Rythmik L12 Subwoofer Review

[3dbinCanada]

As I wrote before:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "relative ranking" is simply the difference in dB "output" at 20Hz. It says nothing about the amount of THD at that dB output, nor does it describe the output and THD levels at other frequencies. It's a fairly meaningless piece of information, if you ask me. It's the subwoofer equivalent of saying "the THD was 0.0001%" (yes, at what output level and frequency) or "the frequency response was 20Hz-20kHz" (yes, and at what +/-dB tolerance).

As I stated earlier, its valuable for those who already own Rythmik subs and have a good idea of their performance capabilities including sound quality.

 

[3dbinCanada]

What's interesting is that I only see CEA-2010 data on data-bass.com for Rhythmik's 15", 18", and 25" subs. There's nothing for subs in the 8" to 13" range. As a reminder, the OP was asking about Rhythmik's L12 sub. 12 stands for 12".

When I contacted Rhythmik direction, they could not provide me with CEA-2010 data for their 12" subs. To me, this suggests that their servo-whatever technology is not effective on subwoofers smaller than 15", and that their 12" subwoofers probably don't perform particularly better than the competition. Perhaps someone has actual objective measurements to share instead of opinions?

Objective measurements would be nice to quell subjective opinions like "To me, this suggests that their servo-whatever technology is not effective on subwoofers smaller than 15",....."

 

[preload]

As I stated earlier, its valuable for those who already own Rythmik subs and have a good idea of their performance capabilities including sound quality.

And I get that this oversimplified manufacturer provided ranking is easy to understand and is meaningful to you. It is not to me and others. And it’s most likely not terribly meaningful to people who happen to understand why 10% THD = -20dB.

 

[3dbinCanada]

And I get that this oversimplified manufacturer provided ranking is easy to understand and is meaningful to you. It is not to me and others. And it’s most likely not terribly meaningful to people who happen to understand why 10% THD = -20dB.

Not just to me but Rythmik owners in general.

 

[richard12511]

The OP was asking about the Rhythmik L12. Can you point to where you found CEA-2010 data on the L12 or any Rhythmik 12" subwoofer for that matter? I'd be interested.

Also, can you clarify how you were able to determine that Rhythmik subs outperform JL Audio subs? The link you provided only has CEA-2010 for Rhythmik's 15", 18", and 25" subwoofers and JL's mid-line (not Fathom) 10" and 12" E-series. Not sure how you can draw any conclusions from that, but wondering if you have additional data you could share.

I was only speaking about the subs that have been measured. Going by what's been measured, Rythmik outperforms JL on a price/performance scale. Would you agree with that? I suppose you could say that Rythmik is lying about the performance of their cheaper subs, since they haven't been measured, but I just see that as unlikely, given that their more expensive model measurements match what third party measurements show. Who knows, though.

Subjectively, I've never compared JL Fathoms to Rythmiks, though I have compared the F113 to the Seaton Submersive and JTR Captivator 2400, and the JL was the worst of that group, though it was the most impressive for its size(imo).

Some of it is just physics that dictates that JL subwoofers are almost guaranteed to be overpriced(relative to the best). They're prioritizing size(which limits performance) much more than companies like Rythmik or JTR. Let's look at a Fathom vs competitor example,

JL Fathom 113:
$5,000
19" x 17" x 19"
3000 watts RMS
-3dB @18Hz

JTR Captivator 4000:
$4,200
41" x 21" x 40"
4000 watts RMS(6000 watts for $300 more)
-3dB @10.5Hz

The Captivator also has fantastic distortion and group delay measurements, just like the Fathom, though both are very likely inaudible. The Fathom is very impressive for its size, but the JTR stomps it in terms of price/performance, and (ime) Rythmik generally offers greater price/performance than JTR(now that JTR raised their prices by $600). I suppose you could argue that since we don't have CEA2010 data for the JL, then we can't make any conclusions about these 2 subs . But come on, do you really think that little sub can deliver more than 108dB(2m anechoic) at 10Hz and with less than 10% distortion?!? The JTR has way more woofage, more power, and all in a box that's 5x the cubic feet. There's no way, and even with the recent $600 price increase, it's still $800 cheaper.

You're right in pointing out that we don't have conclusive proof. But I do think there's enough evidence to say with a good deal of confidence that a similarly priced Rythmik will outperform it's JL Audio equivalent. Same goes for HSU, and PSA. I don't see that as a knock against JL, either. They're not lesser engineers, they just have different priorities that tend to run counter to price/performance(size/finish), and they're going for a more luxurious brand image(similar to Funk Audio).

Perhaps Eric could jump in here to provide more data?

 

[Chromatischism]

Objective measurements would be nice to quell subjective opinions like "To me, this suggests that their servo-whatever technology is not effective on subwoofers smaller than 15",....."

Yeah, that is such a strange conclusion. To say that a feature of the sub unrelated to watts and cone area somehow is not effective just because they haven't sent one to data-bass...ok.

 

[raistlin65]

What's interesting is that I only see CEA-2010 data on data-bass.com for Rhythmik's 15", 18", and 25" subs. There's nothing for subs in the 8" to 13" range. As a reminder, the OP was asking about Rhythmik's L12 sub. 12 stands for 12".

When I contacted Rhythmik direction, they could not provide me with CEA-2010 data for their 12" subs. To me, this suggests that their servo-whatever technology is not effective on subwoofers smaller than 15", and that their 12" subwoofers probably don't perform particularly better than the competition. Perhaps someone has actual objective measurements to share instead of opinions?

The absence of data doesn't suggest anything.

Audioholics has slowed down a lot on subwoofer measurements since the Josh Ricci days. And nobody has really stepped up to do as much enthusiast class subwoofer testing as he did.

 

[DonH56]

What's interesting is that I only see CEA-2010 data on data-bass.com for Rhythmik's 15", 18", and 25" subs. There's nothing for subs in the 8" to 13" range. As a reminder, the OP was asking about Rhythmik's L12 sub. 12 stands for 12".

When I contacted Rhythmik direction, they could not provide me with CEA-2010 data for their 12" subs. To me, this suggests that their servo-whatever technology is not effective on subwoofers smaller than 15", and that their 12" subwoofers probably don't perform particularly better than the competition. Perhaps someone has actual objective measurements to share instead of opinions?

Your opinions have no more basis than anybody else's, you just seem to be taking the low road and assuming the worst with no data. They simply have not provided 12" models for testing. It's a small company and they are not required to provide every model they make for testing. The vast majority of manufacturers, of any product, do not send their entire line in for review. They send a few models and it is reasonable to suppose consumers will assume the rest of the line is similar. That is usually valid, but if you don't like Rythmik, don't buy Rythmik. Not sure why the effort to denigrate them or vendetta in this thread.

As for the servo, it works across the line, and some facets of it should help smaller drivers more than larger models (like thermal compensation). But in the end there are many ways to design a good subwoofer. Servo has its benefits but other schemes work as well.

Disclaimer: I own Rythmik,. like Dr. Brian Ding (we have similar day jobs), and my own first sub was a DIY design using a servo circuit similar to Rythmik's so I am biased in favor of the company and their design (and designer).

 

[preload]

Yeah, that is such a strange conclusion. To say that a feature of the sub unrelated to watts and cone area somehow is not effective just because they haven't sent one to data-bass...ok.

I'm so sorry to hear that the reasoning isn't obvious to you, and you're welcome to believe that the Rhymik subs are the best subs on the planet.

The absence of data doesn't suggest anything.

Audioholics has slowed down a lot on subwoofer measurements since the Josh Ricci days. And nobody has really stepped up to do as much enthusiast class subwoofer testing as he did.

Are you suggesting that Rhythmik doesn't have the financial or technical resources to conduct basic tests of THD vs. frequency on all of their subwoofers? CEA-2010 is simply a protocol. There's no rule that says Audioholics must do the test.

 

[raistlin65]

Are you suggesting that Rhythmik doesn't have the financial or technical resources to conduct basic tests of THD vs. frequency on all of their subwoofers? CEA-2010 is simply a protocol. There's no rule that says Audioholics must do the test.

I think the most important thing for you to take away is that your wild conjecture isn't really a good fit for this forum.

 

[preload]

Your opinions have no more basis than anybody else's,

I would say the same of yours.

you just seem to taking the low road and assuming the worst with no data.

I'm taking the scientific approach. It's called hypothesis formation.
What I'm not taking is the emotional approach, which is what (and let's call it for what it is), several people on this thread are taking when faced with someone questioning the grand superiority of their subwoofer.

They simply have not provided 12" models for testing. It's a small company and they are not required to provide every model they make for testing.

Do they not have a microphone and a signal generator? Because that's all it takes to measure THD vs. frequency. CEA-2010 is simply a protocol. There's no requirement to send it anywhere for testing. Let's be honest here - they have the data, they're just not sharing it. And the question is WHY.

They send a few models and it is reasonable to suppose consumers will assume the rest of the line is similar.

I don't agree with that logic at all. In fact, that's a classic marketing strategy. With that line of reasoning, you might also assume that the Boeing 737-Max is the same as the 737-800 it replaced. The "rest of the 737 line" should be similar, right?

Not sure why the effort to denigrate them.

Nobody is "denigrating" [your word] Rhythmik. I am asking what I believe are valid questions about the absence of comparative data and how it's possible to be so sure of performance without it, and Rhythmik owners are getting butt hurt.

Disclaimer: I own Rythmik,.

Thanks for acknowledging, though I kind of guessed that already.

 

[pozz]

Where do you come up with your figure that 10% distortion is -20dB. Please elaborate.

100% distortion means that it is at the same level as the signal, so 0dB. For every order of magnitude you attenuate it, it's -20dB if you're thinking in terms of a THD ratio, or +20dB if you're thinking in terms of a SINAD ratio:

• 100%=0dB
• 10%=20dB
• 1%=40dB
• 0.1%=60dB
• 0.01%=80dB
• 0.001%=100dB
• 0.0001%=120dB

Etc. Calculator here: http://www.sengpielaudio.com/calculator-thd.htm

 

[preload]

I think the most important thing for you to take away is that your wild conjecture isn't really a good fit for this forum.

This is a science forum, right? I was starting to believe it was the Rhythmik Fan Club. Please clarify.

 

[DonH56]

The scientific approach is not to draw conclusions without data, which you seem to be doing by assuming the servo does not work for smaller subs. Anyone with a class or two in control theory and a little practical experience would not make that assumption.

 

[preload]

I was only speaking about the subs that have been measured. Going by what's been measured, Rythmik outperforms JL on a price/performance scale.

Sure, and I don't think JL's marketing position is to compete on price. That being said, you can usually find JL subs second-hand for 50% off or more, whereas it's harder to find used Rhythmik subs at all (and certainly not at that level of discount) - at least that was the case the last time I looked.

Some of it is just physics that dictates that JL subwoofers are almost guaranteed to be overpriced(relative to the best). They're prioritizing size(which limits performance) much more than companies like Rythmik or JTR.

I think that's what it really boils down to. I don't consider a subwoofer 5x the size to the an equivalent product for comparison. I wouldn't compare an 18" whatever-brand to a 12" JL. As you allude to, you can't violate physics.

If you were to say that there are lots of large subwoofers out there that can outperform a JL at a lower price, sure, I would agree with you. At the same time, if you're looking for a subwoofer in a more living room-friendly size, and you're prioritizing performance over price, then it's a different conversation.

 

[RichB]

I missed where JTR sent the RS1 to Data-bass.com.
Here is the link from their site:

JTR Captivator RS1 — JTR Speakers

I see not distortion, have they no microphone

Rythmik provides comparative output and response curves for their subs.
Do SVS, JL, JTR, etc. do more?

- Rich

 

[raistlin65]

This is a science forum, right? I was starting to believe it was the Rhythmik Fan Club. Please clarify.

Clearly, I was referring to your comment. Let's not get off track.

 

[preload]

The scientific approach is not to draw conclusions without data, which you seem to be doing by assuming the servo does not work for smaller subs.

NO, that sounds like the ENGINEERING approach. The scientific approach would be to form a hypothesis based on available data, which I have done based on the availability of CEA-2010 data for 15", 18", and 25" Rhythmik subs, and the absence of CEA-2010 data for 8", 10", and 12" sizes, and understanding common manufacturer motivations.

Why would a manufacturer not want to highlight data demonstrating the superiority of their most common sub sizes, particularly when there's a lot of competition out there in these ranges? Why would a manufacturer only show comparative output at 20Hz of their models WITHOUT any basic qualifiers like THD and conceal their comparative output figures for other frequencies like 25Hz? Could it be that the data do not demonstrate that their smaller subs outperform the competition?

Anyone with a class or two in control theory and a little practical experience would not make that assumption.

Anyone with a class or two on experimental research design and a little practice experience knows how to form a hypothesis.

 

[Chromatischism]

Are you suggesting that Rhythmik doesn't have the financial or technical resources to conduct basic tests of THD vs. frequency on all of their subwoofers? CEA-2010 is simply a protocol. There's no rule that says Audioholics must do the test.

Like many of the best American ID sub companies, Rythmik is literally a garage startup. The owner of the company is the designer/engineer of the Rythmik subwoofer. His hands are always busy with new models, updating older ones, and providing support. He has one sales and support guy who is also providing constant support. They have one person doing accounting, shipping, and all manner of other housekeeping type work. They have one or two warehouse workers moving product. That's all I'm aware of.

So I suppose it's possible they could do their own CTA-2010 but it's unlikely, which is why they send them to Josh. They have sent enough of them to confirm their numbers and the rest can be extrapolated because the engineering is the same. By the way, there are no CTA or anechoic response measurements on current HSU, PSA, SVS, or JL subwoofers.

 

[raistlin65]

NO, that sounds like the ENGINEERING approach. The scientific approach would be to form a hypothesis based on available data, which I have done based on the availability of CEA-2010 data for 15", 18", and 25" Rhythmik subs, and the absence of CEA-2010 data for 8", 10", and 12" sizes, and understanding common manufacturer motivations.

Why would a manufacturer not want to highlight data demonstrating the superiority of their most common sub sizes, particularly when there's a lot of competition out there in these ranges? Why would a manufacturer only show comparative output at 20Hz of their models WITHOUT any basic qualifiers like THD and conceal their comparative output figures for other frequencies like 25Hz? Could it be that the data do not demonstrate that their smaller subs outperform the competition?



Anyone with a class or two on experimental research design and a little practice experience knows how to form a hypothesis.

So if I address your speculation with a reasonable answer, as it's not too hard to figure out, will you drop this? Or you just going to use it as an opportunity to continue to argue to suit whatever your agenda is?