Top notch speakers with their own sub


I have a pair of Infinity Prelude MTS complete with subs and towers. They serve me very well, don't require too much power because they have their own powered subs. The multiple components for upper base and mid range do have their advantage, giving a rather complete sound projection. This pair of Class A speakers certain have lived up to their pedigree, but the technology is about 10 years old. What would recommend for the current technology? I am looking for a pair of full size speakers that have their own powered sub.
spatine
Shadorne,

I can't recommend the approach (you state several good reasons not to), but I will say it worked really well for me. I filtered below 25hz, so the max boost was applied only to the narrow range between 25hz and 35hz. Test sweeps were run at app 95db and were quite loud - they exhibited no ill behavior that I could detect. Music reproduction was always pretty damn impressive to my ear, though I can't swear that there was ever much signal in the highly boosted frequency range under discussion here.

Marty
Equalizing peaks and nulls becomes more practical with a distributed multisub system. Before equalization the peaks are less peaky, the nulls are less nully, and there is less spatial variation (meaning that the response doesn't change as much from one location within the room to another). That being said, I'd still be hesitant about putting a lot of boost into a null unless you had plenty of headroom available - which apparently was the case in Marty's situation.
Hey Duke (or anyone else who cares to comment) - Is a flat response always necessarily an ideal target? I can understand addressing major dropouts at the sweet spot, certainly. When we go attend a concert the folks on the mixing board aren't getting a flat response from the room, are they? So if we're just talking about bringing the intent of the sound engineer / producer's work into our listening room with the least coloration/distortion, I expect that would lean towards the flat response, but could that also, for any reason, tend to sound any more or less engaging than a response that is more typical of most rooms (ie peaky)? Just curious what your take on that might be. Certainly if the Planetarium system speaks to this end it is a very convincing voice for that approach. I just wondered if that was the ultimate goal, or is that only a shade of something broader in what you are trying to achieve? What occurred to me as extraordinary about what you've achieved, at least in the room I heard, was a very natural and seamless integration of the low-end that did not call attention to itself as such, it was simply there at one end of the spectrum, yet was unmistakable as such. What I've objected to in some other approaches is that you become very aware of the low end to where it becomes distracting. I don't know whether this is due to overemphasis, room nodes, or some other imbalance. So is a flat response always the goal? Or?
Discussion on sub equalization and placement going on today is precisely the reason I hesitate straying from the mainstream speaker establishment. Now I have more plausible theory as to why major speaker manufacturers don't want to package non-integrated subs with their main speakers for music listening just yet. The technology is not sufficiently developed. Secondly, the idea of having 4 sub is quite intrusive, one way to get into major fight with your wife. Oh well, back to square one for me! But then the Prelude MTS is not bad at all really.
Jax2, in my opinion fairly flat in-room response is the goal in the bass region, and above the bass region, I prefer a gently downward-sloping curve. If I have to choose between too much and too little bass energy, I'll choose too little because that's less likely to be distracting.

Which brings up something else that most rooms do at low frequencies: Boundary reinforcement, sometimes called "room gain". Breifly, as we go down in frequency and the wavelengths become progressively longer relative to the distance to room boundaries, the first reflections become more in-phase rather than random-phase, so the net result is a roughly 3 dB per octave rise in bass energy as we go down below 100 Hz. This of course varies from room to room and with speaker positioning within a room, but since subs are usually placed close to the intersection of at least two room boundaries (on the floor and up against a wall) it's worth taking into account.

Without going off on a long semi-technical tangent, I'll just say that in my opinion a worthy "target curve" for a subwoofer system would be the approximate inverse of this 3-dB-per-octave typical room gain. If the subs are "flat" all by themselves, by the time room gain is factored in they will be bass-heavy. But if we have to err, imho best to err on the side of too much bass rolloff rather than not enough, so I'd rather have 6 dB per octave of rolloff (before room gain) below 100 Hz instead of none at all.

Duke