It pressurizes the room more evenly and helps avoid or minimize in-room bass anomalies. Plus, each sub doesn’t need to work as hard to produce the same bass. I don’t know anyone here who prefers one sub compared to two, so take that for what it’s worth. Best of luck.
Your experience of moving to two subs
Hi all, I have a 2.1 system with the sub sounding best in the center between the loudspeakers. My speakers have substantial, deep, and detailed bass for their size and with the SS amp I’ve chosen. Thus, the sub’s optimal crossover setting is only at about 28hz. I have plenty of bass amplitude going on -- don’t need "more" bass.
I’m wondering about soundstage effects of having two subs on the outsides of my speakers, though. Having my sub in the center does result in some apparent compression of the low frequencies towards the low-center area. The L and R channels from my preamp are combined at my sub. I know some people may disagree and think that the source of frequencies below 60hz can’t be located by human hearing, but my experience tells me differently.
Does anyone have an opinion on the benefits of 2 subs vs only 1 when there’s no need for more bass oompf?
- ...
- 66 posts total
The oomph is not the goal for me, either. The goal is evenness, tightness, naturalness. It's like having a room with two vents for heating/cooling rather than one. It is about distribution of waves, in either case. Guessing about subs is an infinite project. I suggest a umik and REW and some time spent measuring. If your subs have adjustable phase, like my Rythmiks, that will help a lot. Sometimes subs need to interact in certain ways to create evenness. Adjustable phase makes that much easier. |
@hilde45 Is 100% correct. "The oomph is not the goal ...... The goal is evenness, tightness, naturalness." My findings indicate that two subs are better than one and four subs are better than two.
|
- 66 posts total