The DIY crowd might chant that they can duplicate our subwoofer using off-the-shelf woofers and amplifiers, but I can tell you that this would neither be simple or inexpensive to do.
Actually, it was this statement from Manville that opened the door to DIYers commenting to the contrary.
No need to dump on Exo, who's a great guy who built a great sub from a kit by Brian Ding who knows a thing or 2 about sealed subwoofers.
The TrueRTA peak hold graphs of various scenes show very little about a subwoofers SQ. They are inaccurate below around 20Hz, moreso as the frequency decreases and only go to 10Hz, and Craig has the least accurate low end setting selected.
I fully realize that Craig intended a quick comparo with the PB thingy only, but there are already some quotes (or, misquotes) from assumptions about that graph on other forums regarding the output of the 113.
I've included a peak hold graph of that same scene to show what's missing in both sub's performances for those who may be interested, as the spectrograph, or waterfall plot of that scene shows equal levels of 20+Hz and below 20Hz.
I can't say that all of my DIY stuff is 'off the shelf', but most of it is for this graph.
It doesn't take millions of dollars of R&D and my first subsonic, smallish, high-powered sealed subs were most likely affording me this kind of output capability along with features that no other sub offered (or offers) at any price when the Fathom was still on the drawing board.
I hate to say it, but it was rather simple to do, and, given that I only have spare time to devote to the hobby, it took relatively little time to accomplish.
It isn't 'cheap', but it isn't $3K+ either.
The Fathom 113 seems to be a very, very good product, but so far there are no numbers available to say much more than 'it sounds great to me.'
Craig, if you could run a QS with the mic nearfield, I would appreciate it. Great stuff as always