Do you think you need a subwoofer?

11-12-11: Rauliruegas
Btw, Johnnyb53: maybe there is no " fast/slow " subs, please read this:

www.soundstage

Sounds to me like he *does* believe in faster bass, but somehow finds different words to express it. It's like saying that ice isn't slippery. Technically it's not, because the pressure of the object on top creates enough heat to melt a thin surface of water, which *is* slick. But it comes out the same place: step on ice, it's slippery.

By the same token, he can argue (speciously, I think) that the rise time at 40Hz isn't important, but a fast sub will have a fast rise time to mesh more easily with the rise times of the overtones of the bass note it's producing, and properly designed it should also stop quickly. This trait of speed makes it easier to blend the sub for musical purposes.

I agree that speed isn't all that important for car crashes and explosions in home theater (even there, better is better), but for music of most kinds it's absolutely essential.

Dear Johnnyb53: I think that the people can read the link and " form " their opinion about.

I agree with some of the points on that article. Sometimes is good to read 2-3 times articles like this one.

I tested along my audio distributors friends several times different subs as stand alone units and I can tell you that that fast/slow subs can't easy to detect.

The " perfect " integration in stereo fashion of subs to satelite speakers are a must and this can be achieved with fast/slow subs in the same system.
A stand alone sub sounds makes no music and even makes no sense when you heard. The relationship between the subs frequency response performance with/inside the satelite speakers is what it counts.

Anyway, the article opens a sligthly way of thinking on that subject.

regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Stringreen: This is another Harman white papers on subs:

http://www.aes.org/tmpFiles/elib/20111112/13680.pdf

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

Dear Johnnyb53: This are the experiences that an Agoner had in reference to that Soundstage subs article:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?eanlg&1117893153&openflup&340&4#340

Regards and enjoy the music,
R.

rauliruegas:

I thank you for this post and all of the expertise you bring. I find this fascinating and it is a ongoing part of my personal audio journey.

I've always felt that two subs are superior in reproducing appropriate sound in an audio system. The arguments you make are just spot on.

My ongoing issue now is integrating. I'm always experimenting with the controls (2) Martin Logan Depthi's). Currently, my issue is...How is the best way in which to connect?

(1) By the RCA outs from a preamp?
(2) By the speaker level inputs from an amp?

I've used for years the (1) , and find, upon thinking it through, it makes less sense. (Why not run the signal straight to your amp instead of through a whole separate circuitry?) Then the amp's character has more of a role to the subs, thus better integration. (ala = REL?)

I'm going to try (2), (next week), by using prepared cables (shotgun) that allow me to go ((after the signal comes directly from my preamp to amp)), a cable for each sub that allows each individual channel amp output to each individual subs stereo speaker level inputs, R&L per sub.

Regarding placement.. the conventional way of "in the corners", I found to be not very useful. I think this comes mostly out of "out of sight, out of mind, and a WAF". I have found that placing them close to the main speakers makes the most sense. This does interfere with most user's "other factors", as I previously stated. It does, however make the most sense in that it can integrate better with the music as it is naturally made... in stereo!

The "old school" of thought was to place them in the corners or across the room, (out of the way) since bass has been perceived as non-directional.

I've found that in looking/listening to this issue, nothing could be farther from the truth!

I could go on, but appreciate any further thoughts you may have.

Cheers,

Steve