@cleeds wrote: "The price for that smooth, even, neutral bass is that your bass will be monophonic."
This is a misconception probably arising from the fact that the "regular" configuration for my price-conscious Swarm system only uses a single channel of amplification, and from my statements that true stereo bass is quite rare (which is controversial and has been disputed). For a few hundred dollars more, some Swarm users have added a second amplifier, though imo the most significant advantage of the second amplifier is that it gives you the option of introducing a 90 degree phase difference between the subs on the left-hand-ish side of the room and the subs on the right-hand-ish-side of the room. This can be done whether the signals going to the left and right amps are mono or stereo.
As others have noted, even if you do have mono bass, you never hear it as "mono bass". The localization cues are essentially all north of the subwoofer region, though spatial (hall size / envelopment / immersion) cues can be present in true stereo bass. The left-right 90-degree-phase-difference thing is a technique for synthesizing this sense of immersion in a large acoustic space; credit to David Griesinger for the idea, which does not depend on the recording having stereo information down in the subwoofer region. Nor in my experience does it result in a same-for-all-recordings acoustic signature; if anything, imo it unmasks more of the differences in spatial "feel" from one recording to the next.
@lewinskih01 wrote: "Would the ability to time-adjust each of the 4 subs improve sound? Like Toole described in his Sound Reproduction?"
My recollection is that Toole was referring to a Harmon subwoofer integrator processor which optimized the gain, frequency response, lowpass filter, phase, delay, and equalization based on in-room measurements. I assume it does what they claim.
Earl Geddes used to offer essentially the same services to his customers. He had them make measurements of each of their subs and then used a proprietary algorithm to calculate the settings for a Behringer processor. My understanding is that he could get in-room smoothness from three thusly equalized subs comparable to what he could get from four conventional subs. Since I’m no Earl Geddes, I still use four subs. (I have never claimed and hopefully never implied that the Swarm is "the ultimate" way to do the distributed multisub thing.)
If I had the choice between having the ability to time-adjust each sub and not, I’d choose to have it just to maximize my options... but wouldn’t want to trade off anything else that matters to get it. The arrival time differences in a normal size listening room are small enough that they are below the ear’s detection threshold at low frequencies, but it still might be beneficial.
I don’t have any experience with time alignment of subs, but do have some indirect experience with time mis-alignment:
One of my most-experienced-in-very-high-end customers has three of his Swarm subs spread around the room (with one in a front corner) and the fourth is right smack behind his listening chair (on an isolation pad). This essentially maximizes the arrival time differences, yet he finds it to be the best-sounding configuration.
So based on the information I have at this time, I would prioritize good in-room smoothness over arrival-time-alignment, but it would be interesting to try having both.
Duke
