[OmahawkSCM]

I recently got a 2 channel tube amp. My previous integrated had a RCA sub out so I could easily connect it to a Rhythmik F12. The new amp does not. The new amp only has speaker level outputs. The sub has speaker level inputs. However, it doesn't have speaker level outputs.

I've thought about it. And, would this work: Buy an emotive control freak https://emotiva.com/products/electronics/control-freak and place in on my DACs RCA outputs. Then get 2 Y splitters for it, and then connect one pair of L/R RCAs to my tube amp and one pair of L/R RCAs to my sub?

I may be over thinking this. I don't want to have to sell my sub, amp or dac to get what I want!

Thanks in advance

[Scott_W]

Same issue. I run two sets of speaker cables from each amp speaker post, spade & banana. Works great. That's the recommended setup actually.

[mcgsxr]

A related question - since it is ok to run a second set of speaker cables from amp to sub and amp to speakers - could one run a set of cables from amp as normal, and then a set from speakers to sub?

In some cases that would be a lot shorter than a full 2nd run from amp.  I have always wondered if that could work. 

[Guy 13]

Hi,
I run a set of speaker wires (14ga) from my amplifier to my full range drive,
then from my full range driver a set of speaker wires (14ga)
to my subwoofer and it works just fine !
I save some money on a seperate run of speaker wires from subwoofer to my amplifier.

Guy 13

[sunnydaze]

A related question - since it is ok to run a second set of speaker cables from amp to sub and amp to speakers - could one run a set of cables from amp as normal, and then a set from speakers to sub?

In some cases that would be a lot shorter than a full 2nd run from amp.  I have always wondered if that could work.

Sonically this works,  I've done it with my Gallo CL-10 sub.  I don't know if technically it creates a problem for the amp. 

In theory it's better to connect sub directly to amp -- less "stuff" between amp outputs and sub.

[Peter J]

I recently got a 2 channel tube amp. My previous integrated had a RCA sub out so I could easily connect it to a Rhythmik F12. The new amp does not. The new amp only has speaker level outputs. The sub has speaker level inputs. However, it doesn't have speaker level outputs.

I've thought about it. And, would this work: Buy an emotive control freak https://emotiva.com/products/electronics/control-freak and place in on my DACs RCA outputs. Then get 2 Y splitters for it, and then connect one pair of L/R RCAs to my tube amp and one pair of L/R RCAs to my sub?

I may be over thinking this. I don't want to have to sell my sub, amp or dac to get what I want!

Thanks in advance

You're using the DAC as a preamp, correct? You can control volume level of  theRythmik at it's amplifier, correct? Why not just wye the line level between DAC and amp and run the other leg of wye to subs. Almost always better (and easier) to split at line level. Once set up, your DAC will control volume on both.

Should be pretty straight forward. Is there something I'm missing?

[raindance]

Tube amps don't usually have the tightest bass or go down all that low due to limitations on the output transformers. The best way is to use a preamp or buffer with volume control in front of the integrated. Of course this needs to be pretty transparent or you defeat the object

Do not go the route that manufacturers like Jolida do where they add outputs off the 100K volume pot for sub use. It causes an impedance mismatch for almost all subwoofers, attenuates the amp itself and causes rolloff.

If you want a quick fix, run the sub from the speaker cables whichever scheme mentioned previously you choose, but know that the sub response will vary with the interaction between the transformers and the speakers.

An Emotiva DC-1 might be the ticket to making this work properly I tried it out using splitters and it worked wonderfully.

[OmahawkSCM]

You're using the DAC as a preamp, correct? You can control volume level of  theRythmik at it's amplifier, correct? Why not just wye the line level between DAC and amp and run the other leg of wye to subs. Almost always better (and easier) to split at line level. Once set up, your DAC will control volume on both.

Should be pretty straight forward. Is there something I'm missing?

Well, the DAC is not being used as a pre-amp. It's a Teac UD-501. The volume control is for the headphone amp only Both the RCA and XLR out are fixed

[Escott1377]

Well, the DAC is not being used as a pre-amp. It's a Teac UD-501. The volume control is for the headphone amp only Both the RCA and XLR out are fixed

I am not familiar w/ the Emotiva device.  I have a friend that owns this...http://ciaudio.com/products/VPC3 for biamping his system and it is a quality device.

I know with the CI Audio option, you can control different 2 different line levels, so to adjust the balance better between your amp / sub.

Again, the Emotiva may allow this, but I know the CI Audio will.

Good luck -

[mick wolfe]

A related question - since it is ok to run a second set of speaker cables from amp to sub and amp to speakers - could one run a set of cables from amp as normal, and then a set from speakers to sub?

In some cases that would be a lot shorter than a full 2nd run from amp.  I have always wondered if that could work.

I've done it this way( from speaker to sub) with success in my HT/casual set-up.  In my dedicated listening room with a REL sub, speaker wire amp to speakers and amp to sub.  (via Signal Cable REL-type hook up cable) Both methods also mentioned by Guy 13 and Sunnydaze.

[Peter J]

Well, the DAC is not being used as a pre-amp. It's a Teac UD-501. The volume control is for the headphone amp only Both the RCA and XLR out are fixed

So there is no volume control with new (non headphone) setup?

[Wayner]

Sonically this works,  I've done it with my Gallo CL-10 sub.  I don't know if technically it creates a problem for the amp. 

In theory it's better to connect sub directly to amp -- less "stuff" between amp outputs and sub.

If the sub's high level input impedance is high (like 150,000 ohms) there will be no problem with the power amp sending signals to both. Use as Scott_Wienberg and Guy 13 have suggested and there will be no problem. This is the way the REL also suggests that its subs be connected to a system.

Wayner

[Chris Adams]

If the sub's high level input impedance is high (like 150,000 ohms) there will be no problem with the power amp sending signals to both. Use as Scott_Wienberg and Guy 13 have suggested and there will be no problem. This is the way the REL also suggests that its subs be connected to a system.

Wayner

Yes, this method is tried and true. Have done it many times myself with both tube and SS amps. Once you get your sub crossovers adjusted, the sound of your speakers and subs will be consistent in quality to the tube amp. You can double up the speaker wires at the amp or run a set from the speakers to the sub. I would opt for whichever provides the shortest distance.

[sunnydaze]

........ I would opt for whichever provides the shortest distance.

I'm a little confused on this cable length issue......

Assume sub is right at foot of main speaker.  Speaker to sub cable will therefore be short, call it 3 ft.  Assume amp to speaker cable is longer, call it 8 ft, and is equal to cable needed to directly connect sub to amp (since sub is at speaker base).

Sub can be high level connected either to: (a) speaker directly, or (b) amp directly. 

Under (a),  the cable actually on the sub is a short 3 ft, but the total cable length the sub sees is 11 ft.

Under (b),  total cable length the sub sees is 8 ft.

Just logically, it seems the objective should be to minimize total cable length as in (b), not the cable directly on the sub as in (a).   Not only is the total cable longer under (a),  but the main spkr binding post is also in the chain when delivering the signal to the sub.

Thoughts?

[Chris Adams]

sunnydaze,

Only one sub, so it needs to be connected to both R and L channels. Depending on where the sub is located in relation to the speakers and amplifier, running wire from the amp or the speakers, one choice may be shorter than the other. That's why I said "whichever provides the shortest distance".  If only a foot or two one way or another, I wouldn't worry about it.

[sunnydaze]

sunnydaze,

Only one sub, so it needs to be connected to both R and L channels. Depending on where the sub is located in relation to the speakers and amplifier, running wire from the amp or the speakers, one choice may be shorter than the other. That's why I said "whichever provides the shortest distance".  If only a foot or two one way or another, I wouldn't worry about it.

Oops,  I run dual subs,  so my example was based on that.   But my main question still remains.....

For best sonics (if only theoretically)  should one strive  for shortest cable on the sub itself,  or in total to the sub?   As per my example above,  shortest cable on sub results in longest total cabling.   Plus more junk (spkr binding post)  in the signal path..... can't  be ideal.

(High level connections assumed)

[JackD]

Per the connection methods used by Vandersteen and REL determine the best location for the mains and chose the appropriate cable length for them, then place the subs for the best integration and run the appropriate cable to them from the same tap on the amp as the mains.  The cable distance to the amp on the sub is less important due to the nature of the connection which has little to no effect on the amp or the connection to the mains.  It has nothing to do with combined cable length for the two connections as they are different.  I have been using this method for over 15 years with Vandersteen subs and it works. The main amp "sees" the main speakers, but not the amps on the subs.

[sunnydaze]

Thanks Jack.....

I understand all you say, but I think maybe you missed something?  Or maybe it's me who's missing it.  Quite possible!    

In this discussion, I'm assuming the sub is self-powered w/ onboard amp, and the connection is high level.

Earlier, a poster asked if it's OK to run a cable from main speakers to sub.  Basically, a "jumper".  I know this works because I've done it. 

Another poster replied "yes, use whatever connection (either sub direct to main amp, or sub direct to main speakers) gives shortest cable length".

So I'm asking about the shortest cable length statement.   Does it refer to actual cable on sub (ie jumper) or total cable length?

If sub is near mains in dual sub setup, the "jumper cable" can be quite short, but the signal to sub travels thru more total cable and junk (ie. mains binding posts) than if sub was wired direct to amp with a longer cable.


                      8'                            3'
(a)    amp ---------> main spkrs  ------->  sub       



                       8'
(b)   amp  ---------->  sub


(a) results in shortest cable on sub, but longest overall cable.  Also, mains binding posts are in the sub's signal path.

I guess my point is that  method (a), despite shortest sub cable,  results in a less pure signal.  At least in theory.  I doubt I would hear it, especially if the low pass is set low.

[Wayner]

Cable length doesn't matter.

'ner

[sunnydaze]

Cable length doesn't matter.

'ner

Really?   Why?

It does when connecting any other audio component.

Not being arguementative, my technical background is not strong enough to do so.  Just trying to understand, as my intuition and logic tells me otherwise.  Why does more "junk" in the signal path to the sub have no effect, and it does in all other things audio?