35Hz - 25kHz -- A Partial 'Purist'?


It's amazing how much musical information can be found in the lowest bass regions say 30Hz down to below 20Hz, whether classical, folk, instrumental, pop, etc..

Yet, I'm purplexed to see some to many audiophile 'purists' refuse to even attempt to resolve the obvious deficiency in their systems which simply cannot reproduce any musical information in the lowest regions of the frequecy spectrum.

No matter how musical, how refined, and/or how infinite the configurations a good musical subwoofer can offer, the 'purist' simply will not consider adding a subwoofer to supplement their mains. There's too many good subs (you only need one) ranging from $1k to $30k that can be quite quite musical and allow for near-infinite configurations to adapt to most any system and listening preference. And, yes, I am aware there are many more bad subwoofers, but's that's another thread.

As a self-proclaimed 'fundamentalist', my quest is to ensure my 2-channel system is such that any musical information coming from the source stands an excellent chance of being faithfully reproduced for my listening pleasure.

And by adding a musical 18 inch subwoofer, I don't believe I've given up anything.

I would enjoy hearing what others think.
stehno
Well my speakers go down to 34hz, and I enjoy them, sometimes I wish there was more on the low end, but everything else is so good why risk it? I have NEVER heard a seamless integration of a sub, regardlees of size or location or quantity....etc. If musicality is your goal I don't think an 18" speaker has the ablity to be musical when being added to an existing speaker, but that's just what I have experienced. I suppose I am the closed minded purist who refuses to believe that adding one more "weakness" will improve the sound enough to justify its short comings. There are more problems with phase, cross-over points(never right!), dB peaks and valley's just too much to take on at once. And I have heard REL subs before and they do come the closest but nothing seems to work with my speakers and my ears, though I have been called crazy more then a few times ;)

~Tim
Stehno your thread ties in with 2 recent threads on "the sub problem"...if you take a look at the posts there seems to be 2 camps...Tireguy's post sums up the other point of view...my friend has the REL STORM 111 (like $1500) he said he can't find the proper intergration with his B&W 802's...yes it has an internal amp...which some folks say is not the best way...i'm looking into the new line of subs from FOCAL called UTOPIA 11WX 13WX 15WX...the construction looks STUNNING!!!...i'm looking for a sub that offers a soft subtle intergrated bass...in other words like Tireguy i don't want to hear the monitor AND the sub...if there is too much of a seam i'll do without
I am firmly in the full-range camp and use a REL Stadium III. I think a lot of people simply do not take the time to fully optimize the sub, which involves at least five major simultaneous variables: (1) room placement, (2) crossover point, (3) crossover slope, (4) sub output level, and (5) phasing. This is an extraordinary challenge that is beyond the desire of many (and the capability of some) to solve. I'm not trying to insult anyone, it's just that I think most people aren't willing to put out the effort to get it right. (Heck, even mine isn't fully optimized, due to home decorating issues...) But when you finally DO get it right, there is simply no comparison at all. And then you find that listening to a non-full-range system is just no longer satisfying. So like many things in high-end audio, it's both a blessing and a curse.:)

One other comment, which is not generally considered in these discussions: The combination of a high-quality monitor and an excellent sub, when set up properly, will almost always outperform a single large speaker system in a given room. (Caveat: any crossover point over 50Hz is too high to ever integrate seamlessly, so forget about tiny monitors that roll off at 80Hz.) This is due to the extraordinary flexibility of the sub/sat system in taming room modes in the bass while allowing for optimizing placement for midrange smoothness and imaging qualities. Yes, you can occasionally buy a full-range speaker and find a room placement which optimizes both imaging and the bass range (not to mention spousal aesthetic issues), but it is quite difficult, maybe even rare, and much more of a lottery than many people will admit. While the sub/sat system is not perfect either, it at least gives a much higher chance of actually achieving an overall optimum in the real world.

P.S. I would agree, I've never in my life heard an 18" cone that could keep pace musically. There's a reason RELs use 10" cones, even on their biggest subs.
Tweekerman: The REL Storm III is not a good match for the N802. The N802 is in another (higher) class than the Storm. Won't make much of a difference. I am not surprised he did not like it. But instead of giving up he needs to think higher.

Your friend needs to consider at the very least the REL Stadium III or even better the REL Stentor III. The Storm III is fine for the B&W N804, N805, CDM Series, or the Matrix 804 and 805.

I love my REL Sub. Would never go without one again.

Wonder of wonders! I would actually consider an active crossover and sub, with dedicated amp if, and this is a VERY big "if", I could seamlessly integrate it low enough to keep it out of the lower mids. I know that this departs from my normal philosophy, but for those who really have to have that rock bottom response, this arrangement could work if they could do it within the parameters I described.