Meridian Unplugged - Powered by MrTechGuy.co.uk Forums Discussion Meridian - Systems Two SW5500s or just one?

I have 2 of the big subwoofers. I am merging systems to just have one. So my question is - bearing in mind low values possibly - is it noticeably better to have 2 of these with a surround system or is it a bit of an overkill?

Also there seem to be two ways of setting up? I have an 861v2 but if I update to a v4 or 6 would that change any decision?

Or just sell one and move on ...?

Hi,

As a run of thumb two subs are better than one. Having two sources for the bass helps to even out the effect of bass nodes in the room.

Regards,
Carl

+1 Carl
I have 2xSW1600 at the front and a D2500 at the rear CW 5x DSP5K's.
1 sub was no more than OK.
2 was much better
3 is incredible for movies
However OP has 8Ks! I would love to be in a position to try such a set up
Hector

Music or movies?

I do not watch many movies, mostly music but of course not all material is recorded to maximise 7.1 sound
If I am playing new 24/96 recorded stuff then I would imagine in the future more emphasis will be made to the production techniques available
I do listen to vinyl a lot

For music with 8000's, never say never but I don't really see the need for any subs, However, if were to use them then I would still have two rather than one.

Regards,
Carl

Is that ALWAYS two Carl? I've never heard a system with a sub in it, let alone with two but I can't believe it's always as simple as "2 is better than 1". Surely one great sub is better than 2 poor ones? One perfectly set-up sub is better than 2 poorly integrated ones? etc.

Are you suggesting that for a given budget (say �3k), one would be better with 2 �1,500 subs than one �3k sub?

Obviously Carl's not here to reply; but to answer your question -- yes, without a doubt. I have two modestly priced analogue subs that, with good EQ, beat one sub, more expensive or otherwise hands down.

It's not volume we're talking about here but the ability to distribute very low frequencies as evenly as possible.

Ken

As Ken said, more bass sources make a better room mode distribtution and that improve the sound.Of coarse the subs have to be the same when you compare one or more subs.

Interesting.

I subscribe to Home Cinema Choice magazine in the UK & they run a poll every month. I've just dug one out from a few months ago, which asked "How many subwoofers do you use in your home cinema setup?".

I was amazed to see that 96% of respondents had at least one!

None: 4%
One: 73%
Two: 22%
Three or more: 1%

Of course many of them will be running �500 AV receivers & �500 5.1 speaker set-ups.

96% is high but I'm not that surprised. I think most users consider a sub an essential component of a HT system. It certainly adds an extra dimension to the listening experience.

At the back of each copy of HCC they offer their Top 10.... subs / AVRs etc. Next to the subs they have a panel that reads as follows:

Using two subs (or perhaps four) should, in theory, bring huge rewards in terms of bass performance. But remember that LFE is a tricky beast to control. Running 2 subs may simply double problems in your room like room boom and suck-outs, where outgoing & reflected bass sounds cancel each other out. If you have some flexibility in where you place subs, trial & error may throw up some interesting results. The acoustic wizard Floyd E Toole suggests one LFE sub to either side of the room may be best for accuracy while placing them in the front corners would be best for overall bass power. Yet there is no hard & fast rule as to what will work best for every room, and you may find that simply by using one (large) sub is preferable as it's the easiest to get sounding right.

That seems to run against the perceived wisdom on here. Interestingly I've been toying with adding a sub (or 2) for a while & had a conversation with one of our PPs recently. I asked if (that brand)'s top-of-the-range sub would be better than 2 of (that brand)'s mid-range subs. "One top-of-range, every time" was the reply.

For completeness, I should add that 2 x mid-range didn't quite add up to 1 x top-of-range, in monetary terms.