AVS Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,576 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Are there any potential performance or integration negatives to opting for a tri set of identical (ported or sealed) subs placed at the front and rear of a room vs a pair or quad set? Has anyone encountered any issues with running a single nearfield sub with duals placed near mains? After a search of the subject I have only encountered the occasional "subs should be in pairs" statement with no objective rationale other than possibly localization of the mid bass from the nearfield sub.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,935 Posts
Are there any potential performance or integration negatives to opting for a tri set of identical (ported or sealed) subs placed at the front and rear of a room vs a pair or quad set? Has anyone encountered any issues with running a single nearfield sub with duals placed near mains? After a search of the subject I have only encountered the occasional "subs should be in pairs" statement with no objective rationale other than possibly localization of the mid bass from the nearfield sub.
Hi Rob,

I have 3 Submersive HP's. Two are placed equidistant to the MLP, while the 3rd is closer. I have the two equidistant subs on the Sub1 output of my pre/pro and the 3rd sub on Sub2. Audyssey XT32 sets different distances for the Sub1 and Sub2 outputs. This system works phenomenal. I could not be happier. In fact, I am "done" with my subwoofer journey. I have a few other things I may address in my HT at some point in the future, (4k projector, Atmos overheads, etc.) but subs are finished. Improvement on this system is not possible, at least for my needs.

Good luck with your journey! :)

Craig
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,576 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Thanks for the replies. I have a feeling that some of the posts I've run across stating either SVS or Ed Mullen recommends subs be in pairs comes from this old post . In other words, it is likely being misinterpreted. I could be wrong though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,935 Posts
Thanks for the replies. I have a feeling that some of the posts I've run across stating either SVS or Ed Mullen recommends subs be in pairs comes from this old post . In other words, it is likely being misinterpreted. I could be wrong though.
I don't see anything incorrect in that post from Ed Mullen. He's one of the smartest subwoofer guys on the planet. I also don't see anything in that post that would appear to be a recommendation of subs only in pairs or even numbers.

Craig
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,576 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
I don't see anything incorrect in that post from Ed Mullen. He's one of the smartest subwoofer guys on the planet. I also don't see anything in that post that would appear to be a recommendation of subs only in pairs or even numbers.

Craig

I agree but I think it has been misstated by others that they or he recommends pairs instead of odd sets when in fact he is only stating the objective gains that come as each pair is added. I say this because I recently read a post, either here or possibly on another forum or FB group, where someone stated that they would not add a single sub to a pair because of SVS' recommendation. Now I'm going to have to search my office computer's history to find the post :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,576 Posts
Discussion Starter #8 (Edited)
Craig, is your third sub placed close to the MLP or is it further off (in corner, etc)? Also, I'm still considering returning the second PB13 Ultra and opting for the set of Submersives. I guess the HP+ would be incentive to go quad subs considering the cost of a fourth sub (slave unit).



Edit: Just found this thread. It's an example of what i came across when searching the topic, though this one clearly defeats the idea that there is an inherent issue with using three subs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,755 Posts
Craig, is your third sub placed close to the MLP or is it further off (in corner, etc)? Also, I'm still considering returning the second PB13 Ultra and opting for the set of Submersives. I guess the HP+ would be incentive to go quad subs considering the cost of a fourth sub (slave unit).



Edit: Just found this thread. It's an example of what i came across when searching the topic, though this one clearly defeats the idea that there is an inherent issue with using three subs.


Don't know what your budget is but if you are considering SubM's you might want to wait for a little bit and consider the SubM XL's. Per Mark, they are going to debut at AXPONA this month.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,935 Posts
Craig, is your third sub placed close to the MLP or is it further off (in corner, etc)
I moved the left front sub to the left side wall. As it is now, the right front sub and the right rear sub are equidistant to the MLP. The left front sub is closer. I have the RF and RR subs connected to Sub1 output and the LS sub on Sub2 output. The Sub1 and Sub2 outputs have different Distance settings which results in them being time aligned at the MLP.

Also, I'm still considering returning the second PB13 Ultra and opting for the set of Submersives. I guess the HP+ would be incentive to go quad subs considering the cost of a fourth sub (slave unit).
Quad SubM's is an AWESOME system. I've heard it in audioguy's system and it is the best bass I've ever heard. My system with 3 SubM's sounds virtually the same, with *slightly* less headroom. I have another friend with just one SubM. It sounds incredible as well. I don't think you can go wrong with SubM's. :)

Edit: Just found this thread. It's an example of what i came across when searching the topic, though this one clearly defeats the idea that there is an inherent issue with using three subs.
Yeah, that was an interesting thread. ;)

Craig
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top