Hi all, I still doubt what to buy 1 or 2 subs, because if there is bass on the disks I play, it does sound fine to me. However a lot of disks sound a bit of lean missing bass.
Would a sub ‘add’ just more bass when dialling below the lowest freq - I mean it should be on the recording.
My speakers: Vienna Acoustics The Kiss / Frequency response** 36Hz – 20kHz
Krell 222/PSAudio BHK250/PWT/DSDAC/Michelgyrodeck
Given the range of your speakers I would expect the addition of a well-integrated sub to give subtle improvements to the sound of a plucked double bass and percussion. If there are dramatic changes it is badly adjusted, If I had space for them I would use a pair of subs rather than a single one to reduce the effect of room modes, but the advantages of this rather depend on your room and its configuration.
Hi chrisj1948:
Thanks for your advise. I have not been able yet to do a home audition. I only listened in a shop. Coming from Apogee Calipers magnetostats and ‘arrived’ at The Kiss speakers I have some reservations to add subs just for a bit of bass. main goal is to improve imaging. Just recieved and played a new CD of Aaron Parks and I am amazed and happy with the sound Q. (and music)! Bass enough so to say and a clean 3d image. So at that point I don’t think I need a sub/2sub. While needing a sub/subs seems necessary while playing an older John Scofield disk right after that…
I don’t think I have ever heard it claimed that subs improve imaging. However, I am British and we tend to prioritize tonal response, This is, of course, a sweeping and unsubstantiated generalization 
Perhaps I should have used ‘better localization…’ Sometimes positioning of specific instruments like bas is less clear where it comes from…
Oh, by all means, they improve imaging - or at least the illusion of imaging. They add an extra dimension to the sound, an anchor if you will.
Thank you Paul; and what will happpen with a Bass-less - or better low on bass sound recording? I mean, if in the one recording the bass isn’t clearly defined and deep and in the following it’s lush and deep? The sub(s) cannot add deep bass when it’s not in/on disk.
Correct though often enough it adds low frequency room noises you wouldn’t normally hear without the sub. A very good example is the CD from the Cowboy Junkies. On Mining for gold the track sounds pretty ordinary without a proper sub. Add the sub and suddenly you’re transported to a room with a huge air conditioning system and you now understand that occasional squeak in the background is actually an old fan belt running the ventilator system. Or the subway traveling under Carnegie Hall in the old Mercury recordings, or the footfalls of the musicians and conductor on a wooden stage. These all add a dimensionality to the soundstage you cannot enjoy without a sub.
Thank you, OK that makes sense. To be able to feel/hear into the room where the recording took place adds to the ‘live’ feeling. Shame that lots of recordings are not produced/recorded like that. Even more necessary to audition this at home - if it is considered worthwile.
Those nuanced enhancements Paul so aptly described may seem a small thing, but they are far from insignificant. It is amazing how important those low level, low frequency sounds are to gaining a full sense of the recording space and performance. Even if we go into a room or building with our eyes closed, we can usually get an immediate good sense of the size of the space just by picking up on those near subliminal aural cues that Paul describes. ( I meant to elaborate on what Paul wrote rather reply directly to him.)
Counter intuitively subs aid imaging and, much more importantly, ambient retrieval. Even a solo flute playing in a live space sounds much better with true full range reproduction. There is a remarkable amount of low frequency information.
Thanks for the info! I’m not that impressed with Audessy.
I have my dual JL Audio F113 subs running in my listening room now and I’m a believer! Two subs are much better than one! I was using a single SVS SB16 and it’s very impressive but it’s no match for the dual F113’s. I would love to hear an additional SB16 so I could make a fair comparison. The soundstage with music has much more depth and dimension than before. Actions movies are insane and I also watched a little of the Blues Brothers 4K Blu-ray and when the music started in the opening scene and it sounds fantastic!
I have a Rel S/5 in my main system; Rel R-328 in my secondary system; and Sunfire sds8 in my third system.
Hey, I’m wondering if you could kindly compare/contrast the Rel T9i versus the JL d110s that you have?
Specifically as to how they each do with music (not interested in home theater). Thank you In advance
Hi KZK,
I don’t have a Rel sub to compare. The JL Audio F113 vs. the SVS SB 16. The JL seems to have tighter bass and faster response the the SVS. The JL also has better bass imaging at lower volume levels the SVS.
Sorry KZK I just realized that question wasn’t for me.
No worries. I was actually replying to owlsalum who posted pretty early in thread. Sorry for confusion
kzk, both are an excellent choice for music but do have different strengths. The d110s dive a bit deeper. The T/9is are faster sounding at higher crossover points. What that has meant for my two systems is I’m using the d110s in the second system where I can away with a lower crossover point. I can take advantage of the extra extension they offer. In my first system the RELs are the better choice because I need a higher crossover point. Their speed and agility integrate more seamlessly. But I do lose the extra measure of useful extension the d110s provide.
There you have it. The classic trade between two superb products, both excellent for music but with strengths you have to balance for your particular system.
2 SVS SB-16 Ultra’s. No regrets.
I love my SB 16 but it needs a twin. I fell into a deal involving 2 JL Audio F113’s. Now I have to choose. Keep the JL’s or keep the SVS and add one more SVS SB16? It’s a good problem to have.