Subwoofer question!

[Guest yamaha_man]

Morning people's,

Currently have 2 Wilson Audio Watch Dog 2 subwoofers which will be driven by a Krell FPB-600 power amp.

The new room will be 5x6x2.7.

Possibly may have the chance to upgrade to the Wilson Audio Thor's Hammer subwoofer. Would you be inclined to keep the 2 Dogs or get the 1 Hammer?

Pros and cons would be appreciated from those in the know.

Thanks in Advance.

[Sir Triode]

Two subs are better than one for 2 channel applications.

[Guest yamaha_man]

Two subs are better than one for 2 channel applications.

Was thinking that and certainly couldn't afford 2 Hammers.

[Gee Emm]

Possibly may have the chance to upgrade to the Wilson Audio Thor's Hammer subwoofer. Would you be inclined to keep the 2 Dogs or get the 1 Hammer?I woyuld

I would prefer 2 Dogs over 1 Hammer

 

Nothin' worse than trying to fix bass null issues when you only have 1 sub.

 

But you already know that.

 

Graham

[aechmea]

I had one and then later a second sub.

 

There are plenty of articles and advice that say that "the more the merrier" up to about 4.

 

That is not exactly my experience.  I found a rather nice position with a single sub that only had 1 trough.  That position was in an odd spot, well out into the room - away from any wall or corner which are often suggested.

 

I bought a second sub.

 

Naively I expected instant improvement, but such was not the case.  Recommended positions for 2 subs didn't work any better than 1 sub in a good position.  So the second sub needs a lot of experimentation as well.  At the moment my 2 subs are on the same side of the room, one 1/3 of the way along the wall and the other in the back corner - ish.  Where one has a peak, the other has a trough, so, together they work rather well.  Who would have predicted that as a worthwhile position.  What seems to be needed is one source in front of the LP and another source behind, and tinker from there.

 

Trial and error is the name of the game with both one or 2 subs, but I guess I found a good spot easier with 2 subs than with 1, and the end result is better = more even without much EQ.

[Paul Spencer]

As a general rule, two subs are better than one and it's a fairly safe bet that a better result is possible. However, in many cases, once you try the available placements, the improvement is not always significant and sometimes it just doesn't justify the extra sub. The best way to make that decision is by measuring the response in different positions. You can then see what you are dealing with.

 

Here is an example:

 

 

In this example, I was showing combining mains and a sub, but it still illustrates. See how adding these two responses, each has a dip that the other does not. Combined, those are removed. The result in this case is no dips below 100 Hz and a little EQ to shape the bass curve is then all that is needed.

[Guest yamaha_man]

Bit hard to measure Paul. Have to sell the 2 dogs to get the hammer.

Here are the items in question and have attached a pic of the room.

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product_watch_dog.shtml

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product_thor.shtml

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product_watch_control.shtml

Edited July 1, 2013 by yamaha_man

[Paul Spencer]

You don't have to buy them all and then measure them insitu! All you need is a speaker capable of producing bass down to about 40 Hz at a level reasonably elevated over the noise floor. Then you can make an informed decision on the subs with real information on your room, before you buy.

 

You have about 7 positions possible in your room, including the Harman recommended centre of front and back midwall positions. It's quite likely in your room that you should see an improvement with two subs, because you have a good sized room with lots of options.

 

It's also quite likely that you won't find out how good those subs really are if you are using nothing more than the one band of parametric EQ included on that controller. You are likely to need a more sophisticated device.

 

Without actually measuring, my initial suggestion would be the two smaller subs out of those choices. The bigger sub is more likely to back you into a corner as far as placement goes - you end up putting it in a spot that doesn't perform as well, instead being placed where it doesn't offend the eyes.

[kczar01]

Try it first mate, then maybe make the decision? 

[davewantsmoore]

Bit hard to measure Paul. Have to sell the 2 dogs to get the hammer

 

Just use one of your "dogs" to measure with.

 

If your subs (dogs vs hammers) are setup to output the same response .... then the only difference between then with be SPL vs distortion... which is not a significant factor in room/mains integration.

[davewantsmoore]

If the crossover point and slope between the subs and mains will be high  (say 80hz and 24dB/octave and above) .... the positioning the subs symmetrically next to the mains is advisable ....   This can negate any room integration benefits afforded from being able to place the subs in the optimal locations.    For this reason I'd recommend keeping the XO point lower and/or steeper.

 

The only reason to look for a "bigger" subwoofer is if you need more output, or less distortion, or both.

 

What mains do you use?

[Guest guru]

Bit hard to measure Paul. Have to sell the 2 dogs to get the hammer.

Here are the items in question and have attached a pic of the room.

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product_watch_dog.shtml

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product_thor.shtml

http://www.wilsonaudio.com/product_watch_control.shtml

given the size of the room and the size and potential output of the thor, I would think it would present a real challenge to get the thor to work successfully. then again, you love excess. cheers.

[Guest yamaha_man]

Thanks Brian, think you answered this for me. Waste of time and money maybe.

If only I could learn to be happy with what I already have.