@hleeid thank you for sharing that info. Very interesting!
Help me understand "the swarm" in the broader audiophile world
I'm still fairly new out here and am curious about this Swarm thing. I've never owned a subwoofer but I find reading about them--placement, room treatments, nodes, the crawl, etc--fascinating. I'm interested in the concept of the Swarm and the DEBRA systems, and I have a very specific question. The few times I've been in high-end, audiophile stores and asked about the concept of the Swarm, I've tended to get some eye-rolling. They're selling single or paired subwoofers that individually often cost more and sometimes much more than a quartet of inexpensive, modest subs. The same thing can be said for many speaker companies that make both speakers and subs; it's not like I see Vandersteen embracing the use of four Sub 3's.
My question is this: do in fact high-end stores embrace the concept of multiple, inexpensive subs? If not, cynicism aside, why not? Or why doesn't Vandersteen or JL or REL and so on design their own swarm? For those out here who love multiple subs, is it a niche thing? Is it a certain kind of sound that is appealing to certain ears? The true believers proselytize with such zeal that I find it intriguing and even convincing, and yet it's obviously a minority of listeners who do it, even those who have dedicated listening rooms. (I'm talking about the concept of four+ subs, mixed and matched, etc. I know plenty of folks who embrace two subs. And I may be wrong about all my assumptions here--really.)
Now, one favor, respectfully: I understand the concept and don't need to be convinced of why it's great. That's all over literally every post on this forum that mentions the word "sub." I'm really interested in why, as far as I can tell, stores and speaker companies (and maybe most audiophile review sites?) mostly don't go for it--and why, for that matter, many audiophiles don't either (putting aside the obvious reason of room limits). Other than room limitations, why would anyone buy a single JL or REL or Vandy sub when you could spend less and get ... the swarm?
My question is this: do in fact high-end stores embrace the concept of multiple, inexpensive subs? If not, cynicism aside, why not? Or why doesn't Vandersteen or JL or REL and so on design their own swarm? For those out here who love multiple subs, is it a niche thing? Is it a certain kind of sound that is appealing to certain ears? The true believers proselytize with such zeal that I find it intriguing and even convincing, and yet it's obviously a minority of listeners who do it, even those who have dedicated listening rooms. (I'm talking about the concept of four+ subs, mixed and matched, etc. I know plenty of folks who embrace two subs. And I may be wrong about all my assumptions here--really.)
Now, one favor, respectfully: I understand the concept and don't need to be convinced of why it's great. That's all over literally every post on this forum that mentions the word "sub." I'm really interested in why, as far as I can tell, stores and speaker companies (and maybe most audiophile review sites?) mostly don't go for it--and why, for that matter, many audiophiles don't either (putting aside the obvious reason of room limits). Other than room limitations, why would anyone buy a single JL or REL or Vandy sub when you could spend less and get ... the swarm?
188 responses Add your response
@mapman That’s a nice collection of speakers you are rotating. What determines which ones get played? I have ls50s. Interested in your impressions versus others. Thanks. Other than having fun swapping around gear, nothing really determines which get listened to. But the Harbeths are what I listen to most often. However, impressions are easy to describe. The LS50s are noticeably the best at imaging. They project the smallest soundstage on their own but not far from the rest except for the B&Ws and especially the LRS. The LRS is also more airy and enveloping. Sounds a little faster than the LS50s. Less accurate imaging. These only have about 40 hours so may still be breaking in? The Ologe5 is a different animal. 3 tweeter array in each main projects the widest sweet spot. Non parallel cabinet walls. More relaxed than the LS50s. Perhaps better for jazz/classical. A little taller and wider soundstage. Not nearly as accurate imaging as the LS50s. Despite the two bigger drivers, the LS50s punched nearly as hard. These are now being used as my left and right front HT mains in the living room. The B&W 801 Matrix S2s just have this accuracy and flatness beyond my other speakers with the Harbeths being the possible exception. But nothing I have can touch these when it comes to feeling the dynamics. The room really pressurizes with them. Really big soundstage. The LS50s sound much smaller and less neutral. The Harbeths have greater extension above and below where the LS50s can go. This is an extremely neutral speaker. Probably comes closest to the LS50s with accurate imaging. Something about the sound though is just uniquely inviting. Not sure how to describe it but the midrange in particular is intoxicating. The super tweeter makes it almost as open an airy as the LRS. Overall much deeper and taller soundstage. Probably one of the best balanced speakers I have ever owned. Also, has the least coloration of any box speaker I have heard or owned. The LS 50 comes close in this regard. I also swap around a Hegel H190, Forte1A, Michael Yee Audio PA-1 and a Bryston BP26 controlling a pair of Ampzilla 2000 Second Edition monoblocks. Note, the B&Ws really needed the 300wpc monoblocks to shine. The Hegel was actually not far behind. So can only provide impressions with the two amps. The other 4 speakers were fine with any of the amps listed above. The LS50s had the most performance gains with the DBA. All that accurate imaging was presented in a taller, deeper, wider an fuller soundstage. This is a really impressive speaker. With the DBA, it is pretty much holding it’s own enough to be in the regular rotation. If you are considering any of these other speakers, I would be happy to provide more detailed info, listening impressions, etc. |
I hope this tome helped someone, TimYes, helped me Tim. Thanks! I'm at a point where I have the gear I want and I have setup my speakers to the best of my ability. Room treatment is my next project. I know you went the GIK route. Sounds like all went well. What do you think about Acousticfields vs GIK vs others? What made you go GIK? |
Have you heard or do you know of anyone who have combined a non ported sub with two or more dipole design subs? If I build one folded dipole, I am certainly doing two at the same time. @rixthetrick, I currently use a DBA I set up with 8 sealed subs (I stack them in pairs) I made and am in the process of building the Linkwitz open baffle subs (W frame) but using a different set of drivers than the Seas that Linkwitz specifies. I will initially be subbing them in for two of the sealed subs and leaving the rest in place. We'll see how it goes. |
mahgister Yeah, but did you have a swarm or an array of sub woofers? If you did not, he was very specific in saying that he did, for many years, before applying room treatment. And it was in other areas he found the more significant performance increase with correct room treatment. The sub array had benefits all on it's own, would be my guess? mahgister, do you have, or did you have a swarm or array of multiple subs? If not, this does not directly apply to your personal experience, it's evident that what I have with my one sub isn't the even close to the array experiences shared here. |
So to those stating to fix the room first for Pete’s Sake!, my experience is that it minimally effected my room and system’s bass performance but dramatically positively effected most everything else.It seems i am deluded or in hallucinegic transe if you were right.... I fix my room and this had a tremendous effect on bass .... Clarity and quantity.... Your experience confirm my experience that PASSIVE only room treatment is insufficient... We need ACTIVE device controls also.... I re-mute myself.... |
@audiokinesis
(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.)This thread and another also about sub woofers are really informative to myself. The advocates of multi sub array do make sense to me. I already have a dual opposed firing single sub, I do like that the two drivers fire 180deg away from each other and cancel a lot of cabinet energies. I have also an interest in slot loaded folded dipole design subs. Have you heard or do you know of anyone who have combined a non ported sub with two or more dipole design subs? If I build one folded dipole, I am certainly doing two at the same time. |
northman, I've been monitoring this thread and realized I had the urge to reply to almost every post, because I thought my comments would be beneficial to the posters, but have successfully been resisting these urges until now. I've changed my mind, however, and now believe citing a previous post and adding my comments will not only be hopefully beneficial to the posters, but it will likely also help you in your quest to better "understand the swarm in the broader audiophile world". Before I begin, I just want you to know that I'm just a fellow Audiogon member and AK Debra complete DBA kit user who's a big advocate of the multiple sub concept in general and the 4-sub DBA concept in particular. My comments are solely based on my personal knowledge and experience gained by researching multiple sub theories and concepts and trying them out in my own system and 23'x16' living, 2-ch music listening and home theater room. Basically, I'm just an A/V hobbyist with no formal relevant schooling, training or A/V company affiliations that believes in full disclosure. Okay, enough of that, below I'll list the poster with their partial post quote and add my comments below each. My current thinking is that this format could be beneficial to multiple thread participants but also that I could quickly get in over my head. My intention is not to hijack this thread but to summarize, clarify and to assist the OP in better understanding the swarm concept: mapman: " Audio Kinesis (Duke) is also very knowledgeable and big on sound dispersion in general and I believe tries to enlarge that sweet spot with his designs. When that is the case ( a larger sweet listening area) the case for a more evenly distributed bass is also better." I believe this is generally true but wanted to add specifically how I implement the swarm since my goal was to broaden the bass sweet spot in my room for HT but to restrict the midrange, treble and stereo image to a traditional sweet spot, meaning a pair of main speakers precisely positioned in relation to a single designated listening seat to optimize the midrange, treble and stereo sound stage illusion. Here are some relevant facts to consider: -Deep bass frequency tone sound waves are omnidirectional and exceptionally long (a 20 Hz very deep bass sound wave is 56' long). -Humans typically cannot localize (tell exactly where the sound is coming from) bass sound waves with frequencies below about 80 Hz and down to the audible limit of 20 Hz. -Midrange and treble frequency tone sound waves are highly directional and decrease in length proportionally as the tone frequency is increased (a 1,000 Hz midrange sound wave is 1.13' long and a 20,000 Hz very high treble sound wave is a fraction of an inch long). - Humans are typically very adept at localizing midrange and treble sound waves beginning with frequencies above about 80 Hz and up to the audible limit of 20,000 Hz. - Sound waves from 20 to 80 Hz are mono and perceived by us as mono whether separate L +R channels exist or not. -Sound waves between 80 to 20,000 Hz are actually mono but perceived by us as stereo if separate L + R channels exist. -All sound waves continue to bounce, or reflect, off of room boundaries (walls, ceiling and floor) until they run out of energy, are absorbed or are diffused. -Humans require at least one full cycle sound wave to exist in the room to perceive any sound no matter the frequency. Additionally, humans require multiple full cycle sound waves to exist in the room to perceive a change in pitch. This only becomes an important factor on some very deep and very long bass frequency sound waves, which can potentially exceed the length of a room's dimension, and require a room boundary reflection for the full cycle length of the sound wave to exist in the room before being perceived, along with multiple sound waves existing to notice a change in pitch. The above facts result in bass sound waves behaving, and being perceived by us, very differently than midrange and treble sound waves in any given room. Because of this, I decided to take the approach of treating my system as two systems: a bass system and a midrange/treble/imaging system. The bass is typically the hardest to get sounding right in most rooms. My main point is that, while the Debra delivers near sota bass in mono throughout my entire room that serves as a solid foundation for all music I play on my system, I still position my main speakers precisely, in relation to a single designated listening seat, to optimize the midrange, treble and sound stage imaging. My main speakers only have a rated bass extension down to 35 Hz and I run them full range with the Debra set at slightly less than 50% with the crossover frequency set at 40 Hz. This results in a seamless integration of the bass with my main speakers. Even though the Debra subs and my main speakers are all outputting the fundamental bass tones below 80 Hz in mono that cannot be localized, I still perceive a full range stereo sound stage because the harmonics or overtones of these fundamental tones, which reach frequencies above 80 Hz and can be localized, are being reproduced in stereo by the main speakers. The secret sauce is then provided by our brains, which are capable of associating the bass harmonics or overtones above 80 Hz with their related fundamental bass tones below 80 Hz, and create the perceptions of where specifically the fundamental tones are coming from. This whole process is seamless and results in our being able to perceive the deep bass drums being located at the rear center of the sound stage image, for example, and the upright bass being located at the front left side of the sound stage image. mitch2: " Based on my experience going from one sub to two, as well as what I have read about the subject, I would like to try adding a third SW12 placed asymmetrically in the room. If I were starting over, I would definitely try Duke’s Swarm Subwoofer System but as @erik_squires points out, you need to be willing to have four additional boxes in your room." Yes, I know with certainty that a good quality multiple sub bass system can be created using as few as a pair of good quality subs, provided they're properly positioned/configured and good bass performance is only desired at a single designated listening position and not throughout the entire room. Three subs have also been proven to be sufficient, in some rooms, to form a DBA that is virtually as effective as a 4-sub DBA and is claimed to provide good bass performance throughout the entire room, not just a single designated room location. I recall reading this in the Earl Geddes article linked below: https://mehlau.net/audio/multisub_geddes/ Mitch2, you also may be interested in one or more of these good quality wireless subs that have received good reviews: https://www.underwoodhifi.com/products/syzygy-acoustics atmasphere: " In a nutshell this is an education thing and nothing more. Those that denigrate a distributed bass array are apparently simply ignorant of its advantages. Many dealers don't sell them, so their comments can be sidelined safely enough. If your front speakers actually make bass, then what you do is add a pair of subs elsewhere in the room to break up the standing waves that often cause bass cancellation at the listening chair." I agree, the whole 4-sub DBA concept is not overly complicated but does require some education, self provided at online sites or at least read this book I'm currently writing. I think a good understanding of the underlying principles as well as proper setup and configuration procedures should be sufficient. teo " Actually Eric is correct in the idea that it does not fix the room. This swarm idea. It overwhelms the problems and buries it under noise, in an area where the human ear is least sensitive. Like Styx said, "you’re fooling yourself if you don’t believe it..." First, Fix the room." I believe teo_audio and Eric are correct that the swarm does not fix the room. As I understand the swarm concept, the 4 subs actually create an abundance of more bass room modes throughout the room and uses a well known psychoacoustic principle, mainly that our brains process an abundance of bass room modes present in a room by summing and averaging these room bass modes by frequency, which results in our brains creating perceptions that the bass is smoother, faster and more detailed. During the first four years of using the 4-subb Debra system in my system, I utilized zero room correction software or hardware and the only room treatments existing in the entire room was wall to wall carpeting and a few live house plants. This wasn't because I disagreed with, or wasn't aware of, the importance or effectiveness of quality room treatments in attaining optimum full frequency range audio performance. I did, but just hadn't gotten around to having my room professionally analyzed and treated. I've since had a full professional room analysis done by GIK, purchased several thousand dollars of a variety of their suggested room treatment products and have had them all installed about a year ago. GIK's recommendations included floor to ceiling bass traps in all 4 corners of my room, 3-5 additional bass trap panels scattered about and and about 20 midrange/treble frequency range absorbing and diffusing panels at strategic locations along the perimeter 4 room walls. My main point is that I was initially leery about so much bass trapping treatments because the 4-sub Debra DBA had worked so exceptionally well, with virtually no treatments at all in my room, for the previous 4 years that I was concerned the abundance of bass trapping might negatively effect the Debra's excellent bass performance. After reassurances from GIK and Duke that the added room treatments would not negatively effect the bass performance of the Debra DBA, I had all the GIK recommended room treatments installed in my room, including all of the bass traps. I anyone is curious, you can view the room treatments on my system pics. Overall Duke and GIK were correct, the Debra's bass performance remained exceptionally good. I noticed significant improvements in my system's midrange, treble and imaging performance, mainly a substantially lower noise floor, improved detail and an even more realistic, deeper, wider and 3 dimensional sound stage imaging. So to those stating to fix the room first for Pete's Sake!, my experience is that it minimally effected my room and system's bass performance but dramatically positively effected most everything else. Definitely worth the dough overall, IMHO, but obviously not required for very good 4-sub DBA performance. Okay, sorry for the War & Peace length of this post but I prefer my books be thorough. I hope this tome helped someone, Tim |
@mitch2, It took me a very long time to wrap my head around having more than 2 subs. I was from the school that says you always put your subs in the corners about 6 inches or less from the walls in symmetrical positions. And you only need 2. When I first read the above excerpts I took the sub farthest away from the mains and put it in the middle of the opposing wall. I then took the sub that was closest to the mains and turned it 45 degrees. Well to my surprise they did sound better. Then reading more in agon Duke did suggest to the things he told you to do with your subs, then I can't remember if it was Duke on some other reading but 'if you can raise one up towards the ceiling'. What! So after about 30 seconds of trying figure out how to get a 60lb sub up to the ceiling I started to think out of box as it were as to the typical placements of subs in only the corner that we are so used to doing. I had an old SVS sub in the closet to make a total of 3 subs and put it on the back in the middle of the wall. I borrowed a smaller smaller sub to put on the highest shelf in the back of the room. It made a difference. Was it a swarm? No but it did open up my thinking just a little more of having 4 subs placed in my listening/tv room. Now all this didn't just happen overnight as I had to get F connectors and cable and hook everything up. When it was suggested I put a sub up towards the ceiling, I didn't think this s**t would work and almost didn't try it. I'm glad I did. And to this day I don't own the swarm for the same reasons you don't own the swarm. I already had money invested in subs. But the science does work. |
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 |
tyray ... why do people on this site always verbally attack Duke for just being a businessman, entrepreneur and fellow Agon poster? ... all the keyboard internet negativity is not warranted and shows some lack of civility ... to attack Duke for trying to make a living everytime this subject comes up? Is nothing more but and act of hiding behind your moniker cowardice ... Don’t attack Duke ... are you guys just gonna flap your gums at Duke? ... I don't see anyone on this thread "attacking" Duke, so I really don't understand your indignation. |
audiokinesis 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.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. |
atmasphereI think the quotes I provided speak for themselves. I'm comfortable with letting each reader decide this matter for himself. |
@cleeds I think if you reread these comments above you will see that I was correct. You see Erik's comment which opens- now compare that to Millercarbon, you see that the latter says its *better* (in his own words) and that if able to compare, people would choose it, but that does not negate my comment in response to Erik's comment. Now I've been often accused of being very specific, but I also spent a lot of time in English writing courses in college. Perhaps that is part of why I am so specific, but what seems to be agreed by all is that one sub can sound excellent if set up correctly, but if a DBA is set up its a lot easier to get it to sound right and that it might even sound better than 'excellent'. 'Excellent' and 'best' are two different things and I've not seen this conversation derail down that rabbit hole. Yet.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.atmasphere |
What I don’t understand is why do people on this site always verbally attack Duke for just being a businessman, entrepreneur and fellow Agon poster? You don’t have to try, buy or use the swarm, but all the keyboard internet negativity is not warranted and shows some lack of civility. What ever happened to just having discussions amongst adults who enjoy this hobby? You don’t have to have the swarm or even like the swarm, but to attack Duke for trying to make a living everytime this subject comes up? Is nothing more but and act of hiding behind your moniker cowardice. I know some posters here can be abrasive, but sometimes it just takes the bigger man to be just that. The bigger man. Don’t attack Duke on account of or for the sake of others. I was really hoping that there maybe some sort of down to earth shootout? Or are you guys just gonna flap your gums at Duke? Some of you guys take the fun out of every subwoofer thread every time the words swarm or subwoofer is brought up. I like to bring something positive to this thread and congratulate Duke on his hard work to be an engineer, salesman, tech, phone person and everything else it takes to run a business. And everytime the swarm is brought up here in Agon I do see new customers that have bought your swarm and report their experiences back to us here on Agon. |
Let’s clear up a few things, Vandersteen has been offering a unique powered bass system w 11 bands of Analogue EQ for at least 20 years now. Of course as an advocate of real science Richard is familiar w Geddes research and his own that formed the basis of his unique design. In fact those paying attention will remember Richard passing his congratulations on to Duke for his work and award. You can of course use multiple subs in the Vandersteen ecosystem of high passed speakers with built in or external subs. Perhaps some will recall system 9 subs at Munich ( best of show sound ). The Vandy way preserves the transfer function of your main amp, has more cut than boost, the 11 band EQ is NOT octave based but based on empirical sampling of typical listening room nodes, and super importantly designed to give fantastic bass at the listening position ( gee where the rest of the stereo image is - for a company fanatical about time and phase since 1977 imaging is a super high priority. Finally in my system photos you can see an RTA photo of bass fundamentals and harmonics.... image destruction starts below 200 HZ, so you might want to watch that sub integration and placement carefully. oh ya, of course I have heard a DBA :-) |
@tyray Your above quote from Aerial’s Michael Kelly is very similar to a multiple sub white paper excerpt here:Earl Geddes was Manager of Advanced Audio at Ford Motor Company here in Michigan and has a PhD in Acoustics, while his wife (and partner in their mostly dormant company GedLee) Lidia has a PhD in Audiology and teaches at Eastern Michigan University. 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. If you want a fun read, take a look at their Dagogo interview from June of 2012. Below the link, I have included some interesting quotes from the interview that apply to the issues discussed in these Audiogon threads every week. https://www.dagogo.com/an-interview-with-dr-earl-geddes-of-gedlee-llc/ Quotes from the interview:
|
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 |
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?Perchance, did anyone see this important question? |
I’m an advocate of using the Swarm because it fixes bass issues by breaking up standing waves in the room, something that can’t be done easily with both room treatment and bass management combined.You forget Active acoustical device controls... People dont realize that bass dont exist in his bass world.... All frequencies are linked together in the acoustical space... The easiest low cost way to improve bass is to improve the acoustical settings controls of the room not only passively but actively... The idea to improve bass with woofers BEFORE improving the room acoustic baffle me.... Sorry.... What do we want a better sound musically or a bigger bass? I dont doubt that the swarm is a good idea, read me for what i said.... 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:This affirmation is comical in a way....If you are a shorter man you will benefit the most from a larger suit! The truth is acoustical treatment and active controls change a room, bass included....The suit fit the individual so to speak.... I am sure that Swarm is a good idea, i repeat, but for most people not a good one at all, because impractical, and costly, and changing the acoustic dont begin with the bass obsession.... I mute myself now..... |
One SW12 provides satisfying high quality mono bass. Two SW12's produce more realistic stereo bass, higher levels, and better smoothness. Three SW12's add front / rear information and truly envelope the listener in bass. @mitch2, Your above quote from Aerial’s Michael Kelly is very similar to a multiple sub white paper excerpt here:
|
erik_squires 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.atmasphere I do not believe anyone here is making that claim ...But that is exactly the claim that some have made: millercarbon Surely no one with the room, who takes the time to compare, would ever choose anything else. No one has. No one ever will. The difference is so night and day that Duke had one customer with a $30k subwoofer budget decide to buy the Swarm. Not even a $30k sub can match a $3k Swarm.And here’s another: mijostyn Proving the superiority of a multi subwoofer setup is easy ... the ultimate subwoofer system requires 4 large subwoofers with at least 2000 watts of power each and room control. |
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.I do not believe anyone here is making that claim. I'm an advocate of using the Swarm because it fixes bass issues by breaking up standing waves in the room, something that can't be done easily with both room treatment and bass management combined. But I have more than one system in my home. My bedroom system only has one sub, and by careful placement I got it to work great in the 'listening chair' :) But the sub in that case is not intuitively placed (such as in between the main speakers) and the bass cannot be heard throughout the room even though the rest of the system is. In a nutshell, we are talking about an advance in how bass reproduction is done in the home and the advance that a distributed bass array represents is major compared to the prior art. Accepting what science does can be really helpful. It can help keep you from getting sick. The results of science has allowed people to fly around the world. It allows light in the dark at a flick of a switch. It allows amplifiers to sound like music. In the legal world, there is a principle called 'dirty hands' which in a nutshell works like this: 'you cannot reserve a right for yourself that you do not also confer to others.' The idea that one can accept science to allow for light in a room but not accept science to allow for proper bass reproduction is to me simply ridiculous. |
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 |
This might have been asked/answered up above, but I didn't feel like reading the entire thread. 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? Oz |
Proving the superiority of a multi subwoofer setup is easy. All you have to do is impulse test the system at three set positions in the room using one then four sub woofers. What you will see with one sub is wide changes in volume between 0 and 100 Hz up to 10 dB or so between the positions. With all four subwoofers these variations will reduce to less than 3 dB. Even with room control you will have trouble. Trying to correct a 10 dB deficit will cost you 8 times the power and force the woofer into the non linear part of it's excursion creating distortion. Correcting a 3 dB deficit requires just twice the power and a much smaller increase in woofer excursion. Put all this together and the ultimate subwoofer system requires 4 large subwoofers with at least 2000 watts of power each and room control. |
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:I think that one sub "may" be better than no sub in some case, but more often then not, mechanical and electrical embeddings combined with mainly a rightfully done acoustical embeddings make the urge to use a sub obsolete, especially in a small room...Except for heavy metal and cinema for sure.... :) For bigger room probably a "swarm" is certainly interesting....If you listen mainly jazz and classic less interesting tough.... |
I can't speak for my fellow DBA advocates, but it normally doesn't occur to me include practicality disclaimers.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? |
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 |
People debate without end about electronic piece of gear, 1 or 4 or zero, without almost never informing themselves first about the embeddings... No piece of gear can rival embeddings controls done rightfully....Even and especially in bass section.... For sure if you buy a 100,000 dollars system with 4 subs this will beat my 450 dollars system without one and even with one done right.... I will not argue against that even before listening to it.... There is exception to any law.... My law is dont upgrade anything, embed everything before doing that.... :) This is a very important observation indeed: Help others figure out what is best for them not for us.Then dont give any money to upgrade before trying to embed your audio system... Necessary upgrading to reach audiophile experience is an half truth only , then, worst than a lie.... I apologize because the topic is the "swarm" not my rant about embedding but...... My best to all.... |
is it safe to say we all hate to walk into a hifi store and have the salesman tell us what we should buy or do without even listening to what our needs are and acting accordingly? The ones who do listen and act accordingly are the good ones. Maybe we can all strive to be more that way here as well. Help others figure out what is best for them not for us. |
I agree with @mapman. IMHO, it has to with practicality which millercarbon and DBA advocates continues to overlook each time a sub discussion pops up. Before I get flamed by DBA fanboys let me add, those who can justify 4 subs in their room, DBA probably makes sense. For rest of us, I say this; one sub is better than no sub and two subs is better than one sub. Peace! |
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:One of the things I’ve admired about Duke is he has always given advice and instruction on how to place any sub no matter if it’s only 1 or 2 of any sub brand you have and even trying to understand what type of tuning functions you may have on the back of you sub and how to use them. If you do a Agon search you will be surprised at how many threads he has been a part off on what you ask. There's also some links to some 'white' papers that break down the genesis of the distributed array technique that also surprisingly are in layman like terms for easier understanding - check this out. https://mehlau.net/audio/multisub_geddes/ |
