Originally Posted by bear123
Here is why the Rythmik FV15HP is most definitely worth the price increase over the Klipsch sub.
Per CEA2010 testing, the Klipsch produces 99.7 dB at 20 Hz. So a SINGLE FV15HP has more output at 20 Hz than two Klipsch subs. MORE than double the output at the lower, hardest and costliest to reproduce frequencies, where it really matters for home theater. Due to the lackluster 20 Hz output rating, the output at 16Hz would be an even much larger difference compared to the FV15HP. This is a VERY tactile frequency range on the MANY action movies that have content in this range. Heck, the FV15HP has almost as much output at 12.5 Hz as the Klipsch has at 20. Thats a MONSTROUS difference in clean output capability. One that will make an incredibly drastic difference in the movie experience on action flicks.
FV15HP @ 12.5 Hz: 98.5 dB 2m RMS
Klipsch @ 20 Hz: 99.7 dB. 2m RMS
FV15Hp @ 20 Hz: 108.3 Hz. +8.6 dB, or almost triple output. Almost 50 % more output than both Klipsch subs combined.
The Klipsch are cheaper, I agree. But nowhere close to being in the same league. More than double the output for a 13% cost difference....sounds like a bargain.
Maybe the Fv15Hps eat up too much of the OP's budget. Maybe not. But if they do, I'd go with the Hsu VTF3.5's, as they also will nearly double the performance of the Klipsch if you feel the need to keep the cost of subs a good bit lower.
HA! Per CEA-2010 Testing the Klipsch as 108.7db of output at 20hz where the FV15 has, per your numbers, sir..... less @ 108.3.
I provide a link below. However, since you didn't provide one I cannot compare...
Where did you get your numbers at? I believe they are grossly off. I will provide a link to the numbers with CEA2010 Testing on the Klipsch R115-SW. First page, just below the graph https://hometheaterreview.com/klipsc...viewed/?page=2
You went politician on everyone and quoted CEA-2010 and then provided traditional spec instead. #FAKENEWS
? Everything you wrote comparing the two is essentially a lie or, at the very least, misinformation after that. Thanks for the time, though.
I get that you love deep bass as indicated by your own system with 2 18" woofers combined with $200 bookshelf speakers. For the, oh, I don't know.... 5th time in this thread, I was in no way saying that other subs were inferior to the Klipsch sub or that the Klipsch was a better performer. Only that it (or other subs in that price range) would be the best choice for this room and this budget.
I stand by the fact that the differences between the subs on the highest fringe ends of performance (because, that is what you are talking about here) is not worth the difference in cost on a $10,000 budget due to the fact that it would take too much budget away from the other 11 speakers causing significant performance concessions there. Those differences in mains and surrounds would be significant in terms of quality and output where the differences in subs would be relatively minor to insignificant.
I stand by my original recommendation with a massive grin and a double face palm.
Originally Posted by carp
An 8.6 db advantage at 20 hz is massive as pointed out by bear. As I'm sure everyone knows if you mutually couple 2 indentical powered subs (either stacked or side by side) you would get roughly a 6 db gain.
I was going to post a comparison between the Klipsch and Rythmic from data bass but had to chuckle when I saw that Josh hasn't even messed with measuring the Klipsch.
So... 2 percent of content in movies is that low? Maybe if you are watching nothing but romantic comedies. Pretty much all action/suspense/thriller/whatever movies will have plenty of content that low, and even if it's rolled of significantly you can buy your self a minidsp 2x4 HD for 200 bucks and get all that bass content back by checking out the BEQ thread.
Before the days of BEQ (started years ago on data bass) tons of us were running house curves so that even filtered movies had nice output down to the single digits, nevermind the 20's. Even without any boosting down low bass in the 20's is very easy to come by in movies. I would steer clear from advice from anyone that says differently.
There have been countless threads arguing the benifits of single digit bass, but no one, and I mean no one, argues that bass in the 20's (and teens too) isn't extremely important.
I almost never use such a snarky posting style, but browsing through this thread some posts I read were pretty condescening - which is fine - as long as they are accurate - which they weren't.
Someone talking about accurate posting and "wouldn't take advice from" should probably check his sources and do the homework himself, right? Because, if not.... crow tastes pretty awful I hear.....
His numbers were grossly wrong and misstated. I provided a link above correcting him. Because it was so gratifying, I'll do it again and stick that right here for you https://hometheaterreview.com/klipsc...viewed/?page=2
For the disinclined: Per CEA2010 testing the Klipsch sub actually has MORE output at 20hz than the FV15. 108.7 (Klipsch) to 108.3 (FV15).
Everything you posted after that regarding performance comparison I will just put in the files somewhere between "Useless" and "Commenting from theory based off of misinformation - taken on the word of others, BTW - and not experience".
For the 3rd time in this thread.... Ultra low bass like what you're taking about is a teeny tiny... as in, like, a thimble full compared to an ocean... amount of content in a movie soundtrack. When compared to main speaker output above 80hz or, keeping the topic on subwoofers, bass 20hz and above the content is a fraction of a % of time throughout a movie soundtrack - romantic comedy or not.
^ Any difference in output between the two
would be minor.
Major sacrifice of the quality of the main loudspeakers to achieve ultimate deep bass performance is a niche market and desire. I would never say that ultimate performance isn't cool or interesting. But, often times, it isn't worth the sacrifice. In this case... NO WAY.
Feel free to get as snarky as you would like. The people disagreeing with me and taking some great offense to my pointing out that the subs were out of whack to the budget - not that they were bad products, mind you, but that they too much of a budgetary sacrifice to the mains based on OP's requirements - have all struck out with either: Lies, misinformation, and/or nonsense (4 1/2" woofers in an on wall for a 3,2000+ cubic foot room... pffffft!).