Just a personnal comment about the ranking of SVS Pb12+/2 and The 3 HO.
Indeed, the 3 HO with Turbo is a very good performer, and I will personally order 2 units very soon
. but I am wondering why this is a better sub than the SVS Plus/2.
The 3 HO is very good below 20 Hz, but above 25 Hz where most movie LFE occurs, the SVS will simply do the 3 HO by quite a lot (sometimes 10 db). The 3 HO seems to trade "midbass" (25-80) for deep bass below 20, thing that I personnally appreciate as I love deep bass, .
IMO (although I will order as I said twin 3 HO turbo), I find the SVS more balanced over the entire low bass frequency, and does not require a mid bass module, and will make overall a more equilibrium through the entire bass freq. range.
Also, the idea of adding a mid bass module is not appreciated by me, as a good subwoofer (IMO) should be able to handle Deep bass YES, but also bass that any 300$ subwoofer can handle (40-80 Hz)
As per Craig test comparing DD18, SVS Pb 12+/2 and 3 HO wih and without , (IMO) the 3 HO without Turbo looks also more balanced, having better overall frequency responce, and certainly less distortion, so I am wondering why the 3 MO TURBO here is ranked better than the 3 HO without Turbo? Is it just because it goes deeper? Is it really enough?
One last thing I am "dreaming of" is to see FR and Max output, 2 m GP measurments for both the 3 HO with and without turbo... This will cut short many expectations or claims.
Hope my message is clear.... I love the bass depth of the HO, but I am also concerned about midbass, and refuse the idea of adding another sub for midbass (Pb12 +/2 does not need one!!).