SVS SB-3000 vs. KEF KC62...which would you choose for same price?

[phoenixdogfan]

In a small apartment, you get a toy poodle and a KC 62. In a real house, you get a Yellow Lab and two SB 2000s.

 

[PierreV]

I had 8 18"(4 subs with 2 18" drivers each) subs in a small(10.5' x 12.5') room at one time and the room wasn't overloaded at all after EQ. Bass was ridiculously clean and tight.

Yeah, I've seen pictures of your system. That's the one I want when I grow up. (or rather upgrade my home cinema). Not the most cost-effective way to get good bass in a small room though

 

[richard12511]

Yeah, I've seen pictures of your system. That's the one I want when I grow up. (or rather upgrade my home cinema). Not the most cost-effective way to get good bass in a small room though

Ha. It was mainly for fun. I had them stored in there for a few weeks in between moves, and just figured I'd give it a try. I had to cut the bass a lot with EQ to get a serviceable sound, which is why I do think you might be right for situations without EQ.

 

[NiagaraPete]

I just bought the SVS Micro 3000 and I’m setting it up now. I’ve matched it with tri-amped Aktiv Linn Ninka’s.

Cost was a factor. With tax and delivery I was a bit over $1000 CDN. The Kef is considerably more.

Still playing with placement and settings.

 

[FrantzM]

Disagree. You can always cut the bass to be exactly equal to a smaller sub if you want less bass. You can't do the opposite, though. What you say might be true without room correction, though.

I had 8 18"(4 subs with 2 18" drivers each) subs in a small(10.5' x 12.5') room at one time and the room wasn't overloaded at all after EQ. Bass was ridiculously clean and tight.

@richard12511

You are already on my hate list. Don’t push it !

 

[Tokyo_John]

I just bought the SVS Micro 3000 and I’m setting it up now. I’ve matched it with tri-amped Aktiv Linn Ninka’s.

Cost was a factor. With tax and delivery I was a bit over $1000 CDN. The Kef is considerably more.

Still playing with placement and settings.

As far as I can tell, the SVS Micro 3000 is an excellent value, half the cost of the KC62. I think the KEF is costly owing to the high build quality and inclusion of many electronics bells and whistles that most will never use. For example, the mains pass through which comes out of an internal ADC->DSP->DAC path…I would never touch it.

I’ve decided to bite the bullet and stick with the KEF options, since SVS doesn’t do business in Japan (unlike KEF) and I’d have to go to a lot of trouble if it ever needed servicing (2-way shipping alone would cost as much as a new model). Also, buying a KEF gives me more flexibility for when I can make the purchase. If I want to beef up a bit more then I’ll be forced to go with their KF92 which offer 5 dB more for about $500 extra compared with the KC62…or a B&W DB# sub which is even pricier than the KEFs.

 

[NiagaraPete]

Real life, we all have to deal with up front costs and possible repair. KEF has always been a great product.

 

[Astrozombie]

Dual SB-2000..................which is the upgrade i've been thinking about for a while.

 

[Tokyo_John]

After much hemming and hawing and testing of my new listening space, I realized that I don't really need a very powerful subwoofer at the listening levels I'll be using it. For some time I had even settled on getting a KF92 because it had an extra 5dB on the KC62, but playing around with a smaller system in the same space that I'll be using I found that sound "carries" a great deal more than I expected. So I went back to the KC62 and bought one, just set it up today without any high pass on the main speakers (LS50 Meta driven by a March Audio P252 hypex power amp). The Topping D90 is feeding XLR to the main speakers and the RCA outs are connected to the KC62.

Out of the box the KC62 was set to 80 Hz crossover and half volume...I've played with both quite a lot, but somehow this is kind of the natural sweet spot for the system and room as it is now. I can lift the bass for movies. I'm sure that getting a high pass on the LS50 Metas is going to do wonders for the balance and smooth out the wrinkles, so I also ordered a miniDSP SHD which is on its way. Once I have mastered the Dirac settings and tuned the room, I think this is going to be one heck of a system that I hope I'll be happy with for some years.

I'm listening to Fat Time and Back Seat Betty from Miles Davis' "The Man with the Horn" album, lots of 5-string bass action and it is really amazing what a subwoofer does for the LS50 Metas in such a scenario. I've also listened to a variety of other low frequency bass songs, including organ pieces, and...wow! It is as if an entire part of my music system had been missing all along. The SHD+KC62 will double the cost of the original 2.0 system, but I think this is going to be worth the investment. Sitting on my sofa in the sweet spot, I'm already getting all the superb imaging that the LS50 Metas are capable of delivering while getting a foundational lift on the low end from the KC62.

I also listened to Dark Side and wanted to hear the heart beat at the beginning, just to get a bead on this sub and its capabilities. It was WAY more beefy and meaty than I had expected for the size. When I put my hand on it, I cannot feel any vibration, the drivers are really perfectly balanced, and the metal cabinet is heavy-duty. After a while it gets a little warm to the touch, but not too bad. I guess the 1000W is a key statistic.

 

[carewser]

If they were the same price i'd still go with the KEF because i'm amazed by that little guy even though people here don't seem too impressed by it but i'd show it off to everyone who would listen because people expect deep rumbling bass out of a 55 lb subwoofer with a 13" driver but to get deep rumbling bass from a box half that size and weight is something else

 

[radix]

so I also ordered a miniDSP SHD which is on its way. Once I have mastered the Dirac settings and tuned the room, I think this is going to be one heck of a system that I hope I'll be happy with for some years.

My understanding is the KC62 has variable frequency response based on the playback volume. See the white paper page 8. I've copied the figure below. I thought this would make the KC62 more difficult to use with a DSP. Maybe it's not too much an issue as the differences seem to be mostly > 60 Hz?

 

[Tokyo_John]

My understanding is the KC62 has variable frequency response based on the playback volume. See the white paper page 8. I've copied the figure below. I thought this would make the KC62 more difficult to use with a DSP. Maybe it's not too much an issue as the differences seem to be mostly > 60 Hz?

Thanks, yes you're correct. As far as I understand, this is mainly to prevent distortion, and at higher volumes it prevents the drivers from over-running the maximum displacement and physically self-destructing. The low and moderate levels in this example are not so different, but certainly some difference in slope from 25-50 Hz. This is an important part of the spectrum for practical listening (unlike 11 Hz).

The technology in the KC62 is cool. I really like the engineering approach, mathematically very elegant and I would do things similarly if I were working in this field. But it still does give rise to this non-linear response, as you mention.

I don't know the extent to which Dirac and the SHD can deal with non-linear corrections...i.e., volume-dependent frequency response. My guess is that Dirac assumes linearity, but I don't know for sure. In the worst case, perhaps I can run correction profiles at different volumes and then select the one to use as I listen. Or I can find the best characteristic correction that works best for my usual listening situation. Either way, I expect the result to be much better than running with no room correction.

The other benefit is lifting low end duties off the shoulders of my LS50 Metas with a high-pass filter. Every account I've read indicates that this is a significant improvement.

Either way, I'm getting ready to geek out on this when the SHD arrives...I'll post more updates later.

 

[NORTH]

Disagree. You can always cut the bass to be exactly equal to a smaller sub if you want less bass. You can't do the opposite, though. What you say might be true without room correction, though.

I had 8 18"(4 subs with 2 18" drivers each) subs in a small(10.5' x 12.5') room at one time and the room wasn't overloaded at all after EQ. Bass was ridiculously clean and tight.

8 18"s! that sounds fun haha.

Anyone have thoughts about the Rel T/9x compared to the Kef kc62? priced the same, the kef seems to scoop quite a bit deeper at 11hz

 

[carewser]

8 18"s! that sounds fun haha.

Anyone have thoughts about the Rel T/9x compared to the Kef kc62? priced the same, the kef seems to scoop quite a bit deeper at 11hz

And I thought 7 1/2 feet of subwoofers in my little place was impressive but you've got 12 feet of subwoofers, at this level we're talking beyond Marty McFly:

 

[nothingman]

The technology in the KC62 is cool. I really like the engineering approach, mathematically very elegant and I would do things similarly if I were working in this field. But it still does give rise to this non-linear response, as you mention.

I don't know the extent to which Dirac and the SHD can deal with non-linear corrections...i.e., volume-dependent frequency response. My guess is that Dirac assumes linearity, but I don't know for sure. In the worst case, perhaps I can run correction profiles at different volumes and then select the one to use as I listen. Or I can find the best characteristic correction that works best for my usual listening situation. Either way, I expect the result to be much better than running with no room correction.

The other benefit is lifting low end duties off the shoulders of my LS50 Metas with a high-pass filter. Every account I've read indicates that this is a significant improvement.

You and I have similar setups: SHD + Meta + KC62. To answer your question: Dirac isn’t going to be able to manage the non-linear response of the KC62. Ideally you’d measure at a level where the KC62 is in its sweet spot where the response is linear when including room gain (and that sounds like it’s in your listening volume sweet spot too which is good) then let the KC62 take it from there when you raise the volume. I would forsee a problem if you push the measurement volume too high then Dirac is trying to push the KC62 above where it wants to go and then your correction filter ends up all screwed up at lower volumes.

I like my KC62 and agree it totally transforms the Metas especially once you high pass the Metas, but for the price, I really wish they’d gone with dual 8”. I don’t know if that presented unique engineering problems, but it seems to me it was more of a marketing decision relating to the overall package size. Going to 8” would have minimally increased the size (it would still be tiny with the concentric voice coils!) but would have greatly increased the SPL possible as seen by what the SB3000 Micro can do from 35hz up.

As it is, I put a premium on size and looks so I spent the extra money on the KC62. But doing dual KC62? All of a sudden that’s $3,000 in subwoofer for just 4 x 6.5” drivers in a tiny sealed cabinet. SVS’ pricing works much better for multi-sub. Wish they’d do a satin finish like the KC62.

 

[carewser]

So let me get this straight, you've got satellite speakers that are rated at 100 watts RMS combined together with a sub rated at 1000 watts RMS and you're complaining about the sound pressure level of the sub!?!?

 

[nothingman]

So let me get this straight, you've got satellite speakers that are rated at 100 watts RMS combined together with a sub rated at 1000 watts RMS and you're complaining about the sound pressure level of the sub!?!?

I think that’s a bit of a simplistic view of their merits and abilities. The KC62 has 1000w of amplification, but very little driver surface area and very protective circuitry that limits SPL down low, e.g. 20-70hz, and yes that includes in a pairing with the Metas.

The Metas, whatever they are rated in terms of RMS, are fine above 200hz, but in a sub-sat system the hollowed out 5.25” midwoofer has some real trouble producing clean SPL from your usual 80hz sub crossover to 200hz. If I were building a system for a larger room I would definitely have a three-way speaker to go with the sub, e.g. KEF R3 where the 6.5 driver can more adequately handle 80hz to their 400hz crossover.

Really do wish KEF would make an affordable design in the vein of a “mini-Blade.” LS50 Meta with two 6.5 drivers on each side in a three-way configuration? That would be a killer point-source, force-canceling standmount to go with a couple subs.

 

[Tokyo_John]

You and I have similar setups: SHD + Meta + KC62. To answer your question: Dirac isn’t going to be able to manage the non-linear response of the KC62. Ideally you’d measure at a level where the KC62 is in its sweet spot where the response is linear when including room gain (and that sounds like it’s in your listening volume sweet spot too which is good) then let the KC62 take it from there when you raise the volume. I would forsee a problem if you push the measurement volume too high then Dirac is trying to push the KC62 above where it wants to go and then your correction filter ends up all screwed up at lower volumes.

Much agreed. I haven't really noticed the KC-62s dialing back on the lowest ends at higher volumes, but then again I'm not really listening very loud anyways. I guess the KC-62 is plenty for my present needs. If I want to go to higher volumes I put on headphones...

I like my KC62 and agree it totally transforms the Metas especially once you high pass the Metas, but for the price, I really wish they’d gone with dual 8”. I don’t know if that presented unique engineering problems, but it seems to me it was more of a marketing decision relating to the overall package size. Going to 8” would have minimally increased the size (it would still be tiny with the concentric voice coils!) but would have greatly increased the SPL possible as seen by what the SB3000 Micro can do from 35hz up.

Have you looked into the KF-92 subs? They are basically a bigger KC-62, meant to be paired with the "R" line of KEF speakers. They claim that it gives a little more headroom, but they are substantially larger in size.

 

[nothingman]

The KF92 is very nice, but three problems for my application: 1) 2x9 without Uni-Core is a significantly larger form factor than 2x6.5 with Uni-Core, 2) budget wouldn’t allow, I got my KC62 from a dealer who owed me a favor so I got mine for $1,200 and even that was a stretch that didn’t quite add up given the SB3000 Micro being around, 3) I greatly dislike big square hunks of piano black, the KC62 rounded edges and matte finish that matches my Metas is such a nice touch. Didn’t have an ounce of trouble from the better-half bringing it in the door and if/when the budget finally allows I could easily bring in another. The WAF is just off the charts for a subwoofer.

 

[o2so]

My guess is that Dirac assumes linearity, but I don't know for sure. In the worst case, perhaps I can run correction profiles at different volumes and then select the one to use as I listen. Or I can find the best characteristic correction that works best for my usual listening situation. Either way, I expect the result to be much better than running with no room correction.

Yes Dirac assumed linearity, so creating different listening profiles for different levels is exactly what I have done and works great. Regardless of using the KC62, having different profiles based on the listening level will also allow you to do bass compensation properly.