Vandersteen Sub woofers v Rythmik Subs

Hi enginedr1960,

     I'm glad you responded on this thread.  And thanks for reminding me that you're the other user on this forum, that I couldn't recall the user ID of, who also uses a distributed bass array system with 4 subs.Your bass system details, experiences and opinions are all valuable contributions to this discussion.

     Your custom distributed bass array system, using the DSPeaker antimode 2.0  to electronically control crossover and room correction, is a bit more complex and sophisticated than my all in one Swarm system that utilizes the sub amp's built in crossover (with my panel mains running full frequency) and precise sub positioning instead of any DSP or room correction.

     I think it's important that readers of this thread realize that very good in room bass response is attainable using either method.  Having no experience using the DSPeaker or room correction of any kind, I know I'm not qualified to declare that either method is superior.  It seems like we both have achieved excellent perceived bass responses in our individual rooms using different methods, with the only common denominator being 4 subs.  

Hi lewnskiH01,

      It's very appropriate that you mentioned Earl Gettes and his advocacy of multiple subs for achieving very good in room bass response in virtually any room.  His research and published white papers on the subject, along with the research and results of Floyd O'Toole and Todd Welti, formed the basis of my understanding and the actual performance potential of deploying multiple subs in a specific positioning method to achieve optimum bass response in any given room.  All of this supporting scientific research was crucial in my decision to buy and use the Swarm bass system in my home music and ht system. 

     However, I have the impression that the OP of this thread, bstatman, may prefer to use a more standard approach to attaining better bass response in his system such as 1 or 2 Vandersteen or Rhythmic subs.  
     If this is the case, I'd just like to say to him that I know it's still possible to achieve good bass response utilizing 1 or 2 conventional subs in his room provided he's satisfied with the good bass response being constrained to a single 'sweet spot'.  I'm certain of this because I've achieved good bass response at a specific listening position using both 1 and 2 good subs in my own and friends' systems.  

     Again, I would caution to use the positioning method I described in my second post on this thread:

1. Hookup your sub and place it at your desired listening position.
2. Play music that has good and repetitive bass.
3. Walk around your room in a systematic manner listening for an exact spot where the bass sounds the best to you.
4. Once this spot is located, reposition your sub to this exact spot.
5. To test results, sit at your designated listening position and repay the same music.
     As you would expect, bass response will be improved as additional subs are added to the room. 2 subs, properly positioned, will give better results than 1.

     In my experience, the Swarm 4 sub distributed bass array system will definitely perform better than either a 1 or 2 sub system. I perceived the 4 smaller sub Swarm system as sounding more accurate, natural, effortless and life-like for music while providing more weight, authority, impact and a bottomless quality to the bass on both music and ht.  These great bass qualities are also now perceived at all 6 seating positions in my room, not just at my single preferred listening 'sweet spot'.

      In retrospect, I believe the Swarm system has been the most significant and unmistakable upgrade I've ever made in my system.  I'll conclude my excessive praise of the distributed array concept and Swarm product by just sincerely claiming I don't think I can overstate how well they both perform.

Tim


      

Noble100 (Tim), indeed I also have Floyd Toole's Sound Reproduction and keep coming back to it for his research with multiple subs. A piece of work with learnings that take time to sink in - at least for me. 

I also agree there are multiple ways to get low bass right and we are probably overloading the OP with info about multiple subs when he's considering 1 or 2. For such a case I would seriously look into a DSPeaker unit to complement the sub/s, and go with 2 subs if budget allows, but still one well integrated sub is generally better than no sub (of course depends on the speakers at play, the sub, the patience, the willingness to learn, etc).

Looks just like 2wq. with more power and a new eq. Can't wait for some reviews. Thanks for posting that.

Hi audioconnection,

     I'm a bit confused by your last post.  You state: " What you guys need to consider is the thinking outside the box.
The Sub 3 nips your particular room overload in the bud with 11 band analog room compensation No DSP processers here.
 With its unique high pass or reliving the heavy lifting of your main amp allows your whole system to improve its articulation, dramatically improving transparency and clarity.". 
     From your description, the new Sub 3 seems like a very nice powered sub  that is a worthy replacement for the now discontinued  2Qw sub. However, I'm failing to grasp why you consider the use of the new Sub 3 as an example of 'thinking outside the box'.since it seems to be a very capable sub that nevertheless would likely be classified by most knowledgeable reviewers as a conventional sub. 
      I would think you would consider, as I do, that the use of a distributed bass array system like the Swarm is a more suitable example of 'thinking outside the box' than the seemingly much more conventional Vandersteen Sub 3. 
     Could you please clarify your statement about 'thinking outside the box' and specifically to which members your comment was directed toward?

Thanks,
  Tim

I know that Richard V. recommends corner placement of the 2wq's and I have had one room that corner placement worked well in. However in my current listening room (and the previous one) the bass is not good in the corners. Every room is different and in my "particular" room there is way to much low frequency reinforcement from the corners. It over loads the room with energy. Again dealing with smaller  (and odd shaped non symmetrical) rooms is challenging. Adding to the challenge is limited placement options for multiple large boxes with wires that need to be routed somehow.  WAF comes into play here (again). The current location inboard of the 3a sig's is the best location that I have come up with so far and sounds quite good for the moment but I'm not done experimenting yet. Those new Sub 3's have my attention though. Will be keeping an eye on them.

It's all a balancing act for sure. In an ideal situation we would all have large rectangular symmetrical rooms with high ceilings, constructed of musically good sounding material (because all rooms and all material have a "sound") That would minimize the problems we encounter. We could even design room acoustic treatment into the room. Again in an ideal situation we would have  purpose designed rooms. But most of us have to live with what we have and make the best of it with our limited resources, including time. For me this is a journey and I am still heading down the road and having fun with it.
 Another thought is from a manufactures point of view. Trying to design speakers that work well in all the wide variety of rooms that their designs will be asked to sound good in must be a daunting challenge.

Have a great day!