SVS 16-46PC Review in The $ensible Sound (1 Viewer)

[SVS-Ron]

HTF'rs,
For those lamenting the lack of more published reviews of SVS products (a long and tedious process, getting reviews), I thought it worthwhile to point out Howard Ferstler's review in the latest issue of The $ensible Sound (Issue #88, Nov/Dec 01).
If you are not familiar with TSS, you should be. It's one of the better written, and certainly most authoritative magazines out there, though it's certainly not as well known as HT Mag or Sound and Vision. With the likes of Tom Nousaine and Howard Ferstler making contributions there you know it's got some of the top talent in the industry.
My favorite quotes (sure to make a banner near you soon ;^) are:
"...to be truthful I know of no subwoofer in its $800-$900 price range that can stand up against it in terms of overall low-bass performance."
And...
"Alone or in pairs the SVS 16-46PC offers up world-class performance, and does so at an unbeatable price."
But then you already knew that didn't you?
So when someone talks about SVS "hype" just point them to some guys that know better, and have very little to gain, or lose by telling it like it is.
All the best this holiday weekend.
P.S. I can't capture the entire review since we haven't bought the rights to it (which we may do, as we did with Tom Nousaine's review of the 20-39CS). If you want more info on the 16-49PC you can go to our site
http://www.svsubwoofers.com/svpoweredsubs.htm

 

[Doug_B]

Ron,
I guess this means you're advertising in the mag now

 

[SVS-Ron]

Doug,

As a matter of fact we are, though I hope no one draws the wrong conclusion from that. We feel it's important to be supportive of other small businesses out there, not unlike the support we provide to HTF. As near as I can figure, advertising does mean a mag will quickly take your calls, and may even help a bit in getting articles about your product featured.

One thing I am CERTAIN of however, whether we advertise or not has ZERO influence on what these reviewers say. At least not at the level we are talking about. Howard Ferstler for instance had no idea if we were advertising in TSS. In fact I think he was working on his reveiw before we'd even given TSS any ad $ at all. When a reveiwer like this does an article, even HE doesn't always know who he's going to send it to. So there isn't the quid pro quo you might think in this arena. If mags are printing articles that give a good, honest appraisal of your product, you feel compelled to support them...at least that's how we look at it.

Ron

 

[Jim_C]

>>I guess this means you're advertising in the mag now

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Good show, I'll have to grab a copy. HF is another good sub guy.

 

[Mike Knapp]

Like it or not, that very implication is directed to every reviewer/manufacturer relationship....even websites! To question a review because of an ad in the publication shows a general lack of knowledge of how the world works. Anyone that thinks a magazine/website would give a good review just because the manufacturer was an advertiser is sadly mistaken. All that need happen is one glowing review of a sponsors lame product and the magazine/site would lose all its integrity. Without integrity it will have neither advertisers or readers.

The reason you see ads for products with favorable reviews is very simple. If you made something that got a great review, wouldnt you want to place an ad in the issue with the review in it?

It really is that simple. No conspiracies, no collusion, just good business sense.

Congrats on the review SVS guys.

For the record, I dont think Doug B was implying this with his post....I see the laughing smilies there.

Mike

 

[Doug_B]

Yes, I was very much kidding concerning the comment, and I gathered from Ron's post that he took it this way, too. As a matter of fact, I was unaware until this thread that SVS has even advertised in a mag. BTW, I just ordered a CS_Ultra this week.

As for reviews in mags, I think the whole issue of avoiding bad reviews associated with the mags' advertisers is implemented simply by avoiding bad reviews period. In other words, they only review products they expect will be good products (a generalization, of course). Aspects of good products that fall short of perfection are usually sugar coated in some fashion, such as "... you can't expect everything in a $X unit" or "...to my tastes I prefer... but others may consider this a strength."

Maybe I'll head to the bookstore and pick up the mag.

Doug

 

[Hubert]

I've always hated the implication that simply because you advertised in a magazine that you automatically get a great review. Complete and utter BS. I believe that these people and the magazines do their very best to reveiw something as they see it. And that doesn't mean that a company shouldn't advertise. Of course they should advertise. They're in business to make money, otherwise what's the point of being in business. Advertising works.

Congrats Tom and Ron. I say ADVERTISE YOUR BUTT OFF!!! And don't worry about what implications there are. As long as you and your customers know the truth, that's all that matters.

 

[Jim_C]

In the recent past there were a number of particularly hostile threads that dealt with review/reviewer/advertising integrity. Perhaps I've become a bit sensitive and my comment was a result of that.

Smilies aren't always sincere, if you get my meaning, but it seems in this case that they were.

 

[Tom Vodhanel]

These types of discussions are why I feel objective data is so important in woofage reviews. How many times have we seen the *shaken cosmos* in subjective hyperbole...and then when you see the same subwoofer's performance actually verified...it's pretty lame.

You see all these shaken worlds...and then the real performance sez the performance was poor to average for a given model...and it does make you wonder.

TV

 

[JohnMW]

If you want more info on the 16-49PC you can go to our site

Is this a new model for 2002?

 

[Doug_B]

Read the article. Nice going, Ron and Tom! I think one of the best compliments a reviewer can make is to continually compare one's product to the "acknowledged" (and in this case higher priced) best-of-the-best, versus the run-of-the mill masses of products in the same price range.

It's a shame that your level of support really didn't get into this review as well. I do recall seeing Howard's posts a couple of times on a forum or two (if memory serves), but I don't know if he's familiar with the day-in day-out level of both pre- and post-sales support you guys provide.

Doug

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Picked up the issue, congrats on the excellent review.

Finally we see a direct comparison with the Hsu TN1220HO, which I've seen asked about a few times.

 

[Holadem]

There were THREE (3) laughing smileys after what he said. Relax people.

--

Holadem

 

[BryanZ]

I'll have to read the article to see what all the fuss is about. SVS? Never heard of them.
Still enjoying my 20-39 and would love to either add/upgrade to that mystery sub ya'll are giving away. Seriously, I haven't heard a sub yet that has been able to beat my SVS!

 

[Carlo_M]

The "official" review is nice. But to be honest, some of the people I trust most in terms of reviews are right here in the HTF. And all of them, to a man, glowingly review your product. That's more than enough proof for me, this review is just window dressing. Now if only Santa is nice to me this XMas...or right afterwards...on my BDay...

 

[Jack Gilvey]

And all of them, to a man, glowingly review your product. That's more than enough proof for me, this review is just window dressing.

I think it's more than that, actually, and I think TV will agree. Think of the worst sub you've ever heard, and you can probably search the web for 10 reviews that say it's the best sub ever, "bar none". With subs in particular, there nothing like objective performance data as a reality check. Reviews like this, which compare it to other well-known subs, are very informative, as are those from TN, who gathers data on many subs under identical conditions.

 

[Bhagi Katbamna]

Like it or not, that very implication is directed to every reviewer/manufacturer relationship....even websites! To question a review because of an ad in the publication shows a general lack of knowledge of how the world works. Anyone that thinks a magazine/website would give a good review just because the manufacturer was an advertiser is sadly mistaken. All that need happen is one glowing review of a sponsors lame product and the magazine/site would lose all its integrity. Without integrity it will have neither advertisers or readers.

Reality is a little more complex than that. Just because a company advertises, it doesn't mean that a poor product from that company was given a pass. But, no less an authority than Dick Hardesty has stated on his audioperfectionist website(watchdog 11) here is the link: http://audioperfectionist.com/NewFil...watchdog11.pdf
that he basically had to hold his tongue reviewing some subwoofers in order not to offend advertisers. The paragraph I am refering to is in the section titled "subwoofers"(page 8).
I have read many reviews in many magazines(including the high-end) where certain poor aspects of a component's performance(sonic and/or otherwise) aren't questioned or deliberately described in vague terms. Stereophile is notorious for this. They will compare the sound of a $30,000 pair of speakers to the same company's $70,000 pair speakers(rather than competeing speakers from other companies). Even when they compare speakers from different companies, they never state a preference(even though everone knows people hear differently) I recently read a column in which the reviewer reviewed 2 different $2600/pr speakers but the only comparision was the color and finish of the wood veneer. Sound & Vision is also guilty of this when it gives good reviews to Bose Lifestyle systems that have a big gap in the frequency response. Although my opinion of S&V has risen given a reviewer actually stated that he preferred the Denon 2802 to the Pioneer and Sony receiver(must be a new reviewer). Think about how many components have been favorably reviewed in magazines but have been found to have bugs posted on forums.
I personally know that the SVS are great because I have a CS 16-46 and T$S is a good magazine but it is not all black and white with every magazine. The reason I posted this is not to accuse anyone but to let people know that it is in human nature to be biased and to take reviews(anywhere) with a grain of salt.(edited for spelling)

 

[Matty B]

Do you think that if T$S said that the SVS Sub was the worst thing they had ever heard and that plenty of subs could be bought for less that sounded better SVS would continue to advertise in the magazine? No. Because people are more prone to listen to a reviewer that is biased as opposed to the UNBIASED laissez faire kind of reviewing that goes on in the forum.
I'm not saying that any SURFACE level coersion goes on, I'm POSITIVE that it doesn't. There is just a LACK of objectivity in the sound and music review realm. It's the same thing with radio and MTV, you will never hear a DJ say "Damn, that song SUCKED" and you will never hear an MTV VJ say "Shit, that video...well...damn it sucked". People don't bite the hand that feeds them. It's stupid to think otherwise.

 

[Carlo_M]

Think of the worst sub you've ever heard, and you can probably search the web for 10 reviews that say it's the best sub ever, "bar none".

But I'm not polling the net for information. I have very trusted people that I have known and corresponded with here at HTF. THOSE are the people in whom I put stock in their opinions. THOSE are the people who have made positively glowing reviews.

Yeah, I can comb the web and find "BOSE RULES!" if I want to, but those people aren't the ones I'm talking about here at HTF.

And personally, I don't put as much stock in objective reviews. Since I won't ever get to have 15 subs in my apt. for trial with an SPL meter, what's the point? If a person whom I trust says X is good, and several other trusted people agree, then I try it out and it sounds good, I'm going to buy it. Sure there may be "objectively" better subs out there, but hey if I don't know about it, I'm happy with my purchase.