Would it be preferable to use the subs 3 & 3 or 4 & 2?
You lost me. Do not understand why different setups. Sound is sound, and the best is the best, movies or music. What is 3&3? What is 4 & 2? Besides 6 I mean.
Showing 5 responses by millercarbon
Apology in advance for getting all mathy, but its V/N where V is the variance and N is the number of subs. So if one sub measures +/- 6dB then 2 subs will be 6/2=3dB and 3 subs will be 6/3=2dB and so on. Main point being, once again, its demonstrably proven with measurements that more is smoother, ie, better. http://www.gedlee.com/Papers/multiple%20subs.pdf Its a bit nerdy but good solid facts like this together with informed impressions from users like Tim that convinced me to build my DBA. Finally in one fell swoop my system went from bass being the weakest aspect to probably the strongest. And for only $3k! Yeah, science! |
Its not a matter of belief. Its a matter of physics. The more sub locations the more bass modes and the smoother the bass response. The more subs the less volume each one has to put out and so again the smaller the modes and the smoother the bass response. This is all due to the fact low frequency waves are very long. None of this changes when the room gets smaller. The problem is people don't understand what's going on. They buy a sub to hear low bass. So they turn it up enough to hear low bass. This excites room modes making boomy bass. They conclude its the room. Or the sub. Or anything but what it is, the universal physics of long waves in small rooms. The solution is many small subs. Its not that 2 or 4 is best. Its that more is better. |
I prefer placing where they sound best. One is a little to the left and in front. Another almost directly behind. Another to the right and a little behind. The other two are way out off to the left and right behind me. You do know sub placement is all about frequency response and has almost nothing to do with the stereo pair, right? (And how do you get by with only 2?) |