Looking for the "better sub"


I have Magnepan 1.6/QRs and would like a sub sometime soon to fill in the low end.
Subs suggested to me have been as follows...

Vandersteen 2wQ....problem with this sub for me is most agree I need two from the start for my 25X15 room.
JL Fathom 113....I would have ordered one, but no high level inputs turns a great sub into a home theater product in my eyes. They blew it.
Martin Logan Depth....still a frontrunner. Quick and musical. And one works well enough to get started.
REL....Still looking into these.

So I guess I'm looking at a budget of about 2K...a bit more or less. Anything else I should be looking into beyond the above? Please comment if you've heard the models above, which (except for the Fathom) are well known for working nicely with Magnepan panels.

Thanks!

R
robbob
Couldn't agree less with the statement that lack of high-level inputs makes JL Fathom unsuitable for 2CH audiophile use.>>>

After trying both hook-up methods, I'm always a little surprised when someone claims they are the same.
Using the high level inputs and connected to the speaker terminals of the amp, the subwoofer sees the exact SAME signal the speakers do and it's transmitted over the SAME type of speaker wire at the SAME time.
Using the low level inputs you're sub sees a signal different from the speakers and probably not even at the same time. On top of that the signal is transmitted over a different type of cable.
Considering all we make of tiny differences in gear and tweaks we make, I find it astounding that anyone even suggests that low level inputs in as good for 2 channel listening. I tried both using SVS and Martin Logan Abyss subs, and the difference in speed was noticeable right away.
Furthermore, I can connect my 2 channel system to the high level inputs of most other high-end subs, and run low level from my home theater system. One sub can work for two totally different systems. The Fathom can't manage that.
So now matter how good the Fathom is, they were shortsighted in their design both for flexibility and the high end audiophiles who prefer high level connections.
Even Martin Logan prefers high level for the reasons I described.

R.
Post removed 
Robbob

>>Considering all we make of tiny differences in gear and tweaks we make, I find it astounding that anyone even suggests that low level inputs in as good for 2 channel listening<<

I gather you are fairly new to audio reproduction, higher end audio, dipole speakers, and subwoofers in general (mostly a lot of reading?).

As time goes on, and you gain more hands on experience....you won't find things quite so astounding...or, absolute.

BTW...I saw a picture of your room at another forum (very nice looking). The curtains covering the wall behind the Maggies are a bad idea though. The rear sound wave is your friend (it's there to help you), it should strike a live wall...and not heavy curtains.

Dave
ROBBOB, here is why I disagree with your stance on high level inputs. I have TRIED both on a very high quality sub ( Wilson Benesch Torus) which allows for both connections and the difference was not noticable. Some people prefer using balanced outs from the pre because it allows direct feed from the pre without the added DISTORTION from both the cables and the amplifier. The low level preamp feed is always purer. There is no significant time delay. If you want to talk about significant group delay ( which is very noticable ) try integrating a sub without infinate phase control. This is a much more significant real world issue. If delay is of concern to you make sure that the subs grill is in the same plane as your speakers. An alternative to infinate phase control would be an active crossover with true linkwitz/riley (24db slope in both directions with -6db at the crossover which eliminates phase issues.) The problem with discussions like this and the conclusions which are drawn is that most people have not actually tried both methods and believe instead in some companies hype. High level inputs are not necessarily a bad thing its just that good sound depends alot more on other issues and I for one would not choose a sub based on the input philosophy.
"After trying both hook-up methods, I'm always a little surprised when someone claims they are the same."

"(Using line-level inputs), on top of that the signal is transmitted over a different type of cable."

I didn't claim that line-level & speaker-level hook-ups sound the same. While admittedly I haven't compared both in a wide range of systems, it's reasonable to expect varying results with different preamp & amp designs & types. As the OTL advocates will say, the performance of transformer-coupled tube amps is attenuated or colored at the frequency extremes. A good illustration is the Jensen Iso-Max coupling transformer that I use in the connection to my subwoofer. The windings are optimized for deep LF use and roll off significantly above 1000 Hz. Doubtless compromises are made in the deep LF performance of some transformer-coupled amps, in the interest of obtaining linearity across a wide spectrum. Some amps are more effective than others with extension & coherance in the sub-bass region.

While it's tempting to believe that speaker-level inputs are better because the sub "sees the same signal" as the main speakers, one must also consider the main amp's performance in the sub-bass region. And lest we forget, the tonality of the subwoofer's SS amp affects integration, whether through line- or speaker-level inputs.

In my system, at least, using a direct-coupled preamp notable for good LF extension & control, the sub sounds faster and more articulate through at the line-level input. Based on rave magazine & forum reviews, I suspect JL chose to omit speaker-level inputs for reasons other than cost. However, it would be nice to have both approaches available to satisfy everyone.