Are two smaller subs better than one larger?

I went from one large to two smaller ones and prefer the pair by a large margin. The biggest improvement for me was in the soundstage rather than just in bass quality. My system is for music only, no HT.

For HT one might be better but best for HT is the third one:-)

Great replies so far, folks. I'm specifically think about adding either two Martin Logan Depths or one Descent to my Martin Logan Spires. Home theater is not involved, just pure two channel sound.

Or, I am also considering the JL audio F112 or F113. Recommendations?

Three notes/Three caveats:

Caveat #1: Your budget is sufficient to buy 2 very high quality "small" subs - call that +/- $1500.

Note #1: A single large sub will usually provide great maximum output for a given distortion level than will two smaller subs. This observation is based on pretty extensive review of subwoofer test data.

Note #2: You can (in the vast majority of cases) achieve smoother bass response with 2 carefully placed subs (large or small) than you can with a single sub (large or small).

Caveat #2: If you're using digital room correction (e.g. Audyssey) in an AVR or Pre-Pro, you can smooth FR with the EQ.

Note #3: If you cross high enough you will need to maintain stereo integrity so 2 subs will be required.

Caveat #3: IME, few people will cross to the subs at a high enough frequency (>100ish hz) to make this concern audible (to me). Others claim that the effect is audible at a lower frequency, so this is a YMMV kind of deal.

Marty

PS If you wish to go with 2 subs for purposes of maintaining stereo integrity, make sure that your x-over will allow this. To my knowledge, very few AVRs or Pre-Pros (even those with dual sub outputs) are set up this way.