Fitzcaraldo215
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2016
- Messages
- 1,440
- Likes
- 634
I agree that many traditional audiophiles might not use subwoofers in stereo setups. But, a fair number of subwoofer reviews have appeared in TAS, for example and for what those reviews are worth. The recent Wilson WAMM Master Chronosonic system review by Jacob Heilbronn used Wilson subs to high praise. And, the infamous JonathanValin, among others, has reviewed subs a number of times. Kal has reviewed subs in Stereophile and there are some in their annual Recommended Components.I'm not sure how many audiophiles use subwoofers for 2 channel music listening in any context, wireless or not.
The review magazines rarely mention using them.
And many audiophile separates don't even have a subwoofer output jack.
I think for 2 channel traditional audio purists:
1. Subwoofers are associated with home theater, which they look down on
2. Subwoofers are associated with gaming and PCs, which they look down on
3. Subwoofers are associated with DSP room correction, which they look down on
Yes, there are typically no sub outputs on stereo preamps/integrated amps. Many subs are fairly easy to hook up in stereo via low level inputs plus hi pass outputs for the mains, although some pricey subs have no internal xovers and need a separate xover box, JL Audio Fathom for example. Others have only a low pass filter = half of an xover on the sub side, with mains run full range. I personally do not like that configuration.
First you have to decide if you are actually going to run them as stereo subs or not...
FWIWFM,
- As stereo subs, I used an active crossover before the amps, placed the subs near the L/R speakers, and to the AVR they were "large" speakers. A hybrid system.
- I have also used the stereo sub setting in my processor (Emotiva XMC-1) and it treats the subs in stereo. Or so they say. It seemed to work OK.
- Despite using stereo subs for decades, after going back and forth I am currently running them (four) as a mono swarm instead. The front pair and back pair are equidistant (as pairs) from the MLP so I am EQ'ing them as two individual subs to the processor for now.
- Initially I used the continuous phase control on the subs to align the front and back pair, then connected them as a single sub to the processor.
- I later tried the dual-mono setting to help time-align them and it worked, saving me the hassle of measuring and aligning phase manually, so that is how they are running now.
- However you connect them the phase must be aligned at the crossover point so everything plays together at the MLP. I have used a combination of phase control on the subs and whatever the AVR/processor can do (have used Audyssey, MCACC, and currently Dirac Live, though delays are generally set by the component outside the actual room correction algorithm).
- All my subs are hard-wired using RCA or XLR. Never tried wireless.
- The front pair, which I have had for many years now, have RCA connections to the amp.
- The rear pair, a recent addition, have XLR inputs and so I am using them. Part of the driver for XLR was because they are on a different power circuit (AC wall outlet, line, breaker) than the front pair and I didn't want to deal with ground loops. They are also at the back of the room so the cables are fairly long (50'; only really need about 30'~35', but I had 20' and 50' XLR cables around).
- I have used splitters, separate sub outputs when available, and/or subs that have "pass through" connectors.
- I have an aversion to using speaker-level inputs, both because they tend to exhibit higher noise, and because that by default means the mains are running full-range and to me that obviates one of the primary reasons for adding subs.
Don
Good stuff, Don.
If using a Mch processor, it is best to use the DSP bass management in the processor exclusively and not any xovers in the sub or prior to the amps. If that also uses DSP, it might add considerable latency, screwing up the speaker distance calibration by the processor.
I corresponded with a guy in England several years ago who was having that problem, as we eventually discovered with his Denon Mch prepro. He was using a Lyngdorf stereo DSP EQ and xover box for his subs plus main fronts, then calibrating the system with the Denon on top of that as though the fronts plus subs were two combined main plus sub, not four separate channels. Front, center and surround channels were badly out of synch timing wise. It was fixed by removing the Lyngdorf, using Denon bass management and straightforwardly calibrating subs and all other channels via the Denon. Voila!
I like the acoustic method via mike to accurately calibrate sub and other speaker distances, as provided by many even cheap HT processors. Many expensive ones do not have that, expecting the user to manually enter the tape measure distances. Mch Dirac also calibrates distances by mike as part of the calibration.
But, many subs have a DSP front end internally, introducing delay which is typically not specified by the sub's maker. That can introduce a significant difference between true acoustic distance and tape measure distance, hence timing. The result calculated acoustically from the mike calibration may still not be perfect in terms of phase. But, Mark Seton has suggested that the sub distance parameter in the HT processor can be varied somewhat while measuring with REW, etc. to dial in better phase alignment.