is there really a need for two subs?

Members we are, I hope, writing about bass in music, which we have all heard, and not dinosaur footsteps which even I am not old enough-- to have ever heard.---Two sub Tom

For sake of clarity and so that some of you may better understand where i'm coming from, i have two subs in my HT system, two subs in my main 2 ch system and two subs in my bedroom system. The two systems that do not have subs consist of large modified horns / tubes in one and full range drivers / mono-blocks in the other. I could probably use some subs with the horns ( -3 @ appr 30 Hz ) but finding something that can keep up with 104 db sensitivity is not that easy. The "full range" drivers actually have quite measurable output down to 5 Hz ( believe it or not ). I found this out when playing the Cardas sweep tones on the Ayre Acoustics disc.

As such, i'm surely a believer in running dual subs, but would agree that one "good" sub is better than two budget models. Obviously, placement becomes more critical with one sub but you can get good results if you put forth the effort. Sean
>

Actually two subs are much harder to blend than one sub. Phase relationships are the key when using stereo speakers.

I don't agree stereo subs are harder to blend. They are each playing separate stereo channels. No different than two speakers (just the lows). If you have problems with stereo subs, you will have the same problem with the bass response of your two main speakers. It is not the subs.

Now using double subs (two subs playing the same signal) might pose a blend problem.

Hi
One good sub is better than two bad ones.

But all bass in recordings is stereo.
I use two 24 inch 500 lb subs and they are great. A pair of ashley MOSFET amps that run over 1,000 watts RMS each and level 25 tri-phazers.

mike