Add a subwoofer or get "full range" speakers? Performance and cost considerations.

You're setup sounds very similar to mine and I don't think I could have said it better. I've got B&W 805N's and I'm using the exact subwoofer you have (SVS PBS 12 Plus). I'm using solid state amps however. The sub was definitely one of my favorite additions to my system, which I use for music and movies.

IIRC, that subwoofer features a 1000w digital amplifier and is a beast. I've never had much luck with corner locations though, like some people (and maybe even the manufacturer) recommends - way too boomy. I've had better luck mid-way along the side wall. Two subwoofers would probably be ideal, but I just don't have room or a layout that lends itself to that setup.

 

I just need to add another MC275 and run them in mono!

I am really considering adding the sub now and then upgrading the front speakers later, using a smaller speaker than what I was originally anticipating.

 

Pardon my ignorance, but when referring to the crossover, do you mean a separate crossover unit or what is built into the subwoofer? I'm considering a REL, either the G1 or the S/5 SHO, but open to other suggestions.

 

I have a pair of B&W Nautilus 805 speakers and I fill in the bottom end with a pair of B&W 608 subwoofers.

 

Once that level is found, everything just comes to together. I think if you can tell where the sub is placed because it stands out, it's set too loud. When it mixes in with the main speakers, it's set correctly.

 

Although I have a surround sound system, my first objective was to get great music speakers first, not cheap surround speakers, but adding a subwoofer was obviously part of the plan and that way, smaller speakers fit the bill! NO REGRETS.

Like people mention, it doesn't have to be overpowering!

 

I put an SVS sub in my 2 channel system. It really wasn't necessary and I hardly notice it at all. Frankly, I could probably get rid of the thing. and not miss it.

 

Well, either way, but typically what you find is is a powered sub with built in crossover that will send signal to main amp through a high pass filter and signal to low amp through a low pass filter. SO amp and crossover built into the sub. But there are still different elements of such systems.

For example, I think the S/5 SHO doesn't have a high pass filter to the mains, an approach which has plusses and minuses -- on the one hand you have one less phase shifting crossover set of elements, on the other hand you're stuck sending the full range signal to the mains so you don't get any advantage from not asking your amp and speakers not to produce the low frequencies and you have an additional potential challenge in the frequency ranges where the sub and sats may be filling the room. Am I correct about that with the S/5? I'm not all that familiar with the REL line.

A continuously variable phase adjustment also is less common -- that REL G1 I think has a phase adjustment switch -- either 0 or 180 degrees -- but not a continuously variable adjustment; I dunno about the S/5.

 

To those of us who don't have a dedicated listening room, it IS a part of the system, sadly.

 

800 Watts, 1000 Watts, let's just say a whole lotta Watts I had similar issues with the PB 12 Plus in a different room/house/configuration. It was just TOO MUCH. I ended up reconfiguring the setup in the room in the other house and got it to blend much better. However, now I have a nice rectangular dedicated room that is big, and if anything, I wonder sometimes where all the bass went. I have a bunch of room treatments on the way including a big bass trap (mostly acoustic panels to deaden the room). I'll start a new thread after I've set that stuff up and had some time to get used to the new sound (I have come to believe that room shape/volume, speaker placement and room treatments dwarf all other considerations when it comes to getting good sound; worry about cables and other such minutiae after you've done all that).

I have also experimented with midwall placement with subwoofers and this can indeed tame some of the modes. But what I am discovering now that I have a room with a better shape and bigger volume (which opens to an even bigger room - have to decide whether to put a door there or not) is that for most of my life I've been listening to bass room modes more than "proper" bass. I have high hopes for the current room as I am hearing a whole lot of continuous bass - interestingly my ears are drawn to the "mid bass" region around 100-150 Hz where the sub isn't even putting out (much, if any) power - that just sounds right. Low bass is there, it just doesn't make the house rattle. I think I had lots of peaks and valleys before. So now my goal is to smooth those out as much as I can.

Room modes etc. of course don't play into the OP's question about floorstanders vs. separates, but it's still something to keep in mind if getting good bass is a top priority.

 

Just knowing I can tweak the bass with a sub would probably drive me nuts going back and forth every time I change from a CD that's mixed a little bass heavy to one that sounds thin. So if you're a basket case tweaker like myself I'd go full range.

 

I don't think you'll get much real world performance below 40hz no matter what the spec of a floorstander is. A subwoofer or a speaker with a powered woofer will do a better job in that area. You should look at a Vandersteen 2wq which uses a high pass filter between your preamp and amp. No fussing around to dial it in.

 

One of the things you have to look at is the frequency response of your existing speakers in the 80-120 hz range. Many speakers have a bump here which makes the bass sound better. If your speakers are low here adding a sub will not help much unless you are listening to a pipe organ or something else with very low notes. There is not a lot of music with notes below 44hz.

I am pondering this same question right now with my 685 S2's. These are low in the 80-120 range. If I can't get enough of an improvement with a digital equalizer, I will probably go to floor standing speakers like the 683 S2 or similar.

In general I agree with those who say it is difficult to integrate a sub especially if the reinforcement is needed above the ultra low range, 40hz and lower.

 

but a high pass is not as transparent. its really trade off. no rel I think have variable phase, its only 0 or 180 degree and its enough in most case and they dont have high pass system for the mains.

ive recently began to integrate my sub with a serious overlap: my speakers begin to roll off around 60hz, and I make the sub go up to 80hz then -10db at 100hz. I still get very flat response but the added subwoofer up to 80hz is much better then if I were to cross it around 50hz like I used to.
I however couldnt integrate nearly as well as I do without my measurement rig.

 

Right, with audio you're always making trade offs, just something to be aware off when you're choosing....

 

Room modes don't but speaker boundary interference response -- and the possibility of creating reinforcement and cancellation -- might. With a sat/sub you have some options with regard to positioning all three (or four) speakers and choosing a crossover point (presuming you have a high pass filter to the mains) that can make it easier to find positions to minimize SBIR as some troublesome low frequencies that are hard to treat with sidewall absorption.

 

in my room, I have a nasty 50hz dip. even bass traps and treatment do nothing, nor changing the listening position and speaker placement. adding the subwoofer was the only way to remove the 50hz dip.

 

Just looking at the JL Audio Fathom series on their website. It reads that they provide "automatic room optimization":

Digital Automatic Room Optimization (D.A.R.O.)
Summary:
JL Audio's exclusive D.A.R.O. technology uses a powerful on-board DSP to automatically optimize the subwoofer's in-room frequency response. This leads to a superb listening experience, no matter where the subwoofer is placed.

Detailed Information:
In typical listening spaces, subwoofer and listener placement have a profound effect on the accuracy of low-frequency reproduction. While we always recommend that you place your subwoofers in good-sounding locations, we know that these often can be impractical locations. In the real world, subwoofer placement almost always involves a compromise between sonic performance, practicality and aesthetics.

To face this dilemma head on, JL Audio subwoofer systems incorporate a clever piece of technology called Digital Automatic Room Optimization (D.A.R.O.). The D.A.R.O. system self-generates a series of calibration tones, measures the frequency response at the listening position, and automatically configures an 18-band, 1/6 octave equalizer for a flat end-result. The system effectively allows for smooth, well-balanced sub-bass from a variety of locations that would have been less than ideal without D.A.R.O.

To perform this audio magic, all you have to do is:

1. Connect the included calibration microphone to the front panel of the subwoofer.
2. Press the calibrate button on the front panel of the subwoofer.
3. Hold the microphone at the primary listening position for about a minute.
4. A few minutes later, you have completed this one-time setup routine.

You won't need a computer, spreadsheets or complex measurement equipment, and you won't need to navigate and manipulate complicated interfaces… D.A.R.O. is a fine example of technology in the service of man, if there ever was one.
​

Has anybody tried one of these? Will this "automatic room optimization" allow for relatively accurate setup without any additional mics, software, etc?

 

Did you ever determine if it was side to side, front to back, or ceiling to floor?

 

JL Audio has a reputation for some great subs. What I see missing from that calibration is the sub is not integrated to the mains. It is calibrating the sub to the room but ignoring the main speakers interaction with the sub.

 

DSP and equalization can help with certain things, but it can't help with nulls resulting from standing waves related to room modes -- if you have phase cancellation at a certain frequency because of those standing waves (relating to room dimensions), you can't eq your way out of that, it doesn't matter how much more output you pour out at that frequency, it'll still be cancelled ( you can kind of cheat your way out of problems with reinforcment by dialing in less energy at those frequencies). So, while that auto room optimization will run sweeps and take measurements and calculate some kind of eq to apply, it can't solve room related nulls. You're probably still better off doing the sweeps yourself, doing room treatments and optimum positioning, then using the DSP eq for icing on the cake to smooth out little FR wrinkles.

 

If you do go the Sub route, do you have a budget? Have you considered multiple subs? (can lessen the effect of room nodes)

Some of the best bass I've ever heard is OB and what I have on one set of my speakers. Also seems to be much easier to work into a room with respect to nodes. Something to take a look at if you are so inclined.

 

Does anyone find that the position for best frequency response ever gives the best imaging and soundstage?

 

its that my room is not perfectly rectangular, the door is recluded so I have a sort of cubicle. I cannot do much about it really. even if I move my chair to a place where I have very flat response, I then have no bass under 50hz. its a real bummer by bringing my subwoofer up to 80hz, im able to minimize the dip to manageable levels.

to me, I can find many great position for mids and treble, but what really decide the best speaker position is the bass response. I place my speaker and listening position at the place that allow me to have the flattest response

 

I've got a nutty room, too. No sub though.