Ruining music with a cheap sub


Hi, just want some general consensus on subwoofers. Will a cheap but decent subwoofer ruin a good system? The sole purpose of a sub is to supplement the lower octave of the spectrum by pushing air through. Please correct me if I am wrong, from a tech perspective, bass is non-directional, it can't be listened but can only be felt. I agree that a high quality fast sub is needed to reproduce good tight bass when listening in high volume. But in moderate volumn, there shouldn't be any significant difference between a $100 sub comparing to a $5000 sub. Your thoughts?
kilsho
I don't think a cheap sub can ruin a good system as long as it is left off, maybe OK for movies. For music you will need to look for a sub that is both tight & tuneful maybe like Velodyne or Polk Audio which are not extremely expensive.

You are correct about bass being non directional as my neigbor & I spoke some time ago & he is still looking for that jerk who is playing the bass too loud. I just didn't have the heart to tell him that it was me. But I did tell him I would keep an eye/ear out.
There are huge differences between bad/cheap subs and good/expensive subs. It's called distortion. And no, low bass is not *just* felt. Besides, a sub that's reproducing the bottom octave is rolling off in the second (and maybe into the third) octave, so it's going to affect your perception of a lot more than just that bottom octave.

I don't know of any good $100 subs, but there are some good $500 subs out there. And I'd say the point of diminishing returns hits well below $5000. YMMV.
"Sloppy loose bass from a cheap sub is worse than no sub at all IMO."
Chadnliz
In my opinion too.

With respect to subwoofer directionality, there's a wonderfully funny thread where some of the participants get into a SPIRITED debate about that very topic. It also seems to have some pretty good info. Here's the link:

Stereo versus monaural subwoofers debated right here on Audiogon
03-11-06: Mdhoover

"Sloppy loose bass from a cheap sub is worse than no sub at all IMO."
Chadnliz
In my opinion too.

With respect to subwoofer directionality, there's a wonderfully funny thread where some of the participants get into a SPIRITED debate about that very topic. It also seems to have some pretty good info. Here's the link:

Stereo versus monaural subwoofers debated right here on Audiogon

Md, thanks for the link.

I totally agree and believe me, I know how a bad woofer sounds like. Perhaps I used the wrong word, maybe decent but relatively low cost(below $200 used?) would be the right phrase. Isn't it true that distortion is proportional to volume? If I am not looking for something to knock the stucco off my house, and as long as I watch the distortion threshold, then I shouldn't have to go break the bank to get a highend sub. I just don't quite understand why someone would spend thousands on a sub. Wouldn't it make more sense to spend that extra money to get better speakers?

I remember someone once told me that two subs are no better, if not worse, than a single sub(in a stereo setup) because one might cancel the other one out. Is that true?
I used a Def Tech 15" subwoofer that sounded great on movies, but just didn't sound right when listening to music. Although the bass was powerful, it seemed like it was just not keeping up with the music and kind of gave me a headache. I listen at moderate volume.

After eventually upgrading to an M&K 350 sub, I realized that a good subwoofer makes a huge difference. No more headaches.