Is it ok to go without a sub?

Well you wouldn't have 5.1 for a start. But seriously you will be missing out on the low frequency effects in films for example. And even in music a sub sets the whole sound stage nicely.

Any reason you cannot get a sub?
 
I'd say the sub is more important than the rear speakers if you really want a cinematic experience.
 
Entirely depends on the front speakers used. If they are satellites, you will get no bass at all. If you have decent size bookshelf/stand mount speakers, then the bass will be much better, assuming the speakers are capable of decent bass for their size.

Floor standing speakers would be the best option, without a subwoofer. Obviously wont come anywhere close to a good subwoofer though.
 
Don't most speakers go down to about 50hz though?

Most subs only seem to manage a bit more to around 30hz, does that 20hz really make much difference? i don't want anything too loud either when just watching tv, might be good for the odd film though im sure...
 
Having a sub isn't required, but it does make a big difference to explosions and music tracks in particular. Why not try it without; if you're happy with the sound then don't worry about the sub.
 
As someone said above how much your missing depends a lot on your front speakers, I've recently temporarily pulled down my 5.1 system in my home cinema setup while redoing the room and replaced them with a set of 2.0 Edifier 1600s and bass wise it doesn't quite have the same impact but its not a massive loss, if the fronts were single driver satellite style tho it would be a big loss.
 
Radiation said:
Don't most speakers go down to about 50hz though?

Most subs only seem to manage a bit more to around 30hz, does that 20hz really make much difference? i don't want anything too loud either when just watching tv, might be good for the odd film though im sure...
Click to expand...

Some can even go as low as 40Hz but they tend to be slow and lazy at these frequency, giving a booming effect rather than a nice tight bass. But there is still a big difference between 40 and 30Hz.
 
Marsman said:
Entirely depends on the front speakers used. If they are satellites, you will get no bass at all. If you have decent size bookshelf/stand mount speakers, then the bass will be much better, assuming the speakers are capable of decent bass for their size.

Floor standing speakers would be the best option, without a subwoofer. Obviously wont come anywhere close to a good subwoofer though.
Click to expand...

Good point, totally forgot about that. Had just pictured in my mind the system I have (which uses satellites) without a sub.
 
I cope without using a pair of floorstanders at the front which get down to 35Hz. A sub is a must in my opinion if you are using smaller bookshelf speakers.

I'd love a sub, but I doubt the neighbours would appreciate it.
 
Radiation said:
I have some tannoy mercury f1 custom speakers (bookshelf), i would like a sub but it doesn't sound like i can get anything good for around £100?
Click to expand...

It's unlikely you will get anything of quality at this price, mainly because there is a lot more technology in a sub, having a built-in amplifier adds a significant cost. But that doesn't mean you have to spend a lot. Check out BK's subs, very reasonable and raved about for good reason.
 
You can get by without a sub with those Tannoys, and I'd certainly advise against wasting your money on a cheap sub. Put the £100 aside and add to it until you can buy something better.

There's three good reasons to buy a decent sub...

1) You'll be surprised just how much extra it adds to the sound of your system when you set the fronts and centre to small and let the sub handle the frequencies at 80Hz and less. I'm not talking just about the explosions and deep bass stuff, but more about voices, music and other general effects.

2) A powered sub relieves the AV amp of a lot of work. If your system is set up right then you should notice an improvement in the sound quality at mid+ volumes upwards.

3) Being able to move the bass speaker to different parts of the room means better bass response and more seats in your living room having better sound.
 
I was thinking getting the Wharfedale Diamond SW150 as it's got lots of awards but people keep going on about the BK Gemini 2 on forums, is it really that much better to be worth the increase in price?
 
Everyone has a different definition of what's good. Also, mags are there to sell advertising space and they'll do what they can to shift copies. Use reviews to draw up a shortlist, but always trust your own ears.

The deal with BK is that they sell direct. That means you should get better value from the brand since there's no retailer margin in the price.

If I were in your shoes I'd go have a listen to the Wharfedale versus something like an MJ Acoustics Pro 50 MKII. They're both 10" subs. See if you can hear a difference. You're looking for tighter bass rather than simply 'more'. If you can't tell then buy the Wharfedale. But if you can.... ;)

Incidentally, s/h price is a good indicator of quality. BK Gemini II's regularly fetch £150 secondhand...... just a thought ;) :D
 
If memory serves when I was looking at subs before it was said by knowledgeable people over at AVForums that BK manufactured kit for MJ Acoustics. As lucid has said above they sell direct and build to order. BK have always had good peer reviews but the press mags tend to steer clear of reviewing them.

What Hi-Fi etc in advertising led product bias? Never! ;)
 
I have some floorstander fronts and some bookshelf surrounds, for me I can do without a sub for now, but will definitely buy one in the future, I don't think the setup is quite complete without out it, although I am sure that the people below would disagree with me :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom