Rythmik F12G owner here. I don't own electrostatics, but have Magnepan MMGs. The F12G is very fast and musical sub that has a very good array of controls to match your listening preferences, whatever they may be. Can't go wrong with a Rythmik, IMO. It marries very well with my Maggies. I cross at 80 after much experimentation with 60 (right around where the MMGs drop off) and 90. A 90 Hz crossover made the Maggies sound too thin, 60 was a bit too congested-sounding. 80 was the sweet spot that really crystallized the Maggies and tightened up the bass presentation.
Comparison of various subwoofers for 2 channel audio
I have a 2 channel audio system, and I appreciate how subwoofers have augmented the sound quality of my system (with electrostatic speakers). I currently am using a pair of Martin Logan Balanced Force 212 subwoofers, but I’m thinking about adding more subwoofers for a total of four in order to help balance the low frequency sound waves. I’m considering adding a pair of Rythmik, SVS, or perhaps Velodyne subwoofers to the system. Does anyone have experience with many of those brands, and how well they integrate with electrostatic speakers in a 2 channel system, or perhaps should I just get a second pair custom built with certain specifications?
Thanks.
- ...
- 41 posts total
@carlsbad2 wrote:
Due to the nature of bass distribution acoustically in domestic environments I'm guessing quite a few are missing out on what naturally present bass can really sound and feel like, as an uneven and less clean reproduction of the lower octaves is typically gained back to not be felt too conspicuous one way or the other in the overall mix. Making matters worse in the context of subs is poor integration with the mains that will only exacerbate the issue of lowered gain. That being the case there's often a lack of proper foundation in music playback without people really knowing about it, because the issues seem to have been dialed back - but with them the sense of natural presence and fullness of bass as well. So, I'd argue that what many feel is a natural bass as found in the recording is really not a true indication of such, but rather a more or less anemic version of it. Don't get me wrong; subs dialed too loud with frequency irregularities/boominess, feeling like they're making an effort, marred by overhang and not properly integrated are a nuisance of which one is better off without. However, while the former scenario is less intrusive it's also, potentially, not enough of a presence to be felt truly natural as heard in live music - acoustically or amplified. The lowest octaves require the most energy to be felt "linear," clean and natural, and for that one needs much more displacement that may at first be anticipated, in addition to efficiency and/or a lot of power. Seeing subs of typically smaller size than the main speakers, even significantly so, is the first indication of something gone wrong here, but try and get that through to audiophiles who'll mostly laugh at the sight of large and/or stacked sub towers per channel claiming that it's way "overkill." What it really is however is exactly what's needed: "overkill" is simply common sense where the lowest octaves goes, as this is a way to ensure proper energy, ease and physicality of reproduction. I'm definitely an advocate of natural bass, but for that there's no way around the adherence to physics with all that implies, as well of course overall integration. |
@drbond i recommend searching the forum for ‘swarm’ to find threads on swarm distributed subwoofer array.
|
- 41 posts total