Just in - Review of RSW-15, SVS Ultra & HGS 18

[Guest BobG]

The review posted here has generated a great deal of interest from the members of this bulletin board. That is demonstrated both by the number of posts in the thread and the number of people who have visited without posting. This sort of lively interchange is precisely why we at Klipsch like the bulletin board. Its a very open forum filled with great information for all who participate. Also, Klipsch is quite pleased that Brian Weatherhead found the RSW-15 to be a very musical sounding product. That was our intention from the outset for we believe that for any speaker to be a worthwhile design, it MUST pass the test of critical music reproduction. To us, saying a speaker is good for home theater only or for only music hearkens back to decades ago when speakers were described as being good for rock music or good for classical. In either case, it actually means the speaker is not accurate or neutral. If a speaker, or subwoofer or any audio device is accurate, itll reproduce most any input signal faithfully. Ive thought pretty hard about whether or not to post my thoughts on the topic, and I just cannot hold back. Remember, Klipsch employs me so my thoughts carry some bias, but who here has any totally unbiased opinions?

1. The review format prompts several questions and comments. For starters, the stated microphone position is 12 feet from the corner in which the subwoofer is positioned. This is one half of the typical subwoofer test procedure, which usually includes both near-field and far-field measurements. Near-field testing, wherein the microphone is placed not more than 1 meter from the speaker is critical to accurate assessment of subwoofers. Greater separation between microphone and subwoofer yields measurement mostly of room standing waves rather than accurate measurement of the device under test. Brian mentions that the approach is reasonable in that his environment is a typical HT room. He goes on to say that the graphs seem to have similar contours and the specific listening environment causes this. I agree wholeheartedly but believe this to seriously compromise the measurements, which are presented as scientific and reliable. There is no such thing as a typical HT room and measuring standing waves instead of subwoofer output tells you much about the room and little about the subwoofers. Near-field measurements would have provided significant performance data missing from the review.

2. Most of the subwoofer tests yield virtually identical frequency response curves save for minor level differences. Check the data for the two Klipsch subs, the AT sub and the Canton for example. Little difference in performance is shown, with the exception of output level. This is highly unlikely unless its mostly room modes being measured and displayed. The Klipsch KSW-15 and RSW-15 have VERY different characteristics below 40 Hz, but that is not shown in this test. Other than approximately 7 dB level difference, the two Klipsch subs seem to have nearly identical response characteristics. This indicates that room standing waves are dominating the measurements and that individual subwoofer performance is obscured by the testing method. There are great performance differences between these two models and those differences should have been highlighted in testing. Instead, the performance differences are obscured. We have had many opportunities to test these two products and our results always reveal significant performance advantages for the RSW-15. Brian indicates that as he measured at 12 feet from the corner, the curves are not as flat as those the manufacturer supplies. There is truly no typical listening room with each having unique standing wave modes and impact on the performance of a subwoofer. To suggest that the in-room results that were measured represent those that should be expected in other rooms is misleading. Moving the measuring microphone just a few feet would likely have changed these curves substantially. For example, every sub shows a dramatic decrease in output at 20 Hz as compared to its level at 30 Hz. This is most likely a room artifact rather than true subwoofer performance.

3. C weighting was used in the measurement process. Why? Some who read this might not be familiar with the process of weighting measurements. Weighting is commonly employed to discount data in the measurement, which is considered less important or interfering with the characteristic being measured. Weighting has occasionally been used to make a component spec better than when using an unweighted measurement. If you use a simple SPL meter to set channel balance in your home theater system, you use C weighting in order to avoid reading low frequency standing waves which would swamp any data in the midrange and highs. On the other hand, if you are trying to test subwoofer response down to < 20 Hz, it is important to use an unweighted measurement. C weighting is 3dB down at 40 Hz and 6 dB down at 20 Hz so using that approach will cause quite a bit of inaccuracy in the results. Add 6 dB to the output at 20 Hz for all these subwoofers to get a more accurate picture of their performance. The weighting data comes from the text Acoustics by Allan Pierce 2nd printing 1991.

4. It is not clear from the text whether the signal generator was connected first into a preamp/processor or if it was connected directly to the subwoofer. With the signal generator plugged directly into the sub, there is probably no low pass filtering being performed on the signal so the subs are seeing the entire sweep from 10-100 Hz. In the review photo of the RSW-15, the internal low-pass filter is disabled. If neither the internal low-pass filter nor any external low pass network were employed, the subs would be placed at a disadvantage not found in a typical installation. Without any low pass signal filtering, the RSW-15 still should not produce a peak at around 70 Hz. Our tests always show peak output in the 20-40 Hz octave with a slight reduction in output on up to the upper limit of the subwoofer band pass. This response pattern is consistent across a wide range of output levels. There is a limiter built into the RSW-15, and that limiter is frequency specific. The idea is to be able to apply all of the available amp power to the driver but to protect the combination from unsafe operating conditions. When the system sees excessive signal level, the limiter will step in to prevent low frequency overload. As the review states, as you drop an octave and try to maintain volume, the driver must move four times as far. Without any limiter, it would be easy to damage a driver or it would be necessary to limit total system performance. The response curve shown for the RSW-15 indicates that the limiter is operating. That Brian heard no audible distortion at that level indicates proper system operation. The limiter is designed to minimize audible distortion, even at the expense of low frequency output. With low pass filtering and near-field measurement the test would show that the RSW-15 offers even output over a very broad range. Our measurements at one meter, 1/8th space shows no 70 Hz peak and extended bass to 20 Hz, even at levels as high as 125 dB

5. The active driver on the RSW series is on the REAR side of the unit to eliminate a reflection cancellation at about 100-120 Hz (depending on the distance from the subwoofer to the walls). Note that in a passive radiator design, the information coming from the passive is not the same as that from the active driver. In the RSW-15, the passive radiator is tuned much lower than the active driver. It was mentioned that the placement chosen was with the passive radiator one foot from the corner (backwards), which should yield a very clear cancellation effect at 100 120 Hz.. No response dip, which must exit if the sub were positioned as Brian mentioned, is shown in the response plots. You can see this cancellation effect in the Velodyne, Canton and Atlantic Technology plots at about 110-115 Hz. This is not a fault of the subwoofer, but a function of the wavelength being reproduced. All subwoofers will show this cancellation and Klipsch has worked to eliminate it by placing the active driver on the rear. This orientation does not avoid a cancellation notch, but it shifts it up in frequency to about 250 Hz and the sub is not working at that range. Run a test with the internal low pass network disabled; sweep to about 300 Hz and youll see the notch quite clearly. The reason we worked to eliminate the 100-120 Hz dip is that it interferes with integration with the main speakers.

6. Brian mentions that a 10 dB level difference is perceived as two times (or half) the volume. That may be true at mid-band, but it does not hold true in the lower registers. According to current texts, a 4-6 dB difference is perceived as a doubling or halving of the level below about 100 Hz @ 110 dB reference level. At lower volume levels the increase judged to be twice the volume is even smaller. This impacts the shake factor grading. As this is a matter of psychoacoustics, there is not uniform agreement on the precise values. In any case, about 5 dB would be perceived as twice the volume at these levels and frequency ranges.

7. If not for the curve of the SVS subwoofers, all the data is quite understandable. All of the subs save for the Velodyne and SVS show quite similar response characteristics. The Velodyne does indeed offer extended low frequency performance according to our in-house testing but it comes at the expense of overall output level. While we have not had the opportunity to test the SVS, a comment about placement is in order. As low frequency performance is greatly impacted by in-room standing waves; a single subwoofer will produce a strong nodal pattern. If two subwoofers are used rather than a single, the interaction with room modes is significantly altered. I dont know if the two SVSs were positioned apart from one another, but I expect that would be a typical installation. Seems to me few people would place both columns in the same corner. Indeed, placing them in two different corners will yield very high output and reduced standing wave problems. Putting one in a corner and the other a bit away from another corner in the room will yield lots of output and flatter response. This is true of any sub, but to be evenhanded, the two SVS columns should have been positioned side by side in the same corner in which all subs were tested. I would be interested to know if my assumption is correct. We frequently suggest two subs rather than a single unit for precisely this reason. Standing wave peak to trough ratios can easily reach 20 dB. With two subwoofers, the response error is reduced by more than half. To better reveal the performance of the SVS system, two curves might have been run; one with just a single column in operation and the second curve with both columns operating. In another post the SVS spokesman mentions you can merely subtract 6 dB from the level shown but that is not accurate. The benefit of running dual subwoofers is much greater than that.

8. The Klipsch approach to subwoofer design focuses on performance above 20 Hz. We employ ported/passive radiator system tuning to deliver high acoustic output above that point while sacrificing output below 20 Hz. Sealed box systems see increased resistance to driver excursion as frequency drops (the driver excursion must quadruple as frequency is halved increasing internal pressure and resistance to motion). Ported and passive radiator designs do not have this built-in limit to excursion and below the system tuning frequency the only thing limiting driver motion is the driver suspension. For that reason, a high-pass filter is designed into all Klipsch subwoofers. The action of this filter diminishes sensitivity below 20 Hz. We find the vast majority of source material has no content below that frequency and limiting sub-sonic output allows the subwoofer to have much greater output in the important 20-30 Hz range We know of no ported or passive radiator design that does not take this approach. To Klipsch; this is the sensible approach to subwoofer design.

There are a few other nits to pick, but that is not my intention. As I said at the top, Klipsch is pleased that Brian selected the RSW-15 as one of the leading contenders and that he would choose it for its clarity and musical performance. It would be quite interesting to see these tests repeated with near field microphone placement and a low passed input signal. Thanks to those who may have actually read this lengthy commentary. We look forward to other tests of the RSW-15, which will be published in the near future.

[bacevedo]

Bob - thanks for that great post! It's nice to hear another side to it all, and I would be interested in seeing a different review of the RSW subs. I do agree, some of the tests seemed a little akward to me, and I questioned in another post why Klipsch's results and this reviews result's were so different. I do think the room had a big factor in all of this.

Thanks for letting all sides be heard.

Bryan

[Mike Lindsey]

Excellent post, Bob. I will be very curious to read what Brian and TV have to say regarding some of your questions and answers...

Mike

------------------

My Music Systems

[Colin]

Great post, Bob, you ran the table! Thanks for all the information, guess we know what you worked on today.

I learned a lot, especially not to use the word "boomy" to describe a bump in the middle of the frequency response. My KSW is boomy, my LF10 is not.

------------------

Colin's Music System Cornwall 1s & Klipsch subs; lights out & tubes glowing!

[h2xmark]

great post Bob G, you know i did not even catch on that brian had the rsw15 pointing the wrong direction, but i went back to his review,quote{with the radiator aimed 1ft. into a corner i got the best results}did he turn it around and try it the other way? what about this filter or whatever Bob G. was talking about,did he measure with it on and off , i also agree the test should have been one on one and the measurements start at 1 meter, then go to 2 meters then stop at three, i know what you mean about the standing waves sometimes the bass is stronger across the room than by the speaker, strange these low frequency waves, i still don't understand this stuff all the time but,have to go guys Ear what do you thing on this , mark

[mike stehr]

Howdy!

Originally posted by mike stehr:

Find a large old growth hardwood tree out in the

forrest, at least 42' to 45' complete

diameter, cut it down, get the select chunk

you need, figure how tall you want the enclosure.

Get all the bark, etc.. from the outside of the chunk.

Find a BIG lathe, smooth out the outside, then

carve out the center,leaving around 4' for thickness

of the enclosure, smooth it all out, then

cap the ends, should be plenty of wood left.

Then use four 18 incher's of whatever preference,

break out your favorite speaker design software,

install in either end, then port out the other

end,(I'm sure it will take more than one port.)

Build a pedestal of some sort for the bottom,

it will probably need caster wheels.

Finish the enclosure with whatever choice,

IMO, natural finish with about a million coats

of laquer.

Would this fly?

HAPPY HOLIDAYS!

[h2xmark]

hey mike you build it i will buy it,but see if you can get 6 18" in their thanks mark O and happy holidays

later

[TVodhanel]

Bob, there's so many problems with your text...I'll limit my response to those that mention SVS specifically(more or less). This is your board afterall...and I'm just a guest(although a guest who loves his klipsch full range speakers!)

In room measurements are a way of woof life,

Tom Nousaine uses a 2m distance, Howard Ferstler uses 5m distance,Hardesty uses a 3m distance,Brian used a 4m distance,John Kotches uses a 2m distance...

Done Keele uses a 2m ground plane measurement(no room interaction).

I like Brian's methods for two reasons...

1) I spend too many hours of my life doing Groundplane measurements

It's NICE to see how our subs perform for an industry professional's real hometheater room at a real-world measuring distance.

2)he didn't use some wussy 80dB measuring level. He cranked the subs until he just started to hear a sunjective sense of strain from the units...and THEN measured the output levels.

THAT's the way to do it! Who the hell cares what the subwoofer was doing at 80dB? 41dB under reference levels? Shhh..my gramma is sleeping...

>>>7. If not for the curve of the SVS subwoofers, all the data is quite understandable.<<<

Beyond understanding...I like it

>>> All of the subs save for the Velodyne and SVS show quite similar response characteristics. The Velodyne does indeed offer extended low frequency performance according to our in-house testing but it comes at the expense of overall output level. While we have not had the opportunity to test the SVS, a comment about placement is in order. As low frequency performance is greatly impacted by in-room standing waves; a single subwoofer will produce a strong nodal pattern. If two subwoofers are used rather than a single, the interaction with room modes is significantly altered. I dont know if the two SVSs were positioned apart from one another, but I expect that would be a typical installation.<<<

I almost always suggest putting dual subs together in the same corner...I *think* that's what brian did..if not...I wish he would have because our numbers would have increased a coupl emore dBs.

>>> Seems to me few people would place both columns in the same corner. Indeed, placing them in two different corners will yield very high output and reduced standing wave problems.<<<

How? Corner loading is the same regardless of which corner is being used. The same modes will be excited regardless. The ONLY possible response issue would be one of the cancellation(allison effect) between the two subs depending on there distance apart.(hardly what I would consider an advantage---unless it just happened to coincide with a room induce response peak at the key listening positions---1/100 shot).

>>>Putting one in a corner and the other a bit away from another corner in the room will yield lots of output and flatter response. This is true of any sub,<<<

So Brian had the SVS in two corners...or one in a corner and one along the wall now...?

>>>but to be evenhanded, the two SVS columns should have been positioned side by side in the same corner in which all subs were tested. I would be interested to know if my assumption is correct.<<<

I believe they were...but Brian is sure to let us know when he has time.

>>> We frequently suggest two subs rather than a single unit for precisely this reason. Standing wave peak to trough ratios can easily reach 20 dB. With two subwoofers, the response error is reduced by more than half.<<<

Well, the overall response of ALL the subs looks to be very similiar until the 30hz area...where the SVs continue to remain much flatter overall. Depending on the dimensions of Brians room...modal activity under 30hz will usually be MUCH less of an issue compared to >30hz.

In other words...all these supposed advantages for svs would tend to show up >25-30hz.

>>>To better reveal the performance of the SVS system, two curves might have been run; one with just a single column in operation and the second curve with both columns operating. In another post the SVS spokesman mentions you can merely subtract 6 dB from the level shown but that is not accurate. The benefit of running dual subwoofers is much greater than that.<<<

If both subs are in the same corner...you subtract 6dBs across the board...end of story...this is the most basic of acoustical theory.(actually this assumes perfect acoustical coupling which will never happen in real life---in real life it's probably about 5.5dB to 5.75dB across the board. not worth quiblling over in this context) If the subs are placed in adjacent corners...the response would be the same(with only the allison cancellation effect an issue)...but you'd only need to subtract 3-4dB(depending on the distance between woofs) from the total output levels measured.(so the SV data would be even better).

Brian still has the SVs, so if there's any real(legit)concerns that the SV was given some type of advantage...we'll be happy to extend the review period as long as brian would need to redo the measurements using a single subwoofer.

If Brian would like to try a <$1500 shootout next...SVS can have a new 25-31CS+/S1000 package on the way to him in a few weeks(as soon as the new models start to ship)...any takers?

the svs mission statement?

remember 13th Warrior?

"do we have a plan?"

"Ride til we find them...and kill them all..."

TV

[TheEAR]

TV,

I could not help myself,I have to make a post here.

Ok,Bob said alot to justify the poor showing of the RSW against the SVS Ultra.

The fact(hey it was measured n'est ce pas)is on paper and its clear.Both the RSW15 and even the highly regarded(I have one and admire it too)Velo HGS18 do drop sharply in true sub bass output.The SVS Ultra does not,in fact its very capable down below 16Hz!How about that,IMPRESSIVE.

The quality issue could be adressed using a Bryston power amp.Be sure with a Byston the SVS takes on the HGS18 and RSW15 with no trouble even for music use.

I have to measure anything close to 121dB at 30Hz as claimed in the Klipsch papers.It may be SPL when the active driver hits the magnetic structure and the fuse blows.Or the mic is palced inside the box just behind the driver. LOL

The RSW10 is "rated" as peak of around 110 at 30Hz!Well nothing like that in my room,even with corner loading and in a spot where the Sunfire Junior pumps LOTTSA BASS.And the Junior is also active/passive.Similar cinfiguration,so the placement cannot be blamed.Blame the dwarves if you like the RSW10 sounds like a glorified LF10.More musical(faster) and better quality.Still no Sunfire,and far from the SVS Ultra.

I pray for all sub makers when the SVS SS will be launched.God may you have mercy

In the end a sub should reproduce sub 80Hz material,its strong above 80Hz who cares.Its should be best from 80Hz down where it counts.

BTW I own many(MANY) Klipsch speakers and like them alot.Just the LF series and now the RSW series with their BIG SPL numbers down low dont impress me too much.

TheEAR(s) Now theears

[t-man]

What a great discussion. Wish I had a daily digest of this post emailed to me. BobG, and TV...keep 'em comming.(:

T-man (with my lowly KSW12 that still manages to shake windows in my basement)

------------------

KG 5.5 (mains)

KG 2.2v (center)

KLF-C7 (center in storage)

KG 1 (rears)

KSW-12 (sub)

Denon AVR 681/1601

Toshiba SD-3109 DVD

Kenwood LVD700 LD

Sony CD changer

Sony 27" Trinitron

Sony PLX I

[TheEAR]

Mr T,

"T-man (with my lowly KSW12 that still manages to shake windows in my basement)"

What are the windows made of? Clear plastic bags

Bob G has a wish,not see any posts from TV and TheEAR in the subwoofer section.

TheEAR(s) Now theears

[Neutral Guy]

TV:

I have been monitoring this discussion for a while now... and, frankly, I think your conduct on this board is unprofessional.

This is a Klipsch bulletin board, meant to disburse information about their products, and to provide a forum for their customers and prospects to discuss their offerings.

You are not a Klipsch customer (at least, of subwoofers, where all of your postings seem to be concentrated) and you are not a prospect (considering that you work for a direct competitor to Klipsch).

You have effectively hijacked this bulletin board, and are using it to promote SVS products, while undercutting Klipsch. In one message, you even have the gall to practically negotiate a sale, for god sakes.

This doesn't sound like fair play to me. If SVS wants to use a bulletin board to promote their products, that's great. Set one up on the SVS website! Or, at the very least, use a neutral board, like hometheaterspot.com. But to use a bulletin board hosted by one of your competitors, is simply not good business. I don't believe that it reflects well on yourself or SVS.

I have to say that Klipsch has been extremely generous in even allowing you to browse these listings, let alone post. If I was in charge, then I would have cut off your access a long time ago.

NG

P.S. I should note that I do NOT work for Klipsch, or any distributor/retailer affiliated with Klipsch. I do own a Klipsch subwoofer, however .

[Colin]

nonetheless I appreciate the discussion here where I can watch and evaluate the opinions of regular posters, after listening to the ML Statements with their 8 driver line array mid-bass towers, I realize how much the punch of music adds to the enjoyment, more so than getting the very last octave of depth (down to 15 to 25 Hz), after learning about the punch of the RSW15, I would certainly consider them for HT and Reference systems, with the SVS reserved for the big old Heritage horns ...

------------------

Colin's Music System Cornwall 1s & Klipsch subs; lights out & tubes glowing!

[erdric]

Neutral Guy,

I'm not going to talk for TV.

This is just a suggestion to check all of your facts before you post. Try www.hometheaterforum.com for starters. You might find that to be very interesting. You might also find it to be the neutral HT website that you were suggesting he visit.

BTW, TV doesn't work for SVS. Tom Vodhanel is the "V" in SVS. It stands for Stimpson-Vodhanel Subwoofers. He started the company with Ron Stimpson and is the main designer of the subs.

------------------

Primary System:

Main KG-4

Center KV-3

Rear RS-3

Yamaha HTR-5250

Sony DVP-S560D

Panasonic PV-9664

Sony DBS system

Studio:

Main KG-3

Sony STR-AV920

Pioneer PD-4351

This message has been edited by erdric on 12-29-2001 at 02:08 PM

[anarchist]

I have followed this discussion with great interest and find it great Klipsch will permit SVS to post here; it shows they are not afraid of competition.

That said, I found TV's reply opening with "Bob, there's so many problems with your text..." to be in very poor form but that is my opinion. Bob's post basically said "I have some questions about how the tests were performed" and did not attack SVS what-so-ever. The subsequent posts should have stayed on that same level.

It is obvious upon reading the results that the room factored into the equation. Bob's point was this is NOT measuring the sub specifically. TV admits that in his post. Let me give a consumer viewpoint: I DON'T care how it sounded in the reviewers HT. I care how it will sound in MY HT. I therefore want to see accurate measurements that minimize the effect of the room.

You want to make the results meaningful. Give me 3 scenario's: 1 with minimal room influence and 2 in rooms of varying size so we can plot the effect the room may have. Define the rooms for me so that I know what materials are used in its construction. In other words, conduct a 'real' experiment and provide ALL the data.

That said, I absolutely love the look of the SVS subs and determined last night I had to have one - or two. CS+, yeah! I have had a Klipsch sub for two years - it is loud, it is great for HT, and it is boomy. I want better and think the SVS may be it. I hope for a head to head showdown between the Klipsch RSW and the SVS that the two parties could agree was objective and not biased. In fact, you two guys send me samples and I will give you the consumer bottom line.

------------------

Fronts - KG4's

Center - C6

Surrounds - S6's

Sub - KSW200

Powered by - YAM995

[montigue]

///I have to say that Klipsch has been extremely generous in even allowing you to browse these listings, let alone post\\\\

I agree!! just goes to show how Klipsch is a high class company that is very open minded to there customer's. They also realize something that I do..We all have the same thing in common on this board, we have a passion for our Klipsch floor speaker's. Heck I think even TV own's Klipsch KLF series.

I love my Klipsch/SVS HT system!!! I thank Klipsch for this board and I hope they keep it up for a long time to come.

Regard's Monty R

[TheEAR]

N Guy,

Neutral,sure as neutral as a dictator.

TV is welcome here,most enjoy reading this forum because TV input here.Those who are afraid of competition dont like to see him here and have nothing to say to defend their views.And these also dont like to see TheEAR talk about Sunfire and Dynaudio and the beloved Krell(clowns with 1 watt amps like to say Krell is analitical and lifeless,well at least it does not sugar coat BS and has real power)

If I will buy a sub of brand A or B is my personal choice,I will get an SVS because it outperforms the competition.As simple as that.Like Sunfire outperformed the HGS(10&12) and LF subs for HT(like it or not).

TheEAR(s) Now theears

[TVodhanel]

If Klipsch decides there's too much SVS on the forum,by all means they can ask me to leave.(Anyone can find me at hometheaterforum,or avscience,or hometheaterspot for svs questions of course.)

I would say that's well within their rights. I wouldn't have a beef at all...and would thank them for being so understanding of the situation to date. i think this forum generates so much svs/klipsch talk because of the dynamics of the Klipsch speakers in general. When you have full range speakers capable of loud/clean output like the Klipsch models...finding a subwoofer that has a prayer of *keeping* up 2 octaves lower can be a little difficult. I've owned many Klipsch products for quite a few years now. I suppose in some ways...the KLF30s I still use for my main L/R speakers in my personal HT are at least indirectly responsible for the formation of SVS. I couldn't find a subwoofer I could afford...that would match the dynamics of my speakers...so I started rolling my own about 4-5 years ago I guess.

So I think it's NATURAL for a *klipsch* board to gravitate toward high output woofages...it's like PB-n-J .

However,while I do appreciate the *open* forum atmosphere klipsch is providing...that won't keep me from speaking my mind. If I see basic acoustical theory twisted..I'm going to mention it. If I see a complete MIS-understanding of room modal patterns and how the placement of bass reproducers in the room may or may not excite these modes...I'm going to mention it.

If pointing out errors or misinformation seems *unprofessional*...I'm not sure I'd want to be a professional in that world then. And if this *fast-forwards* my invitation to leave the forum...again, no hard feelings at all...and I;ll STILL be saving up for the new reference series mains/center/surrounds

TV

[h2xmark]

hey ear who do you think would win in a head to head match between SVS with their dual ultra's or Stryke with 2 of their 15.2 subs or better how about two of their 15.4 subs how about that for a matchup that would be something to see,and would be a good comparison in my mind so what do you say EAr, thanks for the reply i know you have been a fair person on this ,mark

This message has been edited by h2xmark on 12-29-2001 at 04:04 PM

[BBB]

Would you consider a person who gives advice to people who own his competitors products "unprofessional" ?

Is a person acting "unprofessional" when he responds contantly to peoples questions that don't even buy his products? Is answering a persons E-mail at 3 A.M after he received it a 2 A.M. "unprofessional" ? Is delivering exactly what he promised when he promised "unprofessional" ? I purchased SVS Ultas AND

Klipsch Flagship Reference Series in the last few months. If I had to pick the one person who was the most influencial on my decision on BOTH products it would have to be TOM VODHANEL .Thanks for all your help Tom .I knew a fellow Klipsch owner would offer the best advice for what I wanted. The combination of all these speakers is utterly seamless. It's a complete system all around.I'm proud of the system and so should you.If there is a forum out there that doesn't want you than they don't deserve you.All my Best . BBB