Certainly adding more speakers increases the complexity of accurately setting everything up and many users not competent or patient enough to do this job themselves often resort to "room correction DSP".

This is surely a misnomer as no DSP corrects the room - at best it messes with the nice flat signal the amplifier delivers, so that room anomalies are countered by the non-linear signal now being sent to the speakers. Is this a good thing? I personally don't like this practice and prefer to take other measures to reduce the adverse effects of the room.

You query whether any speaker is truly full-range. I must say that many modern speaker designs use multiple relatively small (typically 6-7") drivers to achieve what they claim as full-range. I visited an audio show some years ago where many exhibitors were using this type of design. Convincing as some were, it wasn't until I reached the Harbeth room where their 40 model was playing that I appreciated the shortcomings of the multiple small driver systems. They were "straining" to deliver good bass, while the Harbeth with its 12" driver was doing so in a far more "relaxed" and natural manner. Since the 1990s all my speakers (apart from ATC 50 Actives) have been genuinely full-range with single 15", twin 10", or twin 12" bass drivers. Do I really need subs?

I think if my main speakers were of multi small driver design, I'd be getting more convincing results from my new subs than I am. As my main speakers have twin 12" drivers, they seem to be taking the wind from the subs' sails. Also, if I was using multi-small driver speakers or stand-mounts, I'd fully agree with the idea of protecting them from the lowest frequencies. There's no point in requiring these small drivers to extend an inch or so to deliver low frequencies if the sub's 12" ones could do the job with 1/4" cone movement.

By the time I press Post, I'm sure there will be fresh and probably contradictory posts that throw other considerations into this discussion. Here goes..

In my experience there are very few speakers, including with large woofers, that get to really low bass without subs.

Also this system with large speakers in a large room, which is the best I have ever heard, does not really go low in the bass, even though the bass that it does have is phenomenal:

Jim's Powerful Sound

www.whatsbestforum.com

So no, I am not convinced about the concept of "full-range" speakers, unless they come with their own bass towers, maybe.

A full-range speaker system usually includes subs.

 

[Hear Here]

Somewhat counterintuitively, the larger your speakers are, the less sense it makes to NOT highpass them. The reason for this is because you probably already have enough bass, and perhaps also deep enough bass. What usually remains to fix is to get rid of room modes so that you get even bass. To achieve this, you need subwoofers working alone from 80-100hz and down, aka high pass the speakers.

But doesn't that suggest that the speakers in the sub do a better job of delivering bass than the bass drivers in the main speakers? And that the subs are better off with the main bass drivers nobbled so the subs are working on their own at these low frequencies?

I was under the impression that the 2 bass delivery systems need to be working in tandem (and not close to one another) if there's a chance of the room modes being dealt with and some of the other advantages you mention being achieved.

Many people have coughed up large sums to buy main speakers with big bass drivers they believe cover the full frequency range, but aren't you saying these big speakers should be spared their most costly-to-achieve job - delivering full and deep bass?

This takes me back to the first time I was introduced to subs 40 years ago, A London dealer (of mostly records) had a demo system consisting of a pair of LS3/5As that sounded ridiculously good for their diminutive size. It was only after a while that the dealer explained the reason - he was sitting on this new-fangled device - a subwoofer. Should we be abandoning our costly and carefully chosen genuinely full-range speakers and instead getting a great mid and top speaker (even the LS3/5A perhaps) plus a sub or two? Just thinking aloud!

 

[Al M.]

genuinely full-range speakers

 

[sigbergaudio]

But doesn't that suggest that the speakers in the sub do a better job of delivering bass than the bass drivers in the main speakers? And that the subs are better off with the main bass drivers nobbled so the subs are working on their own at these low frequencies?

I was under the impression that the 2 bass delivery systems need to be working in tandem (and not close to one another) if there's a chance of the room modes being dealt with and some of the other advantages you mention being achieved.

Many people have coughed up large sums to buy main speakers with big bass drivers they believe cover the full frequency range, but aren't you saying these big speakers should be spared their most costly-to-achieve job - delivering full and deep bass?

This takes me back to the first time I was introduced to subs 40 years ago, A London dealer (of mostly records) had a demo system consisting on a pair of LS3/5As that sounded ridiculously good for their diminutive size. It was only after a while that the dealer explained the reason - he was sitting on this new-fangled device - a subwoofer. Should we be abandoning our costly and carefully chosen genuinely full-range speakers and instead getting a great mid and top speaker (even the LS3/5A perhaps) plus a sub or two? Just thinking aloud!

This is a bit complicated and you bring up a few different points, but let's attempt to navigate it.

1. Do the sub drivers do a better job in the bass than the speakers themselves? Yes, assuming competent subs, this is usually the case.

2.Having speakers and subs work in tandem to fix room modes: The problem with this idea is twofold.

The first problem is that where speakers are typically placed in a room, they will excite one or several room modes, creating peaks and dips in the room. Sometimes adding subs will fill in the dips, but it will not fix the peaks. So at least unless you are able to add eq to both subs and speakers, you are unlikely to get even bass this way. Placing multiple (so at least two) subs in (often) asymmetric positions without overlap to the speakers is more likely to fix this.

The second problem is that the speakers likely already have a balanced level in the bass, often even too much to begin with due to aforementioned room modes. If we want to add subs on top of that all the way up to 80-100hz, we loose the ability to set the proper / preferred sound level in the bass.

3. Should speakers be saved the most costly job of delivering the deepest bass? Yes indeed they should, preferably by design. That is coincidentally one of the primary design features of our speakers, so no surprise that I would claim this. As others have implied, that is indeed the best route towards true full range reproduction.

 

[Bruce B]

I spent many hours with Barry Ober and I feel my system is the best it's ever sounded. I'm not touching a thing! It is a science and a little luck thrown in to get speakers and the room to sound good with subs.
I have 2 JL 112v2 subs with CR-1 crossover. My mains are rolled of pretty high with a very gentle slope. Subs and mains are all aligned with woofers/subs on same plane. I've always felt subs are not to augment the bass of the mains, but to fix room issues.