Which subwoofer?

Hello kenrus,

scm also offered very good advice, in my opinion for 2 reasons:

1. I believe the Hsu ULS-15 MKII is also a very good sub that may even outperform the SVS SB-1000-Pro but it's $800 plus $90 shipping and handling, which totals almost $900.  It's also larger, due to its 15" woofer, at about a 1.5 foot cube. Head to head it likely outperforms the SVS but I believe a pair of the SVS subs will significantly outperform a single Hsu sub in your room and only cost a touch over $50 more, due to the free SVS shipping.

2.  Scm mentions the idea of using 3 total subs in his room and I think this may have a good chance of working well in your room, too.  In effect, you already have a sub module attached to the bottom of each of your ML main speakers. Even though these sub modules aren't currently positioned in your room, and in relation to your listening position, for optimum bass performance since they're probably currently positioned for optimum mid/treble and imaging performance at your LP, one additional and optimally positioned sub in your room could, theoretically, significantly deepen the perceived bass in your room.  I'm thinking a single, slightly larger sub with a larger woofer (15" or more like a Hsu ULS-15 MKII or another, larger, sealed or ported SVS sub that has deep bass extension down to 20 Hz or lower) may work very well if it's optimally positioned and configured.  This should be considered an alternative option to the pair of sub option I discussed previously. 
     This works because, even though only 1 of your 3 subs would be pumping out bass below 24 Hz and down to 20 Hz or lower, you would perceive all of the bass in the room as extending down to the deepest sub's capacity.  This is explained in the field of psycho-acoustics if you care to google it and learn more about this subject and phenomenon.
     As others have mentioned on this thread, Dr. Earl Geddes, the original inventor of the 4-sub distributed bass array(DBA) concept, claims that 3 subs can sometimes perform as well as 4 subs in a room.
    Buying from SVS, or another company that offers free in-home trial periods and returns, has the added benefit of allowing you to try out either or both options without taking any financial risk.  

Tim 
       

@noble101
Indeed,Earl Geddes has said that subs has been enough for him, but 4 is better. It's important to note when Geddes talks about "better" bass he's referring to seat-to-seat variations across the room. So bass is more Eben across the room. He isn't talking taut, 3D-like, fast or other descriptors often used for "good" bass.

@iananderson
I know of a guy using Quad 63 and 3 Gradient subs who is looking into GR Research OB subs with great interest. I have not heard his setup, but FWIW he's a professional bass musician at Lyon's opera...his understanding of how natural bass sounds is surely better than mine!!!

I listen nearfield with a Rythmik FM8. It's on the left side and sounds like it's on the left side. I need another to iron out that problem. Otherwise it's very natural sounding. 

A coupla decades back Gradient made dedicated OB subs for both the QUAD ESL (aka "57") and the 63. They did that for a reason: QUAD owners had long been searching for a sub that would "mate with" their dipole ESL’s, to no avail. Non-dipole subs simply do not "mate with" dipole loudspeakers. Why? That information is readily accessible in the literature, including in the writing of Siegfried Linkwitz. I won’t repeat it here; those with the requisite intellectual curiosity will find it on their own. Beside, I have previously done so, and that info has been ignored for reasons at which I can only guess.

The statement "the mate with thing is a non-issue" simply reveals the ignorance (the term used in a non-pejorative spirit) of the person who uttered it in regard to the very real technical problems encountered when attempting to mate a dipole loudspeaker with a non-dipole subwoofer. It is HE who should be ignored. ;-)

The OB/Dipole Sub currently available from the collaborative team of Rythmik’s Brian Ding and GR Research’s Danny Richie is a FAR better product than that of Gradient. Again, the reason that is so may also be learned with very little effort. I’ll give you a hint: The Rythmik Audio/GR Research OB/Dipole Sub is the only sub of it’s kind in the entire history of hi-fi music reproduction, an OB/Dipole sub incorporating servo-feedback woofers. Now THERE’S a mating!

The OB Sub is the first and only sub using dynamic woofers I have found which rivals the bass panels of the Magneplanar Tympani T-IV’a (which I also own) in bass quality. It was those panels Harry Pearson mated with the m/t panel of the Infinity IRS to create his "super" speaker. The IRS includes massive woofer enclosures containing multiple servo-feedback dynamic woofers, yet Harry preferred the bass panels of the Tympani T-IV. I formerly owned the mini-IRS---the RS-1b, which also includes separate enclosures with s-f woofers. The OB/Dipole Sub easily bests the RS-1b woofers.

 lewinskih01:
" @noble101
Indeed,Earl Geddes has said that subs has been enough for him, but 4 is better. It's important to note when Geddes talks about "better" bass he's referring to seat-to-seat variations across the room. So bass is more Even across the room. He isn't talking taut, 3D-like, fast or other descriptors often used for "good" bass."

Hello lewinskih01,

     I'm not certain you're claim about Geddes's meaning, when he talks about "better" bass, is correct.  Yes, one of the main benefits of his 4-sub distributed bass array (DBA) concept is very even bass distribution performance throughout the entire room with very little seat-to-seat variations across the room.  
     But another main benefit of his 4-sub DBA concept is that this very evenly distributed bass performance is also consistently perceived as very high quality bass as described by the familiar good bass audio adjectives such as taut, fast, smooth and detailed. 

     Duke LeJeune, the owner of Audio Kinesis, is still a friend and was an associate of Earl Geddes, circa 2014-15, when he told Duke about the benefits of utilizing the 4-sub Distributed Bass Array(DBA) concept he invented/discovered and gave Duke permission to use the concept as he wished and without charge. 
     Subsequently and fairly quickly, Duke introduced the AK Swarm 4-sub DBA that was reviewed very positively in 2015 by the Absolute Sound magazine.  Here's a link to that review: 

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/audiokinesis-swarm-subwoofer-system
   
     This is just a sample from this review praising the high quality of the Swarm's 4-sub DBA system's bass performance: " Now any addition of full-range bass gives some of this effect. But the Swarm gives more of it. Not more bass than other subs—lots of them can be turned up to give plenty. Rather, there is better bass with less signature from the listening room."
     My main point is that both of these main benefits of the 4-sub DBA concept, evenly distributed bass and high quality bass, are not subtle qualities at all.  These are both very obvious qualities that were easily perceived by both the Absolute Sound reviewer and myself as a user. 
      I seriously doubt that either Earl Geddess, as the concept's inventor/discoverer as part of his PHD thesis, or Duke LeJeune, as the concept's adopter/manufacturer, are unaware of these two main benefits nor hesitant to refer to both of these as qualifying as "better" bass qualities when discussing the concept.
     After utilizing the AK Debra 4-sub DBA system for the past decade and counting, I can also state with certainty that bass power, impact and dynamics are also other main characteristics of this concept.

fwiw,
Tim