Originally Posted by kutlow
I too am looking at the Seaton Submersive however im a little concerned with the quality of the driver and the amps used. Ive seen pictures of seaton products and the drivers do not look beefy as say the driver in this sub 25 or the Jl Audio Fathom F113. Then again I do not know anything when it comes to developing a speaker such as Mark Seaton. So I too would like to hear the comparison to the submersive.
Some thoughts on subs:
I have listened to the F113, F212 nice products. I did not do a one to one comparison with the sub 25. They are all detailed, fast subs. I think the two sub 25's have a bit more punch compared to the one F212. But I can't be certain since the room dimesions for each audition was not the same. Regarding quality of the parts, only the manufacturers really know the answer to this. They will all claim that their products are top quality. I have encountered very few complaints about malfunction or breakage of these products.
I would base my purchase on performance, size, esthetics. Seaton seems to have developed a 'cult' like following (through AVS). Apparently, his esthetics are improving. At $1995, his Submersive appears to be a bargain based on reviews that I have read. A direct comparison of the Submersive to Sub 25 would be interesting. Based on enclosure size and it's two 15" woofers, the Submersive should out perform the Sub 25 with respect to output and depth. Can it match Sub 25 with respect to speed, detail, accuracy, low distortion? Does it deliver clean tight base with no 'muddy over hang'? The answer is probably 'yes'. The large number of satisfied customers who have purchased the Submersive (through AVS exposure/discussion) seem knowledgeable.
Parardigm is a much larger company than Mark Seaton's. If something happens to Mark Seaton, who will stand behind the product and warranty the Submersive? On the other hand, Seaton puts his name on the product. I wouldn't put my name on a product unless I knew it was damn good.
I don't know why Mark Seaton hasn't established a website. He has been talking about creating one for years, and still no website. A website would help to explain a lot about his Submersive quality, (production, performance, specs.,photos, etc.). Using AVS to distribute marketing information of his product instead of developing his own website is very disconcerting. Why is he doing this; because it's free? I think it has reached the point that AVS should be charging Seaton for advertising space. AVS cannot replace the benefit of a robust website. A well designed official Seaton website would be especially helpful since it is impossible to audition the Submersive unless you have a friend who owns one. High quality, accurate, organized information is very important to the type of customer who would purchase a Seaton Submersive.
My main problem with the Submersive (beside the fact that I had no opportunity to audition it) is a size issue. It is too large for the space. The Sub 25 is only on inch wider than my previous 12" woofer sub (B&W 800 ASW). The height and depth are the same. Sub thoroughly out performs my old B&W sub in every criteria.
For its size, Sub 25 performance is terrific, and I am absolutely delighted with the product. Based on AVS comments/reviews, if I had the space, I probably would take a chance on the Submersive (after further analyzing AVS for problems/complaints of the Submersive).
But, Seaton really needs to stop using AVS threads/blogs to market his product and develop his own website.