Two Subs Vs. One


Trying to augment the sound from a pair of Totem Hawks in a large room (rest of system is an Olive Musica server, Eastern Electric Minimax Pre, Classe CAP-150 Amp). I am doing some in-home auditions of affordable single subs (mostly REL) and really like what they do for the sound. So far, I am leaning toward two smaller subs, one behind each speaker (ie. REL Q108E's - I like the sound better in that position and it looks better - wife factor) versus one larger one in the corner (ie. REL R-205). Can't find two demo units of the same sub to audition the two-sub option and was wondering if anyone had experience with this comparison.
Ag insider logo xs@2xitball
I prefer two subs. But with subs, wave effects in the room are always a concern.

With one sub, I had to be careful with room nodes and resonances. Proper location of the sub would avoid nodes and resonances, at least the major ones. Also, I discovered when I had just one sub that the two inputs from the two channels were treated differently, with one of the two channels significantly deemphasized somewhat arbitrarily so as to avoid cancellations because the bass waves could have exceeded the distance between microphone positions. The good news is that the best placement for the sub was different from the best placement for the monitor speaker, and having them separate allowed me to find the best placement for each. If they were all part of one speaker box, placement could only be optimized for one.

With two subs, the potential cancellation effects have to be dealt with through room placement. At least, I can dedicate each of the subs to each channel and not worry about the built in deemphasis.
I have two Vandersteen 2Wq subs with a pair of Duntech Princess speakers with the subs positioned behind the main speakers. They are 10 inches from the side wall and 21 inches out from the back wall and the sound is great. If I disconnect one of the subs, the impact and fullness of the sound collapses to some degree. CDs have base in both channels whereas vinyl usually sums the bass from 30-40hz down.I would definitely go with two.
I use one sub but crossover very low, 45hz and run my speakers full range. The sub merely augments the RM 40's so the volume is very low. My speakers, VMPS RM 40's, have good powerful bass into the low 30's. I mean honest bass, not the bass that most manufacturers advertise. I don't know about your Totem's so you'd have to make your own calculation.

In my case one good sub is the wiser choice. Two subs do have advantages, especially if you have to cross over higher. Also they can help balance room problems but as the poster above mentions, can also increase problems. With four large bass traps and digital equalization I don't have that problem.

If you can crossover below 60hz I'd go for one better sub. A low, below 80hz, crossover makes it easy to integrate and has less potential problems. If down the road you want two you hopefully can afford the second sub.

In either case I'd get a sub. There's alot more bass than most people realize until they hear it for themselves. I'm surprised how much comes out of my sub being crossed over at 45hz with a 24db slope. It's help to my large mains has been a very good investment.
Assuming budget limitations, would it be better to go with one big sub (e.g., Rel B3) or two smaller subs (R205 or B1)?
Post removed