2. speakers
  3. 159915-139027

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? 


northman
bdp24's avatar
bdp24
9,868 posts
 

Ay carumba! The rear output of a dipole sub (or woofer, or any driver, in fact) being in polarity opposite to that of the front is inherent in all dipole woofers. The reason for that is obvious.

The rear wave coming back to the woofer after it bounces off the wall behind it needs to be timed (1 ft. = approximately 1 ms.) so that the front and rear waves are in phase by the time they reach the listening location. There is a side null created on either side of the dipole sub frame, where the front and back waves---being opposite in polarity---cancel each other, just as they do in all dipole loudspeakers (ESL’s, Maggies and ET’s, etc.). This prevents the dipole sub from exciting the room's width dimension modes.

The A370 plate amp used in the Rythmik/GR Research OB/Dipole Sub includes a continuously-variable phase control providing phase rotation from 0 degrees (0 ms) to 180 degrees (16 ms). This makes possible locating the OB/Dipole Sub optimized for all considerations other than phase, then using the phase control to optimize the phase between the sub and the loudspeakers. The phase rotation mimics moving the sub physically.

erik_squires
16,245 posts
 
I wrote a great deal about this here:

https://speakermakersjourney.blogspot.com/2020/04/how-to-not-buy-subwoofer.html

mitch2
4,044 posts
 
My Aerial SW12 subs are supposed to be pretty good but going from one sub to two made a huge difference in overall sound quality for the better.  The improvements seem to affect the entire frequency range and not just the bass.  Below is a quote from Aerial’s Michael Kelly.
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.
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.  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.
audiokinesis
2,747 posts
 
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
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,862 posts
 
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.


Like many industries (such as bicycles) much is ruled by tradition in audio. New ideas and breakthroughs thus tend to exist only on the fringe while the mainstream flows fat dumb and happy using established or 'more profitable' tech that simply doesn't bring home the bacon. It seems to be human nature.  I can give a nice example- derailluers in bicycles are a terrible idea. Essentially its a transmission where everything is exposed and as a result they are unreliable. A chain might only last 1200 miles- compared to a car or motorbike bicycles seem really unreliable- you'd think that after 120 years we'd have sorted that out, and in fact we have with internally geared hubs (the Rohloff being the best of them) and the Pinion gearbox which is mounted in the frame. Both of the latter dramatically more reliable than any derailleur and usually wider gear range. I got my first Rohloff about 15 years ago- back then no-one had heard of them. Even now, most people heavily into bikes still don't know what a Rohloff (or a Pinion) is. Its the same with a distributed bass array. They work **way** better than the prior art, but most people don't know what it is, and some that do resist almost purely out of tradition (substitute 'stubbornness' for 'tradition' and the meaning of this sentence is unchanged).  



More to discover