• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Stereo Sub Vs Dual Mono

Sorry to be thick, does that mean they are DIY?
Yes, it is 5 loudspeakers (10 channels) in 5 closed volumes DIY box for differents uses. If we define the speakers as A,B,C,D and E from left to right, C is used as center mid/tweeter and B and D as center bass for multichannel. We are planning future uses such as stereo dipole with B and D, or other forms of transaural with all A,B,C, D and E.
 
Last edited:
Ok,I think I found the most crazy easy song for testing,whoever cares to analyze the spectrum will see crazy stuff.

And no,it's not classical,I know some of you don't like it,so easy stuff,just Bowie's Moonage Daydream.
 
Thank you Sokel for your example of David Bowie's wonderful recording Moonage Daydream.
If we instantly switch the setting of this piece of David Bowie to 4 MONO SUBS or 2 x 2 STEREO SUBS, the difference is not obvious, especially since the 4 subs are cut in linear phase FIR with a slope of 80 dB per octave, so the settings of the subs hardly influence the sounds located above 75 Hz.
We had to with the forumer SB10, and this in order not to be mistaken listening to these 2 settings in blind test A Vs B.
Here is the illustration of this instantaneous blind test technique with the box of Pos (French computer scientist creator of the Rephase software); it was Jean-Luc Ohl who installed this box in the QSC processor which simultaneously controls the choices of the SUBS, the filtering and the equalizations.
Position A corresponds to the 4 SUBS MONO setting.
Position B corresponds to the 2 x 2 SUBS STEREO setting (see photos and screenshots).

For the David Bowie Moonage Daydream The position of the SUBS in 2 x 2 STEREO SUBS gives a more precise bass. The 3D effect of the sound image is slightly improved; and this despite the poorer response curve of the 2 x 2 SUBS STEREO position (note 8.4/10 then the response curve in MONO 4 SUBS obtains 8,9/10 ). Indeed one goal of this setting was not to have the most linear curve, but the one that gave low-pitched sounds in phase opposition, as Griesinger advised.

4 SUBS MONO settings


155b 4SUBS MONO1.PNG
155b 4SUBS  MONO2.PNG


2 x 2 SUBS STEREO settings


155b 2x2 SUBS STEREO1.PNG
155b B 2 x 2 SUBS STEREO.PNG
 
Last edited:
Some additional perspectives from others that might be interesting to consider:

@j_j
Fundamentals of hearing 2004
https://www.aes-media.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/jj_aes04_ts1.ppt
“Various people have reported, sometimes anecdotally, that above 40Hz (and below 90Hz), although one can not localize a sound source, differences in interaural phase can create a sensation of space.. his suggests that for accurate perception of space, 2 or 3 subwoofers may be necessary. This also, as in many other places in audio, creates a situation where what one might consider the “optimum” solution (maximum bass flatness) does not in fact convey the perceptual optimum.”

Soundfields vs human hearing 2012
https://www.aes-media.org/sections/pnw/ppt/jj/soundfields_vs_human_hearing_edited.ppt
“Specifically, although one can not LOCALIZE signals below about 90 Hz, one can detect spatial effects from interaural phase differences down to about 40Hz. The AT&T Labs “Perceptual Soundfield Reconstruction” Demo, no longer available, contained a very nice example of these effects, and how they can change “boomy bass” in the 2-radiator case into “bass spread about a room” in the 5-channel case.”

@Thomas Lund
https://www.genelec.com/-/immersive-monitoring-a-perceptive-perspective
“From 50 Hz to 700 Hz, however, fast-firing synapses in the brainstem are responsible for localisation, employed in a phase-locking structure to determine interaural time difference (ITD). Humans can localise at even lower frequencies, but we will come back to that in a specific ultra low frequency blog.
The ability to position sound sources with precision spherically is a key benefit of immersive systems. Another is the possibility to influence the sense of space in human listeners. For the latter, the lowest two octaves of the ITD range (i.e. 50-200 Hz) play an essential role; but may be compromised in multiple ways”

https://www.genelec.com/-/blog/how-to-analyse-frequency-and-temporal-responses
“With both stereo and immersive, for your room and system to be able to reliably convey the envelopment latent in the content, perceived-direct sound should dominate in the 50 to 700 Hz range – where audible patterns characteristic of the recording space may have been picked up. If they have, you can be sure that the recording engineer has gone to great lengths in doing so. Fig 2 is a recording setup in Olavshallen in Trondheim, Norway, and shows a main mic array with sufficient distance between capsules to capture LF differences and moving patterns – two of the most precious qualities of a hall to preserve….Fig 3 shows the GRADE graphs from section 4.3 of the report, and reveals a monitor to the left which is able to convey envelopment latent in the content; and one to the right that is less able to do so. If listening to the latter, you are unable to judge recorded space precisely. Such ability may also be sacrificed when relying on bass management with only one subwoofer to reproduce all LF sound, rather than multiple channels and acoustic in-room summation. If possible with delicate content, don’t use a higher bass management cross-over frequency than necessary, and preferably below 60 Hz.”

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...view-room-eq-setup.26397/page-21#post-1526313
“It's not primarily about localization, more about reproducing the swirling LF patterns a fine concert hall generates when music is being played. With acoustical summation in a reproduction room, there is a chance of hearing them, while electrical summation surely kills such joy. Also, we actually localize all the way down to a static pressure change (DC). It's indoor conditions messing up our senses”

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...view-room-eq-setup.26397/page-21#post-1524620
“To faithfully reproduce great acoustic recordings, a flattish frequency response of perceived-direct sound is just one of the goals. More importantly, to me, the monitoring room and sound system need to convey moving patterns of sound latent in the recording, especially between 40 and 200 Hz. This is where to hear the soul of a concert hall or church, in case it has been recorded.
Collapsing discrete channels to a single sub channel should therefore be a last resort, e.g. if the reproduction room/placement is difficult and/or to accommodate multiple listeners.
Taking advantage of discrete channel reproduction at low frequency has even spread outside acoustic recordings. Top pop/rock productions now also make use of such perceptual excitement, which will remain a secret to “collapsers”
 
No, Denon doesn't offer stereo subs, altho your model can separately set level/delay for two subs. I can't think of any avr that offers that, altho I wonder if some of the top end processors might these days.
As andyc56 mentions later, Denon/Marantz do offer stereo (even Surround with four) subs on their newer mid+ level AVR/Processors. One used to need a Trinnov or Storm, etc, to get this level of Bass Management, but D&M have made it available to the masses.

Something that cannot be left out of this discussion now that it's a reality is Dirac ART. For any capable processor, it will allow stereo (or surround) bass without the downside of having room modes screw up the response of a single sub. The sub nearest the speaker can be made the primary support speaker, while allowing the other subs in the room to contribute at a reduced level only what they need to contribute in order to "smooth out" the response of the main channel. This should preserve all the spatial effects of stereo bass, without any of the (that I can think of) downsides. I don't see why one wouldn't make stereo (or surround) bass their default when setting it up.
 
Denon/Marantz do offer stereo (even Surround with four) subs on their newer mid+ level AVR/Processors
Actually, if you have MultEQ Editor app, you can activate "directional bass" mode with older Sound United gear, too. See this post:

 
I am presently running a triple SVS PB 2000 sub system, calibrated through REW/ dirac, through minidsp SHD
Which sounds fantastic
I have run dual mono subs in the past & prefer the 3 sub setup, for the wider sweet spot & the head room available

Never tried a stereo sub system, where one is dedicated for the left channel & one for the right channel
The idea being to emulate vintage large woofer speaker systems, like the KEF 105 ( never heard it)

The obvious negatives :
- The loss of gain from the subs not working together
- Most music is not mixed for stereo sub usage

Worth a try ?
Welcome input on the above, thanm
 
I am presently running a triple SVS PB 2000 sub system, calibrated through REW/ dirac, through minidsp SHD
Which sounds fantastic
I have run dual mono subs in the past & prefer the 3 sub setup, for the wider sweet spot & the head room available

Never tried a stereo sub system, where one is dedicated for the left channel & one for the right channel
The idea being to emulate vintage large woofer speaker systems, like the KEF 105 ( never heard it)

The obvious negatives :
- The loss of gain from the subs not working together
- Most music is not mixed for stereo sub usage

Worth a try ?
Welcome input on the above, thanks
My Crestron procise psphd as provision for three subs. Two stereo one mono. I’ve got two subs. For a while, I had them set dual mono. Recently experimented with stereo subs setting . The difference is phenomenal. The rear surrounds have their own subwoofer so when there’s an explosion which is mixed front to back the sub then carries the explosion low frequency affects from the front of the back of the room which sounds mind blowing and extremely immersive; very realistic. With music the rears have their own subwoofer so listening to multi channel audio is fantastically more realistic
 
No, Denon doesn't offer stereo subs, altho your model can separately set level/delay for two subs. I can't think of any avr that offers that, altho I wonder if some of the top end processors might these days.
Crestron procise psphd has provisions for 3 subs, 2 stereo, 1 mono or 3 mono or 2 mono or 1 mono
 
There are three RCA/XLR ports which can be configured as triple mono, two stereo one mono, two stereo, two mono or one mono. You can set delays and EQ independent for each sub as you can for each channel up to 7.1-3 Using processing like Dolby movie 2 it works out for example, an explosion that ricochet‘s front to back, will pass low frequency effects front to back. I have two subs one is behind the screen and one is behind the settee. I used to have them set dual mono but recently changed to stereo and it’s brought the sub experience to life. Hope this helps.
 
Of course stereo is better since there's lots of bass information in music that's in stereo.
 
After a comment by @audiofooled on another thread, I thought I'd test out how much stereo I could actually hear in my stereo sub setup. TLDR: in my (non-representative?) room, stereo sub effects are really audible.

Background:
REW measurements of my room show a THD of 0.63% at 60Hz (really low); the THD goes up sharply under 40Hz but it's consistently low above that. Speakers are Neumann KH-120 II + 2 x SVS SB-1000 + minidsp (EQ) + equalizerAPO (phase correction IR). Running nearfield - I'm about 1m from both subs. Crossover at 80Hz. Room is heavily treated. Rock solid bass performance from the treatment and DSP. No audible rattles/harmonics etc at 60Hz. Tests done at ~65dBa.

Tests:
I prepared some test files: two 60Hz (and other) sine tones, peak at -24dBfs, with fade in/out, one panned hard left, one panned hard right. Frequency analysis of the test file shows nothing except the fundamental down to about -100dBfs.

Using Lacinato ABX, I was able to pick L vs R in 100% of tests at 60Hz (13/13). It wasn't subtle, both audible and felt.

I was also able to reproduce this at 80Hz (10/10) and 40Hz (12/12 - although I might have been hearing a little 2nd harmonic from the 40Hz test, so that one's a bit less scientific). Worth noting that the papers above all claim non-localizability of tones in this range.

The test felt too easy, so I produced some harder test files:
60Hz sine, but this time one panned 20% left, one panned 20% right.
Much harder to pick.
I still got 17 of 21 correct ("Confidence that your results are better than chance: 0.996401309967041 (99.6401309967041%)")

Disclaimer:
This is a calibrated nearfield setup in a closed, heavily treated room (half of my rear wall is covered in membrane traps).

Question:
So... why does my experiment here have different results to all the research papers above?

(Also worth noting there's a few great albums with lots of bass over on the side. Kyuss "And The Circus Leaves Town" has a lot of panned bass and sounds amazing)
 
Last edited:
After a comment by @audiofooled on another thread, I thought I'd test out how much stereo I could actually hear in my stereo sub setup. TLDR: in my (non-representative?) room, stereo sub effects are really audible.

Background:
REW measurements of my room show a THD of 0.63% at 60Hz (really low); the THD goes up sharply under 40Hz but it's consistently low above that. Speakers are Neumann KH-120 II + 2 x SVS SB-1000 + minidsp (EQ) + equalizerAPO (phase correction IR). Running nearfield - I'm about 1m from both subs. Crossover at 80Hz. Room is heavily treated. Rock solid bass performance from the treatment and DSP. No audible rattles/harmonics etc at 60Hz. Tests done at ~65dBa.

Tests:
I prepared some test files: two 60Hz (and other) sine tones, peak at -24dBfs, with fade in/out, one panned hard left, one panned hard right. Frequency analysis shows nothing except the fundamental down to about -100dBfs.

Using Lacinato ABX, I was able to pick L vs R in 100% of tests at 60Hz (13/13). It wasn't subtle, both audible and felt.

I was also able to reproduce this at 80Hz (10/10) and 40Hz (12/12 - although I might have been hearing a little 2nd harmonic from the 40Hz test, so that one's a bit less scientific). Worth noting that the papers above all claim non-localizability of tones in this range.

The test felt too easy, so I produced some harder test files:
60Hz sine, but this time one panned 20% left, one panned 20% right.
Much harder to pick.
I still got 17 of 21 correct ("Confidence that your results are better than chance: 0.996401309967041 (99.6401309967041%)")

Disclaimer:
This is a calibrated nearfield setup in a closed, heavily treated room (half of my rear wall is covered in membrane traps).

Question:
So... why does my experiment here have different results to all the research papers above?

(Also worth noting there's a few great albums with lots of bass over on the side. Kyuss "And The Circus Leaves Town" has a lot of panned bass and sounds amazing)

If I understand right, basically you’re changing how modes are excited by varying the relative level of content to each sub. I’m not sure why one wouldn’t think that should be audible.
 
If I understand right, basically you’re changing how modes are excited by varying the relative level of content to each sub. I’m not sure why one wouldn’t think that should be audible.

well, the published science and dominant narrative says "just run your subs mono, you can't hear directional sub bass without headphones". that doesn't match my blind testing here.

also, if it were just activating different modes, you'd expect the left sub to sometimes sound like it was on the right or whatever, i think (maybe?)? these were 1:1 correlated "panned left"-"sounds like it's the left" etc though.
 
Doesn't it depend also on hearing? People who are trained to hear differences probably score better. Beside that, sensitivity of ears is different as well, hard to calibrate that one! I never liked the idea of a subwoofer crossover at 60 - 80 - 90 Hz. With my 40 Hz / 48 dB i really can not tell where the bass sound comes from.
 
I recently went through this experiment testing two Rhythmic subs in stereo and mono modes through a MiniDSP Flex, both adjusted with Dirac and measured through REW for level matching (and crossed over at about 120Hz). The stereo setup measured more evenly in the bass region and sounded different in the soundstage perhaps in nice ways. However, over weeks of listening, I have ended up preferring the mono arrangement as the bass is more impactful and weightier in perception. This is independent of turning up the bass level in stereo mode for example to compensate. This could be because the subs (2 x 12") in stereo are not large enough for the large open plan living area I have or some other factor that is minimized by a mono configuration.

However overall, I would describe the differences as subtle (unnoticed by casual listeners) and not night & day stuff that is sometimes quoted. Therefore, my recommendation is try both configurations and see what you like but in reality you likely aren't missing out on that much if you can't do one of the modes.
 
From my understanding, wouldn't it depend on the frequency response of the subwoofers.

I have 4 subwoofers, two in the corners of the front wall and two in the middle of the long wall.

The subs in the corners fill in a dip at 50hz of the other two.

I now have a frequency response that follows my target curve more closely, I use OCA's A1 Evo Acoustix and a Denon 3800H.
 
Back
Top Bottom