If you are not mixing with a sub...

[NationalSandwic]

I once turned my headlights off by mistake while driving in a rural area on a dark night. I was driving blind.

i once turned my lights off on purpose while driving in a rural area on a dark night. it was great.

this whole discussion is moot...use a subwoofer if you feel you need it, don't if your monitors are adequate... pfff... it's like saying
"I need extra salt on my fries! And so should you! Otherwise you can't taste the saaaaalllltttt maannnnnnnn..."
"But I like my salt fine, thanks..."
"Noooooo dude....you don't understand! More salt!"
"Seriously, they already got enough salt for me..."
"What?! What you mean there's enough salt? Don't be like that bro... Hey, pass the shaker..."
"Sure thing." (passes salt shaker)
"Whoooah....man you gotta try this shit!...I'm tellin' you dude...this is the best salt in the world...like...ever."
"Erm...are you high?..."

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

you also overlook the fact that the music back then had less bass in it. music today has more bass so it becomes more critical to be able to hear what is going on down there.

There's a world of difference between "bass" and "subsonics", and that is the difference in the frequency range meant to be handled by mains and subs. Subs can't replace missing bass in you mains any better than the woofer in you mains can replace the mid-highs missing from your midrange or tweeter. A sub might cross over at, say, 45Hz, but that doesn't mean that the stuff it is throwing out at you above around 25Hz is accurate.

The difference in frequency range applies to the music as well. With the musical exceptions I mentioned in my previous post aside, the subsonic stuff is no more abundant in your average Coldplay, Tim McGraw or Wynton Marsallis performance of 2005, (just to cover rock, country and jazz as three example genres) than there was in your average Beatles, Johnny Cash or Louis Armstrong performance of 1965.

If one today has decent mains that can reproduce fairly well down to 20-25Hz, are mixing for stereo, and they are not mixing for music that has more thump than melody, subs are not critical. It's a simple as that.

If, OTOH, your looking more for feel than sound (dance mixes and hop), or you're mixing for surround with a specific sub channel, then yes, subs are important to have.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

If one toaday has decent mains that can reproduce fairly well down to 20-25Hz, are mixing for stereo, and they are not mixing for music that has more thump than melody, subs are not critical. It's a simple as that.

That's a big if. I doubt any prosumer-grade monitors will reproduce 20Hz with any accuracy at all. They'd be lucky to get good 40Hz. Mackie publishes a response curve for the 824 that looks good to 40Hz, but takes a nosedive below that. The 624 lets go about 12Hz higher. If you have material with a five-string bass, or synth bass, or LFE, you need to go lower.

I suspect the Mackies are a lot better off than some of their lesser competitors, and still they offer a sub.

 

[sucram]

i monitor with 5 1/4" cones, do music that is heavy on the low end, love the thump and feel of a drum machine kick, and have gotten into sampling my electric bass more and more, and i definitely need a sub. so far i've been limping along by playing back on multiple systems and using a spectrum analyzer for the low end (another thorny issue there). but i don't want to get a sub until i get the room treated. otherwise i fear it'll do more harm than good.

am i wrong? i think my main actives (JBL LSR25P) are good down to 80Hz, but that's not enough for me. there's nothing like good clean thump.

-marcus

 

[sushi-mon]

i monitor with 5 1/4" cones, do music that is heavy on the low end, love the thump and feel of a drum machine kick, and have gotten into sampling my electric bass more and more, and i definitely need a sub. so far i've been limping along by playing back on multiple systems and using a spectrum analyzer for the low end (another thorny issue there). but i don't want to get a sub until i get the room treated. otherwise i fear it'll do more harm than good.

am i wrong? i think my main actives (JBL LSR25P) are good down to 80Hz, but that's not enough for me. there's nothing like good clean thump.

-marcus

Consider some bigger monitors with bigger woofers. I am currently looking into creating my own studio and figure I will go ahead and go for some 8 inch woofers.

I hate rear ported speakers (don't understand why near field studio monitors have them !!!), so it is narrowing my choices. I want speakers with front ports so the bass air comes right at me. This sounds and feels better all the time.

I would consider bigger woofers before sub.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

That's a big if. I doubt any prosumer-grade monitors will reproduce 20Hz with any accuracy at all. They'd be lucky to get good 40Hz. Mackie publishes a response curve for the 824 that looks good to 40Hz, but takes a nosedive below that. The 624 lets go about 12Hz higher. If you have material with a five-string bass, or synth bass, or LFE, you need to go lower.

I suspect the Mackies are a lot better off than some of their lesser competitors, and still they offer a sub.

All very true. So one has a "hole" between about 25 and 40Hz that isn't going to be repro'd "accurately" by either the main or the sub (because most subs just aren't that accurate above about 25 either).

Just because Mackie (or anyone else) offers a subwoofer does not imply that they are saying they're needed because their mains are insufficient or that the subs are the answer even if they were.

Let me give you a specific example: I happen to like the Mackie subs; not the best, but not the worst I have heard. And everybody here is tired of my saying how much I like my 824s . But I happen to personally dislike the 624s very much myself; I find them lacking in both clarity of bass and in definition of imaging. Not everybody will agree with me on the above, and that's fine. I'm not arguing that aspect of it.

What I am saying, though, is that the Mackie sub (or anybody else's for that matter) are *not* going to make up for the shortcomings of the 624s. Add the Mackie sub and the 624s together and there's still going to be this sucking chest wound in the bass response between ~25 and 55Hz (give or take). Plus the subs will do nothing for the 624s imaging.

My original point was that, IMHO, unles one is mixing for situation where the subsonic frequencies are as important, if not more so, than the other 90% of the sonic content of the songs, that one is better off with a superior main (in my case the 824s, but it could be some decent KRKs or Genlecs or something else) than with a combo of lesser main and sub. Of course best would be to have superior mains AND subs , but we can't all afford that.

Look, guys, especially C.G., if the addition of a sub has made a huge difference in the quality of your output, I am very happy for you that that is the case, and I'm not saying that you're worng about that. All I'm saying is that to say that one is "mixing blindly" without a sub is, IMHO, wrong on a few important points.

First, there are plenty of pros and amateurs alike that make mixes every day (and have done so for years) without subs, and that many of those mixes not only sound excellent on all systems with or without subs, but many have also won Grammys in the process.

Second, and to me even more important, the implication that subs will make up for deficiencies in the mains is just patently untrue. And for those reading this thread who are wondering whether to spend their money on class A mains or on class B mains and a sub, I would 100% recommend the class A mains.

You can always add a sub without having to replace those class A mains later. In the meantime 90% of the sound that is part of you mixes will benefit more from better mains than they will from a sub (with the genre exceptions I mentioned earlier), and it's cheaper and better later on at upgrade time to add a sub than to replace your mains.

That's all. if some can't agree with that, I'm OK with that. I really don't want to, and did not mean to, argue over it.

(mshilarious, it's like having kids... )

G.

 

[noisewreck]

I think when you have decent nearfields, room acoustics are far more important than having a sub.

 

[Blue Bear Sound]

I agree with Glen -- given good monitors, there's little "requirement" for a sub. Handy as a check, sure... but no need....

I have a sub - it's calibrated properly and it's also turned-off 97% of the time.... it simply isn't required because I'm hearing everything I need to with the ADAMs....

Also - regarding the 85dB mark. Keep in mind that this figure is an AVERAGE. The specific number from person to person can/will vary....

 

[giraffe]

how low do you think most consumer stereos go?

i'll bet the ones that hit 40hz are few and far between.....

 

[mshilarious]

(mshilarious, it's like having kids... )

G.

Ha ha! Fair enough. You had an if statement and I responded with an if statement. The conclusion is that subs are iffy

I don't follow you on the 624s though. Shouldn't the Mackie sub prevent the bass frequencies from getting to them at all? I don't have experience here so I'm guessing

Of course no sub will help with an imaging problem. In fact if they did, that would invalidate the theory of the sub; you would need two of them.

In fact I'm starting to think to my future and 10" monitors may be an option But then I wanted to build a surround system too

 

[xstatic]

Anyway you look at it, I would rather mix blindly than deafly

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I don't follow you on the 624s though. Shouldn't the Mackie sub prevent the bass frequencies from getting to them at all? I don't have experience here so I'm guessing

Depends on how one has their crossovers set up. But let's say that it were true (another "if" ) that "all bass" were sent to the sub. Where does "bass" end and "low mids" begin? 100Hz? 250Hz? Either way, if you send that stuff to the sub, the sub is going to trip over it as bad or worse than the woofer on the 624 does on 20Hz. Subs just are not made for freqs that "high" any more than a 6" woof woof is made for freqs below 20Hz. You set your crossovers that high and the "hole" in accurate bass response gets even worse, not better.

What seems to be often forgotten when this topic comes around is that the "sub" in "subwoofer" has the same root meaning as the "sub" in "subsonic". As "subsonic" means "below hearing", "subwoofers" are really designed and meant mostly for those frequencies that are felt more than they're heard. They are just not very efficient at the more audible bass sounds that most "regular" loudspeakers are (in theory, anyway) supposed to reproduce for us.

In fact I'm starting to think to my future and 10" monitors may be an option But then I wanted to build a surround system too

Well, my personal plan (this is not gospel, just one idea) would be - assuming one cannot buy the whole array at once - to build it up piecemeal as it can be afforded. To me it makes sense to start by getting a couple of the quality mains that you want to be your final mains. The other two can be added at one of the next "upgrade times". Not only can the subwoofer be added at any time in the process (as well as the center channel), but it's not technically an integral member of the "surround" part of the system. By that I mean one can have surround sound w/o a sub, but they cannot have surround without at least the 4 mains.

This is the same reasoning I was giving before with the studio monitors. If you start out with cheaper mains and a sub, sooner or later your going to want to upgrade the mains, which means that the first pair are now more or less obsolete for your system and you have had to buy your mains twice. If you start out with the better mains, however, it will be a one-time purchase which will give better mixes from the starting gate, and the subwoofer can be added at any time you can afford it without having to obsolete anything.

The only danger I can think of with the surround system is that if one waits too long before buying the rear channels, the model may be discontinued or have changed in manufacturing quality. But then again, that same danger would apply whether one bought the good mains or the cheaper ones.

Finally, I'm in agreement with noisewreck; great mains or subs ain't going to be all that great in a lousy room either.

G.

 

[mshilarious]

Well, my personal plan (this is not gospel, just one idea) would be - assuming one cannot buy the whole array at once - to build it up piecemeal as it can be afforded. To me it makes sense to start by getting a couple of the quality mains that you want to be your final mains. The other two can be added at one of the next "upgrade times". Not only can the subwoofer be added at any time in the process (as well as the center channel), but it's not technically an integral member of the "surround" part of the system. By that I mean one can have surround sound w/o a sub, but they cannot have surround without at least the 4 mains.

Somewhat more complicated for me since I build my own designs. I'm not going to go crazy over the rear channels since surround is a novelty for me, but since I have 6.5" main that I know are bandwidth limited, that's more of the problem.

I don't follow you about subs and midrange frequencies. As far as I know, the major barrier to a 10" sub reproducing frequencies up to say 2kHz is the physical distance from the tweeters, and of course the lack of stereo imaging. That's what I've been thinking about.

 

[apl]

I ate the Blimpie so I guess I'll have to wait 'till I get another one to mix again.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I don't follow you about subs and midrange frequencies. As far as I know, the major barrier to a 10" sub reproducing frequencies up to say 2kHz is the physical distance from the tweeters, and of course the lack of stereo imaging.

Well, besides the crossover design (a major part of it), there are physical impediments that come with the physical size of the driver. A couple of them are the extra mass and inertia. It's difficult to accurately push and pull such a large element fast enough to replicate higher frequencies; both the coil and driver are just too heavy, it takes too long to get to velocity and its too difficult to stop them on a dime once they are. Especially if you have the damping designed to work most efficiently at lower (i.e. "looser") frequencies.

Also, there's a tendency for speaker cones to distort in physical shape. It's inertia again; the voice coil pushes from the inside of the cone and tends to throw the inner part of the cone out faster than the outer part, which lags behind. This isn't quite the problem it used to be with the new plastics and polymers that are being used in cone manufacture now, but it's still there. The higher the frequency of sound, the shorter the wavelength. The shorter the wavelength, the higher percentage of distortion is added to the sound by the physical distortion in the shape of the cone.

Also also, subwoofers require big amps and big magnets to reproduce the low frequencies they're meant for. The higher the frequency you want to go, the less energy that's required to push a physical element to reproduce it. But if you try to pump smaller amounts of energy into a massive magnet/coil device and sooner than later you just don't have enough juice to push it.

And the lack of stereo imaging is not a function of the transducer size, it a physical attribute of the directionality of the sound waves themselves. By their very nature, the higher the frequency of sound wave, the more directional it travels. Lower frequencies, on the other hand, tend to disperse in different directions faster and easier. It has nothing to do with the physical size of the element. The size is meant for accurate reproduction of the intended frequencies, but it's the frequencies that determine directionality.

This is why stereo imaging of low frequencies is difficult, because the sound waves tend to spread and mix it up in the air. This is the reason why when talking room acoustics we are worried about bass modes all over the room, but not about "treble modes". The directionality of high frequencies is why the highs need diffusers instead of traps and the ubiquitousness of low frequencies is why bass needs traps instead of diffusers (the bass difuses itself, thank you very much ) This is also a major reaon why is common to mix popular music with the bass and kick near the center and the higher stuff more spread L/R; It's because spreading the bass left and right has little effect.

This is all basic theory stuff that, if you build you own stuff, you probably already know. But it all combines in the fact that subwoofers are not woofers and are not meant to be; any more than woofers are meant to be tweeters. And using a subwoofer to try and "make up" for deficiencies in a main's woofers makes as much sense as wiring the high freq output from a standard crossover into a spare woofer element to make up for a malfunctioning tweeter.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

...since I have 6.5" main that I know are bandwidth limited, that's more of the problem.

You could repurpose your current "mains" for the rear channels, and get more capable mains. So, I don't think it's much of a problem

Glen, some interesting points. I had always thought that you could push subs up to around 80Hz, and setting the crossover point there, which would make the woofers' lives on the mains easier, even if they are capable of going down to say 30Hz. I guess i've been mistaken then?

 

[mshilarious]

This is all basic theory stuff that, if you build you own stuff, you probably already know. But it all combines in the fact that subwoofers are not woofers and are not meant to be; any more than woofers are meant to be tweeters. And using a subwoofer to try and "make up" for deficiencies in a main's woofers makes as much sense as wiring the high freq output from a standard crossover into a spare woofer element to make up for a malfunctioning tweeter.

Yes. The factor seems to be at what point does a driver become a sub and not a woofer? Most true subs are 12", I'm using a 10". Interestingly the Mackie 824 is actually closer to 9".

 

[mshilarious]

You could repurpose your current "mains" for the rear channels, and get more capable mains. So, I don't think it's much of a problem

I don't think I'll use the 6s as rear surrounds; too much invested in them at this point to start from scratch, and I really don't care too greatly about the rears. Although it sounds like I'm dumping on my homebrew monitors, they do sound very nice and I've got the sub dialed in just right

For surrounds, I have some 4" full range drivers I'll probably throw up; the surround mixing is more for fun at this point, it's not like everybody is asking for it. The center channel I'll probably build out of leftover parts from random projects which oddly enough are probably as good as my mains

 

[CyanJaguar]

GLEN, in my case, and I would assume most cases here, most of the sub frequencies are mono (kick, bass guit)so deficient stereo imaging in the very low range is not important.

I also think that for many folks, it is much cheaper to get "decent" nearfields and a "decent" sub than a pair of really good nearfields/mains, for about the same end result in auditory information.

by the way, why do you guys have to talk in such esoteric language. Use laymans terms darnit I could hardly follow.

 

[CyanJaguar]

how do you know, or check to see what level you are mixing at???

I missed this. You use a decibel meter. You can get a cheap one from Radioshack for about $30.