Help me understand "the swarm" in the broader audiophile world

While I hesitate to add to this "hornet's nest" of a discussion, I will say this.  I've been an audio hobbyist since the mid-60s when I put together my first stereo system building Dynakits.  That included reading Audio, Stereo Review, and High Fidelity, popular print magazines of the day.  I don't recall seeing the term "swarm" relating to anything in audio until I read Duke's site decades later.  And then, while applying the term, he credited the concept to design engineer Earl Geddes.

There was another insect-related application of the word more than 20 years ago in San Diego.  There someone started an informal car club called "The Yellow Swarm".  That invited owners of yellow cars to meet up for weekend tours, all makes welcome from Fiats to Ferraris.

But unfortunately here things have gone far off track from answering the OP's original question of why there has not been broader adoption of the Swarm concept?  That answer seems obvious.  General consumer interest (not the dedicated few) has diminished for multi-channel and large speaker set ups.  Even shoe box size is too large.  Tiny cubes and even wireless seems to be in demand.  It's no wonder that two main speakers and four subs are not of interest except for the dedicated few.  ;^)

It’s no wonder that two main speakers and four subs are not of interest except for the dedicated few. ;^)

I just bought an M&K sub for my bedroom system. I found it on craigslist for $150.00 which seemed fine to me and it works well. But its nearly three times the size of one of Duke’s Swarm subs. One of my rules of the bedroom system is that it be entirely on the cheap but if I were to be using the Swarm in there it would actually be easier. This is because my room has plenty of places to place Duke’s subs as they are meant to be against the wall, and they can go places I can’t put that M&K.


Its a matter of time; what we are seeing here is that the science is well ahead of the tradition, and tradition is a rather slow-moving beast. But if a thinking person sees that tradition is that way solely out of tradition, they will instantly see the advantages that the science offers. This is really demonstrated in spades with the Swarm.

Hello paulburnett,

     I have no doubt a single sub can provide good bass response performance and integration with the main speakers, at a single designated listening seat, provided the single sub is precisely and optimally positioned in the room and in relation to the designated listening seat, the single sub is of sufficiently high quality, has the necessary three controls for level, crossover frequency and continuously variable phase and that all three controls are properly set. I know this with certainty because I’ve previously used a high quality single sub in my room and system with good results.
     My main intent of this post is to state with clarity for the benefit of readers of this thread, and not primarily for yourself, that based on my experience there are typically distinct advantages gained from utilizing 2 or more subs in most rooms.
     Two of the usual advantages perceived, beginning with the utilization of 2 subs, are more powerful and realistic bass power and bass dynamics. This is due to bass being cumulative in a room and doubling the subs not only increases the overall bass power and impact along with increased reserve power for realistic bass dynamics, it also improves the perceived quality and sense of ease of the bass since both subs are operating well below their limits and at low distortion. Other usual advantages perceived through the use of 2 or more subs are increased bass accuracy, smoothness, speed, detail and integration with the main speakers.
     I don’t completely understand why you didn’t perceive these usual bass performance advantages of utilizing 2 subs as opposed to a single sub in your room and system. However, I think it’s important to note that just because you were unable to perceive these typical performance advantages of utilizing multiple subs in your room and system, this has very little relevance in regards to whether others will be able to perceive these advantages in their rooms and systems. My belief is that many will perceive the advantages as obvious and significant. My suggestion is that those interested should try both a single and a pair of subs in their systems and decide for themselves.
     I do understand the more practical concerns of a smaller room, WAF and a lack of space for 2 or more subs. Based on my personal experience being able to accommodate 4 (1’x1’x28") subs in my 23’x16’ room, I no longer consider such concerns, that I also initially shared, as deal breakers. I think it’s more a matter of priorities, having the will for better bass performance and being sufficiently creative with room decor solutions.
     I can also state with certainty that it’s well worth the effort if you decide to give it a try and make it work.

Tim

I’ve waited three days for @sounds_real_audio to clarify his post above, and I think that’s long enough. So I’m going to reply to some of the things he said:

“The "swarm" is actually an 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 manufacturers, focused on the bass”

I do no think "swarm" is an "old term" in this context. To the best of my knowledge, I am the first person to use the term “swarm” to describe a distributed multi-sub system, dating from the spring of 2006 when I named my four-piece subwoofer system “the Swarm”.

To the best of my knowledge I am still the ONLY manufacturer who uses the word “swarm” to refer to his product, so I assume your post is directed at me.

And I have NEVER said or even implied that bass matters more than midrange. Show me ONE post where I have. If I have written about bass in threads about subwoofers, that’s because bass was the topic at hand.

"A conspiracy yes.”

FALSE, and I’m being charitable to use that word instead of another. Show me ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that I have engaged in ANY conspiracy. The word "conspiracy" implies deception and dishonesty. I do not appreciate the accusation. Can you back it up? Of course not.

“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.”

Again you are implying that I’m ignoring the midrange. Obviously I don’t talk about the rest of the spectrum in threads about bass and subwoofers. If this is your main objection, it’s really weak. And if you ACTUALLY ARE open to learning something about how to get the rest of the spectrum right, start a thread about it and I’ll post.

And if we "improve the bass" it DOES NOT FOLLOW that we "will still not have that rich and satisfying midrange which is where the music is". The one DOES NOT not preclude the other.

Duke

Mr. Karsten --

One obvious advantage is that with four subs for a given volume as opposed to two, each driver will have less excursion.

All things being equal, yes, but my advocacy with pairs of subs (or even more of them) is using very large subs - i.e.: no less than 15" drivers for horns and +18" multiples for direct radiator designs, in either case dictating very large enclosures. Initially, before deciding on a pair of 15"-loaded tapped horn subs, I did consider 4 smaller (but not ’small’ by any means) tapped horns with 10" drivers for a DBA set-up, but different circumstances (like lack of availability of proper drivers for the given TH design) had me choose my current 2 x 20 cubic feet TH configuration, with the option to build two more of them in a future scenario - crazy it may seem; remember, a 15" tapped horn loaded sub roughly translates into something like 2 x 18" direct radiators, and with just two such subs the driver cones rarely get to move more than a few mm’s even at close to war volume. In fact 2 x 18" units in a DR design move visible more than a single 15" in a tapped horn for a perceived similar SPL, and less cone movement for a given SPL is what we want. I guess what I’m saying is that with bass capacity of this magnitude even pairs will give the advantage of prodigious headroom.