About best small subwoofers (around 20 liters/30 liters/40 liters)

[LoyalCui]

I'm looking for some good small subs (around 20-40 liters)
I’ve found a 26-liter subwoofer, the Buchardt Sub 10, which outperforms the 42-liter Kali WS-6.2.
According to the data on Buchardt’s official website, the Sub 10 can reach 94 dB at 20 Hz.But kali can only reach 96 DB at 25 Hz.
It is both smaller and more powerful than the Kali. Are there any other products similar to this?

KEF KC92 is 42L
KC62 is 16L
SVS 3000 micro is 23L

But the 42L Kali is better than them and cheaper.
And the 26L buchardt seems to be better then Kali,But it's more expensive.

As of now,Kali seems to be the best choice for small-sized subwoofers, but the 26L buchardt would be a more luxurious choice.

Kali WS-6.2(42L)	Buchardt Sub 10(26L)
height 14.5 inch/40 cm	height 49 cm
width 12.2 inch/36.8 cm	width 33 cm
depth 11 inch/27.9 cm	depth 16 cm

 

[LoyalCui]

 

[staticV3]

Hi @LoyalCui! Welcome to ASR.

Are there any other products similar to this?

See here:

Subwoofer Comparison

I've created a *slightly large* subwoofer comparison spreadsheet. :D Info: -==Link to my Subwoofer Comparison spreadsheet ==- https://bit.ly/SubwooferComparison

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[CptKlotz]

I think this is a classic example of the inevitable compromises in speaker design.

The Kali sub seems to be less than half the price of the Buchardt, which explains a lot.

The Buchardt is a closed box. This is theoretically ideal since it tends to have less phase issues and less resonances.
The downside is that you tend to get less than stellar bass extension. The upside, however, is that you can use EQ to get any bass extension that you want, provided that you have a lot of power and a driver with enough excursion ability. Alternatively you can get multiple subs, which is helpful for room acoustics anyway.

The Kali is a bass reflex design that uses the port and enclosure as a resonator to extend bass extension (a "Helmholtz resonator", if you blow on an empty glass bottle, you hear the same effect).
This is not as ideal, but more "effective". You need less power and a less capable driver for a given output volume. However... you get worse phase response and time response since it literally uses a resonance as its design principle (which may or may not be audible since listening rooms have plenty of problems of their own).
You typically don't get *really* low bass extension like 20 hz or lower because you would need gigantic enclosures and insanely long ports.
Below the tuning frequency, the subwoofer will only produce noise and useless excursion since it is working in "acoustic short circuit" (there's a pressure compensation between the front and rear of the speaker cone). You can't fix this with EQ since the cancellation will only go harder. A high pass filter that protects the driver from useless power use and excursion is very helpful, though.

This doesn't make either of the subwoofers "bad". They are compromises based on price, size and design goals.

I prefer large closed subs with EQ. If you are able to build wooden enclosures, DIY is a good alternative. For the price of the Buchardt sub you can get plenty of woofer cone area, a cheap professional amp like a Thomann t.amp and some kind of DSP/EQ to handle crossover and frequency/room correction.

You can download a software like WinISD, enter the Thiele/Small parameters that any serious speaker driver should have and simulate for yourself. The enclosure shape doesn't matter much as long as it's rigid.

Ultimately, it comes down to preference, space and cost.

 

[LoyalCui]

I think this is a classic example of the inevitable compromises in speaker design.

The Kali sub seems to be less than half the price of the Buchardt, which explains a lot.

The Buchardt is a closed box. This is theoretically ideal since it tends to have less phase issues and less resonances.
The downside is that you tend to get less than stellar bass extension. The upside, however, is that you can use EQ to get any bass extension that you want, provided that you have a lot of power and a driver with enough excursion ability. Alternatively you can get multiple subs, which is helpful for room acoustics anyway.

The Kali is a bass reflex design that uses the port and enclosure as a resonator to extend bass extension (a "Helmholtz resonator", if you blow on an empty glass bottle, you hear the same effect).
This is not as ideal, but more "effective". You need less power and a less capable driver for a given output volume. However... you get worse phase response and time response since it literally uses a resonance as its design principle (which may or may not be audible since listening rooms have plenty of problems of their own).
You typically don't get *really* low bass extension like 20 hz or lower because you would need gigantic enclosures and insanely long ports.
Below the tuning frequency, the subwoofer will only produce noise and useless excursion since it is working in "acoustic short circuit" (there's a pressure compensation between the front and rear of the speaker cone). You can't fix this with EQ since the cancellation will only go harder. A high pass filter that protects the driver from useless power use and excursion is very helpful, though.

This doesn't make either of the subwoofers "bad". They are compromises based on price, size and design goals.

I prefer large closed subs with EQ. If you are able to build wooden enclosures, DIY is a good alternative. For the price of the Buchardt sub you can get plenty of woofer cone area, a cheap professional amp like a Thomann t.amp and some kind of DSP/EQ to handle crossover and frequency/room correction.

You can download a software like WinISD, enter the Thiele/Small parameters that any serious speaker driver should have and simulate for yourself. The enclosure shape doesn't matter much as long as it's rigid.

Ultimately, it comes down to preference, space and cost.

But I want a small one, they are more suitable to be placed at home like small decorations, rather than a huge thing, so I am looking for subs like kali ws6. 2 or buchardt sub1 0 which are 20-40 liters.

 

[rf1938]

Don’t know about liters, but the Sigberg 10D I bought is very modest in size, yet has outstanding output and the quality is superb. Highly recommend. I know it’s expensive, but fortunately the sound is as rich as the price.

 

[somebodyelse]

Linkwitz made a small one with an inexpensive driver that's still available. Even if you don't want to make one it should give you some idea of what goes into designing that sort of sub. These days we'd probably do the filters in DSP.
https://www.linkwitzlab.com/Pluto/subwoofer.htm

 

[FrantzM]

TBH, the Kali if it performs as per the measurements in the OP is impressive. I have a pair of Dayton Audio Sub 1500, yeah ! i know cheap at $260 each and I do reach around 18 Hz with "Room Gain" in my small , concrete room here are the measurements:

the Kali sub< matches it with a pair of 2 x 6.5 drivers. That is impressive IMO, the price is good and the size interesting. IMO a better subwoofer than the famed Kef KC62 , or the SVS Micro3000, both much more expensive ... Perhaps these 2 are smaller, I didn't bother looking into their relatives sizes. but the Kef at $1700 is expensive. and the SVS is about $800 ...$200 dearer and not better ... by these metrics

 

[LoyalCui]

TBH, the Kali if it performs as per the measurements in the OP is impressive. I have a pair of Dayton Audio Sub 1500, yeah ! i know cheap at $260 each and I do reach around 28 Hz with "Room Gain" in my small , concrete room here are the measurements:
View attachment 499818


the Kali sub< matches it with a pair of 2 x 6.5 drivers. That is impressive IMO, the price is good and the size interesting. IMO a better subwoofer than the famed Kef KC62 , or the SVS Micro3000, both much more expensive ... Perhaps these 2 are smaller, I didn't bother looking into their relatives sizes. but the Kef at $1700 is expensive. and the SVS is about $800 ...$200 dearer and not better ... by these metrics

The Kali WS6.2 is even better than the KEF KC 92, and the SVS 3000 is only 80 dB at 25 Hz, while the Kali is 96 dB.

 

[pehu63]

I think this is a classic example of the inevitable compromises in speaker design.,

The Kali sub seems to be less than half the price of the Buchardt, which explains a lot.

To me, price says nothing. Cost price != Suggested Retail Price != Value. Three different concepts.
In general, SRP is higher than cost price. But SRP does not guarantee "value".
Just check the audio shops, so much crap sold for big $$$$.

Ultimately, it comes down to preference, space and cost.

I would say, it comes down to sound quality, not preference. And space and cost, and ....
The reason I bought the KALI has even another reason, symmetrical firing chassis avoid contact sound.
Keeping neighbors happy, even more important than top notch sound quality.
And I needed the high-pass filter. Only thing missing for me, auto-power, so did that with home automation.
The esp32 remote controlled footswitch is fun, but also keep bass down at night.

 

[Penelinfi]

There's probably many that haven't been measured.

 

[just1n]

I'm looking for some good small subs (around 20-40 liters)
I’ve found a 26-liter subwoofer, the Buchardt Sub 10, which outperforms the 42-liter Kali WS-6.2.
According to the data on Buchardt’s official website, the Sub 10 can reach 94 dB at 20 Hz.But kali can only reach 96 DB at 25 Hz.
It is both smaller and more powerful than the Kali. Are there any other products similar to this?

KEF KC92 is 42L
KC62 is 16L
SVS 3000 micro is 23L

But the 42L Kali is better than them and cheaper.
And the 26L buchardt seems to be better then Kali,But it's more expensive.

As of now,Kali seems to be the best choice for small-sized subwoofers, but the 26L buchardt would be a more luxurious choice.

Kali WS-6.2(42L)	Buchardt Sub 10(26L)
height 14.5 inch/40 cm	height 49 cm
width 12.2 inch/36.8 cm	width 33 cm
depth 11 inch/27.9 cm	depth 16 cm

View attachment 499656View attachment 499657View attachment 499651View attachment 499655

Just a little personal feedback. Sold the SVS 3000 micro for Kali WS-6.2 and it wasn’t a fair comparison. SVS just didn’t hit the depth and SPL even with all that power.

Only downside is no auto-on.

 

[TurtlePaul]

The Buchardt is a closed box. This is theoretically ideal since it tends to have less phase issues

These sealed box subs use minimum phase DSP to get more low end extension. There have group delay from this DSP - which isn't caused by a port but is the similar phase delay.

 

[Sal1950]

Beware of The Emperor's New Clothes claims and, remember you can't change the laws of physics.
All things being equal box size x driver size x amp power = bass capabilities.
A builder can play all he wants with digital eq but the higher the SPL you desire and the lower the extension with x distortion level lands you in the middle of your conundrum.
Buy the largest sub you can live with, in your price range and KISS.

 

[XDM]

Buy the largest sub you can live with, in your price range and KISS

But in a small room also make sure you're able to EQ it either in your AVR or switches in the sub itself. To compensate for issues with room modes being excited by said big sub, making it unpleasant to listen to otherwie.

 

[Sal1950]

But in a small room also make sure you're able to EQ it either in your AVR or switches in the sub itself. To compensate for issues with room modes being excited by said big sub, making it unpleasant to listen to otherwie.

For sure, modern DRC software should be considered a "must have" for any rig today.

 

[LoyalCui]

I wanna a small subwoofer with high performance