PB-10 ISD vs M&K 150 (1 Viewer)

[Vaughan Odendaal]

Hello,

In terms of deep bass extension (and low distortion output), how would the PB-10 ISD compare to the M&K 150 Ultra (or 350 Ultra). Any thoughts would be appreciated.

--Sincerely,

 

[Vaughan Odendaal]

Anyone?

--Sincerely,

 

[Tom Vodhanel]

I'm sure the MK350 would handily outgun the PB10...and I would be surprised if the MK150 didn't do the same. All three of these models should offer approximately the same in room extension (as long as the MKs don't have a non defeatable first generation THX filter---which would have them rolling off in the mid 30hz range). From 30hz and up, both MKs should toast the PB10 in clean output capabilities. In the 16-25hz range, it would be closer (imo)...but I'd still think the MKs would have the advantage.

Tom V.
SVS

 

[John Menoni]

What an honest post from Tom at SVS. I definately respect the guys over at SVS. M&Ks people are top notch as well. I have a M&K 350 sub and it kicks ass. I will be purchasing an SVS PB12 plus 2 as my second sub. Tom, How do you think the BB12 plus 2 will sound next to the M&K 350?

 

[Himanshu_S]

Are you comparing M&K MX-150 to PB10-ISD??? If so, isn't this kind of a ridiculous comparison? Sorry if I'm looking at the wrong model. I searched for MK350 and MK150 but couldn't find anything except for M&K MX-150 and M&K MX-350.

 

[Vaughan Odendaal]

Yes, you're right, I got the model name wrong. It is the M&K MX-150 and MX-350.

Thank you for the response Tom. However, I am a little confused by your response because I remember that there was a thread comparing the M&K MX-350 to one of the older cylinder SVS's, and down low, the SVS bested the MX-350, if memory serves me correctly.

That was the older driver. The PB-10, while not using a 12" driver, has considerably more linear travel compared to the M&K 12" drivers, correct? So I'm just wondering how the subwoofer would compare down low to the PB-10 ISD (since the PB-10 ISD is tuned quite low, lower than the 350, I think.)

I thought the M&K's trailed off at around 20hz, while the PB-10 ISD still had usable output at 17hz? Am I right, or wrong about that?

I don't know. I just thought that the SVS (even the entry level model) would outperfrom the expensive M&K models in terms of deep bass extension.


Could you please explain why the MK's would have an advantage down low? Just wondering.

I look forward to a response.

--Sincerely,

 

[Tom Vodhanel]

>>>I will be purchasing an SVS PB12 plus 2 as my second sub. Tom, How do you think the BB12 plus 2 will sound next to the M&K 350?

 

[Tom Vodhanel]

Hi Vince,

Well, I haven't seen much objective performance data on the bigger MKs. The largest Nousaine has ever measured is the MK125 I believe. The SVS may be close in clean output capabilities in the REAL deep bass. But remember, the majority of recorded bass is still >25hz. And from 25-30hz and up...the MKs should have a substantial edge.

Tom V.
SVS

 

[Edward J M]

Considering the dual 12" driver configuration and MSRP of the M&K units, I would tend to compare the:

$1399 MX-150 MKII to the $899 PB12-ISD/2

and

$1899 MX-350 MKII to the $1199 PB12-Plus/2.

The street price on the M&K's is likely lower than MSRP, so this would probably end up being a fairly close price match-up (with the M&K's probably still costing a bit more).

While it is certainly an overachiever, the $429 PB10-ISD (with a single 10" woofer) really isn't in the same size/price/configuration category as the big M&Ks.

 

[Vaughan Odendaal]

Ok. Tom (or Ed), how would a PB-10 ISD compare to the old SVS 20-39 CS (with the old driver) in terms of clean output?

That would pretty much answer everything. Just a few things, though. I have heard that the "new" ISD driver is around 1-4 db's greater clean output compared to the old one's, and the driver incorportated in the PB-10 ISD is actually closer to a DB12, rather than the ISD. Isn't the "DB" driver considerably better than the ISD?

So, taking this into consideration, I would think that the PB-10 ISD would outperform the 20-39 CS (with the old driver) down low. Am I correct, Tom?

The answer to this question will give me all the information I need.

Thanks.

--Sincerely,

 

[Tom Vodhanel]

Hi Vince,

I'm not sure I am following your logic or understanding the question completely.

If you are trying to compare the PB10 to the big MKs...why add the 20-39cs to the discussion? Nousaine hasn't measured any of the big MKs...so you can't even compare the 20-39cs to those directly.

The PB10 and the old 20-3cs are actually quite similar in their extension and output capabilities. But I'm not sure how that helps decide how the PB10 and the MK150/350 series would compare?

The new ISD driver is an upgrade. If you attempt to "weigh" the amount of the upgrade in objective terms...that will always depend on numerous variables in the measurement method itself.

The dB12 driver is more potent than the ISD.

Tom V.
SVS

 

[Vaughan Odendaal]

Hi Tom,



Yes, the dB12 is more potent than the ISD driver. But the driver found in the PB-10 is not the same ISD driver found in the PB-12. It's better. As you said in an earlier article, the driver used in the PB-10 is pretty much a dB-10.

Using TN's test data confirms that the PB-10 ISD should outperform the M&K MX-350 at very low frequencies. If the 20-39 CS with the improved driver is similiar in performance to the PB-10 ISD, then it's the clear winner.

-Sincerely,

 

[Edward J M]

Hi Vince:

There are really three types of output that a reviewer can measure:

1) distortion-limited output at discrete frequencies with sines

2) power compression limit with a long duration sine sweep

3) dynamic output limit with tone bursts at discrete frequencies or a very brief sine sweep

TN uses distortion-limited output (with a 10% limit) to determine maximum output. While I think this criteria is extremely important, it doesn't tell you the whole story about how loud a subwoofer can ultimately play before encountering its dynamic or power compression limits.

Unless the subwoofer is equipped with a servo, the power compression limits are typically considerably higher than the 10% THD-limited output values.

Take the Atlantic Tech 642e SB subwoofer I just reviewed.

http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volum...er-5-2005.html

Here are the 10% THD limits:

Freq/SPL/%THD:
20 76.9 10.5
22 81.3 10.0
25 85.3 10.4
32 96.4 10.3
40 101.3 10.0
50 101.8 10.2
63 101.5 10.0
80 101.2 10.2

And here are the approximate power compression limits:

Freq/SPL
20 88
22 91
25 96
32 102
40 103
50 103
63 103
80 102

Note the power compression run is limited by the lowest frequencies first (green line) - the sub will play even louder at the higher frequencies, as noted by the purple and yellow lines.

The closer the THD-limited values and the power compression values approach parity, the better. That is the beauty of the PB10-ISD; it's 10% distortion limits and its power compression limits are closer to achieving parity than any other subwoofer I have ever tested. This means the subwoofer sounds exceptionally clean, even at its compression (maximum output) limits.

With that said, the PB10-ISD can only move so much air, even with a long stroke 10" woofer. So while it may be extremely clean at its maximum output limits, a dual 12" driver subwoofer like the MX-350 will undoubtedly play much louder in the mid bass regions than the PB10-ISD before reaching its power compression limits.

The best way to illustrate this difference would be to actually measure THD for each subwoofer at its power compression limits and also measure the maximum dynamic output limits at discrete frequencies with tone bursts. That would give you a more complete picture of both how loud the subwoofer can play, and also how clean it will be at those limits.

 

[Jack Gilvey]

Wow. One can use similar syllogistic leaps-of-faith to show that it was a PB10 on the grassy knoll, or to connect one with Kevin Bacon.

Great review of that Atlantic, Ed. Looks like another sub that can't keep up with the PB10, but this one's only twice the price. I like the reciprocal filtration thing, though...beats trying to manhandle resonance with density, etc. Yet another great idea I didn't think of, like "Ribbed" or "Dijonnaise".

 

[Vaughan Odendaal]

Ed,



Why are you talking about mid-bass performance? Are we not talking about deep bass performance here? Even if we were talking about mid-bass figures, the 20-39 CS would achieve 2db's cleaner output compared to the MX-350 (with a 10% limit). So where are you getting this idea that the mid-bass performance would be much louder?

I don't understand you. I am more concerned with the subwoofers performance down low, than the mid-bass performance. Down low, where it counts, the M&K MX-350 will produce less clean output in the 20hz ~ 25hz region compared to the 20-39 CS (with the improved driver).

Since Tom has said that that subwoofer is similiar in performance to a PB-10 ISD, isn't it logical to assume that a PB-10 would best an MX-350 down low? TN's numbers indicate this.

--Sincerely,

 

[Eric Ha]

Just order the friggin sub. Take a leap of faith.

 

[Edward J M]

I'm talking about mid-bass performance for the same reason that Tom did above. Way down deep (say 20-25 Hz) it is possible that the PB10-ISD could approach/exceed the 150/350 in distortion-limited output. It is unlikely this advantage would hold above 30 Hz.

Regardless, you are limiting your argument above to THD only. And while I agree that parameter is very important, it does not give the complete performance picture, as my above example of the PB10-ISD and the PB12-Ultra/2 demonstrates.

The M&K 350 can move more air than the PB10-ISD and will have higher dynamic output limits. Subjectively, the 350 will hit harder and will likely be perceived by most listeners as subjectively more impressive in A-B comparisons, despite the fact that the PB10-ISD has a superior ratio (i.e. approaching unity) of clean-output to max-output. In layman's terms, a single PB10-ISD will not "blow away" an M&K 350 in a back-to-back demo.

Give me four colocated (2x2 stack) PB10-ISDs for

 

[Tom Vodhanel]

Hi Vince,

It can be very tricky to make assumptions about what Tom Nousaine "should" measure. Unless you have a lot of experience with MLSSA, and measuring bass in room(gated)...you really have no idea how complex and difficult this can be. It is really a method that doesn't lead itself well to the "if this, then this SHOULD..." type of thought process.

You are trying to make assumptions about the MK150/350(what I was referring too as the "big" MKs because this is what your thread was asking about) performance for TN without knowing for sure how they differ from the MK125.

And, you are making assumptions on how the PB10 would measure for TN, based on how the PB10 compares to the 20-39cs in MY tests(and my tests are only loosely related to the way TN performs his).

THEN, you are making guesses as to our ISD driver and how it would perform for TN.

In my experience, ONE assumption/guess along these lines often leads to a reasonable conclusion. With THREE different assumptions (as I listed above)...we might as well be throwing darts.

If you have a MK150/350 available locally, I'd just pick one of those up for an audition. They are good subs.

Tom V.
SVS

 

[Vaughan Odendaal]

Ed, I really appreciate you trying to explain this all to me. I always thought that the more output a subwoofer produces (with a 10% distortion limit), the better.

I mean, what is the point of a subwoofer producing massive amounts of distorted bass? That is why I like TN's measurements. I believe that if a subwoofer can produce greater output with lower distortion than another, it necessarily means that it is superior in terms of clean low distortion output.

If subwoofer A produces greater output than subwoofer B (limited at the same distortion figure), then subwoofer A is superior in term of clean output. That is how I rate a subwoofer. All that I am saying is that in terms of clean output, the PB-10 ISD will outperform an MK MX-350 down low.

I'm sure the MX-350 (like the MX-125) could reach higher levels than what TN measured, but then the distortion numbers would increase dramatically. The whole point of TN's measurements is to show how much output a subwoofer can produce given a distortion limit.

I don't know. Perhaps people are shocked to find that a $400 subwoofer can outperform a subwoofer costing 3-4 times the price down low. I sure would be. But TN's numbers don't lie.



Why? Why can a M&K 350 move more air than a PB10? You haven't explained why this is. I just posted performance figures that prove that M&K's bigger models (the MX-125) can't touch a PB-10 in terms of clean output down low.

If sub A can move more air than sub B (with less distortion), then isn't sub A the superior sub?

--Sincerely,

 

[Vaughan Odendaal]

Hi Tom V,

Forgive me if I seem a bit aggitated, but I just want to find out the truth here. Please remember that I'm still learning.



I don't understand what you are talking about now. If the original driver in the 20-39 is 1-4 db's less clean output than the improved driver, then how would it change if that driver was used by TN? I'm not understanding you at all.

If you have a MK150/350 available locally, I'd just pick one of those up for an audition. They are good subs.

No. If I wanted to audition the MK MX-350, I would have done so. I don't want an M&K. It's far too expensive. I want an SVS, and I think people here are not willing to concede that the larger M&K models do not outperform the PB-10 in low distortion output down low.

I posted legitimate performance figures showing how your old SVS cylinder compares to the "big" M&K model. You told me that the PB-10 ISD is similiar in output/extension to the 20-39 CS. To calculate how an M&K MX-350 would perform, you simply need to add 4 db's to the MX-125's measurements.

In TN's measurements, a 20-39 CS will outperform the MX-350 in terms of low distortion output in the 20hz region (using a 10% limit). You told me that the PB-10 ISD will be pretty much identical performance. So what is the problem here?

Honestly, I don't know what the problem is here.

--Sincerely,