Looking for opinions on whether to use one large subwoofer (Martin Logan Descent i) vs 2 smaller subs of the same design (ML Depth i). Cost for the 2 setups would be similar, but my room is better suited to support 1 sub than 2. Main speakers are Martin Logan Ascent's.
2 small ones in a stereo application ...although those frequencies may be mostly "non-directional"....you have to compromise one way or another with only 1...
a) only hook to one channel (obvious downside) or
b) combine both outputs... (they will sum..and in effect, at times, cancel each other ...or at least work against each other. Do some searches on the topic on the web.... Many out there who can explain it better than me.
BTW.... Thought I could get away with one...now, so glad I have two.
Definitely 2 small ones in a stereo application ...although those frequencies are said to be mostly "non-directional"....you have to compromise one way or another with only 1...
a) only hook to one channel (obvious downside) or
b) combine both outputs... (they will sum..and in effect, at times, cancel each other ...or at least work against each other. Do some searches on the topic on the web.... Many out there who can explain it better than me.
BTW.... Thought I could get away with one...now, so glad I have two.
As they say in all things audio, it depends. I have two. The only real way to find out is buy two identical units at the same time with full return privilege, that means no restocking fees. Try to get a 60 day return privilege as you will find it takes awhile to find the answer. If you buy only one, you will never know if you are missing something, and that will drive you crazy, as all things audio can do.
2 smaller sub(s) if your room can support. I would strongly advise to demo REL prior to any purchase. These are the best subwoofer (s) on the market. They do not disappoint! Keep us posted. Happy Listening.
I used to have one REL Storm III, and now have two DIY boxes with Rythmik 12" kits. So my two subs cost the same as my previous larger one, but the two subs aren't smaller than the one. Rest of system is the same. I would agree 100% with the 2-sub route because of the smoother response and ability/flexibility 2 subs provide.
Whether you get better results with the subs playing in stereo or a summed up mono signal will generate a lot of debate. But that's a bridge you don't need to cross now.
I have purchased a few books on audio room acoustics (Sound Reproduction by F. Toole and Master Handbook of Acoustics by Everest and Pohlmann) and both books suggest to have 2 subs in a stereo and HT setup to minimize standing waves. Will also give a break to your main speakers having less bass to handle :-)
When is comes to sub bass management, more subs is always better to properly load the room and to reduce modal effects. If it's is worth doing, then it is worth doing right.
Has anyone tried using 2 different models in their system. I use a REL Studio III which is no longer made. Could I add a REL S or G model to the system and achieve the same results as having 2 subs of the same model?
With two subs you will need to experiment. Run each sub in L and R channel configuration and then try them in dual mono (L+R) configuration. I had best result running my subs in dual mono.
There is a right answer, but unfortunately, not an easy one... it depends on the room. when you add a sub, you add room interaction, you create peaks & dips and have to deal with them. Placement is key. In some rooms it is totally conceivable that one sub would out perform 2 when it comes to smooth accurate bass. I have 2 subs right now, but use 1... I have moved them around countless times, finally bought a decent mic and started taking measurements, I may be able to get an improvement with 2, but its been a process and have decided to leave it alone. Good luck, Tim
The Depth i has both line-level and speaker-level inputs. Thoughts on one vs. the other for connecting 2 subs in a 2-channel system?
I see that the Depth i can provide high pass filtered outputs to the main power amp, if connected at line-level. So there are three choices: Speaker-level, full-range line-level to both the sub and the main power amp; and line-level to the sub with its high passed outputs going to the main power amp.
Each approach has its pluses and minuses, and which is best will be dependent, among other things, on the quality of the high pass filter circuitry in the sub, and on the degree to which the main speakers may benefit from having deep bass frequencies kept out of them. I would only consider answers that may be provided to be relevant if they are based on experience with similar M-L equipment.
In any event, my main point in responding is to mention that if you are still using the Krell amp listed in your system description (or any other amp having balanced or bridged outputs), and if you go with speaker-level connections to the sub, do not make the common mistake of connecting the negative input terminal of the sub to an output terminal of the amp. The FPB200 has balanced outputs, so both its + and - output terminals have signals on them. If you connect the - speaker-level input of the sub to the - output terminal of the amp you risk shorting the signal on that output of the amp to ground, or at least loading it excessively. Connecting the - input terminal of the sub to a chassis screw on the amp will most likely work ok.
I went the 2 sub route and use a Dspeaker Antimode Dual Core 2.0 with mine. For HT I use the Dspeaker 8033s. Either of these units will take care of peakes and nodes in the room.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
