Wiring of Sub

[Eldorado]

Just a quick newb question, I have a Polk Audio PSW-202 sub, for awhile now I've been wiring it as follows:

Front Right & Left speaker outs from receiver -> Sub Front & Left speaker Ins
Sub Right & Left outs -> Right & Left front speakers

On the receiver I then set the front speakers to large, and sub to No.

Is this generally a good way to wire your sub, or is the sub out cable route the better option? Just want to know as I'm going to be pre-wiring a room in my new house soon, and don't want to waste any time/wire

 

[rgriffin25]

For the most part it is better to use the subwoofer out on your receiver. Also, set your receiver to yes on subwoofer. This is really important especially if you are planning on using your set-up for Home Theater.

The way you currently have it connected is for people that do not have a subwoofer pre-out on their receiver.

Hope this helps.

 

[jeffsg4mac]

And to add to that using a subs built in passive xover with the speaker lead is a very bad idea, you have no idea where you speakers are really being xovered at. A xover and the point where it is crossed over depends on the impedance and not every speaker has the same impedance some are 8 ohms, 6,4,2 or even 16. Use the sub out on the receiver, set the sub setting to yes and speakers to small. That way you are essentially bi-amping your receiver and actively crossing over your speakers with the receivers xover which is not relying on the impedance of the speakers. Got it?

 

[Eldorado]

Pretty much got it!

The reason I wired like this is mainly just from the sub's manual and it's recommended setup. I think the reason for setting receiver to no sub and large fronts is so that theoretically all bass will be pumped to the 'big fronts' which the sub would pick up and take care of. But I understand what you guys are saying about the bads in doing it like this..

Now I just gotta check to make sure my sub has an input for the receivers sub-out (for some reason I don't think it does!) My receiver is a Yamaha ST-5660 and has a sub out so no problem there

thanks!

 

[Unregistered]

The reason I wired like this is mainly just from the sub's manual and it's recommended setup.

The reason Polk recommends using the high level (speaker) inputs on the sub is because many older receivers use a fixed crossover point. Using the high level inputs puts the responsibility of x-over managment on the sub and gives you the flexibility to set it where you want it rather than at the fixed point offered by the receiver.

Nearly all modern receivers offer a selectable x-over frequency and it is better to use the sub out cable and let the receiver do all the bass management. An additional benefit is the single cable from receiver to sub instead of multiple long runs of speaker cables.

 

[Eldorado]

Thanks for the info, good stuff

Checked my sub and it has a left & right input, wasn't too pleased that I would have to either find a Y sub cable, or take a sub cable and split it with a Y.. I think a new set of speakers + sub is in my near future anyways

 

[Unregistered]

you don't need the Y cable but it will increase the db by about 3...I think.it's about 3dbs. but don't go splitting your sub cable...either buy a Y adapter or go the sub cable only route.....and then turn your xover on the sub all the way up

 

[Biggus_Dickus]

Or, buy a Tributaries sub cable, which has 1 output to 2 inputs.

By the way, my Yamaha has a fixed crossover, and I hate it. I really want to get rid of my sub cable, and wire it with speaker wire to my receiver. But, then I lose the DD processing, e.t.c. Annoying.

 

[Larry B]

I just got the 5660 and am messing with all this.

What about using the Pre-Out on the 5660 for the sub? It will deliver full range and then rely on your sub's x-over for the bass blending with your mains.

 

[Rÿche 1]

All I ever read is how you should use the sub out of your receiver, blah blah.. My receiver has a fixed crossover. So, I recently decided to disconnect the sub cable, and use the high-level inputs/outputs on the sub instead. And, what do you know, it sounds fantastic... To each there own, fine. Just, stop with the sub out is the best option crap. The best option is what sounds best to your ears, period.

 

[dsa220]

All I ever read is how you should use the sub out of your receiver, blah blah.. My receiver has a fixed crossover. So, I recently decided to disconnect the sub cable, and use the high-level inputs/outputs on the sub instead. And, what do you know, it sounds fantastic... To each there own, fine. Just, stop with the sub out is the best option crap. The best option is what sounds best to your ears, period.

AMEN. I have both set-ups within my current system, using the high level signal (read speaker) for my 2-channel set-up going to one sub and the low level (read line level) for my HT going to a second sub.

The following was taken from the manual for my REL subwoofer:

The high-level connection method is the preferred way where the highest possible sound quality is demanded. Again, personal choice should determine which method you would prefer to use. The high level method has the advantage of superior potential performance and the low-level method the advantage of ease of connection. The low-level method also has the potential with both THX® and AC3® of offering higher sound pressure levels from your system due to the removal of the low bass frequencies below 80 Hertz.

I all does come down to a personal choice. For me those systems whose primary purpose is music, I prefer high level as I feel that there is a better intergration between the primary speakers and the sub, allowing for a lower x-over point between them since the primary speakers are allowed to run full range and the sub is only there to enhace their bottom end; my current 2-channel sub is x-overed at 30 cycles and the sound is almost seamless.

Since HT places different demands on a system, I can see where the line level option would have some advantages, but none of those advantages relate to a superior sound, at least not for me.