[surma884]

The SVS is a 10" and the Klipsch is 12", so is the SVS still better than the Klipsch? The retail prices for them are $429 (SVS) and $499 (Klipsch). I've heard the Klipsch Sub-10 and it sounded very nice. I couldn't test the Sub-12 in the same setting because they didn't have it out on display. So my assumption is that the Sub-12 would be better than the Sub-10.


I'm planning on getting a Denon AVR-789, so I don't think the crossover knob on the back of the sub amp would matter. The PB10-NSD doesn't have a crossover setting on the amp like the Sub-12 does. The Denon AVR-789 has a crossover setting for the subwoofer (yay!).


So what do you guys think? Is the PB10-NSD better than the Sub-12?


Thanks

 

[chengbin]

THe PB10 will be a lot better than the SUB 12. It will have deeper extension, more power, more feel, and better sound quality. Basically it will do everything better than the SUB 12.

 

[lalakersfan34]

The PB10-NSD is a quality subwoofer, and performs far better than most 10" subs. It should dig deeper than the Klipsch Sub-12 while being capable of at least comparable (if not higher) output across the board. The PB10-NSD also sounds quite good. I used to own two PB10's and they were very capable subs. If it were between the two at a similar price, I'd have to say the SVS is a no brainer. However if you can find the Klipsch for under $300 they might be closer in terms of value. The Sub-12 is a better sub than most people give it credit for.

 

[surma884]

Thanks for the info. I really want to be sure that the PB10-NSD will be good because I'm sort of buying blindly. I'm going to wait a little more and see if they come out with a newer one, and I have to see how much my tax refund is.


Anyone heard any news of new models coming out? I may get a better deal if I purchase the clearance item.

 

[surma884]

EDIT: For some reason it double posted my post above to I'm editing one of them.

 

[Hughman]

I couldn't help but notice there's been some recent chatter about the Sub-12 lately, when browsing through BestBuy last week I saw one on sale for half price so picked it up more for experimental purposes than anything. I just want to post a couple graphs depicting it's frequency response which I measured using TruRTA with a Behringer ECM-8000 mic calibrated by West Caldwell Labs Inc.


I't's cold and rather miserable outside so all measures were conducted indoors. To remove the room as much as possible I took two measures, one with the mic as close to the driver as possible and the other with the mic just at the plane of vent. I presume this should give a reasonable approximation how each is contributing to the overall output but if not those in the know please chime in.


The first graph shows the response with the sub/receiver crossover setup as most would run it. Sub xover maxed out at 120hz and the receiver at 80hz.


The second graphs show various crossover settings, the orange line best represents the subs full response with it's xover at 120hz and the receivers xover out of the way as much as possible at 200hz.


Based on these measures it would appear the -3dB point is indeed at or about 24hz and no I'm not going to run max output sweeps.


Hope this helps.

 

[surma884]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Hughman /forum/post/15554460


The first graph shows the response with the sub/receiver crossover setup as most would run it. Sub xover maxed out at 120hz and the receiver at 80hz.


The second graphs show various crossover settings, the orange line best represents the subs full response with it's xover at 120hz and the receivers xover out of the way as much as possible at 200hz.


Based on these measures it would appear the -3dB point is indeed at or about 24hz and no I'm not going to run max output sweeps.


Hope this helps.

Thanks for the graphs. So it seems the db level fluctuates compared to SVS's graphs they have on their website. The SVS db level hovers around 90db up until you go past 100hz. A subwoofer's spl vs. freq graph should be logarithmic correct? That is to say that it's a good subwoofer.

 

[KyleLee]

Sub-12

more sensitivity

Twice the port area

Lower port noise and compression

More SPL above ~25Hz


SVS

more extention

better built box.

better driver


I have owned both. I like the build quality of the SVS, but the Klispch really gets the job done for less money. I know what the Sub-12 costs Klipsch and it blows my mind how much they get out of it for what they spend...its very well designed.


I know at least the older SVS 10" Drivers made could take a lot more power, if you mod'ed one of the PB10's with two or three times the power, it would rock your world. Of course that 3" port would be making some noise too!

 

[lalakersfan34]

Surma,


Keep in mind that these tests were done in-room and using a receiver with a crossover employed. There are all kinds of factors that are affecting the frequency response graphs - microphone placement, subwoofer placement, room size, room dimensions, room shape, and the receiver's crossover to name a few. These graphs are not able to be compared to any other FR graphs you see. The only way to truly (and fairly) test these graphs of a Sub-12 with another sub is if Hughman used the other sub in the exact same room in the same place, with the same microphone placement, same calibration, etc. Hughman was just running some tests for fun but his graphs should not be compared to any other FR graphs you might see. It would be great if he could do 2m GP tests when it gets warmer, but of course that's up to Hughman

.

 

[Hughman]



Quote:
Originally Posted by lalakersfan34 /forum/post/15556918


Surma,


Keep in mind that these tests were done in-room and using a receiver with a crossover employed. There are all kinds of factors that are affecting the frequency response graphs - microphone placement, subwoofer placement, room size, room dimensions, room shape, and the receiver's crossover to name a few. These graphs are not able to be compared to any other FR graphs you see. The only way to truly (and fairly) test these graphs of a Sub-12 with another sub is if Hughman used the other sub in the exact same room in the same place, with the same microphone placement, same calibration, etc. Hughman was just running some tests for fun but his graphs should not be compared to any other FR graphs you might see. It would be great if he could do 2m GP tests when it gets warmer, but of course that's up to Hughman

.

The response has two humps due to my standard method of near-field measuring not due to the room as mentioned in my post. I have removed the influence of room effects by measuring the driver and port separately and placing the mic as close to the driver I could get and at the plane of the port. The graph clearly shows the response of the port separate from the response of the driver, if room effects were present the graph would not appear smooth like it is. Placing the mic away from the sub would fill the hole between the two humps, think of these two measurements the same as measuring a sub separate from x-over'd mains, the graph would show dips from the crossover slopes but measure both playing together and the xover point flattens out when the two responses are summed. This method of measuring is the standard method for near-field measuring of a ported sub. I should add that I did measure the sub from two different locations which, far-field, provides drastically different responses but near-field measures came out nearly identical.


I'm a little surprised anyone would look at those graphs and feel they are somehow not fair to the Sub-12.

 

[Hughman]

Ok, to provide a pretty graph I took one measurement with the sub/mic postioned in such a way which provided a similar port and driver response to the separate measurements performed in the previous graphs but note how the hole is now filled in due to summing of the two sound sources. The response above 80 hz is being effected by the receivers 80 hz x-over. This measurement is less accurate than the first and does not provide a repeatable in-door setup to faithfully compare two subs.

 

[lalakersfan34]

Thanks for further explaining your methodology. I'll admit I didn't read your first post as clearly as I should have. What you did makes sense and is probably about the best that can be done indoors. Your last graph which showed the summing of the two different mic placements puts it all together nicely. BTW, I wasn't trying to imply that the test wasn't "fair" to the Sub-12. I was simply trying to make the point that these graphs can't be directly compared to the 2m ground plane FR graphs of other subs in some ways (for example, comparing dynamic compression or linearity at a given SPL). Overall, the graphs were quite informative and are much appreciated. Keep up the good work

.

 

[Ed Mullen]

The dip in the close-mic woofer curve indicates the system tuning frequency. At/near the system tuning frequency, the port(s) will damp woofer motion, and shoulder most of the output load - hence the drop in woofer output. In the case of the Sub-12, the system tuning frequency is ~30 Hz.

 

[Ed Mullen]



Quote:
Originally Posted by lalakersfan34 /forum/post/15559659


Thanks for further explaining your methodology. I'll admit I didn't read your first post as clearly as I should have. What you did makes sense and is probably about the best that can be done indoors. Your last graph which showed the summing of the two different mic placements puts it all together nicely. BTW, I wasn't trying to imply that the test wasn't "fair" to the Sub-12. I was simply trying to make the point that these graphs can't be directly compared to the 2m ground plane FR graphs of other subs in some ways (for example, comparing dynamic compression or linearity at a given SPL). Overall, the graphs were quite informative and are much appreciated. Keep up the good work

.

Right - the only way to truly compare both subs is to get them outdoors and measure FR and clean output at discrete test frequencies.


As others have indicated, the PB10-NSD will extend to ~20 Hz before roll-off, so expect an additional 3/4 octave deep extension from the PB10-NSD when comparing F3 points.


The Sub-12 and the PB10-NSD will have comparable max output capability from 80 Hz - 35 Hz. Below 35 Hz the SVS will start to assert an advantage, which will quickly grow substantial

 

[surma884]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed Mullen /forum/post/15560636


Klipsch rates the Sub-12 @ 117 dB @ 30 Hz @ 1M in 1/8 space. The conversion to 2M GP is fairly simple, and equates to 99 dB @ 30 Hz @ 2M GP, which is exactly what I'd expect from this unit. The PB10-NSD can pull about 103 dB at the same frequency under the same conditions, which is about 60% more acoustic output.

Wait 103db vs 99db, how would that make it 60% more output?

 

[Hughman]



Quote:
Originally Posted by lalakersfan34 /forum/post/15559659


Thanks for further explaining your methodology. I'll admit I didn't read your first post as clearly as I should have. What you did makes sense and is probably about the best that can be done indoors. Your last graph which showed the summing of the two different mic placements puts it all together nicely. BTW, I wasn't trying to imply that the test wasn't "fair" to the Sub-12. I was simply trying to make the point that these graphs can't be directly compared to the 2m ground plane FR graphs of other subs in some ways (for example, comparing dynamic compression or linearity at a given SPL). Overall, the graphs were quite informative and are much appreciated. Keep up the good work

.

Ok gotcha, the primary purpose of the measurements was, as Ed pointed out, to provide some objective data of the ports tuning frequency which could further be used to access differences between the two subs. I probably should have posted this in a more generic Sub-12 thread but this one was the first I found

. Though I was shocked this sub performed substantially better than I expected, after listening, I wasn't surprised to find the tuning at or about 30hz.

 

[Browninggold]

I owned a Klipsch sub 12". Ran using Audyssey from a Denon 3808ci. Just sold it to a neighbor for 150.00 dollars. I know this sub would shake the house real good. It had a lot of "bang for the buck".

 

[ribbit]



Quote:
Originally Posted by surma884 /forum/post/15560783


Wait 103db vs 99db, how would that make it 60% more output?

6db is double

3db is half = 50%

 

[Ed Mullen]



Quote:
Originally Posted by surma884 /forum/post/15560783


Wait 103db vs 99db, how would that make it 60% more output?

Since dB is a log10 function, seemingly small differences in output are actually quite significant.


If a single Sub-12 can generate 99 dB @ 30 Hz, two of them side-by-side will be able to generate 105 dB, which is (ostensibly) 2X the acoustic output.


Take the dB differential, divide by 20, and then take the inverse log.


Baseline

+1 dB = 1.12X louder than baseline

+2 dB = 1.26X louder than baseline

+3 dB = 1.41X louder than baseline

+4 dB = 1.58X louder than baseline

+5 dB = 1.78X louder than baseline

+6 dB = 2X louder than baseline

+12 dB = 4X louder than baseline

+18 dB = 8X louder than baseline

+24 dB = 16X louder than baseline

 

[Hughman]



Quote:
Originally Posted by surma884 /forum/post/15560783


Wait 103db vs 99db, how would that make it 60% more output?

Surma884,


Keep in mind the 3dB increase in SPL is said to be barely perceptible while a 10 dB increase in SPL is said to sound about twice the loud.


To obtain a 3dB increase in SPL it requires a 42% increase in acoustic output (measured in dynes/cm3)


To obtain 6dB increase in SPL it requires a 100% increase in acoustic output (ie dynes/cm2 doubles, ie: pressure on the eardrum doubles)


To obtain 10dB increase (or twice the perceived loudness) requires a 316% increase in acoustic output or slightly more than tripling.


Now using Ed's example, to obtain 4dB increase in SPL requires a 60% increase in acoustic output the end result being perceptible increase in loudness.


dBspl is a 20 Log function, the formula is:

dBSPL= 20 LOG (p1/p0) where p1 and p0 are the sound pressures in dynes/cm2.


where p0=1, p1=1.6 (60% increase)


dBspl = 20 log (1.6/1)

dBspl = 20 * .20411

dBspl = 4.08 which is the theoretical difference at 30hz between the two subs.