What if I buy 2 Subwoofers ??

[Son_of_SJ]

Eh? The_Lhc, you are too cryptic for me, you'll have to explain what I'm doing wrongly! By the way, and relevantly to the main thrust of this thread, did you agree with my second paragraph, about small/large satellite speakers and the consequences for the subwoofer?

 

[gregvet]

Eh? The_Lhc, you are too cryptic for me, you'll have to explain what I'm doing wrongly! By the way, and relevantly to the main thrust of this thread, did you agree with my second paragraph, about small/large satellite speakers and the consequences for the subwoofer?

Its not the height of the speaker that determines whether it should be designated as large tho, is it? Its whether it can reproduce the full range of frequencies, which very few hifi speakers can (from a movie perspective). Even most floorstanding speakers should be desinated as 'small' for home cinema purposes.

At least thats how I understood it anyway.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

Its not the height of the speaker that determines whether it should be designated as large tho, is it? Its whether it can reproduce the full range of frequencies, which very few hifi speakers can (from a movie perspective).

I'm well aware of that, but I didn't want to go into too much detail and stray off topic! However, since you query it ....! In all three of my rooms, I have run the receiver calibration with microphone, and all the speakers that I thought were large were deemed to be large by the receivers, and the ones that i thought were small were deemed to be small. For instance, my Yamaha RX-V1067 manual says, with regard to whether the microphone calibration determines that a speaker is large or small, that " 'Large' (or 'small') is displayed when the connected speaker has (or does not have) the ability to reproduce low-frequency signals effectively". Later in the manual it elaborates that a speaker with a woofer diameter of 16cm or larger is deemed to be "Large", and otherwise is "Small". So, I run the receiver calibrations with the supplied microphones, and the receivers calculated that all the front pairs and the surround pairs in all my rooms were "Large", with all other speakers determined as "Small". The receivers further decided that the "Large" speakers can carry the full range of frequencies, and so do not have a crossover frequency below which they give up and signals should be diverted to the subwoofer. The speakers that are designated as "Small" are allocated, by the calibration, crossover frequencies (which I have not altered). For instance, in the parlour, the crossover frequencies of the centre, surround back (which are only the size of my hand), front height and front wide speakers are 80, 200, 40 and 60 Hz respectively.

Even most floorstanding speakers should be desinated as 'small' for home cinema purposes.

At least thats how I understood it anyway.

I have also been told that, but I really don't agree. Mind you, I've not actually experimented with setting all the speakers to "Small" and seeing what difference that makes, so maybe I'll try that tonight and get back to you! In the meantime, as I said originally, I think that having large speakers lessens the load on the subwoofer. Plus, and this gets back to the OP's question, having the front pairs and surround pairs of speakers designated as "Large" means that as well as the actual subwoofers, the front and surround pairs are also producing very low frequencies, which surely gives a wider spread of the deep stuff, no? I'm also aware that other people say that it's an advantage (in clarity and timing, for example) to limit the frequency range of even large speakers by designating them as "Small" and letting the poor (and thereby, possibly overstressed??) subwoofer do all the work!

I'll try setting all the speakers in the kitchen as "Small" tonight and report back about what, in any, difference that makes!

 

[The_Lhc]

Eh? The_Lhc, you are too cryptic for me, you'll have to explain what I'm doing wrongly!

You've spent a deal of money and gone to the trouble of configuring two subwoofers, for your kitchen at that, but then you've gone and put your main speakers on top of the subwoofers, which sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Going to all the trouble and expense, why didn't you put the main speakers on proper stands?

By the way, and relevantly to the main thrust of this thread, did you agree with my second paragraph, about small/large satellite speakers and the consequences for the subwoofer?

I'm afraid I didn't read that part, I don't run my system with a subwoofer so I don't have any (useful) comments to add.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

You've spent a deal of money and gone to the trouble of configuring two subwoofers, for your kitchen at that, but then you've gone and put your main speakers on top of the subwoofers, which sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Going to all the trouble and expense, why didn't you put the main speakers on proper stands?

I used to! When I had only one TS12 subwoofer in the kitchen, I had the main front speakers (which are supposed to be floorstanders, but my flat is a bit cluttered and it does help to raise all the "floorstanding" speakers a wee bit) on Atacama SL300 stands, cost £100 for the pair. Then when I got the SVS subwoofer in the parlour and moved the other TS12 subwoofer from the parlour to the kitchen, I really was struggling for floor space (I also have an fairly big old sofa in the kitchen) and then Ping! A light went on in my head and I thought "Why don't you put the main speakers on top of the subwoofers! So then instead of needing floor space for two subwoofers and two speaker stands, floor space for only two subwoofers would be needed!" Certainly I didn't notice any difference in the sound emerging from the main speakers when I did the change, and I mostly listen to the FM radio or to the TV sound through the main speakers, in stereo only, when I'm in the kitchen. The TS12 subwoofers are more than sturdy enough to take the 11kg of the main speakers, in fact they can each certainly take half of my 16-stone weight. You can see how strong the subwoofers are in this discontinued listing here, ignore that they mistakenly call it "Mercury". The blurb mentions "an exceptionally sturdy and rigid cabinet". So now I have a redundant pair of Atacama SL300 stands that I really should try to shift!

 

[GSB]

let's see your system sj,and it's not your lack of wallpaper i'm interested in

 

[Frank Harvey]

Later in the manual it elaborates that a speaker with a woofer diameter of 16cm or larger is deemed to be "Large", and otherwise is "Small". So, I run the receiver calibrations with the supplied microphones, and the receivers calculated that all the front pairs and the surround pairs in all my rooms were "Large", with all other speakers determined as "Small". The receivers further decided that the "Large" speakers can carry the full range of frequencies, and so do not have a crossover frequency below which they give up and signals should be diverted to the subwoofer. The speakers that are designated as "Small" are allocated, by the calibration, crossover frequencies (which I have not altered). For instance, in the parlour, the crossover frequencies of the centre, surround back (which are only the size of my hand), front height and front wide speakers are 80, 200, 40 and 60 Hz respectively.

Most of Ken Kreisel's old designs were based on a 5.25" bass driver, and we're all designed to be set to small, using an 80Hz crossover point. Even if the auto set up decides the speaker should be large, I would still override that and set it to small. Sometimes auto set ups are tricked into thinking a speaker is larger than it actually is, either because the speaker is ported, or because of excessive boundary enhancement - this will enhance extension, but is no evidence of a speaker's capability.

Most hi-fi speakers wouldn't handle the full range signal from a Bluray soundtrack at Reference Level. Set to small, they have a better chance, and will also take a fair load off the amplifier.

I have also been told that, but I really don't agree. Mind you, I've not actually experimented with setting all the speakers to "Small" and seeing what difference that makes, so maybe I'll try that tonight and get back to you! In the meantime, as I said originally, I think that having large speakers lessens the load on the subwoofer. Plus, and this gets back to the OP's question, having the front pairs and surround pairs of speakers designated as "Large" means that as well as the actual subwoofers, the front and surround pairs are also producing very low frequencies, which surely gives a wider spread of the deep stuff, no? I'm also aware that other people say that it's an advantage (in clarity and timing, for example) to limit the frequency range of even large speakers by designating them as "Small" and letting the poor (and thereby, possibly overstressed??) subwoofer do all the work!

I'll try setting all the speakers in the kitchen as "Small" tonight and report back about what, in any, difference that makes!

Whether the speakers should be set to large to ease the load on the sub really depends how good the sub is. If it is a weak sub, then it will help, but the more capable the sub, the higher the crossover frequency should be set to. Whilst the centre speaker is the most important speaker in the system, it could be argued that the sub is the next important, as this will allow speakers to be set to small, allowing them to concentrate on a smaller frequency band, and therefore, sound less congested and clearer. This in turn eases the load on the receiver, as it is not driving the lower bass section of any speaker, the impedance of which can drop to 3ohms (or maybe less, causing the amplifier stress). So the better the sub, the better the speakers and receiver can sound.

As 80Hz and below is supposed to be well away from the directional bass argument, it shouldn't matter if all the speakers are set to small. Some will prefer a speaker producing full range as it'll be warmer and fuller in tone, but this smothers midrange and treble detail, and will also stifle dynamics.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

Even most floorstanding speakers should be desinated as 'small' for home cinema purposes.

At least thats how I understood it anyway.

Mind you, I've not actually experimented with setting all the speakers to "Small" and seeing what difference that makes, so maybe I'll try that tonight and get back to you!

……..

I'll try setting all the speakers in the kitchen as "Small" tonight and report back about what, if any, difference that makes!

While David at Frank Harvey was penning his usual informative contribution, I was in the kitchen actually experimenting! I was concentrating on the bass end so I can't comment on midrange and treble detail, and dynamics. So, the Yamaha YPAO automatic calibration had set the main and surround speakers to Large (full range), and the centre and single surround back speakers to Small, with crossover frequencies of 90 and 200 Hz respectively. So I left things like that to start with, and I played the first 3 minutes of the Blu-ray of the Final Cut of Blade Runner, and also the explosion in the Kremlin after about 31 minutes of Mission Impossible 4: Ghost Protocol. My audio memory is quite short-term, so I frequently switched between the original speaker settings and then setting the main and surround speakers to Small, crossover frequency 80 Hz. On another thread recently I commented on how, as a fan of plasma TVs, I had been very impressed by my sister-in-law's LED Samsung UE55D8000 set, so I like to think that I can be objective and I started this experiment with open ears and, equally importantly, an open mind.

I know I'm not supposed to say this, but I have to state that, in my kitchen, I preferred the sound with the main and surround speakers set, as they originally were, to Large. The difference between that and setting the those speakers to Small is not exactly night and day, but it was clear enough to me. With the main and surround speakers set to Large, there was slightly more impact with the bass thumps, and defintely more depth. Mind you, I'm not going to say that this would be the case for anyone else's system. I can say only that in my kitchen, I preferred the overall bass sound, including of course the two Tannoy TS12 subwoofers, when the main and surround speakers were set to Large than when they were set to Small. Incidentally, both the main and surround speakers are ported. I gave a link to the Eltax Shine 8's earlier so folk can see their dimensions, and the Eltax Symphony 6.4 that are the surround speakers are 84cm tall, 22 cm wide and 28 cm deep. Mind you, their bass/mid driver is only 14cm in diameter, and according to Yamaha's own manual that should have meant that they were designated as Small! Hmmm .....

One last thought for now about setting satellite speakers to Small or Large. If, as David says, that the satellite speakers should always be set to Small if you have a good subwoofer, then what about large, expensive speaker packages like the Monitor Audio http://www.whathifi.com/review/monitor-audio-pl300-av or Mordaunt Short http://www.whathifi.com/review/mordaunt-short-performance-51 . Should the lucky owners of these dream packages set all the mighty front and (for the Mordaunt-Short) surround speakers to Small?

 

[RobinKidderminster]

cj we want pix. we want pix. we want pix

 

[Son_of_SJ]

cj we want pix.

Who might cj be?

 

[Frank Harvey]

One last thought for now about setting satellite speakers to Small or Large. If, as David says, that the satellite speakers should always be set to Small if you have a good subwoofer, then what about large, expensive speaker packages like the Monitor Audio http://www.whathifi.com/review/monitor-audio-pl300-av or Mordaunt Short http://www.whathifi.com/review/mordaunt-short-performance-51 . Should the lucky owners of these dream packages set all the mighty front and (for the Mordaunt-Short) surround speakers to Small?

What I recommend tends to largely follow THX guidelines - not because I believe it is the right way to do things, but because I feel it is the best way based on my own experiences. Some people may prefer the sound of their front speakers set to large - it really is a case of personal preference, just like hi-fi systems.

With something like a PL300 system, it's up to the user to experiment (if they wish) to see what they prefer. They can perform an auto set up, which (in theory) should set the speakers up in such a way as to make the most of their capabilities, and compare that to a universal 80Hz THX-type crossover point. Even with large floorstanders, I'd still set them to small and cross them over at 80Hz. With all speakers reproducing the same frequency range, a more uniform and consistent soundfield will be achieved, especially over a system where the fronts are set to large, centre to small crossing over at 60Hz, and rears set to small crossing over at 90Hz.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

Thanks for all that, David! Obviously, your practical experience of many speakers and systems is immeasurably greater than mine!

Now, let's hope that the OP (who has been quiet lately) has come to some sort of decision about one or two subwoofers!

 

[MUSICRAFT]

then what about large, expensive speaker packages like the Monitor Audio http://www.whathifi.com/review/monitor-audio-pl300-av or Mordaunt Short http://www.whathifi.com/review/mordaunt-short-performance-51 . Should the owners of these packages set all the mighty front and (for the Mordaunt-Short) surround speakers to Small?

Hi Son_of_SJ

I use PL300's, PLC350, PL100 and GXW-15 with a Chord Electronics DSP8000/Plinius Odean. The DSP8000 has its parameters set to PL300's (small), PLC350 (small), PL100's (small) with sub crossover frequeny at 80Hz.

Alternatively another set up is an ATC active multi channel monitoring system (SCM100ASL Professional monitors, C3CA centre, SCM50ASL Professional monitors, C6/SCM0.1/15 sub woofer) being used with a DSP8000. In this system the DSP8000's parameters are set to SCM100ASL (large), C3CA (small), SCM50ASL (large) with sub crossover frequency at 60Hz.

All the best

Rick @ Musicraft

 

[leenorm1]

Hi I have monitor audio rx6 mains rx centre and rxfx speakers with a monumental svs pb13 ultra. I have all crossovers set to 80 hz. The problem with having bass capable mains is that they will still play below the crossover so you will have phase issues. The best thing to do is to download a free room eq program ( there are some very good ones available) and see what results you get. Personally I would set the crossover at 80 hz and try adding approx 2 metres to your sub distance in your avr. This is equivalent to adjusting the phase by 180 degrees however by doing it in the avr you are adjusting all frequencies rather than those at the crossover point. Give it a go.

 

[martin morecroft]

Without exception two subs will perform better than one - IMO. Does this represent good value for money? This is impossible to answer without trying them in the listening environment. Getting back to the original question regarding the DSP set-up, you can only run one at a time for the Sub's internal DSP. I would run the Velodyne EQ first and then do the Receiver - with both connected. Positioning makes a huge difference and can change the result dramatically. The crawl test is well know but often dismissed on Forums. IMO it gives a good steer on position and is better than not trying at all!

 

[Son_of_SJ]

Without exception two subs will perform better than one - IMO.

I agree, two of any subwoofer will be better than one of the same subwoofer, that's clear. What the issue that several people have been considering is that if you had, say, £1,200 to spend, would you be better spending it on one £1,200 subwoofer rather than on two (identical) £600 subwoofers. The majority of people on this thread favour a single larger subwoofer over two smaller ones.

 

[martin morecroft]

That does not make them right. The variables involved in a decision based on price alone make no sense at all.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

Eh?? That's why I postulated two situations in which the total cost was similar. Say for instance two £550 Tannoy TS2.12 subwoofers (reviews http://www.whathifi.com/review/tannoy-ts212 and http://www.homecinemachoice.com/news/article/tannoy-ts212-subwoofer-review/12593) compared with one £1,200 SVS PC12-Plus subwoofer (review http://www.techradar.com/reviews/audio-visual/hi-fi-and-audio/hi-fi-and-av-speakers/sv-sound-pc-12-plus-982830/review and http://www.avforums.com/reviews/SVS-PC12-Plus-PC12-NSD-Subwoofer-Review_274/Review.html.)

 

[martin morecroft]

I dont see how you can compare the Tannoy and SVS - they are poles apart.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

I was giving a representative example of how the same money could be spent on one larger subwoofer or on two smaller ones. Which method would give the better overall bass performance - depth, evenness of bass response with frequency measured at one position, evenness of bass response across several positions, subjective attack, etc. Clearly attempting to compare one Tannoy TS2.12 subwoofer with one SVS PC12-Plus subwoofer, which costs twice as much, would not be fair.

 

[martin morecroft]

Larger does not mean better! There are so many variables in this arguement that it is almost pointless! Simply saying a single sub at £1200 would outperform two £600 subs is ridiculous. To level the playing field you would need to control the comparison. Two sealed £600 subs vs one ported £1200 sub? The arguement would need to be narrowed down to make any sense.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

Larger does not mean better!

If you look at my posts of - Mon, Sep 24 2012, 8:47pm; Thu, Oct 25 2012, 10:31pm; Fri, Oct 26 2012, 12:25am – nowhere have I been categorical or dogmatic about saying that one big subwoofer is better than two small ones, or vice versa.

Simply saying a single sub at £1200 would outperform two £600 subs is ridiculous.

Again, if you look at what I actually said, I did NOT say that a single subwoofer at £1,200 would necessarily outperform two £600 subwoofers, or vice versa. I merely offered the comparison of two ways of spending the same money, with no strong views about which method was better. I have two identical subwoofers in my kitchen, but a single large subwoofer in my parlour, so I do have experience of both methods.

You seem to be determined to put words into my mouth. You are fully entitled to your opinion, and I am entitled not to pursue this any further. I give up.

 

[martin morecroft]

I apologise for the way you have taken my replies. I did not intend to 'put words in your mouth.' My aim was to engage in a discussion

that would dig a little deeper into the subject. Having reviewed my replies I agree they were antagonistic and unhelpful. I am amazed that the magazines never dig deeper on this subject as it is very important - IMO.

 

[Son_of_SJ]

No probs. Live long and prosper - and enjoy whatever subwoofer( s ) you have!

 

[umbucker]

WoW so many comments since I wrote this!! Well since then my Velodyne spl 1000 ultra has arrived and I can tell you I do not need a 2nd subwoofer!!! It is incredible how much bass this small box can produce !!!