Do you think you need a subwoofer?

As a single-sub user for all of a couple of months, I am considering a second sub. My reasons have to do with smooth and even bass performance, NOT more bass. My single sub is in the front left corner. There is plenty of bass energy, and I have the level turned to almost inaudible. What I have a problem with is the uneven response. Some LF energize the room much more than others.

On a side note, my girlfriend complained about the bass keeping her awake while I was listening late at night. The music level was pretty low, in consideration of her. My home is three levels, listening room on the bottom floor, bedroom on the third floor. When I went upstairs to investigate, the music was barely audible. But when I put my ear to the pillow or bed, the bass was rumbling through. My conclusion is that airborne energy dissipates quickly as a function of distance (inverse exponential function) while the structure is a more efficient conduit for LF energy. I believe my single sub generates plenty of energy, but needs some attention to refinement. Perhaps anti-vibration footers designed for industiral machinery would hep. Anyone try this? Interestingly, I have no problems with vibrations affecting TT playback on my suspended wood floor. But the TT is a Micro Seiki...

My flame suit is on, ready for the jokes about listening to music while my lovely girlfriend is in bed. Gosh, I must be such a geek....

Regards,
scott

Don't worry Skushino,

I have to wait until my girlfriend goes to bed before I can watch SciFi Channel or play computer games. And I'm 40 years old! Talk about a dork.

I tried a listening session tonight of one sub versus two(summed mono). Same songs, same passages, seconds apart. Out of that rudimentary test, it seems to me that one sub gets you 80% or more of tonal benefits. But, the second sub adds depth and texture to what's there.

As for energy or room mode cancellation, I kinda got the feeling that I have less problems with one sub than two. How's that for weird? One of my subs must be slightly out of position because it is supposed to cancel a lot energy.

I played a few deep bass laden tracks (Bach organ, Bjork, Pink Floyd) and then walked up to the master bedroom which is on the floor above and behind the living room (tri-level house). There seemed to be more energy in that room with two subs than one. Although, one was still enough to annoy someone in bed.

I think absorption/basstraps are the only real answer to your(and my) problem. Since I have two subs pointing directly forward, I really don't need the added room gain. So, I am going to experiment with DIY absorptive panels on the wall behind the speakers and bass traps in the corners. The same behind the listening position to drain energy away from the wall 2-3 behind my head. I'm also going to put panels at the 1st reflection points.

Dear Sirspeedy: +++++ " ).They felt that since my speakers had superb output down to 35-40 hz,and since my room was only 22.5x13x8,the "second sub" was not a "Real" necessity! " +++++

As you know your Ascents are not the only speakers that are " superb down to 35-40 Hz ". I can tell you that the moment when you can integrate two subs in a true stereo way in your system: you will be shocked!!. The Sumiko people loose/missed the real subs subject.
Btw, what you think or what I think about is totally irrelevant, what is relevant is a FACT and that fact will tell you anything about: the FACT : " the integration of two subs in your system ", you have to try it, you have to heard it at your place: is the only true way to really knows about.

Regards and enjoy the music.
Raul.

Thanks SirSpeedy and Raul, for continuing to address the one sub/two sub question.

Of course I am in the ideal position to mediate, since I have NO sub! I can expostulate from a position of pure innocence, err, ignorance. ;-)

My decision is: you're probably both right. Assuming proper implementation, one sub is better than none, and two subs are much better still.

I don't for a second doubt Raul's statement that two subs make a huge improvement. He's done the work, he's heard the results.

SirSpeedy is probably correct that my speakers and his are similar in bass performance. Audiophiles who visit occasionally miss a bit of bass slam, but they are universally impressed with its articulation and tunefulness. As Raul said, there are quite a few excellent main speakers that will go down solidly and cleanly to 40 Hz or so. It's that last octave (and below) that's so difficult.

Hey,Raul!!I'm not arguing with you!My only real point was to sort of indicate to Doug,or anyone else interested,that if money is an issue,as well as space limitations,for two subs,you can get great results with one.That's it!

As for the stereo option,to my way of thinking,if one is crossing over as low as I am(and Doug's main speakers will most likely need),then any low frequencies are perceived in "mono" anyway!Now Raul---"THAT HAPPENS TO BE THE REAL FACT!!

The only advantage of the second sub(and one has to understand that there is a difference between how we configure a sub set-up.How low the crossover point,will have a huge impact on whether a stereo set will perform.EX:As I'm sure you know,a higher cutoff point will sound better with 2 subs.What you don't seem to grasp,Raul,is that if the main speakers are quality performers down to "nearly" the low octave,and you crossover "LOW",like 25-35 hz,since everything is already mono,at that point,the only advantage of the second sub is for evening out the acoustic energy(response),which may or may not be such a big problem,as the ROOM DETERMINES THIS!!

Now,before you kill me on this,which I know is coming,you have NOT heard every room,or mine,so give some consideration to this.Some hobbyists may be able to extend listening pleasure,and save a few bucks too!That is why Sumiko(Sterling Trayle,actually)argued I try one first.They were not out to ONLY sell product.Rare in this hobby.Best wishes!!