Why the fascination with subwoofers?

@atmasphere 

Hello Ralph.

I see you use a SWARM system, so the sub woofer frequencies play in mono on a distributed basis. Similar to Earl Geddes approach/theory. Geddes argues for 3 to 4 subs playing the same signal to flatten frequency response at different locations in the room. I was wondering if you are using this approach for the same goal, for flattening at the main listener seat, or other?

I have a pair of 12" sealed subs playing mono and been wondering about adding one or two more with the goal of flattening at the main seat. Would love to know your take on this.

Regards 
Horacio

@atmasphere 

I'd give it a shot. I don't use the Swarm but if I had it to do over that's the route I'd likely take. Duke is working on a sub system for me though- one that is integrated into a coffee table. It will be used to break up the standing wave in my room.

Interestingly, my additional two subs would go disguised as coffee tables as well. 

Ok, so you don't use swarm, but I take you are replicating the concept: distributed bass array playing a mono signal. Is the goal to minimize SPL variations at different seating locations? Or to optimize at the prime seat?
How did you determined you needed to break down a standing wave?

Regards

@atmasphere 
Ralph: if I'm taking measurements and measure a deep valley within the subwoofer frequency, would that be pointing to a standing wave?

@mitch2 
While many records have very similar low bass recording on both channels, to be certain it works you should play a summed up mono signal to achieve this.

@rauliruegas 
Not sure why you are attacking atmasphere. He's not selling subs. Over the years Ralph has been as unbiased as I can expect from a manufacturer, even when explaining benefits of a SET, which is a product that competes with his amps. His experience is relevant to me.
Also you are taking words out of context. When he replied " that's exactly how it works" he was answering why subs added depth, etc, which is something I knew too - but the question wasn't pointed to me.

FWIW, over time I've exchanged with several knowledgeable people who do sell subs and don't, listen to their points of views and explanations to help form my opinion and then decide how to try it out myself.

BTW, thanks for the link to the Harman work. I'm familiar with it as I have Floyd Toole's Sound Reproduction. One material aspect of their research was time delay between the subs in the room, which is something I can't do with my setup. Neither can the SWARM system, yet Noble100 and Millercarbon report very good results, so I'm intrigued. In fact mine are Rythmik subs with more tuning flexibility so should do even better. And I do have means for proper measurements.

Regards

@rauliruegas 
You are really mad at Ralph. Oh well...

FWIW:

and he still posting that he needs only two subs because his speakers goes down 20hz ( solid hz. ): so what?, that confirms that he did not understand yet the overall subject in this thread and in the reality of any room/system

I believe he's talking about the same approach Earl Geddes, Hartman, etc do: 4 sources playing subwoofer frequencies to flatten response across multiple seating positions. In his case, per his comments, his mains go down to 20Hz so they are playing in the subwoofer region as well. He will add two subs in parallel to the mains so he will end up with 4 sources playing subwoofer range. That's all. Common sense to me (coupled with some theory/knowledge). 

@audiokinesis 
Duke, great to see you join!

Would like to ask your point of view about time alignment for subs. I run an active system with digital crossovers, time alignment, room correction. I currently have two sealed 12" Rythmiks playing summed up mono and planning to add one or two more to get a distributed bass array.

Time alignment is of great value and active systems are ideal for this. But when it comes to a distributed bass array the sound is arriving at the mic from 3 or 4 different locations so difficult to identify "the max" in the pulse. At the same time Earl Geddes (who also proposes 3 or 4 subs in DBA) and others say we can only hear those frequencies after several cycles have played, so the pulse behavior might not be a good indicator.

What is your point of view about time alignment of a SWARM or other DBA systems?

Regards