First it was the tv upgrade (Pioneer 6020). I couldn't upgrade the tv and not upgrade the receiver (Onkyo 906). Now, I am thinking about upgrading the sub! Which sub would you prefer and why? A JL Audio Fathom 112 or the SVS PB13 ultra? I know the JL is a lot more but there is a used one for around the same price as a new SVS.

what we think shouldn't matter as the JL 12 and SVS 13 have totally different goals - and what matters is what YOU need the sub to do.

Could you outline the different goals from each sub?

JL
-small but big output in the upper ranges

SVS
-goes low and loud but uses a big enclosure

I think the correct goal for the JL is small but extreme output for its size. The JL is for people who need a small sub and are willing to pay big money for it.

Small, SPL, low price, choose any 2.

The JL chose small and SPL.

The SVS PB13 chose SPL and low price.

By the way, even though JL has massive output for its size, it cannot touch the PB13's low output capabilities.

I think the correct goal for the JL is small but extreme output for its size. The JL is for people who need a small sub and are willing to pay big money for it.

Small, SPL, low price, choose any 2.

The JL chose small and SPL.

The SVS PB13 chose SPL and low price.

By the way, even though JL has massive output for its size, it cannot touch the PB13's low output capabilities.

That's a good way of wording it.

The JL seems to be also designed to exude the build quality you expect of a premium product. Not that the SVS Ultras are shoddy or anything, but except for the size of the box, the JL's would definitely not be mistaken for an inexpensive product by just looking at it.

To get the extreme output from the small box that the JL has, you need to really over engineer everything and that design costs (a lot) more. So indeed JL has opted for "small and SPL" over "SPL and price"

By the way, even though JL has massive output for its size, it cannot touch the PB13's low output capabilities.-3dB @ 19Hz isn't too shabby. Granted the PB13 can be setup to go lower at the expense of output, but it is -3dB @ 18Hz in its 20Hz mode.

-3dB @ 19Hz isn't too shabby. Granted the PB13 can be setup to go lower at the expense of output, but it is -3dB @ 18Hz in its 20Hz mode.

yeah, they both can go low - but loud at low frequencies is another matter :)

yeah, they both can go low - but loud at low frequencies is another matter :)And which one do you think is "louder" at 20Hz?

-3dB @ 19Hz isn't too shabby. Granted the PB13 can be setup to go lower at the expense of output, but it is -3dB @ 18Hz in its 20Hz mode.

True, but just because the F112 is -3dB at 19hz (almost the same as the PB13) doesn't mean it will have anywhere near as much output at that frequency. Looking at Ilkka's tests at HTS, the PB13 in 20hz tune exceeds the F113 by around 6dB at 20hz. I'd expect the F113 to have more output than the smaller F112 at 20hz, so I'd have to guess at least a 7-8dB output advantage for the PB13 at 20hz. Of course raw output numbers at 20hz aren't the be-all end-all of subwoofer performance, but I think the difference in the 30hz and under performance between the F112 and PB13 would be quite substantial. That said, both subs are incredible performers, and the F112 is an absolutely amazing performer given its diminutive size.

i dont think anything :)

but i was basing the assumptions on these:
http://personal.inet.fi/private/zipman/shootout5/jl%20audio%20f113%20mo.png
http://personal.inet.fi/private/zipman/shootout5/svs%20pb13ultra%2020hz%20mo.png

to answer the question for me, svs, price.

I do not know which one is "louder". What is "louder"? How is "loudness" measured? Is it output at some particular frequency with some maximum allowable distortion? Like 20Hz output at 10% distortion? Or 25Hz? Or 16Hz? Or maybe it is better to define it as an average output measured at several different frequencies over a particular range with a max. allowable amount of distortion (say, 10%)? Illka's cutoff is "before serious compression". Not that it isn't valid, but I'm not sure what that means, exactly. Only point I'm trying to make is that "loudness" needs to be defined if you are going to say one sub is "louder" than another.

Nousaine's actual "test bench" results do not accompany THIS (http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/speakers/3005/svs-mts-home-theater-speaker-system.html) very recent review, yet. The f112 is cited by Kumin in the review as the only other subwoofer to have performed like the PB13-Ultra in his room. HERE (http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/speakers/1884/jl-audio-fathom-f112-subwoofer.html) is Kumin's f112 review with Nousaine's "test bench" results. I would expect the PB13-Ultra to be added to his list, soon. I wonder which is "louder" by his definition? Again, I don't know nor care, really. Just curious as to how that claim could be made for either sub.

without cheating to look at the measurements - i would think if we limited output to say 10% THD, the ultra would pull further ahead in 'clean' SPL

edit: now after looking at the THD charts at various SPL sweeps

http://personal.inet.fi/private/zipman/shootout5/jl%20audio%20f113%20thd.png
http://personal.inet.fi/private/zipman/shootout5/svs%20pb13ultra%2020hz%20thd.png

link to tests:
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/subwoofer-tests/8152-jl-audio-fathom-f113-new.html
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/subwoofer-tests/8150-svs-pb13-ultra-20-hz-tune-new.html

unless the F112 can outperform the F113 in SPL or F3 - i think it's safe to compare the F113 test to the Ultra 13 20hz mode

CEA "max clean output"
http://personal.inet.fi/private/zipman/shootout5/jl%20audio%20f113%20cea.png
http://personal.inet.fi/private/zipman/shootout5/svs%20pb13ultra%2020hz%20cea.png

;)

When you see the SPL measurements next to each other, something doesn't look right. Notice just how similar they both measure below 20Hz. The graphs are almost exactly the same. Plus, the Fathom's graph doesn't look like a sealed sub as it has the same slope as the ported PB13. Just thinking that Illka's measuring setup doesn't go below 20Hz.

actually, it looks like SVS is EQ'ing their ported subs to act like sealed subs down low

Ed M once used the term "overdamping" when describing the ultra's low end.

and if you look at the PB12NSD, it slopes like a sealed sub on the low end (even on AVTALK) - gone are the previous straight line then drop after the tuning FR's

The difference in the THD graphs is what is striking. I think. Not sure how to read them, exactly. :eek:

The difference in the THD graphs is what is striking. I think. Not sure how to read them, exactly. :eek:

I think you mean - you don't know how to interpret them.

What I've read is that anything over 10% THD is to be avoided with subwoofers but I've also read that the lower the bass note the less distortion is audible.

In the end, I don't know how to interpret them either. :D

actually, it looks like SVS is EQ'ing their ported subs to act like sealed subs down low

Ed M once used the term "overdamping" when describing the ultra's low end.

and if you look at the PB12NSD, it slopes like a sealed sub on the low end (even on AVTALK) - gone are the previous straight line then drop after the tuning FR'sActually, I would expect the PB to look like it does. I would think the F113 would have a more gradual roll off. But look at the lines. They are almost exactly the same.

The difference in the THD graphs is what is striking. I think. Not sure how to read them, exactly. :eek:I know I've seen these before, but when you isolate them from the clutter of all the other graphs they were grouped with, the more striking they become. The F113's distortion graph looks so erratic, it looks like the distortion is distorted.

i'm not familiar with how many db/octave slope sealed subs are supposed to drop at the end (i can't remember) 12db or 6db?

:)

The SVS PB13 chose SPL and low price.

If JL was a direct sale company like svs, imagine their quality of products at at least half of the MSRP.

Either way I'd choose JL

we shouldn't be choosing for the OP actually :D

Which sub would you prefer and why?
And remember, he said "same price".

If JL was a direct sale company like svs, imagine their quality of products at at least half of the MSRP.

Either way I'd choose JLSurprise, surprise, surprise. You would rather have a 5 Gal. plastic bucket and a stick before you would choose an SVS. But we all know how fair and impartial you are.

hey wait a minute. i know where you're gonna get your F112 for the same price as the Ultra. lol if that weren't 110v, i'd grab it :D

back OT though:
if it were my bedroom or PC where i need small, loud and cool looking - it'd be the F112
if it were my HT where i need maximum output and depth with no size restriction - it'd be the ultra

If JL was a direct sale company like svs, imagine their quality of products at at least half of the MSRP.

Either way I'd choose JL

You're right....guess you could say the same for HSU huh........

if it were my bedroom or PC where i need small, loud and cool looking - it'd be the F112
if it were my HT where i need maximum output and depth with no size restriction - it'd be the ultra


I think this sums it up pretty well. Two different products with different missions, both excellent in their own right.

I have no clue what you guys just wrote, lol! Damn, it's like a foreign language to me!:) I really want a sub to perform well in HT usage. Music would be second to me. Does SVS charge extra for shipping? I am assuming they do.

yup 1599 for the unit (except piano black) + 99 usd shipping
5-7 days shipping to CA

yup 1599 for the unit (except piano black) + 99 usd shipping
5-7 days shipping to CA

And no tax if you live outside Ohio and no delivery charge from your local dealer (I don't have a truck or car with a large back seat ot trunk).

By the way I was considering buying 2 F113s and ended up getting 2 PB13 Ultras, saved a considerable amount of money and have never looked back, they look great (piano black) and sound (musical when it needs to be loud when it needs to be) great.

I am sure I would also have been happy with the F113s, but that money is difficult to give up.

The F113's distortion graph looks so erratic, it looks like the distortion is distorted.

No disrespect towards the F113, but do you know how funny that is?:D

No disrespect towards the F113, but do you know how funny that is?:DDon't know if I am commenting on the sub or the measurements. When I see all those close peaks and valleys on a distortion % graph, I gotta think there is something funny about the measurement. Maybe a little smoothing is needed.

How many of you guys commenting have actually heard the two subs in question? What are your thoughts?

How many of you guys commenting have actually heard the two subs in question? What are your thoughts?I have, side-by-side (each as duals). After getting over the aesthetics and size discrepancy, I found them equal on almost everything thrown at them, except for the Pulse basement scene. The PB13 made a louder, more obnoxious sound than the Fathom (F113), but neither liked it. Most in the room gave a slight nod to the F113 for SQ and crispness, but it was splitting hairs. For me, much more HT than music interest, I liked the higher impact of the PB, but again just slightly. The biggest problem with these comparos is we don't do true A-B listening where you can quickly switch back and forth between the two. It is normally play a scene through, rewind (it's just a term), and play again through the other speakers. You really are no more accurate than your audio memory.

I have, side-by-side (each as duals). After getting over the aesthetics and size discrepancy, I found them equal on almost everything thrown at them, except for the Pulse basement scene. The PB13 made a louder, more obnoxious sound than the Fathom (F113), but neither liked it. Most in the room gave a slight nod to the F113 for SQ and crispness, but it was splitting hairs. For me, much more HT than music interest, I liked the higher impact of the PB, but again just slightly. The biggest problem with these comparos is we don't do true A-B listening where you can quickly switch back and forth between the two. It is normally play a scene through, rewind (it's just a term), and play again through the other speakers. You really are no more accurate than your audio memory.
Interesting.

So can you corrolate the difference in the measurements that were posted to the differences you heard?

I love threads like this. It just strengthens my resolve to someday go for the Ultra. I will get the cylinder version though. Tell me it doesn't really make a difference, over a box I mean.

Interesting.

So can you correlate the difference in the measurements that were posted to the differences you heard?No. but we weren't listening to pure sine waves. I, for one, would rather see subs measured by taking a 5 second O'scope screen shot of the signal applied to the VC and a highly accurate accelerometer attached to the cone. Then overlay them and see how closely cone movement is to the signal. Then you would see how true the motor reproduces the input signal. Basically, anything after that is acoustics. One thing I never see checked is how true the signal path keeps a pure sine wave or any signal from the original source. The only thing listening will give you is to determine which sounds better to you. It doesn't tell you which is producing the truer sound. nor would that matter if you don't like the purer sound. As has been said many times, some people like distortion. What I can't answer is, am I one of them.

If you have ever listened to The Three Tenors, then you can tell me which one sounded better to you. They all sang in the same range, but I preferred Pavarotti to Placido and Placido to Jose. But Jose sounded good. I just liked the timber of the other two better. Can't quantify nor qualify this preference.

No. but we weren't listening to pure sine waves. I, for one, would rather see subs measured by taking a 5 second O'scope screen shot of the signal applied to the VC and a highly accurate accelerometer attached to the cone. Then overlay them and see how closely cone movement is to the signal. Then you would see how true the motor reproduces the input signal. Basically, anything after that is acoustics. One thing I never see checked is how true the signal path keeps a pure sine wave or any signal from the original source. The only thing listening will give you is to determine which sounds better to you. It doesn't tell you which is producing the truer sound. nor would that matter if you don't like the purer sound. As has been said many times, some people like distortion. What I can't answer is, am I one of them.
Randy...I very much agree with you and what you would like to see. We don't listen to subs the way they are tested, and unlike speakers, nobody(to my knowledge) has published anything about measurements and what we hear in subs.

These SPL/distortion measurements just tell us how loud a sub will play...and not much else.

Randy...I very much agree with you and what you would like to see. We don't listen to subs the way they are tested, and unlike speakers, nobody(to my knowledge) has published anything about measurements and what we hear in subs.

These SPL/distortion measurements just tell us how loud a sub will play...and not much else.The speaker manufacturers need something to demonstrate their product when people can't give them all a listen. What we lack, as consumers, is an audible reference to demonstrate what distortion, group delay, or other measurable traits actually sound like. Even if someone were to produce exaggerated sound files, there is no telling what the consumer would play those back on. So, until someone develops tests to demonstrate how well their system converts electrical signals to machanical movement with real world complex sounds, all we have is the kinds of measurements Illka and others publish.

Wouldn't it be terrific if audio stores would conduct non-sales oriented demonstrations to educate our ears to the real differences between classes of audio equipment.

I have, side-by-side (each as duals). After getting over the aesthetics and size discrepancy, I found them equal on almost everything thrown at them, except for the Pulse basement scene. The PB13 made a louder, more obnoxious sound than the Fathom (F113), but neither liked it. Most in the room gave a slight nod to the F113 for SQ and crispness, but it was splitting hairs. For me, much more HT than music interest, I liked the higher impact of the PB, but again just slightly. The biggest problem with these comparos is we don't do true A-B listening where you can quickly switch back and forth between the two. It is normally play a scene through, rewind (it's just a term), and play again through the other speakers. You really are no more accurate than your audio memory.

I've had them in my family room and in Jakeman's dedicated home theater (note, the F113 not the F112 which the OP is looking at). Pretty much identical comments as Randy's, especially re: Pulse! Darn farting sound .... ;)

The speaker manufacturers need something to demonstrate their product when people can't give them all a listen. What we lack, as consumers, is an audible reference to demonstrate what distortion, group delay, or other measurable traits actually sound like. Even if someone were to produce exaggerated sound files, there is no telling what the consumer would play those back on. So, until someone develops tests to demonstrate how well their system converts electrical signals to machanical movement with real world complex sounds, all we have is the kinds of measurements Illka and others publish.

Wouldn't it be terrific if audio stores would conduct non-sales oriented demonstrations to educate our ears to the real differences between classes of audio equipment.
True, but IMO, many are equating these measurements, from Illka and others, as an indication of ultimate sound quality, and that is misleading to the consumer.

I do know that there are devices that can measure how fast a cone starts and stops when it receives the signal to do so. Hopefully that information will trickle down.

SVS because their customer service just cannot be beat. They will do EVERYTHING to make their customers happy.

Plus there subs are kick ass. From the lowest priced to the highest priced ....you will get something that will knock your socks off!!!

True, but IMO, many are equating these measurements, from Illka and others, as an indication of ultimate sound quality, and that is misleading to the consumer.

I do know that there are devices that can measure how fast a cone starts and stops when it receives the signal to do so. Hopefully that information will trickle down.I would think a reflective spot on the cone and a laser could show true cone movement.

The speaker manufacturers need something to demonstrate their product when people can't give them all a listen. What we lack, as consumers, is an audible reference to demonstrate what distortion, group delay, or other measurable traits actually sound like. Even if someone were to produce exaggerated sound files, there is no telling what the consumer would play those back on. So, until someone develops tests to demonstrate how well their system converts electrical signals to machanical movement with real world complex sounds, all we have is the kinds of measurements Illka and others publish.

Wouldn't it be terrific if audio stores would conduct non-sales oriented demonstrations to educate our ears to the real differences between classes of audio equipment.Measuring "how a speaker sounds" is compli-muh-cated stuff. Subwoofers may be simpler, but still complicated. Everyone (apparently) hears differently and prefers a different sound, so it's sort of like trying to measure the taste of artificial flavoring. Will it taste like "grape" or not? Does it taste like "grape" or not? And I don't mean making/mixing the same molecules that are in a grape. I mean "artificial" flavoring. A speaker may be able to recreate the sound of a trumpet, but when you get down to it, measurement-wise, there WILL be a huge difference between what the speaker can do versus what someone making a fart sound into the end of a brass tube sounds like. Again, subwoofers may be simpler, but it is still complicated.

I would think a reflective spot on the cone and a laser could show true cone movement.
Yeah...but different parts of the cone, can and do, react differently. Also, I would think, finding that reflective spot might be difficult on at least some cones.

Yeah...but different parts of the cone, can and do, react differently. Also, I would think, finding that reflective spot might be difficult on at least some cones.I'm saying put a reflective spot on the center of the cone.

I'm saying put a reflective spot on the center of the cone.
OK...something light enough that doesn't have an effect otherwise? I wonder if something like that exists already?

Randy...I very much agree with you and what you would like to see. We don't listen to subs the way they are tested, and unlike speakers, nobody(to my knowledge) has published anything about measurements and what we hear in subs.

These SPL/distortion measurements just tell us how loud a sub will play...and not much else.

Have a read of this research paper which introduces a couple of the newer metrics for measuring non-linearity and compares them against more traditional measures.

http://projekter.aau.dk/projekter/retrieve/9852082?format=application/pdf

Comparing the signal applied to a driver and its physical movement will not work for anything but the simplest signals. Group delay will alter the relative phase of different frequencies resulting in a change in the waveform shape that will make any comparison rather tricky.