Subwoofer Tests - Fall 2007

[Ron Temple]

Hi Sherv, it's special in comparision to every other SVS product I've heard...the numbers are great, but it's in another league in SQ. My only direct comparision with other high end subs are the DD15 and DD18...both great subs, but, to my ears, neither do it for me like the U13. It may or may not be special compared to some of the monsters you've built or heard...that's fine. Compared to the SVS 12NSD, 12Plus and 12Ultra, the U13 is "special" and not like my one legged, one eyed dog either .

[ssabripo]

I suppose.

I'm really itching to see how some of the epik offerings perform as well, particularly the tower and conquest. Needless to say, the commercial landscape has changed dramatically in the past 2 years, and that's a good thing.

[mojomike]

ssabripo wrote:

I dont have the foggiest Idea where you are getting your numbers...perhaps I'm missing something, but here are the baselines:


the Pb13 has a 3dB advantage at 31hz, 1dB at 25hz, is lagging 1dB at 20hz, and it goes down from there....lagging almost 7dB at 16hz and 10db at 12hz. This is not even close in the lower extensions my friend.

As for the fathom, yes, the Ultra has better performance from 35 and below as it should....it is a ported sub and it is a larger volume. Notice in the midbass how the fathom already surpasses it (40-65hz).

again, nobody is disputing the outstanding job the Pb13 has brought.....but to me, "special" it is not! I guess I just have higher standards on what is and what is not special.

As far as the comparison between the 13Ultra and the TC DIY, there's no question the TC is stronger from 20hz on down. Above that, the 13Ultra is stronger. A clear winner? I can't pick. Which would sound better with real material? I can't tell.

Obviously your definition of "special" is pretty high. Does any commercial sub meet your standard?

[Ron Temple]

ssabripo wrote:

I suppose.

I'm really itching to see how some of the epik offerings perform as well, particularly the tower and conquest. Needless to say, the commercial landscape has changed dramatically in the past 2 years, and that's a good thing.

I've spoken to a couple of the Conquest owners...Dennis owned a 12U and his brother an U/2...he's pretty impressed to say the least. I think his biggest challenge is which EQ solution he goes with. Ross ain't talking, but he's the guy with the U13s and a Conquest. I'm pretty jazzed about the Epik products too...just don't have the ballz to bring one home currently .

[ssabripo]

mojomike wrote:

Obviously your definition of "special" is pretty high. Does any commercial sub meet your standard?

not really, and thus the reason for DIY for me.

I'm really hoping to see some numbers on the conquest, but even then, at $1599, some serious damage can be made with that, if space permits of course.

I mean, who would rather have a PB13 or Conquest instead of:

4 x 18" Ficar IB drivers (30mm Xmax, 0.61Qts, etc, $209/ea), a QSC PLX or EP2500, DEQ2496, in an infinite baffle or sealed enclosure?

But I digress....

[mwoofer]

the Pb13 has a 3dB advantage at 31hz, 1dB at 25hz, is lagging 1dB at 20hz, and it goes down from there....lagging almost 7dB at 16hz and 10db at 12hz. This is not even close in the lower extensions my friend.

As for the fathom, yes, the Ultra has better performance from 35 and below as it should....it is a ported sub and it is a larger volume. Notice in the midbass how the fathom already surpasses it (40-65hz).

again, nobody is disputing the outstanding job the Pb13 has brought.....but to me, "special" it is not! I guess I just have higher standards on what is and what is not special.

ssabripo, you need to look at the numbers for the ultra with a 15hz tune and compare to the lms5400 100L. They arent that far off below 20hz either.. At 12.5hz its down 5 db but at 16hz its down only 1.5 db. Considering the current cost of the lms and the fact that you need 3600 watts to get these numbers, how can the ultra not impress you? . I'm sure you have high standards but these numbers are very good. I have a conquest sitting in my living room and i'm not so sure it will blow the ultra away..

[Sonnie]

Special is a subjective term guys... so it can be special for some and maybe not for others... not a biggie either way.

Here's the differences... in the lower region it's pretty significant.

[mwoofer]

DIY = time, plus half the numbers you guys quote is for some used or bargain closeout special deals on equipment. Standard costs for DIY can be fairly high as well, especially if you want high performance in a reasonable size.. and 4 subs? How reasonable is that. I can't think of anywhere i could put an IB setup in here. And if i had the room i'd probably spend 100 hours between designing/building everything (thats an expensive project if you ask me) SVS is a single sub in a decent sized box. Sure if you build a system with 4x as much drivers and more power, its going to be louder.
I think it is impressive the kind of work they put into DIY, but is it impressive from a consumer point of view? Not really. To hire someone to build that for me would probably cost 10k or more.

[ssabripo]

mwoofer wrote:

ssabripo, you need to look at the numbers for the ultra with a 15hz tune and compare to the lms5400 100L. They arent that far off below 20hz either.. At 12.5hz its down 5 db but at 16hz its down only 1.5 db. Considering the current cost of the lms and the fact that you need 3600 watts to get these numbers, how can the ultra not impress you? . I'm sure you have high standards but these numbers are very good. I have a conquest sitting in my living room and i'm not so sure it will blow the ultra away..

welcome.

first, you are talking about apples and oranges here. Why are you even looking at the LMS5400? Look at the numbers for the TC2K 270L ported enclosure and look at the numbers posted. Sonnie just put a graph up for it that shows you the differences.

second, how can the numbers of the ultra not impress me? Nobody says I'm not impressed for what it does, but why get your your feelings hurt if I don't think of it as special?? Heck, with $650 I was able to build something that will romp it in pretty much category I'm sure:

but don't take my word for it (the performance of this was closer to an older Ultra/2, which I would presume would still be considerably better than a single PB13):
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpos...&postcount=198
http://www.htguide.com/forum/showpos...&postcount=167

Third, if you have a conquest sitting in your living room, we would love to see some pics and measurements! there are few owners out there, and nobody has taken some measurements, so that would be a great help to the community! However, I will have to firmly disagree with you on "not sure it will blow it away" thing.....physics are physics, and unless there is a magic leprechaun pumping extra dB's on the Ultra, at the end of the day you are talking a 13" driver with 3 x 3.5" ports and 750W, versus an ultra high excursion high power 18" driver, with 2 x 6" ports, much bigger enclosure, and 1000W....... You do the math.

mwoofer wrote:

DIY = time, plus half the numbers you guys quote is for some used or bargain closeout special deals on equipment. Standard costs for DIY can be fairly high as well, especially if you want high performance in a reasonable size.. and 4 subs? How reasonable is that. I can't think of anywhere i could put an IB setup in here. And if i had the room i'd probably spend 100 hours between designing/building everything (thats an expensive project if you ask me) SVS is a single sub in a relatively small box in decent sized box. Sure if you build a system with 4x as much drivers and more power, its going to be louder.
I think it is impressive the kind of work they put into DIY, but is it impressive from a consumer point of view? Not really. To hire someone to build that for me would probably cost 10k or more.

you misunderstood. You don't have to go with 4 subs to beat a single PB13....those 4 subs I mentioned previously in an IB would annihilate dual or even triple Ultras my friend. That was just a point of reference I used to show what $1500 can do for you. And no, all parts are not "bargain" hunting and "used" parts, etc. You can go an buy them at your convinience.

for many of us, the "time" spent doing that is time in this hobby anyways...so we don't count that as cost. I have no idea where you are getting your figures from (10K or more, "more power and drivers", etc). With $1500, I can build a single small sealed or ported box as well that will still best the Ultra.


Again, the thing you guys are fixated on, is that the ultra is a phenomenal sub.....as are others like the conquest and Tower. I personally don't think it is "special", as neither are the Epik offerings. No big deal. It is a good sub, and its good to see performance at this level.

[mojomike]

mwoofer wrote:

ssabripo, you need to look at the numbers for the ultra with a 15hz tune and compare to the lms5400 100L. They arent that far off below 20hz either.. At 12.5hz its down 5 db but at 16hz its down only 1.5 db. Considering the current cost of the lms and the fact that you need 3600 watts to get these numbers, how can the ultra not impress you? . I'm sure you have high standards but these numbers are very good. I have a conquest sitting in my living room and i'm not so sure it will blow the ultra away..

If the Conquest doesn't blow the Ultra away in some way, I would be shocked. I don't think it will blow it away from the standpoint of SQ because the Ultra really does sound superb. It would seem that it should easily be able to excede output of the Ultra at all frequencies.

[Ilkka]

ssabripo wrote:

(the performance of this was closer to an older Ultra/2, which I would presume would still be considerably better than a single PB13)

Sherv,

Do you have any hard data/evidence to prove either of these claims?

Here are the Ultra/2 numbers measured by Ed Mullen. They are 10% THD instead of CEA-2010, but almost each is amp limited, meaning max output. Compare these to PB13-Ultra numbers.

20 Hz Tune 10% THD Ground Plane 2M:
16 Hz: 89.5 dB
18 Hz: 100.7 dB (8.4% THD amp limited)
20 Hz: 102.8 dB (9.4% THD amp limited)
22 Hz: 104.9 dB (7.7% THD amp limited)
25 Hz: 106 dB (6.2% THD amp limited)
30 Hz: 109.5 dB (7.9% THD amp limited)
40 Hz: 113.1 dB
50 Hz: 112.2 dB

I would love to measure your DIY subwoofer.

[ssabripo]

Ilkka wrote:

Sherv,

Do you have any hard data/evidence to prove either of these claims?

Here are the Ultra/2 numbers measured by Ed Mullen. They are 10% THD instead of CEA-2010 but almost everyone is amp limited, meaning max output. Compare these to PB13-Ultra numbers.

20 Hz Tune 10% THD Ground Plane 2M:
16 Hz: 89.5 dB
18 Hz: 100.7 dB (8.4% THD amp limited)
20 Hz: 102.8 dB (9.4% THD amp limited)
22 Hz: 104.9 dB (7.7% THD amp limited)
25 Hz: 106 dB (6.2% THD amp limited)
30 Hz: 109.5 dB (7.9% THD amp limited)
40 Hz: 113.1 dB
50 Hz: 112.2 dB

no unfortunately Ilkka....two years ago I didn't get a chance to measure this sucker, and unfortunately no longer do I have it. I told you, you need to move to the US and leave that forsaken place you are in!!! If so, you could have had all kinds of fun with many DIY speakers around here.

[mojomike]

It's appears that this discussion is breaking down into yet another DIY sub vs. commercial sub debate. These never seem to come to any kind of satisfactory resolution, but there are some conclusions we can gather.

1. A no-holds-barred DIY sub can beat out the best commercial sub in objective tests.
2. DIY subs are simply not everyone's cup of tea whether due to time involved, esthetics, or lack of skill.
3. There are no commercial subs yet tested that would meet Sherv's definition of "special".

[Sonnie]

Yeah... good points... we should probably try to focus on the topic of the thread before Ilkka gets out the hammer...

[mwoofer]

ahhh sorry didnt read the above post.. must have been while i was typing. sorry guys

[ISLAND1000]

I just LOVE the energy these guys bring to the forum! I mean they're sooo intent on making their point they even forget to spellcheck.
Make it happen guys.

[ssabripo]

mojomike wrote:

It's appears that this discussion is breaking down into yet another DIY sub vs. commercial sub debate. These never seem to come to any kind of satisfactory resolution, but there are some conclusions we can gather.

1. A no-holds-barred DIY sub can beat out the best commercial sub in objective tests.
2. DIY subs are simply not everyone's cup of tea whether due to time involved, esthetics, or lack of skill.
3. There are no commercial subs yet tested that would meet Sherv's definition of "special".

agreed!

[Exocer]

ssabripo wrote:

I suppose.

I'm really itching to see how some of the epik offerings perform as well, particularly the tower and conquest.

You and me both my friend. I find it hard to believe that the Tower, at $1099, would not give the U13 a good fight "objectively". The Conquest will be bananas!

Anyone else noticing similarities between the Epik subs and some DIY projects? Big long throw woofers, lots of porting, large enclosures

[SteveCallas]

I can only speak for myself, but I am extremely impressed wth what this new SVS can do. I'm not impressed with what it can do for the money, but I'm extremely impressed with what it can do with its driver size, enclosure size, porting solution, and plate amp. I never expected it to come as close to the TC2k quasi LLT in the low end as it did and beat it in the higher frequencies - also, if the AV Talk measurements are a good idea of how Ilkka's will look, the top end stays noticably cleaner. I know of no other commercial sub that comes close to that type of performance for the dollar, so in that respect I think it is pretty special.

Now when I look at it comparing it against any other solution, not just commercial, it doesn't fair as well. You can get a LOT more displacement for $1400. Additionally, the limiting in the amp used down low to protect the sub noticably degrades the transient response, reaching all the way up to the 30hz range. The TC2k was significantly better in that regard. Lastly, I'll never be a fan of the concept of reducing port area to achieve a lower tune - that's about as backwards as you can get. The low end numbers look nice in the lower tuning modes, but the onset of audible chuffing becomes that much more of a reality.

[WillyD]

I know of no other commercial sub that comes close to that type of performance for the dollar, so in that respect I think it is pretty special.

The Epiks, easily.

And what the PB13 can do for its enclosure size/porting solution doesn't impress me. It is a pretty big sub as far as commercial subs are concerned. Around 200gross liters, right? What the real achievement looks like to me, is the driver and its linearity (from the AVtalk graphs). Also its efficiency.

I never expected it to come as close to the TC2k quasi LLT in the low end as it did and beat it in the higher frequencies

Um, when I compare the PB13 in 15Hz mode to the TC2K/270, it only beats it in clean output from 31.5Hz to 50Hz. And only then the average difference is 0.6dB. Yet the TC-2K has an advantage from 12.5Hz to 20Hz of an average 2.2dB.

Now if one is looking at the 20Hz mode, well then one could just take a TC2K and put it in 200liters and tune it to 20Hz and then make up the difference.

The qusi-LLT isn't that much larger than the PB13. About 3ft^3 larger, eh?