-

Jump to content



Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

Photo
- - - - -

Another SVS thread...


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
32 replies to this topic

#1 of 33 Robert Cowan

Robert Cowan

    Supporting Actor

  • 504 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 10 2003

Posted February 23 2004 - 04:16 PM

im personally curious about SVS myself. it seems like a great product, but every thread i see talks about scenes in movies basically done the way they should be...

i guess what im saying, has anyone owned a GREAT subwoofer before SVS? or has everyone just upgraded from a bad sub first. i hear so many "check this movie out, it really works the sub", or "____ killed my sub". i try out all these movies, and my sub plays them like its just another bass tone... for instance, the tapping on the glass in finding nemo was cool, but its just another sound byte that makes the windows flex. i didnt think it was anything "special".

has anyone had like $2K+ sub and then tried a SVS?

ive never had a problem with my sub not producing massive amounts of pure and clean bass. and i dont even know what a sub should sound like when its bottoming out (well, i do, but mine has never even come CLOSE). im not boasting about my sub really, just wondering if SVS is better, where do i sign up?

#2 of 33 Wayne Ernst

Wayne Ernst

    Screenwriter

  • 2,589 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2002

Posted February 23 2004 - 04:48 PM

Quote:
has anyone had like $2K+ sub and then tried a SVS?


Not me, personally. However, from time-to-time, I do come across threads in the various forums where someone used to own a $2K Velodyne and now has an SVS.
"My reality check ... just bounced"

#3 of 33 VinhT

VinhT

    Second Unit

  • 357 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 14 2002

Posted February 23 2004 - 04:56 PM

I guess the big question is, what subwoofer do you have? Have you measured its frequency response to verify that you are in fact getting all of the inaudible material? I know it may seem a bit bold of me to ask you these questions since you have a multi-thousand-dollar sub, but SVS subwoofers seem to often beat products well out of their price range.
Vinh Tran

#4 of 33 Joe Szott

Joe Szott

    Screenwriter

  • 1,962 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 22 2002

Posted February 23 2004 - 05:13 PM

I think the more telling question is how many people have left SVS to go to any other sub? Not a whole lot it seems...

#5 of 33 ChrisWiggles

ChrisWiggles

    Producer

  • 4,791 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 19 2002

Posted February 23 2004 - 06:11 PM

What sub do you have? And have you tried finding someone with an SVS to take a listen (audioenvy.com)?

#6 of 33 Khai

Khai

    Extra

  • 19 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 30 2004

Posted February 23 2004 - 07:46 PM

Quote:
has anyone had like $2K+ sub and then tried a SVS?


Robert Cowan,

Firstly, I am a very big fan of Velodyne products in general and have owned a THX Ultra II Velodyne HGS-18 Series II (regarded as one of the best commercial subwoofers in the world) and I have also listened their latest Digital-Drive 18 subwoofer and now that I own an SVS PB2+ and I would honestly pitch the PB2+ in the same league as them in terms of performance, with the PB2+ offering more SPL and impact than the HGS-18.

#7 of 33 JohnSmith

JohnSmith

    Supporting Actor

  • 554 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 07 2003

Posted February 23 2004 - 11:28 PM

I own a Rel and a SVS $825. The Rel is close to $2000 in the states. No contest the SVS goes louder, deeper and cleaner, with no port noise. For something less than half the value it's actualy at least triple the performance of the Rel.

The Rel is good for music where it isn't pushed hard, but is hopeless for AV (modern LFE soundtracks) to fill a small 4m x 4m room (calibrated) as it just distorts, parps with lots of port noise when action scenes come along. I can ramp up the SVS several dB hotter than it should be and it still sounds clean. Wheras I have to use my Lexicon's peak limitor with the Rel (at calibration, Titan AE & Toy Story threaten to blow the driver) I have never needed to enable it with my SVS. So I don't have to worry about destroying it (and it sounds better anyway)

A Rel & M&K dealer has heard the SVS. Classes it above the MX-350, and equal to the Studio Posted Image

#8 of 33 Hartwig Hanser

Hartwig Hanser

    Second Unit

  • 297 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 1998

Posted February 23 2004 - 11:54 PM

I think you can´t compare REL and SVS. REL subs are made to supplement the lowest octave below the natural roll-off of the main speakers (and they have large, floorstanding speakers in mind). So, if you have speakers that go below 40 Hz, REL will give you the bass below 40 Hz. But if it has also to take care of bass up to 80 or 100 Hz , it will be easily overtaxed, then a SVS is better.
The RELs are unique in one respect, that you can connect the .1 output from your prepro for movies AND in addition connect it to the L and R main channels to add the lowest bass for stereo music. And you can trim the volume for both inputs independently. For many systems with 50/50 use of music and movies that already contain excellent large stereo speakers, this is the optimal solution. If you have 5 small speakers for movies, then look somewhere else.
Of course, if you have the money, buy a REL for stereo music AND a SVS for movies. Posted Image

#9 of 33 JohnSmith

JohnSmith

    Supporting Actor

  • 554 posts
  • Join Date: Apr 07 2003

Posted February 24 2004 - 12:32 AM

The problem with the Rel's dual connection method is that you will get a double signal. Unless the sub can switch high or low level off completly, or you connect the sub to speaker switch "b" on your stereo integrated amp and switch on/off depending on the what you're watching. However my stereo integrated amp does not have speaker a/b on/off switches -so both input on the Rel would get will get the .1 LFE PLUS the high level stereo full range signal. Not good. I've also found the bass management in my pre-power better quality (and integrated) than using the Rel's own crossover to filter out frequencies above or around the main speaker's roll-off.

Ideally like you said a Rel for music, SVS for AV. But you will need to make sure one is off, whilst the other is on music-Rel on, SVS off- and AV- Rel off, SVS on.

The best method is probably two systems- a Hi-Fi system in one room with a Rel, and a 7.1 system in another room with a SVS. Posted Image

If I cross the SVS at 40hz (either on the MC-1 or it's own) it still goes lower than the Rel, and I guess the Rel will struggle and introduce port noise and it'll be mostly distortion at louder volumes and/or in larger rooms.

Rel subwoofers are still overpriced IMO.

#10 of 33 JimmyK

JimmyK

    Second Unit

  • 466 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 21 2002

Posted February 24 2004 - 01:44 AM

Quote:
i guess what im saying, has anyone owned a GREAT subwoofer before SVS?

I had an a/d/s M3 powered sub that did a very good job with music and HT. Tom at SVS also said he thought this was a good sub.

So when I purchased an 16-46PC+, the difference wasn't as dramatic as some have described, nor did I expect it to be. That said, the SVS does play deeper, louder, and with less distortion than my a/d/s M3, which is exactly what I was hoping for.

There is one area where the M3 tops the SVS sub; appearance. The M3 is finished in mahogony on all sides and is absolutely gorgeous.

So now I use the SVS on my main system and the M3 is being used in another room.

JimmyK

#11 of 33 Jesse Sharrow

Jesse Sharrow

    Supporting Actor

  • 745 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003

Posted February 24 2004 - 01:47 AM

I work in retail at a pretty "high end" store. Soundtrack/Ultimate Electronics. I have heard $1500 Sunfires, $2000 Kefs, $1500 Klipsch, $2800 Martin Logans. And I still think the BP1+ at $1200 is a much better sub. The only sub I think even came close was the $2800 martin logan. I think the SVS blends better, its cleaner has a flatter frequency response, and it has alot more output. I got a personal demo from Ron at SVS, cofounder if you dont know him. I was very very impressed.

#12 of 33 Jesse Sharrow

Jesse Sharrow

    Supporting Actor

  • 745 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003

Posted February 24 2004 - 01:52 AM

You know whats one thing I just noticed.

Quote:
Rel subwoofers are still overpriced IMO.


I have never in my entire 6months here seen anyone post that about SVS. Thats what I love. Since I work in retail Ron is giving me a small... very small compared to others... discount on SVS. But I would gladly pay full pop for it. This is coming from a guy who can get 75% off of deftech.

#13 of 33 Wayne Ernst

Wayne Ernst

    Screenwriter

  • 2,589 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 24 2002

Posted February 24 2004 - 01:58 AM

Quote:
Since I work in retail Ron is giving me a small... very small compared to others... discount on SVS.


I don't think I'd be bragging about a discount in an open forum. Might open up a big can 'o worms. Posted Image
"My reality check ... just bounced"

#14 of 33 Edward J M

Edward J M

    Screenwriter

  • 2,031 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 22 2002

Posted February 24 2004 - 02:14 AM

Quote:
I think you can´t compare REL and SVS. REL subs are made to supplement the lowest octave below the natural roll-off of the main speakers (and they have large, floorstanding speakers in mind).


I don't see why REL and SVS can't be compared. The SVS could just as easily be used to supplement the lowest octave, if that's what the user wanted.

Quote:
And you can trim the volume for both inputs independently. For many systems with 50/50 use of music and movies that already contain excellent large stereo speakers, this is the optimal solution.

Many of today's better AVR's and pre/pros can trim HT and music differently, and as JohnSmith stated, do a better job of it in the digital domain than the REL does.

In addition, some enthusiasts use their universal player with on-board BM and analog outputs for all music applications (CD, DVD-A, SACD, DTS-A) anyway, and the sub trim for music can be separately adjusted in this manner also.

Quote:
So, if you have speakers that go below 40 Hz, REL will give you the bass below 40 Hz. But if it has also to take care of bass up to 80 or 100 Hz , it will be easily overtaxed, then a SVS is better.

Using an 80 Hz xo (vice a 40 Hz xo) will result in a substantial reduction in intermodulation distortion from the mains, and will also free up considerable amplifier headroom. The 80 Hz xo works very well for both music and HT.

And the most taxing bass on a subwoofer is always in the lowest octaves anyway - the bandwidth from 40-80 Hz is comparatively a piece of cake compared to the stuff from 40 Hz on down.

Quote:
Of course, if you have the money, buy a REL for stereo music AND a SVS for movies.


Sorry, I just haven't seen a convincing argument where the REL is better suited for any application or bandwidth than the SVS. A great subwoofer is faithful to the source signal and can easily pull double duty for music and HT below 80 Hz just fine.

It seems to me that REL owners are often put into the uncomfortable role of becoming REL apologists when the product is exposed to the light of objectivity.

When products like the SVS PB2-Ultra and the A-V Denali are available in the $2000-$2400 price range, a product like the $9,000 (!!) REL Studio III (with its 500 watts and twin 10" drivers) is suddenly marginalized as a prohibitively expensive and incredibly overpriced imported British paperweight.
Ed Mullen
Director - Technology and Customer Relations

SVS

www.svsound.com

"What we do in life, echoes in eternity."


#15 of 33 Arthur Vino

Arthur Vino

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 208 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 13 2003

Posted February 24 2004 - 02:17 AM

and get Ron in trouble..
Posted Image

#16 of 33 Jesse Sharrow

Jesse Sharrow

    Supporting Actor

  • 745 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003

Posted February 24 2004 - 02:33 AM

Fixed. Posted Image Sorry.

#17 of 33 Jesse Sharrow

Jesse Sharrow

    Supporting Actor

  • 745 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003

Posted February 24 2004 - 03:51 AM

I thought I fixed it. Oh well. An op can delete that post.

#18 of 33 JohnGil

JohnGil

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 65 posts
  • Join Date: May 14 2003

Posted February 24 2004 - 05:33 AM

When products like the SVS PB2-Ultra and the A-V Denali are available in the $2000-$2400 price range, a product like the $9,000 (!!) REL Studio III (with its 500 watts and twin 10" drivers) is suddenly marginalized as a prohibitively expensive and incredibly overpriced imported British paperweight.
-----------------------------------------------------------


Well said!

#19 of 33 Jesse Sharrow

Jesse Sharrow

    Supporting Actor

  • 745 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 11 2003

Posted February 24 2004 - 05:35 AM

Thats a big ass paper weight. How much paper do you need to weigh down? DAMN!

#20 of 33 Hartwig Hanser

Hartwig Hanser

    Second Unit

  • 297 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 09 1998

Posted February 24 2004 - 06:07 AM

John,

Quote:
both input on the Rel would get will get the .1 LFE PLUS the high level stereo full range signal. Not good.


Well, opinions differ. I think, it is very good, at least in my setup. This is exactly how I want it, and REL is the only sub that offers this option. This is the reason, I ordered one after long deliberation. I hope it arrives soon...


Edward,
Quote:
I don't see why REL and SVS can't be compared.
I wrote it in my post. Perhaps I should elaborate: Only REL offers the 2 independent inputs, with one having a filter and the other not. So I can have a lowpass at 25 or 30 Hz for subbass extension for my main speakers (no, I do NOT want to relieve them of bass, I like the bass of my B&W CDM7NT just fine, thank you) and I can put the entire LFE from movies on the sub. And I do not need LOTS of bass in my movies, just a nice little clean rumble down to 20 Hz.

Quote:
Many of today's better AVR's and pre/pros can trim HT and music differently, and as JohnSmith stated, do a better job of it in the digital domain than the REL does.


I like my Stereo music signal entirely in the analogue domain. Apart from that, one of "many of todays better AVR and pre/pros" may not be sitting in my rack. Those things cost a lot of money. As do the mentioned universal players.



Quote:
Using an 80 Hz xo (vice a 40 Hz xo) will result in a substantial reduction in intermodulation distortion from the mains, and will also free up considerable amplifier headroom. The 80 Hz xo works very well for both music and HT.


See above: I want my XO for music as low as possible.

Quote:
Sorry, I just haven't seen a convincing argument where the REL is better suited for any application or bandwidth than the SVS.


perhaps you see it now? At least for some people like me?


Back to Speakers, Subwoofers & Headphones



Forum Nav Content I Follow