One sub or two?

This has been gone over many times, check the archives. One is good, two is better. I went from one REL to 2; REL recommends two. How on earth Phase could declare "the bass wave from one sub will be more than adequate" is beyond me. As if all subs had the same bass wave and all rooms and tastes were the same. One may well do but 2 will be better in most rooms.

Bass wave is simply frequency generated...and your listening position will be within a wave...which can be 20-30ft or more in dimension...point being...if one is already surrounded by a bass wave...the addition of another sub is not going to add or improve bass...unless you have an extremely large space...or a space with some odd configurations...the benefit of two subs could be applied to one superior one...just my .02...

Take out the doubt and experience it !!! There are far to many variables to know if one or two subs are better in your room just try it both ways and let us know your outcome. Good Luck

Two subs provide a lot more flexibility. It may be easier to place two small subs (two 9" cubes in my 2-channel system) than one larger one. Two can help break up room nodes that cause standing waves. Improperly done two subs could be out of phase and cancel out the lowest notes, but properly done they will reinforce each other. For a good, coherent stereo image, the sub(s) should be in a consistent geometrical relationship with the listener and the main speakers. With a single sub you are often limited to a narrow range of ideal listening positions. Two subs make it easier to maintain a consistent geometry throughout the room.

A second sub also adds at least another 3 dB dynamic range.

I have two subs in both my 2-channel analog living room system and the 7.2 channel HT rig down in the family room. In each case there was a noticeable improvement in the clarity, imaging, and dynamic range when I added the second sub.

Two subs are better. No question about it. I've tried it both ways.