I noticed the 1070 has only 1 pre-out for the subwoofer chanel. I wish to run two powered subwoofers simultaneously. If I use a RCA 'Y' connector to split this pre-out, won't the signal to each of the subs diminish by approximately 3 db? Is there a better alternative method?

Thanks for your time.

.

I'm with Wayne - you'll find that poor sub placement and phase synch will do far more to diminish LF levels than splitting the line level output. There were a few threads here in the past relating to dual-sub configuration such as this one , and especially this one , which has a lot of interesting viewpoints. There are also some very in-depth articles around the net detailing how to properly configure multiple subs if you're inclined to search.

Oscillate, you should be good to go with a Y splitter . Also it is not all that big of a cost so you would not be out that much if you decided you did not like the way it sounds down the road . Just be sure to pick up a good one is all .

The splitter is the standard solution, and the channel calibration accounts for any drop in signal level.

My problem with dual subs is TOO MUCH bass. I've got both of the LFM-1's dialed down to #2 on the volume pot on the sub. It's great for movies. They literally can shake pictures off the walls during the U-571 depth charge scenes, but it can get a little aggravating with 2-channel audio. I've already got the 2-ch offset at the max -8dB and they're still a little too noticible.

There's a firmware REV suggestion for the Outlaws....can we have the ability to attenuate the subs more than -8dB on the 2-channel offset?

Cheers,

A friend of mine runs a splitter out of his Single LFE Jack, runs a seperate cable to each sub, then a splitter on each sub from the single cable to both LFE input Jacks on each sub. Claims it compensates for any possible signal loss from the splitter on the receiver. I can't attest to the validity of his logic however it does seem to make sense also the results are excellent sound.

My eyebrows twitched a bit on the suggestion that the second splitter compensates for loss from the first splitter - you've still only got one signal being distributed, and anything lost at the first one is gone for good. It sounds too much like an audio version of perpetual motion. On the other hand, the two signals going into the sub are typically summed by the amp before undergoing amplification, so you are least are compensating for the second splitter - I'd have to dust off some rarely-used EE math to figure out how it all works out for sure. It certainly isn't going to hurt anything, at least.

Snarl,

I think your friend is mistaken. 8-) Let's look at it another way.

You start with 10 apples and you split them up into two groups of 5 apples. You give 5 of those apples to your friend who tells you he then splits them again into 3 apples and 2 apples and it tastes just like ten. He's still only got 5 apples to work with. 8-)

Also, every time you introduce another physical connection into the signal path, you're increasing resistance.

Cheers,

The only reason to do this would be for older subs that only accept line signals when fed to both L&R inputs. I have a Velodyne unit that works that way. Otherwise, it's a waste of good splitters