Classical music, 2-channel, and sub-woofers?

[wgscott]

Would adding sub-woofers make classical music on a simple 2-channel system (eg: mine, see below) sound better (cello and so forth)?

 

I've always scoffed at subwoofers. Although they make explosions in movies sound better, I never thought about them in 2-channel systems. Then I was watching this DVD by Jim Smith about how to improve your system without spending lots of money, and ... well, I guess dropping a few $1K on subs is relative. He suggests (at least) two.

 

Let me preface this by saying I know absolutely nothing about subs. I have a cheesy one that came with my TV sound bar.

 

 

[ted_b]

a good idea, if and only if, your mains do not handle 15-30hz sufficiently (and most don't). The classic positional advantages of sub/satellite (put sub where it reinforces best, put midrange tweeter where it images best) are made even more advantageous with multiple subs that do nice smoothing, mode control, etc.

 

However, on paper and in practice are two different things. If one needs to roll off their mains, even to a small degree, then the fun begins, and the often-difficult tasks of sub integration, phase issues, etc begin.

 

I have a good friend who has a tremendous 2 channel only setup near Chicago. Teajay's mains are his wonderful Maggie 20's (on Myestands), which he biamplifies with Pass and Threshold. He was able to take Martin Logan Depth subs and calmly roll them in around 30-35hz and the result is fantastic. No real work involved, and it just fills in the lowest of lows.

 

We aren't all that lucky.

 

[Amused]

Even with your CM7s, a sub will fill out that bottom octave with vibrance and weight. For me, when listening to Yo-Yo Ma, I can feel his cello strings vibrate during low passages. A sub (or 2) not only fills out those bottom frequencies, but increases the physical experience too.

 

The only caveats are, not all subs are created equally, and setup/blending can be a total PITA. Being a REL owner and zealot, I can't recommend anything higher than a ST series. The JL offerings are scary powerful, and are surprisingly musical for their muscle, so they're another solid option.

 

But, yeah...a sub(s) can absolutely be beneficial with classical in a 2 channel rig.

 

[wgscott]

Thanks to both of you for the insights.

 

I also worry about power consumption. I've noticed these generally tend to be class D amps, which I really appreciate, but still wonder how much power they consume, especially when idle, waiting for a signal to power-up. They seem to have huge wattage ratings...

 

[HIFI]

Solid state Class D Amplification is super efficient as compared to Class A, B, AB. Class A amplifiers typically are about 50% efficient or worse . . .2 watts from the wall, 1 watt to speaker. If efficiency is what you are after you would be on the correct path.

 

[HIFI]

Without knowing the room size it would be difficult to recommend any quantity of subs. My first choice is to have no sub and speakers that satisfy. My second choice is to add sub bass and not so much sub woofer(s). If this can be accomplished with one sub I feel that is the best and it will be easier to blend.

 

[Audio_ELF]

Personally I would be looking at CM9 rather than "upgrading" with a pair of subs... But that's just me...

 

Eloise

 

[Amused]

I'm not totally familiar with JL's amp design, but the majority of RELs aren't Class D. I believe only the R Series uses digital amps and they all have power switches.

 

[wgscott]

This is still at the idle speculation stage...

 

But isn't the CM9 just a CM7 with one more copy of the bass speaker? I probably should have got that the first time around. I think they discontinued the CM7.

 

[wgscott]

20' X 24' with 19' peak "cathedral" ceiling.

 

[HIFI]

I agree with Audio_elf. That or some other really FINE speaker that extends deeper. I would consider moving from Class D amplification for your current or any new loudspeakers. Yes . . . I am a Solid State Class A fan.

 

Room size listed . . . One sub dialed in correct and easy to match with your full range pair.

 

[wgscott]

Moving from Class D amplification? I just got there.

 

The Class D kit sounds a lot better than the Nova's class A amp. Especially the bass. I have wondered whether class D for the bass and class A for the midrange/treble might be better, but I am shy of mixing amps for bi-amping. But maybe I could have a dedicated bridged amp for each bass speaker, and the Nova's class A for the midrange/treble. Oh, the possibilities for degrading the sound are almost endless...

 

This comes from some sort of OCD need to screw around with stuff, rather than any particular dissatisfaction with the sound.

 

I'm also trying to keep electrical consumption to a minimum.

 

Here is how the room looks, fwiw:

 

 

[HIFI]

Why are you worried about power consumption? Just curious.

 

Nice room and it looks as though you have the loudspeakers on the short wall . . . good. I have two thoughts that contradict. The speakers look as though they are too far apart for best imaging performance. Additionally the bass drivers may do better closer together. The contradiction in my thinking is the bass amplitude may drop as you move them away from outside wall. I would still try sneaking them together a bit for imaging and bass trueness.

 

 

[wgscott]

The photo is somewhat deceptive. The speakers are a bit more than 8' apart, but the listening position is about 14' from the line drawn between them, which I worry is already too long a distance given their separation. Also, they are on a 45° angle between the short wall (on the left) and a long wall (on the right). So I don't know if that makes it better, worse, or what, but I can't really move the listening seat any closer.

 

Here is a slightly different view to give you an idea. (I've since moved the speakers forward and stained the fireplace mantle shelf.)

 

 

As for why we want to conserve electricity, my main goal is to produce more via solar panels than we consume. We didn't get there in the first year, so any new electricity-sucking appliance I want to be as energy-efficient as possible.

 

[HIFI]

I see now . . . Speakers are really projecting from a corner. If so that corner should be providing some bass reinforcement.

 

OK . . .two subs is way too much. One sub located close to stage and crossed in low enough to meet your B&W's. Tuning is by ear but my goal would be to find the spot where your loudspeakers start to roll off in the low end. I would then work from the lowest frequency x-over point on your sub and bring it up to a frequency that is a tiny bit lower. The goal is to accomplish flat response with speakers and sub together. In home audio it will be best that these two players are operating in their differing bandwidths for many reasons.

 

 

[Jim Smith]

"OK . . .two subs is way too much."

 

May I respectfully ask why that would be the case?

 

In the video, and at seminars as well, the point I've made re subs is that I'd rather have none than one. This is assuming main speakers that are relatively full range, and in some cases, smaller speakers as well.

 

In fact, going back to the early 80s in my high end audio shop, I've (almost) never allowed a client to buy one sub. Instead, I urged them to wait until they could afford two.

 

Incidentally, I've done demos for skeptics that proved conclusively that one sub could hurt the sound stage in a way that none or two cannot.

 

Buying subs for near full-range speakers isn't neccessarily about getting more bass or even some notion of better bass per se.

 

Now where did I put that flame retardant suit...?

 

 

 

[wgscott]

I'm really enjoying the videos, and they certainly get me thinking about stuff I had previously dismissed or ignored (subs being among them). They augment the book in a very positive way. I've gone through #2 and #1 now (except for the multi-channel home theatre part). On to #3 probably tonight.

 

[HIFI]

My consideration was collective. Given the amount of power and size of speakers the OP has now I do not feel he has enough acoustical energy to merit two subs (MONO). I also feel that what ever sub the OP ends up with will be equalized at a low level once set for flat response. So two subs would be at a whisper volume and I feel not needed.

 

BTW . . . I still favor a two channel audio system without subs.

 

Was your Audio store in the US? What is/was the name? I have traveled around and been in a few stores during the early 80's.

 

[Jim Smith]

Audition in Birmingham, AL - 1979 to 1991.

 

Well, I have a stereo pair of subs to use with speakers that are relatively flat to almost 30 Hz.

 

But I didn't get them to get better bass as it's commonly thought of.

 

And subs that are integrated properly should not be audible - in fact, if you know they are on because you can hear them, you've got more work to do.

 

For two channel acoustic music, mono subs - one, two, or even several - are emphatically NOT what I am recommending. It's not two mono subs, it's a pair of subs in stereo.

 

[HIFI]

"And subs that are integrated properly should not be audible - in fact, if you know they are on because you can hear them, you've got more work to do."

 

I like where your head is on this.

 

[wgscott]

Last night with the DVD enlightened me. I skipped the home theatre part because I have no interest in home theatre (apart from my Vizio sound bar picked up at Costco, mainly a bone thrown to the rest of the family to keep them away from my 2 channel system).

 

I almost skipped the sub part, since I had no particular interest in subs and my bass sounds perfectly OK, but I was too lazy to get up and turn off the DVD. So I listened. And learned.

 

I also learned I need to get rid of my "cathedral ceiling." Heh.

 

[Bob Stern]

Random thoughts, not to be taken too seriously:

 

Since you're more interested in a fun DIY project rather than overcoming any bothersome deficiency in the sound, a sub is a good idea because it should be easy to build yourself. After it's built, you can spend unlimited hours playing with a software-implemented crossover on your Mac.

 

Re power consumption, I thought you just finished building a class D amp. Don't you know how much power it draws?

 

Instead of a sub, a more useful DIY project probably would be to download the free Room EQ Wizard and use software parametric EQ to flatten the frequency response of your loudspeaker+room combination. Parametric EQ "audio units" are built into OS X. A supposedly better quality implementation is the FabFilter Volcano, $134 for 4-band stereo EQ. For almost same price you could buy a used Behringer DEQ2496 on Audiogon.

 

An alternative project would be to open up your B&W speakers and replace the internal crossovers with an active, software-implemented crossover.

 

[wgscott]

Random thoughts, not to be taken too seriously:

 

Those are always the best.

 

Since you're more interested in a fun DIY project rather than overcoming any bothersome deficiency in the sound, a sub is a good idea because it should be easy to build yourself. After it's built, you can spend unlimited hours playing with a software-implemented crossover on your Mac.

 

I was wondering. When I re-finished our oak dresser, I only screwed it up five times.

 

Re power consumption, I thought you just finished building a class D amp. Don't you know how much power it draws?

 

Yes. But I was thinking in terms of what subwoofers that sit on standby all day waiting for an audio signal draw when idle. TVs it turns out drain quite a bit. Cable company boxes made the front page of the NYT a couple of months ago as the worst vampire appliance.

 

Instead of a sub, a more useful DIY project probably would be to download the free Room EQ Wizard

 

Whenever I hear the word "Wizard" my mind wanders to Redmond. Is there a Mac version? Also, I have been using AudioTools on my iPad, which is a lot of fun, but in the end the limiting factor is my lack of knowledge of what to measure and how to interpret. I hope after watching Jim Smith's DVD #3, I will have a bit more idea of what I am doing. Those evil Britholes borrowed my iPad too.

 

and use software parametric EQ to flatten the frequency response of your loudspeaker+room combination. Parametric EQ "audio units" are built into OS X. A supposedly better quality implementation is the FabFilter Volcano, $134 for 4-band stereo EQ. For almost same price you could buy a used Behringer DEQ2496 on Audiogon.

 

I was looking at this: MiniDSP. What worries me is that you are taking a digital signal, converting it to Analogue in the standard DAC, then converting it back to digital, operating on it via the software, and then converting back to analogue again. I guess I should have got one of them 8-channel DAC thingies.

 

An alternative project would be to open up your B&W speakers and replace the internal crossovers with an active, software-implemented crossover.

 

Or active hardware crossover. I almost did it, but then I looked inside and concluded the probability of destroying the speakers was rather high. If I really go this route, I should buy or build my own speakers that allow for this...

 

[Bob Stern]

is a Java applet that runs fine in OS X.

 

[Bob Stern]

Although audiophile purists will sneer, I often use the parametric EQ of my Metric Halo LIO-8 to compensate for bright recordings. Usually I use a 2, 3 or 4 dB dip centered at 4 KHz or 5 KHz, less often a high frequency shelf.

 

I find the parametric EQ completely transparent. The LIO-8 uses 80-bit floating pt arithmetic in its hardware DSP.