Just finished skimming the report and I thought Larry Greenhill pretty well nailed it. The casual nature of the article may have some SVS owners picking at nits, but on balance it was a very positive review describing the PB13 as a great value at its price point. Having heard the PB13 in my home, I would agree with the subjective comments relative to the other subs referenced in the article.

Just read it myself and I think I have some reservations about this review. I'm no SVS fanboy and I've never even owned one, but there were quite a few comments in the article that don't really make sense. I mean this sub has been tested to death and listened to by a bunch of people and it is obviously a great performer. I can see the SQ comparisons, it is subjective after all and the Velo and JL are both noted for their superb SQ at moderate levels. The comments about the SVS not being as strong at the low end, or getting a room lock like the DD18 are like:confused: what? By all accounts the PB13 has way more clean output than the old DD18 below 25hz(probably the REL too, because I've never seen one do that well when measured) and even substantially more than the F113. Also the reviewer never even messed with any of the tuning options and no real measurements were taken, which is disappointing. Then you see glowing praise for $6500 2 way bookshelves in other reviews that have some obvious weak-points. Seemed like the article summary was basically "this is a decent budget subwoofer that comes close to the big boys". "Not bad with the design trade off's that must be made at the $1600 price point". Just kind of irks me.

how many ads has svs purchased from stereophile?

Apparently not enough to get a glowing review :rolleyes:

Also the reviewer never even messed with any of the tuning options and no real measurements were taken, which is disappointing.

That says just about everything right there.

When you say "all accounts the PB13 has way more clean output than the old DD18 below 25hz" -- can you substantiate that? The DD18 is +/- 3dB from 14 Hz on up, and hooks up with a room like white on rice. I'm not saying the PB13 is an inferior quality item in any way, but I wouldn't say it's more capable than a DD18 in that regard unless somebody can prove it.

Greg

That says just about everything right there.

When you say "all accounts the PB13 has way more clean output than the old DD18 below 25hz" -- can you substantiate that? The DD18 is +/- 3dB from 14 Hz on up, and hooks up with a room like white on rice. I'm not saying the PB13 is an inferior quality item in any way, but I wouldn't say it's more capable than a DD18 in that regard unless somebody can prove it.

Greg

DD18
http://www.avtalk.co.uk/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=18356&start=0&rid=14&SQ=1147288566

PB13 20hz
http://www.avtalk.co.uk/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=22950&start=0&rid=14&SQ=1189180431

PB13 15hz
http://www.avtalk.co.uk/forum/index.php?t=msg&th=22952&start=0&rid=14&SQ=1189180431

clean output below 25hz can be seen in the THD charts

i have both the DD18 and PB13 btw (2 right now, 2 more coming in a month's time, and hopefully 2 more before the year ends).

I too was slightly disapointed in the review. As it states in the first paragraph, " with the advent of home theaters, a sub is needed"

Well why didn't he test the Ultra in a surround set up? This was a missed oportunity for Stereophile. (Or SVS)

Hopefully the result will be that another magazine, like Home Theater, will test one now. I would like to see them use the PEQ and run it in different
tunes.

But overall, a pretty good review. The guy recommends it in the end.

I too was slightly disapointed in the review. As it states in the first paragraph, " with the advent of home theaters, a sub is needed"

Well why didn't he test the Ultra in a surround set up? This was a missed oportunity for Stereophile. (Or SVS)

Hopefully the result will be that another magazine, like Home Theater, will test one now. I would like to see them use the PEQ and run it in different
tunes.

But overall, a pretty good review. The guy recommends it in the end.

I think it is safe to say that Mr. Greenhill is a two channel guy. I was surprised to see Stereophile do an article on an ID product and I would think SVS would be pretty happy about that ... "high five":p

I think it is safe to say that Mr. Greenhill is a two channel guy. Not entirely.

Not entirely.

I stand corrected.

He mentioned dual F113's along with the DD18 and Rel. Did he do a direct compare or was this from memory?

Is this a print review? It's not up on the site yet. Link?

If, in fact, he didn't dial in the PEQ/room correction along with optimum tuning for his room, I wonder why. He spent quite a bit of time optimizing both the DD18 and dual Fathoms to get maximum benefit. Oh well, I'll wait until it's posted or someone links me ;).

I haven't yet read the PB13 review, but I know that Greenhill used the SMS built into the DD18 to eq the sub. Does anyone know if the PB13 was eq'd as well? What hurts Greenhills credibilty is that as Ribbit's test links point out, the PB13 has the deep bass (<25hz) capabilty of two or more DD18s. That does lead me to believe that the PB13 was not optimized as was the DD18.

I stand corrected.

He mentioned dual F113's along with the DD18 and Rel. Did he do a direct compare or was this from memory?Dunno. Ask him. I have not yet seen the review.

Just read it myself and I think I have some reservations about this review. I'm no SVS fanboy and I've never even owned one, but there were quite a few comments in the article that don't really make sense. I mean this sub has been tested to death and listened to by a bunch of people and it is obviously a great performer. I can see the SQ comparisons, it is subjective after all and the Velo and JL are both noted for their superb SQ at moderate levels. The comments about the SVS not being as strong at the low end, or getting a room lock like the DD18 are like:confused: what? By all accounts the PB13 has way more clean output than the old DD18 below 25hz(probably the REL too, because I've never seen one do that well when measured) and even substantially more than the F113. Also the reviewer never even messed with any of the tuning options and no real measurements were taken, which is disappointing. Then you see glowing praise for $6500 2 way bookshelves in other reviews that have some obvious weak-points. Seemed like the article summary was basically "this is a decent budget subwoofer that comes close to the big boys". "Not bad with the design trade off's that must be made at the $1600 price point". Just kind of irks me.

I agree with you. Stereophile always has a correlation between the price of any specific piece of gear and how highly the gear is rated. This only stands to reason as Stereophile is aimed at those who can drop a bundle on their gear. Someone already mentioned advertising dollars. No mystery there. Some of their reviews are far too subjective in my humble opinion.

Subjective reviews give Stereophile the wiggle room it needs to put the most expensive gear at the top of the heap. I think this review is a day late and a dollar short, or more accurately, a year late and about $1,500 short. I say $1,500 because that is about the difference between the PB-13 and the Fathom F113.

If Larry Greenfield can't take measurements, Stereophile needs to bring in someone who can take the measurements for him. Tom Nousaine could probably do the measurements in one day.

Audio magazine used to have what they called "Auricles". These were the subjective reviews used to promote expensive gear without any measurements.

I miss Audio magazine. Their speaker tests were great. They even went so far as to measure maximum output and power handling. I still remember the tests of the Legacy Audio Focus.

Unfortunately many of these magazines are nothing more than audio tabloids when it comes to finding truth or usefully information, not to mention two thirds of them are ads purporting as much nonsense as the ones on late night TV.

Is this a print review? It's not up on the site yet. Link?

If, in fact, he didn't dial in the PEQ/room correction along with optimum tuning for his room, I wonder why. He spent quite a bit of time optimizing both the DD18 and dual Fathoms to get maximum benefit. Oh well, I'll wait until it's posted or someone links me ;).

Their usually excellent measurements aside, I like to rag on Stereophile as much as anyone, but realistically LG seems (based on comments here; I've not read the review) to have approached it the way I imagine most of their readers would: ports all open and leave the PEQ untouched. Audiophiles who read Stereophile generally aren't that sophisticated about audio. They probably don't own a decent measurement mic or MLS program, and without guidance all those extra knobs are tricky. (And one band of PEQ isn't terribly useful even to an advanced user, anyway.) The DD18, by contrast, supplies the mic and replaces knobs with an auto EQ routine that doesn't work great but does much better than no EQ. Also, at the DD18's price one would expect a dealer to set it up and calibrate it properly, using the manual PEQ functions.

Under those constraints, or indeed any constraints that don't involve a separate bass EQ, I would expect the DD18 to be a superior-sounding performer in the typical listening room. That one can easily add an SMS-1 or other bass EQ (or use MultEQ XT) and end up paying a lot less than the Velo costs for better output (won't go so far as to say "performance," because the DD18 driver uses the same dual-gap/opposing coil motor topology as the outstanding JBL WGTi subwoofer line) is an entirely different issue.

Hello,

I have a SVS PB13 Ultra here in my room on loan. This thing will beat a DD18 in music or home theater any day. I have had two DD18s through the years. It is a Stereophile Review. They lost credibility in the reviews they do years ago IMO.

rmlowz

Audiophiles who read Stereophile generally aren't that sophisticated about audio. They probably don't own a decent measurement mic or MLS program, and without guidance all those extra knobs are tricky.Rob (RMK!), next time I can make it over to your place, remind me to show you how to use those knob thingys.:)

Just read it myself and I think I have some reservations about this review. I'm no SVS fanboy and I've never even owned one, but there were quite a few comments in the article that don't really make sense. I mean this sub has been tested to death and listened to by a bunch of people and it is obviously a great performer. I can see the SQ comparisons, it is subjective after all and the Velo and JL are both noted for their superb SQ at moderate levels. The comments about the SVS not being as strong at the low end, or getting a room lock like the DD18 are like:confused: what? By all accounts the PB13 has way more clean output than the old DD18 below 25hz(probably the REL too, because I've never seen one do that well when measured) and even substantially more than the F113. Also the reviewer never even messed with any of the tuning options and no real measurements were taken, which is disappointing. Then you see glowing praise for $6500 2 way bookshelves in other reviews that have some obvious weak-points. Seemed like the article summary was basically "this is a decent budget subwoofer that comes close to the big boys". "Not bad with the design trade off's that must be made at the $1600 price point". Just kind of irks me.

I agree!

I haven't read the article and intend to do so. I do know that Larry Greenhill is a sophisticated reviewer who has had the benefit of listening to countless components over several decades. I've always found his reviews to be balanced and a fairly accurate representation of the component under review.

In this case based on my extensive listening to the three subs in question, I would agree with him that the PB-13 is an outstanding HT performer...and likely the best of the 3 for movie applications. I would also agree that for musical presentations and overall sonic quality it is bested by the FL113 and DD-18.

Ive had the PB13U for a while and I love it. I read the review and overall its pretty accurate IMO. The PB13U is a great sub,great performance,good quality build at a sensible price. At normal levels IMO the DD18 and FL113 are tighter and better sounding,but so they should be at the price. If money was no object I might own one,but for a whole lot less the PB13U is not that far away.

John

I haven't read the article and intend to do so. I do know that Larry Greenhill is a sophisticated reviewer who has had the benefit of listening to countless components over several decades. I've always found his reviews to be balanced and a fairly accurate representation of the component under review.

In this case based on my extensive listening to the three subs in question, I would agree with him that the PB-13 is an outstanding HT performer...and likely the best of the 3 for movie applications. I would also agree that for musical presentations and overall sonic quality it is bested by the FL113 and DD-18.


On behalf of all of the unsophisticated listeners out here, thanks for pointing out your preference for $3,000-$5,000 sealed subs with music.

Please explain what overall sonic quality means to someone who uses their subwoofer 80% for Home Theater?

I guess some people are never happy. The reviewer praised the performance and value of the SVS, gave it his recommendation and still people piss and moan over the review.:rolleyes:

On behalf of all of the unsophisticated listeners out here, thanks for pointing out your preference for $3,000-$5,000 sealed subs with music.

Please explain what overall sonic quality means to someone who uses their subwoofer 80% for Home Theater?

All subs have tradeoffs. The SVS is the "best" of the 3 for the individual who uses it for 80% ht, imho. It has huge output and very good sound quality, and is very competitively priced. "Overall sonic quality" is just a catchall statement to say "on balance of the pluses and minuses".

When the AVTalk tests of subwoofers are performed, they are undertaken outside so there is no room or boundary gain taking place. They push the subwoofers to the limits, sometimes higher than 110dB at the lowest frequencies.

Now while some may be fortunate enough to live in homes where they can push things to the limit, wouldn't it be fair to say the vast majority keep the volume levels well under? However the most enthusiastic to post on these forums will be those who energetically push bass to its limits. THat isn't a complaint of negative criticism by the way, just an observation.

In realistic terms, the THD factors in a real room are far less because of room/boundary gain. Therefore 100dB as measured in a room, is very different in terms of load/stress than 100dB outdoors.

If one considers the DD-18s performance at lower dB levels outdoors, there is nothing wrong at all with the figures. Considering it will then perform even better indoors due to less stress, it still looks to be a good product.

So the question is, if you are NOT trying to push to the very limits with any of these products, PB13 Ultra, or a DD-18, or a Fathom etc....what then, can one observe differently between these products in terms of musicality and HT?

Often the DD-18 is referred to as musically tight. This smacks against the grain of what HT enthusiasts might look for. For example, in an explosion, tight is probably the last thing you want. I guess thats why Velodyne implemented the adjustable servo capabilities to allow some reduction in this "tightness".

There is absolutely no doubt that the PB13 Ultra is a truly superb product that has broken new boundaries at its price point. Perhaps it is fair to say, that as a performance/cost measure, the DD-18 is now overpriced.

But when we compare products, lets try and also have a balanced view of how these products compare at moderate, neighbour friendly volumes rather than always pushing the products to excursion limits!

Back to the Stereophile review....From what I read I think the conclusions have been jumped to and I don't think the sub had a fair review or proper comparison which is a great shame.

Jonstatt,
I guess my observation is, people here do periodically push the limits of what the PB13U can do in a small room. That's with room gain. :D They upgrade. That's why people have multiple subs, and even DIY as they wanna go to levels higher than acheivable with say Danley Sound Labs kinda stuff. With room treatment, it becomes clean enough to with push even further.

Back to the Stereophile review....From what I read I think the conclusions have been jumped to and I don't think the sub had a fair review or proper comparison which is a great shame.


Yeah, I agree here. I was also left with the distinct impression that the Ultra didn't cost enough, therefore it could never sound better than a DD18 (costing much more-therefore it's gotta be better) or other more expensive sub. I'm surprised it was even reviewed. Some of the review was pretty good, and I agree with most of it but I just can't stand Stereophile's esoterica. However, I did purchase the mag just for the reivew and to collect.

Almost "hi-end" just not "hi-end enough".

I have not yet read this review, but apparently he compares a single 13Ultra with a pair of f113's which of course would go for about $7000. Sounds about right. :rolleyes:

I have not yet read this review, but apparently he compares a single 13Ultra with a pair of f113's which of course would go for about $7000. Sounds about right. :rolleyes:

Also, I've never heard bass described as having more "3-D effect" as was described comparing dual Fathoms to a single Ultra? I doubt I would be able to perceive such an effect as the reviewer describes. He did have alot of positives to say about the Ultra though.

But, if "price is no object" then it must sound better! Also, the "bloat" ascribed to the Ultra almost certainly could have been tamed with a little more effort on the reviewer's part.

I recently set up a pb13 for one of my friends who's other sub sadly passed away, The thing is that i am really more of a two channel guy myself and always tend to set up subs to work well within a music set up ,I found, and this is just my opinion, that i just could not get the pb13 to work satisfactory while left ported, However it is a completely different animal when in sealed mode. I realize this is a compromise for ht but not even trying this for review purposes is a real crime. I just don't understand how a professional reviewer could overlook something so fundamental. For anyone out there with a pb13 who maybe sways a little more towards music i would highly recommend you at least try setting up your sub like this . Not as if you've anything to lose by trying it eh!

I could see where sealed mode could really sound terrific especilly in a smaller room that has big low-end room gain. Keep in mid that there is also the "Room comp" control to shape the low end to fit the room as well.

I could see where sealed mode could really sound terrific especilly in a smaller room that has big low-end room gain. Keep in mid that there is also the "Room comp" control to shape the low end to fit the room as well.

The room was actually just in the mid sized cat, according to the svs chart anyway. Although i would say you are probably correct ,room sizes over this side of the pond are generally smaller so i would agree that the sealed mode may not be ideal in larger rooms. On the other hand if you had more than one sub this might still sound better with music. And still cheaper than some of the more expensive opposition.

DD18
[url]

i have both the DD18 and PB13 btw (2 right now, 2 more coming in a month's time, and hopefully 2 more before the year ends).

Six PB13's?!?!? How are they laid out?

I recently set up a pb13 for one of my friends who's other sub sadly passed away, The thing is that i am really more of a two channel guy myself and always tend to set up subs to work well within a music set up ,I found, and this is just my opinion, that i just could not get the pb13 to work satisfactory while left ported, However it is a completely different animal when in sealed mode. I realize this is a compromise for ht but not even trying this for review purposes is a real crime. I just don't understand how a professional reviewer could overlook something so fundamental. For anyone out there with a pb13 who maybe sways a little more towards music i would highly recommend you at least try setting up your sub like this . Not as if you've anything to lose by trying it eh!


I would suggest to you that the PB-13 Ultra is not "a completely different animal" when used in sealed mode.

When you read about the PB-13 on the SVS website, and look at the graphs published by SVS, you will see that sealed mode is just a further continuation of rolling off the low end more gradually.

You can really see the gradual roll-off when you compare sealed mode to the 10Hz (ported) tune.

Six PB13's?!?!? How are they laid out?

not six yet ... i only have two, but two on the way. still waiting for the oak swatch svs sent with my rosenut orders.

right now, i plan to do 2 on the left, 2 on the right. (and maybe two front left stacked if i get that much money)

thats it ribbit? I'd call you a subwoofer pussy:D

thats it ribbit? I'd call you a subwoofer pussy:D

the spirit is willing ... but the wallet isn't as capable :D

not six yet ... i only have two, but two on the way. still waiting for the oak swatch svs sent with my rosenut orders.

right now, i plan to do 2 on the left, 2 on the right. (and maybe two front left stacked if i get that much money)

I'd suggest looking at the Harmon white paper on sub woofer placement. The recommended best position is for 4 subs to be located a the mid point of each wall but the next best solution is in each of the 4 corners.

Your my kind of guy, Can never have too much woof. I have two SVS PB12/Plus 2's in the front and two PC Ultra's (same driver as PB-13) in the rear. The trick is to get them to all integrate correctly or you can end up with the sum less than the individual parts.

unfortunately, only the two side midpoints and rear midpoint is available.

im planning:
a sub for each of the L C R's signal split by a DCX2496
one LFE sub at the rear using my DIY (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a330/superribbit/DIY/CIMG1917.jpg)
one on each side midpoint
and hopefully two on the front left corner

ill post pics of my HT when i get the two ultras :)

I would suggest to you that the PB-13 Ultra is not "a completely different animal" when used in sealed mode.

When you read about the PB-13 on the SVS website, and look at the graphs published by SVS, you will see that sealed mode is just a further continuation of rolling off the low end more gradually.

You can really see the gradual roll-off when you compare sealed mode to the 10Hz (ported) tune.

Reading about something and actual practice is not one in the same thing my friend, I did say it is only my opinion but i stand by what i say for the room and circumstances the sub was set up in . It did and does sound better in sealed mode for music in this situation anyway. i'm sure others will disagree but thats ok to:)

I picked up a copy of Stereophile today and read the article. As I thought from the early comments, it is a fairly balanced and complementary article. I wouldn't expect any less from a reviewer the likes of a Larry Greenhill.

I'm not sure what people were referring to earlier but it read to me like he took great care in dialing in the PB13 into his Quad ESL-989s. The proof is in the pic of flat FR presented in Fig. 2. That's pretty well the way I dialed in the Ultra when comparing it to the DD-18 and FL113 last year.

Also he tested it with a wide selection of esoteric music over an extended time which is good. It really is the only way to come up with an opinion regarding the acoustical nuances of these excellent subs Like myself the Ultra was his favourite for organ recordings. I recall how the Ultra made the Great Gate from Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition sound like I was in a cathedral. Neither the FL113 or DD-18 can reproduce organ quite like the Ultra.

One comment though told the tale why he preferred the other 2 subs..."I also noticed that the PB13-Ultra added a subtle harshness and flattening of the soundstage to recordings of massed voices." He speculates that that harshness may be a result of the slope of the high pass filter. I heard that harshness or edginess as well in my music selections which I attribute to the greater odd order (3rd ) component harmonic distortion in the Ultra compared to the DD-18 and FL113. While the filter may be adding some distortion, odd order harmonics are more likely to produce that sound.

One criticism I do have, he should have compared the Ultra to a single FL113if he was going to refer to a 3D soundstage. I too have a pair of FL113 and understand the holographic effect he mentioned as 3D. Its uncanny because I usually only hear it with stereo subs yet the mono dual Fathoms produce that 3d effect. In any event, it doesn't make sense to compare a single sub to a pair.

As for the DD-18, a sub which is greatly underestimated these days, I can see how a properly setup DD-18 would be perceived as having more punch and slam with music even though the a comparitive review of graphs would not reveal those properties of the Velo. Its just that much tighter with less overhang in the bass notes with no port resonance. When comparing equalized subs those traits would be perceived as Greenhill described.

Because the article was more a music quality review he didn't comment on HT where the Ultra really shines over those other 2 subs. That's too bad since his article would have been more complete with a comment or two with DVDs.

All in all a well written balanced article which reinforces our opinions from our tests last year, the importance of listening comparisons and why one should consider lists and rankings with caution. :cool:

Because the article was more a music quality review he didn't comment on HT where the Ultra really shines over those other 2 subs. That's too bad since his article would have been more complete with a comment or two with DVDs.

All in all a well written balanced article which reinforces our opinions from our tests last year, the importance of listening comparisons and why one should consider lists and rankings with caution. :cool:

Yes, I completely overlooked the fact that the review was purely from a musical perspective! Making a comparison from an HT perspective certainly would have been more interesting, but is beyond the scope of stereophile. That being said, I think the Ultra did VERY well considering. I think it is a very good sub musically and phenominal when it comes to HT.

The Stereophile review is now online here for those of us who don't get the physical magazine: http://www.stereophile.com/subwoofers/808svs/

It is a strongly positive review in which the PB13 is highly recommended especially for what it costs relative to the other subs it is compared with, the Rel Studio III, a pair of f113's, and the Velodyne DD18. The one statement near the end of the review that I don't quite understand is: "the PB13-Ultra's deep-bass output had less of the shuddering, sustained power put out by the more expensive subs." What does that mean exactly? Shouldn't the bass only be sustained as long as the signal or am I missing something here?

The sub was tested only in 20hz tune. That may have something to do with it. The other subs would have had deeper extension than the PB13 in that mode.

i wonder what his crossover frequency is from the mains to the sub.

The Stereophile review is now online here for those of us who don't get the physical magazine: http://www.stereophile.com/subwoofers/808svs/

It is a strongly positive review in which the PB13 is highly recommended especially for what it costs relative to the other subs it is compared with, the Rel Studio III, a pair of f113's, and the Velodyne DD18. The one statement near the end of the review that I don't quite understand is: "the PB13-Ultra's deep-bass output had less of the shuddering, sustained power put out by the more expensive subs." What does that mean exactly? Shouldn't the bass only be sustained as long as the signal or am I missing something here?

The sub was tested only in 20hz tune. That may have something to do with it. The other subs would have had deeper extension than the PB13 in that mode.

Mike

You are looking for something that is explained by Greenhill himself: "the PB-13-Ultra's deep-bass output had less of the shuddering, sustained power put out by the more expensive subs."

The key works are "more expensive subs". Since Greenhill cannot quantify this "shuddering, sustained power", he has to throw in something that is subjective for those who spend the extra money on Rel, Velodyne, or J L Audio.

This has been the strategy of Stereophile forever. Because they accept advertising, Stereophile is beholding to advertisers and to the whole concept that more expensive products will almost always outperform less expensive products in either a measureable way or some meaningless subjective collection of words

I put more value on the reviews of Ilkka, Tom Nousaine, and Keith Yates.

There is some real nonsense in Greenhill's review.

How about this one: "The Velodyne DD-18-with its much larger (18 inch) servo-controlled come, high-pass filer, and 1,400 watt internal amplifier-delivered greater punch, slam, and room lock." More punch and slam?

Blatant nonsense.

There is some real nonsense in Greenhill's review.

How about this one: "The Velodyne DD-18-with its much larger (18 inch) servo-controlled come, high-pass filer, and 1,400 watt internal amplifier-delivered greater punch, slam, and room lock." More punch and slam?

Blatant nonsense.

Can someone please explain what "room lock" is?

I think it may be the same as what many call pressurization, although I'm not sure why the DD18 would be better at achieving this when you consider that the PB13 is capable of about two or three times the output of the Velodyne at 20hz.

must be fun to have a job that requires you create to "signature" subjective sound adjectives.

my X subwoofer can mind meld while my Y subwoofer has phasers.

"i'm writing fiction with my mouth."