SVS Ultra Evolution

[CleanSound]

After all, most ports are less than 3 feet from the floor, which is no different than a back wall.

Very valid point, not to mentioned what about bottom ported speakers?

I need to watch those videos from Erin again, perhaps that 3 feet is not necessarily due to port, maybe just boundary gain in general?

 

[thewas]

The impedance characteristics of the port's contribution isn't problematic until very close to the wall, like a few cm or a couple port diameters, and that Genelec and other advice that it is 5cm is totally consistent

True, the German loudspeaker manufacturer Visaton had done some measurements with 10 cm distance to the wall and even at that distance the position of the port didn't play a role.

Wandnahe Aufstellung von Lautsprechern | Visaton

www.visaton.de

 

[CleanSound]

I am not clear on when Erin said this. Can you post a link? I have heard 5cm as a minimum before a rear port starts unacceptably interacting with the back-wall, for instance. Without EQ many speakers will be bass-heavy as you move them closer to the wall, but that is not a reason to necessarily keep them away.

Do you have a physical reason that leads you to believe that a port interacts with a wall at distances greater than a few times the port's radius, let alone "at least 3 feet"? I have to ask since another part of ASR is having a testable hypothesis! I can think of two, one is a change in the effective volume of air that is in the port. The other is blocking the port in a way that introduces chuffing and other turbulent behavior.

If you think about it, the wall will eventually form an extension of the port, and the mass of the air now moving and the springiness of the air is different than the port in free space. But that is really only going to happen at super close distances where the wall along with the back side of the speaker act as an extension of the port's air mass, like this:
View attachment 342467



A change in the effect mass in the port will show up in the impedance measurement and should be modulated by the distance from port to wall. The impedance measurement will neutralize any impact of room mode, SBIR, etc. as Steve Dallas mentioned.

I have two woofers in boxes, one is a Paradigm 8" woofer with a 2" diameter port, the other is a 10" with matching passive radiator, both boxes allow me to adjust the position of the port or radiator relative to a back wall. The physics of a passive radiator are similar to a port minus the port noise, with the mass of the radiator being roughly equivalent to a volume of air in a port of the diameter of the radiator (i.e. a really huge port).
First the 8" ported Paradigm woofer:
View attachment 342479
No change in impedance until the port is less than 2.5cm to the back wall.

The Seas L26 passive radiator:
View attachment 342480

No change until below 5.0cm.

I don't observe the wall loading the woofer + box resonance until the port is extremely close. I'm not surprised, hard to imagine the wall affecting the mass of air in the port substantially. Summary, I am not sure why 3 feet is a minimum for a rear-ported speaker. I have speakers with rear ports and I have never noticed an issue close to the wall.

Obviously, I'm not testing for port non-linearities and noises. Maybe some really poorly designed ports can have enough high frequency resonances that the back wall reflections can be problematic? If so, get a speaker with a better port!

Edit: A couple typos.
Another edit: to clarify what woofer is tested!

The logic and reason is as close as to perfect like @Steve Dallas. It occurs to me there is no such thing as an apple vs. apple test, what the tests you two demonstrated is as close to perfect and as convincing as possible.

As such, this is good enough of data to me at this moment.

But, I don't want others to read this and think to themselves that they should place their speakers that close to the wall for other reasons.

 

[MAB]

The logic and reason is as close as to perfect like @Steve Dallas. It occurs to me there is no such thing as an apple vs. apple test, what the tests you two demonstrated is as close to perfect and as convincing as possible.

As such, this is good enough of data to me at this moment.

But, I don't want others to read this and think to themselves that they should place their speakers that close to the wall for other reasons.

I'm not sure what readers might think. Close to the wall is great, with tradeoffs. Away from the wall is also great, also involving tradeoffs.
I have speakers with rear firing ports that work very well close to a wall. They also work well away from a wall.
They even come with dip switches to enable various PEQ depending on placement relative to walls, desks, etc.
You should study that Genelec Monitor Placement link I posted, these effects are illustrated clearly. Like the type of PEQ that would allow various placements near a wall irrespective of port:

And the physics of what happens as you change the placement of a speaker relative to a wall:

 

[Everett T]

yep, focal shape, I wonder if there is any science behind it, but aesthetically i do not like it; anyway, my experience with SVS Ultras bookshelves; were inferior to the Revel M16 (which are cheaper), this after a prolonged AB testing to avoid bias. there was something weird about the highs in the ultras.

The MBS-01 with the Scanspeak Airarc tweeter and the Peerless nomex woofer were their best speaker offering to date IMHO. The slightly elevated midrange was easily EQd down leaving a nice tight frequency response. A bargin at $650.

These look like they're going for high output with 'diamond' being the "hook". I'm curious as to the source in the tweeter as there aren't many and none that are cheap'er'.

 

[geox]

I'm not sure what readers might think. Close to the wall is great, with tradeoffs. Away from the wall is also great, also involving tradeoffs.
I have speakers with rear firing ports that work very well close to a wall. They also work well away from a wall.
They even come with dip switches to enable various PEQ depending on placement relative to walls, desks, etc.
You should study that Genelec Monitor Placement link I posted, these effects are illustrated clearly. Like the type of PEQ that would allow various placements near a wall irrespective of port:
View attachment 342877

And the physics of what happens as you change the placement of a speaker relative to a wall:
View attachment 342879

i wish there was a to bookmark wonderfully informative posts.

 

[Everett T]

i wish there was a to bookmark wonderfully informative posts.

If you're serious, just click the bookmark symbol at the top right of a post.

 

[geox]

If you're serious, just click the bookmark symbol at the top right of a post.

serious and yeah.. i just found it

 

[Neric]

I've got a pair of SVS Prime Pinnacle speakers as R/L in my theater and I really like them. So I'll be listening to these when my local dealer gets them in.

 

[Penelinfi]

I think most people hear the effects of boundary loading of the speaker itself and think it's due to the rear port. It'll be more loaded being at the back than a front port or front sealed driver.
Maybe that's the factor to consider

 

[rwortman]

They do appear to employ science, but doesn't look like they employ a lot of deep science.

Almost no one is doing science to make speakers. The best ones use engineering. Not the same thing. Science is a tool used in the quest of new knowledge. Engineering is using what we know from science to make things. I can’t think of a single scientific discovery in my 60+ years in the planet attributed to the audio industry. Magnetic recording, digital recording, planar speakers, plasma speakers, class D amps, all engineering. In fact, the only people claiming to have discovered novel things related to audio are the cable and tweak people.

 

[spamilton]

It looks like these are now available for purchase. I'm curious to see how they measure. The bass should be nice on the towers - 24Hz to 40kHz (+/-3 dB) for the Pinnacle.

 

[Neric]

I'm waiting for my local shop to get them. There might even be an SVS event there later this spring.

 

[Everett T]

It looks like these are now available for purchase. I'm curious to see how they measure. The bass should be nice on the towers - 24Hz to 40kHz (+/-3 dB) for the Pinnacle.

I'd assume extension won't be an issue for those looking for a fullrange speaker. I'm interested in the mid distortion and the hand from the tweeter as well as the 140hz crossover to the bass drivers. That last one can prove to be problematic IMHO.

 

[Penelinfi]

A look inside if you are interested, with impedance measurements. Unfortunately no frequency response measurements

 

[SlothRock]

Can't wait until we get some legit measurements on these bad boys. If they're as excellent as claimed, this could be a more affordable alternative to the KEF meta towers/centers (hopefully)

 

[Everett T]

Can't wait until we get some legit measurements on these bad boys. If they're as excellent as claimed, this could be a more affordable alternative to the KEF meta towers/centers (hopefully)

I wouldn't get you hopes up, unless midbass and low bass are your only concerns. The KEF speakers are on their umpteenth iteration of their current coaxial design, I doubt SVS is gonna put out an all around better product for less money, considering the KEF R series is already a good value at their price points.

 

[Oddball]

What about the center? Looks like that is an orphan? So many towers which is great for the 2-ch, but one center that looks like, well, that there is not really much to it. Love the idea of big bad towers but the center "range" is pretty disappointing. HT people want to have 3 equals up front, albeit some of them with the requirement that center is in the horizontal form.

 

[Everett T]

What about the center? Looks like that is an orphan? So many towers which is great for the 2-ch, but one center that looks like, well, that there is not really much to it. Love the idea of big bad towers but the center "range" is pretty disappointing. HT people want to have 3 equals up front, albeit some of them with the requirement that center is in the horizontal form.

Considering the amount of energy in discrete soundtracks that goes to the center, it certainly looks out of place compared to the towers.

 

[Neric]

What about the center? Looks like that is an orphan? So many towers which is great for the 2-ch, but one center that looks like, well, that there is not really much to it. Love the idea of big bad towers but the center "range" is pretty disappointing. HT people want to have 3 equals up front, albeit some of them with the requirement that center is in the horizontal form.

I have 2 SVS Prime Paradigm speakers as L R in my theater, and an SVS Ultra for the center. For movies it works VERY well. I have no complaints. Sure it's not a monster at bass output but I have a PC-4000 in the corner to handle movie bass.