2. speakers
  3. 1260306605

Is a Sub worth the bother?

I have a small, simple system that pretty much meets my listening needs. It's an NAD C715 (all-in-one deal) with a pair of Epos EL3 bookshelf speakers. I've been kicking around the idea of getting a cheap subwoofer with the idea that it would add a little oomph to things. This is strictly a music system, not home theater. I guess my questions are: 1) would a sub help that much or am I just limited because of the EL3s? 2) If a sub would help, would a cheap one be okay (I'm thinking along the lines of the Dayton sub 100, perhaps an Energy Take Classic 8--$100 at Costco these days). My room is roughly 12 x 20, but again, I'm not looking to bring down the house/neighborhood.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
comfortstarr
veroman's avatar
veroman
298 posts
 
ime this 1000$ number is way too high! and integration etc is hardly a deal crusher. this high end myth for subs is so much market hooey to me. i paid under$700 new for mk12'250 watt sub with all bells and whistles and it was marvelous addition to my tube system with hardly any hassle. these subs have all the fine tuning controls built in and it was fast tight musical and deep. some audiophiles i think are hung up on this 'seemless integration' mentality when in effect, unless you have main spkrs that dont go below 80hz, the integration is harldy a hurdle. the amount of overlap in actual frequency range is minimal and non directional and at that frq. human hearing is not that well tweeked to notice nuance as it is in rest of sonic range. i want to reassure original poster that he can find and accomplish his goal well within his budget. no offence intended
martykl
3,578 posts
 
I'm glad Vero made it work on his budget. Note my qualifications: IME and IMO.

I tried a more modest budget and failed. Wanted it to work - and it didn't - FOR ME. I would not try again without a Digital Room Correction/Parametric EQ device. But as Veroman's experience points out...YMMV.

By the way, it ain't market hooey. I have measured the difference before DRC and after. No mystery as to why the integration issues -and overall performance problems - were very, very audible. I suspect most hobbyists here would be stunned at how poor uncorrected in-room bass performance really is and just how badly mismatched a sub installed by ear will be. (At least my own reasonably obsessive, but sadly ineffective best effort at installation by ear.)

I'd also add that a modestly priced, by audiophile standards (+/- $600) sub like the entry level 12" models from SVS and Rythmik are awfully good. I just personally also needed the $450 Velodyne SMS-1 (RTA/X-over/PEq unit) to achieve integration I could live with.

Your experience may or may not reflect my own.

Marty
simbatran
9 posts
 
IMHO, a sub is only needed for watching movie since it needs to produce a continuous and wide bas. For listening to music, if you have a decent pair of speakers, it will beat the sub outright.

I have a 5.1 Polk system with a 10" Polk sub to watch movie and a pair of Celestion A2 to listen to music. The bass from the Celestion simply way outperforms the Polk.
jbatlanta
97 posts
 
SimbAtran......wrong!

I run 3 subs with my Wilson Audio Maxx3's. MX-5000's.

They are run directly off the pre-amp...NO interaction with the speakers at all, which receive a full signal from the pre-amp/amplifiers.

They are filtered waaaay down below 60hz and add a nice slam when appropriate to the music.

You don't know what you're missing! Do people ever start dancing when you play good music? No???? Hmmmmm. Wonder why not.
Post removed 
More to discover