Subwoofers - Front Firing or Down Firing - Which Sounds Best?


Any advantage to woofer cone facing toward listener as opposed to firing down to the floor? Thinking of upgrading my 20 year old B&W ASW-650 sub to get that oh-so-pleasing belly message which lives in the 20-ish Hz range (very rare I know). SVS has the "tube" subwoofer (PC-2000) at a reasonable price. Just wondering if the floor-firing model would disappoint? Wouldn't want the hassle of returning if it did. Any opinions? Current users? Thanks. 
128x128dweller
In my experience down-firing is less likely to excite room nodes.  I assume because they essentially fire in four different directions rather than one.  I would speculate that in a perfect room, front-firing would be best because you could line it up perfectly with the mains and have a perfectly in-phase wave launch.  In practice I imagine down-firing is better in a lot of rooms.  
The gift that keeps on giving-
But I Still Want a Subwoofer! That's fine, get one.
Yes, I actually bother to read such drivel. Otherwise, how you gonna know its drivel? We read him so you don't have to!
Some where I read that the manner in which low bass propagates from a woofer reduces any meaningful differences between bottom firing or front (or rear) firing. I can't recall my source -  
Its not the manner. Its the frequency. At low bass frequency the wavelengths are as long or longer than the room. So long that no matter where you put the sub or what direction the sound travels out and reflects and can even return all the way back to the sub even before one full wave cycle.

Then add onto that the fact these low frequencies do not even register on human hearing at less than a full wavelength.

Put it all together, this is why it doesn’t matter where the subs go relative to the stereo speakers. Because timing is not a factor. Cannot even be a factor!

What is a factor are the room modes. Room modes happen because the room is smaller than the wavelength. So they bounce around and reinforce and cancel. This is why people find it so hard to figure out where to put a sub. They have to keep moving it around trying to find the one spot where it gives the smoothest bass. Then they get confused and say its coherent, or matched, or synchronized, or integrated, or whatever. They got a million terms. None of which is right. Because they are all based on the same false understanding, the one that applies to short wavelength midrange and treble not low bass.

This is why "you know the answer" dweller is multiple subs. Multiple subs allows you to place them in different locations around the room. Each sub in each location has its own lumpy bass response because of the modes. But each one is a lot smaller because each one puts out less bass because there’s more of them. So they all average together into one extremely smooth bass response.

This cannot work with EQ. All EQ can do is make bass smoother at the one place its measured- but at the cost of making even more bass somewhere else. This excess bass hangs around until it fades out, in the meantime muddying up the bass. So you pay big money for GIK trying to soak up the excess bass you paid big money to create with the EQ. This is the old school solution still being promoted by people who can’t be bothered to learn something new.

Buy whatever sub puts out the most bass for the money. Buy as many of them as you can afford. Put them in different locations around the room. Point them whatever direction you like. Just so there’s at least four of em.