Anyone else notice this? ,High Output is much easier to find than High Sound Quality!

Good post... My take on this is very similar to you. Back about 5-10 years ago, my goal was to literally shake the house down during a movie. Now, I'm out to chase down the ultimate in quality sound. I see so many people on forums recommending subs for HT based only on output and extension. What about sound quality??? I want my bass to be fast, accurate and go away just as quickly as it arrived. This is precisely why my latest sub purchase ended up being a sealed box enclosure, and my application is 100% HT. There are many sealed subs available at this point that can dig very deep and play plenty loud enough for the majority of theater applications. Plus, you can always add more subs, if you crave "ear bleeding" type of output. Another added bonus is their smaller more pleasing appearance, which also gives many more placement options. IMO, subs should never be seen, only heard.


But, I don't see those high output large ported box subs going away anytime soon, because they provide very good performance in many cases, are very affordable, and give "bassheads" that "eargasm" they so desperately strive for. Additionally, I think many guys enjoy having those huge intimidating looking subs in their theaters that just ooze POWER, and provide a showcase for friends and family.


My two cents...



Quote:
Originally Posted by James W. Johnson /forum/post/16831386


Anyone else notice that a high output subwoofer is WAY easier to find than a subwoofer with high sound quality?

Click to expand...

I have been saying this for years.


Back a few years ago it was Hsu vs SVS. Until SVS's current Ultra, IMO, they could not hold a candle in terms of sound quality to the Hsus.....but SVS did a great job in marketing output. Not many took the time to compare in terms of sound quality. More seem to be doing that now.


Go for quality first. Once you have that, and need more output, get more of the same sub. It doesn't work the other way around.

I don't think easy acoustical treatment solutions work all that well in the lower freqs where room dimensions and shape play a far greater role and create problems that can be tough to mitigate. Sub placement and listening positions and multiple subs are about the only really viable option to attempting to deal with a room's modes. I've gone so far as to build two walls within my theater to change its dimensions to something a bit more low freq friendly. The way I see it is... a bad sounding sub will still sound bad even in a listening environment and position that has been optimized for the best possible sound quality and matched with mains, whereas a sub with excellent SQ attributes can be made to sound boomy and slow in the wrong environment and position but nevertheless has the potential to sound better if better placement and phasing etc can be found.


It seems so many of the comparison lists I see are geared to ranking by extension at SPLs and so many of the discussions in this forum end up focusing on these same performance criteria. The conversation seems to revolve around worn expressions having to do with pant legs flapping, kick in the chest, body slamming, butt vibrating... everything physical and nothing pertaining to what the ear is experiencing. The conversation seems to resemble a theme park ride experience rather than an audio experience. I personally feel that the quality of the majority of bass heard is going to be above 30Hz... these are the freqs where it is easier to judge sound quality and where most music and voices are limited to. Below 30Hz is for nuclear explosions, earthquakes, meteor strikes, plane crashes, dinosaur foot-falls, spaceship landings, all those things that most of us have never heard in reality and even so, those faked sound 'effects' are actually created by other people who are also guessing as to what these things probably would sound like. Its just not possible to accurately judge sound quality from those sources especially down in those low freq regions. I listen for accuracy especially above 50Hz as this is the region where I believe most people's impression of bass tightness and quality is actually being derived from.


One of the reasons I rarely participate in this sub forum is that most discussion of subs here is often just too testosterone-laden to be very informative or interesting. And now to get this back on topic... I believe the subwoofer market is choosing low extension at high SPLs over mid-bass sound quality and... since sales/profit is what drives any market the manufacturers are merely chasing the current market trend with their product offerings, which is "that lower and louder (for cheaper) is what really sells subs".



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chu Gai /forum/post/16836135


If so, then we should be able to obtain data that corroborates what Joseph10 wrote. IOW the data should be able to suggest which subs trend more to being 'musical' and that ought to correlate positively with people's stated subjective assessment. And the data is...where?

Click to expand...

Now, that's another million dollar question. Almost all of the testing done in the popular literature measures such things as peak spl (quantity), excursion (quantity), driver size (quantity), box dimensions (quantity), etc...


Quality of bass is something perhaps more nebulous and difficulty as ascertain -- especially when the public demands the much more popular loud, deep bass.


I think craigsub's listening results touched on the idea...but many people don't focus on those results...especially since that part of the test is so subjective.