Stereo subs - Do they rock or is it overkill?

[DaveLadely]

Originally Posted by wes

Dave thank you now I understand is that true? I used your explanation to spread the word.

A bit simplified, but the closest analogy that I could find to illustrate the benefits/advantages for multiple subwoofers/speakers.

Overkill would be more relevant for a cost/benefit analysis. I have four subwoofers, front pair, rear pair, due to space/economic reasons. And you could say that i put some of the money saved from the cable/interconnect con game to put it where it would do infinitely more good. I say "infinitely" because any positive over zero equals infinity. I explain this on the interconnect forum, and published a dare of genuine blind testing for anyone to do who persists in their subjective "analysis" and subsequent "conclusions".

That cost/benefit problem also goes for amplifier power, when the 3 db "rule" is considered, whereby a perceptible increase in volume (about 3 db) requires an attendant doubling of power, all other things (distortions) being equal. That problem was my major impetus for being behind the introduction of the 700 watt Phase Linear amplifier in about 1969, a considerable "jump" instead of increase by increments, over the maximum consumer "state of the art" McIntosh and Marantz power amps of 150 watts stereo.

I am fairly happy with the subwoofers and speakers I have, considering the limitations of reality and practicality. Having heard the improvement from four subwoofers, I feel they were a worthwhile improvement. Speaker designer Arnie Nudel (Infinity, Genysis) actually recommended five subwoofers to me some years back. I knew he was right at the time, and proved him right.
Dave Ladely in Snohomish, WA DaveLadely@aol.com

[wes]

Originally Posted by DaveLadely

A bit simplified, but the closest analogy that I could find to illustrate the benefits/advantages for multiple subwoofers/speakers.

No questions the cable BS amuse me

May be except for fiber optic

[DaveLadely]

Originally Posted by finley

If I had the $$, I'd say "Why stop at only two?"...the more the better. One guy had 8 on each channel...now, that was awesome lows, but big dollars to buy and to drive.

No doubt! Hope the sound was balanced, unlike nearly all the automobile systems. Arnie Nudel recommended a subwoofer on each channel. Of course, each channel could have shared multiple subwoofers. I would hope the quality was there, too.
And, again, a cost/benefit consideration.
For me, when spending on luxuries that may garner me very little more personal satisfaction than I have obtained, I begin to think about such matters as social justice, the wilderness society, the Sierra Club, local charities, and start donating more. And I think more of such matters whenever I see man-child programs like Monster Truck exhibitions of insanely expensive man-toys, and I wonder about the sacrifices to families, nation, the world that are made in order to waste money and energy to support hundred thousand dollar male ego toys. I never see such childishness in any other country. It must be really fun to keep up with immature ego problems. More is better, greed is good, selfishness is a reward for success, rationalize, justify, all a philosophy of life for those who don't know the meaning of having a philosophy.
dave

[flaminio]

I finally stuck my neck out and got my 4th sub. It hasn't been delivered yet, so my wife doesn't know yet. Wait for obituary!!!! My friend has 5 subs and works for Sound World, says the more ,the better. We shall see.

[stevign]

So I take it that 2 smaller subwoofers (one for each channel) in my van would be better than just the one large one I have?

[flaminio]

Originally Posted by stevign

So I take it that 2 smaller subwoofers (one for each channel) in my van would be better than just the one large one I have?

I don't know about in a vehicle. I am referring to my home that I am having 4 powered subs. I assume the same would be true of a vehicle.