SVS PB12 - Plus vs Velodyne SPL-1200 II - Page 2  

Did I say that??? I would never diss Velodyne!! (well maybe just that once).

Good one! :D

I figured you'd get a laugh out of that. Believe it or not, I found that thread by doing a yahoo search about Contrabass subs. Killer thread/topic. Wish I could weave them like that.

People posting opinions on what sub "sounds better" are mainly posting their preference for a certain frequency response. Some people prefer flat and extended, some rolled-off or an accentuated upper bass. I find something like Ed's reviews much more useful than a bunch of people telling me what ice cream they like. Then stating that one ice cream is "high quality" over someone else's "high quantity".

Agreed Jack...especially when Ed hasn't reviewed both subs. Ed also posts subjective thoughts too....and has his subjective preferences. Do you view his subjective preferences a valuable part of his reviews?

While they're more interesting than most as I find his objectivity beyond question (as opposed to the more common biased fluff), I still find them mainly an adendum to the main body. Of course, his subjective comments are what I'd expect given the measured responses. We listen to/feel sub performance, and such a set of measurements tells me what I can or can't expect.

What I find interesting about Ed at times is his wording for some things that are identical, but used by seperate companies. One would not know the two were identical, unless familar with both products.

For instance, he recently used the term "widely flared port" for one product, yet for another product he called it "moderately flared", and the two subs come from competing companies. In each case, the port diameter was 3" flared to 4.75".

I think things like this show at least a slight skew in his subjectivity.

Hah. If that's the evidence for a skew, I'll live with it. My own correspondence with Ed makes that seem a ridiculous assertion, but that's what the anonymous internet is for. In any case, "skews in subjectivity" mean little to me. The objective part tells me what I want to know from a review. I'll worry about the subjective part myself.

Totally understood.....just an observation. Like I said, unless someone was familiar with both products, they woundn't notice.

Even so educated, I doubt even the most desperate would find much "gotcha" there. I find the obvious bias/agenda of many posters here much more intriguing.

Agreed.

Ed's attention to detail is impeccable, which is why something like that intrigues me.

>>>Hah. If that's the evidence for a skew, I'll live with it. My own correspondence with Ed makes that seem a ridiculous assertion, but that's what the anonymous internet is for. In any case, "skews in subjectivity" mean little to me. The objective part tells me what I want to know from a review. I'll worry about the subjective part myself.<<<

The SVS flare flares to 4.875". Just a FYI..:)

Tom V.
SVS

That's not what Ed wrote in his review.......

FWIW.....on one of the SVS subs I had, the port looked just like the ones on my VTF-3.

Is there a "great" subwoofer forum that teaches you every thing you need to know about subs? I didn't even know what "headroom" was or is until I got into these threads while purchasing my SVS PB12 Ultra/2.

Richierich

Ah-HAAA! Smoking gun! :rolleyes:

(sigh)

The 3" (I.D.) Hsu port flares to 4.375". In comparison, the 3" (I.D.) SVS port flares to 4.875". So the 3" SVS port outer flare is 0.5" larger in diameter, and this represents a 24% increase is outer flare surface area.

The visual difference between the two 3" vents is quite noticeable in direct comparison, hence my subjective description of "moderately flared" for the Hsu vent. The 4" (I.D.) SVS port (used on the PB12-ISD) flares to 6", and arguably could subjectively be described as "widely flared".

Regardless, I have revised the PB12-ISD vs. STF-3 review at HTF to reflect this, as it seems criticisms of my subjective description of the subwoofer ports in that review just won't die. Now only the ID and OD for both ports are listed.

Ironically, I responded to this criticism in the subsequent STF-2 review (simply listing ID and flare OD), but no one ever gave me credit for it.

Both the PB12-ISD and the STF-3 are still available locally, and in the spring I will be getting them back together for a ground plane session and the objective data set in the review will be revised accordingly. I'll be adding some addtional test parameters, too.

Regards,

Ed

www.avsforum.com

Subwoofers, Bass and Transducers section.

I was just about to suggest that anyone wanting to question you SHOULD go onto HTF and do so ... rather than talk ABOUT you here and on the Hsu forum ...

Welcome to AVS ...

Thanks, Craig. I had more time than usual (this being a vacation day), so I decided to finally join AVS.

I can't see myself posting tons here, but at least I now have the capability to clarify things about my reviews, etc.

Regards,

Ed

There are those who are desperate to attack any part they can, hoping this will detract from the overall review. Still, the results stand to those smart enough to see through these tactics. Port descriptors and imagined bracing inadequacies be damned.

FWIW...it has been openly criticized before on HTF. With HTF board having a bias toward SVS (all boards seem to have their own biases), constructive criticism towards anything SVS related always turns destructive. Just look at the "decay" measurement issue with the PB10-ISD.

Then to revise a review written months ago, then expect folks to re-read it, and then expect opinions to change, is at best a difficult proposition.

Ed, thanks for the clarification. I am glad you joined here and hope you participate as much as you can.

Curtis ... Do you REALLY think anyone reading the review and reading that Subwoofer "A" had a widely flared port while subwoofer "B" has two moderately flared ports SWAYED ONE BUYER ? ... Think about it, my friend ... When I first read the review, my FIRST thought was "Advantage to *B*" ... but it was a passing thought ...

And no, I don't place you in the same light as the real flamers there ... (Hsu Forum) ...

That review has been revised several times, actually. Each time was in response to criticisms I viewed as constructive.

It seems my review format is constantly in a state of flux; I strive for continuous improvement, and I have since expanded and revised the test methodology. Had that review been done today, it would have looked a bit different. The subjective impressions for movies and music will always stand, as revising the objective data set cannot possibly alter the actual performance of the subwoofers (unless you live in Bizzaro World). The music reviewer had no idea how the subs measured, nor did he care.

Regardless, I think report revisions made with the intention of improving and/or expanding the data set can only be viewed as positive. While the small revision to the port description isn't really worthy of a new post in that thread (although feel free Curtis), when I revise the main data sets for the ground plane session, I will certainly note the same with a new post.

Apologies for the thread derail, and thanks for the welcome.

Regards,

Ed

Actually...no...I don't. But it was also not listed as "A" and "B".

The point I was trying to make is that anything subjective, is susceptible to bias.

Ed, I commend you on your want for continuous improvement, but as with all things, the biggest impression is the first.

When you go back in the spring, I would imagine at least one of the companies will say, "wait, we made some improvements that we haven't noted". Both companies claim to make changes on the fly.

It is highly unlikely that the ground plane session will do anything but confirm the existing indoor near-field data, albeit with room acoustics completely removed as a variable.

Based on the near-field data set, the ground plane session will 99.9% likely reveal the PB12-ISD to extend deeper and exhibit higher clean (i.e., distortion limited) output below 25 Hz, and the STF-3 will exhibit equal or higher clean output above 30 Hz. They should both have about the same dynamic output limits. I'll probably throw in power compression too.

So with respect to first impressions about the objective data set, I can't see much changing. The data will simply be more definitive, and more immune to criticism.

Improvements may exist in both models, but this exercise will only amount to a clarification of the objective data in an existing review. It will not be a new shoot-out. Retaining the original players is the only way to accomplish this fairly, especially since the existing subjective impressions for music/movies will stand.

Regards,

Ed

Ed Mullen, have you heard the PB12 Ultra/2 and have you ever reviewed it? If you have heard of it, what are your opinions of it. Also, the Ultra/2 had 4 inch ports flared to 7 inches. If that equates to 6 inch straight port then this must be a "KILLER" sub as I shall soon see on Monday.

I own that subwoofer and yes I have reviewed it. The review is linked from SVS' website, and is also in my signature block at HTF. My screen name at HTF is "Edward J M".

The 4" SVS port flares to 6" before the flange reaches the horizontal plane. If Tom V claims (and cites references) that this port flows as well as a straight (i.e., non-flared) 6" port, I'd be inclined to believe him.

I'm looking forward to your impressions....

Is there much discussion on the actual performance of the subs, or just the way the ports look?

I am always wary of reviews where the reviewer also owns the sub. Bias would simply to strong for any reader to take anything from such a review.
If you are going to review, like any review of anything, you must have a reference from which to compare: both objectively AND subjectively. Otherwise, the writings are pure personal impressions with little valid science and take away information.

That may be true but the "reviewer" has to obtain some brand of sub for his home theater system and I would think that he would select what he has seen as the best at the price range that he can afford. If I were a reviewer, I wouldn't select #2 or #3 or #4 or #5 if I could afford #1. That seems to be a nobrainer and as an ISF calibrator of display devices, I have seen many different models and brands and that is one of the reasons that I selected the Fujitsu P50XHA10 plasma because from all the displays I had seen it was one of the best that I had seen and as I could afford it I purchased it. That being said, it does not mean that Panasonic doesn't have fantastic plasmas, etc. I just chose Fujitsu because of contrast ratio, etc. And yes, thebland is close to being King Of Bass OverKill but I would have to defer to Mr. Poindexter as having the Best System I have ever seen.