Opinion On Monitors With Or Without a Sub

  • Thread starter Thread starter JIMBOdrummer
  • Start date Start date
Its up to the type of music...not using the sub might make you think you have to use more bass than you need...but Id only use them on Hip hop and stuff where the drummer carries the melody
 
JIMBOdrummer said:
I'm choosing between 2 Yamaha HS50's with a sub ... or 2 HS80 without a sub
Click to expand...

It's always better to have speakers that can go low enough without needing a sub. Most bass problems are caused by sound and its reflections combining in the room. Bass instruments are usually panned to the middle, so low notes come from both speakers. When you add a sub, now you have three sources that have to combine in the air, at least around the crossover frequency. So skip the sub unless you're mixing 5.1 surround sound for movies.

--Ethan
 
I am of the opinion that subs are good for all types of music, particularly if the woofers in the main monitors are rather small (IE: they roll off around 50hz or higher (f3)). My premise is this....There IS musical energy down there and it needs to be heard to know what to do with it (Duh). This is also based on having the sub tuned to the same level as the main monitors. It's really very simple, if you are creating music that has any energy down there (odds are you are) then you NEED to hear it. If you DO have monitors that extend down to the 30hz area or lower (f3), then no, you don't really have a need.
 
Ethan Winer said:
It's always better to have speakers that can go low enough without needing a sub...nless you're mixing 5.1 surround sound for movies.
Click to expand...
+1. To me it makes zero sense to skimp on the main channel monitors and then try to make up for lousy mains by supplimenting them with subs. Unless you're mixing dance/trance/hop or mixing for 5.1, but even then, skimping on the mains is a killer.

IMHO, spend money on the mains and skip the sub...for now. There's tens of thousands of folks out there making great-sounding mixes on just two high-quality main monitors and no sub. The number of them doing the same thing with econo-"monitors" - whether they have a sub or not - is much smaller.

You can always add a sub if you wish in your next gear cycle, if you wish. But whether you add a sub or not, you'll never get over crappy mains.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
+1. To me it makes zero sense to skimp on the main channel monitors and then try to make up for lousy mains by supplimenting them with subs.
Click to expand...

Of course. I also should have mentioned that bass traps will do far more for accurate monitoring than pretty much anything else.

--Ethan
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
+1. To me it makes zero sense to skimp on the main channel monitors and then try to make up for lousy mains by supplimenting them with subs. Unless you're mixing dance/trance/hop or mixing for 5.1, but even then, skimping on the mains is a killer.

IMHO, spend money on the mains and skip the sub...for now. There's tens of thousands of folks out there making great-sounding mixes on just two high-quality main monitors and no sub. The number of them doing the same thing with econo-"monitors" - whether they have a sub or not - is much smaller.

You can always add a sub if you wish in your next gear cycle, if you wish. But whether you add a sub or not, you'll never get over crappy mains.

G.
Click to expand...


My last sentence pretty much says the same thing. I was mostly trying to convey the importance of being able to hear the WHOLE audio spectrum. Good mains may very well need a sub IF they fall short in the lower octaves.
 
solo2racr said:
My last sentence pretty much says the same thing. I was mostly trying to convey the importance of being able to hear the WHOLE audio spectrum. Good mains may very well need a sub IF they fall short in the lower octaves.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I didn't mean to make it sound like I was disagreeing with you, because in fact your *did* put that in the last sentence.

This is a nit-picky point, but just for the advancement of the discussion, if you have decent, full-range mains that go down to 30 - 40Hz fairly well, there's really not much more to hear. Feel, perhaps, but not hear ;) I would argue - an IMHO only - that mains that did not go pretty solid down to at least 40, and preferebly lower, is a deficient "studio monitor".

Also, matching the sub to the monitor is, IMHO, extremely important when you're talking about covering the frequency spectrum (which I agree with). There are almost as many different personalities of subwoofer as there are mains, with different frequency ranges, different crossover strategies, etc. Some subs are little more than glorified standard woofers, others will crack your meighbor's china through the foundation the first chance they get. One shouldn't just buy a sub and be done with it, but rather pick one that dovetails well with their mains' capabilities. For example,, an m-audio BX10 would not be the ideal choice to match with Mackie HR824s, because of the high response and crossover limit of the BX10, and, conversely, a Mackie HRS120 would be quite the wrong choice for augmenting a Yamaha NS-10 because it would leave a hole in the meat of the bass region.

G.
 
I agree 100%. In fact, Yamaha NS-10's are a good example of a good (by many peoples opinion) monitor that really needs a sub complimenting them when working with today's music. Back in there day (pre subwoofers) there really was no need to augment them with a sub. But, today's home music systems, be it 2.1, 5.1, 7.1 or whatever, NS-10's will leave that whole sub region open to "whatever" and that same "whatever" will be reproduced in the home music system..
 
Three thoughts:

1) Two true full-range monitors is a good way to go. I'm not so fond of near fields, because they don't usually have the bottom octave and they try too hard to cover that up by using a ported system which usually causes the low end to be sloppier, gives you a peak in the bass right around your nastiest room mode with rapid roll off below that and gives you annoying phase shifts down there, too.

2) If you are going to use subs, get TWO and run them in stereo.

3) If I were going the sub route, I'd select a system where the subs were designed together with the satellites. The Blue Sky monitors are one example of a very well-designed system where the sub is an essential part of the design and the crossover works just right and the overall system can be flat in the right size of room right down to 20 Hz. I'd still spend the extra bucks and do stereo subs.

Cheers,

Otto
 
solo2racr said:
I agree 100%. In fact, Yamaha NS-10's are a good example of a good (by many peoples opinion) monitor that really needs a sub complimenting them when working with today's music. Back in there day (pre subwoofers) there really was no need to augment them with a sub. But, today's home music systems, be it 2.1, 5.1, 7.1 or whatever, NS-10's will leave that whole sub region open to "whatever" and that same "whatever" will be reproduced in the home music system..
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not disagreeing with the point(s) made here, just continuing the discussion. And I'm doing that by suggesting that if you're mixing for a 5.1+ system, that NS-10s (and similar) are - to put it softly - probably not the way to go for the mains.

Most (not all) modern x.1 home entertainment systems are not going to be using anything like the character of an NS-10 for the side channels. The center channel can sometimes be on the cheap on frequency response and may bump the mids to enhance dialog, but the other four or six will tend to avoid the high-mid bump of an NS-10, if for no other reason (though there ARE other good reasons) than to be able to stamp the THX certification on the box.

And speaking of THX, their standard spec is to crossover to the sub at 80Hz, and many movie soundtracks keep that in mind, not to mention the playback system design itself. Many home reckers use this as gospel and automatically set their crossovers that way. That's ideal if you are mixing for 5.1+ - assuming your sub and monitors are spec'd optimally for an 80Hz crossover. Now, some are, but I'm of the school, that one should not assume that, because that is not always in fact going to be the optimal crossover for any given main/sub marriage.

But if you're not necessarily mixing specifically for a 5.1+ multimedia playback, and your monitors are better crossed at, just for example, 55-60Hz, then I'd want the lower crossover. there can be a lot of stuff between 60 and 100Hz that can be coming from panned locations, and personally I wouldn't want those effectively automatically summed to mono, especially when it comes to mixes mastered in old-fashioned stereo ;).

Just all stuff that does come up with the question of using subs in the mix studio. It's up to the individual, of course, as to how deep they want to dive into the detail. But it never hurts to be well-armed informationally when going into these things.

IMHO, YMMV, NaCl, H2SO4, U238, etc.

G.
 
thanks guys i think i am going to look past the money and get the 8" HS's

GO BIG OR GO HOME
 
That would be the better choice. They go down to 42hz so that should be good. The $20.00 price difference between the 2 you linked to in the OP really isn't worth considering.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top