I measured 10 subwoofers.

[audiofooled]

I tend to like the sound of one very clean sub when in mono, or two subs with stereo, .... always collocated with the main speakers. I like this better than MSO.
But they have to be "very clean". What does that mean? Hell if I really know....

I've built a number of DIY subs and measured then extensively, trying to correlate measurements with hearing perception.
About the only think I'm confident of....because I can't really tell which......THD, IMD, CEA-2010 or yadaD measurement......correlates with my hearing perception of "cleanliness."

The only thing i feel confident about, is the higher the SPL the sub can continue to measure relatively low THD, IMD, CEA-2010......the better is seems to sound at normal SPL.
Maybe that's pure confirmation bias...I dunno.

All that said, I believe in speakers that are totally loafing at normal SPL....with vanishing low measureable distortions.
Totally loafing is my goal with DIY...

Here's a sub example...a dual 18"
CEA taken out in the yard with REW
View attachment 322440

Distortion taken on the driveway. 125dB @1m
View attachment 322441


So I figure a box with that kinda output stays clean,....uncompressed, unclipped, and undistorted at high normal SPLs, including full room for transient peaks.
My solution of ........"I can't make sense of separating what distortion really matters, so just overbuild to cover them all"

Intended for use outdoors, at a safe distance

But seriously, good point. IMO subjectively, at low frequencies, whatever distortion in terms of audibility, it's easier to detect the absence of, rather than the presence. Normally for that you would need some kind of a reference point or something to compare. Perhaps good time domain behavior can also contribute to the subjective performance.

Overall, I would agree that any speaker that is loafing would sound "cleaner". It's just that for subs practicality can be a strong point, even in DIY territory. For example, my DIY sub is a bit larger than Arendal 1961 1v measured here, and my wife says I have no room for another one.
Granted, sub is "loafing" most of the time and I can enjoy no audible distortion.

 

[TurtlePaul]

Interesting about the relatively poor time domain frequency performance of the SVS subwoofers. Any thoughts of why? I too naively thought the SVS Micro 3000 would do well here. Perhaps this will spur SVS to do better.

You don’t get a free pass on DSP boost to flatten response. Minimum phase filters add group delay with the delay proportional to the gain of the filter. The smaller the sealed box the more the flat low frequency response is coming from DSP. You can have lower group delay by using a larger box.

 

[Chrispy]

The point of using plywood, IIRC, is to make sure that the resonance frequencies end up above the range of the subwoofer. Might not be a non-issue if the subwoofer is small enough.

Usually it's more about weight and strength (particularly for boxes that need to travel) as well as less toxic sawdust. Resonance issues not so much.

 

[thulle]

Usually it's more about weight and strength (particularly for boxes that need to travel) as well as less toxic sawdust. Resonance issues not so much.

I meant in the context of best possible sound quality. Of course you can have other considerations too, like more interesting surface finish.

 

[Chrispy]

I meant in the context of best possible sound quality. Of course you can have other considerations too, like more interesting surface finish.

If the box is well constructed it shouldn't affect sound quality particularly. Finishing is definitely a different subject

 

[Nuyes]

Great effort!

In case some are interested:

View attachment 322364

I also added this data to my spreadsheet!
View attachment 322367

I really appreciate your hard work and am deeply impressed.

 

[kolestonin]

Fantastic report, @Nuyes . Thank you!

What I was missing was a global overview, and since I did it for a friend who's looking for a subwoofer, I thought I'd share it with you:
View attachment 322162
5=best performance
1=worst performance

ASR Subwoofer Comparison

docs.google.com

If we can agree that above performance classification is accurate, then I would say that Arendal 1961 1S is the best performing sub while Polk audio PSW111 is the worse performing one.

My question is:
Are they going to be any audible differences between above two subs on the most common(2.1 or 2.2 system, average 75db) music only use case scenario?

 

[drioannis]

Very nice comparison. Thank you for the in depth measurements. I used to have 1961 and sounded very good. I upgrade them to their big brothers (always sealed) 1723 1S and they are excellent, all 3 of them.

 

[fzst]

Very nice comparison. Thank you for the in depth measurements. I used to have 1961 and sounded very good. I upgrade them to their big brothers (always sealed) 1723 1S and they are excellent, all 3 of them.

So you currently have 3 x 1723 1S in use?
Man I'm jealous, I still have only one

Did you get the chance to do some A-B-comparisons between a 1961 and a 1723 and if so, did you hear a difference?

 

[TurtlePaul]

If we can agree that above performance classification is accurate, then I would say that Arendal 1961 1S is the best performing sub while Polk audio PSW111 is the worse performing one.

That chart is useless. I disagree that the Arendal 1S is best. A sub should have flat frequency response from its low end roll-off up until at least 200 hz. The Arendal has a hump and its low end is effectively rolling off from a much higher frequency.

It is like a racecar driver cutting the corner. If you EQ it to flat then distortion goes up and max SPL goes down. And you do need to EQ it because frequency response is more important than the other metrics and the Arendal 1S is not flat anechoic.

 

[Sokel]

That chart is useless. I disagree that the Arendal 1S is best. A sub should have flat frequency response from its low end roll-off up until at least 200 hz. The Arendal has a hump and its low end is effectively rolling off from a much higher frequency.

It is like a racecar driver cutting the corner. If you EQ it to flat then distortion goes up and max SPL goes down. And you do need to EQ it because frequency response is more important than the other metrics and the Arendal 1S is not flat anechoic.

What EQ has to do with it?
All subs in room will be EQ'd eventually and it's way better (distortion-wise also) to have the headroom to reduce levels than to fill dips (where distortion skyrockets) .

Edit:Also why 200Hz?Unless you put the sub really close to mains you will hear a baritone coming out of it already at 80Hz,the combined sound will be like he has a mouth the size of Wind Cave.

 

[TurtlePaul]

What EQ has to do with it?
All subs in room will be EQ'd eventually and it's way better (distortion-wise also) to have the headroom to reduce levels than to fill dips (where distortion skyrockets) .

That chart shows distortion twice and group delay. If you EQ the Arendal sealed sub to flat (to match the performance of the others), what do you think happens to distortion and group delay?

Edit:Also why 200Hz?Unless you put the sub really close to mains you will hear a baritone coming out of it already at 80Hz,the combined sound will be like he has a mouth the size of Wind Cave.

Because you need an octave for the crossover. A sub should be well behaved in the crossover region and this one will be unnecessarily hard to integrate. 200 hz gets you more than an octave from most x-over points so the sub in a 24 dB crossover is ~40 dB down by 200 hz.

 

[drioannis]

So you currently have 3 x 1723 1S in use?
Man I'm jealous, I still have only one

Did you get the chance to do some A-B-comparisons between a 1961 and a 1723 and if so, did you hear a difference?

Unfortunately no but 1723 in comparison to 1961 is what it is, a bigger subwoofer. You have more control, more power more more more plus mobile app and more DSP. I always liked sealed designs. Let's say 4x 1723 2S is a very nice setup. Not too big not to small.

 

[Sokel]

That chart shows distortion twice and group delay. If you EQ the Arendal sealed sub to flat (to match the performance of the others), what do you think happens to distortion and group delay?

Why would you do that of it's own since will do it with every sub in room,none of them,or any sub will be flat in room and will need to be EQ'd.
It's of the cases that FR is totally room depended so will correction any way.
So it only comes to subs output ability.

I,personally would go for the 1V,it's really out of competition (amongst the tested ones) where a sub really matters (20-50Hz)

 

[TurtlePaul]

Why would you do that of it's own since will do it with every sub in room,none of them,or any sub will be flat in room and will need to be EQ'd.

The Arendal 1S does well in that chart (distortion and group delay) BECAUSE the frequency response is not flat.

Is the low end extension measured relative to the peak or to the random 80 dB level which was chosen?

 

[snackiac]

I have 2 SVS 3000 micros in my living room (only way I could get subs accepted there due to WAF), and have been really pleased with them. I never come close to HT level volumes though, so I guess it comes down to use case. The setup seems to work really well with dynamic EQ at lower volumes. If I had read this thread first I likely would have bought nothing, thinking nothing except large would work well. I guess that just means I don't know how to interpret the data well enough.

The single KH750 in the other room does sound 'better' with the same speakers, but it's hard to compare since it's all near field.

 

[gnarly]

Intended for use outdoors, at a safe distance

Well.... no,....... they are made for indoor use and at a fairly normal listening distance.

One goes under each Left and Right speaker.
Sometimes three, when a Center speaker is added.

Loafing

 

[TheBatsEar]

I recently bought two SVS SB-1000 off of a used hifi site. Is there any difference between the SB-1000 and the SB-1000 pro in terms of speakers/enclosure/amplification? To me they seem to be more or less the same.

Cheers for the trouble you went through @Nuyes

 

[3125b]

Is there any difference between the SB-1000 and the SB-1000 pro in terms of speakers/enclosure/amplification?

They are completely different - yet very similar.
Different drivers, different enclosures and different amps. The Pro model is a little bit larger with a little bit more powerful amp and thus good for a little more output. Although to tell a difference you'd probably need them side by side.

 

[TheBatsEar]

They are completely different - yet very similar.
Different drivers, different enclosures and different amps. The Pro model is a little bit larger with a little bit more powerful amp and thus good for a little more output.

I see, thanks.