I know this could be partially due to the fact that these subs were measured under different conditions, but why and or how could the SCIII match the SCI for extension let alone best it's output at lower frequencies? It also appears to have a much smoother response. I'm guessing there won't be enough information here to answer, but if there is I would appreciate the knowledge.
SCI
http://web.archive.org/web/20040619035738/http://soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/1222003153710.pdf
SCIII
Test Report: Definitive Technology Mythos XTR-50 Speakers | Sound and Vision Magazine
My goal, if I must have one, is not to achieve excessive amounts of output but achieve excellent extension at the lowest possible cost for a finished product. Right now the item to be contended would be my Athena Technology AS-P400. I doubt any Def Tech product I can afford will satisfy that need, so the above question is just to satisfy my curiosity.
That is interesting, as I wasted the assistance time at Magnolia in Eagan on Monday. One of the items I evaluated was the DT Supercube 1.
As you say, the measurements are different, but you can tell that neither sub is spectacular, and the SC1 is pretty awful, which confirmed my listening impression.
The SCM is a nasty peaky one note bass affair with a high Q. Q is not measured, but I could tell it was of the nasty too high Q variety.
If you look at the SCI 1 curve there are twin M shaped peaks at 50 and 75 Hz with rapid fall off in response either side.
The SCIII in the other hand is a little more promising, with a peak at 110 Hz and then second order roll off below that. Still not good but better.
I have to say I thought the super cube I was a particularly evil audio device.
I thought the performance of the DT speakers was also poor, certainly well below the standard of my factory car audio system.
Certainly none of the DT speakers were anything I would want to listen to.
