2011 Kansas City Subwoofer Meet Results - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 11:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Liked: 189
In my opinion (key word here), the price of the powered Cap distorts things a bit.

You're essentially DOUBLING the price tag for what most here would agree is a very nominal increase in power/output.

9-12 extra dbs would be one thing, but again, when you consider what a few hundred dollars will buy in terms of a pro amp, what's another 1-3dbs for $1500?

Crucially, as I said earlier, it's nice that the consumer has an option though. In addition to those extra 1-3dbs you also have a one-box solution and some EQing which also adds value, IMO.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 11:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

That would be easy to answer, how was the bass quality going from one sub to the other? Was the bass quality on the submersive and Cap better than the others and not just higher spl's? If so, it does not matter if you had 10 empires or hsu as the bass quality would still be less.

you mean NOT easy to answer, right? Or maybe not. Surely multiple subs would enhance overall room response, but I hear you on SQ, straightaway.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #273 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mphfrom77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: northern KY
Posts: 3,792
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 223
MK- My point is it would be easier to answer if it was the topic of comparison.

(of course I have never owned a subwoofer, so I truly may be missing the point)

Also, they did not use an ep2500 with the cap here so...(well that sounds like another great comparison opportunity)
mphfrom77 is offline  
post #274 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 11:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Liked: 189
^ there'd be a lot of variables at work, including: overall sound quality, total output, in room response, difficulty of eq'ing, etc.

The larger problem is the above is even more difficult to ascertain how they above would all co-exist without being in YOUR room...where many of the same hurdles we're facing with what seemed to be a bit of an odd space in this particular case would likely exist.

no offense, archaea.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #275 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 11:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mphfrom77's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: northern KY
Posts: 3,792
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 160 Post(s)
Liked: 223
I'm just saying I would find it very interesting, reading avs members opinions a that legitimate comparison. I know I'm not the first to wonder these things.
mphfrom77 is offline  
post #276 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 12:00 PM
Senior Member
 
ironhead1230's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Laurel, MD
Posts: 429
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

In my opinion (key word here), the price of the powered Cap distorts things a bit.

You're essentially DOUBLING the price tag for what most here would agree is a very nominal increase in power/output.

9-12 extra dbs would be one thing, but again, when you consider what a few hundred dollars will buy in terms of a pro amp, what's another 1-3dbs for $1500?

Crucially, as I said earlier, it's nice that the consumer has an option though. In addition to those extra 1-3dbs you also have a one-box solution which also adds value, IMO.

James

Just remember, the wattage and SPL increase is not the only thing you get with the powered version. From their website:
"The optional 4000 watts amplifier is equipped with a full digital sound processor that has been optimised to the smoothest frequence response and highest possible output with minimal distortions (input overload protection and high pass filter)."

It would be interesting to see how different the frequency response and overload protection are between a powered and unpowered version.

-Mike
ironhead1230 is offline  
post #277 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 12:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Liked: 189
^ correct. The $11-1200 or so difference would definitely be in the eye/ear of the beholder.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #278 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 12:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mojomike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: South Florida
Posts: 6,966
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironhead1230 View Post

Just remember, the wattage and SPL increase is not the only thing you get with the powered version. From their website:
"The optional 4000 watts amplifier is equipped with a full digital sound processor that has been optimised to the smoothest frequence response and highest possible output with minimal distortions (input overload protection and high pass filter)."

It would be interesting to see how different the frequency response and overload protection are between a powered and unpowered version.

-Mike

Jeff has published both the raw and DSP corrected frequency responses on his site.

As as far as overload protection, the unpowered Captivator has absolutely none except for the fact that the driver is built like a tank. It would be hard to break that thing, but ideally one would still use a HP filter just below tuning. Quite frankly if driven with less than 4000 watts, I don't think much is needed as far as limiters go. The are few external amps that anywhere near 4000 legitmate watts.
mojomike is online now  
post #279 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 12:51 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
counsil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kansas City, Missouri
Posts: 1,979
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by mphfrom77 View Post

It really doesn't matter to me, I'll take what I can get. But $ to $ would be more beneficial, to me, in a comparison. I understand the logic of "well hopefully someday you can get a 2nd sub, so go with the nicest one sub you can right now". I'm just not sure I agree with it (even though the science of it could prove ne wrong, maybe).

I just think the more interesting comparison, and the main dilemma I a dealing with is the $ to $ comparison. What would 3 vtf15h's be like compared to one powered Cap? What would 5 Empires be like compared to 2 Submersive HP's?

I know that this is not what this G2G was about, but I guy can dream right?

I can't remember who, but a fellow AVSer bought both a SubMersive and dual Epik Empires. He found that dual Epik Empires bested the SubMersive in pretty much all respects (IIRC). He sent back the SubMersive and kept the Empires.

IMHO, after looking at all the numbers from the GTG, I agree. $ for $ dual Empires are a better deal. This is only my opinion.

I will go one step further and state, $ for $, after looking at all the numbers, dual Empires are a better deal than even a Cap.

That said, I wouldn't mind owning dual SubMersives (or Caps) over quad Empires. All 3 scenarios are awesome.

Let the flaming begin.

Edit...

I paid $3198 for my quad Empires, delivered, no tax.

Never argue with an idiot; they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Counsil Basement HT
counsil is offline  
post #280 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 12:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
TnTBigman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,167
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The time of that comparo, it was with dsp1 for the subM amp. I believe the new amp with dsp2 extends lower and solves the clipping problem.

You'll rarely hear anyone say, "I wish I'd gotten less Sub."

$ubwoofer$ and premium mango tree cultivar$

TnTBigman is offline  
post #281 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 01:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Liked: 189
No flaming here, as I pretty much agree, $ for $.

I'm simply getting (2) Caps to (hopefully, lol) quell my bass needs indefinitely. I'm going into a LARGE space and didn't want to chance not haing the SPL I want...else I would have likely got (2) Empires myself and just been done with it.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #282 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
stgdz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: MNsnowta in april :(
Posts: 2,188
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

I can't remember who, but a fellow AVSer bought both a SubMersive and dual Epik Empires. He found that dual Epik Empires bested the SubMersive in pretty much all respects (IIRC). He sent back the SubMersive and kept the Empires.

IMHO, after looking at all the numbers from the GTG, I agree. $ for $ dual Empires are a better deal. This is only my opinion.

Well that is a pretty subjective opinion, as someone else pointed out you would need a lot of empires to even keep up with the submersive in the ULF range. The subM is close to 18-20db more efficient than the empire at 10-15hz, you would need 6 empires to equal one subM for ULF.


For the no compromise people out there, the SubM is the way to go.



Also even though the sweeps were low dB, can we get some distortion measurements posted. I believe its pretty easy since the sweeps were allready performed with rew and its just reloading the results and a couple of clicks in rew. I could be wrong though.
stgdz is offline  
post #283 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 01:20 PM
otk
AVS Special Member
 
otk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,496
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

I can't remember who, but a fellow AVSer bought both a SubMersive and dual Epik Empires. He found that dual Epik Empires bested the SubMersive in pretty much all respects (IIRC). He sent back the SubMersive and kept the Empires.

IMHO, after looking at all the numbers from the GTG, I agree. $ for $ dual Empires are a better deal. This is only my opinion.

I will go one step further and state, $ for $, after looking at all the numbers, dual Empires are a better deal than even a Cap.

That said, I wouldn't mind owning dual SubMersives (or Caps) over quad Empires. All 3 scenarios are awesome.

Let the flaming begin.

Edit...

I paid $3198 for my quad Empires, delivered, no tax.

that was before the new high power amp and new DSP on the new HP submersive. even with the old amp, the sub M was pretty darn close if not equal to dual empires as i recall

the graphs you posted from the meet show the empire dropping below 20hz almost like a ported sub

Epik - 4 main seats averaged



the sub M keeps going into single digits. of course you could EQ the empire down low but does it have the drivers and power to handle it ?

Seaton - 4 main seats averaged


All this noise about noise.
♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫♪♫
Finding the acoustic sweet spot.
otk is offline  
post #284 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 01:27 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
craig john's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 10,401
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 142 Post(s)
Liked: 377
Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil View Post

I can't remember who, but a fellow AVSer bought both a SubMersive and dual Epik Empires. He found that dual Epik Empires bested the SubMersive in pretty much all respects (IIRC). He sent back the SubMersive and kept the Empires.

IMHO, after looking at all the numbers from the GTG, I agree. $ for $ dual Empires are a better deal. This is only my opinion.

I will go one step further and state, $ for $, after looking at all the numbers, dual Empires are a better deal than even a Cap.

That said, I wouldn't mind owning dual SubMersives (or Caps) over quad Empires. All 3 scenarios are awesome.

Let the flaming begin.

Edit...

I paid $3198 for my quad Empires, delivered, no tax.

That "fellow AVS'r" was michman. The way I read his comparison, I don't think the Empires "bested the Submersive in pretty much all respects." I interpreted his results as the dual Empires were about as good as a single Submersive... for less money... in michman's opinion. There were also LOTS of questions about his methodology:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hlight=michman

And, BTW, that "fellow AVS'r" hasn't been heard from since he did his comparo. That makes me a little suspicious.

However, no matter what michman found, your own measurements of the Empire and the Submersive show the clear difference between them:

Epik Empire Ground Plane:


vs.

Seaton Submersive Ground Plane:


The Empires start rolling off at just above 20 Hz, and they have a roll off pattern that is atypical for a sealed subwoofer. A typical sealed sub rolls off at 12 dB/octave. The Empire, in your measurements, rolls off at well over 24 dB/octave, (it's down 25 dB at 15 Hz and is off the bottom of the chart before 10 Hz.) This leads me to believe they have a infrasonic filter to protect the driver/amp.

You can add as many Empires as you like and you won't get a different low frequency extension. You'll get more output at the lower frequencies, but you won't be able to use it unless you use some boost below the -3 dB point. If Epik uses an infrasonic filter to protect the driver/amp, it's probably not a good idea to use boost on it. OTOH, the Seaton has the boost built in with it's 2 different DSP programs... AND it has the amplifier power and the driver excursion/durability to utilize it.

I'm sure the Empire has "outstanding midbass performance", (as stated on the Epic website), and it seems like a great value at it's pricepoint. However, it's not a bottom-dweller, and adding more doesn't change that.

In the interest of full disclosure, I own 3 Seaton Submersive HP's.

Craig

Edit: otk beat me to it.

Lombardi said it:
Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence."

My System

craig john is offline  
post #285 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 01:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
Archaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 6,711
Mentioned: 48 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 806 Post(s)
Liked: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

That would be easy to answer, how was the bass quality going from one sub to the other? Was the bass quality on the submersive and Cap better than the others and not just higher spl's? If so, it does not matter if you had 10 empires or hsu as the bass quality would still be less.

For that answer look at the music section - it was not based on loudness factor because all the subs were matched to the mains at 75dB before listening to the music. In that case the Seaton wins.

19.7 out of 20 score on the Seaton Submersive compared to 15.8 out of 20 score on the Epik.

Note the Epik was ranked #4 on music in our collective impressions. That doesn't speak well for just adding more making it better (at least in our particular shootout, in our particular room), because the Seaton, JTR, and HSU were clearly "subjectively" better at the exact same volume at our meet.

"Without subs it's just background music - with subs it's the main event!"
Archaea's Theatre Room
2011 KC Sub Shootout
2012 KC Blind Sub Shootout
My Subwoofer Recommendations by Pricepoint
Archaea is online now  
post #286 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Yeah, just to be clear I was referring to dual Empire's overall performance vs a single Submersive at 2/3's of the Seaton's price tag. The Submersive will still be superior in ways.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #287 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 02:03 PM
Advanced Member
 
Hudda's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: North Wales, PA.
Posts: 585
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post

That "fellow AVS'r" was michman. The way I read his comparison, I don't think the Empires "bested the Submersive in pretty much all respects." I interpreted his results as the dual Empires were about as good as a single Submersive... for less money... in michman's opinion. There were also LOTS of questions about his methodology:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...hlight=michman

And, BTW, that "fellow AVS'r" hasn't been heard from since he did his comparo. That makes me a little suspicious.


As I recall, michman was overdriving the input stage of the old amp which he erroneously concluded as an inherent clipping problem with the SubM. This potential problem has been virtually eliminated with the new amp and dsp.

A phone consultation with Mark would have easily solved the problem but he wasn't too chatty given the fact he would not reveal his real name or identity to Mark. Whoever michman was, he sent a friend to pick up the SubM in person.

Chris
Hudda is offline  
post #288 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 03:07 PM
pbc
AVS Special Member
 
pbc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,431
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 37
More importantly, take a look at the sweeps Michman posted and it's not hard to see why he preferred the dual Epiks, IIRC they had upwards of a 6db advantage in the 40hz to 80hz "punch in the chest range" as someone else described it in this thread.

Given the sweeps were at 80db or so, the above has nothing to do with the fact that it was "dual subs vs a single sub", either.

If any one wants to test this theory, you don't even need two subs to do it! Take your current sub, listen to a move passage. Then go into your AVR, pump up the sub level by 6db. Listen to the same movie passage.

I'm willing to bet the second test above gives you more "feel" and "oomph" than the first, and chances are you'll think it's a better sub. Talk about cheap upgrades...

 

My DIY Subs ... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1233892

Quote:

J Dunlavy:.. if you stop to think about it, no loudspeaker can sound more accurate than it measures.

 

pbc is online now  
post #289 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 03:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
stepyourgameup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 29
I for one am a little dissapointed in the Empire in this shootout. I was looking at getting an Empire simply for it's music performance and mid-bass slam but it seems that the HSU was just as good or better and the HSU would integrate much better with my two ported Epik subs that I have now.

Alcohol. The cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
stepyourgameup is offline  
post #290 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 03:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Luke Kamp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Kansas City
Posts: 1,202
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 39 Post(s)
Liked: 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by pbc View Post

More importantly, take a look at the sweeps Michman posted and it's not hard to see why he preferred the dual Epiks, IIRC they had upwards of a 6db advantage in the 40hz to 80hz "punch in the chest range" as someone else described it in this thread.

Given the sweeps were at 80db or so, the above has nothing to do with the fact that it was "dual subs vs a single sub", either.

If any one wants to test this theory, you don't even need two subs to do it! Take your current sub, listen to a move passage. Then go into your AVR, pump up the sub level by 6db. Listen to the same movie passage.

I'm willing to bet the second test above gives you more "feel" and "oomph" than the first, and chances are you'll think it's a better sub. Talk about cheap upgrades...

+1 and the HSU went in between two subs that had the gain increased during movie playback. The order of testing jenson, jamo died, SVS, Epik, Yamaha (gain increased), HSU, Seaton (gain increased), Captivator (gain increased).
Luke Kamp is offline  
post #291 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 03:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,509
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john View Post


The Empires start rolling off at just above 20 Hz, and they have a roll off pattern that is atypical for a sealed subwoofer. A typical sealed sub rolls off at 12 dB/octave. The Empire, in your measurements, rolls off at well over 24 dB/octave, (it's down 25 dB at 15 Hz and is off the bottom of the chart before 10 Hz.) This leads me to believe they have a infrasonic filter to protect the driver/amp.

You can add as many Empires as you like and you won't get a different low frequency extension. You'll get more output at the lower frequencies, but you won't be able to use it unless you use some boost below the -3 dB point. If Epik uses an infrasonic filter to protect the driver/amp, it's probably not a good idea to use boost on it. OTOH, the Seaton has the boost built in with it's 2 different DSP programs... AND it has the amplifier power and the driver excursion/durability to utilize it.

Craig

^^This^^

And, just for the heck of it...

Multiples of any subwoofer add headroom. They won't change extension.

It boils down to this; Do you want a subwoofer, or a version of a subwoofer?

The content is 3-120 Hz with peaks around 120dB. None of the subwoofers being discussed in this thread offer that capability. This is why the debate is an endless one, because you can't argue that all bases are covered and multiples of any of them will not get you there.

Bang for buck, value, $ for $... whatever you want to call it, is just as empty and endless an argument. That argument has been used since day one, but as subwoofers improved in options, extension and output (or alternative 'versions of a subwoofer'), the subwoofer that was the darling of the bang for buck crowd 10 years ago is long discontinued, replaced by a long string of progressively 'new and improved' versions.

In the final analysis, you have to add up the costs of all of the 'versions' you've bought in the name of upgrading your previous versions to truthfully view how much you've spent to arrive where you are today (or hope to be tomorrow).

Over the past decade, the 5-1/2 octave bandwidth 3-120 Hz LFE+Redirected bass channel (SW output), has been redefined many times, despite the fact that it hasn't changed one bit in 15 years. It began with experts chopping it to 1-1/2 octaves (25-80 Hz) and it was justified by various errant philosophies about intended content vs artifacts, equal loudness contour curves, human hearing abilities, etc., while it just so happened to correspond exactly to the bandwidth of that expert's subwoofer offering.

It was extended to 20 Hz, accompanied by similar arguments.

It then went to 18 Hz. I remember a thread started by a forum regular that set out to prove that any soundtrack content below 18 Hz was unintended artifact, quoting comments by an industry sound designer and other similar experts.

Then, 16 Hz, 15 Hz and, more recently, 10 Hz.

These days, there seems to have been a shift to complete abandonment of that progress in extension in favor of an exaggerated 40-80 Hz octave, where, supposedly, 'the slam frequencies' reside, whatever that means.

The truth is that all of these subwoofer trends and their endless debates have just been all about versions of a subwoofer with marketing jargon, irrationally exuberant owners and lots of opinions to justify the bandwidth and other performance limitations.

A true subwoofer system will be flexible enough to arrive at a flat in-room response, able to play back all of the content at whatever level is required by the room and its owner with extremely low levels of non-linear distortions in a package whose only upgrade is multiples for headroom or aesthetic options.

Finally, many DIYers are getting it. Check out notnyt's 8x18" LMS 5400 sealed system driven by 4 @ 14,000W Class TD SMPS digital amps (sorry, I don't know how many tons of power that is, I can't seem to find a calculator that translates watts into weight). Or, Warp's 6x18" LMS 5400 sealed system driven by 6 @ 4,000W amps and many others. Overkill? You bet. Expensive? IMO, not at all. If you bite the bullet and go with a similar system (OK, maybe you could get away with slightly less overkill ) and not buy a string of bang for buck subwoofers over many years, it's cheaper, will outlast you and allows reference rendering of the entire SW channel all along, instead of adding a bit of performance toward the ultimate goal at each rung in the upgrade ladder.

Then, the discussions would not be about infinite opinions as to which compromises are better for the money and would instead focus on content choices and enjoyment of one source vs another and how to best optimize performance in a given room. Shootouts and GP measurements would largely be irrelevant. Hurt feelings and name calling between owners of brand 'x' and brand 'y' would disappear.

To get back on topic and agreeing with what CJ said; I feel that output numbers should be given the least importance in this thread. Instead, bandwidth and sonic signature (which includes various non-linearities and self noise) should be given the top priority because SPL can be achieved by multiples but extension and sonic signature, not so much.

I also compelled to mention that, regarding the Captivator, a due amount of focus should be on the fact that the version listened to was the powered version, which had 4kw of available burst and quite a bit of EQ in line. Had a passive version been used with a less capable amp and no EQ, I believe it would have faired far worse subjectively, which would have been verified in the in-room response graph. So, in keeping with the above rant, stop trying to get something for less and buy the powered version.

Bosso
bossobass is offline  
post #292 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 03:30 PM
pbc
AVS Special Member
 
pbc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,431
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 47 Post(s)
Liked: 37
Quote:
Originally Posted by stepyourgameup View Post

I for one am a little dissapointed in the Empire in this shootout. I was looking at getting an Empire simply for it's music performance and mid-bass slam but it seems that the HSU was just as good or better and the HSU would integrate much better with my two ported Epik subs that I have now.


Not sure I would come to that same conclusion. Something seems odd with the Empire results. That GP measurement just looks weird to me for instance. From 55 to 110hz the sub is some 10db hot, then drops like a rock before rising back up around 20hz. Same thing seems to occur with the HSU.

More so than the Seaton/Cap and SVS (even Jamo for that matter) which all appear "flatter" in the GP responses. The reason it looks odd to me is that the responses were taken at pretty tame levels, so I wouldn't have expected that much of a disparity in the curves.

In any event, I think Ricci recently tested the Empire so we'll have some interesting info on it shortly regarding its capabilities to compare to the HSU.

 

My DIY Subs ... http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1233892

Quote:

J Dunlavy:.. if you stop to think about it, no loudspeaker can sound more accurate than it measures.

 

pbc is online now  
post #293 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 05:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
carp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,701
Mentioned: 57 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 703 Post(s)
Liked: 625
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

^^This^^

Finally, many DIYers are getting it. Check out notnyt's 8x18" LMS 5400 sealed system driven by 4 @ 14,000W Class TD SMPS digital amps (sorry, I don't know how many tons of power that is, I can't seem to find a calculator that translates watts into weight). Or, Warp's 6x18" LMS 5400 sealed system driven by 6 @ 4,000W amps and many others. Overkill? You bet. Expensive? IMO, not at all. If you bite the bullet and go with a similar system (OK, maybe you could get away with slightly less overkill ) and not buy a string of bang for buck subwoofers over many years, it's cheaper, will outlast you and allows reference rendering of the entire SW channel all along, instead of adding a bit of performance toward the ultimate goal at each rung in the upgrade ladder.

Bosso

Wouldn't you still need the right room as well to get that kind of extension at 120db peaks? I wonder how many LMS 5400's it would take in Archea's room...
carp is offline  
post #294 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 05:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post


^^This^^

And, just for the heck of it...

Multiples of any subwoofer add headroom. They won't change extension.

It boils down to this; Do you want a subwoofer, or a version of a subwoofer?

The content is 3-120 Hz with peaks around 120dB. None of the subwoofers being discussed in this thread offer that capability. This is why the debate is an endless one, because you can't argue that all bases are covered and multiples of any of them will not get you there.

Bang for buck, value, $ for $... whatever you want to call it, is just as empty and endless an argument. That argument has been used since day one, but as subwoofers improved in options, extension and output (or alternative 'versions of a subwoofer'), the subwoofer that was the darling of the bang for buck crowd 10 years ago is long discontinued, replaced by a long string of progressively 'new and improved' versions.

In the final analysis, you have to add up the costs of all of the 'versions' you've bought in the name of upgrading your previous versions to truthfully view how much you've spent to arrive where you are today (or hope to be tomorrow).

Over the past decade, the 5-1/2 octave bandwidth 3-120 Hz LFE+Redirected bass channel (SW output), has been redefined many times, despite the fact that it hasn't changed one bit in 15 years. It began with experts chopping it to 1-1/2 octaves (25-80 Hz) and it was justified by various errant philosophies about intended content vs artifacts, equal loudness contour curves, human hearing abilities, etc., while it just so happened to correspond exactly to the bandwidth of that expert's subwoofer offering.

It was extended to 20 Hz, accompanied by similar arguments.

It then went to 18 Hz. I remember a thread started by a forum regular that set out to prove that any soundtrack content below 18 Hz was unintended artifact, quoting comments by an industry sound designer and other similar experts.

Then, 16 Hz, 15 Hz and, more recently, 10 Hz.

These days, there seems to have been a shift to complete abandonment of that progress in extension in favor of an exaggerated 40-80 Hz octave, where, supposedly, 'the slam frequencies' reside, whatever that means.

The truth is that all of these subwoofer trends and their endless debates have just been all about versions of a subwoofer with marketing jargon, irrationally exuberant owners and lots of opinions to justify the bandwidth and other performance limitations.

A true subwoofer system will be flexible enough to arrive at a flat in-room response, able to play back all of the content at whatever level is required by the room and its owner with extremely low levels of non-linear distortions in a package whose only upgrade is multiples for headroom or aesthetic options.

Finally, many DIYers are getting it. Check out notnyt's 8x18" LMS 5400 sealed system driven by 4 @ 14,000W Class TD SMPS digital amps (sorry, I don't know how many tons of power that is, I can't seem to find a calculator that translates watts into weight). Or, Warp's 6x18" LMS 5400 sealed system driven by 6 @ 4,000W amps and many others. Overkill? You bet. Expensive? IMO, not at all. If you bite the bullet and go with a similar system (OK, maybe you could get away with slightly less overkill ) and not buy a string of bang for buck subwoofers over many years, it's cheaper, will outlast you and allows reference rendering of the entire SW channel all along, instead of adding a bit of performance toward the ultimate goal at each rung in the upgrade ladder.

Then, the discussions would not be about infinite opinions as to which compromises are better for the money and would instead focus on content choices and enjoyment of one source vs another and how to best optimize performance in a given room. Shootouts and GP measurements would largely be irrelevant. Hurt feelings and name calling between owners of brand 'x' and brand 'y' would disappear.

To get back on topic and agreeing with what CJ said; I feel that output numbers should be given the least importance in this thread. Instead, bandwidth and sonic signature (which includes various non-linearities and self noise) should be given the top priority because SPL can be achieved by multiples but extension and sonic signature, not so much.

I also compelled to mention that, regarding the Captivator, a due amount of focus should be on the fact that the version listened to was the powered version, which had 4kw of available burst and quite a bit of EQ in line. Had a passive version been used with a less capable amp and no EQ, I believe it would have faired far worse subjectively, which would have been verified in the in-room response graph. So, in keeping with the above rant, stop trying to get something for less and buy the powered version.

Bosso

First of all, it's ALL about "compromise" on multiple levels for an endless list of reasons not even worth getting into here.

The "bang for the buck" contention is perfectly legitimate and even essential for the "compromised" prospective owner.

Upgrading is fine too. A simple reality off life. I didn't own a Honda civic my entire life and prolly won't stop at a Captivator, either. Perhaps I should go without a subwoofer for a decade before I have the time, space, and wife (sorry babe) to do so.

8 gigantic boxes with half a dozen pro-amps is amazing but as realistic for 99.998% of the population as a malibu beach home. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be searching for the best one to two box solution under $3000.

And of course no one in their right mind thinks they'll have 3-120hz response either.

Moving forward, why would a Captivator fair "far worse" with an amplifier that "just" delivered 2000-2500 watts? Certainly doesn't seem reasonable IF (again) that amplifier is really pulling 4000+ watts from the wall to begin with from an SPL standpoint at least.

Further, I don't know just what kind/how extensive of EQ was involved, but I'd imagine it could be duplicated integrating your own and/or getting close incorporating a decent room correction sys like Audyssey xt32.

Onward, I don't know if you're being flip by instructing those to spend well over a $1000 extra to have the amplifier in the cabinet, but that simply isn't an option for some (that damn "c" word again), and even more crucially, according to a few "suffering" with a passive Cap and a capable external amp, even necessary, as it seems none of them are wanting for neither output nor sound quality.

And by the way, I believe it's (the Cap amp) a claimed SEVENTY-TWO HUNDRED watts on tap for peaks, but who's counting at this point?

My 2 lincolns.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #295 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 05:14 PM
FOH
AVS Special Member
 
FOH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Midwest
Posts: 4,749
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 213
Bosso, solid post.
I'm with you,...there exists a theoretically superior alignment, and everything else


Will you elaborate wrt;
Quote:


Instead, bandwidth and sonic signature (which includes various non-linearities and self noise) should be given the top priority because SPL can be achieved by multiples but extension and sonic signature, not so much.

Sonic signature? I'm with you on self noise, however what else are you including with sonic signature? ....Compression? ....Bl deviation from ideal? .....
Physical limiting non-linearities?

I've never really delineated things that way, but if frequency response isn't included in sonic signature, then sonic signature is the ragged edge of the native FR? Help me out

Thanks

------------------------------------
Flat, Deep, Clean, Linear, and Loud
------------------------------------
Active 16.8kw, 7.3 system
(3)Seaton Cat12C up front, (4)QSC K8 sides/rears
(2)Seaton SubM-HP, (4)18" IB
FOH is offline  
post #296 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 05:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
goonstopher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: NJ near NYC
Posts: 4,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

Why would it (Captivator) fair "far worse" with an amplifier that "just" delivered 2000-2500 watts? Certainly doesn't seem reasonable IF (again) that amplifier is really pulling 4000+ watts from the wall to begin with from an SPL standpoint at least.

Further, I don't know just what kind/how extensive of EQ was involved, but I'd imagine it could be duplicated integrating your own and/or getting close incorporating a decent room correction sys like Audyssey xt32.

Onward, I don't know if you're being flip by instructing those to spend well over a $1000 extra to have the amplifier in the cabinet, but that simply isn't an option for some, and even more crucially, according to a few "suffering" with a passive Cap and a capable external amp, even necessary, as it seems none of them are wanting for neither output nor sound quality.

And by the way, I believe it's (the Cap amp) a claimed SEVENTY-TWO HUNDRED watts on tap for peaks, but who's counting at this point?

My 2 lincolns.

James

Personally I never understood EQ built into amplifiers by default. Two rooms are never alike and the in room response may be totally different and cause the EQ to be detrimental even if it moves the ground plane closer to flat.
goonstopher is offline  
post #297 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 05:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,358
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 166 Post(s)
Liked: 189
^ I forgot to mention that, but I'm certain it has to do with "tailoring" it specifially to the driver/cabinet...only to be potentially over-ridden by the eq/pre-pro/avr or whatever else is put in "front" of it.

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #298 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 06:06 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,509
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by carp View Post

Wouldn't you still need the right room as well to get that kind of extension at 120db peaks? I wonder how many LMS 5400's it would take in Archea's room...

As I've mentioned in the past, the maximum reference peaks from the LFE channel are never from a single frequency encoded at 0dBFS. Instead, they're always a measure of the additive total SPL of a simultaneous spread of frequencies. Each individual frequency may be encoded at -15dBFS to -10dBFS, depending on how wide a spread of frequencies comprise the effect. And, 120dB would be the result from the same effect being encoded in all sats channels added to the LFE channel, a rare occurrence.

Here's a shot of one of the hardest to reproduce effects I've ever played back in my room from How To Train Your Dragon. This is a Spectrograph of the subs mic'd at the LP. The SL settings and calibration are a difficult task, so absolute accuracy in levels are not claimed, but I have it close enough to approximate the 3 Hz effect to be around -7dBFS. With the effect in FL/FR and LFE channels, the requirement at 0dBRL is approximately 107-110dB at 3 Hz:


I'm not sure what's up at Archea's room because there's no information to assess below 10 Hz and none of the subs present are designed to process signal that low.

From the LP graph of the SubMersive it looks as though there is a dip in in-room response around 24-16 Hz, which is fairly typical. It trends upward from there going down to 10 Hz, and I'll pretty much guaranteed that trend continues below 10 Hz.

What I am sure of is that every room gives considerable gain below 10 Hz. The wavelength at 3 Hz is over 375 feet, not easily contained by any room I've ever been in.

If you see an overall trend of +6dB/octave in the room gain profile, that means around +18dB at 5 Hz is a typical number. That means you need 90dB at 5 Hz before the room. Ilkka got 80-85dB at 5 Hz from a single 18" LMS at 2M. So, 4 of them should get you there in most every situation. 8-15s, what I've used for years, gets me the results shown in the attached graph.

Of course, you may prefer to listen below reference level or run the subs well above reference level but this comes under 'more (or less) SPL = more (or less) subs'.

EDIT: Sorry, this was not the mic'd version. It is the direct feed off the BR player (see the 60 Hz hum?)

Here is that direct spectrograph vs the mic'd at the LP spectrograph, showing the subs response at the LP is indeed 3-120 Hz and at full reference level with no audible HD:



Bosso
bossobass is offline  
post #299 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 06:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Seaton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 6,087
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 108 Post(s)
Liked: 323
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH View Post

Will you elaborate wrt;

Sonic signature? I'm with you on self noise, however what else are you including with sonic signature? ....Compression? ....Bl deviation from ideal? .....
Physical limiting non-linearities?

I've never really delineated things that way, but if frequency response isn't included in sonic signature, then sonic signature is the ragged edge of the native FR? Help me out

Thanks

Different drivers in different enclosure designs and sizes will sound different. Differences in ground plane frequency response will be heard and that is one of many significant factors, but even when the ground plane response is rather close, we will hear some differences. Some will be very minor, some will be quite dramatic. Distortion characteristics will differ in both relative mix of different harmonic distortions as well as in the onset vs. increasing level vs. frequency. Intertwined with the causes of such distortion are variables which will dynamically affect the response of the subwoofer to make it compress or even expand at different frequencies. Differences between designs are great enough that all subs won't sound the same and some will sound very different in spite of similar ground plane frequency responses. Yes, such differences will be less significant at lower levels and more so at higher levels dependent on the mechanism.

Mark Seaton
Seaton Sound, Inc.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood..." Daniel H. Burnham
Mark Seaton is offline  
post #300 of 553 Old 05-19-2011, 06:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,509
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe View Post

First of all, it's ALL about "compromise" on multiple levels for an endless list of reasons not even worth getting into here.

The "bang for the buck" contention is perfectly legitimate and even essential for the "compromised" prospective owner.

Upgrading is fine too. A simple reality off life. I didn't own a Honda civic my entire life and prolly won't stop at a Captivator, either. Perhaps I should go without a subwoofer for a decade before I have the time, space, and wife (sorry babe) to do so.

8 gigantic boxes with half a dozen pro-amps is amazing but as realistic for 99.998% of the population as a malibu beach home. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be searching for the best one to two box solution under $3000.

And of course no one in their right mind thinks they'll have 3-120hz response either.

Moving forward, why would a Captivator fair "far worse" with an amplifier that "just" delivered 2000-2500 watts? Certainly doesn't seem reasonable IF (again) that amplifier is really pulling 4000+ watts from the wall to begin with from an SPL standpoint at least.

Further, I don't know just what kind/how extensive of EQ was involved, but I'd imagine it could be duplicated integrating your own and/or getting close incorporating a decent room correction sys like Audyssey xt32.

Onward, I don't know if you're being flip by instructing those to spend well over a $1000 extra to have the amplifier in the cabinet, but that simply isn't an option for some (that damn "c" word again), and even more crucially, according to a few "suffering" with a passive Cap and a capable external amp, even necessary, as it seems none of them are wanting for neither output nor sound quality.

And by the way, I believe it's (the Cap amp) a claimed SEVENTY-TWO HUNDRED watts on tap for peaks, but who's counting at this point?

My 2 lincolns.

James

Several points:

notnyt's boxes are with 1 cube of the Caps box.

99.9999999% aren't interested in a system like not's, but 99.999999% are interested in a SM or a Cap? If so, let Jeff and Mark know ASAP.

I'm pretty much always in my right mind and have 3-120 Hz response, so maybe you're referring to a different no one.

It's not a matter of 2kw vs 4kw. That passive is -7dB at 20 Hz vs the powered. That's a factor of 5 times because from 30-80 Hz, where the AVRs calibration pink noise tone is, both subs are equal.

Sure, the EQ can be duplicated (but, not by 99.999999% of the population), but it wasn't there to be applied at the G2G, so I think you've missed my point altogether.

I'm not being flip. If a SubMersive, get the HP version. If the Cap, get the powered version. 'Most people' is an irrelevant argument. Most people, although I appreciate that you're apparently their spokesperson, will never have heard of, nor are they interested in buying either sub, much less consider the $500-1,000 options being discussed here.

Bosso
bossobass is offline  
Reply Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off