Originally Posted by Rrolack
Simple question (I think): how low does a speaker's extension need to be (as measured by the -3 db point) before you'd consider them "full range" and would forgo a sub?
depends on what you like, the purpose, and what you listen to.
Trouble is, you can only really find out what works for you by listening to the various options in your room!
That makes it very hard indeed for a prescription answer, as no doubt you have noticed.
Originally Posted by ChrisWiggles
I do not agree with this entirely, and it's an absolutist generalization that may not necessarily be true. You do not NEED to separate the bass drivers from the mains. But acoustically it USUALLY provides benefits, and MOST "full range" speakers are anything but and the location is not ideal for bass performance.
You do not NEED a subwoofer to have exceptional bass. It just makes things much easier, generally.
My point is merely that taking a very strongly supported and very useful and correct general
principle (that additional dedicated subwoofers, properly designed and freely placed properly often away from wherever the mains location is will achieve more accurate and better bass for the listening position) and claiming it as a universality is not productive, and not true.
I must say, listen to the voice of reason rather than dogma. (kudos for the restrained nature of your posts)
Originally Posted by hd_newbie
Another problem with going full-range that has not been yet discussed is low efficiency of full-range speakers. Correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure I read in one of Mark Seaton's posts that there is a negative correlation between efficiency and a speaker's bass response. Thus, by going full range, you would probably be compromising dynamics, which is a significant compromise IMO.
But why do you assume all full range speakers are low efficiency??
I have tried the geddes distributed sub approach. four* two 10 inch drivers at various crossover points (all 48 db/octave), measured and eq'd.
if it matters, peerless xls. I doubt the last word in excellence, but hopefully good enough to give reliable 'trends'.
In a nutshell, I ended up taking them out. No matter what I did, or how much effort I put into the setup I simply felt the 'coherence' (for lack of a better word) deteriorated.
I do have a well treated room, and use eq on the bass, so that side is sorted. I must admit that (IMHO only of course) the bass I do have is rather good. But I could not make it better by the use of multiple subs.
Most would not be in the same position (read have subs 'just laying around' with appropriate amps etc etc) to be able to decide for themselves
by audition in their own room.
So ( to my ears at least) the cookie cutter approach is not always workable.
(haha, just noticed an old thread warning, "bumping it may not serve a purpose"! haha)
In my current setup I have flat to 35 hz. With the subs I had flat to thirteen. Note my experience only applies to music, have no interest in HT and can well imagine going that low would be needed for full Ht realisation.
For sure, the first few times being 'shaken in the chair' was fun and new, but frankly after a half a dozen tracks it was irritating. (music only remember)
Then we have the situation of anomalous (I think) subsonic noises on the recording. (VAST if it matters). Quite a few times you would find yourself 'on an amusement park ride' with no musical cues. ie being shaken for no reason. True that would be a minority of recordings, but very odd!
I hazard a guess that maybe this forum is very HT oriented (?), but for me at least on 2ch I prefer my system without subs. Back to narrowing down the scope of the question.
And we all prefer different things......
As always on the net, beware of what you read (often just regurgitated datums from...somewhere) and find out what works for you.