To Sub or not to Sub...?

Is is not true that subs are made only for Home Theater. The first thing you will read on REL brochures is "REL is an Audiophile Company". Their ST Subs (Status, Storm, Stadium, Stentor, Studio) were all designed for music reproduction. They have HT connections also for convenience. They make a separate line of Q Subs (Q100E, Q201E) for Home Theater (and are actually quite musical also). These Q subs range from $700 to $1600. The ST subs range from $1300 to $8000. Obviously, this company cares more about music and only make a couple HT subs to fill out their product line. The Vandersteen 2W Sub was also made for music. They now also make a HT variant which came much later. There are other music subs out there by other makers ranging up to $10K and more.

Yes, i do not know what i am talking about. I am just a... 'masochistic' a bit? I probably like to deprive myself from a 'decent' sound. Well, you should know about that 'malady' Dr. Detlof?

..laughing... I do Sir, indeed I do. And of course its alo nice to have it "indecent" .Cheers and long live the music with or without subconscious rumblings. (Still, you don't know what you miss, listening to those old Wilkinson Decca LP's, when you can hear the London underground train, aka "the tube" rumbling happily from left to right or vice versa, right through the Mozart, while your kitschy busts of old Beethoven, Freud and Haydn get a good shaking on the mantlepiece, as the dust flies. That's audiophile living, I tell you ! ) Regards,

Besides being audiophile teacher, you are a great philosopher. You cinviced me, i am ordering me a PAIR of SUBwoofers, today! Regards! Aaron Lindeman

i definitely recommend *a pair* of subs for audio, even if ewe have full-range main speakers. as mentioned before, subs can take the load off of the full-range speakers' woofers, cleaning them up considerably. other adwantages are allowing ewe to place the *main* speakers optimally for imaging/soundstaging, not worrying about having to optomise bass response. when i 1st got my subs - a pair of vmps larger subs, my *monitors* were thiel 3.5's, which are 20h-19khz, +/-2db. the improvement in sound was *not* subtle.

ok, these are my sub *preferences* - my opinions, of course! ;~) i *greatly* prefer passive subs, such as my vmps', used w/an active outboard x-over, such as my marchand xm-9 deluxe, and your choice of decent-quality amplification. 1st, i believe the quality of the amplification & x-over electronics is *far* superior to that offered in active, powered subs. also, the flexibility is far greater, both for initial set-up, & for future changes. also, i don't like the amps & electronics being so close to (inside?) the subs. also, most powered subs are smaller, using electronics to get lo-frequency response. passive subs (like vmps) use no trick electronics, yust simple engineering w/large, appropriately-sized boxes. yes, my subs, @~18d-26w-39h, *are* big...

then, there's the cost-thing. being a cheapskate, i rarely buy audio equipment that's not used, or a close-out. however, i bought my subs & x-over brand-gnu. these, w/my used adcom gfa555's to drive them (well, one was gnu, but it cost me $450, back in '85!), plus decent tara-labs cabling, cost me <$2.4k. and, the only subs i've ever heard that equal the low-end output, at such accurate, tight, non-distorted levels, were the 7' towers of the old infinity irs-lll's, now approxomated by the top-line $135k/pair genesis speakers. there's *no way* i could afford, even used, to get the quality & quantity of bass my sub system is capable of, at anywhere *near* the price, imho.

ymmv, doug s.