Are subwoofers bad for music?

Joseph R. said:
Sorry you feel that way. I respectfully disagree. I understand Jim’s post but take it from a vantage point of a professional, not a hobbiest. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Uncle..
 
Joseph R. said:
Sorry you feel that way. I respectfully disagree. I understand Jim’s post but take it from a vantage point of a professional, not a hobbiest. Big difference.
Click to expand...

I agree with and will use your statement above:

Sorry you feel that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Joseph R. said:
Sorry you feel that way. I respectfully disagree. I understand Jim’s post but take it from a vantage point of a professional, not a hobbiest. Big difference.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, Joseph, but this professional has improved the sound quality of scores of hobbiest’s listening rooms by adding subwoofers to their systems. Just sayin...

Ken
 
You may have missed my post. I prefer just speakers without a sub for 2-channel music, personally. Just because integrated subs has definitely been in the minority of systems I've heard with subs. Also, listeners tastes are different, most times to boost the bass is just too much a temptation for those using subs.
However, I know from hearing integration of a sub is not impossible and I wouldn't argue subs are necessarily bad for music.
Pro's use subs as well. When I worked in the business the company I was at built enough EV folded horns.

Joseph R. said:
So except for me, it seems the general concensus is subwoofers are good for almost all speaker systems. Whether they are good for music may (or may not ) be another story. If I were a manufacturer catering mostly to rich clients, there is no doubt I would pair my quarter of a million dollar TOTL speaker with another quarter of a million dollar subwoofer. But is it remotely possible that this could lead me to design a speaker system that would benefit from a sub of my own design ? Could this be nothing short of a marketing tool ? Just some hypotheticals.

I heard some live music yesterday. The bass player had two instuments on stage. A standup bass and a Fender bass guitar. During the show he never picked up the standup acoustic bass. There was no doulbt in my mind that there was too much bass in the mix. At one time the bass was an accompanying instument. Jack Bruce and others have since made it a “lead instument”. Just as an aside, the lowest note of a bass guitar is 40hz. Playing professional guitar for years, I am enamored by tasty bass players who comprise a rhythm section. As with any musician, playing as a band member and not a solo act is what I look for and enjoy.

It seems to me that the audiophile community is moving in the same general direction. As I visit other people’s systems it is common place for more and more subs to be added to their systems. Like Avant Garde, Scana and other high end manufacturers “the more the merrier”. I have heard systems with six to eight subwoofers. And sometimes placed in rooms other than the main listening room. If audiophiles enjoy this, so be it. After all this hobby is for enjoyment purposes. But I also must stand my ground. For me bass is the flavoring of music and not the main event. Just like drums or cannons. I enjoy listening to true acoustic bass much more than electronic bass guitar bass. The analogy of “playing like a band member” holds true for a speaker system. It is more important to me to have a seemless integrated speaker system than to single out great anything (like bass or high frequencies). For me a speaker designer that does that is what I look for. And to do this in a domestic environment is also important. My modest sound room could never accomodate stereo cannons of the 1812 overture. I would never expect any room of my house to.

To each his own.
Click to expand...
 
I know it's been a month since the last post in this thread, but wanted to add to it...

What I have always noticed most with your "average" user who uses a sub or two is that they NEED to hear their subs in order to justify their purchase. They typically have the crossover set too high and definitely have the gain set too high, both of which make it very obvious there's subs in the room and they're drawing way too much attention to themselves.

Also, a lot of typical consumers look at specs and only care about how deep said subs are claimed to go. This may be fine for explosions and crashes in movies, but not necessarily for music. There are far more important features of a sub to look at that are capable of playing nicely with music. The top one above all else is known reputation for being good with music. Your average consumer would probably instantly look at brands such as Klipsch or SVS, whereas audiophiles in the know will be instantly looking at brands such as REL, JL Audio or Martin Logan.

I've gone through tons of subs over the years that were thought to be great quality, and they were for movies. But when it came to music, they were all slow and sluggish, muddied up the overall sound, some tended to be boomy no matter what, and all were simply not fit for music.

Other than a really big, really ugly pair of open baffle subwoofers I built years ago utilizing four 15" pro woofers (two woofers each), these little JL subs are the next best sounding subs I've ever owned. They're agile, light on their toes, are quick and detailed, keep up with whatever music I play, blend seamlessly with the mains, and simply get out of the way of the music and just disappear. When they are called upon to reproduce bass, it literally seems like the bass is coming from the main speakers.

So for me, I am definitely in the camp of "subwoofers are good for music".

Lastly, when I picked up my Sonus Faber Venere 1.5's last week, in one of the demo rooms, there were a pair of Wilson Audio Alexx powered by a pair of beautiful Dan D'Agostino Progression mono block amps. Tucked back behind those Wilson's were a line array (stack of three per channel) of REL G1 MkII's, so a total of six!

Not only were the Wilson Alexx's fully capable of disappearing, so were the G1 MkII's. Listening with your eyes closed, you just had a large wall of sound coming at you with plenty of natural bass extension that blended perfectly with the Alexx's. It was just one large wall of sound, which I might add was also capable of a very convincing holographic effect. The acoustics of the venue in the recording just engulfed you and transported you to the actual recording location. And it's funny that I just used the term "transported", because that's the name of that room/system, "The Transporter".
 
Dear Charles: You certainly sound like a guy who has mucho subwoofer experience. You also seem unbias as well. But it still boggles my mind that no matter how big or how expensive a speaker is, someone out there feels a subwoofer is needed. To me it is like adding a supertweeter to a speaker designed with a plasma tweeter. What’s next ? Midrange add-on’s ?
 
Joseph R. said:
Dear Charles: You certainly sound like a guy who has mucho subwoofer experience. You also seem unbias as well. But it still boggles my mind that no matter how big or how expensive a speaker is, someone out there feels a subwoofer is needed. To me it is like adding a supertweeter to a speaker designed with a plasma tweeter. What’s next ? Midrange add-on’s ?
Click to expand...

It's been said a million times before... If you have your mains located where they perform best for imaging and sound stage, then they are NOT going to be in the best place for reproducing bass. That's why you need subs, no matter what the speaker. The subs get placed in the best spots for bass reproduction.
 
chops said:
It's been said a million times before... If you have your mains located where they perform best for imaging and sound stage, then they are NOT going to be in the best place for reproducing bass. That's why you need subs, no matter what the speaker. The subs get placed in the best spots for bass reproduction.
Click to expand...
I don’t mean to be difficult here, but will say my piece and leave this topic forever. There is no evidence that this statement is true. Regardless of how many times it is said. There are so many different situations, acoustical enviroments and room variations that need to be taken into account. And what about adding bass to a speaker that was designed to be full range. Adding a subwoofer is modifying the design parameters. And not always for the better.

If speakers are located based on imaging and sound staging alone, than the setup is wrong, Every aspect of performance should be taken into account. And to say one always is at the detriment of the other is circumspect.

I would much prefer an audiophile saying “because I like It that way”. I can respect that.
 
I have had subwoofers and now do not use one. I believe they can add a lot but also believe it is very difficult to get one integrated properly. There is also a lot of personal preference and of course room acoustics involved.

One thing I would like to mention is when setting up a room/speakers, referring back to Jim Smith's "Get Better Sound", the first thing Jim has you do is find the spot in the room where your main speakers give the best bass. Trying to work the room. Imaging and and sound stage are dealt with afterwards. Again you have to make the room work for you also, and therefore the best spot for proper bass may not always work for you in the room. You do the best you can, but you do need to live in your room also.
 
Hmm, guess I should have written post #30 more clearly. I didn't realize that it was ambiguous in any way. :skeptical:
 
Also, if that was a standard problem you'd think speakers would be designed with two separate cabinets, one for bass and the other for imaging other frequencies.

It comes down to personal choice.

People talk about flat response, they think they want that and flat is the goal, but, when many hear flat they find it distasteful. My theory is that's why many prefer to set up their surround sound manually opposed to using and trusting auto set up.

Joseph R. said:
I don’t mean to be difficult here, but will say my piece and leave this topic forever. There is no evidence that this statement is true. Regardless of how many times it is said. There are so many different situations, acoustical enviroments and room variations that need to be taken into account. And what about adding bass to a speaker that was designed to be full range. Adding a subwoofer is modifying the design parameters. And not always for the better.

If speakers are located based on imaging and sound staging alone, than the setup is wrong, Every aspect of performance should be taken into account. And to say one always is at the detriment of the other is circumspect.

I would much prefer an audiophile saying “because I like It that way”. I can respect that.
Click to expand...
 
Respecting your opinion I did go back and read 30. I did find a point conflicting to me, "Why? Most times, when the mains are set up for optimum musical engagement - dynamics, presence & tone are good - that is not where the deeper bass is smoothest or deepest in the room. Done properly, locating the mains for best performance is the only way you have any hope of integrating the subs properly. If the mains are uneven through the bass, how will you ever get the subs to blend flawlessly?"

So do we set speakers up for optimum bass so the sub blends and the rest of the sound you mentioned suffers, or, do we set the speakers up for the dynamics and engagement and never get the sub set up "properly" because that position is where bass is not smooth? You seem to indicate we can only have one or the other, either smooth bass or engaging/dynamic because if we hav engaging/dynamic bass is not smooth and subs can't be integrated properly.

Jim Smith said:
Although not every set-up I have done needed subs, over 90% profited by having them, and very often, it was the large (expensive) "full-range" loudspeakers that profited most.

Done properly, it's rarely so much about the bass as it is about an increased sense of presence, of the musicians being present in the room, or you are more immersed into the event at the concert venue.

When I hear someone complaining about the subs not working well with a system, I find I always agree.

Why? The subs were not properly integrated with the mains.

Why? Most times, when the mains are set up for optimum musical engagement - dynamics, presence & tone are good - that is not where the deeper bass is smoothest or deepest in the room. Done properly, locating the mains for best performance is the only way you have any hope of integrating the subs properly. If the mains are uneven through the bass, how will you ever get the subs to blend flawlessly?

If you find that you occasionally want to go over & readjust the subs for a piece of music, then you have more work to do.

Note that I say subs - not sub. I used to advise my retail stereo clients to save their money until they could afford to buy two subs. IMO, one sub is generally worse than none.

If you are interested, I wrote a seven part series for Copper e-mag about subs - SUBWOOFERY.

It expounds on these ideas & more.
Click to expand...
 
Mr Peabody said:
Respecting your opinion I did go back and read 30. I did find a point conflicting to me, "Why? Most times, when the mains are set up for optimum musical engagement - dynamics, presence & tone are good - that is not where the deeper bass is smoothest or deepest in the room. Done properly, locating the mains for best performance is the only way you have any hope of integrating the subs properly. If the mains are uneven through the bass, how will you ever get the subs to blend flawlessly?"

So do we set speakers up for optimum bass so the sub blends and the rest of the sound you mentioned suffers, or, do we set the speakers up for the dynamics and engagement and never get the sub set up "properly" because that position is where bass is not smooth? You seem to indicate we can only have one or the other, either smooth bass or engaging/dynamic because if we hav engaging/dynamic bass is not smooth and subs can't be integrated properly.
Click to expand...

To save space & time on this board, all of your questions - and more - are fully addressed in the Subwoofery series that I wrote for PS Audio's online Copper e-mag. I referenced it in Post #30. :peace:
 
I'm just a youngster, but this is how I see it.

Isn't subs just an add-on to try to compensate of what your system is actually missing?
I mean.. If you're trying to implement subs to "fill the void" then I feel that you're off-track.. and perhaps your money is better invested else where.
When I've went to audio shows like munich where subs were on display and got demo'd I often end up feeling that maybe the subs brings some extra bass, but often over exaggerated/shallow and it produces sound not music.
 
They may not be ideal. But a speaker that provides the frequency response that a separate sub offers is outside of most budgets. Even the budgets of most audiophiles.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I hear the perfect sub in my system whenever I choose..... which is about once in 5 systems .... that reason is I choose to... I have Wilson Benesch Torus Infrasonic Generators,... 2 of them, & yes I do know how to place a speaker...! In my honest opinion we need to hear things & evaluate, not slang....we need to develop our hearing & grow it.... Every piece of gear has it's place & timing,.... what's your's .......???
 
EXACTLY BINGO - you win!

Most of the ultra high end systems DO THIS!!!!!!!

Adding 2 subs to a system is to get the last 5% of the system -- maybe 2-3%. But most people seem to think of subs as a home theater Big bass. DUH - NO----- that is not what adding a sub to a 2 channel system is all about. And bad sub integration will destroy the music system. It has to be done right - if you can tell the sub is on by listening to the bass then you are not listening to music -- only part of it. It's the whole toe taping PRAT.

Again ----- MOST SYSTEMS should not have a pair of subs added. Improvement with money would be much better to spent on other items.

Subs are a ultimate add on.

Mr Peabody said:
Also, if that was a standard problem you'd think speakers would be designed with two separate cabinets, one for bass and the other for imaging other frequencies.
Click to expand...
 
EmiLiuZ said:
I'm just a youngster, but this is how I see it.

Isn't subs just an add-on to try to compensate of what your system is actually missing?
I mean.. If you're trying to implement subs to "fill the void" then I feel that you're off-track.. and perhaps your money is better invested else where.
When I've went to audio shows like munich where subs were on display and got demo'd I often end up feeling that maybe the subs brings some extra bass, but often over exaggerated/shallow and it produces sound not music.
Click to expand...


That all depends upon what the cause is for lack of bass. My Magnepan 1.6's only go down to 40-45hz. Adding my 2 subs filled the void in the bottom end seamlessly and listening to music that goes below 45hz was much more enjoyable.

I now use my dual subs with my PSB T3's even though they are supposed to go down to 25hz I believe. They just add a little impact on the lower notes that the PSB's can't give with their 7" woofers and narrow cabinets. There is no exaggerated bass the way I have them set up with the bottom bass ports plugged.
 
chops said:
I know it's been a month since the last post in this thread, but wanted to add to it...

What I have always noticed most with your "average" user who uses a sub or two is that they NEED to hear their subs in order to justify their purchase. They typically have the crossover set too high and definitely have the gain set too high, both of which make it very obvious there's subs in the room and they're drawing way too much attention to themselves.

Also, a lot of typical consumers look at specs and only care about how deep said subs are claimed to go. This may be fine for explosions and crashes in movies, but not necessarily for music. There are far more important features of a sub to look at that are capable of playing nicely with music. The top one above all else is known reputation for being good with music. Your average consumer would probably instantly look at brands such as Klipsch or SVS, whereas audiophiles in the know will be instantly looking at brands such as REL, JL Audio or Martin Logan.

I've gone through tons of subs over the years that were thought to be great quality, and they were for movies. But when it came to music, they were all slow and sluggish, muddied up the overall sound, some tended to be boomy no matter what, and all were simply not fit for music.

Other than a really big, really ugly pair of open baffle subwoofers I built years ago utilizing four 15" pro woofers (two woofers each), these little JL subs are the next best sounding subs I've ever owned. They're agile, light on their toes, are quick and detailed, keep up with whatever music I play, blend seamlessly with the mains, and simply get out of the way of the music and just disappear. When they are called upon to reproduce bass, it literally seems like the bass is coming from the main speakers.

So for me, I am definitely in the camp of "subwoofers are good for music".

Lastly, when I picked up my Sonus Faber Venere 1.5's last week, in one of the demo rooms, there were a pair of Wilson Audio Alexx powered by a pair of beautiful Dan D'Agostino Progression mono block amps. Tucked back behind those Wilson's were a line array (stack of three per channel) of REL G1 MkII's, so a total of six!

Not only were the Wilson Alexx's fully capable of disappearing, so were the G1 MkII's. Listening with your eyes closed, you just had a large wall of sound coming at you with plenty of natural bass extension that blended perfectly with the Alexx's. It was just one large wall of sound, which I might add was also capable of a very convincing holographic effect. The acoustics of the venue in the recording just engulfed you and transported you to the actual recording location. And it's funny that I just used the term "transported", because that's the name of that room/system, "The Transporter".
Click to expand...

Great post, Charles. I also have JL Audio subs, F112v2, and they are blisteringly fast. Seamless integration with my monitors too, great rhythm & timing. You would never know that the deep bass comes out of the subs. My bass is excellent, and overall compares well with the one of my friends' full range speakers. And it goes deep(er).

Yes, subwoofers are good for music.
 
Al M. said:
Great post, Charles. I also have JL Audio subs, F112v2, and they are blisteringly fast. Seamless integration with my monitors too, great rhythm & timing. You would never know that the deep bass comes out of the subs. My bass is excellent, and overall compares well with the one of my friends' full range speakers. And it goes deep(er).

Yes, subwoofers are good for music.
Click to expand...

Agree on JL Audio. I always thought REL was better until they sounded so sluggish with the fast Magico M3 drivers. As Jim said, “they’re adding nothing and in fact taking away.” Then I heard JL subs at a clients with his S7’s and it was superb. Seamless in fact. That’s when I realized how slow the REL’s were with Magico and other fast speakers and the superiority of the JL Subs. To be fair, the REL’s might be fine with Harbeth for example. But I’m not sure I would take the chance today. JL v2 subs seem like a safer bet. There’s also some great subs from Mark Seaton, SVS and others.

Now Magico subs with Magico would be the ultimate! [emoji106][emoji41][emoji106]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top