Taperssection.com

Gear / Technical Help => Playback Forum => Topic started by: ts on May 16, 2008, 09:48:19 AM

Title: Sub placement in a 2 channel system?
Post by: ts on May 16, 2008, 09:48:19 AM
Inside the stacks or outside ;D
Title: Re: Sub placement in a 2 channel system?
Post by: sygdwm on May 16, 2008, 10:17:59 AM
inside. dfc if possible.
Title: Re: Sub placement in a 2 channel system?
Post by: ts on May 16, 2008, 12:06:57 PM
so right alongside the cabinet that the amp, etc. is in. that would be as close to dfc as possible.

my integrated amp has a left and right pre/sub out. i'm assuming the sub has the same going in. if not just use a splitter down to single input on either end?
Title: Re: Sub placement in a 2 channel system?
Post by: Brian Skalinder on May 16, 2008, 12:08:13 PM
When I ran a sub for music listening, I tried mine in a variety of places.  The only location with which I was pleased:  dead center.  If you have the flexibility, I found depth of the sub relative to the speaker array also made a difference.
Title: Re: Sub placement in a 2 channel system?
Post by: sygdwm on May 16, 2008, 12:10:16 PM
yeah, use a "y" adapter from amp>sub if needed.
Title: Re: Sub placement in a 2 channel system?
Post by: Javier Cinakowski on May 16, 2008, 12:32:51 PM
I would definatly recomend inside the stacks, but instead of dead center, try 1/3.    Most papers suggest 1/3 have a less room modes and more even response...  The only reason I would put the sub dead center is so localization of the sub is less noticeable.  Bass is omni derectional, but the resonances of the cabinet are not.  A good sub shouldn't have this problem, so 1/3 is the way to go IMO.....
Title: Re: Sub placement in a 2 channel system?
Post by: Tim on May 16, 2008, 02:04:15 PM
If you have the flexibility, I found depth of the sub relative to the speaker array also made a difference.

in what way? In other words, closer to the front edge of the array brought you...

I have time to kill today, maybe I'll play around with my sub placement a bit
Title: Re: Sub placement in a 2 channel system?
Post by: ts on May 16, 2008, 03:19:48 PM
I would definatly recomend inside the stacks, but instead of dead center, try 1/3.    Most papers suggest 1/3 have a less room modes and more even response...  The only reason I would put the sub dead center is so localization of the sub is less noticeable.  Bass is omni derectional, but the resonances of the cabinet are not.  A good sub shouldn't have this problem, so 1/3 is the way to go IMO.....


That sure would be an easier placement for my setup. Dead center is the gear cabinet. I would have to go off to either the right or left of that. Don't ask why, it's a wifey thing.

Brian, I'm using VR-1's and a VRS-1 sub. I think you had a similar setup. Any tips would be much appreciated.

thanks, tony
Title: Re: Sub placement in a 2 channel system?
Post by: Todd R on May 16, 2008, 04:55:57 PM

I have time to kill today

Practicing up on your deadpan humor, Tim?   ;) :-*
Title: Re: Sub placement in a 2 channel system?
Post by: Tim on May 16, 2008, 05:16:01 PM

I have time to kill today

Practicing up on your deadpan humor, Tim?   ;) :-*

;D
Title: Re: Sub placement in a 2 channel system?
Post by: carlbeck on May 17, 2008, 08:43:33 AM
Why not try two smaller subs next to each speaker? I always struggle with a sub personally I can always locate it unless it is DFC which is usually pretty hard to do.
Title: Re: Sub placement in a 2 channel system?
Post by: jacobmyers on May 24, 2008, 04:31:41 AM
Why not try two smaller subs next to each speaker? I always struggle with a sub personally I can always locate it unless it is DFC which is usually pretty hard to do.
I've always been a fan of the "dual sub" approach, for the sake of "accuracy". While you can say that subsonic frequencies are "omnidirectional", practical experience says that one can readily discern the point of origin of a 20Hz tone. Since your crossover frequency is undoubtedly higher than that, and you're interested in reproducing stereophonic sound, why make the low end monophonic? Sure; the wavelengths of subsonic frequencies are longer than the spread (distance between right and left loudspeakers) in a typical listening room (and often longer than the room itself) but, again, why make the low end monophonic? Cost/benefit!

 The aural benefits of stereo subwoofers are certainly esoteric and the number of tracks that would highlight their presence is certainly small. Some people don't notice (or care) or think that stereo subs are worth the trouble. But there really are some practical benefits. Spreading the difficult (mechanically and electrically) to reproduce (bass) frequencies between two amplifiers and drivers means that you can do "the same job" with less power (and/or smaller diaphragms). And, if your listening area is a desk, stereo subwoofers mean that there's not a large central cabinet to take up precious leg room under said desk. But the additional amplifier and driver in a dual-sub system do cost money. IMO&E, the cost is worth it.

 But if you have just one subwoofer, do place it DFC (to reiterate what other posts have said). It helps to have the sub's voice coil on the same vertical plane (relative to the listener's ears) as the satellite speaker's. Moving things just a few inches (especially in relation to a wall or other vertical surface) can make a fairly profound difference in your listening experience. Experiment! That's part of the fun of audio; tinkering and adjusting to discover what works best for you in your space and on your budget. Good luck!