SVS and M&K (1 Viewer)

[Chris Bone]

How does the M&K 5000II sub stack up against a top of the line SVS? I am not just looking for opinions,although they are welcome, but rather real numbers to compare with. Will a SVS mix nicely with a M&K THX 150 system?

Chris

 

[Dustin B]

I'm 100% sure that what you can get from SVS for $2900 will have more output than the what you can get from M&K for $2900. Exactly how much more I don't know. I don't know of a review where they were measured under the same conditions.

Twin Ultras will have a significant displacement and power advantage. Plus you could buy a nice EQ for a dual SVS package and still not be up to the price of the M&K (unless you can get the M&K for less than $2300).

You don't really have to worry about timbre matching subs to speakers, so any good sub will work just fine with a M&K 150 speaker set.

 

[Greg_R]

Although Dustin alluded to this, you should absolutely have some form of parametric EQ with this level of subwoofer. Room modes affect the bass response significantly... you'll want to calibrate your choice of sub so it doesn't sound "boomy" in your room. Total cost for a BFD, SPL meter & test CD will be under $200 (SVS package comes with a Rane EQ, so you'll only need the SPL meter & CD).
Link Removed has reviewed both subs (although the M&K didn't have any output numbers).

 

[Dustin B]

The problem besides not having numbers, is the M&K5000 review on that site is from Feb 1996.

 

[EricN]

Dustin, the review is that old because they have made no changes to speak of in the 5000.
Chris, I have the 16-46PCi with a 150 M&K system (2 pair of SS-150's and the 150THX sub.) It blends wonderfully. I have the 150 set for 50-80Hz and the SV from 50>Hz. all works well and the room shakes.
Great combo...

 

[Dustin B]

The review is of the MKI, while currently they are producing the MKII. The MKII has slightly different dimensions. I don't know if the drivers or amp are any different though.

 

[jason celaya]

keep in mind you usually can get M&K for 37% off list or so.

 

[Chris Rein]

Well, I don't have numbers, I only have "experiences".
I recently purchased (2) M&K MX-350's (which are pretty close the the 5000's specs) that are mated with my M&K S-150 system. And I will say they move the room. Very clean. Very tight.
I did a TON of demoing before I bought my two new beautiful babies, one of which was a tri-SVS setup (yes 3) and as far as my "experiences" were, the 2 M&K's did the job and did it EXTREMELY well. And I got a steal on two new 350's, both of which were fresh from the factory (I had to wait for them to be built!), so price in this case didn't amount to squat!
Anyway, I have also set up a friends dedicated room with just (1) M&K MX-350 and it is ungodly. (John, I need to talk to you!!! and you may be able to chime in on this thread) I mean his oversized theater chairs MOVE (18' x 20' room with huget vaulted ceiling). I can't wait to get my own room. I have neighbors right now...apartments suck, so reference level, or close to it, doesn't happen at all. I can't wait to fully unleash the FULL potential of my 350's (once I get a dedicated room/house of course!). I've felt one, now let's bring on two!
Sorry for not having numbers. In my case, I was glad I didn't go off of numbers alone. My "experiences" told and shook me in the right direction.
If you have any questions, feel free to send me a message.
Chris

 

[KevinHunt]

I too have an M&K S150 system that I used to run with twin MX125MkII subs(specs similar to the 350 with albeit less power). I now run twin SVS 46CS+ subs with a Samson S1000 amp. I had all of these subs in house at one time to compare and then sold the MX125s. Both subs are excellent performers. Where I found the SVSs pulled away was with the

 

[Duke]

for music I would go withthe M&K's, tighter, faster, truer

 

[Dustin B]

Duke, have you heard the SVS?

 

[RandyKudor]

I wholeheartedly agree with Duke.

There is MUCH more to bass than just low end extension and output.

If you want the deepest and loudest, go with SVS.

If you want tighter, faster, MUCH more articulate bass, go with M&K. It is not by accident that the M&K subs are used by SO MANY professional recording studios out there, including none other than Lucasfilm and the last (2) Star Wars movies.

For music, without question, M&K. All M&K subs are designed with a Q of .707, this is technically the optimum cabinet tuning for perfect transient response. No ported sub, no matter what the design, can deliver optimum transients compared to a sealed enclosure.

Sealed Enclosures have many other advantages over ported designs, and push-pull sealed enclosures have even more. I mean, come on now, M&K has been making subs for almost 30 years, they practically invented the satellite-subwoofer system.

A good in between sub might be the Dharma or the new Hsu VTF-3. Although the VTF-3 is ported, it is still somewhat tight and musical.

No, I am not associated with either M&K or SVS, and yes, I have heard both M&K and SVS....

 

[Brian Bunge]

Randy,

The larger the cabinet, the lower the Q and the better the transient response. A Qtc somewhere between .5-.6 has greater transient response/lower group delay than an Qtc=.707. They are considered more "musical" than .707 as well. I feel that .707 is a good compromise for sub that will do double duty for both music and HT.

BTW, the ACI Titan II subwoofers, which are considered by many to be some of the most musical subs on the planet, have a Qtc=.6.

Brian

 

[Dustin B]

No ported sub, no matter what the design, can deliver optimum transients compared to a sealed enclosure

This although technically true, is not really fair. A well design EBS Vented enclosure can come so close you couldn't hear the difference. Problem is very few commercial manufactures build vented subs that have enough internal volume, with a large enough port that is tuned low enough. SVS isn't one of them.

Sealed cabinets also have several other draw backs. Roll off starts much higher, requires more power, can't go as low (well it can actually go lower, just not at usable levels), no protection of over excursion of the driver, significantly higher cone movement required than a ported design in the last octave (well depending on where the ported is tuned). Also many of the more experienced builders in the DIY area would take exception to the statement that a Q of 0.707 is optimum for a sealed enclosure. A lot of them wouldn't even consider building one with a Q over 0.577. ThomasW (who has been at this for I think over 40 years) says no sub he has ever heard can touch his big infinite baffel and it has a Q of around 0.4.

Push-pull designs cancel the even and odd order harmonics produced by the drivers, but whether this actually gains you anything is debatable. There are other areas of much higher distortion that you should be more worried about controlling before you worry about that.

Rel, Wilson and lot of other manufactures people consider the best with many years of experience all use ported designs for their top subs.

My only question to you Randy would be under what circumstances did you hear the M&K and hear the SVS?

The impact a room will have on a subs sound vs the impact even and odd order harmonics or the difference between a Q of 0.6 vs 0.7 will have isn't even in the same ball park.

PS Brian got his post in while I was typing, so sorry for some of the redundant info.

 

[KevinHunt]

Well I must kindly disagree with Randy or atleast add some more comments into the mix. I have owned and loved both M&K and SVS. The reason I sold my M&Ks was not by a coin toss. I sold the M&K subs because after much varied listening tests with strictly music, I could not detect any difference between these subs that would make me lean towards one over the other ragarding articulate, tight bass. The most telling was a Sheffield Labs CD I have containing many drum tracks and guitar bass line tracks. Neither sub was slow, lagging, muddy, or tonally flat over any of this material. And don't forget that individual room response always plays a factor here too. Again for movies, the SVS subs performed better over a broad range of 5.1 material, most notably the low end extension, brute power and output. Likewise, I'm not affiliated with either company, but I've owned both and these are my opinions only and nothing more. You really can't go wrong with either, as well as many other great subs out there. Because of M&Ks forward thinking a long time ago, they were able to get their foot in the door in the studio and soundtrack recording and mixing biz. Thus their well deserved reputation and tag "reference standard." They led the way in many respects, but it's a pretty level playing field now and a consumer's playground when it comes to subwoofers. Research, listen and draw your own conclusions. It's your hard earned dollars.

 

[RandyKudor]

Hi Brian,

I agree with most of your post. However, very low Qtc will result in very poor low end extension. I should have said Qtc of .707 is a good compromise between bass extension and transient response.

There are other ways of lowering Q besides increasing cabinet volume... damping is one way.

I have not heard the ACI subs, but from what you have said, they should definitely be included on the list.

 

[Brian Bunge]

Randy,

Using a Linkwitz Transform Circuit is another.

Brian