Ruining music with a cheap sub

Unfortunately it is expensive to produce ultra low frequencies with minimal distortion, an order of magnitude more costly than for bass/mid frequencies and two orders of magnitude harder than for a simple tweeter.

This is why a good sub usually costs so much.

If you wish to purchase an active sub woofer with similar distortion figures as attained in your passive high-end speakers then you should expect to pay at least as much as you paid for the pair of high-end speakers. The sub typically needs three or four times more amplification than a single speaker and includes a heavily damped cabinet, large driver and adjustable x-over settings.

As far as I know, there is no cheap way to get low distortion sound in a sub. If this seems like a crazy expense just to augment a couple of the lowest octaves in the audible range then it is quite sensible to remain without a sub. However, I wouldn't recommend the cheap sub coupled with expensive high-end speakers as the sub distortion will indeed mask one of the major benefits of a high-end speaker, which is a good clean and accurate bass.

Correction:

"Lower priced units are generally not designed with such a t approach in mind."

That sentence was MEANT to read as follows:
Lower priced units are generally not designed with such a purist approach in mind.

One of myfellow salesmen showed me a big difference between the $150 sub and the $300 one. He played a bass line where there were 4 or 5 bass notes in a row. The better one played all 4 or 5. The cheap Sony could only play 2 or 3. The better one was a Polk or maybe it was a JBL. It has been a while. It was a pretty easy test so take a favorite test cd with you. Good Luck. Dan