I am amazed at the hostility evident on threads like this with people who have apparently never tried something reacting negatively towards it and offering 'advice' which in some cases is clearly wrong.
The DBA concept works, and works in such a way that it seems to defy credulity. Yes its science and reading Toole, Geddes and Beranek will bear this out, although the latter is heavy going.
In a nutshell, the multiple sub approach will smooth out the bass, something that can not be achieved with EQ. I can understand the general reluctance to adopt this approach with all the imagined clutter and inconvenience. If that is the main objection then I suppose your turntable, pre and power amp/s, steamer, dac, a stand or two to house it all and then speakers and cables across the floor can also be considered as clutter. Its part of what it takes to enjoy music. A little imagination can reduce the perceived clutter by using a sub as support for a bookshelf or have a lamp or beautiful plant placed on top etc.
Bass traps will also smooth out the response. Multiple standing waves in a room combine constructively and destructively causing peaks and nulls and the traps help with this and more importantly reduce the decay time.
Science shows that if the reflected sound is not delayed by 6ms. minimum, relative to the direct sound, the ear has trouble differentiating between the two, resulting in detail smear, so do not push the speakers
towards the corners for more bass
as someone earlier suggested.
Science also shows that there is a target reverberation time that is required for optimum audio reproduction. This is not guesswork, there are tables providing this information and it will be seen that it varies according to the size of the room. It demands the sound decay evenly across the spectrum by 60dB in about 400ms. for the average listening room. This is known as T60
I fully agree with a DBA but they need to obey the T60 rule. Bass traps, Big Bad Bass Traps. Untamed bass, no matter how smooth, if left to decay naturally will cause congestion and obscure detail.
Correct decay time is achieved by introducing absorption. There is much to be gained by reading up on how to accomplish this and also, if you are serious, by measuring the effects of any treatment you add. REW and Holm Impulse are free to download, then buy a suitable microphone. Will be your cheapest and most useful investment ever.
Science also shows that to absorb low frequencies (bass) it requires large space-taking devices. They of course can also be mounted hotizontaly up high against the wall/ceiling corners where they are out of the way, unless you are consuming strange substances and spend time flying around the room :) Do a search for DIY superchunk bass traps. If any body thinks that little pieces of foam will absorb bass, they won't. Look at the formula: Lambda=velocity/frequency, where velocity of sound is 343m/s That means 100Hz wavelength is 3.43 meters long!
I have recently installed bass traps in the two front corners of my room running vertically from floor to ceiling and measure 900mm (35.5") across. They have made a remarkable difference but measurement shows I need more!
@OP to address your question after this long winded rant, I suggest you will be fine with your existing amp. Look seriously at room treatment and get a sub or 2 or 3 or 4. Strongly recommend acquiring the means to measure your room. I see guys paying much more for a power cable and I think I can safely guarantee a treated room will have a HUGE transformative result. I have a friend with the same speakers you have driven by a 135W Bryston integrated amp producing tight, clean bass after some basic room treatments.
@millercarbon: It appears you have spent considerable time and money on your room but one picture shows some black foam looking things in the wall/wall corners and tiny pieces in the upper trihedrals. If they are intended to absorb bass then I'm afraid they will be failing in that duty. I'm making an observation, not a criticism.
