Are big subwoofers viable for 2 channel music?

Everything Tim posted is right, especially this one bit here:

 You will not be able to localize any of the deep bass coming from any of your subs but you'll still perceive the deep bass as stereo, with the deep bass seeming to originate from the proper instrument in the sound stage image illusion.  

This seems almost contradictory. But it is true. Emphatically.

My system  https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/8367 is set up with 2 Dayton amps and I have tested all possible setup combinations- including stereo and mono. There is no difference running stereo vs mono. In fact just about everything else makes a difference EXCEPT stereo/mono.

Yet this is emphatically NOT to say the bass does not SEEM to be in stereo. 

There is a whole recording angle involved here I'm not even going into. Just read the comments I have made and the comment Mike posted after his visit. The bass comes from everywhere and nowhere, and is perfectly integrated with the sound stage. 

Recording after recording the bass with my DBA has all the character and imaging as everything else from the midrange on up- whether or not the subs are run stereo or mono.

Trust me on this- not only do the subs disappear, but when you get it right all the speakers and the whole freaking room disappears.

     Hello millercarbon,  
     You know we both completely agree, based on personal experience, about how exceptionally effective the 4-sub DBAs are in virtually any room and with any pair of main speakers. 
     The topic on this thread had switched a bit and was recently about whether anyone knew of any commercially available music recordings that contained bass below 20 Hz. Phusis then posted some comments that raised the issue again about whether or not deep bass under 80 Hz was recorded in true stereo and whether individuals can localize bass below 80 Hz even if the music was actually recorded in true stereo bass.
    I think we both know how extremely rare it is for anyone being able to identify a single music recording that's commercially available with any bass content below 20 Hz and that, even if one is proven to exist, I think the odds that the bass was also recorded in true stereo below 80 Hz and not summed to mono, is lroughly zero.  
    My current concern is that we're veering away from the main subject the OP, smodtactical, is concerned with.  His main concern seems to be how he can achieve very good bass response in his future very large 30'x30' room for music that will also perform very well for HT use.  Can he achieve this using large subs or will it require smaller, sealed subs to perform very well, especially on music.  Smodtactical, please correct me if I didn't summarize your main concerns correctly.
     My suggestion is that you'll likely find it easier to get very good bass performance in your future large room than it would be in a smaller room. This belief is mainly based on the fact that bass soundwaves are omnidirectional, are physically much longer and behave much differently in any given room than midrange and treble soundwaves behave. Midrange/treble soundwaves are highly directional, physically much shorter and, therefore, behave much differently in any given room than bass soundwaves do.
     In smaller sized rooms,I've found it's best to get the bass sounding right in the room first and then optimally position the main speakers in the room, in relation to the designated listening seat, for midrange/treble and imaging performance.  'm not certain this approach works as well in larger rooms but I don't see why it wouldn't.  In theory, I believe it should be easier.
     Smodtactical, I think you have several options to get the bass right in your future room.  But I realize I'll need to more specifically need to understand your goals and budget to best tailor the options I'm thinking about to your requirements.  Generally, I'd like to know if your priority is quality or cost and how important convenience is to you in terms of setup and use.
   My options all consist of a minimum of 2 subs.  I know that 2 subs will perform about twice as well as a single and 4 subs about twice as well as 2.
     Here are some of the general options I'm currently considering for your room:

1.  Start with a pair of Captivator RS2 or similar large subs and position them each optimally in your room using the crawl method.  If you only use a pair of subs, the optimum positioning of each sub is very important and unlikely to consist of just positioning one by each of your main speakers.  You'll need to be open to placing each sub sequentially in your room where the bass sounds the best to you at your listening seat and not where they conveniently fit in your room. This could require rearranging furniture and other room décor.
     A variation on any of these options is to add a 3rd and even 4th sub to to create what's called a distributed bass array (DBA) system.  The advantages of a DBA system are that the bass will have increased bass power and bass dynamics capacity when the content calls for it since the bass is cumulative, each sub will be operating well below its limits for lower distortion, the bass will be perceived as smoother, faster, more detailed, even better integrated with the main speakers and this high quality bass will be perceived throughout the entire room, not just at the designated listening seat.
 
2. Start with a pair of smaller REL 812S subs optimally positioned using the crawl method.  If this is deficient in any way, you could add a 3rd and even 4th 812S sub until it meets your requirements.  I believe using smaller and less expensive subs as additional subs might work almost as well as additional 812S subs.  I also believe the 812S subs have the very convenient advantage of offering wireless connections.

3. Start with a pair of Syzygy SLF870 subs as a less costly option.  These are newer subs that have received very good reviews and are also offer wireless connections. I believe the guy who started this company formerly worked for REL.  Here's a link to their site:

http://syzygyacoustics.com/

4. Buy a complete 4-sub DBA system for about $3K total, such as the Audio Kinesis Swarm or Debra bass system.  This is what I use in my smaller 23'x16' room and it works spectacularly well.  I know these are designed to provide high quality bass performance similar to being in a bigger room, but I think this system would work at least as well in a larger room such as yours.  However, I'd suggest contacting Duke or James Romeyn at AK  to make sure they agree.  Here's a review of the Swarm in The Absolute Sound that I found gives a very accurate description of the bass performance level to expect:

https://www.theabsolutesound.com/articles/audiokinesis-swarm-subwoofer-system/

Best of wishes,
     Tim



  

Tim --

I had stated: "I’m fairly certain that 4K Ultra HD Bluray discs and streaming videos don’t contain any audio content below 20 Hz. " I believe my statement is generally correct ..

No, you are generally wrong in this specific instance. Why do you maintain to be "generally correct" when you admit the following (and is faced with facts/empirical evidence to prove otherwise):

.. but I’m willing to concede the fact that there is recorded sub 20 Hz bass existing on numerous 4K Bluray discs if individuals are willing to invest the time, effort and equipment required to retrieve and play it back. I’m not interested in doing so but I understand there are other HT enthusiasts that enjoy plumbing the bass depths of their HT systems.

The "time, effort and equipment required to retrieve and play it back" is one to be invested in any endeavor regarding sub(s) implementation, in fact the only difference here is acquiring subs that dig below 20Hz (and having sufficient power). Have your DBA set-up if you so prefer (in your case that’s a rhetorical question), find the proper (bigger) subs to delve into infrasonics, and voila. To boot: as poster @jwmorris referred to there’s the added bonus with bigger subs of having more headroom.

Phusis, your link on your last post to a Spotify site, that you stated lists music recordings containing bass below 20 Hz, did not work and connect me to this list. Can you please correct this and repost the link?

Let’s forward this to @jwmorris as the proper recipient.

You do realize that you conflated several separate but related bass issues when you stated ""This is tangential to your former examples of arguments in the vein of "there’s no stereo information in the bass, neither recorded nor perceived; symmetrical placement of subs is moot (at a not specified cross-over frequency)" etc., and it goes to show what you’d like to feel better about while trying to convince others into believing as well. Sorry to be blunt about this.", right?

What I pointed out with named examples was to expose and emphasize the nature of your argument, irrespective of the particularities brought up. You often seek to wrap up matters in a nice bundle of absolutes, or would certainly like to get to where (a fresh example) "anything below 20Hz is hogwash because we can’t ’hear it,’ and moreover there’s not really any source material to support it," because that’s what you’ve gotten into your head. It’s convenient even, and while we’re at it let’s try and have everyone else agree on it.

You conflated the separate issues of whether there are any music recordings in any format that contain bass below 20 Hz with whether this deep bass is recorded in stereo and whether individuals would be capable of perceiving the deep bass as stereo even if the bass below 20 Hz actually was recorded in stereo. My point is that all the following conditions have to be met for you to be correct about the viability of achieving true stereo deep bass in your system: ..

Again, as examples not intended to necessarily strike on a relation between them, going on from here is redundant. We have been confronted with yours and poster @millercarbon’s views in particular on the prowess of the DBA sub set-up ad nauseam (and you’ve learned of my views a couple times as well), and we get it. Duke’s (and Earl Geddes’) findings on this are by all accounts scientifically sound and very well thought out, but the whole concept, through your promoting it not least, revolves from a mindset of rigidity and reductionism that fails to give leeway to views, and not least experience of opposing nature.

For this conversation then, let’s focus on the latest subject for you to preferably shave into the size you deem fitting: <20Hz reproduction (and that it, to you, doesn’t amount to anything, in truth because your lack of experience here and theory-laden approach keeps you from knowing about it), which also naturally caters to and reverts our attention to the OP’s inquiry, whether big subs are viable for 2-channel music (and HT).

@millercarbon --

Everything Tim posted is right ...

Obviously it isn’t.

Oh, he’s right all right. You simply disagree. That doesn’t make him wrong. In this case it makes you wrong.

Probably your shoddy reasoning led you astray. Just look at what you wrote:

Duke’s (and Earl Geddes’) findings on this are by all accounts scientifically sound and very well thought out, but the whole concept, through your promoting it not least, revolves from a mindset of rigidity and reductionism that fails to give leeway to views, and not least experience of opposing nature.

Well, yeah, it takes feelings and "views" out of the equation. That is kind of the whole point of science and logic. You could look it up.

Only, why bother? The beauty of science and logic is anyone can learn to use them. They work very different from what you do, twisting words around trying to score rhetorical points. But unlike your word games they do in fact actually work.

@millercarbon --

Oh, he’s right all right. You simply disagree. That doesn’t make him wrong. In this case it makes you wrong.

Let's hone in and focus on what's addressed here with a few excerpts of noble100's:

... your apparent endorsement of employing subs with larger woofers and in quantities beyond 4 subs to reproduce bass well below 20 Hz and even further improve bass performance, both surprises and somewhat confuses me.
    It's my understanding that reproduced bass tones below 20 Hz are not audible, mainly just vibrate things around the room including parts of our bodies, there are very few musical instruments that produce bass below 20 Hz with pipe organs being the only ones I'm aware of and there being virtually no commercially available music recordings containing bass frequencies below 20 Hz.
    I prefer bass that sounds and feels natural like when music is played, heard and felt live in person at smaller venues, not like over-amplified arena rock bass. What am I misunderstanding about music bass below 20Hz?

..and in a later post:

... My main point, which I believe you likely agree with, is that it makes little sense to have an audio system capable of bass down to 6 Hz if there’s no HT or music content that contains bass that deep. Are you sure you’re not listening and feeling bass that’s going down to 20 Hz and just thinking it’s going down to 6 Hz?
In my room, even bass down to only 20 Hz sounds and feels very deep with powerful impact and realism on both HT and music. I don’t perceive I’m missing a thing.

And that's just it: "I don’t perceive I’m missing a thing.," because he wouldn't know otherwise having no had the actual experience of the impact <20Hz can have. And that's OK if it weren't for the fact that theory trumps experience here, not in the sense of being in the right about it, but by letting theory have its say to presume he's right, when he's not in this case; experience, it seems, is irrelevant, and yet it would tell him, and you, that a rigid 20Hz barrier (or what's "audible") isn't the final word in bass extension. Not to mention the importance of headroom which is a "neat" takeaway with bigger subs, but getting through with that is futile when most would believe what they have is "enough." 

Probably your shoddy reasoning led you astray. Just look at what you wrote:

Duke’s (and Earl Geddes’) findings on this are by all accounts scientifically sound and very well thought out, but the whole concept, through your promoting it not least, revolves from a mindset of rigidity and reductionism that fails to give leeway to views, and not least experience of opposing nature.

Well, yeah, it takes feelings and "views" out of the equation. That is kind of the whole point of science and logic. You could look it up.

You conveniently left out 'experience,' which forms a view. It tells me a thing about you in particular; it's not that you can't listen (or so I presume), but rather that your reliance on theory (or "science and logic," as you so put it) won't get you to where experience could challenge your assumptions on audio. 

Only, why bother? The beauty of science and logic is anyone can learn to use them. They work very different from what you do, twisting words around trying to score rhetorical points. But unlike your word games they do in fact actually work.

My "word games" are simply trying to express the importance of letting experience (i.e.: listening) have its say, as per above. It's not that I'm oblivious to science and logic, I'm just weary of having it dictate what I'm hearing.