I've been on the verge of buying 1 or 2 ported subs (SVS PB-13s, AV123 MFW-15, Epik Phoenix) for awhile for my +7500ft^3 room (90% HT). As I've read this and other forums, the Submersive emerged to me as the true enthusiast's subwoofer
. It is often compared favorably to the top competitors. Some posters have even suggested it is equal to 2 SVS PB-13 Ultras. Never once have I seen a review that suggests that the SVS PB-13 Ultra is even comparable (except for around the tuning frequency). As a result, I have been on the verge of purchasing a Submersive (or two) for weeks now.
However, something keeps gnawing at me as I prepare to spend $2-4K on a sealed sub. How come the Submersive never showed up on Craigsub? Why? It was suggested that Seaton didn't want the incremental demand an outstanding Craigsub rating would create, but I find that a bit hard to believe.
Craigsub has been the best tool for me to make any sense of all the choices. And based on what I've read, nearly everyone values and respects the Craigsub findings. The QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF CRAIGSUB HT SUBWOOFER RATINGS http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=998318
further suggests the validity of the ratings.
The Submersive was released well before Craigsub retired from ranking subwoofers. How could it be the most celebrated subwoofer ranking system failed to rank the celebrated subwoofer?
I've also been surprised that no one has used the quantitative analysis to fill in the gap and predict the Submersive HT score. Well here it is:
HT = 22.7 + 1.02 DRV_DIAM + 1.24 BOX_VOL + 0.00476 PWR + 2.83 VNT + 7.09 HI_XMAX
HT = 56.3 = 22.7 + 1.02 * 15 + 1.24 * 5.2 + 0.00476 * 1000 + 2.83 * 0 + 7.09 * 1
HT = 56 is respectable, but less than the SVS PB-13 Ultra. Curiously, it is equal to a pair of AV123 MFW-15s (which were also designed by Seaton).
So now I'm confused:
- The antidotal reviews suggest I should invest in a Submersive. It digs the deepest, great in mid-base range, and exposes nuance that no other subwoofer can.
- The Quantitative Analysis regression formula (HT=56) suggest the Submersive is right up there with the best on the Craigsub ranking, but below the SVS Ultra. This suggests the cheaper SVS Ultra (or other EPIK offerings) are a much better value for my HT needs. This assumes the regression formula is predictive (it's R-Sq = 95.7% suggests it is very accurate)
I feel like it is heresy to question the Submersive, but I'm tortured by this decision.