Some audiophiles have a reputation for disliking subwoofers. There are real reasons behind that, and also some outdated assumptions. Here’s a balanced look at both sides.
Where the bias comes from
- Bad experiences: many people’s first subwoofer was a boomy, badly integrated box turned up too loud.
- Two-channel purism: the idea that a pair of full-range speakers is the ideal and anything added is a compromise.
- Integration difficulty: without bass management, getting a sub to blend with stereo speakers takes care.
Where they have a point
- A poorly set-up sub absolutely makes music sound worse: slow, boomy and disconnected from the speakers.
- Cheap subs can have high distortion and port noise that’s audible with music.
- Adding a sub to a speaker that already reaches the 30s brings smaller gains than many expect.
Where they’re wrong
- Rooms dominate bass. Full-range speakers have to be placed for imaging, which is rarely the best spot for bass. A separate sub can go where bass is smoothest.
- Two subs can beat any pair of speakers for even bass across the room. See dual subwoofers.
- Modern tools fix integration: variable phase, DSP, room EQ and measurement software like Room EQ Wizard make a seamless blend achievable.
What changed many minds
Music-focused subs like REL’s high-level-connected designs, and DSP-controlled sealed subs from SVS, KEF and others, showed that a sub can make a good system sound bigger and more natural without drawing attention to itself. See SVS vs REL and best subwoofers for music.
The honest bottom line
A bad subwoofer setup is worse than no subwoofer. A good one, carefully integrated, improves almost any system. The difference is setup, not the idea.