Starke Sound SW15 and SW12 Subwoofer Review

[Jshaw81]

With a Starke Sound SW-15 on order, I'm wondering if the DSP-LF unit from Parts-Express might be able to flatten the sub's frequency response? Obviously, Starke has used some built-in, plate-amp DSP already to obtain the curve they're producing from this sub but my use of the DSP-LF wouldn't be anything extreme. What I'd want would be to remove the bulge in the frequency response curve between 90Hz. and 20Hz. I don't feel any need to raise the curve below 20Hz. It would seem to me that, in theory at least, such DSP would possibly reduce distortion and make the response more linear?

I also have a question on where to locate the DSP-LF in my signal chain. My preamp offers bass management, so the sub signal will be attenuated at 12dB/octave above 90Hz. I could insert the DSP-LF immediately after the analog output of the preamp, then feed the signal to my wireless transmitter, and then run the wireless receiver directly into the sub. Alternately, I could run the preamp output directly into the wireless transmitter and insert the DSP-LF between the wireless receiver and the sub. Regardless of location, the DSP-LF will introduce another set of A-D / D-A converters between the preamp and the sub. So questions:

1. Will the improvement in frequency response achieved with the DSP-LF unit be worth the added distortion added by the unit's A-D / D-A converters?

2. Is there any advantage to locating the DSP-LF between the preamp and the wireless sub transmitter vs. between the wireless sub receiver and the sub?

Factoids that may inform potential answers:

I do not play loudly. Average listening level is from 60-70dB.
My room has acoustical treatment including absorbers, diffusers, and although there are no traps, every corner of the room is vented to other areas of the house
There are no prominent standing waves, and those that do exist, the DSP-LF unit has successfully attenuated
I primarily listen to music, not movies, and want my system balanced for music first
Associated equipment:

Mac mini running Roon
Emotiva Big Ego+ DAC
Emotiva PT1 preamplifier
Emotiva PA-1 mono power amps or Crown PSA-2 power amp or Black Ice Audio F22 tube amp or Heathkit SA-3 modified tube power amps
Klipsch RP-600m speakers (modified with internal damping materials)

I have two of those subs in order. Can’t wait to listen to them. I would probably get the subs and listen to them before spending any money on them.

 

[doug s.]

nice review, but i have only one complaint - why test only a mono sub? for music, i don't know why anyone wouldn't run a proper stereo sub set-up. the only time i've heard mono sub set up done well was when the sub was directly between the speakers, and set up in the nearfield.

and one comment/question - did you cross over the main speakers as well, or run them full range? a main advantage of going to actively crossed over sub set-ups is that, by relieving the main amp and speakers of seeing the lowest frequencies, they themselves sound better, as well as getting better low end. and, another reason to use stereo subs - mono subs still have output above their x-over point, which detracts from soundstaging. (why i think a mono sub sounds best centered and in the nearfield.)

and, if a pair of subs were used, your comments about the sw-12's would change a bit, i think. w/a pair, you get increased spl's and reduced distortion. in a smaller room, i think the difference between a pair of sw-12's and a pair of sw-15's would be diminished. because the added spl of the sw-15's really wouldn't be put to good use.

a buddy of mine is considering a pair of rythmik l12's, to be actively crossed over to his main speakers, in a relatively small space. i'm wondering if the sw-12's would be a less expensive alternative that would be as good as the l12's. (or if it's worth trying to find used l12's.)

doug s.

 

[lovinthehd]

nice review, but i have only one complaint - why test only a mono sub? for music, i don't know why anyone wouldn't run a proper stereo sub set-up. the only time i've heard mono sub set up done well was when the sub was directly between the speakers, and set up in the nearfield.

and one comment/question - did you cross over the main speakers as well, or run them full range? a main advantage of going to actively crossed over sub set-ups is that, by relieving the main amp and speakers of seeing the lowest frequencies, they themselves sound better, as well as getting better low end. and, another reason to use stereo subs - mono subs still have output above their x-over point, which detracts from soundstaging. (why i think a mono sub sounds best centered and in the nearfield.)

and, if a pair of subs were used, your comments about the sw-12's would change a bit, i think. w/a pair, you get increased spl's and reduced distortion. in a smaller room, i think the difference between a pair of sw-12's and a pair of sw-15's would be diminished. because the added spl of the sw-15's really wouldn't be put to good use.

a buddy of mine is considering a pair of rythmik l12's, to be actively crossed over to his main speakers, in a relatively small space. i'm wondering if the sw-12's would be a less expensive alternative that would be as good as the l12's. (or if it's worth trying to find used l12's.)

doug s.

Because there's little reason to run "stereo" subs? Let alone equipment to properly support that? Much recorded content has the sub bass summed to mono in any case.

 

[doug s.]

Because there's little reason to run "stereo" subs? Let alone equipment to properly support that? Much recorded content has the sub bass summed to mono in any case.

i guess we can agree to disagree.

no way i'd ever run a single mono sub. way to many reason not to. higher spl/lower distortion, less room node interaction issues, better soundstaging. what equipment is needed to properly support that? a 2nd sub? an outboard active crossover? that's all that's required. (and some powered sub models have active high pass outs, so you wouldn't even need the outboard crossover.)

besides more problematic room node issues w/a mono sub, a single sub, unless placed directly between the speakers, and preferably nearfield, will negatively impact soundstaging, even if the low frequencies are recorded in mono, due to sound still audible above the x-over frequency. even w/a 24db/octave x-over, at 80hz x-over point, it's still making audible output at 160hz.. besides, there's many recordings where the bass isn't summed..

tell me, i'm curious - what's the real reason you have only one sub in your system? 'cuz you're missin' out, imo.

doug s.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

i guess we can agree to disagree.

no way i'd ever run a single mono sub. way to many reason not to. higher spl/lower distortion, less room node interaction issues, better soundstaging. what equipment is needed to properly support that? a 2nd sub? an outboard active crossover? that's all that's required. (and some powered sub models have active high pass outs, so you wouldn't even need the outboard crossover.)

besides more problematic room node issues w/a mono sub, a single sub, unless placed directly between the speakers, and preferably nearfield, will negatively impact soundstaging, even if the low frequencies are recorded in mono, due to sound still audible above the x-over frequency. even w/a 24db/octave x-over, at 80hz x-over point, it's still making audible output at 160hz.. besides, there's many recordings where the bass isn't summed..

tell me, i'm curious - what's the real reason you have only one sub in your system? 'cuz you're missin' out, imo.

doug s.

I think your confusing multiple subs with “stereo” subs. I believe HD does use two subs in the main rig. Can’t remember…
“Stereo” subs are not really a thing, but multiple subwoofers definitely are a thing, and worth the investment. Especially for most of the reasons you mentioned. Especially room “modes”.

 

[doug s.]

I think your confusing multiple subs with “stereo” subs. I believe HD does use two subs in the main rig. Can’t remember…
“Stereo” subs are not really a thing, but multiple subwoofers definitely are a thing, and worth the investment. Especially for most of the reasons you mentioned. Especially room “modes”.

for 2 channel audio, stereo subs sound better to me. for all the reasons i listed. ymmv.

yes, multiple subs are also worthwhile. which is why i recently put another stereo pair of subs in the back of my listening room out of phase w/the mains in the front. and a 3rd pair of smaller stereo subs (still flat to 19hz) directly behind my main subs in the front of the room. i have a large 26x38x8.5 room that opens up to other large spaces; for a 15k cuft volume. the bass is nice, but not overkill for the room size. of course i could crank up the low end if i wanted to, heh! i run it pretty flat, as i verified w/a pink noise generator and spectrum analyzer. (i'm running an active quad-amped setup w/no dsp, so the pink noise generator and spectrum analyzer saves a lot of time dialing everything in.)

doug s.

 

[shadyJ]

for 2 channel audio, stereo subs sound better to me. for all the reasons i listed. ymmv.

yes, multiple subs are also worthwhile. which is why i recently put another stereo pair of subs in the back of my listening room out of phase w/the mains in the front. and a 3rd pair of smaller stereo subs (still flat to 19hz) directly behind my main subs in the front of the room. i have a large 26x38x8.5 room that opens up to other large spaces; for a 15k cuft volume. the bass is nice, but not overkill for the room size. of course i could crank up the low end if i wanted to, heh! i run it pretty flat, as i verified w/a pink noise generator and spectrum analyzer. (i'm running an active quad-amped setup w/no dsp, so the pink noise generator and spectrum analyzer saves a lot of time dialing everything in.)

doug s.

Most people here are big advocates of multi-sub setups, when possible. 'Stereo' subs would be a different matters, since, as has been said, there isn't really any stereo content in low bass frequencies. Here is an article on actual stereo bass and its benefits or lack thereof.

 

[lovinthehd]

i guess we can agree to disagree.

no way i'd ever run a single mono sub. way to many reason not to. higher spl/lower distortion, less room node interaction issues, better soundstaging. what equipment is needed to properly support that? a 2nd sub? an outboard active crossover? that's all that's required. (and some powered sub models have active high pass outs, so you wouldn't even need the outboard crossover.)

besides more problematic room node issues w/a mono sub, a single sub, unless placed directly between the speakers, and preferably nearfield, will negatively impact soundstaging, even if the low frequencies are recorded in mono, due to sound still audible above the x-over frequency. even w/a 24db/octave x-over, at 80hz x-over point, it's still making audible output at 160hz.. besides, there's many recordings where the bass isn't summed..

tell me, i'm curious - what's the real reason you have only one sub in your system? 'cuz you're missin' out, imo.

doug s.

I have multiple subs in each of four systems. None of my gear has stereo pre-outs, tho. I don't think I'm missing out on anything particularly. Have fun!

 

[Eppie]

If you advocate stereo subs, then I think you don't quite understand how multiple subs cure room modes. Think about it for a moment. You need the same signal from multiple subs in order to combat room modes. Use them in stereo, and then some content will only go to half of the subs, thus negating the effect of multi-sub setups. You need to have the subs in mono for this to work on all content. Otherwise you would need twice as many subs to get the same benefit from content that goes to only one channel.