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? 


northman
Mine is not likely typical. I tried to integrate subwoofers with Magnepan 0.7's and the subwoofer or pair of them always call attention to themselves without integrating into Magnepans. I wanted a more full bodied bass and I now use a pair of DWM's. My amplifier output transformers have taps at ground (for safety because the tubes run at 1 kV) 4 Ohms to which I connect the 0.7 : negative to ground and positive to the 4 Ohm tap, and the DWM "woofer" elements connected negative of one of them to the 8 Ohm tap, positive of said element to negative element of the second element of the same DWM (two 4 Ohm elements in series) and positive of the second element to the 16 Ohm tap. If you use an SET to work with Magnepans it takes an AM radio station transmitter tube such as an 833A.But I have heard subwoofers demonstrated at a high end store with dynamic element speakers and they improved the sense of image. My guess is a swarm might work with dynamic cone speakers.
This is actually an excellent summation

FIFY.

There is no "if" and, or but. Its excellent, period.

You're wrong about the 2 seats. The problem with fewer subs, yes you can get good bass at one or two places- but only by having too much elsewhere. The excess energy in these areas as it dissipates muddies the bass everywhere in the room. This is one reason DBA bass is so clean and articulate.

You're wrong about the expense. DBA is actually the cheapest most cost effective solution. Yes you can spend a lot but the beauty of it is you can have truly awesome bass easily and for under $3k.

There's nothing snooty, hilarious, or sad about it. Your response, I mean. Just another failed put-down. Tiresome, is what I'd call it.
M-db wrote: " Duke is a Bassist? "  

I manufacture bass guitar speaker cabinets and sometimes that gives the impression that I'm a bass player.  But I'm not.  

" Who's you're hero, inspiration? " 

One need not be a bass player to be inspired by Geddy Lee. 

Duke
@millercarbon --

FIFY.

There is no "if" and, or but. Its excellent, period.

You're impervious to views countering yours - not much of a debate in that, only dictation leveled from one to the other. One thing is for sure: you love your own story. 

You're wrong about the 2 seats. The problem with fewer subs, yes you can get good bass at one or two places- but only by having too much elsewhere. The excess energy in these areas as it dissipates muddies the bass everywhere in the room. This is one reason DBA bass is so clean and articulate.

And yet, as stated earlier, we're several to prefer the presentation from 2 big subs vs. 4 smaller DBA's. In some cases this approach calls for mild PEQ and/or room treatment, but in either case it has been the preferred scenario. I'd cherish 2 more big subs like the ones I already have, but - as I've written earlier - space doesn't presently permit. 

You're wrong about the expense. DBA is actually the cheapest most cost effective solution. Yes you can spend a lot but the beauty of it is you can have truly awesome bass easily and for under $3k.

There's nothing snooty, hilarious, or sad about it. Your response, I mean. Just another failed put-down. Tiresome, is what I'd call it.

What are you rambling about? On the contrary I'm speaking in defense of DBA - read again:

"Let's be clear: what you're getting at is, essentially, spot on. The physics part of subs integration with a DBA gets annoyingly in the way of the audiophile snooty approach that loves what's more expensive is also necessarily better. It's hilarious as it is sad."