Is a Sub worth the bother?


I have a small, simple system that pretty much meets my listening needs. It's an NAD C715 (all-in-one deal) with a pair of Epos EL3 bookshelf speakers. I've been kicking around the idea of getting a cheap subwoofer with the idea that it would add a little oomph to things. This is strictly a music system, not home theater. I guess my questions are: 1) would a sub help that much or am I just limited because of the EL3s? 2) If a sub would help, would a cheap one be okay (I'm thinking along the lines of the Dayton sub 100, perhaps an Energy Take Classic 8--$100 at Costco these days). My room is roughly 12 x 20, but again, I'm not looking to bring down the house/neighborhood.

Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
comfortstarr
IMO-I believe a good sub would help, but not a cheap one. Your Epos are fast and detailed, and a crap sub will just smear the speed and detail of the Epos. I know, I have experiemented with an inexpensive sub and Usher speakers (fast and detailed). At first its nice to have the bottom octive, but it doesnt take long before realizing its not an improvement, just different. Good luck.
Amen. It would be one step forward and two back. You might just keep your eyes open for a used sub of decent quality since you are not in a big rush.

Kal
I would recommend a small sub. The rated lowest frequency for your speakers is stated to be 65 Hz, I assume at -3 dB. You are missing some of the music. I have Von Schweikert VR-1s, roughly the same frequency response. I added an REL Q108E and I only notice it when I turn it off, but then I realize how much information I am missing. It seems to make the midrange better. TUning it is a challenge. You don't want to "hear" it at all. I like the REL because it is closed, not ported, and it is small. My room is roughly 10' x 13' with a vaulted ceiling and one wide doorway. I tried it without the sub and keep going back to it. It makes music better.