44 responses Add your response
Well my speakers go down to 34hz, and I enjoy them, sometimes I wish there was more on the low end, but everything else is so good why risk it? I have NEVER heard a seamless integration of a sub, regardlees of size or location or quantity....etc. If musicality is your goal I don't think an 18" speaker has the ablity to be musical when being added to an existing speaker, but that's just what I have experienced. I suppose I am the closed minded purist who refuses to believe that adding one more "weakness" will improve the sound enough to justify its short comings. There are more problems with phase, cross-over points(never right!), dB peaks and valley's just too much to take on at once. And I have heard REL subs before and they do come the closest but nothing seems to work with my speakers and my ears, though I have been called crazy more then a few times ;)
Stehno your thread ties in with 2 recent threads on "the sub problem"...if you take a look at the posts there seems to be 2 camps...Tireguy's post sums up the other point of view...my friend has the REL STORM 111 (like $1500) he said he can't find the proper intergration with his B&W 802's...yes it has an internal amp...which some folks say is not the best way...i'm looking into the new line of subs from FOCAL called UTOPIA 11WX 13WX 15WX...the construction looks STUNNING!!!...i'm looking for a sub that offers a soft subtle intergrated bass...in other words like Tireguy i don't want to hear the monitor AND the sub...if there is too much of a seam i'll do without
I am firmly in the full-range camp and use a REL Stadium III. I think a lot of people simply do not take the time to fully optimize the sub, which involves at least five major simultaneous variables: (1) room placement, (2) crossover point, (3) crossover slope, (4) sub output level, and (5) phasing. This is an extraordinary challenge that is beyond the desire of many (and the capability of some) to solve. I'm not trying to insult anyone, it's just that I think most people aren't willing to put out the effort to get it right. (Heck, even mine isn't fully optimized, due to home decorating issues...) But when you finally DO get it right, there is simply no comparison at all. And then you find that listening to a non-full-range system is just no longer satisfying. So like many things in high-end audio, it's both a blessing and a curse.:)
One other comment, which is not generally considered in these discussions: The combination of a high-quality monitor and an excellent sub, when set up properly, will almost always outperform a single large speaker system in a given room. (Caveat: any crossover point over 50Hz is too high to ever integrate seamlessly, so forget about tiny monitors that roll off at 80Hz.) This is due to the extraordinary flexibility of the sub/sat system in taming room modes in the bass while allowing for optimizing placement for midrange smoothness and imaging qualities. Yes, you can occasionally buy a full-range speaker and find a room placement which optimizes both imaging and the bass range (not to mention spousal aesthetic issues), but it is quite difficult, maybe even rare, and much more of a lottery than many people will admit. While the sub/sat system is not perfect either, it at least gives a much higher chance of actually achieving an overall optimum in the real world.
P.S. I would agree, I've never in my life heard an 18" cone that could keep pace musically. There's a reason RELs use 10" cones, even on their biggest subs.
Tweekerman: The REL Storm III is not a good match for the N802. The N802 is in another (higher) class than the Storm. Won't make much of a difference. I am not surprised he did not like it. But instead of giving up he needs to think higher.
Your friend needs to consider at the very least the REL Stadium III or even better the REL Stentor III. The Storm III is fine for the B&W N804, N805, CDM Series, or the Matrix 804 and 805.
I love my REL Sub. Would never go without one again.
Wonder of wonders! I would actually consider an active crossover and sub, with dedicated amp if, and this is a VERY big "if", I could seamlessly integrate it low enough to keep it out of the lower mids. I know that this departs from my normal philosophy, but for those who really have to have that rock bottom response, this arrangement could work if they could do it within the parameters I described.
Karls, then you haven't heard the Bag End Infra-sub 18 inch subwoofer. Very musical and very tight. Almost too tight if you can believe that. I demo'ed the Bag End for a few weeks and was very impressed. I stepped down a notch musically and went with a Triad Platinum 18 inch sub because it had more flexible dial-in capabilities. But still quite musical.
But, yes, I have an idea what you are saying because most subs under $2k are sloppy and woolly and have little or no definition to them regardless of size. That's why I always use the term musical when I talk about a good or better sub.
I own a pair of Aerial Acoustic 10T's which are an outstanding full-range speaker for the money. But even they only go down to about 25Hz. My Triad Platinum 18 inch subwoofer is quite musical and successfully reproduces down to at least 18Hz. This subwoofer simply supplements the 10T's to a very nice degree. Is it a perfect marriage? I doubt it, but it comes close.
Personally, in my current price range of $1k to $2k, I stay away from all 8", 10", and even 12" inch subs. Why? Because some to many at this size will typically peter out at 30Hz or 25Hz which means they are not really subwoofers in the first place. And at the this price break, there are very few 10 inch quality drivers that can handle the 20Hz regions without breaking up and overextending, congesting, etc..
At the $4k price range and up, the small driver size is less of a concern.
I'm kinda' anxious to get ahold of the Aerial Acoustic SW12 12 inch sub to hear how that sounds.
The Bag End design is VERY unique to say the least. The designer was definitely thinking "outside the box" on that one.
One of my friends used to work for Bag End and told me stories about them. Besides the cabinet's not being built too sturdily ( some reviewers have commented on this ), he told me that many will not meet quality control / spec but are shipped out anyhow. While he was not an audiophile in the least, he told me that he would never buy one knowing what he did. He did know his bass though, as he was both a decent drummer and bass player.
From the reviews on these, i'm assuming that most of them have to be at least pretty close to spec, otherwise they should be getting killed in the reviews. That is, if the reviewers are honest and know how to set subs up to begin with. Then again....
I talked to the designer in person about all of this and he told me it was all hogwash. He also wanted to know what the name of the employee was that told me these "lies" : ) Sean
Stehno, I am with you on this. I recently tried to hook up REL storm III with my Dunlavy V's(which in my room goes down to 20Hz). I wanted more, REL cut off at its lowest point, but I could always tell the pressure direction, perticularly the V's beng so time,phase and pulse coherent. I , now use Rel for movies only.
Sean, the construction quality of the Bag End was certainly not the best. That was another reason I did not want to keep it. However, even though it's been more than two years since I've demo'ed it in my home, I was quite impressed with it's low-end bass reproduction and how tight it was for an 18 inch subwoofer. Apparently, it's impressed reviewers as well.
Stehno: You're right in an absolute sense, but all systems involve compromise--at least all price-constrained systems do. I'm not sure I buy your premise that there is "much" musical information below 30 Hz, which is why I'm willing to compromise on a system that doesn't go that low. But if the information that IS down there is important to you, then that's not a parameter you'd want to compromise on.
Being a proponent of the need for reproduction in the lowest octave (20-40Hz) for all music above this range, I think that when using a sub there are at least six major simultaneous variables (adding one to Karls list): (1) room placement, (2) crossover point, (3) crossover slope, (4) sub output level, (5) phasing, and (6) EQ. Without EQ, one can achieve quite a bit with room placement, but with EQ it sounds integrated to me. A lack of integration may have as much or more to do with the sub/room interactions as the sub/mains interactions.
Rlwainwright. Since my room is 10x12 according to your suggestion I should not bother with any frequency below 90Hz ? Obviously not.
Driving frequencies below the lowest resonant frequency of the room is the whole point of most subwoofers. You should listen to a good sub sometime. It may not be to your taste, but I guarantee you'll hear frequencies much lower than your simple formula suggests.
Just a note here....
I found a good balance simply by backing the sub out of the mix a bit.
Big, old amp with level controls and a aged Canton sub...when turned down..added a nice foundation to the system, without taking over.
The less you push to it, the less it clouds things up.
When you have a 12X14 room, you have to get your base somehow...the Tabs certainly dont go low enough on thier own.
Good info in this thread!!! :)
>> ...but I guarantee you'll hear frequencies much lower than your simple formula suggests. <<
No, what you are "hearing" is 1/4 and 1/2 wavelengths reflected back upon themselves giving you peaks and valleys as you move thru the room. I didn't make up the laws of physics, I simply (must) abide by them. It is physically impossible for your room to support a full wavelength of very low frequency - some fraction of it will bounce off the back wall and then reflect back onto itself, causing amplitude doubling at some location and complete cancellation at another.
If you want true low freq. reproduction, ya gotta have a big room or hall - them's the facts.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about low bass in small rooms, so in an effort to clear this up....
Any enclosed (airtight) space gives a 6dB/octave BOOST as you go down in frequency, beginning roughly where the wavelength of the sound wave is equal to the longest room dimension. For a typical room length of 20 ft, this means that the room is actually adding 6 dB/octave starting around the 50-60 Hz range. This means that a sealed loudspeaker, which would normally roll off at 12 dB/octave in free space, will actually roll off at only 6 dB/octave in the room. Deep bass is actually much easier to achieve in small rooms; the trick is to prevent the speaker or sub from overpowering the midbass region, typically around 60 Hz. This again is a real advantage of the monitor/sub combination, since the main speakers start to roll off in this range and the REL can be brought in lower, around 40 Hz in this example, thus giving a flat in-room response. In contrast, a full-range loudspeaker will often exhibit a midbass peak in this same 50-60 Hz region, which is often very difficult to eliminate, even with careful placement.
This is also why it is so important to "match" loudspeaker size to room size so you don't end up with a hump or suckout. Let's say you put a large full-range speaker that is flat to 30 Hz in a room that begins boosting at 60 Hz; you will end up with a 6dB RISE from 60 to 30 Hz and it will sound "thuddy". Same with a monitor that rolls off at 60 Hz in a room that doesn't boost until 30 Hz; anything below 60 Hz will be MIA and the sound will be incredibly "thin". This is especially true of vented monitors which will roll off at 24 dB/octave through this region. Again, the sub/sat combo allows you to tune virtually any combination of sub and sat to the particular room it is placed in, by virtue of the ability to tune the response through this critical region.
You're right that there are peaks and valleys in the bass response due to the standing wave pattern in the room, and that this means sub placement is critical relative to the walls and listening position in most rooms.
Within the peaks and valleys you are still hearing true low frequency notes ... just the standing wave pattern makes the relative volume of the sub and the main speakers vary thoughout the room. Hence the placement issue.
This aside you can have very satisfying, if not perfect, low frequency reproduction in a small room, and for me this substantially increases my enjoyment of the music. What you are presenting are facts, but they're not the full facts, and to imply that they are is misleading.
Have you ever heard a good sub setup ?
Goodness...I would have assumed that all you guys would have used subs. I'm a newbie here, but in the early 90's in college, myself and my friends were BIG into car audio. Not the minitrucks full of subwoofers stuff, but proper systems. I had an 88 4runner at the time with a Denon CD player/tuner(no amp in it)a Nakamichi PA304 30x4 amp running Nakamichi plate speakers up front & polk 6x9's in the back seat area. Boy those polks sucked. A friend of mine talked me into getting another set of plates & a sub. He sold me a pair of Soundstream SS12 reference series subs and a 50 watt soundstream amp. I took them to the local high end home & car audio shop in town where I knew the car audio installer (this was Audio Ecstasy in San Luis Obispo CA...highly recommended!!!...to bad I live in MO now). He checkout out the subs & found one to be bad. He told me that it was because the person that sold them to me didnt run enough power to them. I guess new soundstream stuff isn't so hot, but I guess that these subs were relatively rare...so rare in fact that in trade for the broken sub, he built a custom box, installed the rest of the stuff, completely rewired my system AND gave me a rock bottom deal on an xover & 200w fosgate amp that was powerful enough to run a single sub setup...the box was huge per soundstreams specs and HEAVY..the driver itself was a monster. Anyhow, to make a long story short, I couldn't believe what I was missing...still I wasn't close to where my friends were with their systems, but I was sold. I dont know if I could live without one in any music system.
I know very well that small speakers can produce deep bass with enough amplification but to think that large subs are slow and can't keep up with music is poppycock. Bass is slower than midrange and treble that's one of the reasons that it is bass. Some bass drums are ten feet across, kick drums are large, bass guitars have longer and fatter strings. When most people talk about how quick a speakers bass is it's because the speaker has less bass output. If you cross a sub over too high then it will, muddy up the sound. I use a Mirage Fifteen inch sub with my Chario Academy 3 Jr's crossed over at 63hz and it's wonderful. I do not run the mains through the crossover to keep the signal as pure as possible.
I stand by my previous post on standing wave patterns and I don't think that there is anything in the link above that refutes it. I can understand people using "laws of physics" arguments to deny that cables sound different, or that solid state equipment needs to "burn in", but to say that a subwoofer is not capable of reproducing low frequencies in small rooms ... well I never thought I'd see such a post. I suggest you visit a REL dealer and give the theory a practical examination.
I believe your speakers ought to produce the entire audio spectrum, for you to fully enjoy music as it ought to be heard and felt.
That being said, my speakers only go down to 50hz according to manufacturer specs. Yet, I fully enjoy my system.
Someday, I might add a subwoofer. Until this day, I still haven't heard a subwoofer that sounds better than a Velodyne ULD 18 or 15. Although, the early 90's production Klipsch subs works wonderfully with my speakers, KEF Referecnes.
I'm in Tireguy's camp, I've never heard a sub that seamlessly integrated with the satellites. This is not to say that I've never heard a satellite/sub system sound good (like Pipedreams and Airfoil), but there was always a discontinuity and or muddiness between the low bass and everything else.
It's a matter of degree and priority. Some are more than willing to compromise seamlessness for low bottom end. I'm happy at 35 hz. In 18 years of listening to sub/sat systems, my experience has been "honeymoonish." That is I hook the sub up and it sounds fantastic, but after awhile (one week or two) something is amiss, like a muddiness or an afterthought. And, low and behold, once I take the sub away the music gets its' life back. Then the cycle repeats, though a lot less now than before.
I think that if the speaker system was designed around using a sub, then it may have a better chance of sounding more seamless or less discontinuous depending on how you look at it.
Is it not entirely possible that some of you never had a good quality sub to work or with and/or you simply were not able to configure it properly with your mains and/or room acoustics?
If we assume that a few of the deficiencies you mention do exist and hypothetically, there's no way to correct them even if you had the very best sub, the very best room acoustics, and the very best system. Wouldn't the minor deficiency or two be worth overlooking rather than throwing the baby out with the bath water?
And that was kinda' my point of this thread.
Because the cannon shots in the 1812 Overture are not reproduced exactly as you anticipated (which itself is subjective) or there was a little hump, you therefore censor the cannon shots altogether?
To me, this simply defies logic. You'll treat your room for deficiencies with the mains. You'll upgrade your amp to solidify and pronounce the bottom regions, you'll bi-wire, etc.. In other words, you'll (IMO) apply band-aids to every other aspect but simply will not entertain the one possible cure that could resolve most concerns in this region.
It kinda' puzzles me I guess.
the sub i'm looking for HAS TO offer a seemless intergrated sound...if i "hear " the sub while listening to the music i don't want it in my system...i'll do without...howevere the brand new sub line from FOCAL the 11WX 13WX 15WX seems to be the one up to the job..i'll use my out on my JADIS to drive a sub amp, any suggestions on superior sub amps? as well should i go single 13 , 15 or dual 11's?
I'm with you Stehno. If you enjoy music in which low bass content reproduced in proper scale and dynamic balance with the rest of the music's content is important, I think it is better to have the bass and put up with a some discontinuity than to forsake the bass altogether. However, I would not (and do not) compromise the output quality of my main speakers by using the crossovers in powered subwoofers. Adding more bass "underneath" my main speakers' output is the path I have taken (using RELs), and I am much the happier for it. Yeah, I can hear the subwoofers, now and then, but for me the good far outweighs the bad.
Tweekerman, If you've got to do it, then use a sub that has a driver with a very low Fs(resonant frequency). Usually the larger size drivers. Large phase shifts appear around the Fs, and can extend into the listening range. Fs should be about 15Hz or lower if possible. Then, actively cross out the sub as low as possible to avoid contamination of the lower mids/upper bass. If you have a closed box main speaker,the lows will roll off at about 12db/octave below the Fs of your woofer. If you have a vented enclosure, the lows will roll off rather steeply at 24db/octave. Allow the mains to roll of naturally with no cross out. Set your sub crossover point to 1 octave below the mains Fs and use a 12db slope on the sub crossover if you have sealed box mains. If you have vented mains, set the crossover point at 1/2 octave below the Fs of the PORT, and use a 24db/octave slope on the sub crossover. By matching the rolloff points at these points, the slopes will intersect halfway beween, and the additive effects of the two rolloffs intersecting will give a theoretically smooth transition. This is just a starting point and may require adjustment if you hear a hole or a peak. If you don't know the Fs, then use the 3db down point of your mains' response curve as a guide.
What happens techinically if you add a sub? And also, what is the proper way to add a sub? If I plug in the powered sub to a "regular out" on the pre-amp, does the signal somehow only send the lower frequencies to the sub, thereby reducing the "load" on the main speakers woofers?, or is the "signal strength" going out of the pre-amp to both the main amp and the sub-woofer relatively the same strength?
Rwwear, your comments regarding "bass speed" are WAY off in left field.
What is typically referred to as "fast bass" is a low frequency system that suffers from minimal overhang, ringing and has excellent transient response on the whole. To achieve such, most designers typically resort to a sealed design with a Q of between .5 and .7 at the highest. Some have had very good luck with specific driver and TL combinations i.e. the Kef B139.
All of those designs tend to sound somewhat "dry" or "tight and lean" compared to other designs that have similar frequency response curves. This is due to the lack of "bloat" or "ringing" that they AREN'T introducing.
The effect that many people consider "good bass" or "meaty bottom end" is similar to what an electric guitar player looks for in his sound. This is called "sustain", which is a form of ringing distortion. It helps to fill the sound out somewhat by carrying on longer than it would naturally and / or by adding IMD ( intermodulation distortion ). Needless to say, it might sound good but it is not an "accurate" portrayal of what was recorded. The speakers contribute their signature to every recording uniformly. As such, that is a distortion or "coloration" of what one should hear.
Think of "bass weigth" and "bass speed" this way. Try looking at a physically fit, muscular atheletic person and a "slob" that are the same height and weigh the same. One carries themselves much better and efficiently but end up weighing the same in terms of "measurements" that most people can relate to. Not only that, one has a very different presentation than the other. This is true even though they look the same on paper.
I do agree that many times, people confuse lack of extension or "bass weight" for "fast bass". That is primarily just a lack of experience and something that can be corrected with time if they continue on their path to "audio nirvana". Sean
My point is that a large driver can produce quality bass. It's as simple as that. I have always been a proponent of sealed cabinets because of their fast transient response but that has nothing to do with driver size.
And while I may have been using a shotgun approach to get my point across, the very nature of bass is that it is slower than the higher frequencies.
As far as accuracy goes, who's to say? In order for you to know, you would have to hear exactly what the recording engineer heard. And have you ever been to a live rock concert? Would you really want your system to sound like that? I wouldn't but, it would be accurate if it did.
I don't consider myself an expert nor an audiophile but I do have a high resolution system. And I've been in the sound business many years as a manufacturer and in retail.
Stehno how much music am i missing below say 40hz..very little in most classical music..i prefer to do w/o a sub than to make all manner of attemps to adjust readjust..and so on..i'm into a super superior quality midwoofer AND a top quality amp..if i did not have a tube amp and wanted soild punch i would get a electroacompaniet amp
Good question, Tweekerman. If Telarc's Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture real cannons instead sound like shots fired from a .22 pistol, how much have you missed?
How about Telect's Copland Fanfare for the Common Man cd track 2 where the kettle drums(?) are pretty closely miked, but I have no idea what what these would sound like rolled off at 40Hz. The decay and reverberation continue forever on one or two of these strikes. But some would never know this.
I have a 14 year old Telarc movie score cd. The score from Back to the Future has a deep synthesizer running through about 2/3rd's of the entire piece. If you had monitors dropping off around 40Hz, you would probably never know it.
I have a 15 year old Tracy Chapman pop cd that has some very deep bass (synthesizer I believe). My Aerial 10T go to 26Hz, and the bass notes on this drop off without the sub at around 24 or 25 Hz perhaps. With the sub turned on the bottom goes deeper and continues rather than dropping off.
How about Herb Alpert's Greatest Hits cd (a fun cd) where on the opening of Rotation on track 17, there is a very, very deep percussion that is strong. Without a sub, one would never know it's there. Played it on a friend's system who had an NHT sub two (I don't like this boomy sub at all and neither does he) and the deep notes compressed, muffled, and disappeared. It sounded terrible.
A musician friend brought over a pipe organ music cd because he wanted to hear what he might be missing. He couldn't believe how much deeper, fuller, lifelike, and more 3-D the music sounded with a sub.
These are just a few of my numerous examples of what you might miss.
As for adjusting and re-adjusting, I've tweaked my sub maybe 6 or 7 times times in the last 2 years. Shoot! Some guys swap out their tubes more often than that.
Let me ask you: If you installed a high filter cutoff at say 16kHz where everything above is now gone, what have you missed?
You probably think I'm crazy for even asking such a question. But that is what puzzles me. How can so many be so willing to disgard musical info at one end of the spectrum but not at the other end or anywhere else in between?
Isn't every musical note the equivalant to every other musical note?
If not, then who, aside from the composer, is qualified to determine which notes are worth retaining (reproducing) and which notes are to be discarded? And please don't say 'HP'.
yes i would like to have all the musical presence i can get but like every choice in driver selection there is a trade off...i'm sure IF i found a sub i liked there is a possibility that that the system would have a monitor + sub sound...i would be nagged by the "split in the seam" sound...like you say every now and then i may miss something..but at the moment i've found a 8 inch midwoofer that supposingly goes down to 30 hz..that's good enough for me..and this driver has very sweet upper midbass qualities..the biggest problem today is the lack of quality speakers..thats why i'm a big fan of "kits"..you have some choice in drivers and xover parts...most all the audiogonners disagree and vote commercial labs engineering abilities "the tried and true" over the solo designers abilities ..so a good sub may not be for everyone but great sounding monitors are..
Tweekerman, I don't think anybody would disagree with you when you state that every choice in a driver selection employs trade-offs or compromises.
Therefore, again I ask, why are people so willing to accept the trade-off's or compromises of the drivers reproducing the frequencies between say 30Hz and 40kHz, but yet are not willing to accept like trade-offs or compromises of those drivers capable of reproducing the frequencies between say 16Hz and 30Hz?
Are you implying that these lower frequencies are so important that unless they are 'perfectly' reproduced, they should remain untouchable, unapproachable, and thereby inaudible?
Stehno taking into consideration your previous fine and excellent post on the thread "best 8 inch woofer" (i still say that the SEAS may offer overall best)...what i'm getting at..is that i'm working hard on getting a great 3 way design first which will deliver SUPERIOR hz's from say 30hz (SEAS W22!!) to the uppers hz's (RT8P!!!)..if i can accomplish this then i may consider to move on to the sub hz's..BUT under one condition...i don't want any 10 12 or larger (sub) woofer interfering with the seemless sweet sound of the SEAS W22 + SEAS 12CY + RT8..the one way to do this is to get a active xover...but they are $$$..i would go bryston or better marchand 4 way (tube) active xover..and the one sub that comes to mind is the new FOCAL series called ADIOM..the 11WX 13WX 15WX...the 11WX's would be first choice..importantly keep in mind they are expensive..but check out their super tech magnet design!!!..the 15 monster weighs over 50 lbs!!!so yes i fully agree with you about capturing the complete music in the last few but important hz's...but i'm afraid there are not very many subs that do a good job at it..no i'm not a perfectionist..just like to get best bang for hard earned dollar...here is a senario: AUDIOM 13WX + SKANNING 8inch + RAVEN 3 + MARCHAND XM126 ACTIVE TUBE XOVER...try to top that!!!!
SInce very few monitors do 40hz...intergrating a sub can be difficult...even at the 40hz(full range) point..the speakers are down -3db...and a sub at the same setting is down -3db as well...that is why crossing over the sub at an octave higher...in this case around 80hz...to avoid a low mid "suckout" is advisable.
Unsound, as one who watches TV mostly just for Fox news, the no spin zone, I ain't buying the video analogy.
If the majority of the members here on A'gon did most of their audio shopping at Best Buy, then your video analogy might make sense. But at least those people shopping at Best Buy try as it seems many of them will pick up some cheap subwoofer because they know they're missing something way down there.
It just doesn't make sense for so many to snub their noses at retrieving low frequencies. Especially when they've dumped tens of thousands of dollars into their systems and rooms and especially when some to many others have integrated a subwoofer into their system with much success.
I believe it's a mental block. I also believe somebody told them or they read long ago they were not a 'purist' or true to the hobby if they were to use a sub. So they refrained and continue to do so.
Kinda' reminds me of the scientists claiming for the last 15 years that eggs were bad for us to eat. All of a sudden last year, the next generation of scientists refute the previous generation (as scientists always do) by announcing that eggs are now good for consumption on a regular basis claiming in the announcement that the cholesterol contained in eggs is good for us.
Well, I've been eating eggs all along every chance I could and enjoying every minute of it. Yet there are still many who will not eat eggs to this day because they've been conditioned to think eggs are bad.
I think the same analogy applies to many here and their view toward subwoofers.
Well, that's my take anyway.
For some it comes down to expense also.I wish I had found a sub to go lower than 25hz.,but at the $400 price point what's a boy to do!So I bought an NHT Subonei that is ok.I really would rather have a fullrange speaker that goes to atleast 22hz. not ported.
I think a big thing that is mentioned elsewhere is the way a Sub can force some music out which is not a good thing.Forget what I had read or where I read about that ,but I have noticed it at times.
My new speaker's will go down to 30 Hz.(might be less to 27Hz.).So there will be very little in the way of help from the NHT and I might sell it and wait for a sub that goes to 20Hz and blends well with my system.Bought the NHT before finding my favorite speaker's.
My 2-ways go down to 32Hz. with very acurate ,articulate Bass and that is a big plus.If you do not have the region of 40Hz. taken care of in the Mains your screwed!
One other factor is what type of music you play?If there is alot of Bass Pedal then you are gonna pay for that 20Hz..
The best thing that came from knowing my Sub was worth having is checkout Pink FLoyds Umma Gumma Remasterd.7th track "Down the Narrow Path" at the beginning there is a heartbeat that when I heard it I wonderd if there was something wrong with my system.I had never noticed it before and when I turned the sub off it was not there.Freaked me out!
Things like that are worth knowing they are there!