D-Rex Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I have never heard an SVS so I am going strictly by what I have read on this and other forums concerning the quality of the SVS. I have the RSW-12 and think it is great for that punch but I am still wondering what I am missing on the low end of the scale. So, with that in mind, would adding either the base model 16-46 or even their smallest box sub be a significant addition to my home theatre? I have invested $800 into the RSW so this would be another $400-500 of cost bringing my investment in subwoofers to almost $1300. I could get one fo the top SVS models for that much... However, I suspect I would lose $100 trying to sell my RSW on EBAY. Plus I really like my RSW! These are just thoughts I was having and would like some "expert opinions." Thanks, D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 ---------------- On 4/13/2005 9:32:25 AM D-Rex wrote: I have never heard an SVS so I am going strictly by what I have read on this and other forums concerning the quality of the SVS. I have the RSW-12 and think it is great for that punch but I am still wondering what I am missing on the low end of the scale. So, with that in mind, would adding either the base model 16-46 or even their smallest box sub be a significant addition to my home theatre? I have invested $800 into the RSW so this would be another $400-500 of cost bringing my investment in subwoofers to almost $1300. I could get one fo the top SVS models for that much... However, I suspect I would lose $100 trying to sell my RSW on EBAY. Plus I really like my RSW! These are just thoughts I was having and would like some "expert opinions." Thanks, D ---------------- RSW's are fine machines, however if you want subsonic then you will have to go elsewhere. Adding a 16-46 would definitely fill in your low end (to 12 Hz!) well beyong what your RSW-12 is capable of. You could get a higher dollar SVS for the price of both machines, but I have a feeling that those who really like their Klipsch subs would end up regretting their departure. If you love it then I'd think twice about getting rid of it (unless, of course, you love your SVS even more). The PB10-isd would also fill out your low end, however the degree to which I'm not certain. I do love my current sub but am also thinking of purchasing an RSW-15 in the near future for it's punchy musical properties. I'm not going to run them together, but separately for HT and music. Trying to be humble, there are subs that are better than mine (granted, not too many!) but Klipsch RSW's have a great sound that would supplement my listening habbits well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Rex Posted April 13, 2005 Author Share Posted April 13, 2005 ---------------- On 4/13/2005 10:31:03 AM CAS wrote: RSW's are fine machines, however if you want subsonic then you will have to go elsewhere. Adding a 16-46 would definitely fill in your low end (to 12 Hz!) well beyong what your RSW-12 is capable of. You could get a higher dollar SVS for the price of both machines, but I have a feeling that those who really like their Klipsch subs would end up regretting their departure. If you love it then I'd think twice about getting rid of it (unless, of course, you love your SVS even more). The PB10-isd would also fill out your low end, however the degree to which I'm not certain. I do love my current sub but am also thinking of purchasing an RSW-15 in the near future for it's punchy musical properties. I'm not going to run them together, but separately for HT and music. Trying to be humble, there are subs that are better than mine (granted, not too many!) but Klipsch RSW's have a great sound that would supplement my listening habbits well. ---------------- So, then the million dollar question (or at least hundred dollar question): Is there a sub for $1200 that would give superior performance to an RSW-12 combined with an SVS 16-46 (or 20-39)? Do you wonder for the amount of money you would be placing into an additional sub (the RSW-15) if it would be better to take that money and combine it with funds from selling the SVS and investing those funds into a singlle sub, such as a Velodyne DD? D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sivadselim Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 keep the rsw12. talk to the guys at SVS about what would be your best option and what tuning of it would be necessary, when combined with the rsw12, to fill the really, really low end stuff. i'm sure they'd have some good recommendations. i'd think the 16-46+, tuned to it's lowest tuning point (12Hz, as CAS said), would be the way to go, but it might require 2 of them, depending, probably upon how you have to run your rsw, currently, to keep up with the rest of your system. if you don't currently use that much of your 12s available power, one cylinder may suffice. if i have a dedicated true ht room in the near future, i think this is what i'll be considering to go with my rsw15, too. CAS, if you want an rsw just for music, you might want to consider the 12 instead of the 15. although, unfortunately, you can't get a 12 in that beautiful cherry wood finish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 I would suggest that ONE SVS pc-ultra will suffice quite nicely. You will NOT lack for adequate gain nor will you lack low frequency extension, but you will most definitely avoid the very dificult issue of the superposition of the two units output resulting in some nasty low frequency anomalies, which will require alot more hassle to resolve, both in time, expense that will, after all is said and done, still not resolve the resultant polar dispersion anomalies in the subs (plural response) - even with them crossed over at say 40hz and 80hz respectively. There will still be sufficient overlap to create some rather nasty anomalies! I would love to see us delve more specifically into the 'non-derectivity of bass' cliche. While the typical horizontal polar response of the bass is typically more hemispherical, and when present, the lobes tend to exhibit a lower Q then mid or high frquency lobes, when combined with another driver, the superposition of their output most definately results in nasty comb filtering which directly correlates to the polar lobing. And I mention one other source of confusion that many seem to lump into this same issue. By saying that LF are non-directional, it does not mean that you cannot resolve where the sound is eminating from. It may not be as apparent, but you can still most certainly determine the direction from which the sound eminates (unless perhaps you are in a room where the comb filtering/standing waves/polar response, et. al., are so chaotic that you cannot properly ascertain much accurate information from the acoustic cues. It is simply that the polar lobing tends to exhibit a lower Q (broader lobes) and fewer of them... So now that I have probably confused a few of you, unless you are prepared to employ inordinate measures to minimize interdriver effects at those frequencies (and which will still have limited effect at best), I suggest that the problems introduced by the two units are more of a hassle to deal with and result in a substantial decrease in benefits then the addition of a single unit capable of covering the same region albeit with greater gain and lower frequency extension. Regarding the above, I will try to assemble some information to better illustrate the effects of summing two drivers and the destructive effects encountered... Tangent1: The above destructive effects of superposition are apparent unless you use a Bessel Array! And that configuration friends,is pure genius! But this also assumes a few factors that do not necessarily render it suitable for a small room with a limited listening distance from the drivers... Tangent2: The classic illustration of this superposition effect in large scale, and a legitimate source of their well deserved (as opposed to the too often emotional) criticism is BOSE. 'Ole Amar did not believe that Q and the overlap of coverage areas (superposition) by multiple drivers had any negative discernible effects. That was at least until the 1990 Indiana Univ Fieldhouse event with Altec, JBL & Don Davis. But enough about that fiasco... Then Bose simply chose to declare it a non-issue and ignored it! And amped up their marketing! Sam Berkow subsequently generated a 3space volumetric projection diagram of the Bose system which I wish dearly I had to share. I will likewise try to hunt this down and see if I can get a copy from Don Davis. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words! And I have run far over my limit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sivadselim Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 ---------------- On 4/13/2005 2:39:54 PM dragonfyr wrote: I would suggest that ONE SVS pc-ultra will suffice quite nicely. ---------------- i think the 16-46+ can be tuned lower, though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 The Ulta can be selectively tuned as well. Leaving all 3 ports open tunes the unit to 20Hz. Blocking one port tunes the unit to 16Hz and blocking two ports tunes the unit to 12 HZ. And the difference in the Ultra's driver is substantial! And it delivers. This unit is the closest I have found to an economy Velodyne HGS18 Series2 or a DD18 (with its absolutely absurd price). I know! I have Both the SVS and the Velo and I must admit to being incredibly happy with the SVS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 In response to an above post. Unless you are trying to keep up and match sensitivites with a pair of LaScalas or KHorns played LOUDLY, you have absolutely NO need for two of the SVS units! One SVS Ultra is All that is needed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAS Posted April 13, 2005 Share Posted April 13, 2005 "I would love to see us delve more specifically into the 'non-derectivity of bass' cliche. While the typical horizontal polar response of the bass is typically more hemispherical, and when present, the lobes tend to exhibit a lower Q then mid or high frquency lobes, when combined with another driver, the superposition of their output most definately results in nasty comb filtering which directly correlates to the polar lobing." That has been explored in depth and is perhaps for another topic. "And I mention one other source of confusion that many seem to lump into this same issue. By saying that LF are non-directional, it does not mean that you cannot resolve where the sound is eminating from. It may not be as apparent, but you can still most certainly determine the direction from which the sound eminates (unless perhaps you are in a room where the comb filtering/standing waves/polar response, et. al., are so chaotic that you cannot properly ascertain much accurate information from the acoustic cues. It is simply that the polar lobing tends to exhibit a lower Q (broader lobes) and fewer of them..." Ditto. "So now that I have probably confused a few of you, unless you are prepared to employ inordinate measures to minimize interdriver effects at those frequencies (and which will still have limited effect at best), I suggest that the problems introduced by the two units are more of a hassle to deal with and result in a substantial decrease in benefits then the addition of a single unit capable of covering the same region albeit with greater gain and lower frequency extension." Agreed, however the hassle of aquiring a superior product via the sale of perhaps multiple currents is sometimes greater. One can achieve fine results through employing multiple driver, multiple enclosure assemblies. "Tangent1: The above destructive effects of superposition are apparent unless you use a Bessel Array! And that configuration friends,is pure genius! But this also assumes a few factors that do not necessarily render it suitable for a small room with a limited listening distance from the drivers..." Are we on topic at all? And most of us do, in fact, have the assets and application to utilize twelve to twenty or more drivers. Get real. "Tangent2: The classic illustration of this superposition effect in large scale, and a legitimate source of their well deserved (as opposed to the too often emotional) criticism is BOSE. 'Ole Amar did not believe that Q and the overlap of coverage areas (superposition) by multiple drivers had any negative discernible effects. That was at least until the 1990 Indiana Univ Fieldhouse event with Altec, JBL & Don Davis. But enough about that fiasco... Then Bose simply chose to declare it a non-issue and ignored it! And amped up their marketing!" Tangent is right. I'm not sure you're getting your Frappuccino right now. "Sam Berkow subsequently generated a 3space volumetric projection diagram of the Bose system which I wish dearly I had to share. I will likewise try to hunt this down and see if I can get a copy from Don Davis. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words! And I have run far over my limit!" I'm not sure what we accomplished here academically, however supplementing your RW or RSW with an SVS could be successful. Personally I would sell and save for a more potent performer. Shoot an email to the folks over at SVS and they'll honestly point you in the right direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 ---------------- On 4/13/2005 11:10:23 PM CAS wrote: Agreed, however the hassle of aquiring a superior product via the sale of perhaps multiple currents is sometimes greater. One can achieve fine results through employing multiple driver, multiple enclosure assemblies. "Tangent1: The above destructive effects of superposition are apparent unless you use a Bessel Array! And that configuration friends,is pure genius! But this also assumes a few factors that do not necessarily render it suitable for a small room with a limited listening distance from the drivers..." Are we on topic at all? And most of us do, in fact, have the assets and application to utilize twelve to twenty or more drivers. Get real. You know, I hate discussions that focus primarily on the person talking rather then upon the physics of the issue discussed. And I am really sorry if was not as clear as i might have liked to have been in the space I had. I am indeed sorry that YOU didn't see the relationship nor understand the point being made. And I would be more then willing to atempt to explain that which I mention in greater depth in another post (as I mentioned!) or privately. And yes, you can use an infinite number of drivers and spend as much money as you have to do so. But while these measures will address the gain issue, and perhaps the low frequency extension issue, they do so to the detriment of the time domain response, and the resultant frequency response which you cannot resolve "with all the king's horses and all the kings men". Each tangent DIRECTLY relates to the issue of multiple drivers with overlapping sound fields. The result of the superposition of wave forms is combfiltering and the associated polar lobing. Neither of which can be corrected by EQ as the do not present a minimum phase relationship. In fact they are a result of the out of phase relationship! The Bessle array is the only configuration which has the effect of "enlarging" the response of the original "base unit", be it an individual driver or a speaker system WITHOUT changing the polar response or comb filtering. So I am sorry if you do not see the connection, but it is FUNDAMENTALLY conected to the subject in that it solves the problem at hand! But this ****ion was a tangent because while it addresses the issue, it was not the focus of the issue as I was not proposing the use of a Bessel array for the subwoofer function. "Tangent2: The classic illustration of this superposition effect in large scale, and a legitimate source of their well deserved (as opposed to the too often emotional) criticism is BOSE. 'Ole Amar did not believe that Q and the overlap of coverage areas (superposition) by multiple drivers had any negative discernible effects. That was at least until the 1990 Indiana Univ Fieldhouse event with Altec, JBL and Don Davis. But enough about that fiasco... Then Bose simply chose to declare it a non-issue and ignored it! And amped up their marketing!" Tangent is right. I'm not sure you're getting your Frappuccino right now. You have missed the point of what I am saying, but still, that does not render my point invalid. And if you want all the details of the Indiana Fieldhouse event I would be glad to explain it in more detail either as a separate thread or privately. But again, simply because you mauy not be familiar with what I am talking about, does not necessarily make ME the ignorant one. Apparently I am guessing that you look at acoustical phenomena primarily in the frequency domain as has been so common for so many years and are not familiar with the primacy of the time domain in these issues. It is in this realm (the time domain) that the problem lies. And your responses to the situation would only make it worse. And not meaning to be a smart aleck nor to insult you, your response was exactly the response of Dr. Bose Who chose not to acknowledge the primacy of the time domain regarding acoustical phenomena as well. To quote from an interview with Sam Berkow another fellow whom you will most likely not understand in ProSoundWeb: Jamie from Toronto: What is the most common mistake you see when people design rooms? Sam: I think the most common mistake in both large and small rooms is the lack of LOW FREQUENCY control. In small rooms this is a HUGE problem, particularly studios and home theaters. Designers both new and experienced often forget how hard it is to really control LF energy. The second biggest mistake is forgetting that great rooms MUST be QUIET.. Jamie from Toronto: Is that a speaker issue, room layout, or processing issue? Sam: This is primarily a room design and treatment issue. The miss-use of subwoofers is another of the most common mistakes made in sound system setup-operation. People forget that the gain subwoofers (relative to the LF devices) are directly related to the crossover frequency. It is really important to remember that when you increase the gain in a sub, you MUST adjust (lower) the crossover frequency. Does that make sense to you?.......... Also, if the subs and the LF devices in the system are overlapping for an octave or so, there is a great chance of uneven LF energy throughout the room and MUDDY sound. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sivadselim Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 no, let's focus on the person. like to hear yourself talk, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 Would you happen to have links or literature handy that talks about the bessel array? If it's a hassle, I'll do me homework and hunt it down...sounds like an interesting concept. I've heard about it many times, but not described as you say it (probably because there are other advantages that the other people were concentrating on). In regards to the physics, I'm a sound guy by nature and I'll determine the credibility of something by the end result, versus all the physical theory....that's however not to say that the theory isn't a good guideline, or a way to diagnose problems. Anyways, if using two subs sounds better to someone, then by all means use the two subs. This just means that person hears the extended response as a worthy compromise of the other issues that get introduced. If you're really worried about the time delay issues, just put the two subs as close as possible to each other. And in all honesty, you are still having the same "problem" when crossing over the mains to a single sub. If you are going to use an SVS to supplement an RSW, then I would strongly recommend using a seperate crossover. I find it ironic that I was just thinking about this the other day. I figured a steep-as-possible slope around 40Hz would be a good starting point (a high pass for the RSW and a low pass for the SVS). I don't think trying to crossover the SVS to just slip in below the RSW is going to work or sound as good as it could. For D-Rex: Would an infinite baffel subwoofer system be an option for your room? I'm pretty sure you could go that route for around $1000 and it would totally blow any other box sub out of the water. An adjacent attic, garage, empty room, or even the outdoors (with no neighbors) is all that is needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 I am assembling some info on the Bessel array, and will scan some additional info as well over the next 2 or so days for post. Most is not available directly on line. So let me get that together. And if anyone is interested, a Bessel array is a way to take an array of point source drivers and to configure their gain and polarity in such a manner as to cause their summed output to resemble that of a single driver. The significance of theis configuration is the avoidance of the comb filtering and polar response anomalies typical of multiple standard drivers and arrays while still benefiting from the increased output (gain) of multiple drivers. But more about the strengths and limitations in the next post. I also have in my possession the Mike Lamm's data and measurements that served as the basis of D.B.Keele's AES presentation. And while I can't publish some of that, I can speak privately to anyone who is interested, and I can provide quite a bit of information regarding various application options which, as I have discovered, some find too tangential and confusing, such as optimal and differing configurations, stereo Bessel arrays (yes, stereo from one array), and the scalability of the concept - it's not just for arraying individual drivers! So, if after you take a look at some of the info I will post, you are welcome to contact me privately and I can provide that. ------------------------------------ Oh, and to wrap up my initial 'tangent';-) and to make my position simpler regarding the use of multiple subs. Yes, you can use as many as you want. But in doing so you introduce quite a few very difficult problems to remediate with which many are not very familiar. The traditional solution is to run for bass traps, EQ, etc., which do Not solve these problems. So, if the desired results can be achieved using just one unit, saving you both money and avoiding the additional problems, plus the additional time and expense to treat symptoms while not removing the root cause, that seems the optimal way for me. But you can of course do as you please! ---------------------------- Oh, and there are many references to 'physics at the expense of listening', and of 'listening to evaluate at the expense of understanding the physics'. Let me just say that anyone who does one at the expense of the other is - well, crippled! The are complimentary. You can't easily or effectively resolve the frequency domain anomalies without an undertanding of, and the measurements that actually quantify/qualify the observations. And conversely, the 'ideal' math on paper requires the correlation within a real environment with all of the 'real' variables. Thus the value of real time based measurement tools in the real room with all of the real variables. It is simply a snapshot of the real room with the real variables that correlates to the perceived sound. I don't know who here constitutes this oft referred to person(s) who only lives in the abstract realm of measurements. Everyone I know who does this has come from the real world and has simply added the tools as an adjunct to assist in evaluating the live listening experience, NOT as a substitute from it! But I can certainly understand how Louis Pasteur felt when he mentioned that there were little 'bugs' everywhere that can effect health! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Rex Posted April 14, 2005 Author Share Posted April 14, 2005 ---------------- On 4/14/2005 10:03:11 AM DrWho wrote: For D-Rex: Would an infinite baffel subwoofer system be an option for your room? I'm pretty sure you could go that route for around $1000 and it would totally blow any other box sub out of the water. An adjacent attic, garage, empty room, or even the outdoors (with no neighbors) is all that is needed. ---------------- I am still in the market to buy a house so until that occurs I can't explore the IB route. Thanks for all the interesting discussion! D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sivadselim Posted April 14, 2005 Share Posted April 14, 2005 ---------------- On 4/14/2005 1:12:45 PM dragonfyr wrote: But I can certainly understand how Louis Pasteur felt when he mentioned that there were little 'bugs' everywhere that can effect health! ---------------- cmon, galileo, it's an internet subwoofer forum for gosh sake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 ---------------- On 4/14/2005 1:12:45 PM dragonfyr wrote: Oh, and there are many references to 'physics at the expense of listening', and of 'listening to evaluate at the expense of understanding the physics'. Let me just say that anyone who does one at the expense of the other is - well, crippled! The are complimentary. You can't easily or effectively resolve the frequency domain anomalies without an undertanding of, and the measurements that actually quantify/qualify the observations. And conversely, the 'ideal' math on paper requires the correlation within a real environment with all of the 'real' variables. Thus the value of real time based measurement tools in the real room with all of the real variables. It is simply a snapshot of the real room with the real variables that correlates to the perceived sound. I don't know who here constitutes this oft referred to person(s) who only lives in the abstract realm of measurements. Everyone I know who does this has come from the real world and has simply added the tools as an adjunct to assist in evaluating the live listening experience, NOT as a substitute from it! But I can certainly understand how Louis Pasteur felt when he mentioned that there were little 'bugs' everywhere that can effect health! ---------------- Allow me to rephrase a little: I was simply saying that it is totally possible for someone to add a second subwoofer and determine that it is an audible improvement. Whether or not it introduces frequency response anomolies is a completely academic discussion...The complexity of it is such that we cannot simply predict that it will hurt the sound considering we have absolutely no clue as to the characteristics of the room or sub placement. Allow me to make a parallel analogy. Klipsch is using a tapered array crossover on their new center channel speakers because it reduces off-axis lobing of the frequency response. Just because another speaker doesn't have the tapered array, doesn't mean that it's going to sound bad off-axis. In fact, certain lobing may actually be a benefit once you take the room into effect...It's rather unlikely, but the possibility is still there. Just because doing something has a side-effect doesn't mean that overall it's not an improvement. If it's possible to avoid the side-effect altogether, then of course that is more ideal, but it still doesn't negate the original improvement. Look at all the people adding a subwoofer to their 2 channel and HT rigs...surely this is going to introduce the same effects, yet it seems the consensus is that it sounds much better with the sub than without (And here you have 3 or more speakers all playing the same material). I think avoiding the use of multiple subs just because of the complex interaction between them is a bit extreme considering that everyeone I know claims there is an improvement (let's ignore the placebo possibilities in those claims, lol). And now rereading the part I quoted, I think it makes sense that if we use physics to look at the entire picture, that we should arrive at something that sounds the same way...so i guess im rambling about all the people that just use physics for just parts of the big picture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 Of course you are free to do as you choose. The simple point is, that while you can use 2 subs in this case, plus a crossover for a total of say ($1200 + $1200 + $300)=~$2700*, you can achieve the same result with one well chosen sub for $1200*. And without the anomalies. There. No physics, nothing to correct, and my mom would agree with the finances. The choice is yours. Enjoy ------------- 1)give or take; use your numbers! I simply arbitrarily used the price of 2 SVS Ultras 2)The physics simply describe the nature of the anomalies. And the lobing itself is not critical, but the nulls 'between the lobes' (the come filtering) are a result of what is commonly referred to as 'active noise cancellation'! A stickier issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sivadselim Posted April 15, 2005 Share Posted April 15, 2005 velo's 1812 seems like a good idea. never heard a thing from a single soul who has one, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.