2. speakers
  3. 159915-139027

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
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
11,844 posts
 
for those wanting to take the bar even higher a bigger scale will be advantageous.
IME what this often means has something to do with sound pressure. Certainly its no worries building subs that go deeper, can do greater sound pressure and the like. But I've seen the Swarm do quite well; in a nutshell, what it allows you to do is in most rooms set up a system where the bass will be superlative. So this in turn allows you to set up a system on a variety of budgets that really can be state of the art in terms of resolution, since the mains really don't have to go below 60Hz.
phusis's avatar
phusis
1,211 posts
 
IME what this often means has something to do with sound pressure.

That's certainly the potential of a scaled-up sub system (i.e.: added SPL capacity through bigger air radiation area/higher sensitivity/ability to take more power and larger overall size), yes, but it's not the goal per se or rather as much as that which relates to added headroom; performance gains at a similar SPL compared to a smaller/less powerful system due to less cone movement and wattage put through the voice coils, and therefore less distortion and cleaner bass. That's the prevailing logic of (more) headroom, and it's far overlooked in audiophilia in general as large size (and very high SPL capabilities) are usually scoffed at, otherwise deemed undesirable (i.e.: WAF, interior decoration) or ridiculed for being overkill. 
mijostyn's avatar
mijostyn
8,570 posts
 
It is very hard to overkill subwoofers. The larger the driver the lower the distortion all other parameters being equal. Certainly with more subwoofers you can get away with smaller drivers but still. The larger drivers require larger enclosures which may be a cosmetic problem. As Ralph implied the best place to put subwoofers is in a corner or against a wall for a number of reasons. The problem becomes timing them so that they are in phase with the satellites and the wavefront from the subs and satellites reaches you at the same time. This is not so easy. In trying to match satellites without a high pass filter ridiculously low cross out points are being used. It is easier to integrate a subwoofer with higher crossover points 100 to 125 Hz. It is much easier to hear when the drivers are in phase. This requires at least two subs and a 2 way crossover. I have not used random placement around the room so I really can not comment on that type of setup. My 4 subs are arranged symmetrically around the satellites. I use digital bass management and can change crossover points and delay on the run so I can hear the differences immediately which is a big help with setup. There are several units available now that do this. The result is that you can not tell there are subs in the system until a real low note comes along and I am matching subs to dipole ESLs
As several people have mentioned on this forum, rolling off the satellites lowers distortion in them and increases head room by as much as 10 dB. 
sounds_real_audio
1,014 posts
 
The " swarm" is actually and old term that was used to convince music lovers who were not happy with the sound of their system, in particular  the midrange which was so lacking in most speakers. To deflect away from that they, the manufactures, focused on the bass, which as most of us know or should realize by now is so difficult to reproduce in a three way box without screwing up the overall sound. So now the swarm is a way of placating our type A male designer to have gut wrenching bass from a speaker. A conspiracy yes. Has it convinced anyone, yes it has. Does it make your system sound better, well perhaps, the bass may improve but you will still not have that rich and satisfying midrange which is where the music is. 
audiokinesis
2,743 posts
 
@sounds_real_audio wrote:

"The " swarm" is actually an old term..."

Really?

I am not aware of the term "Swarm" being an "old term", as you claim. I began using it in 2006 as the name for my four-piece distributed multi-sub system. Were others using the term in this context before me?

"... that was used to convince music lovers who were not happy with the sound of their system, in particular the midrange which was so lacking in most speakers. To deflect away from that they, the manufacturers, focused on the bass... A conspiracy yes."

It sounds to me like you are saying that I am trying to deflect attention away from inadequacy in the midrange and convince music lovers to focus on the bass. And that this is a "conspiracy" on my part. (Though you did not call me out by name, I don’t see how you could be talking about anyone but me, since I’m the only manufacturer who uses the term "swarm".)

If I have misunderstood you, please clarify. I’d like to reply to your post, but first want to make sure I’m not misunderstanding you.  

Duke
More to discover