SVS 3000 Micro Subwoofer Breaks the Small Size Barrier with BIG Sound

[William Lemmerhirt]

What's an "sb1k"?

Edit: Do you mean the SVS 1000 serie? Then I can only get one, because of "space issues", that's why I'm really curious about this SVS 3000 Micro review... because this one is so small that I can fit 2 or even 3 of those subs which is always better then one.

Yes. I meant the sb1000. Sorry.
How small is the room?

 

[dutchholic]

Yes. I meant the sb1000. Sorry.
How small is the room?

3.5 x 5.8 meter and it's full with stuff, it's a living room. I have several places where the 3000 micro can still fit but the SB1000 will really not be nice.. One fits, but I have one sub now too (DB4S) and I can hear where it stands. For movies not so much, but it's not usable for music.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I see. Then hopefully shady gets that review done soon! The good news is you could just buy one and send it back if you don’t like it. They make it risk free! FWIW, the, ahem “other forum”(avs forum)has a bunch of different ink on the micro. Mostly anecdotal, but interesting none the less.

 

[dutchholic]

I see. Then hopefully shady gets that review done soon! The good news is you could just buy one and send it back if you don’t like it. They make it risk free! FWIW, the, ahem “other forum”(avs forum)has a bunch of different ink on the micro. Mostly anecdotal, but interesting none the less.

It's not like that here in Europe. SVS don't sell in Europe... only "dealers" are active here. Also the prices are ~50% higher in Europe so I have to make a good deal with the dealer for 2 or 3 of those subs at once, and in that case it would be hard to send it back.

Edit: I've read a lot about the sub already, but the audioholics review is always the "holy grail" for me That's why I hope that their promise will be kept regarding this subwoofer. A half year waiting is pretty long so an update would be appreciated..

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

It's not like that here in Europe. SVS don't sell in Europe... only "dealers" are active here. Also the prices are ~50% higher in Europe so I have to make a good deal with the dealer for 2 or 3 of those subs at once, and in that case it would be hard to send it back.

Edit: I've read a lot about the sub already, but the audioholics review is always the "holy grail" for me That's why I hope that their promise will be kept regarding this subwoofer. A half year waiting is pretty long so an update would be appreciated..

Oopsies! Guess I should’ve asked where you were at. Lol.
Well since you’re binging on this review, maybe, just MAYBE!!!! You could PM @shadyJ. There might be an NDA, or he might not have even touched it yet. I don’t know! I might be a shmuck for even suggesting it. Hopefully I don’t get the ban hammer!!!

 

[shadyJ]

It's not like that here in Europe. SVS don't sell in Europe... only "dealers" are active here. Also the prices are ~50% higher in Europe so I have to make a good deal with the dealer for 2 or 3 of those subs at once, and in that case it would be hard to send it back.

Edit: I've read a lot about the sub already, but the audioholics review is always the "holy grail" for me That's why I hope that their promise will be kept regarding this subwoofer. A half year waiting is pretty long so an update would be appreciated..

Sorry guys, there is no plans for a thorough written review of the Micro 3000, as far as I know. I am not scheduled to review that sub. At best you might get a short Youtube piece on the sub from Gene who has one, but it's not likely to include any in-depth measurements. That is OK though since Brent Butterworth did measure one. It has lots of upper bass at 60Hz and above but not much deep bass to speak of. Bottom line is that it is more of a mid-bass module than a deep digging subwoofer, but then so is basically every subwoofer in that size class.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Sorry guys, there is no plans for a thorough written review of the Micro 3000, as far as I know. I am not scheduled to review that sub. At best you might get a short Youtube piece on the sub from Gene who has one, but it's not likely to include any in-depth measurements. That is OK though since Brent Butterworth did measure one. It has lots of upper bass at 60Hz and above but not much deep bass to speak of. Bottom line is that it is more of a mid-bass module than a deep digging subwoofer, but then so is basically every subwoofer in that size class.

Thanks shady. That is basically what I’ve seen reported about it.
Guess that solves the mystery!

 

[dutchholic]

Sorry guys, there is no plans for a thorough written review of the Micro 3000, as far as I know. I am not scheduled to review that sub. At best you might get a short Youtube piece on the sub from Gene who has one, but it's not likely to include any in-depth measurements. That is OK though since Brent Butterworth did measure one. It has lots of upper bass at 60Hz and above but not much deep bass to speak of. Bottom line is that it is more of a mid-bass module than a deep digging subwoofer, but then so is basically every subwoofer in that size class.

Thank you for the update! Much appreciated. What I find a bit remarkable about audioholics is that I can almost never find really bad rated products in your reviews. Compared to ASR for example (I won't spell the complete name here) that's a major difference between audioholics and the other site that always into the "facts". When I read the preview of the 3000 micro, I read: "First Impression: Gotta Have It!" so I was really excited for the review. Is it true that when you do "upfront" an review about a product, and that the review turns out bad (in the case of the 3000 Micro, we can speak of product that cannot produce good subwoofer measurements, as I now indeed found in the Excel sheet of Brent Butterworth), that it will then not be posted on audioholics?

I am really an optimistic person, and I really like your scientific approach of reviewing products. But on your website I can really almost only find "Gotta Have It" products, and that makes me curious about this point. Or are all the "Gotta Have It" previews paid advertorials by the manufacturers and the reviews non-paid "real reviews" and to not hurt the relationship that you have with the brand, you simply don't post the "not good products". As the case is now with the SVS 3000 Micro? Since you have SVS as an advertiser, it won't be "smart" to publish an review about one of their "flawed products". You have to make money somehow, and I can understand that such an approach will benefit both parties(audioholics and the brands) and to the consumers you can stay objective because you can simply "ignore" their lesser products. So it's a win-win-half win situation (half win, because the consumer only gets real facts of the top-products and just "previews" of their lesser products).

I hope that my post will not be seen as negative criticism/attitude, I just like to know how it is possible that almost all reviews of the products are "good". There must be A reason and this is the only plausible reason that I can come up with myself. But maybe there is an better explanation for it so let me know

But before we have a misunderstanding here, I really appreciate this website and I do really appreciate the great measurements that can be found here. This is an exception to many others and it's an approach that I really like so I keep on reading and recommending audioholics to friends and others. I'm just an very curious person and I think that what I stated above is the truth and it seems like a good business model.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I definitely won’t try and answer for shady. But will offer my thoughts on your inquiry.
I think that while you aren’t far off with the “paying the bills” thing. The truth is that most of the gear reviewed here is of decent quality to begin with. Most of the people who frequent here(nerd herd) are somewhat familiar with at least enthusiast level equipment. That means that you won’t find many reviews of cheap junk. I think for the most part AH tries to cover gear that represents good value for the money. Obviously that’s a moving target when considering the different walks of life that visit here. And conversely you won’t find much in the way of super overpriced esoteric gear either, as most of that stuff falls out of the realm of real value too.
Just a guess, but hope that gives you something to think about.

 

[shadyJ]

Thank you for the update! Much appreciated. What I find a bit remarkable about audioholics is that I can almost never find really bad rated products in your reviews. Compared to ASR for example (I won't spell the complete name here) that's a major difference between audioholics and the other site that always into the "facts". When I read the preview of the 3000 micro, I read: "First Impression: Gotta Have It!" so I was really excited for the review. Is it true that when you do "upfront" an review about a product, and that the review turns out bad (in the case of the 3000 Micro, we can speak of product that cannot produce good subwoofer measurements, as I now indeed found in the Excel sheet of Brent Butterworth), that it will then not be posted on audioholics?

I am really an optimistic person, and I really like your scientific approach of reviewing products. But on your website I can really almost only find "Gotta Have It" products, and that makes me curious about this point. Or are all the "Gotta Have It" previews paid advertorials by the manufacturers and the reviews non-paid "real reviews" and to not hurt the relationship that you have with the brand, you simply don't post the "not good products". As the case is now with the SVS 3000 Micro? Since you have SVS as an advertiser, it won't be "smart" to publish an review about one of their "flawed products". You have to make money somehow, and I can understand that such an approach will benefit both parties(audioholics and the brands) and to the consumers you can stay objective because you can simply "ignore" their lesser products. So it's a win-win-half win situation (half win, because the consumer only gets real facts of the top-products and just "previews" of their lesser products).

I hope that my post will not be seen as negative criticism/attitude, I just like to know how it is possible that almost all reviews of the products are "good". There must be A reason and this is the only plausible reason that I can come up with myself. But maybe there is an better explanation for it so let me know

But before we have a misunderstanding here, I really appreciate this website and I do really appreciate the great measurements that can be found here. This is an exception to many others and it's an approach that I really like so I keep on reading and recommending audioholics to friends and others. I'm just an very curious person and I think that what I stated above is the truth and it seems like a good business model.

There is a big difference in how Audioholics procures review samples versus how ASR gets them that leads to them giving a lot more negative reviews. Most of the stuff that we review is sent to us by manufacturers who understand how these products are going to be reviewed, so they don't just send us anything but rather stuff that they know is going to have good performance by our standards. ASR, on the other hand, is mostly sent products by owners or they just buy them outright, so they end up with a lot more products from manufacturers who weren't keen on heavily objective performance. You might say we suffer from a selection bias, but I would say it doesn't affect the objectivity of our reviews which is what matters most.

There is also a big difference in how we also go about evaluating products. ASR seems to grade on a curve and places most of the weight on technical performance. For example, taking a glance at their site for their latest review, they have a DAC with less than stellar objective performance compared to state-of-the-art DACs. The thing is, most of the flaws that they ding the product for are unlikely to be audible at all in the vast majority of consumer use. We don't review many DACs, but we probably wouldn't go as hard on that product since its technical flaws have a very good chance of not being any kind of hindrance at all in real-world use. We look at technical performance but also grade on other aspects as well, such as usability, reliability, build quality, aesthetics, post-purchase support, etc. I'd like to think our reviews are far more well-rounded, however, they take way more time to put together for that reason.

As for the "gotta have it!" thing, that is just something that gets slapped on any previewed product that looks interesting in some manner. I am not sure how that gets put there, and the site may be better off without it.

 

[lovinthehd]

FWIW I'm also of the opinion that "gotta have it" should go away.

 

[NINaudio]

I've seen previews on here that didn't say "gotta have it" before, but much less glowing phrases.

 

[dutchholic]

I appreciate your detailed reply, it clarifies a lot.

I agree with lovinthehd and shadyJ that it would be nice to see the "First Impression: Gotta Have It!" gone indeed that will give an more neutral approach since it always looks a bit like an advertorial that way.

For example the new B&W 800D4 series: The off axis response is probably as bad as it ever was (all of their speakers measured bad off axis, so I don't see why it would be different this time), the same goes for the frequency response, which is always tweaked in a curious way with an extremely hot treble(also not measured yet with the D4, but why would it be different).

This combined with the fact that the prices of the new D4 B&W speakers went up with an insane amount again. Which makes them WAY WAY overpriced to their competitors that DON'T have these flaws. (I'm 100% sure that Perlisten or Revel or even Kef measures way better) So it should not have an an "Gotta Have It!", this based on objective knowledge that you guys from audioholics also have! It's simply not a good deal, not even when you have the money. And you guys know it, so that’s why it’s indeed better to have this removed, simply to prevent misunderstandings at the readers. Because if your “first impression” is “Gotta have it” then you suggest that it looks like that it could be a good deal in that pricerange, but based on all known facts it simply isn’t.

 

[sterling shoote]

The review to come will show this Sub does not defy physics. In other words it's all about pushing a volume of air and small does not do that like big does.

 

[sterling shoote]

I don't take points away for size. I evaluate any sub or loudspeaker in the context of its intended application. This is a sub meant for situations where a small size is of very high importance. So then I would ask, how well does this sub perform for the size/cost? How well does it do what a buyer would reasonably expect it to do? I am not scheduled to review this particular sub, but if I did, that is the framework under which I would review it.

OK, I'll buy into you being able to deliver a fair review, in context to small vs small not small vs big.

 

[CajunLB]

I was wondering why theres no reviews of any Pyle gear.

 

[snakeeyes]

I do wonder what size space this little sub can pressurize. Its great that it will be reviewed so buyers are informed on what it can do.

 

[Steve81]

As for the "gotta have it!" thing, that is just something that gets slapped on any previewed product that looks interesting in some manner. I am not sure how that gets put there, and the site may be better off without it.

That rating, along with "pretty cool" and "mildly interesting" are part of the preview article template when it's getting published. Back when I was writing / publishing, the rating came down to however excited I'd have been to actually get my mitts on a product to play with, vs any implication about the product in question being some world beating dynamo.

 

[Kleinst]

[

OK, I'll buy into you being able to deliver a fair review, in context to small vs small not small vs big.

Yeah, it would be a ridiculous review to say that a minivan doesn't go as fast and perform as well as a porsche. That's fairly evident. I would imagine there are ways to look at the reviews and see a few warning signs to be aware of. Frankly I don't see any real terrible reviews whether it be here or elsewhere (at least where I look). So user reviews are helpful and reaching out to the reviewers themselves can be insightful. But the MFGs probably don't ask them to review trash on this site anyway for what it would do to their business.

 

[Kleinst]

That rating, along with "pretty cool" and "mildly interesting" are part of the preview article template when it's getting published. Back when I was writing / publishing, the rating came down to however excited I'd have been to actually get my mitts on a product to play with, vs any implication about the product in question being some world beating dynamo.

Yes the Mildly Interesting tag probably tells you what you need to know.