JL Audio Fathom f113

[Ilkka]

Manufacturer: JL Audio
Model: Fathom f113
Provided by: JL Audio
Manufacturer link: JL Audio
Price: 3400 USD (satin black), 3500 USD (high-gloss black)

Manufacturer specs:
• Enclosure Type: Sealed
• Driver: Single 13.5-inch (nominal diameter)
• Frequency Response (Anechoic): 20–86 Hz (±1.5dB), -3 dB at 18 Hz / 127 Hz, -10 dB at 16 Hz / 154 Hz
• Effective Piston Area: 107.35 sq. in. / 0.0693 sq. m.
• Effective Displacement: 386 cu. in. / 6.3 liters
• Amplifier Power: 2500 watts RMS short-term
• Dimensions: (H) Height x (W) Width x (D) Depth 19.75 in x 16.50 in. x 19.25 in., 502 mm x 419 mm x 489 mm
• Net Weight: 130 lbs. / 59.0 kg
• Cabinet Finish: High-Gloss Black or Satin Black
• Unbalanced Inputs: Stereo or Mono (two RCA jacks)
• Balanced Inputs: Stereo or Mono (two female XLR jacks)
• Output To Slave: Balanced (one male XLR jack)
• Input Modes: Master or Slave
• Level Modes: Reference (fixed gain) or Variable from full mute to +15dB over reference gain
• Power Modes: Off, On or Automatic Signal-Sensing
• Light Modes: Off, On or Dim
• Low Pass Filter Mode: Off, 12 dB per octave or 24 dB per octave
• Low Pass Filter Cutoff Frequency: Variable from 30 Hz–130 Hz
• Polarity: 0 or 180 degrees
• Phase: Variable from 0–280 degrees
• ELF Trim: Variable from -12 dB to +3 dB at 25 Hz

Configuration as tested:
Phase: 0 degrees
Crossover: Bypassed, 24 dB/oct. during the crossover test
ELF Trim: 0 dB
A.R.O: Off
Orientation: Woofer facing the mic

[Ilkka]

+/- 3 dB points: 15.8 Hz - 33 Hz (crossover min)

+/- 3 dB points: 17.7 Hz - 110 Hz (crossover max)

[Ilkka]

[Ilkka]

[Ilkka]

rubbersoul wrote:

I to am curious as to your personal opinion on the JL Audio Fathom 113....I happened to buy one a month ago and recently as Dec 23rd actually got to calibrate it and use it and I was blown away. It has everything I think a sub should be.
Feel free to sendind a PM.

Merry Christmas to everyone!!!!

Frank

tweakophyte wrote:

Now... was the JLA's distortion that audible? In other areas people have compared that sub to the Ultra... now I am doubting their ears

These quotes are from here.

Okay, so what do I think of the f113. I think it's an amazing subwoofer. It has the best performance/liter ratio I have ever seen when it comes to commercial subwoofers. It has very good user settings and a lot of very uselful and most importantly working features like the E.L.F and the wonderful crossover, though I wish that the A.R.O would have more bands, but it's better than nothing, and of course one can always add an SMS-1 or BFD to go with it. The build quality and the cabinet are the very best I've ever seen. It is truly a high end subwoofer. Of course it has its limitations due to laws of physics but still the performance is better than with most much larger and more expensive subwoofers. Other than maybe the price, it really doesn't have many weak spots. Bravo, JL Audio!

Then the distortion issue. The whole question "was JL's distortion that audible" is a bit strange because distortion is a multi-dimensional variable. It's not like "is 5 larger than 2", which only has one answer - yes. Distortion depends on both output level and frequency so there's no single easy answer to that question. Then there's also a so-called masking effect. If you look at the distortion measurements I took, you can see that the f113 is not the cleanest subwoofer out there when you push it close to its limits. But the ones that are cleaner, are either having larger or multiple woofers in a _much_ larger enclosures. Of course also porting a subwoofer lowers the deep bass distortion. At more common listening levels the distortion that the f113 produces is very minimal.

When looking at the very important "Harmonic Distortion % By Component" graph, you'll see that the distortion consists mainly out of second and third harmonics. The higher harmonics raise their ugly heads only at the low end, and even that happens only at high output levels. So when the distortion is like that, it's very heard to hear it because the fundamental masks anything that is very close to it. And second and third harmonic can be considered being 'close'. I've compared the f113 and the LMS-5400 sealed 100L in my own listening room, and although the f113 has quite low distortion, it can not match the ultra low distortion of the LMS woofer. It's not audible when using low to moderate levels but when really pushing them, one can hear that the LMS subwoofer stays cleaner, especially at the low end. Same goes to the SVS PB13-Ultra: it stays cleaner than the f113 at high output levels and when simultaneously inputting a low frequency content. No wonder there though, the other is a very small sealed subwoofer while the other is a much larger ported sub. But does this make the f113 a bad subwoofer? No way! It's one of the best subwoofers I've heard, and by far the highest performing _small_ subwoofer I've ever heard.

[Bjarbor]

I'm a little surprised about everyone going crazy over this Sub. From the looks of the graphs, it doesn't outperform a lot of Subs that have been tested already. Of course, Graphs can't be heard or felt but they say something or we wouldn't look at this thread 50 times a day. Just my opinion, I didn't "see" what all the hype was about. They sure look good though... Then again, some of the Biggest pains in the a** I ever dated looked really good too... It seems as though the SVS PC 13 Ultra had better performance results than this. Am I wrong in my interpretation? I'm no Bass Graph Einstein but that's how I see it. Thanks for the info, I Love This Thread!

[Ilkka]

Bjarbor wrote:

I'm a little surprised about everyone going crazy over this Sub. From the looks of the graphs, it doesn't outperform a lot of Subs that have been tested already. Of course, Graphs can't be heard or felt but they say something or we wouldn't look at this thread 50 times a day. Just my opinion, I didn't "see" what all the hype was about. They sure look good though... Then again, some of the Biggest pains in the a** I ever dated looked really good too... It seems as though the SVS PC 13 Ultra had better performance results than this. Am I wrong in my interpretation? I'm no Bass Graph Einstein but that's how I see it. Thanks for the info, I Love This Thread!

Hmm, maybe there's something you're missing regarding the results? For example if you look at the avg. 20-80 Hz CEA-2010 table, the f113 is in place 9 of the total of 42 subwoofers/variants I have tested using that particular test. There is only single commercial subwoofer ahead of it, all the others are much larger DIY subwoofers. IMO that tells a lot of how extremely well designed subwoofer the f113 is.

[Ilkka]

Barry Ober a.k.a 'Soundoctor' added a link to these measurements on his website.

http://www.soundoctor.com/jlaudio.htm

Thank you, Barry!

[mike c]

how close will these tests be to the AVTALK tests? i'm curious to compare the DD18 tests over there to this one ... since their prices (DD18 and F113) are pretty much equal.

[Ilkka]

mike c wrote:

how close will these tests be to the AVTALK tests? i'm curious to compare the DD18 tests over there to this one ... since their prices (DD18 and F113) are pretty much equal.

Based on those subs that both of us have tested, I'd say we are within a dB or two. And that's really good when thinking about all the variables in play.

They have tested the DD18 twice though. Please look at the results for the v2.2.0 when doing any comparisons. The older test has some larger variances due to different measuring methodology.

[mike c]

thanks Ilkka.

[chengbin]

IIkka, did you get a chance to listen to the JL f113? If so, how's the sound quality compared to the PB13 and LMS 5400?

[Sheep]

chengbin wrote:

IIkka, did you get a chance to listen to the JL f113? If so, how's the sound quality compared to the PB13 and LMS 5400?

Uh, he already replied to that EXACT question above....

SheepStar

Sheep wrote:

Uh, he already replied to that EXACT question above....

SheepStar

Well, what Ilkka has done, IMO, in the post you refer to is give a technical comparison between the two subs in terms of distortion at high volumes.

What would be nice to know is how "nice" the f113 sounded compared to PB13 and LMS 5400 at regular listening levels. Was it tighter, deeper, richer, etc., than its competition? Of course, this would be a purely subjective declaration.

[mdrake]

Hmm, maybe there's something you're missing regarding the results? For example if you look at the avg. 20-80 Hz CEA-2010 table, the f113 is in place 9 of the total of 42 subwoofers/variants I have tested using that particular test. There is only single commercial subwoofer ahead of it, all the others are much larger DIY subwoofers. IMO that tells a lot of how extremely well designed subwoofer the f113 is.

Thanks Ilkka for taking the time to run these test, post them to the site and give us your valued opinion!!!!!!! Were is the CEA-2010 table you refer to in the above quote?

Matt

[Blaser]

Guys,

Don't forget although expensive, the JL f113 is a physically small sub compared to the LMS 5400 or even Pb13+. I strongly doubt it could compare to any of them for depth, richness and SPL performance.

[Ilkka]

mdrake wrote:

Thanks Ilkka for taking the time to run these test, post them to the site and give us your valued opinion!!!!!!! Were is the CEA-2010 table you refer to in the above quote?

Matt

Thank you. The CEA-2010 table is located here.

[Ilkka]

yogiB wrote:

Well, what Ilkka has done, IMO, in the post you refer to is give a technical comparison between the two subs in terms of distortion at high volumes.

What would be nice to know is how "nice" the f113 sounded compared to PB13 and LMS 5400 at regular listening levels. Was it tighter, deeper, richer, etc., than its competition? Of course, this would be a purely subjective declaration.

I try to avoid making too much subjective declarations because when you get to that area, things go very difficult and as the word says - subjective. Whether something sounds "nice" to you is up to you, not me. I can say that all of those subs sounds extremely nice to me when set up properly. The differences in sound quality are extremely small when keeping the levels below the least capable sub. The room, setup and settings will make MUCH larger differences then the absolute difference in SQ between each of these subs.