Is One Subwoofer Really Not Appropriate For 2-Chnl

One can work fine even if two are better; I used one first, then 2.

Two is better for your situation , but more important is getting the right match for your speakers . One will work too and alot easier to set up than two .

Thanks for the responses. I have somehow expected the answers. I need to justify the cost of adding another sub as two subs would cost more than the main speaker itself. That will come later. I'm currently using one sub with a bookshelf speaker with great success. Integration was pretty much seamless. Going to consider some higher quality monitors and add another sub later when opportunity beckons. Need to figure out how to add another sub into the system though as the preamp has run out of inputs.

Cheers.

I previously used a single sub with Micro Utopias. I think the key is placing the sub between the speakers as opposed to in a corner or something. I didn't feel the need to add another sub.

But if you've got money burning a hole in your pocket, well that's another story.

IME, two subs typically yield better results, because two subs usually provide smoother in-room frequency response.

Having said that, I use a single sub for 2 channel listening, and it sounds great. But part of the reason is that I am able to (1) EQ the sub and (2) control the delay on the sub and the mains, so that the two are time aligned to within about a millisecond.

Regardless of whether you use one sub or two, I believe that it is essential to SQ that the sub(s) are time aligned with the mains, either through positioning, or through the use of delay. This is my opinion, and it is a somewhat controversial one, as you can read on another thread. If you cannot position/delay BOTH subs so that they are time aligned, but you can time align a SINGLE sub, then personally I would go with a single sub.

Good luck.

Bryon

Bryon