Adding a subwoofer to a Naim system??
Posted by: bec143 on 04 May 2002
What do the forum experts think of adding a subwoofer to a Naim system? I'm currently running Vienna Acoustic Bachs from my FC/CD5/Hi/92R/90.3. I really love the midrabge and sweet highs from these speakers, but they are a little bass shy. What's there sounds good, but often I feel like a little more low bass would make the tunes really rise to their full potential. I could change the speakers, but there really is a lot that I like about them Thus the idea od adding a sub.
How hard would it be to integrate the sub into my system. Also, would I need a second set of NACA5 to make things sound right?
Thanks,
Bruce
How hard would it be to integrate the sub into my system. Also, would I need a second set of NACA5 to make things sound right?
Thanks,
Bruce
Posted on: 04 May 2002 by Steve Toy
A decent sub which does music properly will cost you a minimum of £800, I reckon.
A beefier power amp like a 140 may be a better option.
Regards,
Steve.
The proof of the pudding...
A beefier power amp like a 140 may be a better option.
Regards,
Steve.
The proof of the pudding...
Posted on: 04 May 2002 by Jay
Hi Pat
The AV2 handles a sub like a normal A/V receiver would. There's a single RCA out (mono) for a powered sub and a combined centre/sub DIN out (mono).
Jay
quote:
how does the AV2 handle a sub?
The AV2 handles a sub like a normal A/V receiver would. There's a single RCA out (mono) for a powered sub and a combined centre/sub DIN out (mono).
Jay
Posted on: 04 May 2002 by bec143
Steven,
Thanks for the suggestion. I wondered if upgrading the power amp would help, but my speakers are pretty sensitive. Would a bigger amp help with fuller bass. I had actually thought of upgrading my preamp to a 72 or 102 as my next step, because I very rarely pass 10:00 on the volume knob as it is.
Bruce
Thanks for the suggestion. I wondered if upgrading the power amp would help, but my speakers are pretty sensitive. Would a bigger amp help with fuller bass. I had actually thought of upgrading my preamp to a 72 or 102 as my next step, because I very rarely pass 10:00 on the volume knob as it is.
Bruce
Posted on: 05 May 2002 by Arye_Gur
I’m not a forum expert.
I thought too that I have a problem with the bass (I own IBL) – now I think a Sub is a mistake.
I had a Nait3 and can assure you that a 140 will improve the bass.
At my system the TT and the stereo video are providing bass that shakes the sofa. The CDI is not – also it gives me a great pleasure – but I know that with the TT I have more bass (especially after I added the geddon).
I’d listened to few systems with and without a sub and I don’t think that a sub does anything good.
If you suffer of a shy bass you have to find the source for that – and to my opinion, first step is to be sure that the problem is caused by the speakers.
Arye
I thought too that I have a problem with the bass (I own IBL) – now I think a Sub is a mistake.
I had a Nait3 and can assure you that a 140 will improve the bass.
At my system the TT and the stereo video are providing bass that shakes the sofa. The CDI is not – also it gives me a great pleasure – but I know that with the TT I have more bass (especially after I added the geddon).
I’d listened to few systems with and without a sub and I don’t think that a sub does anything good.
If you suffer of a shy bass you have to find the source for that – and to my opinion, first step is to be sure that the problem is caused by the speakers.
Arye
Posted on: 05 May 2002 by garyi
I think I am right in thinking on some subs you can output from the flat cap to feed it, a nice solution.
Posted on: 05 May 2002 by Steve Toy
When I said "beefier," I wasn't refering to wattage figures - the 140 is still only 45 wpc/8 ohms, I was refering to control, drive, and sheer grunt.
Indeed, the newer 150 power amp is (slightly) more powerful in terms of wattage, but lacks the guts of the 140 in my experience.
I have heard a 140 driving Isobariks to considerable satisfaction with a 62 preamp in a very large room.
Try a 72 or a 102 with your existing 90, but changing both pre and power would certainly give you the sonic authority that you are aiming for.
Regards,
Steve.
The proof of the pudding...
Indeed, the newer 150 power amp is (slightly) more powerful in terms of wattage, but lacks the guts of the 140 in my experience.
I have heard a 140 driving Isobariks to considerable satisfaction with a 62 preamp in a very large room.
Try a 72 or a 102 with your existing 90, but changing both pre and power would certainly give you the sonic authority that you are aiming for.
Regards,
Steve.
The proof of the pudding...
Posted on: 05 May 2002 by J.N.
I ran REL subs (one at a time) with SBL's for a while. They integrate pretty well by driving off the speaker feeds,(leads supplied) if used subtly.
However; I gave up when I went 'active'; as I wasn't happy with the integration.
Presumably, you cannot accommodate big speakers?
For what you'd have to pay for a decent sub; I'd look at Allaes which will give you a full range integrated sound. SL2's if you can afford more. Either speaker will work OK on what you have and will easily transmit the benefits of future upgrades to the rest of the system.
If you want to go down the second hand route; there will be a few SBL's available soon.
However; I gave up when I went 'active'; as I wasn't happy with the integration.
Presumably, you cannot accommodate big speakers?
For what you'd have to pay for a decent sub; I'd look at Allaes which will give you a full range integrated sound. SL2's if you can afford more. Either speaker will work OK on what you have and will easily transmit the benefits of future upgrades to the rest of the system.
If you want to go down the second hand route; there will be a few SBL's available soon.
Posted on: 05 May 2002 by bec143
I think that several of you are right on target!
Hotspur: I can totally relate to the irritation of changing the gain on the sub with each song-just the idea of that is enough to totally expunge the concept of a sub from my cerebrum. I drove my wife crazy changing between the FC and Hi Cap to the Cd5 or 92 trying to decide which I liked better. Because one side of my listening room is open, I often have to adjust the balance on different CDs anyway. Another degree of freedom would probably prove fatal.
J.N. Your comment on bigger speakers may be the ultimate solution, although I suspect that will require amplification upgrades as well. My room is pretty large (30 ft X 15 ft X 10 ft) and it is not set up ideal for HiFi (it's our living room/dining room combined). In addition, it's a Seattle turn of the century house with boomy wood everywhere and almost nothing sound absorbent. I won't be allowed to apply much in the way of acoutic treatment, so I need to work within these confines. Maybe I should be happy things sound as good as they do!
Ayre/Steve: Given the room described above, maybe a power upgrade will do the trick!
Bruce
Hotspur: I can totally relate to the irritation of changing the gain on the sub with each song-just the idea of that is enough to totally expunge the concept of a sub from my cerebrum. I drove my wife crazy changing between the FC and Hi Cap to the Cd5 or 92 trying to decide which I liked better. Because one side of my listening room is open, I often have to adjust the balance on different CDs anyway. Another degree of freedom would probably prove fatal.
J.N. Your comment on bigger speakers may be the ultimate solution, although I suspect that will require amplification upgrades as well. My room is pretty large (30 ft X 15 ft X 10 ft) and it is not set up ideal for HiFi (it's our living room/dining room combined). In addition, it's a Seattle turn of the century house with boomy wood everywhere and almost nothing sound absorbent. I won't be allowed to apply much in the way of acoutic treatment, so I need to work within these confines. Maybe I should be happy things sound as good as they do!
Ayre/Steve: Given the room described above, maybe a power upgrade will do the trick!
Bruce
Posted on: 05 May 2002 by Arthur Bye
Bec:
I tried a Rel sub (Stadium II)with a variety of speakers and had mixed results. While the Rel did a nice musical job of adding extra bass it didn't always time right. I tried it both ways, off a HiCap and from the speaker outputs.
Eventually I gave up as I could not get consistent results. It's been relegated to home theater.
More recently I tried a Linn Sizmik sub off the HiCap. The is a forward firing sub and does not have a port. This sub has had a much better result when combined with a set of ProAc 1sc's. It was easy to set up and always seems to be on time. On the downside it doesn't go much lower than 30 Hz (-3db). I'm not sure if the Sizmik works better because it's forward firing or the lack of a port, but it does work better. It's good enough that I consider it a keeper.
Arthur Bye
I tried a Rel sub (Stadium II)with a variety of speakers and had mixed results. While the Rel did a nice musical job of adding extra bass it didn't always time right. I tried it both ways, off a HiCap and from the speaker outputs.
Eventually I gave up as I could not get consistent results. It's been relegated to home theater.
More recently I tried a Linn Sizmik sub off the HiCap. The is a forward firing sub and does not have a port. This sub has had a much better result when combined with a set of ProAc 1sc's. It was easy to set up and always seems to be on time. On the downside it doesn't go much lower than 30 Hz (-3db). I'm not sure if the Sizmik works better because it's forward firing or the lack of a port, but it does work better. It's good enough that I consider it a keeper.
Arthur Bye
Posted on: 06 May 2002 by davidf
bec 143, I have a very large room also (30x20 with 16 ft cathedral ceiling). I had bought the linn 5150 sub (very expensive and very big) for my linn 5140 speakers (which go to 30 htz allegedly). I had been using cdx/82/supercap/ to drive them and feeding the sub off the supercap. With this system, the sub added depth, and improved musicality to the sound. Interestingly, it did not pruduce much more of an obvious bass to the sound. It took me by surprise as I was expecting simply more bass. So in actuality, the improvements brought about by the sub were of a more subtle and musical nature. However, I ended up selling the sub to finance the pruchase of 135`s and a cds2. well after these new naim boxes were introduced to my system without the sub I had better sound, more bass, more slam, more music! It made the sub superfluous. Therefore, with your system, I wouldnt bother with a sub at all. I would first upgrade source and upgrade amps- especially in view of the size of your room. I am not familier with your speakers. However, I would point out that Chris Koster once came to my house and saw my large room and told me that SBL`s couldn`t work because my room was too large. I think that my linn 5140s work pretty well because they are fairly efficient and fairly good sized. DBLs or NBLs would be great but too much $ for the moment! I hope this helps you. david.
Posted on: 06 May 2002 by ejl
quote:
I tried a Rel sub (Stadium II)with a variety of speakers and had mixed results. While
the Rel did a nice musical job of adding extra bass it didn't always time right.
I seem to recall that when subs where gaining in popularity around 15 years ago or so, timing issues were in effect one of the objections raised against them. IIRC the objection basically was that locating a transducer for part of the frequency range up to several feet away from those reproducing the rest of the range was just asking for phase and timing problems. I guess the phase problems concerned frequencies where the sub and speakers would overlap, potentially cancelling one another out at those frequencies since they were radiating in different directions from very different positions.
This always seemed plausible to my (layman's) ears
Posted on: 13 May 2002 by Peter Stockwell
what about speaker positioning ? have you optimised that ?
go here for some good software to help you decide www.cara.de
Peter
go here for some good software to help you decide www.cara.de
Peter
Posted on: 13 May 2002 by Arthur Bye
Madshadow wrote:
While this sounds like a good idea I would not be suprised if it didn't work that well. I tried quite a few combinations of placements/ideas/gadgets for sattelite/subs. There are an awful lot of ways that sound professionals recommend. While some seemed to have merit you still have to listen to the music to see if it's right. Sometimes it would take a week of listening to hear it. Once you've heard it though, you know what it is. From that point forward you've been contaminated and it doesn't go away.
I've yet to hear a decent sat/sub combo that can't be beaten by a decent floor stander. They can be quite good, but in the end, there's no replacement for displacement(isn't that a Harley-Davidson motto?).
Arthur Bye
quote:
One of the best units for equalizing is the Behringer Feedback Destroyer Pro...$135.00USD (NO I'M NOT A COMPANY REP)it's primary function of seeking out and automatically "killing" Troublesome feedback spikes in a live performance situation is not used. Instead it can be used as a very cost effective stereo programmable parametric equalizer.
While this sounds like a good idea I would not be suprised if it didn't work that well. I tried quite a few combinations of placements/ideas/gadgets for sattelite/subs. There are an awful lot of ways that sound professionals recommend. While some seemed to have merit you still have to listen to the music to see if it's right. Sometimes it would take a week of listening to hear it. Once you've heard it though, you know what it is. From that point forward you've been contaminated and it doesn't go away.
I've yet to hear a decent sat/sub combo that can't be beaten by a decent floor stander. They can be quite good, but in the end, there's no replacement for displacement(isn't that a Harley-Davidson motto?).
Arthur Bye