Are 5 mono subs or 1 sub for each of the 5 channels better?
> I'm soon going to buy a DD home-theater system. i like a lot of bass so, I
> will be considering 5 Subwoofers.
> It will be manily used for DD and DTS programs. DD and DTS require
> full-range surrounds, so is it in fact better to have a subwoofer for each
> channel (total 5 subs)? The NHT VT-2s already have a sub built into each, I
- First you have to ask yourself how much is enough bass?
- How loud do you listen to movies?
- Now calculate how many subs this will take.
So what is best: 5 mono subs or 5 subs, one for each channel?
The arguement for having a subwoofer for each of the 5 channels is that
bass below 80Hz is directional, and having a separate sub for each channel
will dramatically improve the sound quality. Very few AV processors
will do this sort of bass management for you, so an external multichannel
crossover will be required. This is an added hassle and expense.
The arguement for feeding 5 subs all the same signal is more maximum SPL
at lower frequencies. This setup is much simpler. Also if you choose to
EQ your bass you can get by with only one equalizer and not 5!!! Another
point is that if you put half of the subs in separate corners, and if you
believe that bass is directional, then you will not be able to localize
direction of the bass. Also with a distributed layout of 5 subs, the
effects of room modes will be reduced.
So which option is better? Directional sub output or maximum SPL with a
sensible EQ'ing option? Considering that the AC3 LFE channel is +10dB
higher than the other channels, 115dB SPL will be the output at the 0dB
reference level. Now just try to play a 20Hz tone at 115dB with one sub!!!
I feel the combined SPL solution is far superior.
Back to HT tips