What subwoofer if any are you using in your system?

My answer would be if you love your left and right speakers leave them alone and get the second sub! DO NOT SKIMP on the subs!

I have a single SVS SB-16 that is a great subwoofer wish I had two! A deal on 2 JL Audio F113’s found me and I couldn’t pass it up! I connected to the Jl’s to my system for both two channel and home theater. The results are incredible! The main speakers that I loved with the SVS went to a completely different level of performance. In two channel the subs enhance every aspect of the mains and disappear/blend right in, Super tight, clean, fast bass. I never thought a subwoofer could enhance a system like it has! Again I’d love a second SVS but I think the JL Audio’s are keepers. I also know the new JL F113v2 are $5000 each :open_mouth: but I can say what they can add to a great system can be jaw dropping when properly set up! I picked my v1’s up for bargain basement price and would never think about paying $10k for subs but when I hear what it can do in a good system it justify’s the price.

I love the SVS SB-16 and I’ve heard great response to the 4000 and 3000 SVS series also. REL 1508 Predators are getting high praise. I’m going on here, sorry. Again in the end if you are happy with the mains maybe you need to upgrade the sub! If you are happy with both main speakers and sub add a second sub!

1 Like

Yep you aren’t only one who reports similar findings. The cognitive hurdle to get over for me is that I feel like I already have amazing bass. In fact I know I need to get some room treatment because I probably have too much. So therein lies conundrum with rationalizing another sub. But I get it that there are many tangential benefits independent of “more bass.” Those can be heard even from one sub but many say two or even three or four is better.

Will be watching this debate over the next few years before deciding. At moment moot point because I’m tapped out but down the road …

I firmly believe two subs vs. one is the only way to go. I lived with one for so very long and once I went to two the lightbulb lit. I gave it a good fight, sticking with one. It just isn’t as good.

2 Likes

You get more bass but it won’t play louder than the single subwoofer. If there is a subwoofer expert please chime in. What you get is smoother response and equalized bass in the room. The soundstage becomes more immense. If your room is too bass heavy you made need some bass traps/acoustic panels. Once that is addressed two subwoofers will still be better than one.

After hearing what 2 subs can do they should only sell them in pairs! I know 1 sub is better than no sub so it will always be individual subs.

Good luck with your system!

If you only need one sub then you probably could do fine with a nice center channel speaker to go along with the single sub and save some coin along the way. :thinking:

1 Like

PMC’s XB3 is 1st choice (main system) 2nd is the XB2…via HT > Jensen Iso transformmer > X/o
https://pmc-speakers.com/products/consumer/subwoofers
there is Nothing better!..wave is 13’ developed before exiting speaker…set off the ground will be the MOST amazing performance.

Well there you have it, nothing is better. End thread.

4 Likes

@iron, you have twice now (that I’ve noticed) made essentially the same statement: “Nothing better!..wave is 13’ developed before exiting speaker…set off the ground will be the MOST amazing performance.”

The highlighted portion of your statement suggests some gaps in your understanding of exactly how transmission line bass loading actually works. Perhaps a little more reading of the theory behind it is in order?

the proof is in the pudding…can’t just rely on specs/hypotheticals only?

Just ordered a pair of REL S\812. Can’t wait to start integrating into my system.

4 Likes

Then why not simply state, “I really enjoy the well damped, authoritative bass of the large PMC transmission lines,” or something to that effect @iron? When folks on enthusiast forums share half understood ad copy (that was likely loaded with hyperbole to begin with), we all end up essentially playing a version of the telephone game. While the part about you liking what you hear may be correct, the part about how it works has been misunderstood. Not to be the “engineering police” and I mean no offense with these observations, but our world is currently quite full enough with alternative facts.

well, i wouldn’t argue that i’m not aware of the all pontifications of theory…but, there is theory and the real world…(and maybe not apparent on lesser systems…but…
the proof is in the pudding…not in multiple alternative “facts” of the possy.)

Oh damn, I am so totally jealous!
Congrats on a fine, fine choice.

So jealous. Bah!

@MTB_Vince, could you elaborate a little further? My back-of-envelope calculations for 20hz show a quarter wavelength of just under 14’ in air, which would be reduced if the line was damped. The TL approach does give very smooth bass.

1 Like

@ chrisj1948, @iron, and anyone else interested. I’m going to take a stab at describing the differences and potential benefits of 1/4 wave/transmission line loading vs bass reflex or sealed box loading. I will preface what I’m about to write with the fact that I’m a keen layperson and past casual home brew speaker designer, not an audio professional so if I miss something obvious, I’m happy to have any more knowledgeable member here chime in.

Like the air spring of the enclosed volume of an acoustic suspension (sealed box) loudspeaker, or the port tuning of a bass reflex design, the primary job of a Transmission line’s 1/4 wave tapered tunnel length is to damp the woofer’s motion at low frequency system resonance. This prevents the woofer from gyrating wildly at resonance, protecting it from damage due to over excursion and reducing distortion.

Like a bass reflex design (whether ported or passive radiator), a 1/4 wave/transmission line offers the additional benefit of using the port output of the line termination to reinforce the woofer’s fading response at the bottom of the speaker’s passband. Some keen AV gearheads should now be asking, “Well if the port of a transmission line speaker is essentially doing the same job as the much simpler port or passive radiator in a bass reflex speaker, why go to all the effort and expense of building much more complex transmission line enclosures???” Great question! Read on…

Knowledgeable fans of transmission line loading will point out that a tapered and optimally stuffed transmission line provides damping of the woofer over a broader frequency range than does the tightly tuned port or passive radiator resonance of a bass reflex speaker. This should result in superior control of woofer motion resulting in “tighter” lower distortion bass. If the transmission line designer got it right, the benefits will be measurable in a few ways.

Compared to bass reflex designs or big woofer/small sealed box acoustic suspension designs, the physically larger transmission line speaker should exhibit much smoother electrical impedance at low frequencies. A smoother less reactive impedance curve makes the transmission line an easier load for an amp to drive. The acoustically measured port output of a transmission line is lower Q- the output will be a broader shallower hump than that of a bass reflex speaker. Finally when compared to the port or passive radiator output of a bass reflex speaker, the port output of a transmission line remains largely in phase with that of the woofer. However some experts claim that the audibility of gradual changes in acoustic phase is negligible, particularly down low.

I’m going to wrap this up with the fact that in my 40+ years experience as a keen audio hobbiest, transmission line loading is not the only road to great bass. Yes I’ve heard some truly great, tight, extended, and authoritative bass produced by Transmission lines from IMF, Fried, and PMC over the years. But I’ve also experienced equally great bass from the coffin sized sealed enclosures of the Dunlavy SC4, SC5, and SC6. And then there would be the incredibly propulsive, low distortion bass of active bass reflex ATC loudspeakers from their SCM50ASL model on up. Or the tight, tuneful low frequencies Bobby Palkovic (RIP) of Merlin Music Systems was able to coax from the single 7" pulp cone mid-woofer in his compact floor standing VSM bass reflex design. Great subwoofers add another dimension to what is possible yet. There is clearly more than one road to bass perfection.

A final sort of related thought (really this time). In my experience the killer low frequency prowess of all the specific loudspeakers I mention above can be completely ruined by poor placement and/or the unfortunate acoustics of re-purposed domestic living spaces. Optimal placement in a well designed and treated room trumps all differences in loudspeaker design. My largest listening let-downs have all involved hearing mega-buck flagship loudspeakers and systems in rooms where acoustics and placement were not a priority.

5 Likes

Are you saying the 13’ of the waveform’s travel, before exiting out the front, does not offer an additional 13’ of the wave’s development?

I don’t see any data to back up your (absolute?) theory…there must be additional factors or a broad spectrum of theories to address on what you pontificate…

I base my “alternate facts” on what the designing Engineering Staff at JBL informed me in 1991, guiding me on which woofer would best replace the stock woofer of my JBL 4350’s…addressing the issue of developing waveforms in my ~30’ long room… a “ fundamental 40 Hz note would be the best I could hope for”…so, the theoretical additional ~50% “lengthening” with a transmission line speaker would allow for bass extension beyond what would be achieved with a 30’ long room alone.

Except from:

“Has John Dunlavy proven his hypothesis ?

Maybe yes, maybe no. The ‘academic’ answer is that the evidence presented is consistent with the hypothesis, but does not by itself prove it. In order for measurements to be useful, we must know what to measure, how to measure it, and, once the measurements are collected, how to interpret them.” (emphasis is mine)

But, I did enjoy your meandering essay…and that which focused on the TL was an interesting absolute reflection of only one theory of a TL’s functioning and performance…

and, I’m assume, the one aspect of your focus, has positive merits in your dogmatic discussion of said properties relating to TL speakers.

or not…

Yaaawwwnn…

My 50+ year road, relating to audiophilia, has been tempered to enjoy the vast quantities of theories that rationalize one thing or another…

Your absolute “facts” reminds me of theories in astronomy, over the last 60+ yrs., that I have been privy to…from laughable to intriguing…there are more quantifiable facts that offer possibilities in reality…

Consider there are many parts that, in conjunction, reveal an accurate picture as to the why’s…

After responding to your post I opened an email from Music Direct. They are offering multiple “open box” S812 subs for $2399. I am so tempted but my current REL T/9i subs are doing such a wonderful job. And my wife doesn’t complain often. As soon as I set up a pair of S812 subs she would likely develop an uncanny ability to hear bass all the time…

4 Likes

I can camouflage mine in the basement. :wink:

2 Likes

Hide them behind,or inside the sofa, tell her you turned the bass up :slight_smile:
(This is of course in jest, I wouldn’t for a second recommend misleading a partner…)

2 Likes

Hey there @iron, are you familiar with the principal or at least the term “room gain”? The car audio crowd call it “cabin gain”. The phenomenon explains why a good car audio system can easily measure flat to 20Hz or better yet, how a pair of good sealed headphones can also manage it. Clearly even a quarter of the 56.5’ wavelength of 20Hz isn’t fitting between the headphone driver and your eardrum.

When the wavelength of the reproduced frequencies in an enclosed spaced exceed the physical dimensions of the X, Y, Z, and diagonal axis of the room volume, lower frequencies do not roll off. Those longer wavelengths are not curtailed. They tend to do the opposite in fact. With sufficiently sturdy building construction methods and well sealed doors, the enclosed volume essentially becomes a pressure vessel at wavelengths which exceed the room dimensions. This phenomenon known as room or cabin gain greatly increases the efficiency of the woofer/room coupling. So much so that it can offset the loudspeaker’s natural roll-off.

For example, a single one of the Seaton Submersive HP subwoofers I own will measure 3db down at 19Hz measured in half space (measured in the center of a large parking lot with no nearby buildings). However, these are sealed box subwoofers which exhibit the shallow 12db/octave roll-off typical of sealed box/acoustic suspension loudspeaker designs. In my 20’x14’x11’ room, the quartet of Submersives (two on the front wall and two on the rear) are 3db down at 9Hz according to my calibrated mic and Room EQ Wizard measurement system. This crazy low frequency extension is entirely due to room gain offsetting the slow roll-off of my subs.

Now I do use a high-end pro audio Xilica DSP loudspeaker processor (strictly on the feed to my subwoofers). The Xilica performs time delay for the closer rear pair of Submersives, so the front and rear subs remain in phase at the listening position. The Xilica also allows for the surgical application of parametric EQ, all of which is in the form of cuts rather than boost. Several of those sharp PEQ cuts notch out modal peak misbehavior associated with my room dimensions at frequencies too low to effectively address with my extensive passive room acoustic treatments. However room gain rather than modal behavior, is responsible for a broader peak in the neighborhood of 20Hz for which I’ve created a lower Q offsetting cut with the PEQ.

5 Likes