Many of the issues addressed by multi-subwoofer setups are also addressed by dipole bass designs. Dipole systems may not go as deep, but they can be more accurate.
Help me understand "the swarm" in the broader audiophile world
I'm still fairly new out here and am curious about this Swarm thing. I've never owned a subwoofer but I find reading about them--placement, room treatments, nodes, the crawl, etc--fascinating. I'm interested in the concept of the Swarm and the DEBRA systems, and I have a very specific question. The few times I've been in high-end, audiophile stores and asked about the concept of the Swarm, I've tended to get some eye-rolling. They're selling single or paired subwoofers that individually often cost more and sometimes much more than a quartet of inexpensive, modest subs. The same thing can be said for many speaker companies that make both speakers and subs; it's not like I see Vandersteen embracing the use of four Sub 3's.
My question is this: do in fact high-end stores embrace the concept of multiple, inexpensive subs? If not, cynicism aside, why not? Or why doesn't Vandersteen or JL or REL and so on design their own swarm? For those out here who love multiple subs, is it a niche thing? Is it a certain kind of sound that is appealing to certain ears? The true believers proselytize with such zeal that I find it intriguing and even convincing, and yet it's obviously a minority of listeners who do it, even those who have dedicated listening rooms. (I'm talking about the concept of four+ subs, mixed and matched, etc. I know plenty of folks who embrace two subs. And I may be wrong about all my assumptions here--really.)
Now, one favor, respectfully: I understand the concept and don't need to be convinced of why it's great. That's all over literally every post on this forum that mentions the word "sub." I'm really interested in why, as far as I can tell, stores and speaker companies (and maybe most audiophile review sites?) mostly don't go for it--and why, for that matter, many audiophiles don't either (putting aside the obvious reason of room limits). Other than room limitations, why would anyone buy a single JL or REL or Vandy sub when you could spend less and get ... the swarm?
My question is this: do in fact high-end stores embrace the concept of multiple, inexpensive subs? If not, cynicism aside, why not? Or why doesn't Vandersteen or JL or REL and so on design their own swarm? For those out here who love multiple subs, is it a niche thing? Is it a certain kind of sound that is appealing to certain ears? The true believers proselytize with such zeal that I find it intriguing and even convincing, and yet it's obviously a minority of listeners who do it, even those who have dedicated listening rooms. (I'm talking about the concept of four+ subs, mixed and matched, etc. I know plenty of folks who embrace two subs. And I may be wrong about all my assumptions here--really.)
Now, one favor, respectfully: I understand the concept and don't need to be convinced of why it's great. That's all over literally every post on this forum that mentions the word "sub." I'm really interested in why, as far as I can tell, stores and speaker companies (and maybe most audiophile review sites?) mostly don't go for it--and why, for that matter, many audiophiles don't either (putting aside the obvious reason of room limits). Other than room limitations, why would anyone buy a single JL or REL or Vandy sub when you could spend less and get ... the swarm?
- ...
- 188 posts total
Many systems have a relatively small “sweet spot”. Adding a swarm might distribute the bass across the room better but the rest is largely directional and best heard in that sweet spot. You only need one sub to get the bass filled very well typically in a single listening spot. Audio Kinesis (Duke) is also very knowledgeable and big on sound dispersion in general and I believe tries to enlarge that sweet spot with his designs. When that is the case ( a larger sweet listening area) the case for a more evenly distributed bass is also better. Someone mentioned dipole speakers being less susceptible to bass nodes. I use Ohm Walsh speakers which are pseudo-omnidirectional (very wide but controlled dispersion with all but the highest frequencies) with a vertically mounted bass driver and that approach too seems to do well in of itself so speaker design is also a factor for how well bass gets distributed. |
Hmm well another advantage of the Ohms is it’s coherent design using the proprietary CLS (coherent line source) Walsh-style driver. https://ohmspeaker.com/technology/ |
Ay carumba! The rear output of a dipole sub (or woofer, or any driver, in fact) being in polarity opposite to that of the front is inherent in all dipole woofers. The reason for that is obvious. The rear wave coming back to the woofer after it bounces off the wall behind it needs to be timed (1 ft. = approximately 1 ms.) so that the front and rear waves are in phase by the time they reach the listening location. There is a side null created on either side of the dipole sub frame, where the front and back waves---being opposite in polarity---cancel each other, just as they do in all dipole loudspeakers (ESL’s, Maggies and ET’s, etc.). This prevents the dipole sub from exciting the room's width dimension modes. The A370 plate amp used in the Rythmik/GR Research OB/Dipole Sub includes a continuously-variable phase control providing phase rotation from 0 degrees (0 ms) to 180 degrees (16 ms). This makes possible locating the OB/Dipole Sub optimized for all considerations other than phase, then using the phase control to optimize the phase between the sub and the loudspeakers. The phase rotation mimics moving the sub physically. |
- 188 posts total