or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Tight bass Subwoofers $500 a $1000 suggestions
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tight bass Subwoofers $500 a $1000 suggestions - Page 3

post #61 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Chill out, you're getting way too personal. I'm over 8,000 post and you're complaining about me trolling. And yes I know he uses bandpass subs, I also know he doesn't use so-called expensive infrasonic subs that go down to 16hz. Also, you're bring up stuff I wrote about infrasounds and things I said about flat panel TV's that have nothing to do with this topic.

I think I am a pretty chill person.smile.gif Yes I have read a few of those 8,000 posts. You are correct about Geddes not using expensive infrasonic subs, he is more budget oriented. I don't hear those who can reach the bottom octaves complaining about the realism. Yes I don't agree with you on several topics.

So back on topic.
Is your defenition of "tight" a measureable parameter?

Is the frequency response of the seat important or just getting a sub that is the "tightest"?

What internet direct subwoofers have you demoed?

Which ones in the same place during the same listening session?
post #62 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

That is what I call being adversaly affected. What fool would subject themselves to that type of torture. Also, I have information, however I have refrained from dealing with ths topic because it seems to cause flame wars and personal attacks instead of the science itself.

The statement that "subwoofers are harmful" is not necessarily the source of these flame wars, but it is the lack of science behind this statement that fuels it.

What you and I view as science seems different. You frequently cite anecdotal evidence which is the weakest evidence there is. To me, the bare minimum standard for evidence is data obtained from studies that have an exposed and non-exposed (control) group. The exposure and outcomes should also be measured systematically.
post #63 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

That is what I call being adversaly affected. What fool would subject themselves to that type of torture. Also, I have information, however I have refrained from dealing with ths topic because it seems to cause flame wars and personal attacks instead of the science itself.

All you do in this forum is quote lines from random sources with no names or references but you call them audiophiles. If you have information, why not post them. Objective information does not cause wars or personal attacks. It is the subjective opinion without any objective tests/measurements to back up the opinion that calls for attacks. For example, the measurements of the SB12 posted at Audioholics clearly show that SB12 has an edge over X-Ref12 at both the low and high end. For a while you had been questioning the response of SB12 posted at the SVS web site and wanted a third party review. You had also been claiming yourself as being "scientific" and so would only consider objective measurement by a reputed third party. The third party review is out confirming the claims by SVS. But now you have changed your argument to "empirical evidence" i.e subjective personal opinion. If you were a politician running for an office, you would lose the election :-)

I like bass in music and movies equally well. No I dont like boomy bass in movies. Subwoofers are not intended to use just with movies. Where did you get that idea from? Those no name audiophiles? A subwoofer manufacturer does not brand their sub as either solely intended for music or movies. If a sub has a reasonably flat response from 21-300 Hz say like the SVS SB12, it will serve equally well for movies and music.

Boominess/tighness is more a function of the room. If a sub sounds boomy in a room, there are definitely room modes and that offending frequency should be tamed, either using passive room treatment or active correction. Even a $50,000 full range speaker made solely for music can sound boomy in a bad room. There is no perfect room unless every inch of it is treated. I have auditioned many speakers in a store and pretty much every one of them sounded boomy as the store room was neither treated nor they used any active correction.


It is highly unlikely that a sub like SB13 would not sound tight, where as X-Ref12 would sound tight in the same room. If you compared the X-Ref12 and SB13 in your room, why not post the measurements. At least post a picture showing your SB13 and X-Ref12 in your room :-) Do you have any room treatments? Do you use any room correction software like Audyssey or a sub EQ like Antimode? I just cannot fathom that a sub would tight throughout its operating range in a untreated room without any room correction. This is the main reason people make subwoofer measurements outdoors. For a subwoofer manufacturer, it makes sense to invest in a anechoic room as they would be making a lot of measurements. But for a reviewer, the cheapest option is to make the measurement outdoors. This would show the performance of the sub without the effect of the room. One cannot say that a sub is bad if the in-room response (untreated room with no correction/EQ) shows peaks and nulls. That is the problem with the room and not the sub.




BTW if X-Ref12 is not the tightest sub on the planet, why do you say that one will be hard pressed to find a sub tighter than the X-Ref12.?
post #64 of 93
Quote:
BTW if X-Ref12 is not the tightest sub on the planet, why do you say that one will be hard pressed to find a sub tighter than the X-Ref12.?

This thread is has become silly. I said something postive about the X-Ref 12, not dissing any other brand of sub and you guys go ballisitic on me, bringing up things I said in the flat panel TV forum.

I said you would be hard pressed to find a sub tighter than the X-Ref 12 because it is extremely tight. However, saying "hard pressed" is not saying impossible. Quite honestly, I think you guys understand what I'm saying and just trying give me a hard time over some past debates,
Edited by Auditor55 - 7/19/12 at 6:40pm
post #65 of 93
Quote:
The statement that "subwoofers are harmful" is not necessarily the source of these flame wars, but it is the lack of science behind this statement that fuels it.

Yes it is. No one wants to hear facts when they have so much invested in their infrasonic dream world.
post #66 of 93
Anyone who understands subwoofer measurements and how a subwoofer works in a room, would be able to weigh the differences between X-Ref12 and SB12. based on the Audioholics measurement and make a decision. If they cant, I can only pity their ignorance, no offense. Most likely those people are going to walk into a brick and mortar store and buy what the salesman in an uniform recommends.

I see many posts here about people getting the SB12 after reading that review. I did not see such posts after the X-Ref12 review came out. In fact many people who were on the fence to get the X-Ref12, including myself, didnt jump after reading that review LOL. Like I have said many times before, my biggest A/V blunder was waiting for the X-Ref12 review instead of getting the Ultra 12 for $329 shipped, in spite of seeing the X-Ref12 specs and the FR.

Stop defending an overpriced, under performing product. Of course you can write accolades about it at the Emotiva lounge :-) but it is not going to fly here.
post #67 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Yes it is. No one wants to hear facts when they have so much invested in their infrasonic dream world.

Sigh.
post #68 of 93
I think I've heard it all now.


Now I won't be surprised by the news report tomorrow. MKtheater dies during "movies with great bass" marathon.
Edited by Matt34 - 7/20/12 at 3:59am
post #69 of 93
^ ^ ^ that is some funny shiat, right there biggrin.gif
I have a question: How do you measure "tightness", and how do you compare it between subs??
Also, about the "feeling sick after being exposed to loud, deep bass"... feeling nauseous is your body's way of telling you there is something wrong, and to stop it, a similar response to being poisoned. That cause may or may not cause damage however. (spinning on a circus ride may cause you to throw up, but will it cause permanent damage to your body over time?). Just my 2c
post #70 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Yes it is. No one wants to hear facts when they have so much invested in their infrasonic dream world.

You are taking about hearing facts. The facts are out there in black and white at Audioholics but you are the one who denies them and goes by personal experience which are subjective and do not have as much credibility as the facts/measurements.

People asked how you define "tightness" other than personal bias. You have not found any quotes from unknown reference to cut and paste that defines tightness? LOL

When are we getting a picture of the X-Ref12 and Ultra-13 side by side in your room? At least we will know that you have the Ultra-13. Then the folks at the SVS thread who own the Ultra-13 and the folks at SVS can figure out why it is not as tight as the X-Ref12 in the same room with the same source LOL May be SVS will drop the price on the Ultra-13 to compete with the X-Ref12 LOL
post #71 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mupi View Post

You are taking about hearing facts. The facts are out there in black and white at Audioholics but you are the one who denies them and goes by personal experience which are subjective and do not have as much credibility as the facts/measurements.
People asked how you define "tightness" other than personal bias. You have not found any quotes from unknown reference to cut and paste that defines tightness? LOL
When are we getting a picture of the X-Ref12 and Ultra-13 side by side in your room? At least we will know that you have the Ultra-13. Then the folks at the SVS thread who own the Ultra-13 and the folks at SVS can figure out why it is not as tight as the X-Ref12 in the same room with the same source LOL May be SVS will drop the price on the Ultra-13 to compete with the X-Ref12 LOL

I know how to define tight bass. You don't need any measurement tools to determine if you have tight bass. Sonically speaking, there's a distinct difference between the way boomy bass and the way tight bass sound. It's nice to have measurement tools to confirm your findings, however its not neccessary here.

Also, I don't have an Ultra in my room. However we do know and its be proven time and time again, that sealed subwoofers by design are tighter than non-sealed subs. The X-Ref 12 happens to be a sealed subwoofer. Like I said, either a subwoofer sounds is tight or it doesn't.
post #72 of 93
Quote:
You are taking about hearing facts. The facts are out there in black and white at Audioholics but you are the one who denies them and goes by personal experience which are subjective and do not have as much credibility as the facts/measurements.

People asked how you define "tightness" other than personal bias. You have not found any quotes from unknown reference to cut and paste that defines tightness? LOL

Again, I can provide for you what tight bass is and how its measured. However's its not necessary. You know what it is when you hear it. It is as simple being able to determine the difference between low frequencies and high frequencies.
post #73 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mupi View Post

May be SVS will drop the price on the Ultra-13 to compete with the X-Ref12 LOL

did a spit-take on this one, now I gotta clean up my keyboard
post #74 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post


Also, I don't have an Ultra in my room.

Whatever subwoofer you have in your room/house that you claim is not as tight as the "mighty" X-Ref12.
post #75 of 93
I meant the SB-13 not the Ultra-13.
post #76 of 93
Hi everyone,

I have a few minutes and this subject resurrects itself in various forms fairly regularly on these boards and, like everyone else here, I have my opinions on the subject, so, FWIW:

For the sake of brevity, I'll boil the usual "tight, fast, quick, accurate, musical vs bloated, muddy, slow, boomy, unmusical", etc., into a single term: BASS.

There are 3 very simple phenomena that explain the perceptions that lead to one or the other camp:

1) Subwoofer calibration. Run the sub +10dB "hot" and/or with +10dB peaks in response it will tend to sound less accurate (big surprise there, eh?).

2) Standing waves caused by room dimensions and where you happen to be listening from in relation to those standing waves. Standing waves store energy and release it latently, which might help to explain some of the "slow" comments. EQ does not change the fact that the stored energy is latently released, it simply creates a hole in the original signal (what you still hear first, ahead of the standing waves interference with your listening pleasure) to lower the intensity of the latently released stored energy.

3) The transient response, or frequency response, or bandwidth of the subwoofer. Yes, all 3 of those terms are interchangeable for this discussion. This is the primary and the simplest to understand, yet the least recognized source of the argument. If one subwoofer rolls off sharply below 35 Hz and the subwoofer being compared rolls of at 5 Hz, subwoofer 'A' is reproducing frequencies with a maximum decay time of approximately 29 milliseconds (1000 milliseconds = 1 second ÷ 35 = 0.029 (29 thousandths, or 29 milli-) seconds. Subwoofer 'B' however, can reproduce frequencies with a maximum decay time of 200 milliseconds, or roughly 7 times.

If the source being listened to is filtered at 35 Hz (no content below that frequency on the disc) and both sub 'A' and sub 'B' are level matched to the same FR and dBSPL, there will be no discernible difference sonically if all else is equal because as Tom Nousaine said long ago, "Bass is Bass".

If, in the sited example, there is a discernible difference, it's simply from a source that isn't covered in this discussion (such as high 2nd harmonic distortion, which tends to evoke a subjective "it sounds tighter" for the same decay reasons [and others] mentioned above).

On the other side, when a source is played that does have content to 5 Hz, sub 'B' might be described as [insert any of the 'slow' synonyms] simply because a 5 Hz sound wave has bounced back and forth off the walls of the average room 10 times before it even finishes leaving the subwoofer, while the 35 Hz sub doesn't present that scenario, or anything close to it.

These are my observations and some simple math, FWIW, YMMV, and sorry for the interruption...
post #77 of 93
Good points bosso.
post #78 of 93
Let me make a distinction of what I consider to be boomy bass from tight bass, just using my god given test tools, the human ears. In the following examples, they are samples of what I consider boomy bass and what I consider to be tight or musical bass.

The above is example of boomy bass.





The above is an example of tight bass.
post #79 of 93
Music taste is up to the listener but to show examples of songs it would be a better assessment if the song was the same on both subs if one is trying to provide examples of tightness versus boomy.
The same song played on the JL might be just as boomy to you of course we have different rooms,mics, and possible difference in recording so all bets are off.
post #80 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Let me make a distinction of what I consider to be boomy bass from tight bass, just using my god given test tools, the human ears. In the following examples, they are samples of what I consider boomy bass and what I consider to be tight or musical bass.The above is example of boomy bass.The above is an example of tight bass.

So you're example of boomy bass is a video of a song with lots of content below 20hz where the mic is distorting and an example of tight bass is a dubbed video using the original CD release of a song with no content below 30hz and most around 40hz. Not quite a fair comparison.

-Mike
post #81 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I know how to define tight bass. You don't need any measurement tools to determine if you have tight bass. Sonically speaking, there's a distinct difference between the way boomy bass and the way tight bass sound. It's nice to have measurement tools to confirm your findings, however its not neccessary here.
Also, I don't have an Ultra in my room. However we do know and its be proven time and time again, that sealed subwoofers by design are tighter than non-sealed subs. The X-Ref 12 happens to be a sealed subwoofer. Like I said, either a subwoofer sounds is tight or it doesn't.

Again you are missing the point. It's not about whether the X-Ref 12 is tight or not, or whether sealed subs are tighter than non-sealed subs. It's also not about whether you think you can define tight bass or not.

The point was about your assertion that "You would be hard pressed to find a sub tighter than an X-Ref 12" - which you cannot substantiate.
post #82 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Again, I can provide for you what tight bass is and how its measured. However's its not necessary.

Oh, please do share "what tight bass is and how its measured". It is necessary so that we're all on the same page here.
post #83 of 93
Auditor 55,

I'm not sure if this was covered before but where were the X-Ref12 and Ultra-13 located in your room when you made the comparisons. Were these comparisons blinded?
post #84 of 93
I can't believe you guys are still feeding the troll...
post #85 of 93
What a thread, I am happy that the OP bought a sub. Yes, I am alive and I just watched the Balrog scene at reference! Great demo, as always. The emo sub does look to be tight and can play loud with low distortion. However, the response it can do this at is 35hz and up. This is not a subwoofer, it is a woofer and if I wanted a woofer I would just get better speakers to do 35hz and up, no sub needed! The Emo sub compresses at 105 dBs from 35hz and down so if you even wanted 30hz you need to keep it under 100 dBs. Of course this is outside so any response goes out the door in room and without measuring your response one can not know if one sub is tighter than another. So many people do this with speakers around here as well. Oh, these speakers are much better than this one, never took a measurement to see why. The measurements will tell you why guys. response, on and off axis, compressions and distortion alone can give you great information. I remember when I played WOTW and recorded it on video and someone told me that I was clipping during that scene! I told him the mic on the video recorder was clipping, not the system LOL! You can't be serious in showing videos of different rooms with different sources and say one is boomy and the other is not. Heck, the bottom sub would probably not be able to even play that Bass I love you track at the same level.

One more thing, infrasonics can be harmful over time, but from explosions! No sub system will do harm, they just are not powerful enough down low. Movies infra is a joke compared to the real thing and please lets stop the nonsense on comparing the two!
post #86 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by MKtheater View Post

What a thread, I am happy that the OP bought a sub. Yes, I am alive and I just watched the Balrog scene at reference! Great demo, as always. The emo sub does look to be tight and can play loud with low distortion. However, the response it can do this at is 35hz and up. This is not a subwoofer, it is a woofer and if I wanted a woofer I would just get better speakers to do 35hz and up, no sub needed! The Emo sub compresses at 105 dBs from 35hz and down so if you even wanted 30hz you need to keep it under 100 dBs. Of course this is outside so any response goes out the door in room and without measuring your response one can not know if one sub is tighter than another. So many people do this with speakers around here as well. Oh, these speakers are much better than this one, never took a measurement to see why. The measurements will tell you why guys. response, on and off axis, compressions and distortion alone can give you great information. I remember when I played WOTW and recorded it on video and someone told me that I was clipping during that scene! I told him the mic on the video recorder was clipping, not the system LOL! You can't be serious in showing videos of different rooms with different sources and say one is boomy and the other is not. Heck, the bottom sub would probably not be able to even play that Bass I love you track at the same level.
One more thing, infrasonics can be harmful over time, but from explosions! No sub system will do harm, they just are not powerful enough down low. Movies infra is a joke compared to the real thing and please lets stop the nonsense on comparing the two!

I watch movies that have sub 20hz bass all the time and have never felt nauseous.. I spent about four hours one day measuring my subs, running EQ, trying different placement options, etc. I was running lots o test tones in the 10-30hz range and by the end of it, I felt really sick. It took me a few hours to feel better again. But this is obviously an extreme. Listening to infrasonic tones for hours at a time vs maybe 15 minutes at most during a movie is a totally different scenario.

Great news to hear that you are still alive smile.gif Keep it up!
post #87 of 93
Here's a quick speclab cap of the 2 videos. Study the content and sub level calibration and then go back and read my previous post.

tightvsmuddy.jpg
post #88 of 93
shouldn't both subs be playing the same song at least?? What kind of test has different content for each sub??
post #89 of 93
LOL this thread cracks me up,
it's all about "personal reference". tongue.gif
post #90 of 93
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossobass View Post

Hi everyone,
I have a few minutes and this subject resurrects itself in various forms fairly regularly on these boards and, like everyone else here, I have my opinions on the subject, so, FWIW:
For the sake of brevity, I'll boil the usual "tight, fast, quick, accurate, musical vs bloated, muddy, slow, boomy, unmusical", etc., into a single term: BASS.
There are 3 very simple phenomena that explain the perceptions that lead to one or the other camp:
1) Subwoofer calibration. Run the sub +10dB "hot" and/or with +10dB peaks in response it will tend to sound less accurate (big surprise there, eh?).
2) Standing waves caused by room dimensions and where you happen to be listening from in relation to those standing waves. Standing waves store energy and release it latently, which might help to explain some of the "slow" comments. EQ does not change the fact that the stored energy is latently released, it simply creates a hole in the original signal (what you still hear first, ahead of the standing waves interference with your listening pleasure) to lower the intensity of the latently released stored energy.
3) The transient response, or frequency response, or bandwidth of the subwoofer. Yes, all 3 of those terms are interchangeable for this discussion. This is the primary and the simplest to understand, yet the least recognized source of the argument. If one subwoofer rolls off sharply below 35 Hz and the subwoofer being compared rolls of at 5 Hz, subwoofer 'A' is reproducing frequencies with a maximum decay time of approximately 29 milliseconds (1000 milliseconds = 1 second ÷ 35 = 0.029 (29 thousandths, or 29 milli-) seconds. Subwoofer 'B' however, can reproduce frequencies with a maximum decay time of 200 milliseconds, or roughly 7 times.
If the source being listened to is filtered at 35 Hz (no content below that frequency on the disc) and both sub 'A' and sub 'B' are level matched to the same FR and dBSPL, there will be no discernible difference sonically if all else is equal because as Tom Nousaine said long ago, "Bass is Bass".
If, in the sited example, there is a discernible difference, it's simply from a source that isn't covered in this discussion (such as high 2nd harmonic distortion, which tends to evoke a subjective "it sounds tighter" for the same decay reasons [and others] mentioned above).
On the other side, when a source is played that does have content to 5 Hz, sub 'B' might be described as [insert any of the 'slow' synonyms] simply because a 5 Hz sound wave has bounced back and forth off the walls of the average room 10 times before it even finishes leaving the subwoofer, while the 35 Hz sub doesn't present that scenario, or anything close to it.
These are my observations and some simple math, FWIW, YMMV, and sorry for the interruption...

This is a great explanation. Thanks for posting that.
This was very interesting:
Quote:
3) The transient response, or frequency response, or bandwidth of the subwoofer. Yes, all 3 of those terms are interchangeable for this discussion. This is the primary and the simplest to understand, yet the least recognized source of the argument. If one subwoofer rolls off sharply below 35 Hz and the subwoofer being compared rolls of at 5 Hz, subwoofer 'A' is reproducing frequencies with a maximum decay time of approximately 29 milliseconds (1000 milliseconds = 1 second ÷ 35 = 0.029 (29 thousandths, or 29 milli-) seconds. Subwoofer 'B' however, can reproduce frequencies with a maximum decay time of 200 milliseconds, or roughly 7 times.
If the source being listened to is filtered at 35 Hz (no content below that frequency on the disc) and both sub 'A' and sub 'B' are level matched to the same FR and dBSPL, there will be no discernible difference sonically if all else is equal because as Tom Nousaine said long ago, "Bass is Bass".

And your explanation is really helpful. I understood #1 and #2, but #3 makes complete sense now. So thank you.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Audio › Subwoofers, Bass, and Transducers › Tight bass Subwoofers $500 a $1000 suggestions