Older subwoofers better than newer subwoofers!
I was considering buying a new subwoofer to replace my Bowers and Wilkins ASW2000, which is a substantial subwoofer with a 12 inch driver.
I spoke to somebody at Bowers and Wilkins and a dealer and there are issues with newer subs where they are tighter but no longer have the ability to fill the room with a fullness that the older subs have. The feedback they receive from new buyers is that the very lowest frequency experience has been diminished with the newer subwoofers because they’re too tight. So if you replace your older subwoofers in a home theater environment you may be disappointed.
So I think I’ll keep my older subwoofer. Sadly people have no appreciation for these vintage subwoofer experiences since most of the current gear offered is built with dsp stuff, smaller drivers and poorly powered Active subwoofers. Further, because of the shortcomings buyers are forced to buy two to ensure a good room coverage. Sometimes progress isn’t what it pretends to be.
When it comes to the quality of sound of a sub in a room the frequency response trumps everything else but unfortunately audiophiles try to attribute good and bad sounding subs to everything BUT the frequency response. A good DSP and room treatment can make a lot of subs sound marvelous in a lot more rooms than they would otherwise. @toro3 Are you sure you don’t mean system Q? Which controls the steepness of the high pass roll-off and general frequency response? |
I’m sure more knowledgeable people can explain or correct me, but the way I’ve interpreted it via the way it’s employed by a Rythmik sub - high dampening (tightest/cleanest sound), mid, as well as low (looser - perhaps more room filling). |
