Vandersteen Sub woofers v Rythmik Subs

Thanks Jim for your suggestions, what surprises me is that most swarm users use only one of the same Dayton 1000 amp for the four subs. My room is medium size 23 x 14 x 10 and i do not listen to more than 90 db at the sweetspot.  Will check what Rythmic has to offer.

I think Rhythmic might have a flat pack kit cabinet, that would be fairly economical to ship. You might first try putting more input to the B&W subs, for a swarm to work you need fairly consistent output from subs in different places in the room to cancel out dominant modes.

Jim

Hi,  I have owned two Vandy 2wq subs for almost 10 years, they integrate very well with my Gradfent Revolution mains (passive version). About a year ago i read about the swarm DBA system and decided to add two passive  10 inch B&W sw10 subs with the Dayton 1000w amp that is used for the swarm system.  It works okey having the Vandy subs in the front and the passives on the back, but really the Vandy subs make about 90 % of the spl of lows in the system the system, I don,t know if those B&W subs are not adequate ( I think they are more marketed for HT instalations and are not very efficient nor musical), those are 4 ohms and I,m connecting them in series to make the load 8 ohms. Do any of you can recommend  to upgrade those back passive subs, preferably with  some DIY solution where i could buy just the drivers and make the enclosures locally. i,m located in Mexico and ordering a couple of  Audio kinesis subs would be very expensive to ship down here.  I have a gut feeling that those B&W subs can be substitued for something better and that this idea of combining both aproaches can work. What do you think?

I have heard of the rythmic method before. Maybe it was in one of @tubebuffer  posts?

I have an older Vandy 2<something> subwoofer, and it seems to work fine.

So I did look at some of the Rythmic models on their website, and appears that the speaker level inputs are standard speaker level inputs.  This is completely different than the Vandy design.  The plate amp on the Vandy sub has a very high resistance rating, so it draws no power from the amp.  But the Vandy sub amp has a built in first order roll up beginning at 80 Hz.  The crossover you insert between the preamp and the main amp has a corresponding roll off, first order.  So, while you could set up a Rythmic sub to mimic this feature, you are not connecting the mains and the speaker level inputs to the same main amp tap like with the Vandy sub.  IMHO, that's where the magic happens.

Excellent!

Thanks Jim 👍

Steve - M12 is a feature laden beast for sure, my eyes glazed over by page 12.

short answer is yes, use high pass built into M12 . I don’t have any insight into how phase correct so steeper slope’s probably better. Key will be experimenting and listening. I would download vandertones ( free test tones on Vandy website ) . That will help you pinpoint room modes and ameliorate w placement, tweaked to crossover freq and as I mentioned in prior post partial swarm w purposefully choosing overlap.

jim

Thanks for the replies!

@tomic601 Jim, The NAD has the crossovers listed as “Main Frequency” and “Sub Frequency” on page 12 (Speaker Setup) of the manual:

 

@500homeruns  aka  Steve : I slogged thru the M12 manual and didn’t see a high pass filter, settings for it and IMO a phase accurate filter ( after all you did buy a time and phase accurate speaker in the Treo - congrats btw, you should consider joing tge vandersteen owners forum on the Vandy site. Not everyone there owns Vandy subs. There are more than a few Treo owners w other subs…well integrated… )

First the Treo in most rooms are flat to 40 hz. You can implement the low pass filter in the M12 if desired. Having the sub play higher than 40 hz will create some swarm effect and smooth in room response. Obviously the sub three has 11 bands of EQ below 120 hz and is not powered by a garden variety plate amp. I wouldn’t discount 3 x 8” and a power factor corrected feed forward optimized amp…but hey the do cost $ for a made in USA sub/amp. You may want to borrow a M5 high pass filter and see what that sounds like at a range of settings. Mid bass slam and midrange clarity are typical improvement as load comes off the main amp. You can then either buy a set of filters OR implement them inside your Rogue power amps.

Have fun, let me know if i can help.

Jim

@bondmanp 

Not really. Rythmiks also have the connection to feed off the amp taps, have phase and Q adjustments. But having more variables, hence options, also introduces more uncertainties, which is why sub integration is such a difficult task especially if done without measurement equipment

Ahh ^That^ is interesting.
The Vandy line is designed to be in phase all the way down… So I was concerned that some other sub could be way out of the “driver’s acoustic” phase.

I haven't used the Rythmiks in this fashion for several years, and I'm away from home for a couple weeks to check, but my recollection is they have the option to connect to the amp taps and have a knob to adjust the xo frequency so your loudspeakers run the full bandwidth and Rythmiks run from the bottom up to the set xo frequency. Another phase knob and PEQ adjustments.

Alternatively there is the option for the internal xo fixed at 80Hz. And lastly the option for line input, which is what I use in my active system but xo and phase correction are done upstream and not really what OP was asking about.

@lewinskih01 Thanks.  I had no idea.  So, the Rythmic subs also have a fixed crossover of ?Hz?  Remember, the Vandy doesn't pass the amplified signal through it's own crossover, but requires both main speakers and Vandy sub speaker wires be connected to the speaker taps simultaneously.  If that is also the case with the Rythmic subs, I stand corrected.  All I can say is that I plopped my 2Wq subs in the front corners of my room, made a few adjustments to the Q and level controls, and got seamlessly integrated, deep, powerful and tuneful bass.  And that's with both my old Vandy 1Cs and my current Ohm Walsh 2000s.

@bondmanp 

Not really. Rythmiks also have the connection to feed off the amp taps, have phase and Q adjustments. But having more variables, hence options, also introduces more uncertainties, which is why sub integration is such a difficult task especially if done without measurement equipment.

IMHO, the biggest, and unique, advantage of the Vandy subs is that they feed off the same speaker taps as the main speakers.  This preserves the phase and Sonic characteristics of the main amp, making a seamless blend with the main speakers much easier.  Also, few other subs are designed for corner placement, which is where many people place their subwoofers.  And having adjustable Q is also a rare, and maybe unique, feature as well.

The biggest advantage the Vandersteen’s may have is in the e.q. capabilities. Though having multiple subs helps reduce the need for e.q. Does the NAD have any e.q. capability?

Are you happy with the performance of the Rythmik you currently have? If you are, then adding more in the future should only improve on what you have now.

I agree that 80 his a good place to start with the crossover setting. If you go higher localization will start to set in so you would need to keep the sub(s) close to the main speakers but at 80 or lower you would be able to place the sub(s) in the most optimal locations in your room.

You can start with 80Hz crossover and later try higher or lower.

Don't know the Vandersteen sub nor M12, but do have multichannel with two F12 as subs. In my experience leaving the bottom to subs is better, provided integration is done right. To do this, in my experience measurement equipment is indispensable and advanced digital xo is very important too.

One step at a time is best. Otherwise the new many variables can get overwhelming.

Sorry to revive an old thread, but it was a very interesting read.

I own Vandersteen Treo CT’s and one (currently) Rythmik F12 subwoofer. My preamp is an NAD 12 and the Treo’s are being driven by Rogue M-180 monoblocks. 
After reading this thread, I believe I understand the benefits and design of the Vandersteen subwoofers. The main benefit is the crossover relieving the main speakers speakers from playing low frequencies that they might not designed to play. This also helps the amplifiers by “freeing them up” to do more.

My question is: If I use a stereo preamp (NAD M12) that can control the low pass filter AND the high pass filter, would I see much improvement using a Vandersteen subwoofer over a Rythmik (or any quality subwoofer)? Also, what would be the best crossover settings on the NAD with the Treo’s?

I do plan to add a second Rythmik F12 subwoofer soon. The NAD can control two subwoofer’s in either dual mono or dual stereo.

P.S.- I am in no way saying that Rythmik subwoofers are better (or equal to) Vandersteen subwoofers. It’s just that I already have a Rythmik and adding a second on down the road will be easier (cheaper) than buying two Vandersteen subs.

 

Steve

I loved those old Denon TT's. They looked great and were built like tanks, lol.  I used only Technic's and Stanton cart when DJ'ing or at the radio station.

HT
I understand now....

I guess I was spoiled, my first pair of speakers were Infinity....and a class A Onkyo amp - stayed class A to 7 watts, Denon table and a very nice Grado.....

ctsooner,
     My first decent system was a pair of unfinished Klipsch Heresey and a Yamaha CR series 40 watt receiver and modest TT setup that I used through college.  I always regret not trying tubes with that setup but, if I recall correctly, I enjoyed Talking Heads, Peter Gabriel and Supertramp tunes back then at high volumes with some solid punch in the bass.

  " reat bass is amazing, so is state of the art imaging !
a 40 HZ filter is certainly low....not a ton of music down there...
what are you listening to with content down that low ?"

tomic601,
     
   Yes, a 40 Hz low-pass cutoff is fairly low.  My system is a combo ht and music system in my living room.  For ht, I'm getting a lot of content that's 40 Hz and below  both through Bluray discs played//Dolby Digital surround decoded  through my Oppo 105 and even surprisingly high quality content from the local Xfinity  hi-def cable . 
      I'm currently watching an Epix HDTV series  called Get Shorty.  The 24 bit/96 Khz PWM soundtrack is very good, often with a very realistic drum riff in the background.  The drum kit seems to be in the room front and center.  I believe it sounds so realistic because the AK Debra dba system's bass is so accurate, dynamic and articulate/defined; providing natural and life-like bass which makes it very easy to distinguish the heard and felt bass of the kick drum from the sharp and taut bass of the tom-tom.  I also believe there are higher frequency bass harmonics being reproduced by my main speakers, Magnepan panels running full range, that contribute to the very realistic sound stage illusion.
     For music, I don't listen to pipe-organs but my music collection, consisting of ripped Redbook 16 bit//44 Khz CDs and 24 bit/96 Khz hi-res  WAV files on a NAS 10 TB hard drive, must contain deep bass information because I'm hearing the Debra's deep bass contributions consistently. on my music: Fat boy Slim, Parov Stelar, Jennifer Gomes and various Rock/R&B/Blues/Jazz all on CD and hi-res.

Tim 

LMAO...Those were one of the first high end speakers I heard when I was 9. The local guy where I bought my Yamaha YP211 TT/Grado cart, Yamaha CR 620 receiver and locally made/sold 3 way speakers carried Klipsch.   he had phase linear and Crown too.  That's what he drove them with. He also used a small tube amp, who's name I will never remember.  Corner horns were unreal.  Friends of mine got Heresey's .  I turned a lot of guys into audiophiles back in the day, lmao..

Thunder...I believe that is AC-DC song, lots of image depth on that one....
better left to the Cornwalls.....ha

Rich, I listen to some cool new EMD stuff from Europe that my IEM buddies will send me.  Some info down below the 35hz range.  The Quatro's are crushing it to be honest.  One of my friends purchased 2 more of the older Vandersteen subs and set it up the same way the Swarm deal talks about and he's in love. Said he's in shock at how awesome the bass is with his Treo's.  He's said he may get the newer subs with the 11 band EQ like I have on the Quatros. We measured the bass in my room and it's pretty darn flat.  I may someday add subs, but getting Richards new mono blocks as soon as he gets them going (soon he said).  I want those in my system, lol.  Also the Thunder power cords are just about on order (need to just call to place order).  These Hurricane power cords have taken the system to a new level.  Noble, you should get a pair, lol. they will shock you I bet.  The Thunder may be all you need for the subs, especially if you are only running them that low.  

great bass is amazing, so is state of the art imaging !
a 40 HZ filter is certainly low....not a ton of music down there...
what are you listening to with content down that low ?
i love The Organ Loft FM show...and of course the organ/ organist at our church...cool dude he sits in all over Europe when an organist goes on leave...

ctsooner and tomic601,

     I agree with both of you that subs outputting any bass in the 150 Hz range (I would even say any bass of 80 Hz or higher) is directional and can cause issues.  I've experimented with the Debra amp's crossover filter control, adjustable from 10 to 220 Hz, and definitely notice the bass performance and sound staging suffer when crossed over too high.  

     My Magnepan 2.7QR panels are rated as producing bass down to 34 Hz +/- 3 dB.  I think that's fairly accurate but have never measured them.  
     In my room, I've found a low low-pass filter setting works best and  I normally have it set at 40 Hz.  I realize theoretically that leaves an overlap between 34 and 40 Hz , since I run my panels full range, but it still sounds best to me.  
     All 4 subs are run as mono and none have their phase reversed; the Debra manual suggests reversing the polarity on 1 of the 4 subs progressively to verify the bass doesn't sound best in your room with the phase reversed on 1 of the subs.  My setup sounded so amazingly good with all in-phase that I never even bothered with trying this.
     I have absolutely no connection with Audio Kinesis but can honestly tell you that 'm thrilled with how well these dba systems actually provide true sota bass at a reasonable price. 
     You're probably thinking this dba solution sounds too good to be true.  I completely understand this reaction since I was so skeptical when it was originally described to me that I almost didn't buy it.  Thinking back to that time, it's a bit disconcerting how close I came to taking a pass on the Debra, due to cost and space concerns, and how fortunate I now feel that I decided to buy it.  
     It honestly works so well in my room and system that I can't think of any bass quality needing improvement.  I do believe 4 Vandersteen  Sub 9s would provide more bass than the Debra system but I'd really need to compare them to determine which produced better bass in my room. 
    Dbas are ideal bass systems for seamlessly integrating sota bass with any speakers, especially 'fast' panels.  I don't think I'm ever going to need another bass system, even if I switch my main speakers in the future.
Tim

yes we have had that Apogee discussion, lol.  Those little Stages for the money were money, lmao.  The only subs I liked on Apogees were Apogees. lol.

To my ear, it doesn't matter who's subs you are using and what size they are, they just don't mate with the fast panels I've heard. When you speak about subs with anything above 150hz, I totally agree.  they need to be crossed over in the 100hz range or so.  It's not hard to do.  With larger panels I honestly, don't mind just using the bass they have and letting it go as is.  I"m sure that I'll get to hear Richards new Sub 9's on the large Maggies.  They are fast as heck in the way he designed them, but like the AK's that I haven't heard, I can't comment until I have.  

also for grins...just play your subwoofers by themselves sometime.....not on anybodys platinum album list..ha

one issue is bass is directional above 150 HZ so subs that have much output above 150 HZ , especially those behind you ( in the corners, typically four corners..mess up spatial phase information
so you can trade away that for smoother bass...

for those with digital room correction, IF you rerun do the settings change ? IF so, why ? averaging algorithms? sample weighting, sample stack ? ambient noise ?
for grins, run the RTA w no music on and see what is happening in the room...AC cycling, freezer, trash truck out front.....you will be amazed....

Apogee stages, very fine CT but I guess you and I have shared that story before...

ctsooner,

I completely agree with you on loving the sound of the Quads, large Maggie panels and the original Apogees.

Interesting that all of these ’fast’ speakers share the common complaint from owners that they’re all very difficult to integrate subs with. The usual complaint is the sub or subs sound disconnected from the main speakers because the ’slower’ subs cannot keep up with the speed of the ’fast’ panels. I currently use a pair of large Maggie panels in my system and tend to agree with the difficulty of integrating subs well with them.
However, I would definitely suggest the Audio Kinesis Swarm,Debra or any custom 4 sub DBA system as an excellent method of seamlessly integrating a sota bass system with any ’speakers but I can verify they integrate especially well with ’fast’ panels.
Because each Debra sub has a 10" long-throw woofer and is only required to reproduce a portion of the total bass, I think each sub is capable of being very agile and, with all 4 working in concert, it results in bass that is very articulate with great definition.that can reproduce the entire range of bass notes incredibly accurately; from very deep and powerful to sharp and taut.
     I believe anyone listening to any DBA system, whether an Audio Kinesis complete kit or a custom system of someone’s own creation, even briefly would be able to quickly recognize the extreme quality of bass reproduced but it’s much harder for me to express in words.

Tim

I loved those Quads. I will never forget hearing them for the first time.  It was an eye opener.  I also remember falling in love with a large Maggie panel back in 1991 or so with my EX in Newport, RI if I recall.  Then the Apogees in the mid 90's.  Funny as I don't like the Martin Logan stats.  

@noble100 not running you off, new thread seems to be thriving.... : "


Hello tomic601,

Thanks for the welcoming words. I’ve been monitoring this thread on and off but haven’t felt the need to respond or add anything for awhile.
     I wish I could be of more assistance as to whether Vandersteen or Rhythmic subs perform best but I stopped thinking or caring about which single sub performs best once I learned of the significant advantages of multiple distributed subs.
     I envy you rebuilding a pair of the legendary ESL63and wish you the best in your project. 
     I think I’ve stated enough of my thoughts already but won’t hesitate to respond further if I think it might be useful to the OP or thread readers.

Thanks,
Tim

i am rebuilding a set of Quad esl 63 and will probably try a Rythmic sub along w a Vandersteen 3
@noble100 not running you off, new thread seems to be thriving....

Just came across this forum...Looks like you guys have answered the original discussion about Vandersteen subs vs Rythmik subs.  Most everyone supports Vandersteen...For what it’s worth, I had 2wq with Magnepan 3.3 & while there was an improvement in bottom, it still seemed lacking.  I recently went with F18 servo controlled unit from Rythmik & have been extremely impressed.  To me, there is a night/day difference.  Apparently Vandersteen has a new sub.  (I’ve not heard it.)  Dr Ding has a PhD in EE & has a research lab in Austin area.  Audio is extremely subjective & I understand that many have various reasons for supporting the choices they make...Mine have been significantly influenced by economics.  The new 30.7 Magnepan might reproduce the most realistic, “live” sound.  No sub required.  But I’d rather not spend $30k for two speakers.  Current system is close, with much less $; but it’s taken many years to get here.

Update:

     Just wanted to follow-up on my last post and provide the link to the new thread I stated I'd start on the Audio Kinesis Swarm and Debra distributed bass array systems:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/anyone-else-using-an-audio-kinesis-swarm-or-debra-distributed...

Later,
  Tim    

" @noble100  - why not start a thread on swarm ? I am sure it will attract a ton of interest "

Hello tonic601,

     Very good idea.  I did start a thread on 6/30/2016 titled "Anybody Else Using a Distributed Bass Array System?".  Here's a link to that thread:

https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/anybody-else-using-a-distributed-array-sub-system?highlight=d...

       That thread did attract a lot of interest for about 7 months even though it didn't specifically mention 'Swarm' or 'Debra' or 'Audio Kinesis' in the title. I recall being a bit surprised, given it was posted on a high performance audio site like Audiogon, that there wasn't  more members using a high performance bass system like the Swarm or Debra.  
     
     I get, however, the gist of your comment: enough already about the Swarm,  go start your own thread and leave this thread alone.
     I understand your perspective and that it may be shared by others on this thread.  It was never my intention to distract from the OP's original concern, only to offer an alternative solution that I know works well.
     I think it's important to respect the viewpoints of others and don't want to be considered unreasonable so I'll bow out of this thread and take your advice to start my own thread 
       It's been over 2 years since I posted my thread and it's very possible that more members have discovered just how well distributed bass arrays work and currently utilize one.  But this time I think I'll actually use Audio Kinesis,Swarm, and Debra in my thread title.
  Thanks,
   Tim

How is it sounding???? ;)

my brief flirtation with the 9 is over...home “ home “ in Seattle listening to the 7’s......

in my room, why ??????

@noble100  - why not start a thread on swarm ? I am sure it will attract a ton of interest

http://vandersteen.com/products/quatro-wood-ct
If you read in this first column of this thread the announcement the 2WQ is history and the Sub 3 takes its place. It will be on the Vandersteen sight soon.
The concept is now similar to how Quatros Sevens Five series etc
offer 11 band custom tuning / High Pass and deals with your room..
 This allows even small rooms to be full range by negating that particular rooms unique room peak to be dealt with.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=34&v=qQASoSR2y2o 
Here is a vid to help understand the concept that runs through the whole lineup.
Best,
 JohnnyR

@gdnrbob - I think you are correct.  The 2Wq and V2W are probably toast, although Vandersteen may leave the web site as is for a while to allow his dealers to clear out any remaining inventory of the 2 series subs. 

Duh, that was what I was looking at...
From what Johnny wrote, I thought the 2wq was a thing of the past.
B

Sometimes it takes Vandersteen awhile to update their web site.

Bob, I am only seeing the SUB 9 ~19K and the 2W for $1850 . Am I missing something?

They are on the website. Just click on Products and the dropdown shows subwoofers, click on that.
Bob

I was at a Vandy dealer in San Diego last week that had the sub 3.

Anyone know why we are not seeing the SUB THREE posted on the Vandersteen website yet? I thought that these were coming out in June. Did it get delayed?

Hello gdnrbob,

     Yes,I generally agree that everyone is entitled to their opinions; I just prefer a bit of supporting evidence to indicate whether I should value them.  
     My issue with ctsooner is that he seems to have a higher regard for his opinions than the relevant facts and significant difficulty distinguishing between the two. 

Allright,
 Tim  
.  

@noble100 , you are preaching to the choir.
I have no doubt that the Swarm or Debra function as you say, but when others (ctsooner) give our opinions, it is just that, our opinions.
That you feel you have a scientific basis is beside the point, and whether I or ctsooner wish to agree is our prerogative.
So, can we just agree to not agree?
Bob

"The 9’s are very special subs in their CF build to their ability to fill large spaces etc... The new Sub 3’s are affordable and have built in EQ as we spoke about earlier. Set up properly, they will smooth out the bass just as good as a swarm or any of the subs.

What the swarm is, can be done with any sub. I personally would rather just get two great subs rather than 4 subs that may or may not sound as good. Just because a sub can be purchased for half of the cost of another one doesn’t mean it will sound nearly as good as the other one.

I have a close audio buddy who auditioned the AK swarm vs many other subs and went with the Vandy 2’s. It’s always a personal choice as we know. Back to listening."

ctsooner,

Based on your comments on this thread, it’s obvious your knowledge of the latest and best scientifically proven methods of producing excellent in-room bass response, and the critical factors involved, is seriously lacking.
You’re failing, or maybe just refusing, to understand that there are currently scientifically proven methods, based on years of research and experimentation by 2 leading acoustics engineers Dr. Earl Geddes and Dr. Floyd O’Toole, that provide sota bass performance in virtually any room.
These methods began as mere theories that require well designed scientific experiments for the theory to be proven as valid. Each scientist is further required to publish a White Paper that proposes the theory, describes the experiment designed to prove or disprove it and the details of the results.
If the theory is proven valid via the experimentation, the next hurdle for each scientist is peer review; at which a panel of fellow acoustic engineer scientists are given an oral and written presentation by the White Paper’s author for the purposes of evaluating, thoroughly understanding and thoroughly questioning it.
Even if the panel ultimately decides to consider the theory as a new empirical fact, the original results of the experiments the scientists performed to prove the theory must be able to be consistently and independently duplicated with the same results for the theory to continue to be considered empirically true and valid.
Okay, I think you now get the gist of how an acoustics theory becomes an accepted fact.
But what theory from Geddes and O’Toole was proven valid via the above process?
The theory stated: Bass frequency response will improve in any given commercial or residential room as the number of devices reproducing the bass sound waves (subs) is increased in that room. The engineers understood that low bass sound waves are extremely long and will continue to bounce/reflect off all room barrier surfaces (especially parallel surfaces such as 2 walls or floor and ceiling) until they run out of energy in all rooms that have room dimensions that are not as long as the low bass sound waves themselves: a 40 Hz sound wave is 28 ft. long and a 20 Hz wave is 56.5 ft. long.
As these long bass sound waves are launched into the room along with subsequent ones, they travel on mathematically predictable paths until they predictably either crash into one another , creating a bass de-emphasis or ’null’, or they merge and reinforce one another, creating a bass over-emphasis or ’peak’.

Of course, this also happens with the much shorter midrange and treble sound waves but these cancellations and reinforcements are distributed throughout the room and typically perceived as adding an ’’airy’ or ’liveness’ quality to the musical sound in the room.
However, with the much longer, low-frequency waves, the cancellations and reinforcements are localized to specific areas in the room. The result is that the bass response of the room is noticeably uneven at certain frequencies—there will be too much bass at a particular frequency in some spots in the room, and not enough at others.
I believe the above leads to the gist of what you’re failing, or refusing, to grasp; that the Geddes and O’toole developed distributed bass array system (AK Swarm and Debra bass system) is a scientifically proven method for attaining sota bass response in virtually any room.
Comments of yours such as "I personally would rather just get two great subs rather than 4 subs that may or may not sound as good" makes it clear to me that you do not realize the significant in-room bass response improvement levels achieved through the use of a 4 sub distributed bass array system when compared to a 2 sub system, no matter how large, expensive, the brand or the competency of the 2 subs.
The primary scientific reason for the fact that in-room bass response improves as the number of subs launching bass sound waves is increased in any given room is caused by the reduction of bass standing sound waves existing in the room. The research proves that bass standing waves are progressively reduced in any given room as the number of subs is increased from 1 up to the experiment’s projected limit of 3,000. Critically, however, the research also proved that the reduction in bass standing waves was most significant when increasing the number of subs from 1 to 4, with any subs added beyond 4 still decreasing bass standing waves but only at a smaller incremental amount.
Obviously, the scientists knew there was a practical limit to the number of subs your wife would allow you to place in her living room. Importantly, they told her to let you put 4 subs in the room since the data showed that 4 subs eliminated the vast majority of bass standing waves and thus provide their version a good balance between bass performance and just getting ridiculous and messing up her room.
Lastly, I just want to add that I respect Richard Vandersteen, his many audio contributions and his products. I have no intentions of denigrating him or his products. 
I also agree with several of your other comments, such as "what the Swarm is, can be done with any sub" and "just because a sub can be purchased for half of the cost of another one doesn’t mean it will sound nearly as good as the other one" . In my opinion, both true statements that don’t require any qualification.
In fact, I have little doubt that a 4 sub distributed bass array system consisting of 4 Sub Nines, Threes or even the discontinued 2Ws would likely outperform the AK Swarm or Debra bass systems.
I didn’t address your other comment of " The new Sub 3’s are affordable and have built in EQ as we spoke about earlier. Set up properly, they will smooth out the bass just as good as a swarm or any of the subs". I think this comment just demonstrates again your failure, or maybe just your refusal, to understand that there are currently scientifically proven solutions for achieving sota in-room bass response, based on years of research and experimentation by 2 leading acoustics engineers Dr. Earl Geddes and Dr. Floyd O’Toole, and that any sort of existing digital or analog equalization has been proven to be completely incapable of duplicating.
I could elaborate but I’ll just leave it at that for now.

Gotta go,
Tim

Tomic, I think it would be a good decision to add the SUB 9s. You have my blessings. ;)