• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

SVS Ultra Bookshelf Speaker Review

edechamps

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Forum Donor
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
910
Likes
3,620
Location
London, United Kingdom
Here is the SVS side by side with the M106, with the directivity error circled. Looking just at this spinorama, the magnitude of error seems about the same, or maybe 1dB worse on the SVS.

Loudspeaker Explorer chart(31).png

Loudspeaker Explorer chart(32).png


After looking at it some more, I would tend to agree that the Revel has a better DI than the SVS. I'm a bit sceptical that it would cause such an audible difference, but maybe I'm underestimating the impact of such seemingly small deviations.
 

bobbooo

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 30, 2019
Messages
1,479
Likes
2,079
The difference I see is, the SVS is firing off considerably more excess horizontal energy in the 2.5kHz - 8kHz region than it is in the 800Hz - 2.5kHz. Not sure how big this issue is, but it's something I noticed. Could the excess horizontal energy in the upper mids and treble - combined with the lack of horizontal energy in the lower mids - be a contributing factor towards that "harsh" sound that Amir(and many people who've heard this speaker) heard? Comparison between SVS and M106 below. I've drawn a blue line to help illustrate what I'm talking about.

View attachment 76635
As you can see, the M106 still has a similar horizontal directivity glitch, but it looks less severe(imo). The M106 looks much closer to a consistent width beam. Why doesn't this show up clearly in the spinorama's directivity index? The directivity glitches seem very comparable in the spinorama, but much less so here.

The scaling on those graphs is different - the SVS's graph is stretched vertically compared to the M106, making its dispersion seem more uneven than it actually is. Here's what they look like overlaid with the same scaling (the darker lines being the SVS):

SVSvsM106 .png


Correctly scaled they don't look too dissimilar, with about 10-15 degrees difference around 2kHz at -6dB. Is that enough of a difference to cause the M106 to sound nearly perfect yet the SVS to sound almost painfully sharp? I'm not sure.

3. Distortion - at first glance, this speaker seems to have pretty good, low distortion. It's very comparable to the M106 and better than the M105. However, as @lashto pointed out, the SVS's distortion is mainly H3. I definitely think he could be on to something here, as both the M106 and M105 have lower H3. I definitely think this could be a contributing factor(good eye), but it can't be solely responsible, as it would have doomed the M55XC, which has comparable H3 with worse every other type.
The harmonic distortion of the M55XC is higher than the SVS in all orders, including H3 (especially around 1-2kHz where our hearing is most sensitive), yet distortion was described as 'nowhere to be found' when listening to the Revel, even when the volume was turned up, so a slightly elevated H3 is very unlikely to be an audible culprit here. It seems like we're running out of acoustic causes for the large difference in subjective impressions between these two speakers (cognitive causes are of course still wide open).
 
Last edited:

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
View attachment 76656
View attachment 76657

After looking at it some more, I would tend to agree that the Revel has a better DI than the SVS. I'm a bit sceptical that it would cause such an audible difference, but maybe I'm underestimating the impact of such seemingly small deviations.

Nice! Thanks for overlaying them like that. It highlights how similar they really are. Revel looks a tiny bit better(Olive score agrees), but I too am skeptical that this directivity difference alone could account for the difference heard.
 

richard12511

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 23, 2020
Messages
4,335
Likes
6,700
The harmonic distortion of the M55XC is higher than the SVS in all orders, including H3 (especially around 1-2kHz where our hearing is most sensitive), yet distortion was described as 'nowhere to be found' when listening to the Revel, even when the volume was turned up, so a slightly elevated H3 is very unlikely to be an audible culprit here. It seems like we're running out of acoustic causes for the low subjective impression of the SVS (cognitive causes are of course still wide open).

I agree it can't be explained by distortion, given that the M55XC sounded good.

Honestly, I'm kinda grasping at straws, and that's just something I noticed. I know the directivity error difference is small, but it is in a region that could add "harshness". Do you have any other ideas of what it might be?
 

Darvis

Active Member
Joined
May 20, 2020
Messages
142
Likes
164
Location
Belgium
I've started to wonder how much mood and hormones(like endorphins) might affect these reviews. Objectively these are one of the best speakers we've ever seen. Not quite Genelec/Neumann tier, but somewhere around Revel(M105/M106) and KEF(R3) tier.

It's interesting to compare this review to the review of the Revel M55XC. This SVS measures excellently(top 5%), yet sounds bad. The Revel M55XC measures terribly(bottom 10%), yet sounds excellent(golf panther tier).


PS.

It's kinda funny how this site has changed my views of audio science. It's changed my views in the opposite way I expected it to. After reading the Harman threads on AVS and then reading Toole's book, I was absolutely convinced that I could base future purchasing decisions 100% on spinorama measurements, and that would guarantee that I got great sound. I was also convinced that you could (with near certainty) predict which speaker should be preferred based on spinorama alone. I found this site after reading Toole's book, and I was so happy; other people who see audio the same way I do!!!

I expected this site to reinforce my beliefs in the science of Toole/Olive, but it's kinda done the opposite. I was the guy over on AVS constantly arguing with the subjectivists who said "you can't tell if a speaker sounds bad just by looking at measurements", or "you can't tell if a speaker is good just by looking at measurements", and it frustrated me to no end how much they seemed to ignore the established science. However, in an odd twist of fates, this site - Audio Science - has kinda, in a way, proved the subjectivist right. Spinorama measurements really aren't sufficient to characterize the quality of a loudspeaker(as Toole had led me to believe). It really is possible to have a speaker with an excellent spinorama that sounds bad(SVS Ultra), and it really is possible to have a speaker with a terrible spinorama that sounds excellent(Revel M55XC).

Something that Amir said in that Revel thread really resonated with me, and really made me start to put more weight into his subjective opinion, and that was he has huge incentive to get the subjective listen right. With this speaker, he listened to it after seeing the measurements, so he had a HUGE bias to make him believe this speaker sounded great, and yet he was able to ignore that bias and be honest with what he heard. I would still rather him listen before measuring, but in this case, the fact that he measured first actually makes me believe the subjective impression more.

Anyway, reviews like this (where the subjective and objective are so at odds) are the most interesting to me, and I think they have the best potential to advance our understanding of the science.
Great post that resonates with my own feelings. Although it's a bit contradictory at places: you begin by saying that maybe there's more to the perceived SQ of a speaker than its objective measurements and after that you take at face value that the SVS is bad and the Revel good. If you allow for the return of subjectivity, maybe Amir's subjective assessment should be taken with caution. The SVS could be "bad" as in "he didn't like it with his ears/taste (unvariable), in that particular time/room/mood (variable)".
 

daftcombo

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 5, 2019
Messages
3,687
Likes
4,068
Couldn't it be a worst than average crossover implementation? From Amir's graph, slopes are not steep and there is quite a bit of superposition. What if the drivers are not properly time aligned?
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
I personally would rather have no panthers at all (especially not when they are related to the subjective opinion and not on the measurements with predefined limits) and the subjective part clearly separated at a forum called Audio Science Review and not Amirs Subjective Review but this discussion keeps repeating itself every time...

I personally would rather have people understand that subjective observations are considered part of "science." It's called "qualitative research."
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,731
Likes
16,156
I personally would rather have people understand that subjective observations are considered part of "science." It's called "qualitative research."
Part of science doesn't mean making the qualitative rating depending just on the quick mono non-blinded listening of a single person.
 

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
Frankly speaking, their subs are no longer the king of value and performance as they once were either. They've long been beaten by Rythmik, Hsu and even their former owner who has now formed PSA.

I was critical of them on AVS and I was called a hater, I told SVS that they're going down the route of Apple if they're following their trend of clinging on to blind non-brand agnostic customers and not chasing for excellence like they used to do. Not saying they no longer make good subs, they still do but they're not as great as the price they're asking for.

Agree. The SVS SB-2000 Pro that I purchased brand new failed after 1.5 months. The plate amp completely died. Clearly, this all happened because I didn't operate my SVS sub while blindfolded. And because I was so biased by being able to see my SVS sub, a series of high energy placebo waves radiated from my neocortex into one of the non-audiophile capacitors, resulting in catastrophic failure.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,731
Likes
16,156
I appreciate your viewpoint but, and this is only my personal opinion, I really enjoy Amir’s subjective comments. This speaker is a good example. The measurements are pretty good but it appears to have some serious flaws. Other people have noted the flaws and Amir backed them up with measurements.

If they measured perfectly and he could not back up his conclusions, my opinion would be different. The measurements support Amir’s conclusion and he was unable to EQ the speakers to sound good.

Ultimately, people have the option of disregarding the subjective comments or questioning the measurements or methodology. Amir knows what he’s doing and always backs up his statements with facts. I don’t know any other reviewer in the industry who is willing to discuss and justify his conclusions as Amir has done. He’s one of the few reviewers I trust. The format and info provided by this site is welcome and very useful to me.
I also enjoy his and the subjective comments from any listener, just don't find it appropriate making the final panther ranking (which is what most non experienced visitors will read most) depending on the quick mono non-blinded listening of a single person in a forum called Audio Review Science. And this because I really believe in this forum and I think it should set different review standards compared to Stereophile etc. You won't find me for example having complained on @hardisj reviews yet for this reason.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,731
Likes
16,156

preload

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
May 19, 2020
Messages
1,554
Likes
1,701
Location
California
Part of science doesn't mean making the qualitative rating depending just on the quick mono non-blinded listening of a single person.

Scientists are allowed to have opinions. Editorials get published in scientific journals all the time. I think Amir is pretty transparent about how the panther ratings are determined, and I interpret them as a bit tongue-in-cheek.
 

whazzup

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
575
Likes
486
Yes, aren't the panthers a kind of ranking? There is even a thread explaining which figure means what. https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/asr-panthers.11541/

Understood. It's true that you're free to critique that part of the review. Personally I prefer such idiosyncracies, this is not a research organisation. I think. Maybe there's a chance he's using the panthers to shape consumer opinions, damage competitors and achieve world audio domination.
 

thewas

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jan 15, 2020
Messages
6,731
Likes
16,156
Scientists are allowed to have opinions. Editorials get published in scientific journals all the time. I think Amir is pretty transparent about how the panther ratings are determined, and I interpret them as a bit tongue-in-cheek.
Of course scientists they are allowed to have opinions but they usually would avoid to give a qualitative rating just based on a very limited quick subjective opinion when there exist objective criteria.
 

lashto

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
1,045
Likes
535
Yes, l already measured that and have it somewhere. But if distortion is low, no matter if it's H2 or H3 right?
In theory yes but what does "low" mean? speaking broadly, the H2 colors the timbre "warm" and H3 colors it "cold" but I have no idea at what level does that stop being audible. According to a recent DBT, the HD coloration is audible at -75dB THD. That is way below any speaker can do nowadays (50-60dB at best) so the working assumption is that all speaker HDs are audible
 

lashto

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
1,045
Likes
535
I agree it can't be explained by distortion, given that the M55XC sounded good.

Honestly, I'm kinda grasping at straws, and that's just something I noticed. I know the directivity error difference is small, but it is in a region that could add "harshness". Do you have any other ideas of what it might be?
Yes it can't be explained by H3 alone. That's why I blamed it on the increased/dominant H3 combined with the resonance at 1500Hz (these two seem to be somehow related). And that combo is more than enough to explain "sharp" and "painful". If that resonance+cold H3 combo happened in the 6-10kHz tinnitus area some people might run screaming. And I know that because I am one of these people. No tinnitus (yet?) but I get very real needles-in-the-ear pain from even the slightest FR increase there (tested/confirmed by an audiologist.)

I did not look at M55XC but a 'simple' comparison of THD numbers is not that relevant, see e.g this post (the comments on the right side of that pic). The HD spectrum matters a lot, sometimes more than the THD number itself. And resonances are usually worse than any 'pure' HD.

And don't worry, we are all kinda grasping at straws. I am just grasping at a different straw :)

P.S.
had a short look at the M55XC HD graphs. Yes the THD is much higher but the HD spectrum at 85dB is actually quite good. Even at +95DB is not the worst. Audible yes but without extras like resonance it should just translate into an uneven/colder timbre. Not the most pleasant but also not in the sharp/painful territory.
 
Last edited:

miike888

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2019
Messages
34
Likes
17
I think Floyd should join this community and chip in with his expertise!!:)

//Mike
 

DDF

Addicted to Fun and Learning
Joined
Dec 31, 2018
Messages
617
Likes
1,355
Frankly speaking, their subs are no longer the king of value and performance as they once were either. They've long been beaten by Rythmik, Hsu and even their former owner who has now formed PSA

I own an SVS sub and their customer service has been amazing, on par with Bryston (tops)
 

lashto

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 8, 2019
Messages
1,045
Likes
535
I think Floyd should join this community and chip in with his expertise!!:)

//Mike
you can just ask him, @Floyd Toole. Or maybe you prefer @Sean Olive

P.S.
Just saw this: "See the book, e.g. Section 4.6.3, or Toole, F. E. and Olive, S.E. (1988). “The modification of timbre by resonances: perception and measurement”, J. Audio Eng. Soc., 36, pp. 122-142."
Does anyone have the book on hand and can check that resonances chapter?

Edit. Nevermind, checked it quickly. Takeaway: "this study has concentrated on defining the detection thresholds of resonances". There are many mentions that resonances can affect/color the timbre but I found no words that describe how or what to listen for. Maybe someone has a reference paper for that
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom