why use towers if you've got a sub??

Interesting the way we all think and hear differently about this. I find a sub to be near essential for music, even with near full range tower speakers. I don't give a hoot for home theater applications, so it's strictly about music for me. Perhaps listening environments vary so much that that is a major factor in our differing opinions? I've used a sub with Maggie 1.6's, my ACI Talisman SE's had built in self powered subs, and I ended up adding one JL Fathom F112 to augment the 32hz. extension of my Tidal Piano Cera's. I cross it over a 40hz. and it is subtle in the way it affects most music. But I love the way it adds ambient cues to music. Small things like hearing the rumble of the stage under the orchestra interact with the whack of a tympani add immeasurably to the sense of suspended reality a good system induces.

Ray, if you look at the very top of the page, you'll see in the second line "learn-forums-home theater." Still, I'm not sure why whether one has two, three, five, or seven channels really matters with regard to the original question. Unless I'm missing something, differences between two channel and home theater subwoofer use is only a matter of implementation and quantity. I suppose the OP's original question could be interpreted as asking whether there is a better alternative to the THX camp's way of implementing bass management; letting all bass below 80hz. be sent to the subwoofer through the LFE output of the processor?