[Mauricio]

I'm intrigued by the potential benefits of a 2.2 system, and I am keen to hear from those who are running a two-satellite, two-subwoofer system.

 

[Zeebra]

I don't know do any movies come with two LFE tracks, or do any sound cards support having two different ones, but I've got an idea that's remotely the same if we ditch the official naming method: You could always run a two channel signal, that is to say, 2.0 so that your left speaker's signal goes into the subwoofer that is next to your left side speaker, and the high-pass out is led to your speaker, and same thing for the right channel. After tuning the crossover points you'd basically have a 3-way speaker with quite a lot of sound pressure capabilities in the low end. That's the only sensible way to do it, and keep in mind your subwoofer should have a changeable crossover frequency, and most preferably a high-pass output to the higher frequency speaker so the two won't disturb each other.

I've done it for giggles, but keep in mind your speakers should be sensibly sized too, so the crossover point isn't too high. Having two small 5" subwoofers and tiny satellites would only make your sound twice as bad. You will also run into trouble with room modes and room frequency response, most likely even more so with two subs.

 

[Mauricio]

The set-up that I am envisioning is that which you described.  That is:
 
Signal (right) >>> Sub (right) >> Satellite (right)
Signal (left) >>> Sub (left) >> Satellite (left)
 
The satellites in question have 5" midrange/bass drivers.  The subwoofers have 8" drivers.  The subwoofers have variable low-pass control, high-pass control, and high-pass output.  At present (in 2.1 configuration), I've got them shaking hands at 100Hz.  They are all active so issues of amplification are nil.
 
How is the sound and imaging different between 2.1 and 2.2?

 

[Zeebra]

To be honest, that sounds nice! Just remember to set your sources to 2.0 so none of the low frequencies will go disregarded (ie. down the LFE channel, although I'm sure that won't happen if nothing is plugged in there).

In essence you have twice the surface area on your low frequency playback so you can expect a much beefier handling to your explosions and the such, maybe a small addition to the low-end of your stereo imaging. Do keep in mind low frequencies are hardly directional to our perception so most likely you'll perceive louder bass, and less distortion from having to run your subwoofer so loud if you're into big bass.

It's certainly something to show off as exotic, something that would make the average audiophile cringe, and quite fun to listen to, presuming your monitors and subwoofers are adequate. I prefer a single 18" 1600W PA-subwoofer

 

[Mauricio]

Depends on what "audiophiles" you listen to.  Some will tell you, including Sound on Sound, that the best placement for a subwoofer is right in the middle of the satellites.  This, however, has the potential for creating the worst nodes and standing waves.  Plus some of the frequencies reproduced by the sub, say at 120Hz can begin to be directional so the center positioning is suboptimal.  In other words, center positioning is good for some things and bad for others.  The solution?  A 2.2. system which, if well implemented, is little different from a three-way speaker.  In essence a 2.2 system is a 2.0 system.  Voila, problems solved!

 

[Il Mostro]

This would be very dependent on the components used, but generally speaking, I doubt there would be much (if any) benefit if using omnidirectional subwoofers -- in fact there might actually be a negative effect.  I run a 2.2 but am using subs that actually do image (Kinergertics SW-800's) with full size ESL speakers and a crossover specifically designed for this equipment.  An better single omnidirectional sub would be the route I would take in a typical set up, rather than adding a second sub.

 

[Zeebra]

Do post some pictures, I've only seen quite bad ones of such a setup!

 

[Il Mostro]

Quote:

Do post some pictures, I've only seen quite bad ones of such a setup!

Here's a not so good phone shot I took last week to show off my brand new D7000's with my main speakers (since I was commenting on how the D7000's were very full range speaker-like)...
 

 

[Somnambulist]

Linkwitz Orions w/Thor subs are 2.2, as are the Plutos w/their subs. Obviously the bigger, fancier full-range speakers have sub-sized woofers so are more an integrated 2.2.
 
Plenty of people with home theater set-ups use dual subwoofers, albeit in bigger rooms. Apparently there are benefits in terms of balancing room harmonics etc, but the general rule seems to be one very good sub is better than two 'alright' subs. Obviously low bass is omnidirectional, but I know some peope still find if they have a relatively high crossover on their sub (due to the extension of their main speakers... or lack of rather) that directionality comes into it a bit. I know Linkwitz uses dual subs for the increased output.

 

[Il Mostro]

 
Quote:

Linkwitz Orions w/Thor subs are 2.2, as are the Plutos w/their subs. Obviously the bigger, fancier full-range speakers have sub-sized woofers so are more an integrated 2.2.
 
Plenty of people with home theater set-ups use dual subwoofers, albeit in bigger rooms. Apparently there are benefits in terms of balancing room harmonics etc, but the general rule seems to be one very good sub is better than two 'alright' subs. Obviously low bass is usually omnidirectional, but I know some peope still find if they have a relatively high crossover on their sub (due to the extension of their main speakers... or lack of rather) that directionality comes into it a bit. I know Linkwitz uses dual subs for the increased output.

Fixed.

 

[DaveBSC]

There's actually a very good argument for using two subwoofers. Back when I used to have a large speaker setup, that's what I had. You can get there several different ways - powered tower speakers, or you can run the high-level speaker cables to the subwoofer and then from there on to the main channels letting the sub do the crossover work, or you can use a receiver/preamp/SSP with two subwoofer outputs or simply use a Y cable from a single subwoofer output. Material with specific ".1" encoding will be sent to both subs in either case.
 
So why use two subs? On reason is that you can use smaller drivers and still achieve a similar SPL capability, although you can't match the deep bass extension of a very large woofer with several smaller ones. The main one though is to correct room response. Rooms are not flat, particularly at very low frequencies. You can attempt to correct for this with a single sub using PEQ, but reducing the level of a peak using EQ is a lot easier than filling in a notch, where you may have to over drive a sub out of its comfort zone. In my old room, each sub had a big notch at a different frequency. When the response of one dropped off, the other was there to pick up the slack.

 

[TMRaven]

I rather personally get 1 very good sub instead of 2 lesser subs.  Unlike bookshelves, it's very hard to get good quality subs at a low price.  I don't know what your budget in mind was.

 

[Mauricio]

The system is the Yamaha HS50M with the Yamaha HW10 subwoofer.  The subwoofer alone is $400. 

 

[TMRaven]

400 is like the minimum to spend on a halfway decent sub.  With 800-1000 dollars you can get some really nice subwoofers from HSU, SVS, Rythmik etc.

 

[Mauricio]

Ya, I know.  I, myself, have said as much a couple of times on this forum.  $400 is the entry-level point.  Taking it to the next level will bring you to the $1,000 point.  There, I'd go with the likes of a JBL or Focal.  No "hi-fi" for me.  I much prefer studio, recording equipment.