What Bond 007 said. ^^^
Originally Posted by AVSearcher
Honestly, I was hoping that, if I would benefit from a sub at all, the other criteria I set would already put a strong limitation on what I needed (not disturbing the neighbors next door on the same floor and downstairs, not needing/wanting *loud* bass, not needing its benefit-area to cover any more space than the living room itself). As for budget, I was hoping to get some recommendations on what would be the "best bang for the buck" according to my criteria, and also not going completely overkill based on the budget speakers I currently have (would seem kind of silly to get a REALLY good sub that cannot really do justice to the sound with my current speakers, unless the lower recommended subs are not that much more cheaper). It would be nice to get a recommendation on the minimum recommended (recommended, not downright minimum that you don't really recommend...would be better to just save money to get a decent one months later) for my circumstances and also one(s) you would strongly advise I consider for a longer term, though non-audiophile and still value-oriented investment, considering I will not get speakers much better than the Daytons anytime soon. Size does not matter unless it is really heavy and requires a lot of strength to move, in which case that would be a problem at the moment.
Am I still being too vague? I understand that subs are harder to recommend in a generalizing manner than speakers.
In order to respond to your above, one needs to use fuzzy logic. So here it is in a nut shell or if you will, the extended play version of Bond 007's comments.
Absolutely, anybody and everybody who asks your questions is in need of a subwoofer as a subwoofer is that important in sonic reproduction due to inherent speaker limitation built into "ALL" speaker systems. A subwoofer is the "POW!" in someones laundry detergent and we all need "POW!" in our lives.
With that in mind, the best bang for the buck is going be either a Klipsch, RW-12d or a BIC, PL-200. In the budget minded category, these are the top dogs and many years down the road, will give you the most bang for the buck. But, and it's a big but, to get the most out of the deal, one needs two of these subwoofers and the reason why is, sound waves as they bounce around in a room, like to argue with each other and cancel each other out in the process. This cancelling needs to be countered or you'll get a drop off (bad sound quality) in the frequencies they're arguing in. Not good. The short version, two subs is better than one, four subs is better than two or three subs. So my minimum recommendation would be a pair of either of the two recommended subs.
The next step of the edification process will be getting the most out of these subwoofers once you have them in the room as they're not simply place and forget in order to bring the best out in them. There a bag load of who-ha surrounding getting the most out of subwoofers, too much to address in a missive of this kind.
First things first. Yes you need the subs if you want your speakers to blossom. These are the best bang for the buck as anything less, and you're short-shriftting yourself. And no, at this level, even though these are budget minded sub recommendations, you won't have to worry about replacing them a month or two down the road or even a year or five years down the road. These subs won't need to be replaced until either you decide you want better like one decides they want a faster car or that fail and are in need of replacement as even a fast car gets old and becomes in need or repair or replacement. These should be light enough to move around but there's always the possibility that you'll need assistance because to a certain extent, "ALL" subs are awkward and "HEAVY.'
All of the above takes into consideration room size, variables and budgets, full well knowing that in those departments, I'm completely without a clue.
Hope the above is the type of response you're in need of.
-Edited by BeeMan458 - 1/26/13 at 6:33pm