@Erik_squires wrote:
"
The idea that only swarms can sound good, or are the ideal fix for any
possible ailment your system has is just not supported by evidence."
This is what's called a "straw man argument", and is a fallacy. Here's the definition for anyone not familiar with the term:
"A straw man fallacy occurs when someone takes another person's argument or point, distorts it or exaggerates it in some kind of extreme way, and then attacks the extreme distortion, as if that is really the claim the first person is making."
Duke
|
Erik, you are too good to hang your hat on name-calling and too smart to treasure your grievances.
Why not talk tech instead?
Duke
|
Northman wrote:
"My question is this: do in fact high-end stores embrace the concept of multiple, inexpensive subs? If not, cynicism aside, why not?"
@audiotroy replied:
"[While] a swarm would sound better than one or two subs, most people do not have the room or desire to have 4 subwoofer boxes in the room along with a pair of main loud speakers. So the reality is swarms almost never come up based on practicality vs performance."
I think this is the answer, or at least most of it. (For the record the footprint of each sub in the Swarm is only one square foot, but the number of boxes is still an issue.)
Mitch2 wrote:
"Eric, I read your blog and am curious whether you have heard the Swarm System and, if so, what were your listening impressions? I understand not trusting products with over the top fan boys but that is different from actually trying something and not liking how it sounds."
Bingo.
Duke
|
Cleeds wrote: "No, it’s not a straw man argument at all, because some of these "swarm"
advocates have argued just that, and have done so repeatedly. Here’s one
just from this thread..."
As far as I can tell, Erik's complaint arises entirely from his personality conflict with ONE person, millercarbon.
To the best of my knowledge Erik has yet to attack the merits of the distributed multisub concept directly, instead putting words into the mouths of its advocates and calling them "cultists", skirting Audiogon's rules by doing so in a blog post that he routinely links to.
Duke
|
Teo audio wrote: " First, Fix the room. Fix the room Fix the room Fix the room Fix the room. Can’t say it enough times. Fix the room." For some highly experienced perspective, I invite you to click on the link below. Once you get past the ad, listen for about 30 seconds from where it’s cued up. Matthew Poes is speaking, and he is a professional acoustician. His JOB is "Fix the room". He gets PAID to "Fix the room." He DOES NOT get paid to sell or promote subwoofers, whether singly or in multiples: https://youtu.be/shHY7EHY4MA?t=2257
Teo, I’m not saying that YOU are not highly experienced, nor that room treatment isn’t extremely beneficial. Nor am I saying that it’s either/or. BUT in the subwoofer region "Fix the room" is much easier said than done, and a distributed multi-sub system apparently has considerable merit. Acoustician Matthew Poes uses stronger language than that.
Duke
|
Veerossi wrote: "
My setup is different from the standard DEBRA though: I’m still unclear
how to setup the phasing on the sub amps since my DEBRA uses 2 Qty of
the SA1000 subs amps instead of one to drive the 4 subs. It’s supposed
to have some benefit for phasing.
"
Here is what I suggest:
Drive the two subs on the left-hand-ish side of the room with one amp, and the two on the right-hand-ish side of the room with the other. Set the phase controls on the two amps roughly 90 degrees apart from one another. You may have to go back and fine-tune the low-pass frequency and level controls a bit.
The idea is to synthesize the phase difference at your left and right ears that you might have in a much larger room. This reduces the "small room signature" of the playback room, thus unmasking the acoustic signature of the recording venue, whether it be real or engineered or both. So you hear less of your playback room and more of the recording.
Mitch2 wrote: "
Your comment made me think of two reasons I have not tried a DBA yet,
and something Duke (or somebody) could work on to help those of us who
already own and use two great sounding subs..."
Imo you can add subs to the one or two you already have. They needn't be as large and capable. I do suggest that any subs positioned away from the main speakers, and closer to you than the main speakers, have their top-ends rolled off fairly steeply (24 dB per octave is what I use) no higher than 80 Hz. This is so that they don't pass upper bass/lower midrange energy loud enough to give away their locations.
Lalitk wrote: "
IMHO, it has to [do] with practicality which millercarbon and DBA advocates
continue to overlook each time a sub discussion pops up."
I can't speak for my fellow DBA advocates, but it normally doesn't occur to me include practicality disclaimers.
For anyone in a situation where a distributed multi-sub system is impractical, obviously something else would be a better choice. Maybe something like this:
"
one sub is better than no sub and two subs is better than one sub.
"
(Actually imo one sub may not always be better than no sub - many dipole owners have tried one sub and gone back to no sub.)
Duke |
Tyray suggested: "Why don’t you guys (and gals) get together and have a respectful subwoofer shoot out... test each others hypotheses, scientific principles, use the audio test equipment to set up your equipment and record everything for posterity and science." I just re-read the thread and it looks to me like nobody is saying the science behind a distributed multisub system is bogus. Some criticize its advocates, some say dipoles work better (which they do in some ways and not in others) or that fixing the room comes first, and several have said it’s too impractical. But not even Erik’s blog page disputes the technical merits of the idea. Quoting: "To oversimplify, the DBA [Distributed Bass Array] or Audio Kinesis Swarm uses four subwoofers to cancel room modes. Please read details directly from the vendor as I am not a fan and therefore won’t do it justice. "While I was a fan of this idea due to the innovation and possibilities it offered I never really warmed to it due to the physical complexity. For me, I want my system simpler, smaller, and tripling the number of speakers in my home has no appeal at all. I am no longer a fan of this idea due to the fan boys and how cultish they have become." I don’t see any of these objections going away if a distributed multisub system "works as advertised" because none of them are based on the premise that it doesn’t. Duke |
Oz, you are quite welcome.
Cleeds wrote:
" But that is exactly the claim that some have made: "
Do you really mean "EXACTLY"?
Because imo that is open to dispute. Not that I necessarily think squabbling about the meanings and implications of words and sentences will settle anything.
How about this:
Cleeds, can you articulate the core of what your objection is? THAT might be worth talking about, as we might be able to reach mutual understanding.
Duke |
Mitch2 wrote:
"
Earl’s Ph.D thesis was on the acoustics of low frequencies in small
rooms, so he should know a thing or two about subwoofers and bass
behavior in audio rooms."
Earl was my mentor, and I use an early version of his ideas about distributed multisub systems, with his permission.
Duke |
Hleeid wrote:
"Interestingly, the DBA provided the greatest percentage of improvement in the smaller room."
It probably seems highly counter-intuitive that a SMALLER room would benefit the most from having a LOT of subs, but the explanation is pretty simple:
Smaller rooms start out worse, and therefore have more room for improvement. Bigger room + DBA is still better than smaller room + DBA, but the gap between the two is reduced relative to what it would be with more conventional approaches.
By the way, kudos to Hleeid for his creativity in figuring out a way to shoehorn four subs into that 10x12 room. I would NOT have thought his situation met the "practicality" test, but the dude was determined. Hleeid certainly expanded my perception of what’s possible.
Audiorusty wrote:
" You can build a Swarm/dba with those brands or any other brand for that matter. All you have to do is buy three of more and place them asymmetrically around your room. You can even use multiple brands and sizes if you want."
Yup!!
Ozzy62 asked:
"So if you have three subs that are all powered, what is the best way to integrate these into the chain? Especially if I wanted to connect them all at speaker level. Can these be piggybacked somehow so you don’t need individual speaker cables from each one running to the main power amp?"
If the three subs all have speaker-level inputs, they can all be driven in parallel by the main power amp. The exact cabling configuration would depend on the layout in your room, but if you wanted just one set of cables connecting your amp to the first sub, then a second set connecting your first sub to the second sub, then a third set connecting the second sub to the third sub, that can be done.
The speakers cables running to the subs’ inputs can originate at the speaker terminals instead of at the amp terminals, if that helps. Also, these cables can be very thin, as the signal they carry is in the milliwatts.
Duke |
Ozzy62 wrote:
"
Perchance, did anyone see this important question?"
Did you see my answer?
Duke
|
Cleeds wrote:
"I don’t have any objection to swarm or DBA systems at all. None. Some of its advocates are effusive in their promotion and it looks pretty silly. That is all."
I understand. Thank you for clarifying.
"I don’t see anyone on this thread "attacking" Duke, so I really don’t understand your indignation."
Tyray stuck his neck out for me, and I appreciate it.
Duke
|
Thank you mahgister.
What do you mean by "active resonators"? Are these Helmholtz resonators, and/or do they have moving parts? Do they operate in the audible band?
Duke
|
Thank you mahgister.
Duke
|
Mahgister wrote:
"With acoustic ACTIVE devices controls and not only PASSIVE materials treatment, they gives me so much bass..."
"You forget Active acoustical device controls..."
"For example how do we use reverberations in a positive way to make the sound more alive with only a passive treatment? No way, it takes active acoustical control devices..."
"Active acoustic devices controls seems totally unknown"
"The easiest low cost way to improve bass is to improve the acoustical settings controls of the room not only passively but actively..."
You mention ACTIVE acoustical control devices many times, in this thread and elsewhere, and I don’t know what you are referring to.
Can you describe or explain what they are?
Duke
|
M-db wrote: "
Duke is a Bassist?
"
I manufacture bass guitar speaker cabinets and sometimes that gives the impression that I'm a bass player. But I'm not.
"
Who's you're hero, inspiration? "
One need not be a bass player to be inspired by Geddy Lee.
Duke
|
Unreceiveddogma wrote:
" Well, if 2 are better than 1, and 4 are better than 2, then are 8 better than 4; are 16 better than 8? 32, 64, 128, 256...? (Is that a straw man argument, or, lacking other evidence, simply taking the argument to its logical conclusion?)"
My guess is that (aside from cost) practicality vs perceived utility is what sets the upper limit on the number of subs. For most people, apparently that number is either 0 or 1. For some, it is more.
Each additional sub offers LESS incremental improvement than the previous one, simply because there is less net increase in the spatial distribution (assuming the previous subs were intelligently distributed). Where the "point of diminishing returns" lies is arguably a judgment call, again with practicality probably being a major factor.
Duke |
@sounds_real_audio wrote:
"The " swarm" is actually an old term..."
Really?
I am not aware of the term "Swarm" being an "old term", as you claim. I began using it in 2006 as the name for my four-piece distributed multi-sub system. Were others using the term in this context before me?
"... that was used to convince music lovers who were not happy with the sound of their system, in particular the midrange which was so lacking in most speakers. To deflect away from that they, the manufacturers, focused on the bass... A conspiracy yes."
It sounds to me like you are saying that I am trying to deflect attention away from inadequacy in the midrange and convince music lovers to focus on the bass. And that this is a "conspiracy" on my part. (Though you did not call me out by name, I don’t see how you could be talking about anyone but me, since I’m the only manufacturer who uses the term "swarm".)
If I have misunderstood you, please clarify. I’d like to reply to your post, but first want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you.
Duke |
I’ve waited three days for @sounds_real_audio to clarify his post above, and I think that’s long enough. So I’m going to reply to some of the things he said:
“The "swarm" is actually an old term that was used to convince music lovers who were not happy with the sound of their system, in particular the midrange which was so lacking in most speakers. To deflect away from that they, the manufacturers, focused on the bass”
I do no think "swarm" is an "old term" in this context. To the best of my knowledge, I am the first person to use the term “swarm” to describe a distributed multi-sub system, dating from the spring of 2006 when I named my four-piece subwoofer system “the Swarm”.
To the best of my knowledge I am still the ONLY manufacturer who uses the word “swarm” to refer to his product, so I assume your post is directed at me.
And I have NEVER said or even implied that bass matters more than midrange. Show me ONE post where I have. If I have written about bass in threads about subwoofers, that’s because bass was the topic at hand.
"A conspiracy yes.”
FALSE, and I’m being charitable to use that word instead of another. Show me ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that I have engaged in ANY conspiracy. The word "conspiracy" implies deception and dishonesty. I do not appreciate the accusation. Can you back it up? Of course not.
“Does it make your system sound better, well perhaps, the bass may improve but you will still not have that rich and satisfying midrange which is where the music is.”
Again you are implying that I’m ignoring the midrange. Obviously I don’t talk about the rest of the spectrum in threads about bass and subwoofers. If this is your main objection, it’s really weak. And if you ACTUALLY ARE open to learning something about how to get the rest of the spectrum right, start a thread about it and I’ll post.
And if we "improve the bass" it DOES NOT FOLLOW that we "will still not have that rich and satisfying midrange which is where the music is". The one DOES NOT not preclude the other.
Duke
|
Kenjit wrote:
" If you are nothing but a fellow DBA advocate, why is it that you are the only one whose name pops up everytime DBA is mentioned on this forum? Why do you have the right to claim ownership of the DBA concept by using a proprietary name like swarm?’
I decline to engage with Kenjit.
However if anyone else is interested in reading an answer to Kenjit’s question, let me know and I will respond.
Duke
|
@jdlynch wrote:
"Does the swarm system work equally as well for home theater and music listening? I am 90% HT use and powerful, room shaking, chest pounding bass is what I’m looking for. I currently have a single Seaton Submersive with dual opposed 15” drivers."
One characteristic of the distributed multi-sub approach which is beneficial for home theater is that the improved bass smoothness extends throughout the listening area, so the bass is essentially the same for all seats.
That being said, I don’t think my standard Swarm system (consisting of four small subwoofers with 10" drivers) has the output capability of your single massive Seaton Submersive.
What is your room size, if you don’t mind? I might have an idea.
Duke
|
Thank you, jdlynch. That’s a big space. Imo you can probably get good results with three subs, since the space is so large.
Okay, here’s what comes to mind:
Add two more subs, which probably need not be as big and as capable as the Submersive, and spread the three as far apart, asymmetrically, as you reasonably can. Bonus points if you can elevate one so that it’s closer to the ceiling than to the floor. You might find that having a significantly different phase control setting for one of the subs is helpful. Perhaps the one farthest from the screen.
Duke
|
@jdlynch wrote: "
Duke, will I need to get some device to set delays and levels for each individual sub? This is where I would get lost.
"
First, apologies for being so slow to reply. I hadn't checked in on this thread in a while and didn't realize there was a question waiting for me.
Imo setting delays individually would not be necessary, as the Swarm obviously gets away without them, and I don't think 3 subs instead of 4 would be any different in that regard.
If you are using individually powered subs then setting the level of each should be easy with the controls. You might need the Submersive to be a bit louder than the other two since it's the only one that goes real deep, but then again you might not either... trial & error.
Imo it might very well be beneficial to be able to adjust the phase of the other two subs. As a starting point I'd suggest setting one of them (perhaps the one farthest from the main speakers) to a very different phase setting than the other subs, like maybe even 180 degrees. You might want the out-of-phase sub to be at a different volume level from the others (maybe a bit lower), and then again you might not.
Duke
|
@sounds_real_audio, I would welcome actual clarification of your 9-22-2020 post.
It’s not too late.
Duke
|
