What process did you use to integrate multiple subwoofers for 2 channel listening?

@hilde45 , thanks for your answers. You’ve obviously worked very hard on this and your results really are quite good, which makes that 88 Hz peak stick out like a sore thumb all the moreso!

Might it be a floor-to-ceiling mode? Do you have a lower than normal ceiling?

At any rate, here are a few ideas:

- I agree with @erik_squires that THIS is the sort of thing EQ is good at fixing (bass traps too, but I think EQ would be more cost-effective).

- You might try placing the Salks (very nice speakers, by the way) about six feet out from the wall behind them, which will result in the low frequency reflection off that wall arriving ½ wavelength behind the front wave at 88 Hz, hopefully providing some useful cancellation.

- Place one of your subs near the Salks. Run it up high enough that its output overlaps with the Salks in that 88 Hz region, and then adjust the phase control until the sub is CANCELLING the Salks enough in that region to make the peak live-with-able. If you can’t get the cancellation you need going from 0 to 180 degrees, then use the speaker-level inputs on that sub (if you aren’t already) and reverse the polarity of the signal going to them, such than now your phase control is effectively doing 180-360 degrees. You may need to do this overlap/cancellation trick with more than one of your subs, and/or you may need to use the parametric EQ in one or more of your subs to enhance the cancellation effect.

- The contribution from the Salks across the bass region may result in too much net bass energy before you can fully take advantage of what the subs can do. If so, stuff some open-cell foam in the slot ports of the Salks to disrupt the airflow, turning the box into an aperiodic enclosure. If this is a net benefit, you can look forward to further hours of audiophile fun as you fine-tune the foam-in-the-slots. 

- Another way to reduce the contribution of the Salks in the bass region is to wire a small capacitor in series with the amplifier’s input, perhaps by performing amateur surgery on an inexpensive interconnect. You can use an online first order highpass filter calculator, substituting the amplifier’s input impedance where the tweeter’s impedance would normally go. You will probably have some trial-and-error chasing down the best capacitor value.  (Maybe your system already has an easier way to roll off the bottom end of the Salks, but if so I overlooked it.)

- As a ballpark rule of thumb for a distributed multi-sub system (I avoid using the otherwise-convenient term “DBA” because it can also mean “Double Bass Array”, which is something very different), you want to get the subs spaced as widely apart as you reasonably can while distrbuted in as many dimensions as you reasonably can. My mentor Earl Geddes finds two subs are much better than one, and three subs are much better than two, and four subs are an improvement over three but not by as much. So imo you are definitely playing the distrubuted multisub game already! If you can elevate one of the subs so that it is closer to the ceiling than to the floor, you get bonus points. This is one of the things that @hleeid did to get good results in his 11 x 13 foot room; I think he actually elevated three of the four Swarm subs, as that was more practical than the other way around in his room. In your case though, I would still keep at least one of the subs near the Salks if you try that overlap/cancellation thing. For any of the subs which are not near the Salks, and especially if they are physically closer to you than the Salks, you want to roll off their top ends lower and steeper, so they don’t betray their locations by passing upper-bass energy loud enough for you to hear. If that’s not possible, then imo ideally you’d want those other subs to be farther away from you than the Salks so that their output is not the first-arrival sound.

- In my experience it is usually beneficial for there to be some deliberate phase variation between the subs, so don’t be afraid to twiddle those phase controls. The effects of the phase controls are more subtle than the effects of the subs’ volume and low-pass frequency controls.

Hope there’s something useful in this.

Duke

@mijostyn
I'm not an electrical audio engineer by any means but have had lengthy conversations with a couple. And to my understanding -

It's the other way around.

Digital is machine code/computer code. Analog electrical signals are everywhere else. 

DSPs are doing more conversation from things that are all ready converted (from square waves to sine waves). I'm sorry I want as few conversations (between wave types) in my chain as possible; especially an extremely low quality converter down stream from my EXPENSIVE converter. 

Low frequencies are a pain and yes a DSP "makes things easy" because most people are not going to test their subs moving them a 1/4 inch and changing distance between the floor and yes a 1/4" movement can make a difference with a sub just as it can with the mains.

Do "car" guys not know how to change their oil?

To me (and I want to make this completely clear) using DSP in MY system is taking my car in to get an oil change. Many people can and do choose to use a DSP; I'm only saying that there are alternatives to spending money and adding to the chain. Other peoples priorities are different than mine. If he decides to use one good for him, that works for him, if he decides to not use one, good for him.

But for the vast majority of people to say that DSP is the ONLY way is just completely ignorant. 

@audiokinesis 

Thank you, thank you! for your help. I'm saving this email and printing it out.

Here's the result of my work before your advice, over the course of the day. It's the top slide on my system page: https://systems.audiogon.com/systems/9064/edit

Might it be a floor-to-ceiling mode? Do you have a lower than normal ceiling?

Oh definitely. 6.5' ceilings. I told this to Dennis Foley and he said, bluntly, "Get another room." Sigh.

Thanks for the compliment on the Salks! When I did extensive speaker placement analysis (with the help of brownsfan) I found that 6'4" from front wall was optimal. Today, I've added a few inches more and had some luck with that. But the bass hump ain't moving much. A little but not enough. Nulls still painfully deep.

I'll try that overlap cancellation thing. Had not considered it. The Rythmiks use a line-in RCA so not sure how to manage that with them. The Rel seems easy enough.

I'll try stuffing some foam in those beautiful front ports.

I am a bit daunted by the idea of wiring a capicitor but it is probably easier than I imaging. I'll save this email for future reference.

Good to know that 3 gets me in the ballpark. I was under the impression that the idea was "Get 4 or go home."

I'll try to elevate one of the subs....closer to the ceiling. If you know a good orthopedist, that might come in handy.

There is one sub presently closer to me than the speakers. I'll try to roll off the top ends lower and steeper on that one.

I'm glad you mentioned deliberate phase variation between the subs; I was worried about keeping them symmetrical, but since the room is going to be different where each is, that assumption doesn't really make sense.

How high are you crossing the subs? Looks like it drops between 90hz and 500hz and another big dip between 2khz and 10khz. What does a measurement without subs look like? 

@djones51 In the image I posted yesterday -- which I didn’t label specifically enough -- the orange "morning" line is speakers only.

Improvement from "Morning scan, without subs" to "Afternoon scan, with subs" mitigates the dip significantly at various points, e.g. pulling up a null by 10 db at 129 hz, by 8 db at 241hz. At other points, the later scan makes some things worse, but overall, the subs were helping.

Morning scan, there's another big dip between 2khz and 10khz. Afternoon scan mitigates that by a very large amount (varying, but up to 7 db mitigation).