Are you using a subwoofer/subwoofers?

[Digby]

I'm interested to see what percentage of users here use a subwoofer/subwoofers for audio playback. You can list reasons for doing so or not in your reply, along with mains used.

 

[sweetchaos]

Great Poll question.

 

[DonH56]

My canned response:

I use subs, and have for decades, for all the usual reasons:

- Very (perhaps extremely) few "large" speakers actually play well below 40 Hz let alone 20 Hz. They distort heavily when presented with large bass signals (which most are -- see Fletcher-Munson) and driving them hard down low robs headroom for higher frequencies and causes distortion well above the fundamental signal frequency (harmonic and nasty intermodulation). Subs typically enable the mains to operate with much lower distortion.

- 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.

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

- 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.

- 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 do prefer main speakers with fairly deep bass and always have. Crossovers are not brick walls so a fair amount of energy still comes from the mains an octave below the crossover frequency. Higher-order crossovers allow you to reduce the overlap, but I still like having the capability. 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). Nor do I agree with the "plus" setting putting subs and mains in parallel; again, my idea has always been to isolate the two for the reasons above.

My first sub was a DIY design using an Infinity IRS woofer with my own control box to provide the crossover and a servo circuit using the second voice coil of the woofer. I had a Hafler DH-220 around so also incorporated a circuit to bridge it for use as a subwoofer amp. It worked well and the -3 dB point was ~16 Hz. I now run four small (F12) Rythmik subs using a similar (but updated) servo design with my Revel Salon2's and am happy with the result.

FWIWFM/IME/IMO/my 0.000001 cent (microcent) - Don


Stereo subs:

I have gone back and forth on stereo subs over many years (since ~1979/1980 when I built my first sub) and ultimately decided it is not worth it. It limits placement and correction options, almost no stereo content exits at sub frequencies (remember a wavelength is >11 feet at 100 Hz, >22 feet at 50 Hz, just how much stereo separation can there be in a normal listening situation?), and the end result was always much better when I ran the subs mono and placed them optimally for best in-room bass response. If your crossover is so high and/or filter roll-off so low that your subs intrude into the lower midrange you might appreciate stereo but I have always rolled off well below the point at which I could localize the subs. For years I ran stereo subs but many tests blind and otherwise convinced me stereo subs are just an unnecessary hassle that actually reduced my system's performance and sound.

 

[MattHooper]

Not anymore, no.

 

[Beershaun]

I use them in every setup I can. I am increasing from 1 to 2 with my new Atmos home theater setup. All my music listening setups have subs. Even if they are small ones for my computer desk setup they add a lot of low end information to my music in every situation... except headphone.listening.

 

[radix]

It's complicated. I have a music system in a living room with F228be and a home theater in a different room with smaller speakers that bottom out at 80Hz. I also have some in-wall speakers in the bed room plus an SVS micro 3000. So I guess I could have answered I use 3 subs

I find the F228be in-room to be plenty of bass. My REW measurements show -3 dB around 23 Hz. They move enough air that I can feel them from 20 feet away. So, no subs, which is good because it would be tricky to fit them in this room.

For my HT, I use a front sub and a side sub. These are essential with the smaller speakers in this room. The Denon AVR did a great job balancing them.

In the bedroom with in-walls, I use the SVS micro 3000. It is plenty for that room and conveniently sits under a small chair.

Marc

 

[tketcham]

DonH56 pretty much describes most of the reasons I use stereo active subwoofers with my stand-mount speakers but I'll add a few specifics regarding subwoofer placement and frequency roll-off. I will also add that I use a Schiit Lokius to roll off the sub bass and low bass frequencies of the mains. I have the 20Hz control set at -2/3 and the 120Hz control at -1/4, which lets the subwoofers handle most of the output from ~120Hz on down. That really helps in dealing with the room mode problems inherent with my 11.5 ft x 21.5 ft basement room and allows my speakers and subwoofers to work well together.

The mains are located well out into the room to get the best imaging and frequency response from upper bass to high treble. The subs are placed to optimize bass and sub bass frequencies. By having the mains and subs placed independently of each other the worst bass modes are greatly diminished. One sub is placed just inside and slightly behind the left speaker (in other words, also well into the room) and set at 120Hz roll off while the other sub is placed about 1/3 down the right side of the room along the wall and rolled off at 50Hz. Those locations and settings avoid enforcing modes at roughly 60Hz and 80Hz. I don't have a way to measure those modes but based on trial-and-error experimenting with subwoofer roll off settings and placement you can hear the change in mode enforcement or attenuation. This combination of placement and rolloff also provides good expression of bass and sub bass frequencies. When listening to bass (guitar) lines going deep, the notes are fairly well defined and tonally balanced with the mains. It's not the absolute sound, there are still a few small hiccups, but it works. Both subwoofers are angled at 45 degrees into the room, based on the logic of Estelon's speaker designs, which helps to blend the sound. It's subtle, but after spending time listening to music I've left them angled into the room.

Tom

 

[dougi]

I use one for HT but not for stereo. It was integrated pretty well, (not to the nth group delay correction level as some do) but using it's filters and the DRC in the preamp (uses Lyngdorf Room Perfect). With the speakers I have which go down to ~33 Hz (-6dB) on average at the listening position I preferred the bass without it.

 

[David Harper]

I use one to relieve the amp and front mains of the heavy lifting but I've never really liked the sound of subs.
They sound boomy to me. So I've got the sub volume turned somewhat down and minimum low end extension.

 

[DonH56]

I use one to relieve the amp and front mains of the heavy lifting but I've never really liked the sound of subs.
They sound boomy to me. So I've got the sub volume turned somewhat down and minimum low end extension.

"Boomy" is usually a placement and tuning (EQ) issue, or just a poor sub design... Unfortunately a lot of subs end up in a corner where they can't help themselves.

 

[MattHooper]

"Boomy" is usually a placement and tuning (EQ) issue, or just a poor sub design... Unfortunately a lot of subs end up in a corner where they can't help themselves.

Because they are generally ugly boxes that can get in the way of a room aesthetically and ergonomically, in a room that is already housing speakers. Hence "where can we put these damned things?" (And they have to be plugged in, so where's the nearest AC so we don't have AC cables tracing the floor...etc...)

That was as big a challenge in my room as anything else.

 

[radix]

Because they are generally ugly boxes that can get in the way of a room aesthetically and ergonomically, in a room that is already housing speakers. Hence "where can we put these damned things?" (And they have to be plugged in, so where's the nearest AC so we don't have AC cables tracing the floor...etc...)

That was as big a challenge in my room as anything else.

I went with the Sigberg Inkognito 10 (650x540x155 mm) for my HT setup. It sits pretty flush against the front wall. It (or the KEF T2 or Sigberg Inkognito 12) are about the only things that would have worked in that space. I'm pretty happy with it so far, but have not had time to REW it yet, I've only done the basic Audyssey. It's pretty expensive, but the form factor and manufacturer measurements won me over.

Marc

 

[ex audiophile]

I use 4 subs in my HT setup and love them. Placement is not as critical with 4. However, I have gone back and forth with subs in 2 channel setups. Properly integrated they're a positive addition to most any speaker but as I've gotten older the hassle is getting to me. When I can afford the PerListen ST-7s or Genelec speakers Amir tested recently I think I'll go without subs. The Genelecs in particular would permit considerable simplification by getting rid of some electronics.

 

[FrantzM]

I use subs and consider these to be essential regardless of the intrinsic bass capabilities of the mains. I did use 3 but the results were not as good, mostly due to setup difficulties. I will add two more serious subs (capable of 20 Hz at substantial output), likely SVS or Rythmik subs soon. I have heard and measured the limitations of my Dayton Audio Sub1500, these will however remain in the system to fill up nulls and smooth out the bass response...

Peace.

 

[Teeter]

I need only one for my small basement HT room. I watch a lot of movies. I enjoy what I have with my budget.

 

[Daverz]

An SVS SB-1000 Pro. I paid an extra $100 to get the gloss white to match my white Buchardt S400s. My original plan was to get a second one, but it's just me here, and the single sub seems fine so far. It's not a micro sub, but I was still surprised how small and light it was when I got it.

 

[Berwhale]

I have 3 subs in 3 different setups: desk (Presonus Sub8), lounge HT (REL Quake) and family room HT (a little Yamaha that fits nicely under the sideboard).

 

[Pdxwayne]

12" sealed in computer room.

One sub with twin 15" sealed in family room.

15" sealed and two 10" sealed in my living room setups (2 different setups).

 

[Digby]

Probably I wasn't clear enough in my first post, but the poll is only for the amount of subwoofers in your main system. If you have 1 subwoofer in your main system, pick the option to say you have 1; two subwoofers in your main system, pick two. If you have 5 subwoofers over 5 different systems, but only 1 in your main system, pick 1 subwoofer.

Sorry for any confusion, but I'm interested in seeing how many subwoofers people are running in their main system, not how many they own in total.

People are free to list this information in their post (how many systems & subs total) as it is still interesting, but not the intention of the poll.

 

[izeek]

definitely. 2 sealed jbl 12".
works beautifully.