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
phusis's avatar
phusis
1,219 posts
 
@millercarbon --

FIFY.

There is no "if" and, or but. Its excellent, period.

You're impervious to views countering yours - not much of a debate in that, only dictation leveled from one to the other. One thing is for sure: you love your own story. 

You're wrong about the 2 seats. The problem with fewer subs, yes you can get good bass at one or two places- but only by having too much elsewhere. The excess energy in these areas as it dissipates muddies the bass everywhere in the room. This is one reason DBA bass is so clean and articulate.

And yet, as stated earlier, we're several to prefer the presentation from 2 big subs vs. 4 smaller DBA's. In some cases this approach calls for mild PEQ and/or room treatment, but in either case it has been the preferred scenario. I'd cherish 2 more big subs like the ones I already have, but - as I've written earlier - space doesn't presently permit. 

You're wrong about the expense. DBA is actually the cheapest most cost effective solution. Yes you can spend a lot but the beauty of it is you can have truly awesome bass easily and for under $3k.

There's nothing snooty, hilarious, or sad about it. Your response, I mean. Just another failed put-down. Tiresome, is what I'd call it.

What are you rambling about? On the contrary I'm speaking in defense of DBA - read again:

"Let's be clear: what you're getting at is, essentially, spot on. The physics part of subs integration with a DBA gets annoyingly in the way of the audiophile snooty approach that loves what's more expensive is also necessarily better. It's hilarious as it is sad." 
noble100's avatar
noble100
2,419 posts
 
Hello m-db,

     Duke is just being modest. After Earl Geddes generously bestowed the gift of his amazing DBA concept upon him many years ago, what did Duke do?
     He took the initiative to develop a 4-sub complete kit finished product that very successfully took advantage of this DBA concept at a very reasonable and affordable price, the Swarm, and has been one of the major advocates for the concept ever since. The Absolute Sound magazine has also awarded the Swarm its prestigious Golden Ear Award multiple times over the years. I believe this definitely qualifies Duke as being a world class Bassist.
     In fact, I give complete credit to Duke, along with his associate James Romeyn, and Dr. Earl Geddes for my ability to enjoy near sota bass response performance in my room and A/V system on a daily basis.

Thank you very much guys,
Tim
northman OP
265 posts
 
Renewed thanks for the lively conversation, which has been more than edifying. I don't have anything to add to the knowledgable posts but I do want to add one more reason for my original question. This thread contains some merited criticism of audiophiles who get stuck in their "snooty" ways, dealers who concentrate on the bottom line, speaker companies that are slow to update their design/marketing plans.

There's something else, however, that's difficult for me to wrap my mind around. This forum insists on the importance of every detail, the importance of micromanaging every cable terminal and power source. Which is better for speaker cable elevation, cedar blocks or maple blocks? Where does one get just the right marble or granite for a speaker base? What color interconnects are the most transparent? (Blue ... no ... yellowwwwwwww!)

And yet the discussion of multiple-sub array contains almost none of this fastidiousness. It's what academics would call a different discourse. It's by far the most casual approach to sound out here: mix and match inexpensive subs. What brand of subs? It doesn't really matter. What size? Also doesn't really matter. Should they be the same? Maybe, but it doesn't really matter. Where placed? It doesn't matter nearly as much as a single or pair. Connections, watts, power source? Doesn't really matter, relatively speaking.

My point is that, as an outsider to these technologies, the tenor of the discussion is completely different. It's not only asking audiophiles to consider a new approach to sound reproduction but asking them to consider a completely different way of thinking about, and talking about, the hobby.
abnerjack
208 posts
 
northman,

I've noticed this too.  Everything matters, except when it doesn't.
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
Rix, the stiffest enclosure would be a sphere. But that is difficult to produce. Next is a cylinder or tube as you suggest. This is a much easier design to deal with and perfect for a balanced force system. Just put a driver in both ends. I'm building 4 of them with 12" Morel drivers. Two in each cabinet.

For point source systems crossed over below 80 Hz it really does not matter where you place the subs as long as they are spread out always against a wall or in a corner.

For line source systems crossed over above 100 Hz you have to consider the affects on image and the increased power projection a line source has. The best way to do this is by creating  subwoofer line source along the front wall. It is still a "swarm" system of sorts just with a more specific radiation pattern. 
More to discover