Subwoofers "for music" vs "for movies"?

[sigbergaudio]

Disclaimer: We're a subwoofer (and loudspeaker) manufacturer, focusing primarily on music/hifi customers, so take this with however many grains of salt you wish:

For music reproduction the requirements of low end output is typically less than for movies, which means subwoofers can be made smaller, while the requirements for quality and linearity is higher. This means different tradeoffs than a cinema oriented subwoofer.

A subwoofer created for music would typically benefit from a more even frequency response, lower distortion within it's operating range and SPL capabilities, and depending on your use case, a wider frequency response. It would also preferrably be sealed, as having a ported subwoofer with very low fs and zero port noise is difficult to do in a smaller cabinet.

Some subwoofers also exhibit relatively high THD long before they reach their CEA2010 limits, making the CEA2010 test insufficient to identify overall distortion at moderate listening levels.

The audibility of distortion in low frequencies are debatable, but as in any other part of this hobby, many want as high quality as possible in all parts of their listening chain. Subwoofers are no different than loudspeakers, amps, sources or anything else in this regard.

 

[Webninja]

A lot of the music vs movie sub debate is from years ago, and it might have been applicable to the subs from that era.

If you look at the better subs today from SVS, HSU, Rythmik and my recent favorites, Monolith THX 13” and 16”, they are very flat in their operable range with very low distortion.

 

[Digital_Thor]

I'm looking at maybe upgrading two of my 12" subwoofers to 15" - have four subwoofers, but thinking that 15" might be better to dig deeper with more impact. Was looking at Dayton RS390 - both the HO and the HF. Dayton themselves describe the HO to be for smaller boxes in maybe cars and the HF for home cinema and music. Apparently the HF likes twice the volume - but then also plays way deeper. What I still can't wrap my head around, is the Q value and the impact on sound quality. Does it really matter that much? Thought of putting the HF in 95 liters... will give me a Q of around Parts express suggest around 2.88 cf - which is around 82 liters. How did they end up that low. Is it because they think that we just end up EQ-ing the hell out of it anyway, and that sound quality at low frequencies are difficult to hear anyway?

 

[Beershaun]

@sweetchaos has a great subwoofer databass using he CEA-2010 standard which is a great way to compare subwoofers.

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

The standard is a reasonable metric to compare subwoofer performance and illustrate the differences between them. It is an SPL measurement at the frequency where the sub is loudest at a specified distortion level. So you get three datapoints in the metric to describe the subs performance, known distortion, SPL. and it's "peak" frequency. These tell you how deep it can go while staying accurate and how loud it can play while staying accurate.

 

[Matias]

I am not aware of a single sub that even approaches a flat response over most of its useful range. Maybe some of the really expensive ones with DSP and servo control and a powerful enough amp to enable boosting as well as cutting frequencues. Can you give an example? Preferably one well under $1000. It would certainly move very high on my sub wishlist.

Does the SVS SB-2000 Pro for 900 usd qualify? Looks pretty flat to me, and has Bluetooth to adjust PEQ and cutoff in your phone.

 

[Spkrdctr]

I have a shelf in the corner holding around 500 blu-rays and a NAS upstairs with a couple of thousand movies on it. I don't think there is more than a half a dozen of those movies in which my subwoofer even gets activated let alone is necessary. My sub is 100% for music. Since when did movie watching become synonymous with overblown bass and ridiculous spatial effects?

Don't get me wrong, I like my bass – I might even be considered a bit of a 'bass head' when it comes to music – but IME if a movie 'needs' a subwoofer to be watchable then it's probably not worth watching in the first place ...

Heretic!

 

[Spkrdctr]

Does the SVS SB2000 Pro for 900 usd qualify? Looks pretty flat to me, and has Bluetooth to adjust PEQ and cutoff in your phone.

View attachment 165181

That is perfect! Flat and has decent extension into any possible super low movie effects. Compare this to most sealed subs or others sold as musical and they start dropping pretty quickly below 40hz. Any sub including $299 specials will do that. You have to buy quality and measured performance, not marketing BS. This SVS is the real thing. "Musical" subs are 100% marketing rubbish. For example, read up on REL subs. They use marketing rubbish and voodoo science in their sales material. That is before you even get to the prices!

If you own an REL sub this is not meant to offend. I just used it for demonstration of voodoo marketing purposes.

 

[tecnogadget]

Having read so many times the term “musicality” or that subwoofer A is better for music and B better for movies…every day I’m starting to think subwoofers shouldn’t be sold without a measurement microphone, the REW 101 PDF guide, and a crash course into DSP

 

[Sancus]

Having read so many times the term “musicality” or that subwoofer A is better for music and B better for movies…every day I’m starting to think subwoofers shouldn’t be sold without a measurement microphone, the REW 101 PDF guide, and a crash course into DSP

Not only that, but we need more products like the miniDSP SHD and fewer expensive standalone DACs that do nothing audibly better than a $100 one.

 

[Walter]

Does the SVS SB-2000 Pro for 900 usd qualify? Looks pretty flat to me, and has Bluetooth to adjust PEQ and cutoff in your phone.

View attachment 165181

It does, albeit being more expensive than I will ever be purchasing, although I agree withe the choice since it was already the top sub on my "if I ever get the money" Google Sheet. However, where is this graph from? It shows a far flatter performance than @sweetchaos' data, where Butterworth measured 11db drop from 63db to 25db.

That is perfect! Flat and has decent extension into any possible super low movie effects. Compare this to most sealed subs or others sold as musical and they start dropping pretty quickly below 40hz. Any sub including $299 specials will do that. You have to buy quality and measured performance, not marketing BS. This SVS is the real thing. "Musical" subs are 100% marketing rubbish.

But this IS a sealed sub marketed by the manufacturer as being slighly better for music than their ported subs.

 

[sweetchaos]

However, where is this graph from? It shows a far flatter performance than @sweetchaos' data, where Butterworth measured 11db drop from 63db to 25db.

If you go to SVS website for SB-2000 Pro, then select "Specs" tab, scroll down, you'll see this frequency response graph.

However, don't confuse this graph with the data in my spreadsheet.
This graph is simply a single frequency sweep (like what REW does when you do a measurement) and the resulting frequency response of what this subwoofer is doing. SVS didn't share how loud (at what dB) they did the frequency sweep, so we don't know. But it doesnt matter, since this just shows you how linear the subwoofer is. All you really want to see is that this subwoofer is mostly flat, like all well-measuring subs are.
This graph does not denote maximum output capability, which is what my spreadsheet shows, since that's what the CEA-2010 test is.

These are 2 separate concepts. I hope that clarifies things.

 

[Walter]

If you go to SVS website for SB-2000 Pro, then select "Specs" tab, scroll down, you'll see this frequency response graph.

However, don't confuse this graph with the data in my spreadsheet.
This graph is simply a single frequency sweep (like what REW does when you do a measurement) and the resulting frequency response of what this subwoofer is doing. SVS didn't share how loud (at what dB) they did the frequency sweep, so we don't know. But it doesnt matter, since this just shows you how linear the subwoofer is. All you really want to see is that this subwoofer is mostly flat, like all well-measuring subs are.
This graph does not denote maximum output capability, which is what my spreadsheet shows, since that's what the CEA-2010 test is.

These are 2 separate concepts. I hope that clarifies things.

I used your data since I had not seen a FR graph, and I mostly disregard manufacturer supplied ones except for a very few companies where I have seen them consistently independently verified. They are different concepts in general, but the CEA data if plotted would approximate the frequency response at high level output but exaggerate the extremes, would it not? If not, and you can point me to a site that explains why, I'd be genuinely interested.

Either way, the SB-2000, and the entire SB vs PB range are excellent subs and extremely good examples of the point I originally made as regard to why some subs MIGHT be better for music than for HT or combined use in many systems/rooms--a point @sigbergaudio explained much better and in more detail.

I'll leave the specific benefits of sealed versus ported to others to discuss, as it has been far too long since I was actively involved in comparing them and designing and building enclosures for automotive use and SQ competitons, and I have no idea what advances have been made. At that time, I greatly preferred sealed designs, whereas all my max dBl friends exclusively used ported. No idea if that would still be true today.

I might find out next year, because I am coming to the conclusion that when you live in a country where a Klipsch R-12sw sells for $580 but woodworking skills are abundant and cheap, bringing parts back on my next trip back to the USA may be the only way I'll ever get a decent sub at a price I'm willing to pay. I think I need to start researching raw drivers and plate amps. I'm betting there are already threads here in the DIY section to get me started.

 

[sigbergaudio]

It is however slightly strange that as soon as we're talking low frequencies, suddenly quality doesn't matter. low end extension and maximum SPL is everything we care about?

When it comes to CEA2010 it's a good measure of maximum capacity, but it's difficult to measure correctly, so comparing CEA2010 numbers from different sources should be taken with a grain of salt. We've seen as much as 3dB difference from one review to another, which needless to say is pretty significant. It's also not a perfect yard stick for sound quality. There are expensive subwoofers out there where the manufacturer cost of drivers and amplifiers alone are higher than the retail price of other subwoofers that are comparable in size and SPL output. Can they be compared and judged by maximum SPL alone?

 

[chucky7]

I am not aware of a single sub that even approaches a flat response over most of its useful range. Maybe some of the really expensive ones with DSP and servo control and a powerful enough amp to enable boosting as well as cutting frequencues. Can you give an example? Preferably one well under $1000. It would certainly move very high on my sub wishlist.

Be aware!

It seems you have been looking at the wrong places...

$900 SVS PB-2000 Pro:

$2000 Monoprice Monolith 16:

$3000 JBL HDI-1200P:

$3200 JTR Captivator RS1:

My $4800 JTR Captivator 4000ULF:

 

[sigbergaudio]

I am not aware of a single sub that even approaches a flat response over most of its useful range. Maybe some of the really expensive ones with DSP and servo control and a powerful enough amp to enable boosting as well as cutting frequencues. Can you give an example? Preferably one well under $1000. It would certainly move very high on my sub wishlist.

Our Sigberg Audio 10D, ground plane measurement (~3,000USD + import tax/VAT if your country has that):

 

[Kvalsvoll]

Subwoofers usually has a smooth frequency response, some fall off a bit towards roll-off where the response quickly drops down to unusable output. In-room, however, things change dramatically.

Here is the fr and phase of the bass-sytem in the media room:

 

[Walter]

Yes, I was obviously not precise enough in what I said, and also not completely correct. When I said, "I am not aware of a single sub that even approaches a flat response over most of its useful range. Maybe some of the really expensive ones with DSP and servo control and a powerful enough amp to enable boosting as well as cutting frequencies. Can you give an example? Preferably one well under $1000. It would certainly move very high on my sub wishlist," that was in reply to the comment, "...it's not difficult to design a sub with a flat response, and all well made subs should be flat." I erred by not defining what I meant by "really expensive." While there is not a single number that can define that, I was referring, as I did at least imply, to subs that cost well under $1000, which make up the majority of subwoofer sales (although maybe not to ASR members).

I still do not agree that designing such a sub is not difficult. However, I can no longer say that I have never seen an example that does not approach a flat response over most of its useful range. I actually had no further to look than ASR: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/rythmik-l12-subwoofer-review.12140/. While a 6db drop from 80Hz to 20Hz is not exactly flat, it certainly approaches it. The worst part of my error is that this sub is already on my sub wishlist (an actual spreadsheet)--in #2 position, actually, behind the SVS SB-2000 Pro which @Matias mentioned!

Our Sigberg Audio 10D, ground plane measurement (~3,000USD + import tax/VAT if your country has that):

Very impressive but way out of my price range--maybe before I had kids. Nah, probably not. I just don't care THAT much about bass. Or surround channels for movies, but that is a totally different subject.

 

[Sancus]

I still do not agree that designing such a sub is not difficult.

I honestly can't say I've seen any subs from competent manufacturers that aren't flat enough, I mean, here is the SVS SB12-NSD, my own (former - now replaced with Arendal 1723 2S) sub. Advertised range was 23hz(-3dB) to 270hz. This sub is over a decade old and was commonly available for $499 USD or even less sometimes.

And by flat enough I mean that gentle rolloffs on the low end and +/- 3dB are fine. Room effects dwarf that and you will have to EQ anyway, which is simple since directivity is not a concern. So it's really distortion and output that matter after EQ.

SVS SB/PB-1000Pro($599, $799)
Monoprice 12" THX($699)
Hsu VTF-3 MK3($909) (ancient unit and review, still looks great until max output is reached)
Arendal 1961 1S($799) (vendor measurement, but probably reliable since 3rd party measurements of their other subs have matched up well)

You can definitely find subs with problems, and port resonances >100hz in ported subs do exist as well, but MANY manufacturers have mastered building a decent sub, the differences are mainly output, distortion and price.

 

[Koeitje]

No, only 2.1.

Are you using a receiver or surround processor so you actually get the LFE channel?

 

[bluefuzz]

Are you using a receiver or surround processor so you actually get the LFE channel?

I'm using a NAD C658 which has separate sub outs if thats what you mean, but otherwise no I'm not using any 'surround processing'. As I said, I rarely watch movies with more than a stereo soundtrack anyway so I don't see much point ...