Assuming competent subwoofer design, by far the most audible issue in the bass region is uneven frequency response caused by room interaction. The audible effects of room-interaction peaks and dips on a sub are much greater than the audible difference between two high-quality subs. So if you’re going to solve the problem that matters the most, that would mean addressing the in-room frequency response.
You might consider keeping your two SVS subs and adding two more subs, then distributing the four subs asymmetrically around the room, such that each is a different distance from the nearest corner (and maybe have one of the four in a corner). This will result in each sub generating a significantly different room-interaction peak-and-dip pattern at any given location within the room. The sum of these different peak-and-dip patterns will be smoother than any one or two subs would be, and "smooth" bass = "fast" bass.
As a ballpark rule of thumb, the in-room bass smoothness increases proportional to the number of bass sources in the room, provided they are in acoustically dissimilar locations. And this improved bass smoothness holds up throughout the room. In contrast, the in-room bass smoothness of a single equalized sub (no matter how capable that sub is!) only holds up in a small area, outside of which the frequency response is likely to be worse than it was before EQ.
The net result with a good distributed multi-sub system is that you hear more of the low-frequency information which is on the recording, and in particular more of the spatial information, because there is less "masking" imposed by your listening room’s "small room signature" in that region. Imo this is conceptually consistent with a loudspeaker like the DeVille, whose well-controlled radiation pattern likewise results in less imposition of the listening room’s inherent "small room signature" atop the venue acoustics on the recording.
Duke
subwoofer manufacturer