Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo Help guys......A sub or a more powerful amp??

I am solely listening to two-channel music. I am not into home theatre at all yet. Nor do I think I will be for quite awhile. I have an NAD integrated c352 at 80 watts into 8ohms. I am using the M60's as speakers. I have spied Hafler amps (DH500} on the internet for between 250 and 350 dollars. This amp drives I think 225 watts in to 8ohms. I have never used a sub in my two channel music. The NAD fills out my room pretty good. I usually only turn it to around 11:00 to get full effect. I have read where the better wattage could bring out more in the 60's. If you guys have any knowledge what would be best to do......could you please commment.

This is a tough one, not like demasoni's thread where everyone is piling onto the "get a sub" side of the argument (he has M22s). My first thought would be "leave it alone and enjoy"

I would think a better amp with more headroom would give you a slight improvement in sound quality, but I haven't found a lot of places where a sub really helps the M60s in a pure music environment.

I guess if the terms "pipe organ" or "Taurus" show up regularly in your album credits then a sub would make a noticeable difference -- eg. it does make a difference on the initial bass notes of "Dance on a Volcano" but doesn't make diddley-squat difference on "Meddle". Dark Side of the Moon CD didn't show up until after I had moved the M60s upstairs (away from the sub) so I can't comment on DSOM. I will be bringing the M60s down if anyone comes over to audition them so will play with DSOM on M60 with sub vs. without sub at that time.

I imagine the new amp would make a less visible difference but it would be visible on most of the music you play.

I didn't find that the sub made such a big difference on the electronic sweeps & runs in more modern music, eg. "Who let the dogs out" has a three-note low bass run during the chorus which the M60s handle just fine. "Burning Up" (Kylie Minogue) has a bass sweep which seems to go right down to DC -- adding a sub makes it "last a second longer" before the speaker stops trying but I can't really say it sounds that much "better" as a result.

This is probably no help at all. Can someone else jump in ?

Well if your happy with the bass your getting then I guess the amp is a no brainer. I'm not a huge fan of Hafler amps but more power never hurts. I would look more at NAD, Parasound etc for extra power vs. a Hafler which is more then likely over 20 years old. Don't get me wrong the Hafler has good power but those 500's are getting old and there is better out there. I had one of these years ago and I thought it was ok but for a reported 255 watts per channel, I was expecting more. Here are the specs for the 500:

Power Rating: Less than 0.025% total harmonic distortion at any power level up to 255
watts continuous average power per channel into 8 ohms at any frequency between
20 Hz and 20 kHz with both channels driven.
IM Distortion (SMPTE): Less than 0.007% from 1 watt to 255 watts into 8 ohms
Typical THD at 255 watts into 8 ohms: 1 kHz-0.002%; 10 kHz-0.007%
Frequency Response into 8 ohms: -3 dB, 0.5 Hz to 120 kHz at 1 watt
kO.5 dB, 5 Hz to 40 kHz at 255 watts
Typical Channel Separation at 1 kHz: 60 dB
Signal to Noise Ratio: Exceeds 100 dB referred to 255 watts into 8 ohms, unweighted
Exceeds 90 dB referred to 1 watt into 8 ohms, A weighting
Input Impedance: 47,000 ohms
Input Sensitivity: 2.35 volts for 255 watts into 8 ohms; 0.145 volts for 1 watt
Damping Factor: 200 to 1 kHz into 8 ohms; 60 to 10 kHz into 8 ohms
Rise Time: 10 kHz, 80 volts p/p square wave, 10% to 90%: 2.5 us.
Slew Rate: 1 kHz, 120 volts p/p square wave: 45 V/us.
Semiconductor Complement: 27 transistors, 12 power Mosfets, 33 diodes, 8 zener diodes,
one integrated circuit, one diode bridge.
Power Consumption: 240 VA quiescent; 1200 VA @ rated power into 8 ohms, 2 channels

I'm absolutely, positively not an expert (disclaimer, disclaimer!) but I would say that if you are in a largish room, go for the sub.

Why? Well, an amp is likely going to do nothing more than give you a bit more dynamic range. And, someday when you DO make a move towards a HT/surround system, you may not find much use for it, save powering speakers in another zone.

A subwoofer, on the other hand, CAN help give you a little bit more base authority on some music (This is the part where I¡¦m making assumptions, as my M60s haven¡¦t arrived yet and I¡¦m basing my bass assumptions on others¡¦ writings ƒº ). Anyway, a sub should ALSO give you a little more punch on your M60s as it whisks away all those watt-hungry frequencies to a dedicated amp and driver, freeing the watts you have to just handle the upper bass, mids and highs. Besides, when if you ever do go ¡§surround¡¨, you¡¦ll have a sub that¡¦s all but necessary with movie soundtracks.

So, in short, I think a sub will give you the same little increase in dynamic range as the amp, but maybe provide some frequencies you don¡¦t always get in full with your M60s, and be more ¡§future proof¡¨ as well.

Of course, none of this may apply if you only listen to solo violin concertos, have a small room, or if the M60s really DO sound as good in the bass as many say. YMMV. ļ

Good points Mark. I went the amp route only because there was no complaint mentioned about the current bass situation.

If it was HT, I'm all over the sub but for stereo only, I'm leaning on the amp side. As you know some people don't like to use a sub in a true 2 channel system. Maybe this fellow falls into that area?

It's a close-call; I wouldn't say there's any clear choice.

Much of it still likely depends on the type of preferred music and the size of the room.... and again, I still haven't actually heard a real, live M60, so I'm speaking in vague, generalities!

except opera. I mostly listen to rock "n" roll. I like the bass in my 60's too.

The LM-1 sure made a difference in my greatroom, where I listen to stereo only. I keep it set at the min - 40 hrtz and the volume just a couple db's over the M80's. My listening tastes are just about anything other than rap/dance.

I'd go for the sub. I think you have plenty oomph for them 60's.

In reply to:

---

except opera. I mostly listen to rock "n" roll. I like the bass in my 60's too.

---

Well I guess thats that. If you like your bass and your not going HT, I would still go for the amp.

I'm sticking with sub. Although I like the bass on my M50s, there's just more data there with a sub.

I would suggest a sub even for 2 channel.Taking the load off you main amp and letting the sub do the hard work should allow your Nad to have more head room.I run 2 subs in my stereo and believe it is a great improvement.I have M80s and 2 Vtf-2s going through an Outlaw Icbm with the crossover set to 60hz.

Todd,

Go for a subwoofer. You won't be sorry. I have M60s and an SVS 20-39Ci. Built-in amp. It sits there, unobtrusive and all until called upon. When called, it delivers a chest palapatative bass down to where you can practically count the Hz as you feel/hear them.

Be careful about what you put on the top grill. Whatever is there will levitate. Nearly one-half horsepower (320W) moves an awful lot of air. Just ask our cat. He made that mistake only once.

If you crank it up, watch out for pictures on the wall and stuff on tall shelves. Remove them or bolt them down.

Try Frijid Pink's "House of the Rising Sun" or Dylan's "Jokerman". Better yet, try Para Lennon & McCarteny's "A Friend From Rio" or Craig Armstrong's "Budda Bar" for strong bass lines.

I also like Paul Simon's "Obvious Child" because the material seperates junk speakers from good ones.

Mariss

One word.






SUB.

Todd, from your description it doesn't seem that you're using the full capacity of your NAD. It's highly unlikely that you're exceeding its power capabilities and if this is the case then, regardless of what you may have read elsewhere, more power won't "bring out more" in the M60s; it'll just go unused. The M60 bass is good enough that there isn't a screaming need for a sub, but it will help significantly to take some of the load off the M60s(and C352)and handle the low bass which it can do best.

I think I (sub) see a bit of a (sub) pattern emerging (sub) here....

full capacity?? I am not sure what you mean. Is there something else I can do, besides the sub, to increase power??

I stand all alone on the amp side and I'm not giving in! Given this is a stereo only set-up and the person involved is happy with his current bass situation why push a sub? A good amp will make a difference!

A sub's gonna make more of a difference, even if he likes his bass now. If he doesn't turn it up past 11, the amp's not gonna make that much of a difference.

I disagree.........but that is what I seem to do most around here lol Since I have added my Parasound to the mix I notice that my bottom end is far better then without.............and no it's not in my head. I would tend to think that almost tripling the power does help with not only loud levels but lower levels also.

" happy with his current bass situation"
I dont think he knows what he's missing. Only my opinion.

True but like I posted before, a lot of peeps like 2 channel as 2 channel. Meaning no sub. I know that as far as I go, I only use my sub about 50% of the time when I sit down and listen to tunes.

Seems to me that he is already running a good receiver - a NAD at 80 watts per channel. I would think that’s plenty of power to drive his speakers. If he were running a $100 POS amp, then I’d be taking your side as well, because when I upgraded my AVR, I experienced a night and day difference. But, again, that was going from a POS to a decent AVR.

I noticed a big difference in sound with the sub, and I use it strictly for music. Just for reference, I bought a radio shack digital sound meter and played with it the other day. Was just a bit hung over, so I didn’t get too carried away. At +10 db on the H/K (and it’s range is +/-80 db), 15’ away from the M80’s, the meter was reading 104 – 107 db’s playing Audioslave. If I turn off the sub, the db’s dropped to 102 – 105. The H/K is rated at 100 watts per channel, just slightly more than his NAD.

In reply to:

---

playing Audioslave

---

I love cranking Like A Stone. I'm going to blow something up playing that song! lol You picked one song that I always make sure the sub is on!

AHA!

Todd what was meant is that your NAD probably has more power capacity than you can use and that there's no need to "increase power".

Thanks everyone for their responses. I just wanted to make sure I was getting the most out of my 60's. I've heard all of the bi-amping and bi-wiring and other stuff. Or is that another thread.........

If your ready to invest in stand alone cross-overs, bi-amping does wonders. Bi-wiring on the other hand is a debate. Some think it does wonders, others don't. I bi-wire my fronts only because I can.

I do agree with JohnK however with respect to your current amp. NAD's stuff puts out plenty of power for most applications. If you went with a big-ass amp you would notice a change in overall DB and depending on what kind of amp you went with, the amp itself may bring a few of it's own characteristics to the table.