POLL: Do You or Would You Use a Subwoofer? (in an audiophile system)

Use three subwoofers.
A stereo pair on the outside of my Hales Signature Twos and a central one for the 10-30Hz range.
Integrates to perfection....

 

YES !

 

Not that long ago I would have voted "no", but after experiencing a well integrated sub in a high end system I was blown away. I added one to one of my systems and it's unbelievable the improvement it made. It absolutely does not draw attention to itself, quite simply it's as if the speakers are flat down to 20 Hz (or lower I suppose). Getting the sub set up and integrated was ridiculously easy too - it's a B&W DB4S, and it comes with it's own room correction software you run from a smart phone.

It's probably the most significant upgrade I've made to my system in a long time.

 

Passive JBL B380 here, a 15 inch sub powered by a Sony TA-N80ES in bridged mode for about 560 watts, which is a nice match to JBL's 600 watt recommended amplification for this sub. I tried a Sony TA-N55ES at 300 watts in bridged mode but the result was clipping. Clipping a sub like this sounds like a sledge hammer hitting a steel pylon, not good.

 

Ran similar 2235H but in JBL folded horn cabinets in a 3 way JBL Pro system. They were driven by a McIntosh 2205 and crossed over by a JBL active dividing network. This was in the 70s but probably would still rank as my fave system period.

 

Anyone have a recommended sub to integrate with KEF LS50w for music? I had tried a HSU in the past but it was awful and the wife rightly made me get rid of it.

 

Rel T/i series, Ti7 or Ti9 depending on the room size.

 

IMO, "audiophile" sound has nothing to do with how loud a system can play. It's all about quality, not quantity.

Many systems may be more in need of a subwoofer because their main speakers are smaller and their amps less powerful. I use a subwoofer in my desktop audio system with nearfield speakers, and the sound is certainly audiophile quality by my standards (and probably most other people's) even though I don't listen very loud on that setup.

 

Which is what Cyclone Ranger said !

 

I wasn't disageeing, just restating with a different emphasis.

 

If you were in the UK your sub would be in the UK statistics.
Sorry for your loss.

 

I only install a subwoofer if the system/room needs it, I prefer speakers that can handle the lowest frequencies.
One of my systems has a sub one does not.

 

It's hard to add much to @chervokas 's informative posts, which mirror my experiences.

I've been using 2 JL Audio subs for about 15 years. The only drawback is the need to set them up carefully. They are clean enough so that I have no complaints about any "pollution" of the midrange. That is important, as @avanti1960 pointed out. With a 24 dB/oct crossover at 80 Hz (e.g.), attenuation is 36 dB at 220 Hz, not too far below middle C. That level (-36 dB) can be audible.

Yes: subs add a sense of space and ambiance of the original venue that I've found it hard to get any other way.

I have always high-passed the main speakers and low-passed the subs and used measurements (frequency sweeps) to set things up. That has given me great results. It's not the only way to do it, but it's what worked for me. Whether you use HP and LP filters or not, I would recommend you measure in doing setup.

 

I’ve used stereo subs for a couple years now. Only recently, I acquired a separate, active crossover to blend them with the mains. My only regret is not doing this sooner. It has turned what I thought were mediocre subs into great subs and has improved every aspect of the listening experience.

 

Poll results so far...

59% are generally positive on subs, saying they’re ‘AWESOME’ or that they’d ‘probably’ use them, with caveats.

BUT, there’s also significant opposition too, with one-third of ppl saying they’d prefer not to use subs, or ‘NEVER’ would.
.

 

Hell, I use them all the time, and I'd prefer not to. It's a pain, paying for them, lugging them, figuring out what equipment configuration to use for a 2.2 system, and setting everything up. So, definitely, I'd prefer not to use them -- if I could get the same results without them. But that hasn't proved possible so far.

 

I'm really happy with my SVS SB-2000. It's my first sub, but seems to integrate just right.

 

I could live without one if I had to, but now that I added SVS SB2000 last year, I really like what it has done to my overall sound.

 

I've got the same one. It's so good, I am tempted to get another one in the same system to see how much better it could be.

 

Interesting and frank way to look at it.

But, you didn’t vote for ‘prefer not to use them’, you voted for “they’re AWESOME!”

So, grumbling aside, seems like you’re fully on-board.
.

 

I wonder how many people who said "never" actually ever have tried one (or more), or is their opposition more theoretical or conceptual.

 

Fair question. But, by the same token, some of the “they’re AWESOME!” voters may be voting aspirationally for all we know... aka they’ve never used one, but are really hot to ‘cuz they’ve read rave reviews of some subs or something.

You could question any of the poll choices in some similar way, really. I just prefer to take ppl at their word and not sweat it.
.

 

True. I just find that with subwoofers, as with a lot of things in audio, there's this degree of received "wisdom" that some people just parrot -- they're hard to set up and integrate, they're only for home theater, they're boomy and not not "audiophile quality," etc. , gasp, I would never consider using a subwoofer in an audio system. But you're right, people might also be thinking, I heard one at an audio show once, they're awesome.

 

It's not really 2.2 as that would require two separate bass channels.

 

Agreed but, if you have a large room and you really love your smaller 2 way speakers a sub can add the required weight.
You can always turn it off if you don't want to use it. I never do.