Dedicated subs for front speakers

[ironhead1230]

I have pretty much decided to upgrade my current HT system with a UMC and XPA-5, but I am still trying to decide on the speakers and subs. My plan right now is to get 5 ERM 6.2s with dedicated subs for the front left and right speakers. I originally thought to get a pair of ultra sub 10s and for now, to continue to use my SVS pb10-isd for lfe duty. Then I thought about going to the ultra sub 12s for the extra head room. Now I'm thinking of going to a bigger sub like a rythmik. My question is would going to a bigger sub for the front speakers be overkill with the 6.2s or worth the extra expense? Or would it be better to stick with the smaller / cheaper subs to pair with the 6.2s and upgrade my lfe sub?

I know there is a large cost difference, but I don't mind spending more if it would be worthwhile.

-Mike

[aboroth00]

Well the whole point of getting separate subwoofers is for them to handle LFE, and summed bass from your mains below the crossover point. So if you use your subs for only the LR fronts, that would be shortchanging what they could actually do. Using more than one sub for LFE and summed bass allows for more options in placement to improve things such as frequency response and create a more encompassing sound field.

However, the caveat being, you should use subs of equal capability if you choose to use them for LFE and summed bass duties, seeing that the Ultras roll off well before the PB10-ISD.

After saying that, I definitely would not recommend running dedicated subs for the front speakers but allocating the money to buy subs to place all around the room for LFE and summed bass duty this will give you better bass response while in stereo and HT. I would definitely recommend running duals for example buying another PB10 from SVS. But if you have extra money you can upgrade all your subs to better subs. I personally have two Hsu subs in the front corners where the bass response is the best for the room and a Svs sub behind the listening position for the tactile feeling of explosions and whatnot.

[jlafrenz]

You can always turn a sub down, but you can't always turn it up

[ironhead1230]

Let me first say I have never had a setup with dedicated front channel subs so everything I talk about is my opinion.

I have to respectfully disagree that there is no point in running dedicated front channel subs. Even if your front speakers can play down to 80hz, they may sound better crossed over higher. By freeing them of playing near their lower limit, I would think they would be less stressed to play the rest of the midbass frequencies. Of course the higher the crossover, the more likely the material being sent to the LFE sub will become directional. So having dedicated front subs, the frequencies becoming directional is not as much of a problem. Remember, the crossover is not a hard cutoff, it is sloped. So even if the front crossover is set to 80hz, the sub will still be sent some material higher than that.
Running dedicated front subs takes some demand off of the LFE sub/s allowing them to be more focused on playing the LFE track in movies or just the lowest bass frequencies in music.

Also by using an external crossover, it would allow more bass management options. Setup becomes more complicated but I think it would allow better integration. Running dedicated front subs with an external crossover, also alleviates some of the concerns over the bass management system in the UMC.
Of course this is all moot if the LFE sub is a weak link or the system is not setup properly.

I am just trying to figure out if it is worth it to get in on the Ultra subs sale and free shipping.

Now I may be completely mistaken and this post was just the ramblings of a misguided fool, so let me know if anything I said is wrong.

-Mike

[ntrain42]

THere is no such think as overkill when it comes to low frequency response.

[Deleted]

Mike, no offense, but I would forget this talk about "dedicated front channel subs." This IMO sounds like an idea a HT salesman came up with. I agree with aboroth00.

The bass management on pre-pro's is designed to smoothly blend the LFE channel with the crossed over lower bass from all 5 speakers. An extra sub for LFE duty only IMO is a big waste of money. Get the best subs you can afford for your system. Two is usually better than one. Place them near the front and cross over the 6.2's at 80Hz (or possibly 90Hz). They might work OK back some in the room depending on your room acoustics if you cannot detect their location. Do not underestimate the excellent sound from the 6.2's. These are high class speakers that should be matched with a very good sub. The only difference between the 6.2's and a more expensive full range tower is from 80Hz down.

The SVS PB10 is an excellent and underrated sub. Two would be good. The Ultra 12 might be superior in the upper bass but not any lower IMO. I would recommend you end up with two matched subs that are the best you can afford. Stick with direct to buyer subs like SVS, HSU, Outlaw, Emotiva, Rythmik, Etc.

I would highly suggest you consider 3ea of the 6.2's and 2ea of the ERD-1's instead of 5ea of the 6.2's. The ERD-1 is a great surround speaker and perfectly matched for the entire Emo line of speakers. You are making great choices here. I own the XPA-5, ERM-1, ERD-1 and waiting for the XMC-1. You will have a very system. ;D

[ntrain42]

If he has the money and space to fit a pair of direct radiating 6.2's for the rear surrounds, then he should use them and have all channel's matched fully. I wouldn't waste money on the ERD's when you have the money and space to put in 6.2's.

[aboroth00]

I believe what Ironhead wants is a mid-bass module. A sub to handle higher frequencies where we typically crossover the mains and a true subwoofer to run lower frequencies. Hsu has a great offering for this exact purpose, the MBM12. And you could run a sub to run your lowest frequencies to still encompass the lowest octave.

Personally, I didn't like it and preferred to run full range subs all around. Each of my speakers have a 12" powered sub, but I still cross them at 70hz. Because simply, a dedicated subwoofer does it better. If you send only the L+R bass signal to the subs, why not just send all the signals in your surround rig to the sub because the more subs running the info would provide a better dispersement to your listening position. Having subs placed better in good positions will help better "delocalized" your subs. Your LFE sub will still be responsible for the info of your center and surrounds below their crossovers anyhow.

[aboroth00]

May 27, 2010 12:59:57 GMT -5 ironhead1230 said:

Let me first say I have never had a setup with dedicated front channel subs so everything I talk about is my opinion.

I have to respectfully disagree that there is no point in running dedicated front channel subs. Even if your front speakers can play down to 80hz, they may sound better crossed over higher. By freeing them of playing near their lower limit, I would think they would be less stressed to play the rest of the midbass frequencies. Of course the higher the crossover, the more likely the material being sent to the LFE sub will become directional. So having dedicated front subs, the frequencies becoming directional is not as much of a problem. Remember, the crossover is not a hard cutoff, it is sloped. So even if the front crossover is set to 80hz, the sub will still be sent some material higher than that.
Running dedicated front subs takes some demand off of the LFE sub/s allowing them to be more focused on playing the LFE track in movies or just the lowest bass frequencies in music.

Also by using an external crossover, it would allow more bass management options. Setup becomes more complicated but I think it would allow better integration. Running dedicated front subs with an external crossover, also alleviates some of the concerns over the bass management system in the UMC.
Of course this is all moot if the LFE sub is a weak link or the system is not setup properly.

I am just trying to figure out if it is worth it to get in on the Ultra subs sale and free shipping.

Now I may be completely mistaken and this post was just the ramblings of a misguided fool, so let me know if anything I said is wrong.

-Mike

Personally, I would never buy a speaker that isn't flat down to at least 80hz. Of course there are many compromises. What you're saying is correct, you can cross the speaker over at maybe 100hz or 120hz, but this is not the range a typically sub shines in. A true subwoofer typically is effective and flat with frequencies below 80hz. From experience, I know svs subs are only flat below 50hz and have a horrible slope from 50hz to 80hz and even worse 80hz and above. If you decide to have dedicated subs for the fronts, you could run them large, but the ultras would be strained in the lower octaves and be constrained by the large frequency response you made them responsible for. However, if you ran them from let's say 150hz down to 80hz or wherever you cross the subwoofer at, that would be a simple waste of money and your speakers are more than capable of handling that.

One more disadvantage of this kind of setup is that you'd have to leave your subs next to your mains due to the directionality of the sub. When you could ideally place your subs in a better position and cross them lower to better integrate bass into your room. The gains to be had by having dedicated front channel subs vs. having more "LFE" subs to integrate are quite small.

I would recommend if you would like to try the midbass option and have a dedicated sub for that kind of duty you speaker of, the Hsu MBM12. But you'd be pretty with more than one "LFE" sub as well.

[Deleted]

Ntrain doesn't understand the concept or advantage of the bypole/dipole designed surround speakers for home environments. He thinks like an installer of theaters and auditoriums.

Ask the experts at Emotiva why they match the 6.2 6.3 and 8.3 all with the ERD-1. Better yet call Vance Dickason and ask him why he designed the ERD-1 surround speaker when experts like Ntrain know that a direct radiating speaker is superior.

Audioholics in their review said:

"..........Right from the beginning, I suspected that Emotiva had something special with their ERD-1 dipole speakers. The Axiom QS8's are a very highly regarded rear "quad" pole speaker (a top and bottom woofer and two side angled tweeters - one on each side all firing in phase). I was surprised to find that the ERD-1s bested the Axioms on almost every metric I could come up with. The opening sequence of the first and title track features a keyboard bouncing around the rears and what sounds to be a train pulling into a station. The ERDs really performed well not only during the quiet section at the very beginning but also in remaining articulate during the louder sections. At no point did I think the ERDs were being overpowered or drowned out. At the same time, they blended well with the rest of the system. Basically, when I wanted to hear them I could, when I didn't, they just disappeared. While some might say that a bipole configuration would be best for multichannel music, I found the dipole setting to create a nice diffuse sound that still performed well for point-source effects. As always, we encourage you to experiment for yourself and see what you prefer. Just make sure to check your levels as you switch between the settings as the levels are likely to change. While I've always found the Axioms to be a fine surround speaker, the ERDs are in an entirely different class...........

..........As you'd expect from a dipole speaker that already impressed with music, the ERD-1s were spectacular with movies. Ambient music was diffuse and enveloping and point-source effects were easily localized and convincing. The ERD-1's ability with movies was at least as good as with music and probably better. I can easily imagine two pairs of these being used in a 7.1 configuration with the back pair being set to bipole and the side pair on dipole. The joy is that you don't have to decide when you purchase - just buy two pairs and try them out. That kind of flexibility is very rare in a speaker these days..........."

Now, like every time we post this review, Ntrain will respond by telling us that Emotiva, Vance Dickason and the folks at Audioholics don't know much about surround speakers for home theaters. You decide who knows what they are talking about.

[ntrain42]

May 27, 2010 18:05:31 GMT -5 @chuckienut said:

Ntrain doesn't understand the concept or advantage of the bypole/dipole designed surround speakers for home environments. He thinks like an installer of theaters and auditoriums.

Ask the experts at Emotiva why they match the 6.2 6.3 and 8.3 all with the ERD-1. Better yet call Vance Dickason and ask him why he designed the ERD-1 surround speaker when experts like Ntrain know that a direct radiating speaker is superior.

Audioholics in their review said:

"..........Right from the beginning, I suspected that Emotiva had something special with their ERD-1 dipole speakers. The Axiom QS8's are a very highly regarded rear "quad" pole speaker (a top and bottom woofer and two side angled tweeters - one on each side all firing in phase). I was surprised to find that the ERD-1s bested the Axioms on almost every metric I could come up with. The opening sequence of the first and title track features a keyboard bouncing around the rears and what sounds to be a train pulling into a station. The ERDs really performed well not only during the quiet section at the very beginning but also in remaining articulate during the louder sections. At no point did I think the ERDs were being overpowered or drowned out. At the same time, they blended well with the rest of the system. Basically, when I wanted to hear them I could, when I didn't, they just disappeared. While some might say that a bipole configuration would be best for multichannel music, I found the dipole setting to create a nice diffuse sound that still performed well for point-source effects. As always, we encourage you to experiment for yourself and see what you prefer. Just make sure to check your levels as you switch between the settings as the levels are likely to change. While I've always found the Axioms to be a fine surround speaker, the ERDs are in an entirely different class...........

..........As you'd expect from a dipole speaker that already impressed with music, the ERD-1s were spectacular with movies. Ambient music was diffuse and enveloping and point-source effects were easily localized and convincing. The ERD-1's ability with movies was at least as good as with music and probably better. I can easily imagine two pairs of these being used in a 7.1 configuration with the back pair being set to bipole and the side pair on dipole. The joy is that you don't have to decide when you purchase - just buy two pairs and try them out. That kind of flexibility is very rare in a speaker these days..........."

Now, like every time we post this review, Ntrain will respond by telling us that Emotiva, Vance Dickason and the folks at Audioholics don't know much about surround speakers for home theaters. You decide who knows what they are talking about.

What works in a large auditorium or theatre, works exactly the same way in a home theater. You are still surrounded by 4 walls, a floor and a ceiling. Running direct radiating speakers on all channels allows for proper pinpoint sounds at specific locations when needed, and diffused sound effects when called for. Its a pretty common fact that its optimal to run identical speakers for all channels. If the 6.2's work great for the front/left and center channels, then they will work just as well for the surrounds. The ERM's are not going to do ANYTHING better than those 6.2's will. And they will not handle lower frequencies in the 80-120hz range nearly as well at moderate to higher volumes, as a single 5" driver is going to strain to play those lower midbass frequencies where a pair of 6" drivers will do it in spades. Its just plain common sense.

Toss in any "pro review" you want. When was the last time you read a bad review from a form of paid advertisement on anything? Just doesn't happen in this hobby. I just pulled out an old stack of AV mags from the past 15 years, I could not find one negative review on any product review. Your more apt. to find a bad review in an issue of Car and Driver mag than you are in Stereophile etc......LOL!

BTW I dont remember the OP questioning his main speaker choice, just the sub............his main speaker choice was excellent. But regardless if you decide to toss in your own opinion, just expect other people like me who have a differing view to give their own as well.

[jlafrenz]

I think ntrain has a point here. Matching speakers are ideal and if the OP has the room and that's what he wants to do, why not? Just because a company designs something doesn't mean that it has to be used. They design multiple speakers for multiple applications. So I don't need to call Vance and ask him why he designed ERD-1's, but if you have is number handy, pass it along. I'll give him a call.

Back to the OP's original question. I don't think there is anything wrong with what you are trying to accomplish here. Some people like having mains run full range and then add a sub to it. That is essentially what you would be doing. Depending on your room and your preference for bass, it may be a good choice and work out really well. It also may not. You never know until you try.

[turbo]

May 27, 2010 18:05:31 GMT -5 @chuckienut said:

Ntrain doesn't understand the concept or advantage of the bypole/dipole designed surround speakers for home environments. He thinks like an installer of theaters and auditoriums.

Serious? LOL ;D ;D NTrain u da man

[Deleted]

May 27, 2010 18:24:38 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

May 27, 2010 18:05:31 GMT -5 @chuckienut said:

What works in a large auditorium or theatre, works exactly the same way in a home theater. You are still surrounded by 4 walls, a floor and a ceiling.

Comparing the acoustics of a large theater with my living room ..... Brilliant! He seems to forget that large theaters have many more than just two direct radiating surround speakers where most home theater systems only have two surround speakers whose sound needs to be spread throughout the rear portion of the room. If one had 6-8 direct radiating surround speakers then it would be fine in a home environment. The idea of the two dipole/bipole speakers is to spread the surround sound when needed while still reproducing direct sounds effectively. Why waste my time?

[Deleted]

May 27, 2010 21:30:14 GMT -5 jlafrenz said:

Just because a company designs something doesn't mean that it has to be used. They design multiple speakers for multiple applications. So I don't need to call Vance and ask him why he designed ERD-1's, but if you have is number handy, pass it along. I'll give him a call.

They design the ERD-1 for surround applications, not multiple applications. Call Big Dan and I'm sure he would be willing to give an expert like you in surround speaker design Vance's number. While you are talking to Dan let him know that you think that Emotiva should remove the ERD-1 from their product line. If you don't think it should be removed then how about giving us an example of an application for it. ;D

[jlafrenz]

May 27, 2010 22:31:48 GMT -5 @chuckienut said:

May 27, 2010 21:30:14 GMT -5 jlafrenz said:

Just because a company designs something doesn't mean that it has to be used. They design multiple speakers for multiple applications. So I don't need to call Vance and ask him why he designed ERD-1's, but if you have is number handy, pass it along. I'll give him a call.

They design the ERD-1 for surround applications, not multiple applications. Call Big Dan and I'm sure he would be willing to give an expert like you in surround speaker design Vance's number. While you are talking to Dan let him know that you think that Emotiva should remove the ERD-1 from their product line. If you don't think it should be removed then how about giving us an example of an application for it. ;D

Way to take my statement out of context. What I meant was that just because Emotiva designed ERD-1's (yes, as surrounds) doesn't mean that someone has use those and only those as their surrounds. I realize that they designed them as surrounds because they work in that application in most peoples homes. This does not mean that other speakers in their line up can not be used as surrounds in certain applications.

[ntrain42]

May 27, 2010 22:23:15 GMT -5 @chuckienut said:

May 27, 2010 18:24:38 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

May 27, 2010 18:05:31 GMT -5 @chuckienut said:

What works in a large auditorium or theatre, works exactly the same way in a home theater. You are still surrounded by 4 walls, a floor and a ceiling.

Comparing the acoustics of a large theater with my living room ..... Brilliant! He seems to forget that large theaters have many more than just two direct radiating surround speakers where most home theater systems only have two surround speakers whose sound needs to be spread throughout the rear portion of the room. If one had 6-8 direct radiating surround speakers then it would be fine in a home environment. The idea of the two dipole/bipole speakers is to spread the surround sound when needed while still reproducing direct sounds effectively. Why waste my time?

I seem to forget?

OK so in a large theater or auditorium, you will have dozens of seating rows and hundreds of seats. Where many times you will have a few speaker arrays to cover the broader area.


In a home theater you have how many seating positions and rows? In realistic average, 1 couch and a lazyboy? LOL! Maybe 2 or 3 rows of a few lazyboy recliners and a couch? A quality direct radiating speaker will give you a good 30-40 degree dispersion/off axis response pattern. Under most circumstances that is more than enough for a handful of seats in a home theater.

And again your logic with "spreading" the sound is flawed. If you have a sound effect that is ONLY in the left front speaker and pans to the back left surround slowly, I would rather have 2 identical speakers doing the pan effect as intended as they will keep the weight, balance and desired effect intact correctly every time. If a sound off to that same side needs to sound diffused and it was recorded that way, you will have a signal effect sent to those 2 same speakers that will diffuse the sound by design as well by adjusting phase/delay/amplitude at specific needed frequencies.

So why waste your time? I am asking that same question.

[ntrain42]

May 27, 2010 22:31:48 GMT -5 @chuckienut said:

May 27, 2010 21:30:14 GMT -5 jlafrenz said:

Just because a company designs something doesn't mean that it has to be used. They design multiple speakers for multiple applications. So I don't need to call Vance and ask him why he designed ERD-1's, but if you have is number handy, pass it along. I'll give him a call.

They design the ERD-1 for surround applications, not multiple applications. Call Big Dan and I'm sure he would be willing to give an expert like you in surround speaker design Vance's number. While you are talking to Dan let him know that you think that Emotiva should remove the ERD-1 from their product line. If you don't think it should be removed then how about giving us an example of an application for it. ;D

I think the term, multiple applications is actually appropriate.

One "application" is that some people may not want to spend as much money on something they might just consider a less imporant effect channel. A pair of ERD's are cheaper than another set of speakers.
Another application might be a WAF factor. ERD's are much more compact and intrusive looking to some.
ANother might just be a room factor, no place to put a pair of regular sized bookshelf or floor mounted speakers.

THese are 3 "applications" where the ERD's may come into play. But if someone has the room and budget for say 5-7 6.2's as the OP above has, then he has the room and budget for em. ANd good for him too, because he WILL get the best performance as intended out of each channel going the way he is.

[monkumonku]

May 28, 2010 8:50:33 GMT -5 ntrain42 said:

May 27, 2010 22:31:48 GMT -5 @chuckienut said:

They design the ERD-1 for surround applications, not multiple applications. Call Big Dan and I'm sure he would be willing to give an expert like you in surround speaker design Vance's number. While you are talking to Dan let him know that you think that Emotiva should remove the ERD-1 from their product line. If you don't think it should be removed then how about giving us an example of an application for it. ;D

I think the term, multiple applications is actually appropriate.

One "application" is that some people may not want to spend as much money on something they might just consider a less imporant effect channel. A pair of ERD's are cheaper than another set of speakers.
Another application might be a WAF factor. ERD's are much more compact and intrusive looking to some.
ANother might just be a room factor, no place to put a pair of regular sized bookshelf or floor mounted speakers.

THese are 3 "applications" where the ERD's may come into play. But if someone has the room and budget for say 5-7 6.2's as the OP above has, then he has the room and budget for em. ANd good for him too, because he WILL get the best performance as intended out of each channel going the way he is.

Well to add my penny or two, why not take advantage of Emo's 30 day return policy and try both? The freight is inexpensive enough if you are in the continental US.. use a pair of ERD's and a pair of 6.2's and see what you prefer and send the others back. I think it is a matter of preference. Vince Dickason would not have made the ERD's if he didn't see a need for them but everyone has different tastes.

[floridapoolboy]

I've run both direct radiators and ERDs in my setup, and I have run the ERDs in bipole and dipole mode as well. I found that in MY room, to MY ears, I prefer to use the ERDs in bipole mode. This gives me to best combination of direct and diffuse sounds for movies and music. You really need to try both, and stick with what works best for you.