IMO I don't think any speaker company doesn't recommend implementing subs, even those that don't make sub products. But there's a perception that some speakers are so elite that subs dilute the sonic benefits of the mains.
Unfortunately yes. An abusive generalization, IMO. Surely I easily accept that the bi-amplified Arrakis's in Rockport exceptional listening room don't need subs. But very few audiophiles have such rooms.
How, if remotely even true that outweighs the detriments of sub(s)'room mode management is comical.
Yes. First - how can people tell if a subwoofer is or not beneficial without proper knowledge of the room? Many times the best position for imaging and timbre creates a bass null, that can't be compensated unless we place a bass source in another position - nulls due do cancellation can't be equalized. Second - how can others know how a particular listener appreciates the effects of having subsonic stereo information?
Those having read Andy Payor will not find that he opposes the subwoofer concept - his main concern is using different types of amplifiers with the different transfer functions in a system. He dislikes the idea of matching for example a SET with a class D for bass.
Subwoofer systems are not all the same. One the best tools I have tried when playing with subs was the JLAudio CR1 active crossover damping function, even when used just for the sub.
BTW, my experience with subs is just with the JLAudio F113 mk2's with the CR1 active crossover and the Wilson Watchdog's and Wilson Audio crossover.