Don't accept what people will say as fact

[cfgardei1]

I recently bought a pair of Maggie 3.7i's (and a Parasound A21+ amp and a Bluesound Node, streaming Tidal). These are, by far, the best sounding speakers I've EVER owned (and I've owned a bunch in my 60 years on this earth). But, they are - no surprise - severely lacking in bottom-end "oomph." So, I bought a Maggie bass panel (DWM). This helped with the lower midrange and upper bass (and even extended the lower bass slightly), but still failed to produce the bottom end I wanted. Spoiler alert: most music doesn't have a lot of sub-bass, but for those that do, it's imperative that your system can reproduce it. So, I starting asking around...

"Don't add a sub - it will ruin the 'tight' bass that your Maggies are known for!" was what everyone told me - even Magnepan. But, I thought that didn't make sense - unless the subwoofer was ALSO reproducing bass (instead of just sub-bass*). As long as I kept the bass frequencies out of the sub (let the 3.7i's do the bass), it should sound fine. That was my theory.

*Many people think a subwoofer goes down to 30Hz. No: that's where sub-bass begins!

Enter SVS (highly recommended!) I bought their "entry level" sub (model SB-1000 Pro) to "test my theory" with the plans to upgrade it if I was right. Well: I am so happy with it, I never upgraded it - there's no need to! I roll it off at 33Hz @ 24dB/octave and use the parametric EQ to boost 20Hz by 6dB. As such the -3dB downpoint is around 16Hz. (The proverbial "bottom octave: 16-32Hz).

This adds a deep, gut-rumbling bottom end to music - and in NO WAY diminishes the "open", "airy", "tight". "fast" (choose one) bass of the Maggies. On most (some) music, the sub does nothing. But play, for example, Yello's "Stay" with and without the sub and you'll never do it without again!

I was, in fact, planning on upgrading to the 20.7's, but the 3.7's are almost identical to the 20.7's in all but the bass panel area - something the sub MORE THAN makes up for. Save the $5000 and get a sub (I DID audition the 20.7's before stating this)

To all Maggie owners: try this - you'll never go back. Just be sure to roll off the sub quickly and sharply (min: 24dB) and low. 33Hz is just right for my system in my room - you'll need to experiment. The nice thing about the SVS (though not unique) is the app that lets you tailor rolloff frequency, slope and parametric EQ to fill in exactly what is needed and NO MORE.

 

[AMR / iFi audio]

I recently bought a pair of Maggie 3.7i's (and a Parasound A21+ amp and a Bluesound Node, streaming Tidal). These are, by far, the best sounding speakers I've EVER owned (and I've owned a bunch in my 60 years on this earth). But, they are - no surprise - severely lacking in bottom-end "oomph." So, I bought a Maggie bass panel (DWM). This helped with the lower midrange and upper bass (and even extended the lower bass slightly), but still failed to produce the bottom end I wanted. Spoiler alert: most music doesn't have a lot of sub-bass, but for those that do, it's imperative that your system can reproduce it. So, I starting asking around...

"Don't add a sub - it will ruin the 'tight' bass that your Maggies are known for!" was what everyone told me - even Magnepan. But, I thought that didn't make sense - unless the subwoofer was ALSO reproducing bass (instead of just sub-bass*). As long as I kept the bass frequencies out of the sub (let the 3.7i's do the bass), it should sound fine. That was my theory.

*Many people think a subwoofer goes down to 30Hz. No: that's where sub-bass begins!

Enter SVS (highly recommended!) I bought their "entry level" sub (model SB-1000 Pro) to "test my theory" with the plans to upgrade it if I was right. Well: I am so happy with it, I never upgraded it - there's no need to! I roll it off at 33Hz @ 24dB/octave and use the parametric EQ to boost 20Hz by 6dB. As such the -3dB downpoint is around 16Hz. (The proverbial "bottom octave: 16-32Hz).

This adds a deep, gut-rumbling bottom end to music - and in NO WAY diminishes the "open", "airy", "tight". "fast" (choose one) bass of the Maggies. On most (some) music, the sub does nothing. But play, for example, Yello's "Stay" with and without the sub and you'll never do it without again!

I was, in fact, planning on upgrading to the 20.7's, but the 3.7's are almost identical to the 20.7's in all but the bass panel area - something the sub MORE THAN makes up for. Save the $5000 and get a sub (I DID audition the 20.7's before stating this)

To all Maggie owners: try this - you'll never go back. Just be sure to roll off the sub quickly and sharply (min: 24dB) and low. 33Hz is just right for my system in my room - you'll need to experiment. The nice thing about the SVS (though not unique) is the app that lets you tailor rolloff frequency, slope and parametric EQ to fill in exactly what is needed and NO MORE.

I'm a big fan of subs. They add a lot to the sound, especially when tuned right. You clearly did your homework and cut it very low, which is the right way around it. Have you used any measurements, or you only used the app? Congratulations and enjoy!

 

[cfgardei1]

I'm a big fan of subs. They add a lot to the sound, especially when tuned right. You clearly did your homework and cut it very low, which is the right way around it. Have you used any measurements, or you only used the app? Congratulations and enjoy!

No instrumentation other than my ears. I've used parametric EQs /w/ calibrated mics before and found that my ears "disagreed" with the computer. Bottom line: how it sounds to me is, in the end, all that matters. 30Hz cutoff seems to leave a "hole" between the Maggies and the sub; 40Hz seemed to "muddy-up" the bass slightly. By the way, I have a friend who operated a multi-million dollar recording studio in the 80's - B&W 801s as their main monitors (back before people mixed on their Ipads...) - and he says my system is the closest to "live" he's ever experienced...

 

[AMR / iFi audio]

No instrumentation other than my ears. I've used parametric EQs /w/ calibrated mics before and found that my ears "disagreed" with the computer. Bottom line: how it sounds to me is, in the end, all that matters. 30Hz cutoff seems to leave a "hole" between the Maggies and the sub; 40Hz seemed to "muddy-up" the bass slightly. By the way, I have a friend who operated a multi-million dollar recording studio in the 80's - B&W 801s as their main monitors (back before people mixed on their Ipads...) - and he says my system is the closest to "live" he's ever experienced...

You would need a nice desk to use the 801's as monitors... Joking, obviously.
I like to start with measurements and then to finish with listening, but if you managed to do that with just ears congrats. Your setting look legit to me

 

[Chops]

Do yourself a favor and purchase a second SB-1000 Pro and run them stereo. Also, I don't know how you currently have your sub connected, but I highly recommend using the high-level inputs instead of the RCA inputs. The subs actually sound better getting their signal from your main amp's speaker outputs.

This is how I have my dual PB-1000 Pro's connected and blended with my Maggie 1.7i's. I'd also recommend IsoAcoustics ISO 200 subwoofer stands. BTW, mine are crossed over at 37 Hz @ 18 dB. Zero complaints and perfectly seamless.

 

[MRJAZZ]

I recently bought a pair of Maggie 3.7i's (and a Parasound A21+ amp and a Bluesound Node, streaming Tidal). These are, by far, the best sounding speakers I've EVER owned (and I've owned a bunch in my 60 years on this earth). But, they are - no surprise - severely lacking in bottom-end "oomph." So, I bought a Maggie bass panel (DWM). This helped with the lower midrange and upper bass (and even extended the lower bass slightly), but still failed to produce the bottom end I wanted. Spoiler alert: most music doesn't have a lot of sub-bass, but for those that do, it's imperative that your system can reproduce it. So, I starting asking around...

"Don't add a sub - it will ruin the 'tight' bass that your Maggies are known for!" was what everyone told me - even Magnepan. But, I thought that didn't make sense - unless the subwoofer was ALSO reproducing bass (instead of just sub-bass*). As long as I kept the bass frequencies out of the sub (let the 3.7i's do the bass), it should sound fine. That was my theory.

*Many people think a subwoofer goes down to 30Hz. No: that's where sub-bass begins!

Enter SVS (highly recommended!) I bought their "entry level" sub (model SB-1000 Pro) to "test my theory" with the plans to upgrade it if I was right. Well: I am so happy with it, I never upgraded it - there's no need to! I roll it off at 33Hz @ 24dB/octave and use the parametric EQ to boost 20Hz by 6dB. As such the -3dB downpoint is around 16Hz. (The proverbial "bottom octave: 16-32Hz).

This adds a deep, gut-rumbling bottom end to music - and in NO WAY diminishes the "open", "airy", "tight". "fast" (choose one) bass of the Maggies. On most (some) music, the sub does nothing. But play, for example, Yello's "Stay" with and without the sub and you'll never do it without again!

I was, in fact, planning on upgrading to the 20.7's, but the 3.7's are almost identical to the 20.7's in all but the bass panel area - something the sub MORE THAN makes up for. Save the $5000 and get a sub (I DID audition the 20.7's before stating this)

To all Maggie owners: try this - you'll never go back. Just be sure to roll off the sub quickly and sharply (min: 24dB) and low. 33Hz is just right for my system in my room - you'll need to experiment. The nice thing about the SVS (though not unique) is the app that lets you tailor rolloff frequency, slope and parametric EQ to fill in exactly what is needed and NO MORE.

The SVS 1000 PRO is a huge bang for the buck.....

 

[Gregadd]

Every problem has a solution I am glad you found one for yours.

 

[AMR / iFi audio]

The upgrade feet from SVS are really good too. Just saying.

Connecting a subwoofer with the high level input is great because both speakers and sub get the same tonality and influence from the amplifier.

 

[Ron Resnick]

"Don't add a sub - it will ruin the 'tight' bass that your Maggies are known for!" was what everyone told me - even Magnepan.

I am glad you found your way onto the sub-woofer path. Of course Wendell tells everybody that Magnepans don’t need sub-woofers — Magnepan doesn’t sell sub-woofers! (And Wendell is very dogmatic.)

I fully understand and respect the view about not adulterating the purity of Magnepan bass with dynamic driver sub-woofers. But I think it is standard operating procedure for many audiophiles to add sub-woofers to Magnepan loudspeakers. Every single person I know who has Magnepans uses sub-woofers. I did too.

 

[Gregadd]

All I can say is what Maggies do in bass they do very well. The problem is matching a sub that takes over where the Maggies leave off without losing coherence.

 

[Ron Resnick]

All I can say is what Maggies do in bass they do very well. The problem is matching a sub that takes over where the Maggies leave off without losing coherence.

Fair enough. As with almost everything in the hobby, it just depends on your personal sonic priorities.

 

[DonH50]

My first pair of Maggies (MG-I) led to my first sub (a DIY servo design). The distortion in the panels is very high when driven by large bass signals (as most are). As long as you cross over about the point they transition to looking more like a point source (depends on panel dimensions) integration is "normal", otherwise can be a little tricky.

My usual (and ancient) "sub posts":

I use subs, and have for decades, for all the usual reasons:

- Very (perhaps extremely) few "large" speakers actually play well below 40 Hz let alone 20 Hz. They distort heavily when presented with large bass signals (which most are -- see Fletcher-Munson) and driving them hard down low robs headroom for higher frequencies and causes distortion well above the fundamental signal frequency (harmonic and nasty intermodulation). Subs typically enable the mains to operate with much lower distortion.

- Very rare is the room setup such that the best place for stereo imaging and soundfield is the best place for the subs (or deep bass drivers) to counter room modes and such. Having independent subs provides placement options to smooth the in-room response. It is almost impossible to counter a null without subs (typically must move the MLP or change the room's dimensions though there are purpose-built panels that can also work). This is one of the things that led me to subs despite having quite capable mains.

- Powered subs offload the main amplifiers of the need to provide deep bass energy, providing more headroom and cleaner sound from the amplifiers.

- Music (let alone action movies) often contains deep bass content even if it is not real obvious. Kick drums, tympani, organ, sure, but also piano hammer strikes, plucked strings, beat patterns from instruments playing together, etc. May not really notice when they are there but usually obvious when they are taken away. Having subs fill in the bottom octave or three can make a difference.

- Purpose-built subs can provide high output cleanly at relatively low cost. The amplifiers and drivers need only cover a fairly limited frequency range so have fewer constraints upon them than woofers in a full-range system.

I do prefer main speakers with fairly deep bass and always have. Crossovers are not brick walls so a fair amount of energy still comes from the mains an octave below the crossover frequency. Higher-order crossovers allow you to reduce the overlap, but I still like having the capability. I have never really understood the idea of running "passive" bi-amping as implemented by an AVR (sending full-range signals to multiple channels and letting the speaker's crossovers separate frequency bands -- wastes amplifier headroom and seems to me of little benefit). Nor do I agree with the "plus" setting putting subs and mains in parallel; again, my idea has always been to isolate the two for the reasons above.

My first sub was a DIY design using an Infinity IRS woofer with my own control box to provide the crossover and a servo circuit using the second voice coil of the woofer. I had a Hafler DH-220 around so also incorporated a circuit to bridge it for use as a subwoofer amp. It worked well and the -3 dB point was ~16 Hz. I now run four small (F12) Rythmik subs using a similar (but updated) servo design with my Revel Salon2's and am happy with the result.

FWIWFM/IME/IMO/my 0.000001 cent (microcent) - Don


Stereo subs:

I have gone back and forth on stereo subs over many years (since ~1979/1980 when I built my first sub) and ultimately decided it is not worth it. It limits placement and correction options, almost no stereo content exits at sub frequencies (remember a wavelength is >11 feet at 100 Hz, >22 feet at 50 Hz, just how much stereo separation can there be in a normal listening situation?), and the end result was always much better when I ran the subs mono and placed them optimally for best in-room bass response. If your crossover is so high and/or filter roll-off so low that your subs intrude into the lower midrange you might appreciate stereo but I have always rolled off well below the point at which I could localize the subs. For years I ran stereo subs but many tests blind and otherwise convinced me stereo subs are just an unnecessary hassle that actually reduced my system's performance and sound.

 

[AMR / iFi audio]

All I can say is what Maggies do in bass they do very well. The problem is matching a sub that takes over where the Maggies leave off without losing coherence.

For sure, I would aim for something in a closed box. Sub needs a fast impulse response to keep up with the Maggies.

 

[Ron Resnick]

It limits placement and correction options, almost no stereo content exits at sub frequencies (remember a wavelength is >11 feet at 100 Hz, >22 feet at 50 Hz, just how much stereo separation can there be in a normal listening situation?), and the end result was always much better when I ran the subs mono and placed them optimally for best in-room bass response. If your crossover is so high and/or filter roll-off so low that your subs intrude into the lower midrange you might appreciate stereo but I have always rolled off well below the point at which I could localize the subs. For years I ran stereo subs but many tests blind and otherwise convinced me stereo subs are just an unnecessary hassle that actually reduced my system's performance and sound.

Would this still be your view if one’s purpose in using stereo sub-woofers was to reproduce low level ambient acoustic cues and venue dimensions information? In other words, wouldn’t mono forfeit the reproduction of this particular type of sonic information?

 

[treitz3]

Stereo subs:

I have gone back and forth on stereo subs over many years (since ~1979/1980 when I built my first sub) and ultimately decided it is not worth it. It limits placement and correction options, almost no stereo content exits at sub frequencies (remember a wavelength is >11 feet at 100 Hz, >22 feet at 50 Hz, just how much stereo separation can there be in a normal listening situation?), and the end result was always much better when I ran the subs mono and placed them optimally for best in-room bass response. If your crossover is so high and/or filter roll-off so low that your subs intrude into the lower midrange you might appreciate stereo but I have always rolled off well below the point at which I could localize the subs. For years I ran stereo subs but many tests blind and otherwise convinced me stereo subs are just an unnecessary hassle that actually reduced my system's performance and sound.

Hey, Don and good afternoon to you!

It seems your journey and mine have come to different conclusions. While you are correct in that almost no stereo content exists at sub frequencies, when a playback system has such capabilities, it does enhance the aural pleasure/experience (to me). While I do not sit back (at the listening position) as far as I should in order to hear the full wavelength, it does (or has the ability too) make a difference to the end result as to what one hears.

I just so happen to adore stereo subs and I wouldn't have it any other way in my system. For me, it enhances the illusion of stereo with regards to the lower octaves. Some recordings do lower registers in stereo rather well and I like being able to "see" where the individual drums/lower octave instruments are in the recordings.

Like you, I do not like subs being crossed over high. At all. Mine are set low, basically to where the frequency range of the mains teeter off and start to lose Db levels. I NEVER want to be able to localize a sub. IMO/IME, if you can locate a sub in a system, you are not doing it right or something is amiss. I have heard many a system to where this happens and it drives me knuckin' futz! To me, this ruins the illusion and smears the images something awful.

One thing I have done that helped the system in a very positive light was getting the subs up off of the floor. It was when I set the subs (no matter the kind/type over the years) up on heavy duty stands that my enjoyment and perceived sound stage/imaging increased. I have no idea why, nor do I really care why. I just know that I absolutely love the end result as to what hits my ears.

I am currently running 2ea. Rythmik F-25 subs that sit behind the mains and while I do prefer them to the outside of the mains, the current real estate in my room, along with the size of my new mains dictate that they now reside to the inside of the speakers *sigh*. The differences are minimal and this is just my preference, as the stereo separation seems slightly better with the subs on the outside of the mains. But alas, there are deficiencies and attributes with each location and TBT? I am perfectly happy with both.....I just prefer them to the outside of the mains.

Both subs sit on Target Audio Maximum Rigidity Speaker stands and both stands are spiked.

Lower registers seem to be one of the, if not the most important aspect of the audio reproductive effort and it is also very room dependent (I know, I am preaching to the choir on that one), as well as deeply personal. There are also seemingly very stubborn camps on both sides that claim their stake in the ground as to whether or not to even have a sub (or subs) in a 2 channel system. Each camp seems to claim that they are right. I do not choose to be "in a camp" and I am in no way suggesting that my path, or the path I took, with regards to subs is the right one.

I am simply relaying that my journey has taken me on a different road than yours, therefore, my observations vary. I come from the thought process that there are very few loudspeakers out there that could not benefit (many of them greatly) by the use of a sub.....and in my case (and thought process), stereo subs are the ticket to achieve what it is that I am looking for.

Tom

 

[DonH50]

Would this still be your view if one’s purpose in using stereo sub-woofers was to reproduce low level ambient acoustic cues and venue dimensions information? In other words, wouldn’t mono forfeit the reproduction of this particular type of sonic information?

Maybe... The problem is what exactly are those cues, how are they recorded, and reproduced? Directionality is from higher frequencies, which is handled by the main speakers, so what the sub handles is below what we can localize. At least that's the theory. In practice, crossovers are not brick walls falling to zero on either side, so crossover frequency, slope (filter order, x dB/octave), and integration with the mains becomes critical for preserving that sense of directionality. It also depends on the room, natch, and my current room is too small for such low frequencies to really develop (a wavelength at 50 Hz is 22.5 feet; my largest room dimension is <18'). There is also the theory that high-pressure waves can be directional as our body senses the pressure wave hitting it, though others argue that point, especially in small rooms (acoustically). Not my field, so I am not competent to say either way.

My first sub I placed between the speakers to preserve the image, and later added a second but kept them beside the main speakers. My crossover was up around 100 Hz and localization was a problem, largely because there was still significant energy up to 150~200 Hz. When I upgraded the speakers (from MG-I to MG-IIIa) and dropped the crossover to 50 Hz, I found sub placement didn't really matter, and began to focus more on fixing room modes. Again IME.

I have four subs in my room and have set them up in various ways over the years, from "surround" subs to a stereo pair (using just two) to a mono swarm as they are now. At times I was convinced I could tell the difference from a stereo pair to mono, and other times just as sure there was no difference. The crossover point is key, and the musical content as well. I've been told "most" recordings mix the deep bass to mono anyway; I have not the tools or time and inclination to analyze a bunch of songs myself to prove or disprove that. With a mix of movies and music, including some specific test tracks for subwoofer localization, I just could not convince myself there was enough there to justify the much greater effort to incorporate and calibrate stereo subs. I found that even some of the more famous organ recordings and recordings of that famous venue with the subway rumbling on one side was reproduced well; again, the rumble was reproduced just fine, and directionality came from higher frequencies above the sub's crossover. Other may have different experiences, though a couple of friends who heard the system playing their favorite tracks also concluded they could not hear the difference (one of whom was a staunch supporter of stereo subs and came away rather disappointed, though remaining convinced it mattered in his room).

For decades I was convinced stereo subs was the only way to go. In the past 10 years or so, after going back and forth, I have decided to stick with a mono arrangement, and feel it works best for me. Not saying I won't convince myself to return to a stereo arrangement in the future, but I did a lot of listening before concluding mono worked for me.

May not for you or anyone else. No worries! - Don

 

[Gregadd]

I seem to recall a pretty convincing argument for multiple subs placed around the room. The las time I ran stereo subs they were crossing over at one hundred Hz. The location to the rear of and inside the main speakers. With ML CLS it took the load off the main speaker which worked pretty hard to get down to 60hz. The subs power unit and crossover were used in mono.
My two cents worth.

 

[DonH50]

Hey, Don and good afternoon to you!

It seems your journey and mine have come to different conclusions. While you are correct in that almost no stereo content exists at sub frequencies, when a playback system has such capabilities, it does enhance the aural pleasure/experience (to me). While I do not sit back (at the listening position) as far as I should in order to hear the full wavelength, it does (or has the ability too) make a difference to the end result as to what one hears.

I just so happen to adore stereo subs and I wouldn't have it any other way in my system. For me, it enhances the illusion of stereo with regards to the lower octaves. Some recordings do lower registers in stereo rather well and I like being able to "see" where the individual drums/lower octave instruments are in the recordings.

Like you, I do not like subs being crossed over high. At all. Mine are set low, basically to where the frequency range of the mains teeter off and start to lose Db levels. I NEVER want to be able to localize a sub. IMO/IME, if you can locate a sub in a system, you are not doing it right or something is amiss. I have heard many a system to where this happens and it drives me knuckin' futz! To me, this ruins the illusion and smears the images something awful.

One thing I have done that helped the system in a very positive light was getting the subs up off of the floor. It was when I set the subs (no matter the kind/type over the years) up on heavy duty stands that my enjoyment and perceived sound stage/imaging increased. I have no idea why, nor do I really care why. I just know that I absolutely love the end result as to what hits my ears.

I am currently running 2ea. Rythmik F-25 subs that sit behind the mains and while I do prefer them to the outside of the mains, the current real estate in my room, along with the size of my new mains dictate that they now reside to the inside of the speakers *sigh*. The differences are minimal and this is just my preference, as the stereo separation seems slightly better with the subs on the outside of the mains. But alas, there are deficiencies and attributes with each location and TBT? I am perfectly happy with both.....I just prefer them to the outside of the mains.

Both subs sit on Target Audio Maximum Rigidity Speaker stands and both stands are spiked.

Lower registers seem to be one of the, if not the most important aspect of the audio reproductive effort and it is also very room dependent (I know, I am preaching to the choir on that one), as well as deeply personal. There are also seemingly very stubborn camps on both sides that claim their stake in the ground as to whether or not to even have a sub (or subs) in a 2 channel system. Each camp seems to claim that they are right. I do not choose to be "in a camp" and I am in no way suggesting that my path, or the path I took, with regards to subs is the right one.

I am simply relaying that my journey has taken me on a different road than yours, therefore, my observations vary. I come from the thought process that there are very few loudspeakers out there that could not benefit (many of them greatly) by the use of a sub.....and in my case (and thought process), stereo subs are the ticket to achieve what it is that I am looking for.

Tom

Hi Tom,

I do not think we're all that different, despite different conclusions. I find a mono set (of four Rythmik F12's, imagine that ) works well for me, as I discussed (babbled about) in my response to Ron. There are several other folk whose opinions I respect that agree with you that stereo subs are best. And of course a wealth of studies showing the contrary (e.g. mono subs are fine and all that's needed, and better counter room modes so are the best choice).

Frankly, I had forgotten I had included a blurb on stereo subs; that was added long after the original content (the first part is decades old, the latter maybe 10~15 years ago). My Big Thing is that subwoofers are necessary because (a) the vast majority of speakers to not handle deep bass well (even some rated for it), and (b) subwoofers are the (a) key to getting the best sound from your system as they allow independent tuning of the image and soundstage from the mains whilst compensating room modes and providing smooth, deep bass from the subs. So for me, having subs are a key part of my musical experience, and I am not particularly worried about whether they are stereo, mono, surround, mono swarm, or whatever.

There is also a group of folk who believe open-baffle subs are the only type that can be blended with Maggies or other planar speakers. I am not in that camp; with few exceptions, the open-baffle designs I have heard were far too "loose" and rang too much for clean bass. It takes special drivers and the right amplifier/EQ combination to get them working right IME. I prefer sealed or well-designed ported speakers (my first sub was ported with a servo circuit to compensate; my current subs are sealed).

Getting the subs off the floor changes their response somewhat and how they interface with the room, changing both acoustic and physical coupling. Historically I have preferred them off the floor, but currently mine are all on the floor (carpet over concrete basement) for convenience and laziness (haven't built stands for them). On a wooden floor or otherwise less rigid surface I prefer to isolate them to keep the floor from adding vibrations and boom, though others actually enjoy that effect. To each his own.

The old mantra was "if you can hear or place a sub, it's too loud", and I tend to design my setup to that mantra today.

The irony to me is that some of the people who have preferred to run their mains full-range do so because they sound "richer" or "fuller" than the subs. The irony is that is because the distortion (2nd, 3rd harmonic etc.) is well into the audible range so it does add to the sound. Distortion, yes, but it does sound fuller. I learned early on that I prefer clean bass, perhaps (or not) because I perform as well as listen to music (live and recorded), and the distortion sounded less real to me.

Onwards - Don

 

[Gregadd]

Yes, Professor Don, having gone through the expense of purchasing my first sub, I too wanted to hear it. After a while I learned to back it off just below the point of recognition. It was a huge aid to the CLS. I could no longer see those panels flexing to produce the low notes.

 

[treitz3]

One thing of note...

I see that members who have responded as well as commented on the crossover points? These points are what I would consider very high.

I am and have been set on much lower settings. More in the lines of 28-32Hz and with the volume also set to very low. Steep slope, zero phase, and no EQ or PEQ settings active. I started on measurements, then tuned by ear from there. The mains are not influenced at all from what the subs do. They are (in effect) two separate entities that come together as one.

Tom