Wouldn't two velodyne DD-18 outperform 2 F113's in terms of deeper and cleaner?

Wouldn't two velodyne DD-18 outperform 2 F113's in terms of deeper and cleaner?

No. I'm not sure if 2 DD-18 can outperform a single F113 in terms of output.

Great info, Mojo. I'll be sure to pay close attention to your further input on this subject. :rolleyes:

Thanks for that last post, Ed. Much better explanations and spot on. As I've said many times over the years, if you want to realize the advantages of a sealed alignment over a particular ported sub, cut the box in half, double the drivers and double the power, at a minimum.

Here's a graph of the PB-13 in a room similar in size to Ron's. I've overlaid the anechoic response and the THD graphs (relative to each other) of Ilk's THD on-the-fly graphs of the 105dB sweep in sealed mode and 10Hz tune ported mode.

The 10Hz tune ported mode results in a flatter in-room response and 6-8dB more output below 20Hz with TONS less harmonic distortion.

Looking at the rooms transfer function (the anechoic trace vs the in-room sealed mode trace), we see a gain of 16dB at 10Hz. At 7Hz the 2 modes cross going down in frequency. There appears to be a HP in the amplifier at around that point, which negates the advantage of the sealed sub below that point.

Being restricted to a FR to just below 10Hz in either case, let's look at the situation where Ron is watching a movie in which a strong 10-15Hz effect occurs. These LFE are encoded in the range of -15 to -5dBFS. This translates to 110dB at the LP at reference level playback in the extreme case.

Let's assume Ron sets his MVL to -5dBRL, which would require the 10Hz effect to peak at 105dB at the LP at worst case and assume his PLP is 2M from the sub.

The PB-13 was clocked at 2M GP in sealed mode at 89dB at 10Hz during the 105dB sweep. Adding 12dB of room gain at 10Hz (in a similar room to Ron's) gives us 101dB at 10Hz, or 4dB less than what's required.

In ported mode, the output at 10Hz is 93dB at 2M, GP. Adding for room gain plus the gain advantage over the sealed output for a total of 18dB, we have capability of 111dB, or 6dB of headroom.

Looking at the harmonic distortion of both modes at 10Hz during the 105dB sweep, we can't see the THD for sealed mode because it way, way off the chart by 10Hz (I estimate it to be around 100%), and it's around 28% in ported mode (actually less because in ported mode we still have 6dB of headroom.

The sealed mode sub has some output reserve in the tank to be able to reproduce the effect without incident if you bump the SW trim to 4dB hotter, but the THD will increase proportionally.

What this boils down to is that to equal the performance in ported 10Hz tune mode, you would need 3-4 PB-13s in sealed mode. Not only is this not a likely probability, I'm saying it just ain't gonna happen that anyone will buy 3 more PB-13s and plug the ports vs just using the single PB-13 in 10Hz ported mode.

In tests I've run over the years, some (although a small minority) have actually preferred a sub with much higher THD, although it has been in subs that exhibit mostly 2HD, not 3HD. I'm not attempting to say what anyone should like or dislike or hear or not hear.

The 'bloat' difference may be attributed by some to the obvious difference in in-room output below the knee of both modes, but since the ported mode results in a flatter response and music is normally filtered much higher than the BW I'm discussing, the most likely difference in sonic signature is that one mode is a resonant system and the other mode is not. But, and to my point, there are much better and smaller alternatives in a sealed alignment that allow for easier placement of multiples and cleaner output below the knee that can be used for music listening with a wide BW sub.

On those whom this comparison is lost, I don't know what to tell ya. It's enough for me that the glaringly obvious requires this sort of scrutiny in the first place.

http://i469.photobucket.com/albums/rr55/Bosobass/SEALED.jpg

Bosso





What is glaringly obvious to me is the major league suckout at 60 Hz. A 20 dB suckout in the prime bass area would be noticable to almost everyone with the use of a simple listening test!:D


Note that my room does not have that type of gain at low frequencies!

What is glaringly obvious to me is the major league suckout at 60 Hz. A 20 dB suckout in the prime bass area would be noticable to almost everyone with the use of a simple listening test!:D


Note that my room does not have that type of gain at low frequencies!

The null @ 60Hz actually might not be noticed in normal listening. I had a null at around 47Hz and I fixed it with more subs but in listening tests It was hard to spot the loss. I just knew my measurements didnt look good enough :eek:

That alone proved to me that measurements do not always dictate a difference in listening experience.

Has anyone switched from the Ultra do a DIY sealed Maelstrom-X w/ a ep2500? Just wondered how they compared

Wouldn't two velodyne DD-18 outperform 2 F113's in terms of deeper and cleaner?

I did a F113 vs DD-18 blind listening test with another forum member back in 07. We both felt it was too close to call and I still feel the DD-18 is a great subwoofer. Both are great performers in the all important 20-80Hz region.

The “test” was listening only (movie and music) and without measurements. This and subsequent listening tests with other subs also proved to me that there is little benefit from trying to play<20Hz material in most HT environs.

That is tantamount to heresy around here and of course, only my opinion.

Has anyone switched from the Ultra do a DIY sealed Maelstrom-X w/ a ep2500? Just wondered how they compared


Actually I just did a shootout and listening session between my F112 and my Mal-X, I know you said Ultra - thought it would be relevant....

They were extremely close sonically, almost too a T with the Mal-X reaching lower, in my room I have a natural mid bass hump but they sounded almost identical to me, and my buddy (Nuance) actually said he preferred the Mal-X, it was a smoother more even response to him...

Actually I just did a shootout and listening session between my F112 and my Mal-X, I know you said Ultra - thought it would be relevant....

They were extremely close sonically, almost too a T with the Mal-X reaching lower, in my room I have a natural mid bass hump but they sounded almost identical to me, and my buddy (Nuance) actually said he preferred the Mal-X, it was a smoother more even response to him...

And did the AV15H with PRs come close?

I did a F113 vs DD-18 blind listening test with another forum member back in 07. We both felt it was too close to call and I still feel the DD-18 is a great subwoofer. Both are great performers in the all important 20-80Hz region.

The “test” was listening only (movie and music) and without measurements. This and subsequent listening tests with other subs also proved to me that there is little benefit from trying to play<20Hz material in most HT environs.

That is tantamount to heresy around here and of course, only my opinion.

Blind tests are lots of fun....Take the "looks" away and its amazing how things change! Heresy? Nah, just a good test :D

And did the AV15H with PRs come close?

Yes, the AV15 w/PR was pretty darn close as well... Being a PR, It is a sub that has characteristics the sits directly between a ported and sealed... The SQ of it was great - output with clean, linear response and very good upperbass.

I think this is out of the scope of this discussion though.. Your welcome to PM me on this penn...

Yes, the AV15 w/PR was pretty darn close as well... Being a PR, It is a sub that has characteristics the sits directly between a ported and sealed... The SQ of it was great - output with clean, linear response and very good upperbass.

I think this is out of the scope of this discussion though.. Your welcome to PM me on this penn...
+1. Also, +1 on the comparo of the Mal-X and the JL. The JL sounded like it had more punch/slam, and I would have sworn it had a larger misbass hump, but it measured pretty much identical to the Mal-X in the midbass. And even though they measured almost the same, the Mal-X had a more balanced and linear sound to my ears. I wonder why that is...? Whatever it was, I liked it, a lot.

I think this is the best sub on the market now since it allows for full phase correction with minimum delay
in addition it does not use blah blah it has three narrow filter for room eq that are placed properly 20 Hz 30 Hz and 40 Hz 6 db up or down
This is a killer sub with minimum distortion
check out the review
On the Bench

All distortion measurements were made within an 80 kHz bandwidth.

At 20 Hz and 100 dB output, THD+N was a little less than 6%, which is terrific performance.



At 40 Hz, distortion dropped to about 2%. Again, this is very good performance.



Plotting THD+N vs. Frequency, we can see that distortion stayed well below 5% from about 12 Hz to 130 Hz. This is actually quite amazing for having the driver in a relatively small enclosure. The peak at 140 Hz is an anomaly that I can't explain. But, it is well below any crossover frequency that you are likely to use, so it is irrelevant.






http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/subwoofers-products-menu-column1-41/598-earthquake-supernova-mkvi-subwoofer.html

What is glaringly obvious to me is the major league suckout at 60 Hz. A 20 dB suckout in the prime bass area would be noticable to almost everyone with the use of a simple listening test!:D


Note that my room does not have that type of gain at low frequencies!

massive group delay
I am surprised

I think this is the best sub on the market now since it allows for full phase correction with minimum delay
in addition it does not use blah blah it has three narrow filter for room eq that are placed properly 20 Hz 30 Hz and 40 Hz 6 db up or down
This is a killer sub with minimum distortion
check out the review
On the Bench

All distortion measurements were made within an 80 kHz bandwidth.

At 20 Hz and 100 dB output, THD+N was a little less than 6%, which is terrific performance.



At 40 Hz, distortion dropped to about 2%. Again, this is very good performance.



Plotting THD+N vs. Frequency, we can see that distortion stayed well below 5% from about 12 Hz to 130 Hz. This is actually quite amazing for having the driver in a relatively small enclosure. The peak at 140 Hz is an anomaly that I can't explain. But, it is well below any crossover frequency that you are likely to use, so it is irrelevant.






http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/subwoofers-products-menu-column1-41/598-earthquake-supernova-mkvi-subwoofer.html

I'll say it again. Look at how the sub is measured. They're measured in room, at 1 foot. Since 1 foot = 0.3 meters, converting that to 2 meters will require almost 3 doubling. 3 doubling is 2.4 meters, and 18dB lost. Let's say it loses 15dB. So the actual performance at 20Hz is about 85dB in room at 6% THD.

Does it look good now?

The numbers on the Earthquake are not that special for a sub that retails for $2899. The response appears to drop like a rock below 20hz. There are many subs in the $1000 to $1200 range that should match or excede it's performance according to that data.

Why is there a null around 60-65hz? I noticed this too. Doesnt happen when I use the SPL meter in front of the sub, but when I sit down at my listening position, the 60-65hz sine waves are way below the others.

Yes, the AV15 w/PR was pretty darn close as well... Being a PR, It is a sub that has characteristics the sits directly between a ported and sealed... The SQ of it was great - output with clean, linear response and very good upperbass.

I think this is out of the scope of this discussion though.. Your welcome to PM me on this penn...

lol, I read the thread on it. I was just adding to the commentary on your Mal-x comparisons and I have an itchy trigger finger. Lucky for me John is not replying to emails very well :eek:

Back to whatever this thread was about again... ;)

I think this is the best sub on the market now since it allows for full phase correction with minimum delay
in addition it does not use blah blah it has three narrow filter for room eq that are placed properly 20 Hz 30 Hz and 40 Hz 6 db up or down
This is a killer sub with minimum distortion
check out the review
On the Bench

All distortion measurements were made within an 80 kHz bandwidth.

At 20 Hz and 100 dB output, THD+N was a little less than 6%, which is terrific performance.



At 40 Hz, distortion dropped to about 2%. Again, this is very good performance.



Plotting THD+N vs. Frequency, we can see that distortion stayed well below 5% from about 12 Hz to 130 Hz. This is actually quite amazing for having the driver in a relatively small enclosure. The peak at 140 Hz is an anomaly that I can't explain. But, it is well below any crossover frequency that you are likely to use, so it is irrelevant.






http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/subwoofers-products-menu-column1-41/598-earthquake-supernova-mkvi-subwoofer.html


Overpriced sub period!!!

Blind tests are lots of fun....Take the "looks" away and its amazing how things change! Heresy? Nah, just a good test :D

... and you'd be surprised how many people are afraid to do them! ;)

I'd bet however, if I ran the same tests we did back in November at Jakeman's place those of us who were there would probably come to different conclusions on the subs. I recall how "close" they all seemed. Sometimes you need to take measurements and all this stuff on AVS with a grain of salt.

Admittedly, I love looking at measurements and knowing that in an anchoeic environment my sub performs admirably. I know, nothing to do with reality in a standard room, but it sure is fun to look at graphs!! :D

... and you'd be surprised how many people are afraid to do them! ;)

I'd bet however, if I ran the same tests we did back in November at Jakeman's place those of us who were there would probably come to different conclusions on the subs. I recall how "close" they all seemed. Sometimes you need to take measurements and all this stuff on AVS with a grain of salt.

Admittedly, I love looking at measurements and knowing that in an anchoeic environment my sub performs admirably. I know, nothing to do with reality in a standard room, but it sure is fun to look at graphs!! :D

In a round about way, learning about measurements is probably the worse thing anyone can do ;)

Well, I am down to two choices.....

My entire HT is picked out and the research is finally winding down....

But the subs....this is where I am at.

Please give your opinion on specific performance differences if possible (or just hypothesize based upon your general subwoofer knowledge) and which you would rather have:

1) quad SVS Ultra 13's
2) dual JL F212's

FYI, the price difference is about $5000 ( I am in Sweden).....and I don't mind ponying it up IF there will be a higher quality bass output. But if there will be no real difference then I will take the money and run. But please focus first on performance differences, and the $$ secondarily.

My room will be heavily treated for absorption at the lower frequencies and is 2200 cubic feet sealed.

I only care about blu rays and gaming.

Thanks a lot.:)

The quad SVS PB13 will give you a better HT performance than the 2 F212. But the F212s will be better for music. If you're using your system mainly for HT, the quad PB13 will be the way to go (far more output, especially down low). For music, the F212 is better.

I'm curious, which one is $5000 more expensive?

The quad SVS PB13 will give you a better HT performance than the 2 F212. But the F212s will be better for music. If you're using your system mainly for HT, the quad PB13 will be the way to go (far more output, especially down low). For music, the F212 is better.

I'm curious, which one is $5000 more expensive?

Well, it will be at least $4000 more (maybe $5000) for the F212's. they are expensive in sweden, and there is only one distributor.

I thought the whole music/movie thing was a fallacy. There is lots of music in movies. Why would the F212's be better for music? Why would those qualities not translate into better movie performance? I am not looking for the biggest boom, I am looking for top notch bass behavior and handling. Not implying that the U13 is good in this regard, but still...

The quad SVS PB13 will give you a better HT performance than the 2 F212. But the F212s will be better for music. If you're using your system mainly for HT, the quad PB13 will be the way to go (far more output, especially down low). For music, the F212 is better.

I'm curious, which one is $5000 more expensive?

ya, my bass in my music to me sounds better when i have small drivers, less of them, less power and smaller boxes.

lack of headroom for the win!

I thought the whole music/movie thing was a fallacy. There is lots of music in movies. Why would the F212's be better for music? Why would those qualities not translate into better movie performance? I am not looking for the biggest boom, I am looking for top notch bass behavior and handling. Not implying that the U13 is good in this regard, but still...
Here is an easily understandable definition/explaination of the term "musical" when applied to a subwoofer.

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showpost.php?p=29456&postcount=35

Well, it will be at least $4000 more (maybe $5000) for the F212's. they are expensive in sweden, and there is only one distributor.

I thought the whole music/movie thing was a fallacy. There is lots of music in movies. Why would the F212's be better for music? Why would those qualities not translate into better movie performance? I am not looking for the biggest boom, I am looking for top notch bass behavior and handling. Not implying that the U13 is good in this regard, but still...

You notice F212's musicality advantage in movies far less that in music. In movies, the output (or the boom) is more important (more like it is what we're looking for). The difference in music between the F212 and PB13 is not night and day, but noticeable in music. I seriously doubt explosions will sound better with JL's better musicality.

Well, I am down to two choices.....

My entire HT is picked out and the research is finally winding down....

But the subs....this is where I am at.

Please give your opinion on specific performance differences if possible (or just hypothesize based upon your general subwoofer knowledge) and which you would rather have:

1) quad SVS Ultra 13's
2) dual JL F212's

FYI, the price difference is about $5000 ( I am in Sweden).....and I don't mind ponying it up IF there will be a higher quality bass output. But if there will be no real difference then I will take the money and run. But please focus first on performance differences, and the $$ secondarily.

My room will be heavily treated for absorption at the lower frequencies and is 2200 cubic feet sealed.

I only care about blu rays and gaming.

Thanks a lot.:)

I have dual PB13 Ultra's. They are co-located (stacked) in my basement which is around 6400 cubic feet. They sound awesome for both music and HT. I game a lot as well. Call of Duty, Mass Effect, etc. rock my entire house. My wife is constantly telling me to TTFSD. I like bass, but I like it clear and crisp. I can get boomy bass if I want it. I can get sutle bass if I want it. However, I prefer to calibrate my system with Audyssey and live the sub levels alone because it gives me the clear, crisp, punchy bass that I prefer.

I have deduced that you like bass, and a lot of it. Quad PB13 Ultra's is going to be total overkill IMHO. I am only being honest. In the very worst case scenario, dual Ultra's would get you well past 113 dB at reference (0 master volume on my Denon). I am currently getting 113 db at -5 master volume. I would suspect that you would be getting 115 - 120+ dB in your small room with duals. I'm not sure if you know what that is like, but it is totally awesome, yet scary at the same time. Sometimes I turn my system up to 110+ dB and go up stairs to see what it is like. I have a 4,000+ sq ft true two-story home. The top two levels of my house are literally shaking at these levels. All the dishes in my cabinets are rattling. The dishes in our china cabinets are rattling. The pipes in the walls are rattling. I have had pictures fall off the walls and break upstairs. It is crazy.

Also, I can tell that you like good looking subs. My wife and I do too. I was considering getting an Epik Conquest, but my wife said "they look like mud fences". From what I have read, F212's are great subs. They were just a little too pricey for me.

Go with your gut feeling. I have seen you posting similar questions lately. Let me put it this way, no matter what decision you make, you are going to be so pleased with the subs' performance, that you are never going to look back wondering if you purchased the right subs.

Here is an easily understandable definition/explaination of the term "musical" when applied to a subwoofer.

http://forum.ascendacoustics.com/showpost.php?p=29456&postcount=35

no offense, but here is a better definition of subwoofer musicality

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicalSubwoofers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/********)


let me present this from an engineering standpoint. if you want to make a subwoofer sound better, there is nothing in any loudspeaker or physics book that explains how to make a driver or system more or less "musical." The fact is, ALL speakers can reproduce music because as you pass current through thier voice coil ,they move some-what in a linear fashion through a magnetic region which then creates a FORCE on a diaphragm.... doing that with integrity is INTRINSIC to all speakers good bad or downright sh*ty. In fact is you could somehow design a speaker that CAN'T play certain tons of similar frequencies in its pass band and not others that would be a break through.

You see, the difference between a good and bad speaker is not the innate ability to move a piston from an input signal (with or without many "sounds" / "tons" pixy dust) its far more technical and relates to engineering/physics, not personified traits. Rating a sub (or any speaker for that matter) based on is musically its nothing short of Blasphemy. These are words you would find from a writer, not an engineer with any glimpse of technical education.

no offense, but here is a better definition of subwoofer musicality

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicalSubwoofers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/********)
Yeah...that's helpful. If you have a differing opinion, state it. What is you definition of subwoofer musicality?

Sure...no offense. :rolleyes:

Until tonight, I never knew there was a correlation between shooting high powered rifles and subwoofer performance.

I keep getting an image of Wiley Coyote ordering a sniper gun to finally get Roadrunner, and he gets an Acme subwoofer instead.

Yeah...that's helpful. If you have a differing opinion, state it. What is you definition of subwoofer musicality?

Sure...no offense. :rolleyes:I'll give you mine FWIW. Assuming you're dealing with half way decent companies, musical subs are generally those who don't go down as low in either frequency or linearity.

no offense, but here is a better definition of subwoofer musicality

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicalSubwoofers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/********)


let me present this from an engineering standpoint. if you want to make a subwoofer sound better, there is nothing in any loudspeaker or physics book that explains how to make a driver or system more or less "musical." The fact is, ALL speakers can reproduce music because as you pass current through thier voice coil ,they move some-what in a linear fashion through a magnetic region which then creates a FORCE on a diaphragm.... doing that with integrity is INTRINSIC to all speakers good bad or downright sh*ty. In fact is you could somehow design a speaker that CAN'T play certain tons of similar frequencies in its pass band and not others that would be a break through.

You see, the difference between a good and bad speaker is not the innate ability to move a piston from an input signal (with or without many "sounds" / "tons" pixy dust) its far more technical and relates to engineering/physics, not personified traits. Rating a sub (or any speaker for that matter) based on is musically its nothing short of Blasphemy. These are words you would find from a writer, not an engineer with any glimpse of technical education.

One CAN rate a subwoofer on its ability to sound good on music, but it is rarely done properly. Ususally, people will decide it requires a sealed design to sound good, or it requires a ported subwoofer to sound good, or it takes multiple 10 inch drivers to sound good, or that 18 inch drivers are not musical ... the list of these myths goes on.

A "musical" subwoofer will do things like:

1. Operate in a linear fashion across its bandwidth, and do it at all volume levels which it is trying to reproduce.

2. Do so without audible distortion, bottoming, clanking, or other bad noises.

3. I am probably missing a couple items here, but it's Friday, and it's been a long week. We are enjoying some good Cabernet and jazz. :)

But usually, when a subwoofer does 1 and 2, it's going to be musical.

Until tonight, I never knew there was a correlation between shooting high powered rifles and subwoofer performance.

I keep getting an image of Wiley Coyote ordering a sniper gun to finally get Roadrunner, and he gets an Acme subwoofer instead.
Hey Craig....fancy seeing you post here. Sorry you don't understand the analogy. :)

Hey Craig....fancy seeing you post here. Sorry you don't understand the analogy. :)

I loved the analogy. It reads like some of the Best of MLS. It's a great read.

no offense, but here is a better definition of subwoofer musicality

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicalSubwoofers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/********)


let me present this from an engineering standpoint. if you want to make a subwoofer sound better, there is nothing in any loudspeaker or physics book that explains how to make a driver or system more or less "musical." The fact is, ALL speakers can reproduce music because as you pass current through thier voice coil ,they move some-what in a linear fashion through a magnetic region which then creates a FORCE on a diaphragm.... doing that with integrity is INTRINSIC to all speakers good bad or downright sh*ty. In fact is you could somehow design a speaker that CAN'T play certain tons of similar frequencies in its pass band and not others that would be a break through.

You see, the difference between a good and bad speaker is not the innate ability to move a piston from an input signal (with or without many "sounds" / "tons" pixy dust) its far more technical and relates to engineering/physics, not personified traits. Rating a sub (or any speaker for that matter) based on is musically its nothing short of Blasphemy. These are words you would find from a writer, not an engineer with any glimpse of technical education.
I absolutely agree with you, but many often say a subwoofer is better for HT or better for music. I believe a sub that that is so called better for music, is also better for HT....it simply has better control.

edit: It's not that one sub can't do it and the other can.....it is about doing it better.

I loved the analogy. It reads like some of the Best of MLS. It's a great read.
I actually think it is a bit more technical than MLS would venture into, but you have read more of your friend's stuff than I have, so I will bow to your expertise in that area. :)

I actually think it is a bit more technical than MLS would venture into, but you have read more of your friend's stuff than I have, so I will bow to your expertise in that area. :)

As you should.

I'll give you mine FWIW. Assuming you're dealing with half way decent companies, musical subs are generally those who don't go down as low in either frequency or linearity.
Sorry Chu...missed this. Often times subs with these characteristics are called musical, especially among folks that have not heard/compared a lot of subs....and sometimes from those that have. From the subs in this thread, I don't think it is the case.

no offense, but here is a better definition of subwoofer musicality

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicalSubwoofers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/********)


let me present this from an engineering standpoint. if you want to make a subwoofer sound better, there is nothing in any loudspeaker or physics book that explains how to make a driver or system more or less "musical." The fact is, ALL speakers can reproduce music because as you pass current through thier voice coil ,they move some-what in a linear fashion through a magnetic region which then creates a FORCE on a diaphragm.... doing that with integrity is INTRINSIC to all speakers good bad or downright sh*ty. In fact is you could somehow design a speaker that CAN'T play certain tons of similar frequencies in its pass band and not others that would be a break through.

You see, the difference between a good and bad speaker is not the innate ability to move a piston from an input signal (with or without many "sounds" / "tons" pixy dust) its far more technical and relates to engineering/physics, not personified traits. Rating a sub (or any speaker for that matter) based on is musically its nothing short of Blasphemy. These are words you would find from a writer, not an engineer with any glimpse of technical education.


for some reason i typed "tons" when i meant to type tones... I think the 'e' on my keyboard was missing!


One CAN rate a subwoofer on its ability to sound good on music, but it is rarely done properly. Ususally, people will decide it requires a sealed design to sound good, or it requires a ported subwoofer to sound good, or it takes multiple 10 inch drivers to sound good, or that 18 inch drivers are not musical ... the list of these myths goes on.

A "musical" subwoofer will do things like:

1. Operate in a linear fashion across its bandwidth, and do it at all volume levels which it is trying to reproduce.

2. Do so without audible distortion, bottoming, clanking, or other bad noises.

3. I am probably missing a couple items here, but it's Friday, and it's been a long week. We are enjoying some good Cabernet and jazz. :)

But usually, when a subwoofer does 1 and 2, it's going to be musical.




Craig, I do respect the efforts and reviews you have done, ID companies wouldn't be able to sell subs without guys like you, so please don't take my post the wrong way! I wish there were most guys like you.


I absolutely agree with you, but many often say a subwoofer is better for HT or better for music. I believe a sub that that is so called better for music, is also better for HT....it simply has better control.

edit: It's not that one sub can't do it and the other can.....it is about doing it better.

you must forgive me for using you as a guinea pig for my rant, matter of time and place. Interesting follow up, i'll respond: To me the "control" is a very misleading word and i would lump it with others like "tight". To me, speakers are never out of control because that would imply they do something different than what they physically do. For example, if a subwoofer driver has higher Q and is in a very small ported box, its going to have a non-linear Fr response and sound very boomy! But its never out of "control" per se, but i think we can all agree its probably something we wouldn't want to listen to in most cases. To me, out of control means something breaks or the coil bottoms out or the current melts the glues on the coil and it shorts out. but to say a speaker is musical or has control is just so hand wavy to me.

you must forgive me for using you as a guinea pig for my rant, matter of time and place. Interesting follow up, i'll respond: To me the "control" is a very misleading word and i would lump it with others like "tight". To me, speakers are never out of control because that would imply they do something different than what they physically do. For example, if a subwoofer driver has higher Q and is in a very small ported box, its going to have a non-linear Fr response and sound very boomy! But its never out of "control" per se, but i think we can all agree its probably something we wouldn't want to listen to in most cases. To me, out of control means something breaks or the coil bottoms out or the current melts the glues on the coil and it shorts out. but to say a speaker is musical or has control is just so hand wavy to me.
I think we agree. I didn't say "out of control", again, it is a matter of doing something better, not that the other is not doing it at all.

What you term as "out of control", I would call broken. :)

BTW...no worries on using me as a guinea pig. I also don't like the musical vs HT characterizations...but it is what it is, and what people use.

I have dual PB13 Ultra's. They are co-located (stacked) in my basement which is around 6400 cubic feet. They sound awesome for both music and HT. I game a lot as well. Call of Duty, Mass Effect, etc. rock my entire house. My wife is constantly telling me to TTFSD. I like bass, but I like it clear and crisp. I can get boomy bass if I want it. I can get sutle bass if I want it. However, I prefer to calibrate my system with Audyssey and live the sub levels alone because it gives me the clear, crisp, punchy bass that I prefer.

I have deduced that you like bass, and a lot of it. Quad PB13 Ultra's is going to be total overkill IMHO. I am only being honest. In the very worst case scenario, dual Ultra's would get you well past 113 dB at reference (0 master volume on my Denon). I am currently getting 113 db at -5 master volume. I would suspect that you would be getting 115 - 120+ dB in your small room with duals. I'm not sure if you know what that is like, but it is totally awesome, yet scary at the same time. Sometimes I turn my system up to 110+ dB and go up stairs to see what it is like. I have a 4,000+ sq ft true two-story home. The top two levels of my house are literally shaking at these levels. All the dishes in my cabinets are rattling. The dishes in our china cabinets are rattling. The pipes in the walls are rattling. I have had pictures fall off the walls and break upstairs. It is crazy.

Also, I can tell that you like good looking subs. My wife and I do too. I was considering getting an Epik Conquest, but my wife said "they look like mud fences". From what I have read, F212's are great subs. They were just a little too pricey for me.

Go with your gut feeling. I have seen you posting similar questions lately. Let me put it this way, no matter what decision you make, you are going to be so pleased with the subs' performance, that you are never going to look back wondering if you purchased the right subs.

Now that is a great post! I want to be scared, lose momentary control of my jaw, and have my eyes involuntarily dart from side to side!:eek:

I think you sum it up best....taking nothing away from the entertaining debate about musicality....I will be happy with either. So now I need to see if the Jl dealer will cut a deal...looks like I could get them for "just"$3500 more". Now I must just consider price, and the form factor. I could live with 4 Ultra perched about the room, but the wife may send me to the guest bed when she sees my "Frankeroom".

Another question...having subs on all four sides of you, will it improve how you feel the bass through your body, or since low frequencies are non directional, will that not effect the tactile experience?

Thanks for everyone's input so far, and I will be sure to post pix and impressions later this year when everything is set up.:):D

Multiple subs will help dispersion throughout the room, so they will become difficult to localize at varying seating positions.

Drawing from my own experience going from one sub, to two, I can say that while the single sub was not completely localizable, when I added the second, I immediately realized the difference in my ability to "feel" where the bass was coming from in comparison. I certainly felt "surrounded", or "engulfed" by the viscerality.

My point is, like everything in life, you do not know what you're missing, until you have experienced it enough to know that THERE is something to miss.

Sounds a bit redundant, I know, but I can't explain it any other way.

for some reason i typed "tons" when i meant to type tones... I think the 'e' on my keyboard was missing!

Craig, I do respect the efforts and reviews you have done, ID companies wouldn't be able to sell subs without guys like you, so please don't take my post the wrong way! I wish there were most guys like you.

you must forgive me for using you as a guinea pig for my rant, matter of time and place. Interesting follow up, i'll respond: To me the "control" is a very misleading word and i would lump it with others like "tight". To me, speakers are never out of control because that would imply they do something different than what they physically do. For example, if a subwoofer driver has higher Q and is in a very small ported box, its going to have a non-linear Fr response and sound very boomy! But its never out of "control" per se, but i think we can all agree its probably something we wouldn't want to listen to in most cases. To me, out of control means something breaks or the coil bottoms out or the current melts the glues on the coil and it shorts out. but to say a speaker is musical or has control is just so hand wavy to me.

Kyle - Thanks for the kind words. It's pretty cool when someone who actually understands engineering knows the efforts we took here, in terms of the 5 year long series of subwoofer tests.

I knew your post was not directed at me, no worries. I thought you would likely chuckle at the two reasons I listed regarding why a subwoofer might sound musical.

It is interesting, everytime I talk to Danny Richie, Mark Seaton, my brother's people, or read your posts, the same issues are brought up: Linearity and staying within the capacity of the speaker (subwoofer) in question.

There was a subwoofer side by side done last year in which a highly regarded ported subwoofer was "beaten" by a highly regarded sealed subwoofer.

Many people looked at the results, and were all over the "victory" of the sealed sub.

The problem was, in the test, both subwoofers were driven past the ability of each to deliver the SPL it was being asked to deliver. Each subwoofer was being asked to deliver reference levels of bass in a large theater.

The sealed subwoofer has a bulletproof limiter - it won't let the subwoofer bottom regardless how hard one tries.

The ported subwoofer's limiter was designed to prevent damage, and will allow the sub to bottom on some difficult scenes.

People were posting that, while the ported subwoofer was more powerful, the sealed sub was "better" because it made no "bad noises" as did the ported subwoofer.

The results were more a test of the respective limiters than the actual subwoofers.

Often times, when we talk more "musical" in a subwoofer, most people forget that his own subwoofers often were calibrated and eq'ed to have a house curve with a rising response in the 20-35 Hz range.

This curve is great for home theater, but not so much for music. When doing direct comparisons to a subwoofer with a linear response, the subwoofer with a rising output below 35 Hz will sound "slower".

The subwoofer ends up getting the blame for the lack of "musicality" when it is the eq curve which is the issue.

Back to the issues of making a subwoofer sound good - Linearity and staying within the subwoofer's limits of output sounds simple. It is anything but, especially linearity at higher levels. You already knew that. :)

Goneten, our subwoofers have been quite the experience. The original Scamp-10 was scrapped, then re-made into what we will call Sasquatch-10. It will be more powerful than the prototype of Scamp, and totally designed by Mark Seaton. What will hopefully be the final driver will be in Mark's hands next week.

The enclosure for Sasquatch-10 will be Baltic Birch, and it will be quite the performer in the price range of $320 ish delivered.

Mark is also designing an 8 inch subwoofer that is going to be something special in the under $200 range.

I wanted to concentrate on both of these designs, as the idea of getting really good performance on a budget was too much to pass up.

Mark and I have had extensive talks about doing the Sasquatch-18, which was going to have a driver sourced from someone most DIYers will remember. I am not sure I am at liberty to post his name publically, so I won't. He has not been able to supply the 18 inch driver.

Mark does have a domestic source for a very stout 15 inch driver, the design work which is complete. We are working on a Sasquatch-15 which will be close to the output (within 3-4 dB) of the 18, at a price for which we can deliver 2 of the 15 inch units for the same price as a single 18. Think 17 Hz tuning, and again a focus on great value.

Getting back to the smaller subs ... on the 8 inch sub, our OEM wants me to order over 600 for the first run. On Sasquatch-10, 300 at a time.

On the 15 inch, the quantity will be much less.

So ... once we get the 8 and 10 done, I will be pushing forward with the 15. Mark is "pre-doing" some of the design work this spring.

Finally ... both Sasquatch-10 and Sasquatch-15 will be made in the USA.

Thanks for the update Craig. You and Mark are doing some interesting things and I look forward to experiencing the fruits of that labor. However, to more pressing matters, I do look forward to seeing a production unit in my hands soon for testing. ;)

Regards,

Craigsub, it's good to hear from you again. I used to follow your subs evaluation very closely, specially its SQ, like you just mentioned here. I ended up going DIY and that worked great for me, a sealed 15" sub.

I believe that going with 8" and 10" subs is a smart move on your part since it will allow for more people out there to afford buying a sub, specially in this economy. Don't forget to also add a 12" sub (maybe later on) besides the 15" sub, along with sealed/ported options to give people out there more choices.

Very interesting thread. Some good discussions/debates.

gamelover360, what made you decide to drop the Seaton Submersives from your list of choices? You went with one ID brand, and dropped another. Personally, I'd go with submersives all the way. With 4 of them in your room, you'd probably be able to get flat FR down to low single digits. Have you seen Art Sonneborn's FR graphs with his 4 Submersives in the Submersive thread? His room is over 4000sq ft and the results were quite impressive to say the least.

I'm sure you'll be happy with your choice though. Both SVS and JL make excellent products.

no offense, but here is a better definition of subwoofer musicality

//http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MusicalSubwoofers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/********)

typical engineer response

let me present this from an engineering standpoint. if you want to make a subwoofer sound better, there is nothing in any loudspeaker or physics book that explains how to make a driver or system more or less "musical."

Right. That's called "experience."

The fact is, ALL speakers can reproduce music because as you pass current through thier voice coil ,they move some-what in a linear fashion through a magnetic region which then creates a FORCE on a diaphragm.... doing that with integrity is INTRINSIC to all speakers good bad or downright sh*ty. In fact is you could somehow design a speaker that CAN'T play certain tons of similar frequencies in its pass band and not others that would be a break through.

It isn't just the driver we're discussing. It's the entirety of the design. Do I really have to remind you of this?

And no, quality is not "intrinsic" to anything. It has it or it doesn't, typically the latter.

You see, the difference between a good and bad speaker is not the innate ability to move a piston from an input signal (with or without many "sounds" / "tons" pixy dust) its far more technical and relates to engineering/physics, not personified traits.

"Musicality" is a descriptive term to describe a complex set of events. Not everyone is willing to sit down and examine some white paper that spells out mathematically what "musicality" means from an engineering perspective.

Rating a sub (or any speaker for that matter) based on is musically its nothing short of Blasphemy. These are words you would find from a writer, not an engineer with any glimpse of technical education.

A sub is a speaker, so detail and nuance must be examined. It's amazing how technical education glosses over common sense.

All subwoofers sound the same, since they all get electrical impulses to move? Right?

No. Different, superior designs will produce music well. This is our frame of reference, not exploding spaceships (well, maybe for some). It is easy (and cheap) to produce boom. Any HTIB can pull that off reasonably well. It's detail and nuance that decide the differences. We see that even among expensive subwoofers, fact is, some just flat-out sound better with music than others. It's all part of a design goal; certain favorite brands offer house shaking bass, while muddying up musical detail. Other brands focus on musical integrity, knowing that a speaker that can do detail better can also do boom better.

A bit off topic, but this is really a random thread to begin with.....

I have decided on dual JL F212's, the new Onkyo 886 Pre/pro, and an Emotiva MPS-2 7 channel power amp (the amp should be here any day now!). My pre/pro will have Audyssey multi XT, and I am considering an SVS -as-eq1 (separate dual sub EQ solution).

I have decided to use some high quality Blu Jeans cable RCA sub cables and NOT to use the balanced XLR connects (as all my components feature XLR connects EXCEPT the as-eq1 I am considering...and I am really leaning towards using the as-eq1 to tame my weird shaped room with slanted ceilings....it is a kinda rectangle shaped except for a small extension of the back corner, and the room is sealed.). Plus my research has indicated that many components will tout their xlr balanced connects but may not be truly balanced internally, and in addition the benefits of xlr are mainly reduced "noise" which shouldn't be a concern at under 50 foot runs (straight from Carl Kennedy of JL audio....amazing customer service BTW!)

So the only real question I have regarding subwoofer setups is placement. Since I will have two I am considering just pairing them with my main Left and right speaker. Carl Kennedy has a must read commentary (http://theprofessionalanswer.com/?p=239) on sub placement that makes intuitive sense to me, plus he has a lot of practical hands on expertise, and it takes a lot of the guesswork out of it (appeals to me). This is also a quote from him I received:"The most important things you can accomplish are acoustic coupling with the mains and coherent time both of which are accomplished by placing next to the front main speakers. I would cross them in the 90-95Hz range."

Three questions come out of this for me

1) Once placed next to my mains, what is the easiest method to see what the frequency response is before any EQ?
My ideas are: run audyssey and see what the sub frequency response graph looks like (if this is possible) OR use an spl meter and a test disc like DVE (which I own) and measure the dB at various frequencies at the listening position (would I be looking for measurements at frequencies that come in above or below 75 dB?).

2) What is the ideal crossover? I realize that THX recommends 80, but since bass below 100hz is not localizable, why would I not want to utilize these two fantastic subs as much as possible. Would it really matter either way. The frequencies between 80 and 95 would still be produced, just a question of whether the mains handle it or the fathoms. How bad could the fathoms be at producing 80-95hz?:D:p

3) Do I really need the as-eq1? I have ARO (room EQ...one band only) on the subs which will tame the biggest peak, plus I have the benefit of two subs to even out the frequency response. Do I really want to introduce more processing?

the obvious answer is to try ARO, and see if the results are good enough. But that brings me back to question #1...how can you get a look at the frequency response of your subs across the frequency spectrum from 20-95 hz? Audyssey and/or SPL meter and disc?

Please comment. Thanks

1) Use a laptop with REW (Room EQ Wizard) and a known mic/meter (radioshack spl meter is a good cheap one). This will give you the exact thing you're after, and you can repeat these measurements for as many variable changes you can think of!

2) I think I can localize most things above 70 Hz, but this is hugely dependent on crossover slopes...cutoff at 80Hz does still allow some above 80Hz to pass through. Place the sub(s) up front next to the mains and localizing isn't much of an issue and if the sub can play without getting muddy even above 100Hz, they by all means use it! (imho)

3) Try without an as-eq1 initially and with REW to see what you're getting with the single and dual setup. You may or may not need any EQ (ya, right), but I also think overprocessing can create more issues too. The benefit of as-eq1 with dual or more subs is huge compared with just simple Audyssey, which can't separate what each sub is doing. Unfortunately, processing/Eq in one spot to sound good can make another spot sound terrible. That's why Audyssey takes multiple location measurements, but still there's usually a compromise.

Room treatments will help one spot without hurting another spot. That's the best approach, if you can fit it into your decor.

1) Use a laptop with REW (Room EQ Wizard) and a known mic/meter (radioshack spl meter is a good cheap one). This will give you the exact thing you're after, and you can repeat these measurements for as many variable changes you can think of!

2) I think I can localize most things above 70 Hz, but this is hugely dependent on crossover slopes...cutoff at 80Hz does still allow some above 80Hz to pass through. Place the sub(s) up front next to the mains and localizing isn't much of an issue and if the sub can play without getting muddy even above 100Hz, they by all means use it! (imho)

3) Try without an as-eq1 initially and with REW to see what you're getting with the single and dual setup. You may or may not need any EQ (ya, right), but I also think overprocessing can create more issues too. The benefit of as-eq1 with dual or more subs is huge compared with just simple Audyssey, which can't separate what each sub is doing. Unfortunately, processing/Eq in one spot to sound good can make another spot sound terrible. That's why Audyssey takes multiple location measurements, but still there's usually a compromise.

Room treatments will help one spot without hurting another spot. That's the best approach, if you can fit it into your decor.

I will be using room treatments.

I think I will let ARO do its thing and then measure using a SPL and REW. then if I feel I need to I will run Audsyssey...and remeasure. Then if I am still not satisfied I can get the as-eq1.

Can I use REW with a simple radioshack SPL or do I need a mic?

Also, maybe I can save a lot of screwing around and just get the as-eq1. I am undecided.

I will be using room treatments.

I think I will let ARO do its thing and then measure using a SPL and REW. then if I feel I need to I will run Audsyssey...and remeasure. Then if I am still not satisfied I can get the as-eq1.

Can I use REW with a simple radioshack SPL or do I need a mic?

Also, maybe I can save a lot of screwing around and just get the as-eq1. I am undecided.

Welcome to most of our worlds - undecided on all this miscelaneous equipment! A radioshack spl with the correction table will work well.

I am building my first HT and have a 20x20 room with 13 ft ceilings. I am going with an in wall system (Polk) and was considering a Velodyne Optimum 12 when I read gread reviews on the PB13. I know they aren't in the same class, I just want to be sure it will be enough for me. It looks like the PB13 is about $500 more. Is there anyway to get a deal on these or is the only option straight from their site? I was looking not to exceed $1,200 and was looking for the best in that range. I'm tempted to spend a little more even though this thing is a beast. Any suggestions? Thanks.

I am building my first HT and have a 20x20 room with 13 ft ceilings. I am going with an in wall system (Polk) and was considering a Velodyne Optimum 12 when I read gread reviews on the PB13. I know they aren't in the same class, I just want to be sure it will be enough for me. It looks like the PB13 is about $500 more. Is there anyway to get a deal on these or is the only option straight from their site? I was looking not to exceed $1,200 and was looking for the best in that range. I'm tempted to spend a little more even though this thing is a beast. Any suggestions? Thanks.

A PB13-Ultra would be a MUCH better fit for your room than the Optimum 12. Your room is 5,200 cubic feet (even bigger if it opens into other rooms), and the Velodyne won't be capable of providing a realistic HT experience in such a large room. If you can live with its size, the Ultra will deliver much more output and extension than the Velodyne. IMO, it's well worth the ~$500 increase in price.

BTW, if you're trying to stay under you $1,200 price cap, take a look at the Epik Phoenix ($1,099 + <$100 shipping):

http://epiksubwoofers.com/portedphoenix.html

It's a bit smaller than the Ultra (though it only comes if black if that's a factor) and probably doesn't give up much in performance. It should easily trounce the Optimum 12.

I am building my first HT and have a 20x20 room with 13 ft ceilings. I am going with an in wall system (Polk) and was considering a Velodyne Optimum 12 when I read gread reviews on the PB13. I know they aren't in the same class, I just want to be sure it will be enough for me. It looks like the PB13 is about $500 more. Is there anyway to get a deal on these or is the only option straight from their site? I was looking not to exceed $1,200 and was looking for the best in that range. I'm tempted to spend a little more even though this thing is a beast. Any suggestions? Thanks.

Occasionally a used PB13 will show up at under $1200 if you are patient. Otherwise, you might consider a PB12-Plus. It's design is very similar to the PB13, but doesn't have as much output.

I would also add, that in a 20x20 room, because of it being a square, you will suffer a lot of acoustical problems with the bass. You should also set aside some budget for acoustical treatments to realize the potential of the Ultra or Plus...or any sub for that matter.

Thanks, the Epik Phoenix looks like a good fit as well for the price. I take it it's either find a used one or order direct from the company on these?

Thanks, the Epik Phoenix looks like a good fit as well for the price. I take it it's either find a used one or order direct from the company on these?

Epik's new line just came out. They are selling them faster than they can make them. Finding a b-stock/used will be hard.

Well, I am down to two choices.....

My entire HT is picked out and the research is finally winding down....

But the subs....this is where I am at.

Please give your opinion on specific performance differences if possible (or just hypothesize based upon your general subwoofer knowledge) and which you would rather have:

1) quad SVS Ultra 13's
2) dual JL F212's

FYI, the price difference is about $5000 ( I am in Sweden).....and I don't mind ponying it up IF there will be a higher quality bass output. But if there will be no real difference then I will take the money and run. But please focus first on performance differences, and the $$ secondarily.

My room will be heavily treated for absorption at the lower frequencies and is 2200 cubic feet sealed.

I only care about blu rays and gaming.

Thanks a lot.:)


Gamelover, you should REALLY listen to some Ino audio subs before you buy anything. I would rec Profundus Y-4 (thats four subs) and they will be within your range (around 50 SEK). I have those and I have never heard anything that are even close. Extremly good sound and you will have around 130 dB @ 16 hz, so I think you will have enough. I live rather close to you so drop me a PM and I could give you more info. :)

Here is a (bad) picture of two of my four Profundus Y-4 subs (and i32s top speakers)

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4347/tyg004.jpg

Listen to these or the smaller Profundus X-4 before you buy anything. :)