Whilst agreeing with many viewpoints some are contradictory, worst sub I ever had was a massive and expensive Sony, completely useless for music simply dominated everything at even the lowest volume. That heaviest is best is in my experience a fallacy, just too much retained energy to be musical. Lighter weight can actually be an advantage, Wharfedale made speakers out of a very light material, I think called Areolam? This means the cabinet is so light it has negligible effect as almost no energy is stored. There is more than 1 solution. I tries lots and essentially found that most around the same price performed similarly, no they didn't 'sound' the same but that's OK neither do your speakers. In the end I settled on 2 Definitive Technology Supercube 4000's, small and great for placement, quick enough to be musical, very important in my system, controllable via remote with a great display, tracks and albums vary greatly the same volume and crossover frequencies do not suit all sources or equipment, some subs cope with digital sources but sound awful with vinyl. And I got them half price, no not the best at their advertised price but at half of that nothing else came near. Had the both now for over 10 years, never missed a beat (pun intended).
Is There A Big Difference Between Subwoofers From Different Manufacturers
This is likely the last thread I’ll be posting about subwoofers.
I was just wondering if there is really a big difference between subwoofers from different manufacturers if the quality of the subs (which is mostly governed by the specifications) are fairly similar. Also, with the assumption that the set up is properly done to ensure a seamless integration with the main speakers.
There have been many comparisons or experiences on subwoofers shared by members here on this forum, people who upgraded their old sub to a new seemingly superior sub. Or people who added additional subs to the system which contributed to an overall improved bass performance. I’m referring to the former, the comparison between single subs.
To cut to the chase, I understand high quality subwoofers which are essentially higher spec designs will usually produce better performance than lower spec subs. When people upgrade their subs, I assume the new subs are superior in terms of specification, either a larger sub with larger drivers, higher power output of the internal amplifier, lower frequency extension or the combination of any of the above.
Has anyone compared subs which are fairly similar in quality or performance when upgrading from the old sub?
Example. If someone upgraded from a REL T7x to an SVS SB-3000 or SB-4000, I suppose the SVS would be an upgrade since they come with larger drivers, higher power output, everything superior spec-wise. What if the models are closely spec’d? Will the subs sound fairly similar or closer to each other ?
Say, the comparison between
SVS SB-3000/4000
Rythmik F12SE / F15
REL S510 / S812 / Carbon Special or Limited
I presume the subs will still sound slightly different but the difference may not be night and day if the quality or specifications are closely matched?
- ...
- 83 posts total
@akg_ca - My understanding is that getting that high pass crossover just right is difficult and can be expensive. The manufacturer of my speakers and subs suggested simply blending in the subs at a low frequency and letting my mains roll-off, which they do below 40 Hz, even though the subs have a built-in crossover. He suggested this because he knows I use the set up solely for reproduction of music. If it were a HT set up, he might have recommended using the sub's internal crossover. Fortunately my 650 wpc amps have enough power to still sound good without rolling off the mains. Vandersteen makes two high pass crossovers that I could try. Unfortunately, the more expensive M7-HP model rolls frequencies off below 100 Hz, which is a little high for where I want to be with my subs and mains, and they list at $3,300/pair. I would be more interested at around 50Hz and less than $1,000/pair.
|
- 83 posts total