Being involved in the recording arts at a very basic level (I do mashups, make basic recordings, do the tech for my student radio and edit interviews/segments) I'll quickly admit that I'm no studio guru. However as of late a friend of mine has been getting me into serious hi-fi. And, under his guidance I bought myself a sub. The REL storm. And it's fantastic. Now for those of you who aren't in the know, the general consensus AFAIK is that using a sub gives you an unnatural impression of the bottom end of your mixes And unless you're mixing D n B or club music, it's more than a waste of money, it's a sonic trojan. Now I understand some dislike of subwoofers - one note bass out of hot-hatches, burberry and dogging, but we're talking about something entirely different. A high quality, well set up, musical subwoofer does not sound like this at all. In fact, you shouldn't really be able to hear it. It should just effortlessly and transparently extend and improve the sound of your speakers at all frequencies. This is perhaps the most remarkable thing about a well set up, musical subwoofer; it seems to improve sound across the range. Furthermore, in my situation at least, putting in a sub improved bass imbalance in my 'studio'. Apparently this is a known phenomenon amongst hi-fiers. I mentioned to my aforementioned friend about the awful bass response of my room and he explained that a proper sub could well improve it. I was sceptical. But it really does sound miles better. So for £180 you could drastically improve your monitoring set up, and when you want to hear the mix without the bottom end, just turn it off. Does anyone still know of a good argument against them?
