Does the swarm system work equally as well for home theater and music listening?@jdlynch
Yes.
Help me understand "the swarm" in the broader audiophile world
I'm still fairly new out here and am curious about this Swarm thing. I've never owned a subwoofer but I find reading about them--placement, room treatments, nodes, the crawl, etc--fascinating. I'm interested in the concept of the Swarm and the DEBRA systems, and I have a very specific question. The few times I've been in high-end, audiophile stores and asked about the concept of the Swarm, I've tended to get some eye-rolling. They're selling single or paired subwoofers that individually often cost more and sometimes much more than a quartet of inexpensive, modest subs. The same thing can be said for many speaker companies that make both speakers and subs; it's not like I see Vandersteen embracing the use of four Sub 3's.
My question is this: do in fact high-end stores embrace the concept of multiple, inexpensive subs? If not, cynicism aside, why not? Or why doesn't Vandersteen or JL or REL and so on design their own swarm? For those out here who love multiple subs, is it a niche thing? Is it a certain kind of sound that is appealing to certain ears? The true believers proselytize with such zeal that I find it intriguing and even convincing, and yet it's obviously a minority of listeners who do it, even those who have dedicated listening rooms. (I'm talking about the concept of four+ subs, mixed and matched, etc. I know plenty of folks who embrace two subs. And I may be wrong about all my assumptions here--really.)
Now, one favor, respectfully: I understand the concept and don't need to be convinced of why it's great. That's all over literally every post on this forum that mentions the word "sub." I'm really interested in why, as far as I can tell, stores and speaker companies (and maybe most audiophile review sites?) mostly don't go for it--and why, for that matter, many audiophiles don't either (putting aside the obvious reason of room limits). Other than room limitations, why would anyone buy a single JL or REL or Vandy sub when you could spend less and get ... the swarm?
My question is this: do in fact high-end stores embrace the concept of multiple, inexpensive subs? If not, cynicism aside, why not? Or why doesn't Vandersteen or JL or REL and so on design their own swarm? For those out here who love multiple subs, is it a niche thing? Is it a certain kind of sound that is appealing to certain ears? The true believers proselytize with such zeal that I find it intriguing and even convincing, and yet it's obviously a minority of listeners who do it, even those who have dedicated listening rooms. (I'm talking about the concept of four+ subs, mixed and matched, etc. I know plenty of folks who embrace two subs. And I may be wrong about all my assumptions here--really.)
Now, one favor, respectfully: I understand the concept and don't need to be convinced of why it's great. That's all over literally every post on this forum that mentions the word "sub." I'm really interested in why, as far as I can tell, stores and speaker companies (and maybe most audiophile review sites?) mostly don't go for it--and why, for that matter, many audiophiles don't either (putting aside the obvious reason of room limits). Other than room limitations, why would anyone buy a single JL or REL or Vandy sub when you could spend less and get ... the swarm?
Showing 11 responses by atmasphere
Why do you have the right to claim ownership of the DBA concept by using a proprietary name like swarm?’ No worries- he tends to troll this forum (or did until recently). A couple of threads of his got pulled down on that account. However, to answer the question the ’Swarm’ has been the most successful (in fact only) application of a distributed bass array. In that regard the Swarm name is in danger of becoming intimately associated with the dba concept, such that its likely to be used even when the subs being used are not made by Audiokinesis, much in the same way that Kleenex has come to be associated with all facial tissue. |
It’s no wonder that two main speakers and four subs are not of interest except for the dedicated few. ;^)I just bought an M&K sub for my bedroom system. I found it on craigslist for $150.00 which seemed fine to me and it works well. But its nearly three times the size of one of Duke’s Swarm subs. One of my rules of the bedroom system is that it be entirely on the cheap but if I were to be using the Swarm in there it would actually be easier. This is because my room has plenty of places to place Duke’s subs as they are meant to be against the wall, and they can go places I can’t put that M&K. Its a matter of time; what we are seeing here is that the science is well ahead of the tradition, and tradition is a rather slow-moving beast. But if a thinking person sees that tradition is that way solely out of tradition, they will instantly see the advantages that the science offers. This is really demonstrated in spades with the Swarm. |
as much as that which relates to added headroom; performance gains at a similar SPL compared to a smaller/less powerful system due to less cone movement and wattage put through the voice coils, and therefore less distortion and cleaner bass.One obvious advantage is that with four subs for a given volume as opposed to two, each driver will have less excursion. The " swarm" is actually and old term that was used to convince music lovers who were not happy with the sound of their system, in particular the midrange which was so lacking in most speakers.Hm. That's a *new* one on me, if you get my drift. That term was not in use during the 1950s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or any of the 2000s until Duke came along and then he used it as a name rather than a term. When exactly was this term used as you imply?? I'm also interested in the 'conspiracy theory' that was proposed elsewhere in the same post of the quote above. Most conspiracy theories I've encountered recently are so much nonsense- 5G having something to do with Covid and so on... honestly, this theory about the swarm seems to be just as nutty! |
for those wanting to take the bar even higher a bigger scale will be advantageous.IME what this often means has something to do with sound pressure. Certainly its no worries building subs that go deeper, can do greater sound pressure and the like. But I've seen the Swarm do quite well; in a nutshell, what it allows you to do is in most rooms set up a system where the bass will be superlative. So this in turn allows you to set up a system on a variety of budgets that really can be state of the art in terms of resolution, since the mains really don't have to go below 60Hz. |
Moreover: if this (i.e.: DBA) was truly about physics and adhering to that, it’s conspicuous that the sheer size and displacement area of subs isn’t taken more into consideration.Uh... it is. The size of the subs *has* been taken into consideration by Duke of Audiokinesis and that is the beauty of his system. His subs are 1 foot square by 2 feet (using a 10" driver), which is fairly small as subs go, yet they go flat to 20Hz. He gets away with that because they are designed to work in the room boundary effect and so roll off at 3dB/octave starting around 100Hz. This means they have to be placed close to the walls (which usually happen to be more out of the way, resulting in inconspicuous placement in most rooms) in order to work right. It sounds to me from your comment above that you might have missed this bit in the prior conversation. Most subs are not designed to take advantage of the room boundary effect because the right place to put them is likely not against the wall- its where-ever in the room it has to be in order to work. |
I wondered if it was possible the bass traps simply didn't have the absorption (grunt) power to transform the energy from the subs, though enough to deal with the midbass??The problem is standing waves in the room. Bass traps need to be where the standing waves are when they are reinforcing which sometimes might be near a wall but often is not, and they need to move dynamically from place to place as the frequency of the bass notes change. But they can't do anything about when the standing wave is causing a cancellation. So its an inelegant approach that simply won't solve the problem. |
@cleeds I think if you reread these comments above you will see that I was correct. You see Erik's comment which opens- now compare that to Millercarbon, you see that the latter says its *better* (in his own words) and that if able to compare, people would choose it, but that does not negate my comment in response to Erik's comment. Now I've been often accused of being very specific, but I also spent a lot of time in English writing courses in college. Perhaps that is part of why I am so specific, but what seems to be agreed by all is that one sub can sound excellent if set up correctly, but if a DBA is set up its a lot easier to get it to sound right and that it might even sound better than 'excellent'. 'Excellent' and 'best' are two different things and I've not seen this conversation derail down that rabbit hole. Yet.The idea that only swarms can sound good, or are the ideal fix for any possible ailment your system has is just not supported by evidence.atmasphere |
The idea that only swarms can sound good, or are the ideal fix for any possible ailment your system has is just not supported by evidence.I do not believe anyone here is making that claim. I'm an advocate of using the Swarm because it fixes bass issues by breaking up standing waves in the room, something that can't be done easily with both room treatment and bass management combined. But I have more than one system in my home. My bedroom system only has one sub, and by careful placement I got it to work great in the 'listening chair' :) But the sub in that case is not intuitively placed (such as in between the main speakers) and the bass cannot be heard throughout the room even though the rest of the system is. In a nutshell, we are talking about an advance in how bass reproduction is done in the home and the advance that a distributed bass array represents is major compared to the prior art. Accepting what science does can be really helpful. It can help keep you from getting sick. The results of science has allowed people to fly around the world. It allows light in the dark at a flick of a switch. It allows amplifiers to sound like music. In the legal world, there is a principle called 'dirty hands' which in a nutshell works like this: 'you cannot reserve a right for yourself that you do not also confer to others.' The idea that one can accept science to allow for light in a room but not accept science to allow for proper bass reproduction is to me simply ridiculous. |
Rohloff 14-speed German Speedhub and Pinion 12-speed gearbox.....my Dura Ace have been absolutely reliable but man, those two internal hubs are sweet!@mitch2 Try taking that Dura Ace on the Tour Divide Mountain Bike Route (google or search on Yourtube) and see how it holds up. If you are careful with it, it can do well, but if you ignore it, it will go away :) So the reality is swarms almost never come up based on practicality vs performanceI think this might be the case for now. But as we are seeing, the question is coming up a lot more now than 10 years ago when Duke got his first Golden Ear Award (now there are three). In terms of practical- the distributed bass array concept is **very** practical in the Audiokinesis embodiment, as the subs are built to be as small as possible (1 foot square by 2 feet) and to be placed inside the room boundary effect, which most subs are not (Duke told me that he often places the speaker on its side with the woofer facing the wall, an inch or two away). This allows them true 20Hz response. In a small room its fairly easy to place them and keep them innocuous. Bass traps are far less effective and a lot harder to hide! In terms of performance they also shine as they are several times more effective than room treatment for dealing with pesky standing waves which rob you of bass at the listening chair- or give you a bass boom. You get much closer to simply flat response right to 20Hz anywhere in the room. Its highly unlikely that anyone with a single or dual sub system can say that although they may have what they experience as 'satisfying' bass. This means that the main speakers don't have to be very large (practicality- they only need go down to 70Hz or so) or hard to drive (practicality- now you don't need such a big amp) and yet no reason to take a back seat to anyone's system in terms of bandwidth and resolution (performance). |
In a nutshell this is an education thing and nothing more. Those that denigrate a distributed bass array are apparently simply ignorant of its advantages. Many dealers don't sell them, so their comments can be sidelined safely enough. If your front speakers actually make bass, then what you do is add a pair of subs elsewhere in the room to break up the standing waves that often cause bass cancellation at the listening chair. Like many industries (such as bicycles) much is ruled by tradition in audio. New ideas and breakthroughs thus tend to exist only on the fringe while the mainstream flows fat dumb and happy using established or 'more profitable' tech that simply doesn't bring home the bacon. It seems to be human nature. I can give a nice example- derailluers in bicycles are a terrible idea. Essentially its a transmission where everything is exposed and as a result they are unreliable. A chain might only last 1200 miles- compared to a car or motorbike bicycles seem really unreliable- you'd think that after 120 years we'd have sorted that out, and in fact we have with internally geared hubs (the Rohloff being the best of them) and the Pinion gearbox which is mounted in the frame. Both of the latter dramatically more reliable than any derailleur and usually wider gear range. I got my first Rohloff about 15 years ago- back then no-one had heard of them. Even now, most people heavily into bikes still don't know what a Rohloff (or a Pinion) is. Its the same with a distributed bass array. They work **way** better than the prior art, but most people don't know what it is, and some that do resist almost purely out of tradition (substitute 'stubbornness' for 'tradition' and the meaning of this sentence is unchanged). |