2. speakers
  3. 135891-111507

Vandersteen Sub woofers v Rythmik Subs

I really love the idea of the Vandersteen Subs where they are connected with the mains via extra speaker cable off right and left channels off the main amplifier, which is supposed to provide better bass transition from the mains while keeping the signature from the main amplifier. My question is with Vandersteen coming out with the SUB THREE and the price going significantly higher, I was wondering if there are other subs for less that you could integrate in the same way. (Most subs seem to rely on the line level input which is just a sub-woofer RCA going from the pre-amp to the amp on the sub). Can this same Vandersteen set-up be achieved with other subs?
I picked Rythmik since they are known (in the home theater community anyway) for being one of the best bang for the buck subs and the most "musical" of the bunch. (between Hsu, SVS, PSA).
And could I possibly achieve even greater sub-woofer nirvana since I could get an 18" for around $1500? Vandies only have 3 eight inchers.

I am a Vandersteen fanboy and I would like to support RV whenever I can, but don’t know much about my other sub-woofer options so looking for some feedback. Doesn’t even have to be related to Rythmik necessarily. If you know of other subs that can integrate the same way I want to know about it!

Thanks
bstatmeister
lewinskih01
909 posts
 

You can start with 80Hz crossover and later try higher or lower.

Don't know the Vandersteen sub nor M12, but do have multichannel with two F12 as subs. In my experience leaving the bottom to subs is better, provided integration is done right. To do this, in my experience measurement equipment is indispensable and advanced digital xo is very important too.

One step at a time is best. Otherwise the new many variables can get overwhelming.

audiorusty
270 posts
 

The biggest advantage the Vandersteen’s may have is in the e.q. capabilities. Though having multiple subs helps reduce the need for e.q. Does the NAD have any e.q. capability?

Are you happy with the performance of the Rythmik you currently have? If you are, then adding more in the future should only improve on what you have now.

I agree that 80 his a good place to start with the crossover setting. If you go higher localization will start to set in so you would need to keep the sub(s) close to the main speakers but at 80 or lower you would be able to place the sub(s) in the most optimal locations in your room.

bondmanp
1,808 posts
 

IMHO, the biggest, and unique, advantage of the Vandy subs is that they feed off the same speaker taps as the main speakers.  This preserves the phase and Sonic characteristics of the main amp, making a seamless blend with the main speakers much easier.  Also, few other subs are designed for corner placement, which is where many people place their subwoofers.  And having adjustable Q is also a rare, and maybe unique, feature as well.

lewinskih01
909 posts
 

@bondmanp 

Not really. Rythmiks also have the connection to feed off the amp taps, have phase and Q adjustments. But having more variables, hence options, also introduces more uncertainties, which is why sub integration is such a difficult task especially if done without measurement equipment.

bondmanp
1,808 posts
 

@lewinskih01 Thanks.  I had no idea.  So, the Rythmic subs also have a fixed crossover of ?Hz?  Remember, the Vandy doesn't pass the amplified signal through it's own crossover, but requires both main speakers and Vandy sub speaker wires be connected to the speaker taps simultaneously.  If that is also the case with the Rythmic subs, I stand corrected.  All I can say is that I plopped my 2Wq subs in the front corners of my room, made a few adjustments to the Q and level controls, and got seamlessly integrated, deep, powerful and tuneful bass.  And that's with both my old Vandy 1Cs and my current Ohm Walsh 2000s.

More to discover