Pro and Cons of adding Subs

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by Charles

Joe, if not a Q-sub (s), I would go with the new SSsub. 40.4K$/pr. sealed all aluminium dual 12's built to Magico standards, which are simply higher than any of the aforementioned subs. Regardless of your intentions, I can tell you that you buy subs for bass, not room enhancements which are real, but not primary.

You raise a good point which must be acknowledged. What is Joe's goal here? IMHO, however he has set up the Magico's, there is an inevitable compromise between mf/hf imaging/soundstage and LF in placement and orientation. What you call "room enhancements" that can be derived from installing subs can eliminate much of that compromise by using multiple subs crossed over relatively high. That may sound like anathema to most here but, done right, the new bass will not be disasociated but cleaner, more powerful and more accurate. Whether it will extend deeper will depend on how many and how big they are.

[kzhtoo]

REL advantage is its high level connection really. Carbon Specials to higher end models are different only in amplifier type, class D vs. class AB. IMO REL’s unique connection brings more benefit than amplifier type. I’ve always thought I dialed in my subs really well (f113v2, paradigm sub-1, etc.) until I tried REL dual CS. Another advantage of CS is you can add more from 2-pack to 4-pack, 6-pack if you so desire in the future. BTW my speakers are Magico S3.

[JoeN]

Thanks for everyone’s replies. I’m seriously considering them. I’m working on the new amps this week and then will reevaluate if I still feel the need for new subs. I probably will as more power won’t improve the room, but the Magicos will be feed more and thus I will hear more …. Thanks again.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

You raise a good point which must be acknowledged. What is Joe's goal here? IMHO, however he has set up the Magico's, there is an inevitable compromise between mf/hf imaging/soundstage and LF in placement and orientation. What you call "room enhancements" that can be derived from installing subs can eliminate much of that compromise by using multiple subs crossed over relatively high. That may sound like anathema to most here but, done right, the new bass will not be disasociated but cleaner, more powerful and more accurate. Whether it will extend deeper will depend on how many and how big they are.

Kal, I agree with you. I believe I would be dissatisfied with 99% of sub installations, provided the mains had superb bass. "Room enhancements" are vastly over rated. I have a Thor perfectly situated horizontal lie between my XVX. It takes about 1 watt for me to hear a subtle subsonic note. I know this because I have plenty of discs. Also there's the thumps and bumps never meant to be heard and the rumble. If you like heavy organ music as I do, you need a sub that can plumb the depths, easily. Also movie sound tracks can demand very high levels of output (1000+ watts).
The primary (95%) of the use of a sub is bass, not "room enhancements", whatever that is.

Best

Charles

p.s. I run the Thor full range crossover 30 Hz 18 db/octave LP only as suggested by Wilson. I am not interested in the sub most of the time. My definition of room enhancements arise from sub sonics that provide you all the LF information on the disc. When you (you do this properly) refer to "room enhancements", you mean better bass caused by multiple subs correctly integrated into the system at a relatively high crossover point relative to the mains. I believe you have correctly defined "room enhancements" as better bass. It's a well know fact that better bass greatly enhances the mids and treble and the overall presentation. In an all out multiple sub system as you describe you would get all the subsonic LF information plus the "room enhancements" of better mid and upper bass provided by superb subs correctly integrated with the mains. I believe that when you add subs, you should have a clearly defined reason. For me, I enjoy organ music and hearing the thumps, bumps, and rumble(subsonic LF noise). Addition of a better amp can greatly improve bass. When I switched from my 1.25KW's to MC3500's my bass significantly improved. My whole presentation changed. The "new" bass had an energy and dynamism that energized my overall presentation. The difference was not "night and day" but clearly audible and greatly enjoyable. That's what I call "room enhancements".

[JoeN]

Room Modes - this is what I mean by improving the room, or taming the room:

http://www.acousticfrontiers.com/201...om-modes-html/

[Charles]

Joe, so I think this is exactly the issues Kal was referring to. I have no interest in this kind of "room enhancement". If you go this route, your bass will no longer be Magico bass. I'm an audio purist. I would never change the quality of my XVX woofers. My approach would be to run the subs at the lowest crossover possible, but Kal's approach is totally valid and I think most would take his approach, but you will no longer experience Magico bass, as long as you understand.

Best

Charles

[JoeN]

Yes, I understand. I’m going to think thru it some more.

First I’m going to purchase a new set of mono amps. I’ll probably end up with the Pass 600.8s monos. I love the Pass amps sound. And they mix very well with Magico. They have 100 w Class A into 4 ohms, vs my present 68 w into Class A with the Pass 260.8s.

I loved the EMM Labs MTRX2s in my system, they were 1000w w/ 4 ohm speakers, but they would never tell me how much Class A they delivered. With the new Pass I’ll get 1200 w / 4 ohm speakers. The bass was wider and deeper with the EMM Labs, so I’m expect8mg something similar with the Pass.

If this doesn’t c(name things, then I’ll wait until the new room and probably go with Magico subs. But I’ve located someone who has Magico M3s and REL subs already, so I’m going to be speaking with him as well.

Again many thanks. Lots to think thru.

Originally Posted by Charles

Joe, so I think this is exactly the issues Kal was referring to. I have no interest in this kind of "room enhancement". If you go this route, your bass will no longer be Magico bass. I'm an audio purist. I would never change the quality of my XVX woofers. My approach would be to run the subs at the lowest crossover possible, but Kal's approach is totally valid and I think most would take his approach, but you will no longer experience Magico bass, as long as you understand.

Best

Charles

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by Charles

Joe, so I think this is exactly the issues Kal was referring to. I have no interest in this kind of "room enhancement". If you go this route, your bass will no longer be Magico bass. I'm an audio purist. I would never change the quality of my XVX woofers. My approach would be to run the subs at the lowest crossover possible, but Kal's approach is totally valid and I think most would take his approach, but you will no longer experience Magico bass, as long as you understand.

That is a totally valid choice but I do not think that it is any more "purist" than others.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Kal Rubinson

That is a totally valid choice but I do not think that it is any more "purist" than others.

Kal, I think you have to define "purist". Wilson's new crossover is purely analog. There is no HP used in my system and the LP is 30 Hz. Even so on some "normal" music my Thor is slightly audible to my ears. There is occasionally a slightly different bass quality, but it is not at all objectionable. I would never have a digital equalizer or any other equalizer. I can hear them. I think this a necessity in the bass system you are proposing. I am not opposed to it for anyone but me. I desire an extremely low distortion, high resolution system that uses zero digital room equalization.

One of the reasons I like SCAudiophile's (Mark) system so much is that it is the antithesis of mine in many ways. He has a Legacy Valor system and has taken the opposite approach. I know that if I heard it I would be amazed.

Joe has a 94K set of thoroughbred extremely high performance speakers. In order to maintain Magico bass, he needs Magico subs that are of commensurate quality and meant to interface with his M3's.

Mark has a totally from the ground up equalized system. It is amazing. Joe's system is quite like mine. If I were him I would think long and hard to change it. Going with Magico subs if he wants better and deeper bass and more dynamic range is his best option by far. I think Q15 Magico subs his best option and that the M3 is an ideal match. I would love to hear them in his system.

Best

Charles

[Kal Rubinson]

Originally Posted by Charles

Kal, I think you have to define "purist".

Well, that's a fine definition but it ain't the only one and that was my point.