Is One Subwoofer Really Not Appropriate For 2-Chnl
I'm using a single Rel B3 with my Dyn C1's. The time alignment/phasing is the trickiest part. Took me about a year to get it right. I had thought of adding a second sub but now I personally don't feel the need for it especially now the timing is right. I have my sub setup about 5ft to the right of my right speaker. I could never get the sub to sound right when I tried placing it between the speakers. Nearfield listening is why I guess it just didn't sound right to me. |
Consider the trade off; a smallish bookshelf with a set of subs may cost about the same as a larger full range, and the full range, while taking up less room, perhaps, will likely be more coeherent across the entire spectrum. I tried sub/monitor combos several times over the years and always returned to full range. I found that usually the midrange suffers the most due to the cabinet considerations and size of drivers. However, an exception was the much larger Wharfedale Opus 2-M2 monitor and matching subs. It is a much larger than usual "bookshelf" speaker, which was critical in competing well with its floor standing sibling. You can read it here: http://dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?bShowUnpublished=&hArticle=759&PageOfArticle=1 |
As Jim Smith (Get Better Sound) would say, your budget should be spread over two, not one. Having said that, I have two, it is very difficult to set up two, alone one. Expect to work on it for weeks, maybe months. Both should be driven by a single mono signal. A TRA when used properly will be of immense help. The RatShack meter is useless in setting my subs properly. |
