PB13 vs PC13 Ultra

[alexadams77]

I ended up getting the PC13 based on the WAF and she loves it I really wanted to get the PB13, but I was wondering how much of a difference is there in sound quality and/or output?

[avaserfi]

From my understanding the sound between the two subs is nearly identical. Their frequency responses will be useful in telling the differences.

Taken from SVS




As you can see they look nearly identical, but I would say the PB is slightly more linear in the important regions, but again if this is audible is another question.

[alexadams77]

From those graphs, I would have to agree as well. I'm actually wondering if anyone has done any comparisons or put them against each other yet?

[jerome]

A review done in Norway concluded that:
1) Both PC13 and PB13 are better subs than PB12 Plus/2
2) The PC13 is easier to integrate with the room and the rest of the speakers. It's easier to hear where the boxes are located (PB13 in this case)
3) Max SPL is a bit higher for the PB13 than for the PC13. Maybe because it weights more ???

[mike c]

2) The PC13 is easier to integrate with the room and the rest of the speakers. It's easier to hear where the boxes are located (PB13 in this case)

probably because of room interaction, but definitely not an absolute rule for every room

3) Max SPL is a bit higher for the PB13 than for the PC13. Maybe because it weights more ???

because the box has more volume than the cylinder

[jerome]

mike c wrote:

3) Max SPL is a bit higher for the PB13 than for the PC13. Maybe because it weights more ???

because the box has more volume than the cylinder

Oh, so the size dictates how loud the subwoofer can play? I thought that it was only related to the speaker element(s) and the amplifier

I learn something every day on this forum ... Thanks Mike !!!

[Ed Mullen]

As others have alluded, the PB13-Ultra is tuned a few Hz deeper than the PC-Ultra and also has more internal enclosure volume. As such, it has somewhat higher maximum output capability at the very deepest frequencies. With that said, subjectively they perform very similarly on source material as the Norway comparo pointed out.

The PCU is obviously easier to physically integrate into a smaller room - being lighter, easier to move, and having a much smaller footprint. Also, the minor output/extension deficit of the PCU tends to be offset in a smaller room, which will have more boundary reinforcement and earlier onset of room gain.

[alexadams77]

I'm just curious as the PB's ports shoot out at ankle level and the PC shoots straight up. Would that make a difference in the sound at all? To me, I'd think that the ports shooting straight out would be better heard and felt then having the ports shoot straight up.

[Ed Mullen]

alexadams77 wrote:

I'm just curious as the PB's ports shoot out at ankle level and the PC shoots straight up. Would that make a difference in the sound at all? To me, I'd think that the ports shooting straight out would be better heard and felt then having the ports shoot straight up.

The ports only function at very deep frequencies (starting below about 28 Hz). The wavelengths at these frequencies are quite long and tend to acoustically load the room similarly regardless of the port orientation differences between the PB13U and the PCU.

[alexadams77]

Thanks for the quick reply Ed, I always thought that the ports were always active.

[Ed Mullen]

alexadams77 wrote:

Thanks for the quick reply Ed, I always thought that the ports were always active.

They are tuned to operate over a fairly narrow bandwidth. When operating, they damp cone motion and contribute output at the deepest frequencies.

[alexadams77]

I love my PC13 and the way it performs, I could not be more pleased and get many comments from my friends about it. At times though, I just wonder how much of a difference there'd be compared to the PB13?