Ime when it comes to low bass, the elephant in the room is the room. No matter how flat the subwoofer starts out, the room will superimpose its effects. We can change the room-imposed peak-and-dip pattern by moving the sub and/or moving our listening position, but we cannot make it go away. It is impossible to find a location for a single sub that provides approximately flat response in the sweet spot, much less elsewhere in the room.
Distributed multiple subs offers an elegant solution, each sub being in a different location and therefore generating a different peak-and-dip pattern, but the sum of several such dissimilar patterns will be vastly smoother than any one alone. Instead of a few big peaks and dips that are quite audible, we end up with more, smaller, closer-spaced peaks and dips, and the subjective improvement is even greater than we might expect because (at low frequencies) the ear/brain system will average out peaks and dips that are within about 1/3 octave of each other.
While it's possible to equalize a single sub to be flat at the microphone location, its response will be far from flat at other locations within the room. A distributed multisub system significantly reduces the spatial variation in response, such that the difference from one location to another is greatly reduced. If further EQ is needed, it is likely addressing gentle global problems, rather than acute local ones.
As a general rule of thumb, two subs have about half as much variation in in-room response as a single sub, and four subs have about half as much in-room response variation as two subs (assuming they're spread around somewhat). Smooth bass = fast bass, because it is the excess energy in peaks that makes a subwoofer sound slow (the ear/brain system having poor time-domain resolution at low frequencies, it is the frequency response that dominates our perception). Also, smooth bass = powerful bass, because we're likely to set the average level of the subwoofer lower than it should be if the response has distracting peaks that stick out like sore thumbs.
Dipoles have smoother in-room upper bass than monopoles do, so the discrepancy between two dipole mains and a single monopole sub is greater than what we get with conventional main speakers. If you read accounts of people who have tried subs with dipole speakers, it seems like most people who try a single sub eventually give up because they can hear the discrepancy. Most people who try two subs keep them, because they don't hear much discrepancy. Three or four subs would be better still, and they can be small subs.
I spent several years trying to design a super subwoofer that was "fast enough" to keep up with Quads and Maggies while offering good extension and impact. I tried sealed, transmission line, dipole, isobaric, aperiodic, and more. Then a conversation with Earl Geddes changed everything, and I'm now an advocate of distributed multiple subs, in particular for use with dipole mains. I'm using his ideas with his permission.
Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.
Duke
dealer/manufacturer
Distributed multiple subs offers an elegant solution, each sub being in a different location and therefore generating a different peak-and-dip pattern, but the sum of several such dissimilar patterns will be vastly smoother than any one alone. Instead of a few big peaks and dips that are quite audible, we end up with more, smaller, closer-spaced peaks and dips, and the subjective improvement is even greater than we might expect because (at low frequencies) the ear/brain system will average out peaks and dips that are within about 1/3 octave of each other.
While it's possible to equalize a single sub to be flat at the microphone location, its response will be far from flat at other locations within the room. A distributed multisub system significantly reduces the spatial variation in response, such that the difference from one location to another is greatly reduced. If further EQ is needed, it is likely addressing gentle global problems, rather than acute local ones.
As a general rule of thumb, two subs have about half as much variation in in-room response as a single sub, and four subs have about half as much in-room response variation as two subs (assuming they're spread around somewhat). Smooth bass = fast bass, because it is the excess energy in peaks that makes a subwoofer sound slow (the ear/brain system having poor time-domain resolution at low frequencies, it is the frequency response that dominates our perception). Also, smooth bass = powerful bass, because we're likely to set the average level of the subwoofer lower than it should be if the response has distracting peaks that stick out like sore thumbs.
Dipoles have smoother in-room upper bass than monopoles do, so the discrepancy between two dipole mains and a single monopole sub is greater than what we get with conventional main speakers. If you read accounts of people who have tried subs with dipole speakers, it seems like most people who try a single sub eventually give up because they can hear the discrepancy. Most people who try two subs keep them, because they don't hear much discrepancy. Three or four subs would be better still, and they can be small subs.
I spent several years trying to design a super subwoofer that was "fast enough" to keep up with Quads and Maggies while offering good extension and impact. I tried sealed, transmission line, dipole, isobaric, aperiodic, and more. Then a conversation with Earl Geddes changed everything, and I'm now an advocate of distributed multiple subs, in particular for use with dipole mains. I'm using his ideas with his permission.
Imo, ime, ymmv, etc.
Duke
dealer/manufacturer