would LOVE to hear your opinion of the PSAs against the SVS speakers. looking at comparing the 2 myself when the time comes for me to get new speakers.

SVS public service announcement. That one bad review that people use to say these get mixed reviews is from a talking horses ass that's owned 3 pairs of BS speakers before. That is all. YouTube channel does not a pro reviewer make.

I've never heard a bad review of SVS speakers. What are you referring to? I'm just curious.

For these prices I may get a third Ultra Tower for my center channel.

He's likely talking about Zeos' review of them.

If you love SVS so much why don't you open TED Shecklers SVS Emporium or somthin.. TSS TSS FPOG

Woot! Glad someone's interested!

I'm typing this from my phone btw so I'll abridge my response (and sorry if there's any weird autocorrect errors), but in short, if you have the space and money, I'd go with the PSA's any day. They're more natural and smoother sounding, the imaging is fantastic, they're easier to drive, and in my opinion look the best. Also the finish installs confidence in its durability.

I'd rate my personal preference, sonically, as PSA > Prime > Ultra in that order. The prime I'd say offer the best value (the PSA is great value in my opinion for what it is as well, it's just for the price of 2 psa bookshelves you could get a prime bookshelf surrounds package... That's outstanding!).

Comparing the prime to the ultra, as I mentioned before, the ultra is smoother, no sibilance to me, bassier, and perhaps has a tiny bit larger soundstage. They both are very good at imaging.

To my ears, the overall tonal balance of the PSA is closer to the prime: neutral. I'd consider the ultras slightly on the warmer side of speakers, but only slightly. The PSA to me sound very neutral with exceptional imaging (most notably horizontally), a very detailed tweeter which is never sibilant, and the bass was very tight and punchy. Basically it is everything I want improved on the prime and then a bit more.

I have a tiny studio ~250-300 sq ft, and all the speakers can be driven to deafening levels to me (I usually listen around 70db) by my s710w. At higher volumes the primes sound harsh at times and the ultras sound a bit too bassy/muddy (only slight and I'm really nit picking here). The psa essentially sound perfect to my preferences as they don't lose composure at higher volumes and don't sound fatiguing (I'm particularly treble sensitive).

With that said, I really don't think you could go wrong with any of them. I listened to them all on my s710w on Direct mode sitting about 3 ft away playing predominantly various music at 75dbs.

I'd say if you wanted a speaker for everything, the psa should be a top contender. If you were only considering for home theater, the primes are fantastic (still quite good with music), and if you wanted a 2.0 just for music, or couldn't afford a sub just yet, the ultras would probably be best. With that said the primes and ultras are going back to svs and I'm keeping my psa in a 3.2 setup until they make some smaller bookshelves for surrounds.

Final thought, as tempting as the piano black finish is on svs speakers, don't do it. The finish is easily scratched. I took great care of the ultras not to scratch them (set them on microfibre cloth, dusted them often using a clean microfibre) and ultimately I failed. I rock climb as a hobby and so I have a lot of callouses on my hands and while repositioning the speakers I scratched the ultra surface the PSA are so large for my space I've already accidentally hit them against the TV 3 times while moving them and I've yet to even make a faint mark. The finish on the psa is pretty damn tough. Reminds me of a rhino liner but nicer.

Hope this helps. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask away.

Cheers

The SVS seem to have a much higher freq range than the PSA

According to both site's listed ranges, this is correct. I will say that in my room, the mt110 do seem to extend farther down than 70hz. I don't have measurements to verify this, but I never felt that bass was lacking in 2 channel mode.

Can't find that. Anyway, here is a professional, scientific review, with friggin' graphs and charts and all that stuff:

http://www.audioholics.com/tower-spe...iew/conclusion

Thanks for the input!! Man it seems like the PSAs are the clear winner. Reference level playback is what I desire in my dedicated room. I will have dual PB-2000s handling the bass. I'm looking for reference level playback (Denon avr 4200 to be purchased) and not needing an amp is really appealing to me. 99% movies/video games is my usage. Would you say skip the SVS Ultras and just try either the Primes or the PSAs? It will take me a long time to get a full PSA set up since they're expensive and the thought of getting a good system for like $1700 for a 7 speaker Prime tower package is also really appealing. I guess I really gotta nail down the budget first haha The idea of having to wait years to have a full PSA set up isn't too appealing, but if they do sound as great as you say itll probably be worth it.


This is true, but if one is looking at high efficiency speakers such as the PSAs, one should know that subwoofers are an absolute must have for the LFE. High efficiency speakers are meant to be used in conjunction with subwoofers. There are trade offs and compromises with all speaker designs. This shouldn't earn the PSAs a negative mark when comparing the 2 speakers. at least not in my interest (99% movies/videos games). They are not intended to be nor claim to be full range speakers.

Since you couldn't find it, this is what Ted was talking about, which is what my original response was about:
*note I don't agree with any of this video, just clarifying since you asked earlier*

I forgot that you're going for a full dedicated home theater setup. In that regard, it still really depends on what your overall ideal budget is, but I would probably demo the Ultras and PSA's (demo ultras first since it's at no cost to you). The main reason being that the Ultras don't have that slight tizzy-ness/treble edge that the prime has at louder volumes. Also, as you're a repeat customer with SVS, you can ask for a 5% off code for your order which is nice. I wouldn't say there's a clear winner between the two as you could get the Ultras for cheaper and they offer a great value as well. For now I'm using my 3.2 setup and waiting to see what psa comes out with in terms of smaller surround bookshelves, but I may just get some cheaper surrounds for now as my space is less than ideal anyway and look into a full upgrade way down the road when I do 7.2.

So, the Ultras are better than the Primes? At twice the price? What a revelation.

I think he just fell in love with the appearance. Did you see the way he kept rubbing the Ultras? Results very well could have been different if he saw the Primes in Piano Gloss.

No doubt, lets compare apples to apples here, and on that note, my Prime towers arrive tomorrow

Another announcement the Prime and Ultra line are voice matched to each other so they need to be very close *same tweeter cough* to each other in sound. Although I did see a video on YouTube and apparently the earth is flat like a treadmill. So who knows.

I'm tempted to get the Prime towers and center to start with, and forego a subwoofer until the budget allows, rather than stretch the budget by doing Prime bookshelves and center, and adding a sub like the SB-2000 or PB-2000. Think I'll miss the extra punch down low of a subwoofer when watching movies/TV until I can afford a subwoofer?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not a bad way to go. I started with the bookshelves, a center and a PB1000. next came the towers, then the satellites followed by
a PC2000, then another PC2000. I'm happy I have the towers. The difference between having those up front and a pair of bookshelves is noticeable, but I'll admit I wouldn't feel I was missing anything if I stuck with bookshelves all around (you don't know what you're missing, if you don't know what you're missing...) Plus, I listen to a lot of music. Way more than I did before I got quality speakers. When I first posted in this forum, I said 70% movies, 30% music. After having these speakers, those numbers have probably reversed.

It is a very prudent route for not rushing into it and wait for the budget to allow something better in the future.
The most you can spend on a sub is most of time better, since subs try to fill all the open area and not only your sitting space. This way, you do it once and not twice.

If you look at my link, you can see that I am a towers person.
But many enjoy bookshelf with a good sub, for me a good sub and towers is better if money allow-it.


My recommendation is to start with the best 3 front you can afford, buy the sub in the future when money allow you to purchase the one you really want.


Ray

Well FWIW, I went from a single center channel Prime sats, to the Prime center to an Ultra Center. While each step had a difference in improvement of dynamics, I cannot say that the Ultra center is twice better than the Prime center, for twice the price.

And to be entirely honest and fair, the Ultra center does not present the best $700 value as a center channel on the market either.


If you're interested in what the Ultra line would offer over the Prime, based on my findings with the center channel alone (which is hands down the most important speaker for movies), what I got was a more refined tweeter, a slight but noticeable wider soundstage, better midrange and more bass.

But really, the most important thing is the tweeter where on the Prime center I found that older movies/TV shows can present a somewhat harsh and fatiguing treble range. I have done my best to EQ the treble as much as possible without decreasing clarity and narrowing the soundstage, but there's only so much an EQ can do.

Other than the treble range, I found that pretty much everything else the Ultra offers over the Prime are for the most part noticeable, but not cost justifiable. Sure the midrange sounds heftier, but my room is 1650cu ft. only so the improvements there aren't really that big of a deal. I get clear and realistic dialogue either way from both the Prime and Ultra centers, except when the source is just mixed bad (oh and there are A LOT of movies that muffles voice like no tomorrow).

While I do not have a pair of Ultra bookshelfs to compare with (I'll have them soon), I'm already rather sure the same improvements on the treble range is where it is most significant. Everything else could just mostly be a negligible bonus (the bass especially, since I already have dual SB2000s), IMO.


Depends on the size of your room. If you're in a small room, you may find that the Prime Towers have enough mid-bass punch where you'd find a sub not needed at all. Placing them nearer to the back wall than the typical 2-3 ft. distance can also help in reinforcing the low-end more.

Hard to say without knowing the size and shape of your room really. But like @darthray said, get the best LCR you can afford now, add everything else later.

My downstairs family room is far from an ideal listening environment. Here's a picture:



The living area itself is 18' x 13' and 2 stories tall, and lots of hard surfaces. Furthermore, the downstairs is an open floor plan whereby the kitchen/breakfast/living area is one big open space:





I'll be powering the speakers with a Denon 3300W which is arriving today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Harsh treble is program dependent. I've cranked them a lot and no problems then something comes along and yeesh that's sharp. I always use a certain album for dynamic high frequency testing no goose bumps no deal, these passed with honors so I'm keeping them

Hello SVS owners. I started a thread regarding upgrading my left and right fronts (SCS-01's) ( https://www.avsforum.com/forum/89-spe...l#post46640937 ). But since Prime towers are one of the speakers I'm considering, I thought I'd post in here to see if anyone did any comparison between the Prime towers, and Kef's q900. The Kef's are currently on sale at the same price as the Prime towers ($1400 CAN) it'd be comparing apples to apples as far as price goes. The question would be, which apple is sweeter?

Current Setup...

Back left and right SBS-01

Front left and right SCS-01

Center SCS-01

Sub PB-10

Sony STR-DN1040 a/v receiver.

Primary use is movies and video games in a large 20' x 30' rec room.

This pretty much sums up my experience between the two bookshelves. I still think the prime is the better buy although the ultra is technically superior.

After many months of owning the Prime 5.1, I couldn't quite get past the treble character. Others have reported the harsh treble as well. It never felt quite right to me especially for music, and after speaker shopping for a while I got to thinking that maybe I was overthinking the problem. I had my towers pointed dead on at the MLP, and last week I took them about ten degrees off axis. SO MUCH SMOOTHER. I don't feel like I lost any detail, stereo imaging might be compromised slightly. But the overall tonal character suits my space and tastes so much better. Just goes to show, don't neglect the simple things.

IIRC, SVS says the Primes perform at about 80% compared to the Ultra. Not unusual to hear diminishing returns with audio upgrades.

Seems to be plenty of happy owners of the Primes.

More or less yeah, it's of course source dependent. But one man's poison is another man's treasure, as they say.

I do like high energetic, spine tingling treble though, don't get me wrong.


Never had a Q900, but I did have a pair of Q500. So FWIW, going to the Prime bookshelfs + sub route, I felt that the Primes has more clairty, it's more transparent, and it certainly has that quality where it "disappears" when playing.

But for an apples to apples comparison, I cannot tell you how much better or worse the Prime Towers are vs the KEF Q900.

Same here. I reduced the toe-in of my L/R speakers by about 10 degrees as well as adding another 4" of height to the stands they are on. The tweeters are not ear level anymore (about 3" higher) and to me, it works very well. Imaging was still solid and the phantom center channel is still very much locked in the center when playing stereo sources.

Whoop! Prime towers and center ordered! Can't wait to get them here!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With 80% of audio from movies coming from the (C)enter Source, I never understood why you wouldn't use the same speaker for center as you did for L/R. That's the route I plan on going this time around.. unless someone can point out a compelling reason not to.

I'm thinking Ultra Towers, however the 4in speaker on the prime tower has me thinking it might be better for dialogue.

Mine came yesterday. I had just enough time to unbox them but not hook them up. The towers in piano black are stunning, if they sound anything like they look I'm in for a treat.