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

I could have written this post, in fact I have (figuratively) many times in the past in other threads.

I will only add that there are many subs with built in equalization/analysis software so you can set things up properly.

 

Tho, as has already come up in this post, equalization can't deal with nulls related to room modes or speaker boundary interference. Still better to do the measurement and positioning calculations and trial and error and room treatment to get the set up as close to optimal, then use dsp and/or eq to smooth out little wrinkles, if you want to go with the eq/dsp route.

 

try the harbeth in your room. it may surprise you how low they go!

 

I would never buy a sub before I had the speakers of choice in my room for 6 months to a year. First they need to "break in" and acclimate to the environment (as they have been living a a box since being put together). Every new pair of speakers have always given me considerable WoW factor. It takes time to get past that and be able tune the system up as best you can. A sub is not going to make a so-so full range set into some amazing thing. It can improve things but it is essential to start with the best full range that fits your considerations. After reading some comments here I contacted Rythmik and was very impressed with what they had to say. I am considering ordering up a pair of their F15HP. Given the very reasonable pricing and the 45 day no questions in home trial, it may be the way for me to go. I have auditioned a single REL S5 in our current system. We lived with a smaller model for some time in a previous setup. They are very good. The space our music plays in is very open with effectively no rear wall. It requires a bit of volume to get the base "pressure" we like in the sound. A pair of 15's may be the answer.

 

speaker break in is a fallacy

 

I totally agree. I believe Jim Salk from Salk speakers was asked if his speakers needed to be "broken in". I don't recall has exact response but I believe he felt no break in period was needed.

 

LOL

 

He's full of PR BS.

 

Huh? Jim Salk is one of the most honest and down to earth guys I've ever dealt with in the audio business. So you feel that speaker "break in" is needed?

 

please no break in debate. dont derail the thread

 

I understand you're being facetious, and it's hard to believe it wouldn't make a difference, but doesn't Alan Shaw say Harbeths need only minimal break-in? Like a matter of hours?

 

Thanks. Well, in any event I'd considered getting the sub first and running it with my current speakers until getting new ones, but based on the comments here now I'm thinking the opposite approach is better.

 

I can see how break-in would be an issue with some speakers, depending on design and materials, etc. However, whatever the component, I think it behooves manufacturers to do break-in processes at the facility before shipping, if such a thing is needed, as a part of the testing regimen. A customer should get a unit that functions properly as intended, right out of the box, IMO.

 

That would make for some very noisy manufacturing plants.
And we'd all miss out on a heated debate about speaker break-in.

 

Correct, but you are free to position the sub, this is the best way to deal with nulls and resonances all the while measuring them. Can't do that if you have full rangers where you should position them for optimal imaging.

 

I have been down both roads, full range, and small bookshelf speakers with a sub. Both have advantages. But to be honest, my full range speakers from Infinity had adjustments, the Rabos system, which can correct for bass nodes. With a separate sub, you can relocate it in the room and achieve much the same results.

 

A bit of a cross-post. I'm not sure any of these speakers I auditioned would necessarily need a sub to sound great. The dealer said he never runs a sub, but this guy is a bit atypical. I can see how a subwoofer might be an enhancement for all except maybe the Harbeth 40.2s, which were really quite big. For what it's worth, he said they're very efficient and he's run them with amps as low as 25 watts/channel. Of course he hates my amp (and all current McIntosh gear), so they'd sound like crap with my recent model MC275. Or so he says.

 

Diamond 10.7 | Wharfedale Hi-Fi » - 30hZ floor; now available on MusicDirect for $699/pair;
https://www.musicdirect.com/speakers/wharfedale-diamond-107-tower-speakers-pr;

KEF Q900, 32 Hz floor, about $1,900.00/pair, can buy from KEF direct, or even get better deals from dealers, on occasion. I once found a pair for $1499

 

Blast from the past! In case anyone is wondering I wound up with the Harbeth 40.2 and no sub, and it remains that way to this day.

 

One sub and two small speakers will sound much different than two full range speakers no matter how much you "dial in" and "sub crawl"...

Personally I prefer two large speakers, but this option is definitely a more expensive approach today in 2020 compared to the past, and good results can be had with the sub and satellites approach. So many variables, that the one size fits all mentally doesn't fly...

 

I prefer floorstanders AND a sub. For good recordings, the sub remains unused though.

 

I agree with you that two large speakers plus a sub is a better choice, space permitting.

My main towers weigh 100-lbs. each and I still keep the sub on all of the time.

I only send information to the sub that is at 40-Hz. and below.

I don't think it is so much to do with the quality of the recording as it has to do with the frequency range of the source material.

The sub is mostly there to augment the mains, when called for. When there is not deep bass present, it is not really noticed.

I will add that it is often providing support even when you don't think that a sub would be necessary.

You only notice this when you mute the sub and the fullness of the overall sound in the room decreases.

 

Right you are man. I cross at about 65hz (mains go down to 39) and only turn it on when the record has weakly mixed-in bass, for I don't really need the extension below 39 hz. Of course I realize keyboards, B strings on bass (or detuned to B) pipe organs, and other intruments produce such notes, for the sake of simplicity I use my sub only to reinforce the weak frequencies on those programs, rather than to extend the bottom end frequency response. My mains are very much alive even at 30 hz, and the sub is good at 25. Although the difference is noticeable, the mains alone, running full range, are convincing enough.

 

I used to run a ACI Titan sub (12" unported downward firing) along with my Vandy 2CE sig IIs and found the sub indispensable. However after replacing the Vandies with PSB Synchrony 2s (slender towers with three 5.25" woofers), I removed the sub. For well recorded music the subs seemed to muddy it up slightly even with the crossover set at 50 Hz.
I occasionally miss the sub for poorly recorded rock music, but overall things sound more integrated and "real" without the sub. Lately most of my listening is <80 dB, and this is in a big living room with vaulted ceilings.