![]() ![]() |
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
wondering how many in this forum use a sub in there audio system, is it essential in the SACD and DVD audio format, thanks
Follow Ups:
nt
Yes in the HT system only 2x 24" <10Hz subs at the moment!
Hav'nt seen the need in the two channel setup as the mains will do a real nice 16Hz
I'm using B&W 802N's driven by a Krell FPB-600c which is fed from XLR outputs via a Krell KRC-3. I connected a 2nd pair of RCA outputs on the KRC-3 directly to my Velodyne F1500 sub. Although the 802's have good bass, I find that with the open area of my listening room I need more very low end bass. I have the F1500 low pass set to 45Hz to bring out the bass in big classical orchestral pieces like Mahler's 2nd.
-
nt
nt
""
nt
HSU xed over @40 hz..to compliment Thiels which go down to low 20s.
For HT I have a JBL sub, and JBL speakers.
nt
.
I should have stated that.
.
I have two channel system running all tubes with a Sony 9000es.I ordered the crossover with 51Hz plug-in modules for both the high pass and low pass. To do a sub right, you really need a good crossover.
The Hsu Research crossover uses discrete FET, with zero overall feedback for the high pass section. The low pass is also discrete, and both the high and low pass sections are biased class A. High pass and low pass are both 24dB/octave Linkwitz-Riley. There are polypropylene capacitors in the signal path, including the power supply bypass capacitors. A front panel switch for instant switch-over between running your main speakers full-range, and running them with the subwoofers in bi-amplified mode, a switch for inverting the phase, and of couse the level control. It's a lot of crossover for $400.
At any rate - it's completely killer.
Deang
My speaker system includes what are more appropriately "bass modules" rather than "sub woofers".What's the difference? As I see it sub woofers are "optional" to a system for the purpose of extending the low frequency range and or dynamic range of the total system. If you opt not to have subwoofers you will still have a system capable of covering the range as intended by the manufacturer of the mains. (Many times the original system will sound superior, better integrated). Sub woofers tend to be most often made by a different manufacturer than the mains, so they are not made with the mains in mind. Sub woofers tend to cross over at 100 hz or below, so a single sub is an option.
Bass modules are "integral", not optional to the performance of the system. If you did not have them your system would be limited indeed. Bass modules are designed to "specifically" to work with the mains; all crossovers, positioning, etc. are matched with the other in mind.
Bass modules most often crossover at higher octaves than subs. My bass modules cross over at 200 hundred hertz, so can be said to be really woofers that happen to ne in separate cabinets from the tweeters and midrange drivers. Because they crossover at such a high frequency two bass modules are specified; a single bass module is not an option. The bass modules are designed with each other in mind to address potential "suck out" issues.One thing that my bass modules have in common with a sub woofer is that they extend the bass and increase the dynamic range. The bass extends to 13hz, at 114 db with a Q factor of .54.
Robert C. Lang
NFT
.
While I overpaid for a high output, musical sub, I currently use it only for HT LFE using digital crossover in preamp/processor for bass management (full range for mains, 50 Hz crossover for center/sub).For 2-channel mode, I do not use the sub. While the sub is VERY capable of integrating with the mains, my too-brief experiments with less-than-steller interconnects suggests a loss of transparency when I run the line level outs to the subwoofer, use the sub's crossover, and run again to the main amp. The sub's contribution for really low bass is beneficial for a small number of pieces but not enough to overcome the slight loss at the higher frequencies for all music. Maybe if I hooked up silver garden hose interconnects to/from sub and preamp/amp....
Speakers' -3dB point is 30 Hz so I already have main speakers with decent frequency response. 8" woofers in surrounds and 2x6" woofers in center could benefit from a sub; I might consider high quality subs with speaker-level inputs (e.g. RELs) but this could get expensive.
I use a Rel Strata III with my ML Aerius i's. Use the recommended parallel high level hookup to sub. Currently have Rel set a 32 hz. Works a treat with the ML's. Very musical. Works great with all inputs CD redbook, SACD, Turntable, etc. No fiddling once set just great seamless bass. Rel very flexible in this regard.-CB
.
I use a Paradigm PS-1200 in the Mass Market HT system. However, I try not to listen to music on it too often, mainly FM for the most part.I guess there are problems with SACD/DVD~A players and bass management, however, I don't understand what the big deal is. It should be simple, IMO.
Chris
the best ones are on Ridge Ave. in Roxborough--that's where God gets his.
(he likes to order the cheese steak hoagie with oil)
to die for
I like the classic Italian subs.
Excellent when playing SACD's.
Sony SCD-777ES > > Silver Audio SB 4.0 > > AI M3A > > Silver Audio Hyacinth > > Odyssey Stratos > > Tice 416A Bi-wire > > MG 1.6 QR
Enough fat to choke the arterial system attached to the ears. Green tea, on the other hand, increases the acuity of the auditory receptors.
Yes I know Italian subs are not good
for the arterial system, I do not have
them often. I have been drinking
more green tea so I am on the right track.
Sony SCD-777ES > > Silver Audio SB 4.0 > > AI M3A > > Silver Audio Hyacinth > > Odyssey Stratos > > Tice 416A Bi-wire > > MG 1.6 QR
don't have a subwoofer or two... or more.Many years ago (long before audiophiles ever thought about multiple channel systems), several audiophile publications were pointing out the real advantages of having a subwoofer in your audio system.
Aside from the fact that a quality subwoofer might provide you a deeper reach into the depths of music, a system composed of subwoofer(s) that are fed through a quality crossover and its/their own amp(s) can actually provide the listener with better sound throughout the sound spectrum. The reason should be obvious: if the amplifier used to drive your main pair of speakers is not called upon to provide the entire sonic spectrum it doesn't have to work as hard. So, if you chop off the bottom octave or two and send them to another amp for the bass, the dynamics of the signal it now sees makes for a less arduous task.
Therein lies another benefit to subwoofers: since most audiophiles would agree that transistor amplifiers recreate bass better than tube amps do, but many believe that tube amps sound more like real music over a broader range of frequencies, you can have the best of both worlds by having a tube amp run your main speakers and a transistor amp running your subwoofer(s).
In my own stereo-only system (I'll consider multi-channel when the creator sprouts 3.1 more ears on my head), I have two subwoofers crossed over at 85 Hz with a 6 dB slope, so my transistor amp (150 watts) is just poking along. My main speakers have 90 watt tube amp poking along too.
All this talk about subwoofer outs on receivers is therefore needless, as my system will play any stereo SACD without the need to make any adjustments.
And someone did give me an old M&K he thought was dead. I tried it and hated it. I use transmission lines on my electrostatic mains. They go so low that I have no use for a sub.
..even if your front L/R speakers are full range. However, it is very tricky to get a sub to perform in a uniform way with different input devices, in both stereo and M/C. I low pass filter my sub at 40 hertz which works fine with my Studio 100s and Reference CC, if not quite as well with the Atoms I use in the back. My Denon DVM-4800 uses the 5.1 outputs for CD and DVD-A, stereo and M/C, with the same bass management for all three. For turntable, tuner or DVD-V I use the crossover in my Denon receiver.
It immediately improved the slam, and high end of the Maggies, but it also added a tizzyness to the sound, making the vocals sound like they were coming through a kazoo. Just barely, and for non-critical likening it was a big improvement. But when you sat down in front and listened, the sound was "different" than without a sub, but not definitely all round-better. Better in some aspects (more slam, lower bass) worse in its treatment of midrange-highs.Hope this helps.
I could hear something similar when I used the Paradigm crossover. However, the crossovers in the Denon DVM-4800 and 4800 receiver (used one at a time!) don't audibly affect the sound in my system.
whether it is a DVD-A, SACD or DVD-V - I ONLY use the sub for the dedicated LFE channel.
That's not a good idea. For consistent results, the LFE should be mixed with the mains (then apply whatever crossover is appropriate).
. . . so if you don't have a sub, then you are missing out on a dedicated channel on the disc, and are therefore not hearing the recording the way it was meant to be heard.
I have multiple Sub's 2 in front and one behind, however if you hook them up the way your supposed to from the Sub output of the SACD player and let the on-board Bass Redirection send signals to it, it's all but useless for 2-Ch SACD's since none of the Bass Management systems work properly on DVD-A or SACD.So YES a sub is essential if you don't have full range main speakers, but nearly worthless for SACD since nearly all SACD titles are 2-Ch.
And are you ever going to answer my question regarding speaker-level inputs?Phil
not everyone's sub has these speaker level in and outs, your sub is not the only game in town, many people perfer to build their own sub and use a seperate bridgable amp.
And how many 2 channel CD players have bass management?
Why do so many people these days get hung up on using the sub output exclusively (sacd, dvd-a or HT)?To me it's just one more adjustment on the processor to worry about--multi-channel sound is complicated enough as it is!
Personally, I would only use the LFE channel for movies anyway. Tyrying to blend a subwoofer with the mains is too tricky and worry about phase problems screwing with the bass response.
It depends on the mix of the SACD. In some cases, the sub is very handy when playing back the Multichannel layer of Multichannel/Stereo SACDs.As to the comment that few SACDs have Multichannel, actually there are over 100 now in the US alone with a Multichannel layer. See list below.
And your idea of a fix is just limit your purchases to the 100 Multi-Channel SACD available, this is exactly what the manufacturers think you should do (Sony's reply), don't worry about the apparent problem starring you in the face, just do a work around all is well, No Problem don't rain on anyone’s parade just go with it man, if somebody pisses down your back and tells you it's raining just believe them. Well what if you don't happen to like hardly any of the 100 multi-channel SACD's available, I can only find 2 or three I would bother to buy at the price.I have a different point of view, if there is a problem I shout it at the rooftop’s and I don’t let the manufacturers ram some half baked product down my throat and tell me to just look on the bright side, I call a Turd a Turd, and I’m mad as hell at Sony for their lies and marketing BS telling everyone that this new DSD technology is so much better than PCM and a pure audiophile format with a much more analog sound, what a load of dung
.
if you think SACD is no better than CD and you don't like any music out on SACD- listen to CD. Very simple. 99.9% of the world have no idea what is SACD and live very happily and it sounds like you should just forget the whole thing. There is a lot more good music out on CD, if you like the sound as much or better than SACD, there is no reason to waste your time (or ours) with it.
The information I share is an opinion just like others, but my A/B testing may be of interest to some who haven’t bought SACD players yet and need to know the con's as well as the pro's, also you seem to have a severe comprehension or reading problem. Maybe you should read carefully before you shoot off your mouth and make useless comments about what I should do. Personally I don’t give a crap of what you think I should do, what I do is none of your business and I do so get tired of reposting my comments over and over to people who can’t make a logical useful point and re-word everything someone else says incorrectly.I didn’t say “I didn’t like any music on SACD” only that nearly all was 2-channel recordings and I cannot play 2-channel SACD’s because of the Bass management problems which narrows down my choices severely. And I didn’t say they were the same as CD’s, in fact the multi channel SACD sound quite nice, what I have been saying all along (and you can’t seem to understand) is that it’s my opinion that the sound difference is in the software and not the DSD 1 bit stream that Sony claims and I backed that up with a sound logical test.
Next time try quoting accuratly instead of twisting what someone says just to vent your thoughts. Other people might want to know some of the good info I went to the trouble to impart. I know I would have loved to know some of the problems with this format before I spent so much money on equipment and software that cannot be returned. So I actually have a reason and a point I’m trying to make (you know a contribution) unlike your obviously self-centered worthless comments that does no one any good. Why would you assume that just because you get no good info from this that no one else need to hear, are you speaking for the entire community.
I won't bother to respond to any of you’re posts unless you would like to actually try and debate without twisting my words and making useless comments on what you think I should do with my equipment or music.
Wow, I know I have been gone for a while, but are we still debating CD versus SACD sound quality? Come on . . . Regardless of some of the interesting and even disengenuous ways in which music is getting to SACD (how come they don't often tell us the complete recording chain?) unless the SACD is problematic in some respect, the differences are apparent, from the mastering level on. Oh, right, I remember now, it's because SACD's are equalized differently . . . well that may, in fact be correct, as generally a LOT more needs to be done to the PCM than the DSD layer.
Assuming you know what to do with them.
kingdaddy sez:"...I call a Turd a Turd, and I’m mad as hell at Sony for their lies and marketing BS telling everyone that this new DSD technology is so much better than PCM and a pure audiophile format with a much more analog sound, what a load of dung"
Sony didn't lie about anything, that's exactly what I hear compared to ANY cd player(including 20k+ models) I've heard...maybe you need to change something about your system/setup if you can't hear it.
That's what everyone says that hasn't actually done any real comparison or investigation in to the differences in what the manufacturer claims, it's always poor equipment or bad hearing, how typical, can't argue with that logic so I won’t. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything anyway, this is just my opinion based on at least some facts and A/B comparison. Most just throw in a Redbook CD then a SACD of the same material and say WOW what an improvement, can't argue with anyone who is so easily impressed and "Believes what they heard" no matter how flawed and illogical the test is. As for me I like to prove things to my self in a logical reproducible test of Apples vs. Apples but hey, I'm just that kind of rebel, I guess maybe a bit cynical and leery of Manufacturers claims. Something tells me they really don't have my best interest in mind and that money and the sales of their software is first and foremost but I guess im just a conspiracy fanatic or something, I'm sure deep down Sony would really like me to have better sounding music and really don't play on peoples weaknesses and stupidity to sell more software. Just like the Nintendo scam, sell the players for cheep then nail them on all the software.I hate big business, but I love Music, so I guess I'm just as guilty as anyone for buying into this scam. maybe I should just beleive you and go buy some real speakers and get my hearing checked so I can enjoy what everyone else is hearing, yea I'll just throw more money at the problem and it will go away
I cured, I see the light Halleluiah, thank you brother!
No need to write it again, I was very clear and complete in my explanation in the test in an earlier post which you may or may not have read so Ill copy it and paste it at the bottom, and BTW no one had any logical reason for this test being flawed only smart remarks on why I should not bother to post or buy any SACD's or show up on this forum bashing SACD, I guess some people just can't take a good debate.BTW there was no way to properly test the differences in SACD (if you read my test method) at a showroom floor anywhere.
Earlier Post on Bass Redirection Problems with 2-CH SACD
“Another interesting thing I’ve noticed on my setup (all new Sony ES gear, except speakers) is that when I bypass the analog 6-Ch preamp and route the DSD signal from a SACD (in 2-Ch mode) directly to my AV preamp which down-converts it to 48/16 PCM, then level match the AV preamp with the Analog preamp it sounds the same, I mean the exact same not just similar or close.
I’ve spent the better part of 2-weeks trying to hear a difference on 3-different discs in 2-Ch mode and there is none, the timbre of the voice is exact match, the detail and air is identical, the spacious and sound stage is the same, every little detail is the exact same, I can switch back and forth instantly without interruption and there is absolutely no difference. This makes me believe that my 20K system (estimated) and all the recent work I’ve done to add SACD is completely fruitless, and that this DSD Hi-Rez decoding is a crock of you know what. Don’t get me wrong the Multi-Channel stuff sounds excellent, but then again so does a DTS 5.1 music disc, and there is no way to A/B compare the multi-Channel with and with out DSD.
Obviously the trick to this new format is simply better recording and/or software, and the DSD and extra resolution is just a marketing scam, sure it sounds better but not because of DSD or higher resolution. As far as multi-channel playback is concerned I’ll take the DTS 5.1 discs with my previous setup and be just as happy and save a lot of money on equipment and cables, after all because of the bass redirection problems I can’t buy any more 2-Ch SACD’s so that cuts the already anemic music choices down two thirds’.
...how did you split the analog signal again?
The 6-ch analog outputs from the SACD player go into the 6-Ch analog inputs of the Preamp (TA-P9000ES) than loop back out to the AV Pre-Amp (TA-E9000ES) when the proper input is selected the DSD signal is routed through the Analog Pre and on the the amps, when you select By-Pass on the TA-P9K it sends the analog info the 2-ch inputs (DVD audio inputs) and out to the amps, thus DSD vs Non DSD since the AV Preamp will automatically down-convert and reprocess to PCM when it goes through the A/D converters onboard. you can ues any disc Multi or not just switch to 2-ch mode on the SACD player, then level match the 2 preamps which is very easy with a SPL meter.
...I would expect any signal to sound different(and considerably worse) when it undergoes an extra pair of A/D and D/A conversions. I can't speak for your system, but when I had my friends' CD only and SACD players hooked up to my SF Line 2, it was quite obvious which player we were listening to each trial. No one made any mistakes about which format we were hearing. We had to match levels with the volume control, so there was a minimal switching delay. The SACD sound was far more natural and less fatiguing, all of us were in agreement. Not a perfect test either, but that's the nature of subjective hobbies such as audio.
Thats the whole point the extra AD DA conversion removed the supposed glory of SACD by down-converting and changing the signal to PCM, nothing convoluted about it, when the analog preamp is bypassed the signal goes directly into the AV preamps dvd input, very simple and straight path, just as if there was no analog preamp in the path which they (Sony)tell you you must have to enjoy SACD. And truly 5 different peolpe that I had over not knowing what formats they were listening to, couldent tell a difference and nether could I. This test as simple as it can be. And can only be performed with this analog preamp as far as I know. and this preamp (TA-P9k) is one of the best and cleanest 6 ch analog preamps you can get, many SACD reviewers use this same pre.
I get what you're trying to say perfectly, it just conflicts with my own experience...I could claim the same think about you... : )
Just 2 (1.5 foot) more interconnects than you use to listen to SACD. Are you implying that these 2 extra interconnects make this setup convoluted or corrupted because of so much signal degradation, even if this is the case there should be an even bigger difference between the 2 signals, and surly I and the others would be able to hear an audible difference. If this not what your getting at, then you may have to explain further, cuz now I'm not getting it.
...signal path in my system, and we all heard the differences. I suppose we'll have to mark down one test on the negative side, and one on the positive side of the ledger. I can't explain what you heard, as I'm not familiar with any of your components. I listen to mine everyday though, and I have no problem distinguishing SACD from CD, even when I don't know visually which is playing.
But do you have the ability to instantly route (bypass the analog Pre) the signal into your AV preamps standard audio inputs and level match, if not, then we are performing two completely different tests. As I said, if you don't have a separate analog preamp with a Bypass function you can’t compare the DSD signal with a Down-Converted PCM without reconnecting to your AV Preamp and this takes to much time to properly compare. I can switch back and forth right in the middle of a note and the timbre and quality is a spot on match, seamless transition with no degradation of any kind, it's hard to discount such a result. And believe me I truly wanted to hear a difference. I'm not the slightest bit pleased knowing I didn't even need this $650 preamp just to enjoy the SACD format.
Every body else's Flawed (and unrevealing) test is to compare a SACD to a Redbook CD of the same, or even a Redbook layer to a SACD layer on a hybrid disc with seconds or even minutes between switching. This is not a fare (extremely flawed) comparison as the SACD tracks have been in most all cases re-mastered and or re-mixed, most likely with higher quality and newer equipment, so of coarse it will sound different, and most likely better, and it's impossible to remember the exact tonal characteristics of the musical note or details for even a few seconds. My findings can only point to a superior recording not a superior format (DSD 1 bit) that's not to say this is absolutely correct but there is some creditability to this theory as this test proved, far more credibility than some one just saying that; WOW this SACD sure does sound better than my old CD'sIt's been said many times, "The best upgrade is a good recording"
HowdyThe rest of us are idiots.
Get real.
-Ted
Has actually bothered to post their remarks about this comparison, but I doubt that I'm the only one who has happened onto this possibility, and I'm not sure that there are any other Preamps like the TA-P9K out there yet, but I have read many professional reviews on SACD's where the reviewer used this Preamp, but even if he did this test and found what I did, do you think he would actually print that, hell no, he is there for his advertisers not the public.Just because I happened onto some possible major misinformation concerning the quality difference of a new format doesn’t give you the right to imply that I'm making this up or that it's impossible for just me to happen onto this info when apparently no one else has. This IMO is good info for those who haven’t bought into the SACD hype yet and their likely to read something hear or a forum like this first if there into researching before buying, so just because you don't like what I found doesn’t mean you have to act like an ass and post comments like you have done.
And I didn't call anyone an idiot, you did. Although according to your attitude about this whole thread you might point that comment to yourself and just drop it. I thought you actually wanted to know and understand the test setup clearly and know the results so you might try something like this for your self, but obviously you wouldn’t believe the Truth if it sat on your head so thanks for wasting my time and go back to your world of fantasy and believe what you want, be a sheep. I’ll post a new thread later on so that others can hear what may be a whole industry scam aimed at getting people to buy unnecessary equipment and high priced software just to pray on the gullible Audiophiles (me included) striving to hear better produced recordings.
NT
I think you'll find DSD looks better than PCM there too. : )
.
..
...
HowdyIn my office I have monitor speakers and I use a REL Q201E sub with them. It is turned down quite low however and about a month or two ago I found that I had left it unplugged for a couple of weeks, so it can't be too important :)
At my home I have a midfi AV receiver and like the sound of my SCD-777ES better with no sub even tho I don't get a lot of bass from my speakers.
-Ted
No ! it does prove on the contary that it is important to have a sub that is NOT proeminent-if you make an A-B,as you know you would have found out,is it not ?
HowdyThat's why I had a ":)" there :) I think it's important, but the music is still enoyable when the sub isn't there.
In my office I do think the sub adds a lot and if I had any more space I'd consider stereo subs, but if you saw my office you'd know that I'm way over the top already.
-Ted
nt
Hi;I use a sub all the time!
My mains go down to about 26Hz, but I have a very musical sub crossed over at about 50Hz to supplement the low end bass output. If done right, a sub blended with large bass capable speakers can sound wonderful!
Hi, I think you mean"double" the low end.
I use a pair of alon lotus signatures, they drop to about 25Hz. Sound is balanced, coherent and tight.System:
Sony SCD-1
Rogue 99 Magnum Preamplifier
Rogue M-120 Magnum Monoblocks (Triode Mode)
Alon Lotus Signature Loudspeakers
Acoustic Zen Silver Reference Interconnects
Alon Black Orpheus Triwire Speaker Cables
Harmonic Technologies Pro AC-11 Power Cords on all components
Symposium Isolation Platforms and Rollerblocks under all components
> > Acoustic Zen Silver Reference Interconnects
> > Alon Black Orpheus Triwire Speaker Cables
> > Harmonic Technologies Pro AC-11 Power Cords on all components
> > Symposium Isolation Platforms and Rollerblocks under all > > components
I pay as a "friend" of most audio companies as I used to be in the business and I am still close with many manufacturers, so I paid mostly dealer cost or less for most of my system. This is the first and last time I am going to comment about that. In any case, had I not been able to get these discounts I would still have purchased these items, they have made an audible improvement in my system.
whatever other name you want to be known as, please choose one moniker and stick with it.Posting using more than one is against our rules and could subject your posts to deletion.
Thanks for understanding, Chris
PS: You might want to be a bit more positive next time, too. What somebody spends their money on is their own business and not all of the components you cite are a waste.
nt
nt
Yeah, you could add a good sub for the lowest bass (full range, in this case, is down to the lower 30 Hz region, not necessarily down to 20 Hz as some will want), but I have always found any sub to be so out of alignment with the speakers, that I can't listen past that to enjoy the music. Just a personal preference of mine. For HT, a different matter though.I don't get involved with mult-channel though. Isn't a sub generally desirable there? I really don't enough about mult- to say.
You are right it is extremely difficult to manage a subwoofer,to integrate seemlessly in a system.But not impossible.
I quite often leave it off. My mains go down to about 35 or so, so I don't get much out of the sub on most music.McCracken
Hi, I use KEF 104.2 bi-wired to Mac 202, no sub.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: