What percentage of audiophiles use a sub ?

I've found that subwoofers are difficult to balance with the rest of the system. Like others have said, the bass level varies on recordings enough that no one setting works well.

Another issue for me is that my receiver doesn't allow the use of a subwoofer in Direct Mode which is where critical listening is at its best. When the sub is active the receiver is actively processing the music. I love it for home theater and some "low rider" music demands loud bass.

When I was listening to my speakers at the store I took in some song with heavy bass to listen to and found out that the clarity of the sound was more than enough to forget about the lack of bass compared to my previous speakers.

I've heard the Focal Grande Utopia EM in combination with the JL Audio Gothom subwoofer and that's a pretty nice combination, but I'm not sure why the EM would ever need a subwoofer unless someone was just spending money to impress.

Maybe not the right thread but how do you even connect a sube if you don't have a pre output on an integrated amp.

I agree with those who are opposed to the addition. IMO, if you are really a two-channel fan then you'll leave the ".1" out of it. Now home theatre? You better have one or at least capable speakers. Otherwise, unnecessary.

On another note, I have to turn my music down most of the time when any really dynamic passage comes because the bass output from my little monitors is enough to shake the entire apartment and I'd rather not have the cops called for that. Now if I owned a house I might turn it up a little more but I still wouldn't dream of adding a sub. I think it also distorts the music a little too. Even a good one. It just doens't belong now matter how you tune it or where you set it up.

But then we come full circle back around to this question. Are you a 2-channel fan? Or aren't you?

If your speakers just aren't impressive or lack bass output of any kind then I can see where one would add a sub. But I think I'd put my money towards upgrading my speakers. Then you don't have to worry about a sub output on your two-channel amp. Which bears another note... I typically don't see many sub outputs on high-end dedicated 2-channel amps, do you? I think they're trying to say something.

A couple of folks have indicated that you should just improve your speakers rather than add subwoofers.

The problem is: The physics of wave propogation at low frequencies (i.e. long wavelengths) suggest that these frequencies will usually remain smoothest (minimized cancellation) when originated at, or near, the wall(s). So, unless your upgraded speakers work best in-wall/onwall/against wall, this "solution" doesn't address the issue.

As to high-end 2 channel products failing to embrace .1 (or.2 or .3), that may indeed tell you something. Just something different than has been implied here. Subwoofers definitely do not hew to the "purist" 2 channel philosophy, but that doesn't mean that the choice of a subwoofer is "wrong". Maybe the philosophy needs to be re-thought.

Marty

PS - You could always forego the sub and smooth the bass region with Digital Room Correction, but I suspect that this is a greater transgression against the 2 channel orthodoxy than even the dreaded "s word".

Most every speaker I know of suffers in imaging, transparency, sound stage and overall clarity when closer to a wall.

Its true that an advantage of a separate sub or two is that the speakers can now be farther away from walls where most everything except bass performance often benefits.

I don't understand any dogma that says subs are inconsistent with two channel stereo reproduction. That makes no sense to me at all.