# Never mind 2.0 or 2.1.  How about a 2.2 sound system?



## Mauricio

I'm intrigued by the potential benefits of a 2.2 system, and I am keen to hear from those who are running a two-satellite, two-subwoofer system.


----------



## Zeebra

I don't know do any movies come with two LFE tracks, or do any sound cards support having two different ones, but I've got an idea that's remotely the same if we ditch the official naming method: You could always run a two channel signal, that is to say, 2.0 so that your left speaker's signal goes into the subwoofer that is next to your left side speaker, and the high-pass out is led to your speaker, and same thing for the right channel. After tuning the crossover points you'd basically have a 3-way speaker with quite a lot of sound pressure capabilities in the low end. That's the only sensible way to do it, and keep in mind your subwoofer should have a changeable crossover frequency, and most preferably a high-pass output to the higher frequency speaker so the two won't disturb each other.

I've done it for giggles, but keep in mind your speakers should be sensibly sized too, so the crossover point isn't too high. Having two small 5" subwoofers and tiny satellites would only make your sound twice as bad. You will also run into trouble with room modes and room frequency response, most likely even more so with two subs.


----------



## Mauricio

The set-up that I am envisioning is that which you described.  That is:
   
  Signal (right) >>> Sub (right) >> Satellite (right)
  Signal (left) >>> Sub (left) >> Satellite (left)
   
  The satellites in question have 5" midrange/bass drivers.  The subwoofers have 8" drivers.  The subwoofers have variable low-pass control, high-pass control, and high-pass output.  At present (in 2.1 configuration), I've got them shaking hands at 100Hz.  They are all active so issues of amplification are nil.
   
  How is the sound and imaging different between 2.1 and 2.2?


----------



## Zeebra

To be honest, that sounds nice! Just remember to set your sources to 2.0 so none of the low frequencies will go disregarded (ie. down the LFE channel, although I'm sure that won't happen if nothing is plugged in there).

In essence you have twice the surface area on your low frequency playback so you can expect a much beefier handling to your explosions and the such, maybe a small addition to the low-end of your stereo imaging. Do keep in mind low frequencies are hardly directional to our perception so most likely you'll perceive louder bass, and less distortion from having to run your subwoofer so loud if you're into big bass.

It's certainly something to show off as exotic, something that would make the average audiophile cringe, and quite fun to listen to, presuming your monitors and subwoofers are adequate. I prefer a single 18" 1600W PA-subwoofer


----------



## Mauricio

Depends on what "audiophiles" you listen to.  Some will tell you, including Sound on Sound, that the best placement for a subwoofer is right in the middle of the satellites.  This, however, has the potential for creating the worst nodes and standing waves.  Plus some of the frequencies reproduced by the sub, say at 120Hz can begin to be directional so the center positioning is suboptimal.  In other words, center positioning is good for some things and bad for others.  The solution?  A 2.2. system which, if well implemented, is little different from a three-way speaker.  In essence a 2.2 system is a 2.0 system.  Voila, problems solved!


----------



## Il Mostro

This would be very dependent on the components used, but generally speaking, I doubt there would be much (if any) benefit if using omnidirectional subwoofers -- in fact there might actually be a negative effect.  I run a 2.2 but am using subs that actually do image (Kinergertics SW-800's) with full size ESL speakers and a crossover specifically designed for this equipment.  An better single omnidirectional sub would be the route I would take in a typical set up, rather than adding a second sub.


----------



## Zeebra

Do post some pictures, I've only seen quite bad ones of such a setup!


----------



## Il Mostro

Quote: 





zeebra said:


> Do post some pictures, I've only seen quite bad ones of such a setup!


 


  Here's a not so good phone shot I took last week to show off my brand new D7000's with my main speakers (since I was commenting on how the D7000's were very full range speaker-like)...


----------



## Somnambulist

Linkwitz Orions w/Thor subs are 2.2, as are the Plutos w/their subs. Obviously the bigger, fancier full-range speakers have sub-sized woofers so are more an integrated 2.2.
   
  Plenty of people with home theater set-ups use dual subwoofers, albeit in bigger rooms. Apparently there are benefits in terms of balancing room harmonics etc, but the general rule seems to be one very good sub is better than two 'alright' subs. Obviously low bass is omnidirectional, but I know some peope still find if they have a relatively high crossover on their sub (due to the extension of their main speakers... or lack of rather) that directionality comes into it a bit. I know Linkwitz uses dual subs for the increased output.


----------



## Il Mostro

Quote: 





somnambulist said:


> Linkwitz Orions w/Thor subs are 2.2, as are the Plutos w/their subs. Obviously the bigger, fancier full-range speakers have sub-sized woofers so are more an integrated 2.2.
> 
> Plenty of people with home theater set-ups use dual subwoofers, albeit in bigger rooms. Apparently there are benefits in terms of balancing room harmonics etc, but the general rule seems to be one very good sub is better than two 'alright' subs. Obviously low bass is *usually *omnidirectional, but I know some peope still find if they have a relatively high crossover on their sub (due to the extension of their main speakers... or lack of rather) that directionality comes into it a bit. I know Linkwitz uses dual subs for the increased output.


 


  Fixed.


----------



## DaveBSC

There's actually a very good argument for using two subwoofers. Back when I used to have a large speaker setup, that's what I had. You can get there several different ways - powered tower speakers, or you can run the high-level speaker cables to the subwoofer and then from there on to the main channels letting the sub do the crossover work, or you can use a receiver/preamp/SSP with two subwoofer outputs or simply use a Y cable from a single subwoofer output. Material with specific ".1" encoding will be sent to both subs in either case.
   
  So why use two subs? On reason is that you can use smaller drivers and still achieve a similar SPL capability, although you can't match the deep bass extension of a very large woofer with several smaller ones. The main one though is to correct room response. Rooms are not flat, particularly at very low frequencies. You can attempt to correct for this with a single sub using PEQ, but reducing the level of a peak using EQ is a lot easier than filling in a notch, where you may have to over drive a sub out of its comfort zone. In my old room, each sub had a big notch at a different frequency. When the response of one dropped off, the other was there to pick up the slack.


----------



## TMRaven

I rather personally get 1 very good sub instead of 2 lesser subs.  Unlike bookshelves, it's very hard to get good quality subs at a low price.  I don't know what your budget in mind was.


----------



## Mauricio

The system is the Yamaha HS50M with the Yamaha HW10 subwoofer.  The subwoofer alone is $400.


----------



## TMRaven

400 is like the minimum to spend on a halfway decent sub.  With 800-1000 dollars you can get some really nice subwoofers from HSU, SVS, Rythmik etc.


----------



## Mauricio

Ya, I know.  I, myself, have said as much a couple of times on this forum.  $400 is the entry-level point.  Taking it to the next level will bring you to the $1,000 point.  There, I'd go with the likes of a JBL or Focal.  No "hi-fi" for me.  I much prefer studio, recording equipment.


----------



## TMRaven

I'm not quite sure how you would distinguish the two, especially when subs are concerned.  A good speaker is a good speaker.


----------



## Mauricio

I've written elsewhere on the forum that the information asymmetry, prestige considerations and objectives of the professional equipment market, indeed market incentives, are in different alignment from that of the home, hobbyist/audiophile "hi-fi" market.  Finally the two market segments are separated by a huge technological divide.  Home "hi-fi" is overwhelmingly passive while professional studio is largely active.


----------



## adamlau

Outside of native XLR connection options and shelving filters and unless you are priced in the range of Opals, PMC/Bryston, or the the higher end ADAM SX line with ICEpower ASP amps, it is difficult to make a blanket statement indicating the superiority of studio monitors over those marketed for home audio at equivalent driver sizes. It is a misconception that studio monitors are unequivocally more accurate over their domestic bretheren, particularly where subs are concerned. Being in the market for a secondary sub myself, I found myself considering either the Neumann KH 810, or a Seaton SubMersive HP. The Seaton was in the lead for its superior amp, larger driver size and slightly lower price until I happened upon this thread. Am now considering a second ARTist Sub (7) in order to run a true 2.2 as mixing and matching subs of differing brands can and will ead to endless crossover adjustments...


----------



## TMRaven

Yes, there's no reason any hi-fi speaker wouldn't be as accurate as a monitor speaker.  Both can be as flat or as colored as their maker makes them out to be.  I know you've written about the supposed benefits of active crossovers and matched amps and whatnot, and their supposed benefits, but we're talking subwoofers here, which are usually active no matter their market distinction.


----------



## Mauricio

You woefully underestimate the differences between passive and active if you think that the only differences in actives are XLR connections and on-board EQ.  There is a fundamental systemic difference between an passive and an active driver, even if they are both of the same price and size.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





tmraven said:


> Yes, there's no reason any hi-fi speaker wouldn't be as accurate as a monitor speaker.  Both can be as flat or as colored as their maker makes them out to be.  I know you've written about the supposed benefits of active crossovers and matched amps and whatnot, and their supposed benefits, but we're talking subwoofers here, which are usually active no matter their market distinction.


 


  You are talking subwoofers.  I am talking about the entire two-way or three-way loudspeaker.  I am talking about the system.  Think systems.


----------



## TMRaven

What makes you think integrating a marketed 'monitor' sub is easier than integrating a hi-fi sub to two active bookshelves?


----------



## adamlau

Nearly all subs marketed for home theater are active. XLR  and shelving filters are not the only differences between active and passive monitors, of course. Factory matched drivers, crossovers and aligned impedences can be considered additional benefits for some active monitors. I am not unaware of the differences between active versus passive as I do own and operate the active system in my signature. Will be upgrading to a full PMC system soon. Note that most of their passive units can be converted to active ones with the simple addition of an amplifier. No other modifications outside the addition of onboard amplification are made.


----------



## Mauricio

I make a sharp distinction--indeed there are significant differences in system design--between an active design and a passive/powered design.  A powered speaker has more in common with a passive than with an active one.


----------



## Mauricio

Quote: 





tmraven said:


> What makes you think integrating a marketed 'monitor' sub is easier than integrating a hi-fi sub to two active bookshelves?


 


  Check again.  I never stated what you are now imputing to me.


----------



## TMRaven

Quote: 





mauricio said:


> Ya, I know.  I, myself, have said as much a couple of times on this forum.  $400 is the entry-level point.  Taking it to the next level will bring you to the $1,000 point.  There, I'd go with the likes of a JBL or Focal.  No "hi-fi" for me.  I much prefer studio, recording equipment.


 


  You said it right there.
   
  As for the integration part, it's only an assumption on my part, because that's literally the most important thing you need the sub to do.  You can always buy certain subs that were designed to go with a pair of speakers from the same company, but when it all comes down to it, you'll be messing around with your EQ/crossover/placement multiple times over regardless, because your room alters the sound too much.


----------



## Mauricio

I don't see where in the text that you quoted where I say, implicitly or explicitly, that integrating a "hi-fi" sub is more difficult than a "studio" sub.
   
  Really? Multiple times?   I must have a knack or natural instinct for chosing places to live suitable for my 2.1 system.  I must have been very lucky or my 2.1 system was so well designed to work together in a fully active fashion that I've never experienced the headaches and mismatching woes that are often highlighted in the matching of subs with satellites.  I went with the first option described in the user manual, and that worked liked a charm from the start in the three different rooms/two houses where the set-up has now lived.  In fact, it's when I depart from the manual instructions that it starts to sound unnatural and boomy.  Your mileage may vary, of course, if you are matching an active subwoofer from one manufacturer with the passive speakers of another.


----------



## TMRaven

The 'think system' post was another post I took as 'I'm going for better integration.'  You never exactly said it but it was an assumption on my part.  If that's not what you're going for when you said you didn't want hi-fi products, then I'm not quite sure what you were trying to convey.  It's not that I'm particularly trying to get you to change your train of thought  as much as I'm puzzled because you've time and time again stated to have a flat-out preference for monitor speakers, when in reality both monitor marketed and hi-fi marketed speakers can do the same things.
   
  Oh I bet the 2.1 system isn't as fleshed out as it could be, unless you have a very-well treated room.  Every single room has different physical aspects to it, and will give different modes, peaks and dips in the bass range.  What matched well in a company's anechoic chamber or outdoors won't mirror in different rooms, especially ones with minimal treatment.  You already know this though.


----------

