What percentage of audiophiles use a sub ?

Most full range speakers still lack deep bass and I think a sub that is integrated well fills out the bottom regions when done right. Plain and simple most speakers just don't get below 28-30Hz. My last set of speakers played down to 30Hz but I knew there was much more bass in some of the CD's I played and it pissed me off sometimes because I wanted to feel it, knew it was there and they couldn't play it. Now I have floor standing monitors and a sub I KNOW the sub needs to be integrated better but when the music has the sub bass regions it hits but not like a thud or totally inaccurate bass. Takes time to get it to integrate but I will get it there soon and overall I like the sub and don't regret downsizing somewhat. Its basically a personal preference so be happy with what you got and enjoy the music. Happy 4th :)

Well, perhaps some of my issue with subs and people's description's of "deep bass" is that almost no acoustically produced music goes anywhere near as low as 28Hz. Some pianos don't even go that low. An organ, some pianos, perhaps a doublebass provided with a low C extension, maybe a contrabass trombone, I'd have to look that up, or the very largest tuba, that's about it. And very rarely are those notes actually called for even on these instruments, and when they are, they don't sound anything like any sub I have ever heard, even a well-integrated one (I have heard them both in stores and in people's homes). So I do repeat that they are really only for movies and electronically produced music, and are simply not necessary for listening to acoustically produced music. In fact, if they are used for this, the result is invariably not realistic sounding, IME. The timbres are just not right.

Well, perhaps some of my issue with subs and people's description's of "deep bass" is that almost no acoustically produced music goes anywhere near as low as 28Hz. Some pianos don't even go that low. An organ, some pianos, perhaps a doublebass provided with a low C extension, maybe a contrabass trombone, I'd have to look that up, or the very largest tuba, that's about it. And very rarely are those notes actually called for even on these instruments, and when they are, they don't sound anything like any sub I have ever heard, even a well-integrated one (I have heard them both in stores and in people's homes). So I do repeat that they are really only for movies and electronically produced music, and are simply not necessary for listening to acoustically produced music. In fact, if they are used for this, the result is invariably not realistic sounding, IME. The timbres are just not right.

A sub is not limited in function to the lowest reaches of its range. It augments a range where certainly less of the music lives, but pointing at just the lowest realms of that range is viewing its purpose through blinders - you are not seeing the whole picture. It also takes some of the burden off of the midrange drivers by supporting part of that lower range that they'd otherwise have to handle. Certainly I completely agree that subs are not "necessary" to enjoy acoustic music, but in my experience they can enhance my enjoyment of it. The music I listen to is pretty wide in scope - much of it is acoustic and vocals.

Certainly I completely agree that subs are not "necessary" to enjoy acoustic music, but in my experience they can enhance my enjoyment of it.

The problem with these types of discussions is that people prioritize things in different orders.

I'll agree with Learsfool that a very high percentage (but not all) of the sub-augmented systems I've heard over the years sound unnatural to me when playing acoustic music.

Part of that is the nature of recordings while another part is that a living room doesn't have the same acoustics as a concert hall.

Simply put, any system playing recorded music - regardless of cost - is a set of compromises when compared to a live acoustic performance.

However, it is no surprise that some people are very happy with their added sub while others look at it as a complication that may or may not improve the situation.

Learsfool brings up a good point about just how low in the bass frequencies a person needs to go to achieve high fidelity sound. Reading several articles online suggests that the range of 40-14,000 Hz is sufficient, with one article stating "the reproduction of orchestral music with perfect fidelity requires a frequency range of 40 to 14,000 cycles . . ."

Age and hearing can be another factor. One article said that 50 Hz to 15 KHz used to be considered the range of human hearing and was a standard for hi-fi reproduction. The article goes on to say that the range of human hearing is now considered to range from 20 Hz to 20 KHz; "however once out of the first flush of youth we practically have a hearing range of ~50Hz to around 15/16KHz (G#1 to C10/C10#)."

A reviewer of the Rega R7 had this to say about bass frequencies and room interraction:

"34-years’ experience in the audio world have taught me that the most common system building error is mismatching the speaker to the room. Place a mini-monitor in too large a room and you get the bass-shy “squawk box” syndrome. Far more common in the US is buying a speaker whose bass response is more than the room can handle, resulting in various manifestations of boom, thud, and rhinocerine mud-wallowing. It’s more than a simple matter of room dimensions and overall volume: wall and floor construction also play a crucial role. It’s been my general experience that if you can get clear and tight response down to 40 Hz in-room, stop and count your blessings. And think very hard about pursuing response into the bottom octave. One is more likely to screw up everything achieved in the musically useful range of 40 Hz and above."

So my under-appreciation for subwoofers could stem from my choice of music (various forms of classical, acoustic jazz and bluegrass) and age (over 50) as well as any problems with system or room integration with the subwoofer-reinforced systems I've heard.