AVS Forum banner

2011 Kansas City Subwoofer Meet Results

69K views 552 replies 72 participants last post by  Archaea 
#1 ·
AVSForum Members,


A true thanks for sharing your perspectives, interest, and knowledge about audio/visual equipment. I've learned a ton on these forums and hope our event will give back to the community. The event was an absolute blast and an eye opener to peek in and see just how deep the rabbit hole goes! For me, was one of those experiences where you thought you had begun to understand what is out there in the subwoofer market, but I found I was exposed to something totally beyond what I knew -- at which point I just admit I'm still a novice. Despite owning a lot of different subs over the years, I've never been exposed to subs of the quality that we heard during the meet.


Each person who attended the meet has been asked to write up their subjective impressions of each of the subs, I hope each will take advantage to share their experience demoing a few community favorite subs side by side - it's a cool experience very few people have! Unfortunately not all our attendees could be present all day long - some had other responsibilities that they had to step in and step out for. The collective ranking scores will reflect this, as there will be some subs with more scores than others ---yet despite the distractions I do believe we have valuable information and impressions to share for the subwoofer enthusiast community!


The attendees were:

•echaot - Jenson MS500

•Archaea - Jamo D7 and Yamaha CW218V (The Yamaha was powered by an external American DJ V3000 amp)

•Chirpie - SVS PB-12 +

•counsil - Epik Empire

•Luke Kamp - HSU VTF-15H

•Randy Bessinger - Seaton Submersive

•carp - JTR Captivator

•Jeff Permanian - JTR Speaker's owner - made a special trip down to Kansas City and brought down a Captivator to its new owner, carp, so it could be present for the testing. Jeff did NOT participate in the voting nor measuring. He was solely there to watch and did not influence ratings nor audition in any manner!


Note: A couple of these subs/amps combos may not be final revisions. For instance the new SVS PB-Plus currently sold by SVS is an entirely new sub than what we tested. The new PB-Blus is a new amp, new driver, new box design, and our testing obviously only is valid for the ~5ish year old design that Chirpie owns. If there are other examples of this then people should let me know. I believe the Captivator was using the 4000 watt amp that Jeff sells as a kit, and the Seaton was using the newest Amp and DSP for the testing as well.


Here is our planning thread -
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1328798

Day of the Meet!

We met at 10AM on Saturday Mary 14, the first step was just staging all the subs, in my room. With the exception of the Jamo, none of these subs were small. Nearly all weighed over 100lbs, and were all big boxes. My ~3500 cubic foot room quickly became quite cozy with eight extra subs, and all the extra equipment!

We decided as a group to state our expectations by actually giving the subs a "pre-audition" ranking. By that we intended to rank all the subs estimated final outcome. Good or bad? The hope was that this will help quell any idea of biases being hidden. It's all laid out there, up front. We didn't have the time to do a blind test as our event went until 10PM as it was!!! But the preconceived notions and expectations loosed up front will hopefully make the whole testing a bit more transparent to the reader. We also ordered the sub testing list in our expected ranking order. This order would ensure we didn't listen to an amazing sub first and then be absolutely bored to tears on a potentially lesser sub, thus giving less than our best attention to detail during the testing. Each person sat in the same chair for every demo making sure the comparison was as fair to each sub as possible. Here is a quick video of the room used for this sub shootout taken a few months back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSNz7tj1BVs&NR=1

Chirpie took some additional pics and perhaps video that should show the room a bit better - see his post.


Here is the seating chart:


- Left Main -- Projector/sub -- Right Main -


----------------~10 foot-----------------


--- Randy - Echaot - Luke - Archaea ---


----------------~2 foot-----------------


--------Chirpie -- Jeff -- counsil ---------


----------------~10 foot-----------------


Randy and carp alternated in the front left seat as they both couldn't attend the full day session.


Equipment settings:

For all tests:

•Electrical outlets the subs were hooked to were 20 amp dedicated circuits

•Onkyo TX-NR1007 receiver was used - Audessey, THX, and EQ settings were all disabled.

•Crossovers were set at 120hz across the board for both subs and speakers on the Onkyo. Main Speakers used were my modest Wharfedale Sapphire 89 towers.

•The Onkyo's built in level calibration test tone was used to match each subs gain to 75dB (matched to the mains) for the music tests using counsil's analogue spl meter. Winamp was used to play the individual mp3 clips that were trimmed using a free tool called mptrim. mptrim does not alter the mp3 at all except to trim out a section of a song. This is the track list exported into a single file - http://kiwi6.com/file/28ub13rh6w The receiver was set at -10dB on the volume dial for the music tests. This should be approximately -10dB from reference. For the music tests were were looking to see how the subs all sounded on a level playing field as far as volume. We graded them on Smoothness, Accuracy, Pleasure/Fun, and the ability to hit deep notes! The individual scores were totaled and averaged to determine a winner. For movie testing we increased the sub by +6 dB in the receiver settings (from -2.5 to +3.5) and left the gain on the sub alone (with the exclusion of the Yamaha, the Submersive and the Captivator. In these instances the gain on the subs was increased as well to show capability) Each sub owner was allowed to control the volume of his own sub so as to put the potential for damage by pushing limits in their own hands. In this section each of a series of movie clips was rated 1-5. The total scores were averaged to determine the winner. Obviously the groups selected winner in both music, and movies does not represent each person's unique individual opinion on the matter. There was some fun dialogue occurring after the Submersive and Captivator demos played for instance where there were advocates in both camps for which was "clearly" the better sub! People's opinions vary as you'll see in the individual score card posts!

•counsil, took the REW measurements at ground plane and seating position for each sub before each sub's music audition. In most cases nearly everyone left the room for these tests. It was a cold, windy day and on a few occasions a person or two would just stay inside and be quiet. Tune to his posts in this thread for details there on this process.

•counsil took spl measurements during all movie scenes and listed the max spl obtained (under the sub owners own tolerance for distortion or potential for damage)

Initial Subjective Rankings

Each person had one vote in this section. We ranked each sub from 1-8 in each category and we totaled the votes to come up with each sections winners. The higher the individual score the better the sub in that category. From the individual scores we came up with a "total" score. From the total score we established the overall ranking! Note the medal colors for 1st, 2nd and 3rd in each category based on total votes.


Here are the individual results, total score, and then the calculated rankings:


PreAudition Ranking: our unauditioned collective expectation of final rank

1. JTR Captivator

2. Seaton Submersive

3. HSU VTF-15H

4. Yamaha CW218V

5. Epik Empire

6. SVS PB-12+

7. Jamo D7

8. Jenson MS500


Scorecard


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cosmetics/Wife Acceptance Factor (WAF) Ranking: (fit, finish, size)

1. SVS PB-12 +

2. HSU VTF-15H

3. Epik Empire

4. Seaton Submersive

5. JTR Captivator

6. Jamo D7

7. Yamaha CW218V

8. Jenson MS500


Scorecard


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Build Quality Ranking: (inert, heavy, durable, construction quality)

1. JTR Captivator

2. SVS PB-12 +

3. HSU VTF-15H

4. Seaton Submersive

5. Epik Empire

6. Yamaha CW218V

7. Jamo D7sub

8. Jenson MS500


Scorecard


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Music List

The music demo list consisted of a short clip of each of the following songs. The original clips were played using winamp because it has a nice crossfading effect. Using winamp the playback has smooth transitions and continous music representing many different genres. I can provide the actual trimmed MP3's and the playlist in zipped format for anyone interested. Just PM me with your e-mail. If someone would host the clips for easy access that would be ideal. Here is a non crossfaded winamp output of the mp3's for someone just casually interested in the music we used to test these subs. http://kiwi6.com/file/28ub13rh6w
  1. Realm of Excursion - 100Hz to 20Hz Sine Sweep
  2. Rockapella - Shambala
  3. Diana Krall - Peel Me a Grape
  4. Rascal Flatts - What Hurts The Most
  5. Cake - Sad Songs And Waltzes
  6. Van Halen - Hot For Teacher
  7. Counting Crows - Hanging Around
  8. Creed - One
  9. Linkin Park - Frgt
  10. Janet Jackson - Go Deep
  11. Michael Jackson - Thriller
  12. Britney Spears - Breathe On Me
  13. Snoop Doggy Dogg - Who Am I (Whats My Name)
  14. Dr. Dre feat. Xzibit & Eminem - Whats The Difference Between Me and You
  15. Mya - Getto Superstar
  16. Eminem - Business
  17. Nelly - Country Grammar
  18. Lil Jon - Get Low
  19. Lupe Fiasco - The Show Goes On
  20. Nine Inch Nails - The Four of Us are Dying
  21. Flux Pavilion - Got 2 Know
  22. Example - Kickstarts (Bar 9 Remix)

FINAL MUSIC RANKING:

The collective individual scores recorded and averaged during our testing revealed the subs ranked into the following order for finest overall music reproduction ability:

1. Seaton Submersive

2. JTR Captivator

3. HSU VTF-15H

4. Epik Empire

5. SVS PB-12+

6. Yamaha CW218V

7. Jamo D7sub

8. Jenson MS500




Movie Test Material

The demo disk created by scubasteve2365 was used during our subwoofer testing. The War of the World DVD was used in a repeating loop as well for those subs that really didn't get enough torture in the first tests. Energyfun compiled it for me and mailed it for the meet. Thanks to both for their contribution -
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1243227
  • War of the Worlds - pod emergence scene
  • Knowing - plane crash scene
  • Master & Commander - ship battle in fog
  • John Mayer - live recording of concert
  • Ironman - suiting up and sonic boom
  • Orphanage - erie house creaking
  • THX Amazing Life clip
  • Kung Fu Panda - skadoosh scene
  • Tron - first enters the digital word and the club entrace scene

FINAL MOVIE RANKING:

The collective individual scores recorded and averaged during our testing revealed the subs ranked into the following order for finest overall movie watching enjoyment:

1. JTR Captivator

2. Seaton Submersive

3. Epik Empire

4. Yamaha CW218V

5. HSU VTF-15H

6. SVS PB-12+

7. Jenson MS500

8. Jamo D7sub




My subjective opinions were left out of this first informational post, they are contained in a post later down the page.
 
See less See more
5
#278 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by ironhead1230 /forum/post/20460354


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.
 
#279 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mphfrom77 /forum/post/20460193


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.
 
#280 ·
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.
 
#281 ·
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
 
#282 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil /forum/post/20460628


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.
 
#283 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil /forum/post/20460628


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

 
#284 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by counsil /forum/post/20460628


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.
 
#285 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater /forum/post/20460215


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.
 
#286 ·
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
 
#287 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john /forum/post/20460798


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
 
#288 ·
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...
 
#290 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by pbc /forum/post/20461259


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).
 
#291 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by craig john /forum/post/20460798



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
 
#292 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by stepyourgameup /forum/post/20461298


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.
 
#293 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass /forum/post/20461362


^^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...
 
#294 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass /forum/post/0



^^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
 
#295 ·
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
 
#296 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe /forum/post/20461788


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.
 
#297 ·
^ 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
 
#298 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by carp /forum/post/20461772


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
 
#299 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by FOH /forum/post/20461810


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.
 
#300 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by mastermaybe /forum/post/20461788


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
 
#301 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton /forum/post/20462046


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.

^^This^^


And, you can play those differences into the design of the sub, once you've identified them and classified them.


Bosso
 
#302 ·

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Seaton /forum/post/20462046


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.

Totally agree...


Everyone yelled me out of the epik thread for talking about the sonic signature of the dynasty. Everyone yelled at me saying subs all sounded the same but I definitely heard differences in it's voicing.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top