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?

 

ryder

Put the Dynaudio 18s on your list, Dual opposed 9 in drivers in a sealed enclosure.

$1800 and great value...

 

@akg_ca Spot on

It’s simple to add a first order passive HP to roll the lows out of the mains. The -3dB point should be slightly above the mains’ anechoic -3dB. Doing so effectively doubles the power available for the rest of the spectrum. Polystyrenes, while hard to find today, are preferred.

That being said, most subs today are missing some of the necessary controls

  1. Multiple LP slopes
  2. Multiple XO ’flavors’: LR, BE, BU...
  3. Continuous phase control
  4. Polarity inversion
  5. Delay
  6. Sufficient mass to prevent ’strolling’ on non-rigid floors above crawl spaces or on second+ stories

The Martin Logan X series has some of the above. The rest can added, if necessary, with external DSP. A failing of the ML series, other than Chinese origin, is insufficient mass. 10kg weights, while not particularly Audio Salon, are effective:

 

Today if one isn't managing their subs with DSP control then I'd say you aren't getting the most out of it.  A well regarded pair of subs, properly integrated with DSP and dialing in the positioning will be a high percentage of having "good subs".

Excellent thread.

Unledd I missed it the room is as important as the sub. The room (acoustics) are covalent to sub/speaker sound.

Also subs are like spice; some like a lot and some like just a tad.

Unledd I missed it the room is as important as the sub. The room (acoustics) are covalent to sub/speaker sound.

The room becomes less of a factor the more subs you add.  With a swarm (4 subs) the room becomes almost a non issue.