2. speakers
  3. 150331-2094

Question for experienced distributed bass array users

Hello.

I run an active multichannel stereo system where everything below 70Hz is handled by one channel that sums R + L and sends to two subs. The subs are sealed DIY enclosures for Rythmik DS1200 kits and I want to add one or two additional subs to create a DBA. Ideally I would build additional units based on the same Rythmik kits which provide good flexibility through their PEQ plate amps. But I live overseas and importing these becomes expensive. Plus I recall Earl Geddes saying the third & fourth sub didn’t need to be powerful or as good as they do less work, and commercially available DBAs I understand aren’t necessarily 12” or include PEQ options.

So I’m considering to build sealed DIY boxes with suitable 10” pro drivers and locally available, non-audiophile grade class D amps, and use together with the Rythmiks. All the subs would get the summed mono signal with digital room correction applied to the channel.

What do you guys think? Better to get one Rythmik kit or two plain Jane smaller sealed boxes?

Thank you in advance!
Horacio

PS: Please let’s not go into merit/demerit of DBAs. I’m convinced it’s the way I want to go; just asking for opinions from experienced users about alternative paths to it.
lewinskih01
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
Lewinskih, you risk being unhappy with the results. If you like the subs you have hang on for a little while longer and save up for identical units. 
It is absolutely not true that the additional subs can be of a lower quality. They should all be identical. 
analogluvr
859 posts
 
I can see how the quality of the additional would not be as important. With more than two you are just smoothing out the room modes. 
millercarbon's avatar
millercarbon
12,531 posts
 
Wait- what thread is this? What was the question again? Oh yeah:
Question for experienced distributed bass array users
Really? Sure that's all you want?
just asking for opinions from experienced users about alternative paths to it
.

Sounds pretty sure to me.
spenav
431 posts
 
Hi

I think you should build one more identical to what you have. That would be easier to set up. You can always add the fourth later. I have four myself and sometimes I turn off the last one and notice very little difference. I could easily have lived with three. Setting them up properly is very important. Pay attention to the time domain as well as the frequency domain. If done right, three should get you 95% there. Hope that helps. 
lewinskih01 OP
909 posts
 
Thank you guys.

@millercabon: indeed, the more the better as it smooths out frequency response better. I believe Geddes was saying that in the context of minimizing the number of subs, saying optimally placing 3 subs got you almost there (FWIW, like @spenav says above), with a 4th getting you to "100%". That is 4 subs optimally placed get you to his 100%. If the "optimally placed" part gets relaxed, then you need more subs to get you to "100%" (whatever that is). With clear diminishing returns.

This has made me think my listening area is the living room and as such the location of the subs is constrained by living space, so no optimal. Therefore 4 subs should be significantly better than 3.

BTW, millercarbon your experience with mixing 3 different types of subs and getting great results gives me a lot more confidence in the path. Thank you!
More to discover