Rythmik L12 Subwoofer Review

[Roen]

I have an F12HP but I shudder to think of the shipping costs to send to you!

 

[DonH56]

I have an F12HP but I shudder to think of the shipping costs to send to you!

I don't recall ever seeing an F12HP from Rythmik? F12 with 300 W or 370 W amplifier, F12G, F12SE, but not an HP. What's it like?

 

[Roen]

I don't recall ever seeing an F12HP from Rythmik? F12 with 300 W or 370 W amplifier, F12G, F12SE, but not an HP. What's it like?

Whoops. F15HP. Medium boy.

 

[avanti1960]

REL is *far* from the best for music. They make mediocre subs at best. Just very good at marketing to audiophiles, so they have garnered that reputation. Just as B&W has an incredibly strong audiophile reputation as a great speaker, while most actually are quite poor. Any comparably priced Rhythmic sub is far superior to any REL in every metric.

People have different requirements and expectations for subwoofers in their system. The range is all over the map and this drives many different design philosophies.
I have owned a few noteworthy subwoofers (JL Audio, Martin Logan) and they delivered lots of excellent bass response in my music only system. The problem is that despite years of tuning and integration efforts there were still tradeoffs in the sound on occasion which could have been fixed by high passing my main speakers (something I will not do).
The RELs look non-competitive on paper for sure but I wonder if their design philosophy would meet my specific needs- a strong preference for integration without tradeoff at the likely expense of low end extension. I could live with that....

 

[Jon AA]

there were still tradeoffs in the sound on occasion which could have been fixed by high passing my main speakers (something I will not do).

Why not? That's generally how most people get the best integration.

 

[MZKM]

People have different requirements and expectations for subwoofers in their system. The range is all over the map and this drives many different design philosophies.
I have owned a few noteworthy subwoofers (JL Audio, Martin Logan) and they delivered lots of excellent bass response in my music only system. The problem is that despite years of tuning and integration efforts there were still tradeoffs in the sound on occasion which could have been fixed by high passing my main speakers (something I will not do).
The RELs look non-competitive on paper for sure but I wonder if their design philosophy would meet my specific needs- a strong preference for integration without tradeoff at the likely expense of low end extension. I could live with that....

Any subwoofer with phase/time delay can be integrated perfectly at the crossover region. The reason people say REL is more musical is because they have such limited extension, their $800 sealed subwoofer in their home theater category is rated at -6dB at 22Hz, while the $560 sealed Rythmik is rated at -6dB at 12Hz. Because of this poor extension, is excites less room modes, making it less offensive.

To my knowledge, even their $7500 flagship subwoofer only has a polarity switch, which is just insane. Unless you have bass management, you need a phase knob.

 

[MZKM]

Why not? That's generally how most people get the best integration.

Probably the same school of thought as Paul McGowan of PS Audio (can’t find the exact video as he uploads everyday), but he states he does not like rolling off the mains, as the crossover will alter how the speaker designer intended for the speaker to sound, that reducing the harmonics from the bass distortion will cause you to drift from the intended sound.

 

[blueone]

Probably the same school of thought as Paul McGowan of PS Audio (can’t find the east video as he uploads everyday), but he states he does not like rolling off the mains, as the crossover will alter how the speaker designer intended for the speaker to sound, that reducing the harmonics from the bass distortion will cause you to drift from the intended sound.

While I generally don't agree with McGowan about much of anything, with mains that have good output to 25Hz or lower I think running the mains full-range is often better. You get more bass sources, so you may end up with smoother overall response with fewer subs. But only if the subs are used to augment the mains with precisely applied EQ. Otherwise, you just get over-emphasized bass. Of course, it's a rare tower that can reproduce 25Hz at 100db or more with low distortion.

 

[jae]

Would love a comparison to the SVS 1000 & 2000 series.

 

[Ron Texas]

FWIW I roll off my LS50's with a 4th order high pass down 6db @ 100Hz. The filter is built into my Crown XLS 1502. This eliminates large excursions in the mid/low driver. If I had speakers which could handle low frequencies better, I might run them full range.

 

[Jon AA]

Probably the same school of thought as Paul McGowan of PS Audio (can’t find the east video as he uploads everyday), but he states he does not like rolling off the mains, as the crossover will alter how the speaker designer intended for the speaker to sound, that reducing the harmonics from the bass distortion will cause you to drift from the intended sound.

Yeah, Paul is a nice guy but he's about the last person I'd go to for advice on integrating subs.

While I generally don't agree with McGowan about much of anything, with mains that have good output to 25Hz or lower I think running the mains full-range is often better.

Or you could just say you're implementing the Geddes method--that sounds better . I agree this can certainly work well if done right and you have the speakers for it.

 

[richard12511]

I agree that in the best case scenario, running your mains full range will add to the overall bass. That said, I think that 99% of the time, if you have 4 quality subs, then running your mains full range will drastically reduce the sound quality of the bass, even if you have full range mains, like the Salon 2. The best systems I have heard have full range mains(flat down to 20hz) crossed over at 100hz.

I think a lot of the love for "mains full range" is probably just due do bias. People spend $20k on full range mains that are flat down to 20hz, and they feel like they're wasting money if they cross them over at 80hz, so their brain's subconscious ensures that full range sounds best. It's human nature. However, I'm confident that in most rooms, under blind conditions, most people would prefer mains crossed over to 4 quality subs at 60-120hz, regardless of how capable the mains are.

 

[3dbinCanada]

Is there any literature to help me interpret the Waterfall Plot, particulzrily how the Z axes comes into play? I want to finally understand how to read one.

I own a Rythmic LV12R and am really impressed with its performance.

 

[tifune]

In this price range I'd be looking at the Monoprice Monoliths.

I'm thinking the same, just curious on how you personally reached that conclusion? The exceptionally low distortion for music + retaining the ability to pass CEA2010 at 10-12Hz (15 vs 12") is what draws me in that direction. Yes I realize distortion is less relevant as you slide further down the spectrum but coming from an active monitors background it's a mental block I can't seem to overcome

 

[QMuse]

Is there any literature to help me interpret the Waterfall Plot, particulzrily how the Z axes comes into play? I want to finally understand how to read one.

Detailed explanation here: https://www.roomeqwizard.com/help/help_en-GB/html/graph_waterfall.html

 

[tifune]

.
For me, it's not about loudness, it's about sound quality. With 1.2 kiloWatts of total power, these will play ungodly loud, but, as shown in the one measurement, the distortion at 30Hz is ridiculously low for a sub (around 2.5% with no SPL given so I'll assume it's around 90dB). Going from one to 4 subs means that each sub can play 12dB lower to attain the same, in-room level. That should reduce the total THD to around 0.7% or so as well as excite much fewer cabinet resonances over all. This means that the four subs together will produce 2.5% THD at a level around 12dB higher. That's scary good.

jist curious how you reachedthese figures? Due to a mixture of keeping the subs out of the kids traffic pattern, furniture, wiring and room size I have very limited placement options. Either a single 15-18" in a specific corner which may not be the optimal corner, 2x downfiring units on a front and side wall which also may not be the ideal location, or "dotting" the room with smaller footprint units.

My goal is to reach low distortion in the music range but retain the ability to pass CEA2010 below 32Hz. I realize bass distortion isn't as invasive as full range but it's a mental block I can't seem to overcome and, much like people who spend an extra $500 so the subs match the furniture, I've accepted that it will cost a bit more to be satisfied with the result. I really like your design and hoping I can do the math to determine if my room is a good candidate; thanks! Mains are Neumann KH120 if that helps

 

[mk05]

Would love a comparison to the SVS 1000 & 2000 series.

Bump for anyone with experiences in both the Rythmik and SVS ported vs sealed (and does sealed SVS really sound tighter and faster?).

 

[Objectivist01]

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Rythmik L12 subwoofer. It is kindly purchased by a member and drop shipped to me. The L12 costs US $559 in two colors (black oak and matte) and US $619 (gloss white). If you buy a white one to stick in your home theater, you and I will never get along.

The sub is still on the measurement gear stand at 5 feet and I am in no mood to take it down by myself to take a picture. So you have to settle for a stock photo:

View attachment 55084

Not much to look at. I did take a picture of the back though so you can see the numerous settings and configuration as tested:

View attachment 55085

Note that most of the switches are three-way which makes it hard to understand at first. For example, the power button as off, auto, and always on. The way it is labeled it seems that it only has off and Audio On.

A single parametric EQ is provided which is hugely better than none. Typically though you have at least two problematic modes to deal with in low frequencies so an extra one would have been great. Note that for testing I turned that off.

There is an odd feature, or at least oddly labeled, is the "bass extension." Setting it to Low Music (I think) provides deepest bass. The second setting, Low-HT, puts in a subsonic filter. The third one, "high," is some kind of power saving feature???

I tested with low pass filter (LPF) set to 12 dB/octave so that we can see the high frequency extension.

Measurements that you are about to see were performed using the Klippel Near-field Scanner (NFS). This is a robotic measurement system that analyzes the speaker all around and is able (using advanced mathematics and dual scan) to subtract room reflections (so where I measure it doesn't matter). It also measures the speaker at close distance ("near-field") which sharply reduces the impact of room noise. Both of these factors enable testing in ordinary rooms yet results that can be more accurate than anechoic chamber. In a nutshell, the measurements show the actual sound coming out of the speaker independent of the room.

Measurement resolution is 1.46 Hz and averaging was used to lower impact of room noise. 400 Measurements were used to determine the response of the subwoofer (low frequency devices don't need much resolution on this front).

I had originally hoped to develop full suite of tests for subwoofers. I don't have the luxury of time right now to do that so what follows is brief. Open to feedback on what else should be measured.

Spinorama Audio Measurements
The standard Spinorama measurements are for speakers since what they radiate on-axis is different than what they radiate in other directions. At low frequencies, sound is basically omnidirectional so there is no value in that. This however is the standard way Klippel shows frequency response of the device so let's go with it:

View attachment 55089

We have a broad response down to 10 Hz which was limit of my measurements. There is no port so response gently goes down.

On the high side you clearly have gentle enough slope at 12 dB/octave to help out a bass deficient bookshelf speaker.

Maximum output is between 60 and 90 Hz as noted.

Note that this is a complete fantasy as far as what you will get in your room. Actual response in your room will have quite massive dips and peaks that need to be dealt with. Still, it is good to see what the sub is naturally capable of doing.

This is a servo subwoofer which means it has a feedback loop to reduce distortion of the sub. Until we test more subs, and standardize on a playback level, we can't make comparisons. But just looking at the distortion metrics by themselves, it seems reasonably low:

View attachment 55090

Best performance is above 70 Hz which is what we saw as far as peak output from the sub.

The waterfall display gets crippled due to low resolution:

View attachment 55091

That's it folks.

Conclusions
Well, welcome to our first test of subwoofers. They seem to be easy to measure. And the Klippel system shines in how it produces "free field" measurements without having to hang the sub from a crane in sky or on some big field. We get perfect measurement of frequency response. There, the Rythmik L12 seems well designed and at reasonable price.

------------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.

Having spent all my money on the Klippel system, when it came to anchoring it down so it doesn't tip over, I used bags and jugs of heavy stuff I had in the garage. Well, I had to ask my wife to help me lift these heavy subs to the stand and she keeps tripping over them. I need to purchase heavy weight that are not a trip hazard but can't bring myself to spend my money on it. Your money however, I am happy to spend. So please donate using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/

As much as I liked this review- I am still wondering if we can call this a good performing “woofer” or “subwoofer” since the best performance is above 70hz! Anyway I get the point that this would be ideal for those bookshelf which totally lacks bass.

 

[blueone]

I agree that in the best case scenario, running your mains full range will add to the overall bass. That said, I think that 99% of the time, if you have 4 quality subs, then running your mains full range will drastically reduce the sound quality of the bass, even if you have full range mains, like the Salon 2. The best systems I have heard have full range mains(flat down to 20hz) crossed over at 100hz.

I think a lot of the love for "mains full range" is probably just due do bias. People spend $20k on full range mains that are flat down to 20hz, and they feel like they're wasting money if they cross them over at 80hz, so their brain's subconscious ensures that full range sounds best. It's human nature. However, I'm confident that in most rooms, under blind conditions, most people would prefer mains crossed over to 4 quality subs at 60-120hz, regardless of how capable the mains are.

I will admit that I first tried running the Salon2s full range because I thought it was a waste of money not to, but I arrived at the conclusion through measurements. I was pleasantly surprised, frankly, how low their distortion was at 100db@20Hz@1M. Measured in-room, not outdoor ground plane, but I was still impressed.

I probably would have preferred four subs in strategic locations like @DonH56 uses, but that wasn't happening in either of the rooms my Salon2s have been in. And if I had room for four subs I wouldn't have chosen the Salon2s with an 80Hz crossover. Like I said in a previous post, IMO too much wasted expensive material. If I had to do it all over again now, I'm not sure what I'd do. Maybe the Dutch & Dutch things. Fortunately, it's not a problem I'm currently thinking about.

 

[detlev24]

[...] That said, I think that 99% of the time, if you have 4 quality subs, then running your mains full range will drastically reduce the sound quality of the bass, even if you have full range mains, like the Salon 2. [...]

Out of personal interest: Why exactly would this be the case?

As much as I liked this review- I am still wondering if we can call this a good performing “woofer” or “subwoofer” since the best performance is above 70hz! [...]

If you arrive to this conclusion through the comment "Distortion rises below 70 Hz", then you should consider that everything below 10% THD is superb - i.e., inaudible - in terms of bass frequency response.

Worst shown in the measurements is ~2.3% THD, which in terms of inaudibility would be acceptable even in the mid/upper mid region, where our hearing is most sensitive... So yes, this certainly is a good performing subwoofer [which is naturally limited by max. SPL, mainly due to its relatively 'small' and sealed enclosure].

Altogether, it does perform well above many, more expensive contenders!