Official Craigsub rankings thread - Page 10  

Originally Posted by bgillyjcu

Ya the problem with the "GAME" is that satisfaction is all relative to MONEY on hand.

Sure you could take back your $599 PB-12NSD and get something more expensive that would be better.

But the question is how much better for how much money.

You and I seem like we are clones for what we strive for bass wise. We want the best of the bottom digging bass that will rattle our bones (and our house).

I think one 16-46PCI+ subs would make us happier and 2 would make us MUCH happier ....1 of these subs tuned to 12hz can easily reach 8-10hz in room........

OR one PC ULTRA tuned to 12hz....that would make my face hurt from smiling....2 might bring the house down...(which would be totally fun)

Problem is that they are $950 EACH for the PC+ and $1150each for the Ultras...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I should tell you my "new" plan is to wait a year and get the LOWEST DIGGING SVS sub they make to add to the NSD. (Probably their newest Ultra PC)

NSD will take care of 20hz to 80hz and I will not lose the mid bass SLAM
ULTRA will take care of 20hz and below

on paper and in my mind this sounds really good

Originally Posted by TheEAR

Craig,

Your reviews are way better than those of many "pro" reviewers,who talk...talk...the talk,and miss to post measured performance. Keep it up Craig



Do I hear some peeps make fun of 30 subs Well that is good,at least there is some interest,and BTW I have a Trinity on order,ordered today! HE HE Soon ,finally I will be able to see....HEAR what the hype is all about,I want to eat my own sarcastic words about Deaf Tech.

Originally Posted by craigsub

Jeffry - I don't have the VTF-3 Mark II, just the VTF-3 HO, VTF-3 Mark III, and VTF-2 Mark III.

Jeff ... The MBM was only about 5 feet closer to me than the HO's were - no where near enough difference to cause any smearing.

Now that everything has arrived, there will be more testing done. It is also time to take pics of all these subs. The Ear has 30, and I only have 18 (I know, amateur) ... but perhaps you guys would like to see some pics this weekend ?

Originally Posted by craigsub

Kevin - The MBM-12 will get the nearfield treatment starting this weekend ... look for it with the PB12 and the Mark III's ... and the UItra/HO later.

Originally Posted by craigsub

This weekend, even though I cannot take the PB12-NSD and the VTF-3.3 and 2.3 outside for some GP sessions, we can do some movie shots, and measure what each is doing, in terms of SPL, on scenes like we all know from WOTW and a few other movies, too. Requests on movies welcome.

The early results of the VTF-3.3 are outstanding, especially for a $700 subwoofer (final pricing) ... but we need to do some A/B testing against the PB12, Fathom 112, Ultra, VTF-3 HO, etc ... before making any performance judgements.

Originally Posted by blaser

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!!).

Blaser

Originally Posted by jedi.night

I think your missing one of the main points of the MBM-12. It allows for near field placement, lets say behind the couch. Allowing for impact from the mid bass regions. I have A/B'ed my setup, which also includes an PC-Ultra and MBM-12 and there is a noticeable difference, favoring the MBM to be in the setup.

Originally Posted by blaser

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) .

Blaser

Originally Posted by blaser

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!!).

Blaser

Originally Posted by craigsub

Here is a sample as to why I use the Steely Dan disc as a subwoofer reference ... check out the response of the kick drum (I believed synthesized) ....

Originally Posted by mojomike

They probably take a natural kick drum and feed it through a subharmonic synthesizer. That will generate a frequency one octave below the fundamental drum tone.