2. speakers
  3. 1007327923

Subwoofer ratings by Widescreen Review mag

This forum receives a number of inquiries about "which subwoofer should I buy". There are a number of technical and practical (size, cost, etc.) issues which must be considered by anyone looking for a good subwoofer, but I don't intend to try to cover those considerations here.

Widescreen Review magazine conducted a series of subwoofer evaluations between 1997 and 2000 (which obviously leaves out some of the most recent models). I thought that readers might find a list of the "top twelve" subs rated by WR to be a useful starting point when contemplating the purchase of a new/used subwoofer. You will note that this list does not include the REL brand, since none of them were reviewed in this group of articles. The reviews, however, did include the Sunfire "True Subwoofer" Mk 2, which finished in the middle of the pack of the 50 subs.

The review articles rated 50 subwoofers for 12 factors, and scored them from 5 (highest) to 1 (lowest) on each factor. The rated factors were: music (ability to faithfull reproduce music); effects (ability to faithfully reproduce LFE); impact; tonal definition; overhang (tight vs. flabby bass, with tight being the desired property); rhythm and pace; midrange coloration; enclosure integrity; distress (how the sub performed under severe stress); subjective deep bass; ability to play at 105db or louder at 35 Hz; and ability to reproduce 25 Hz frequencies cleanly.

The highest possible score for a subwoofer would be a perfect 5.0. The subs are listed below, in alphabetical order:

Only one subwoofer had a perfect 5.0 score:
1. Linn AV 5150 (price: $4200)

The best group of subs had nearly perfect scores, with only a few factors rated less than 5, and none lower than 4.0. When looking at the average score, you should also note the price when making comparisons:
1. Bag End Infra-18: average = 4.92 ($2400-2900, depending on finish)
2. B&W ASW4000: average = 4.71 ($3000)
3. Earthquake SuperNova Millenium 15: average = 4.71 ($2000)
4. Energy ES-18XL: average = 4.875 ($1700)
5. Mirage BPS-210: average = 4.92 ($1700)
6. Mirage BSP-400: average = 4.71 ($1300)
7. M&K MX-5000THX: average = 4.83 ($2500)
8. M&K MX-700: average = 4.67 ($1400)
9. Vandersteen 2Wq: average = 4.83 ($1300) (this sub is specifically intended to be used in pairs, which would increase its average score to that of V2W)
10. Vandersteen V2W: average = 4.96 ($1300)
sdcampbell

Showing 3 responses by sdcampbell

sdcampbell OP
2,136 posts
 
Thanks for the comments, guys. I own a pair of Vandersteen 2Wq's, and can say without qualification that they are an excellent and MUSICAL subwoofer. As Sean noted, the alphabetical list I compiled has the Vandy's listed last, whereas they would have been near the top of the list had I compiled the ratings based on scores. A caveat, however: the Vandy 2Wq's are really intended for use as a stereo pair, particularly if they are going to double as LFE subs for HT. Further, they use a special crossover between the preamp and the power amp, and to perform at their best requires the main speakers to be close to full-range, providing an octave of overlap both above and below the crossover point for the subwoofer. Hence, since the crossover point for the 2Wq subwoofer is 80 HZ, the main speakers should have flat response from 160 Hz (1 octave above the 80 Hz X-over point for the sub) down to 40 Hz (1 octave below the 80 Hz X-over point for the sub). This degree of overlap is necessary if the 2Wq is to integrate to best advantage with the main speakers.

As others also noted, it would be nice to see how the REL, VMPS, and other "audiophile" subs performed in these tests, but they weren't reviewed. What I did find interesting was that some of the subs rated highly by Stereopiles were NOT rated highly by WR mag. Most, if not all, of the subwoofer reviews in WR were performed by Richard Hardesty (formerly of Havens & Hardesty, one of the leading high-end audio dealers in the LA area before the partnership disbanded). Hardesty is generally known for honest, even blunt, commentary. He recently resigned his position as Equipment Editor for WR magazine, and now publishes an interesting online audio journal called "The Audio Perfectionist".
sdcampbell OP
2,136 posts
 
To make my final post on this thread, I'll respond to Danheather's request to know if there were any "surprises" in the WR reviews. Yes, to be honest, I was surprised that the Velodyne models that were tested did not earn high marks. I always had the impression, based on what I'd heard, that Velodynes were among the best of the best. WR tested the F-1800R ($2000) and it got fairly average marks on the first sample tested (4.13). WR then re-tested this model using another sample from the manufacturer, and it earned an average score of 4.55. The other Velodyne model that was tested was the HGS-12 ($2000), which earned an average score of 4.18.

The other two subs which were rated fairly highly were not familiar to me: the Triad In-Room Platinum ($2000), which earned an average score of 4.5; and the Polk PSW650 ($769), which earned an average score of 4.36.

If WR mag reviews any of the subs that are of interest, based on the posts above (such as REL), I'll insert a follow-up thread in the discussions forum.
sdcampbell OP
2,136 posts
 
Steel: I absolutely agree with your comments. Hardesty does have a stated preference for subs with sealed enclosures -- one which I happen to share, since my preference is for music over LFE/HT applications. Ultimately, it's a matter of individual taste, and any sub should be auditioned in the home listening environment if at all possible, since the way a sub loads the room will vary from sub to sub, and room to room (event the same sub in the same room will load differently when you move it as little as 6 inches).
More to discover