when considering 1,2, or more subs, one must think about what they want their desired results to be. meaning that some people may need more subs (large seating area perhaps), but 2 is not better 100% of the time. if you take quality into account (quality vs price actually), then 2 is better what at what point? id say one really good sub (x dollars cost) is 90% better than two that are half as good (x total dollars cost).

you can have 1000 subs but if their low-end frequency response is 40Hz, they arent ever going to go below 40Hz. i know that is one specific example, but a valid one, as frequency response is an easily comparable number amongst subs... whereas instead of that 1000 subs, you could have 1 that goes really low.

id rather have one really awesome performing subwoofer and a small sweet spot, than some pretty good subs that blanket the room. when i am watching a movie, i dont tend to mill around, i sit in the same spot every time and watch the whole thing through (some pauses for bathroom/food, etc. of course). its silly to sacrifice quality in the attempt to get more sound, especially seeing as that more sound probably isnt going to be useable anyway.

naturally, if money was no object then you could get a bunch of awesome subs, but it usually is.

i think a lot of people get multiple subwoofers to say that they have multiple subwoofers, not really to get better sound. its their money though, so waste away.

i do not disagree that 2 subs of y quality are almost always better than 1 sub of y quality, but most people dont double their budget for subwoofers when they realize they need 2... also, sometimes 2 subs causes more noticeable nodes than 1 sub did...

------------------
This post has been brought to you by curegeorg, thanks for reading.