EP-500, PB-12 Plus, and UFW-12, a couple specific questions about pros and cons

[jakeman]

1.) Why does the EP500 beat the PB-12Plus, if they look similar with a graph?



2.) Is there somthing about the SVS reaching 14 rather then 20Hz flat that makes it worse?

Both subwoofers are flat up to 100Hz, and its been pointed out that its a moot point when you considers room modes. Again, because you have heard them both, and did it blind, you should be able to describe why the EP500 is better.

SheepStar

I don't know whether you read this listening test session at Craig's from November comparing the EP500 and the SVS-Ultra so here it is for reference: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=6574049&&#post6574049. More posted impressions can be found a couple of pages before if you want more detailed reasons by the attendees as to why the 500 sounds better.

As for the graphs, anyone can see the EP500 is more linear. Its not a moot point simply because all rooms have nodes, otherwise FR linearity would not be as important a determinant of sound quality as it is. Play around with an SMS or BFD if you aren't convinced that more linear subs sound better. There are other reasons regarding the amps, use of DSP, high excursion drivers, vents, audibility of distortion, amount of IMD, extent of THD etc which has been debated extensively and I suggest you search some threads at other forums for more information.

The fact that the SVS extends to 14hz is a positive feature in isolation but as subwoofers are exercises in compromise there are usually other non-linearities which can arise as a result of emphasizing extension. Whether or not it impacts on subwoofer sound is much debated. My view is that subs with deep extension need to be controlled digitally or with servos to avoid problems with distortion at higher frequencies.

The CEA committee took note of this phenomena by making their subwoofer measurement metric distortion weighted up to 10khz, a brilliant approach in my opinion.

...a goal was to take into account the fact that higher frequency noise that is not harmonically related to the fundamental can have a negative impact on perceived loudspeaker performance. It is assumed that the higher in frequency the noise, the more annoying it will be to the listener. It is also assumed that noise that is closer in frequency to the fundamental will be more easily masked...

They found that all subwoofers generate distortion/noise at higher octaves which can detract from sound quality. And their system penalizes subs such that noise at -40db in the 8th octave is treated as badly as distortion -10db down at 1/3 octave above the 2nd harmonic.

 

[Sheep]

Thats odd.

Avtalk tested the Signature Servo and it is servo controlled, but it had a 10% THD Peak at 120Hz. Mind you that was on a 105 dB run (I think). None the less, the servo DIDN'T work(in the way you claimed).

For 5 Grand, that isn't very good.

Here is the THD measurement of the SVS 20-39PC+ in 12Hz tune(dB12.2 driver I think).

The THD seems VERY uniform, Same with group delay.

I think the non linearities you speak off only occur in inferiorly designed subwoofers.

BTW, thanks for answering.

SheepStar

 

[craigsub]

Where did I "pop" off? All I did was ask a couple questions, and STILL I have not been given a thorough asnwer.

If I'm asked something, and I know the answer, I'd answer. Pretty simple.

My questions were(are),

1.) Why does the EP500 beat the PB-12Plus, if they look similar with a graph?

Its not a hard question, and you can spout off about how I haven't heard them all you want. BUT, if you want people to believe you, and respect you, answering this question is a good start. You've heard them, and you seem very convinced that the EP500 is better, so prove it. Thats all I ask

Actually, this is what you asked... and you did not ask me, you asked jakeman. This was your "question" from post # 12. You even quoted jakeman in the post.

Jakeman's post:

Originally Posted by jakeman
You are doing the right thing soliciting the views of people who have heard or own these subs. I own an EP500 and an SVS Ultra, and have heard the UFW-12. These are all fine subwoofers and you really can't go wrong with any of those three subs depending on your music and HT preferences.

If music was your first priority I would steer you toward the UFW-12 for that tight sealed bass sound with the EP500 also being a good alternative.

For HT both the PB-12Plus and the EP500 would work well with the EP 500 being the more articulate of the two subs oweing to its superbly flat FR to 100hz.

If you want raw high SPLs and don't listen to much music or are not as fussed about sound detail then the PB-12 Plus would make a good choice for HT applications.

If you need a sub for both music and HT the EP500 would likely the better choice on balance.

Your response/question to Jakeman

It seems the SVS PB-12Plus has a flat FR to 100Hz too.....
Why would you recommend the EP500 over the SVS then? Is there somthing about the SVS reaching 14 rather then 20Hz flat that makes it worse? Not to mention the SVS is cheaper and has real wood veneer options.

I then asked you ...

Sheep, Which of these subwoofers have you heard ?

and you answered with this

Craig, you didn't answer my question.

SheepStar

So, if you ask jakeman a question, it is my responsibility to answer it ?

You also made the assertion that you answer questions when you know the answer. I asked you which of these subs you heard, and you never answered. Does this mean you don't know whether or not you have auditioned them ?

 

[Sheep]

Actually, this is what you asked... and you did not ask me, you asked jakeman. This was your "question" from post # 12. You even quoted jakeman in the post.
[snip]

Craig, you knew the answers to the questions. You wanted to be rude and butt in, so I figured you wanted to get invovled.

If you don't want to add anything constructive, don't say anything.

SheepStar

 

[jakeman]

=4828[/IMG]

I think the non linearities you speak off only occur in inferiorly designed subwoofers.

SheepStar

I believe non linearities occur in all subwoofers and loudspeakers, its a question of degree and of course the related issue of how you want to measure it. The 10% THD measure is one of those measurements which is somewhat easier to do and accordingly many reviewers like to use them, but it doesn't follow that is the best way to represent all the distortion/noise coming from a sub. If it were it would follow that those SVS subs tested above are better sounding than the Paradigm Servo v2 which is just not right. After listening to the Paradigm Servo v2 for a couple of weeks I don't mind saying that sub performs better than any of the Axiom or SVS subs IMO.

The 10% criteria is a crude approach at best which does not acount for the more annoying artifacts higher up the frequency range nor does it track more irksome dynamic or IM distortions. Its not that useful a performance criteria because it doesn't incorporate many of the distortions which can have a greater impact on sound quality. The better way to compare and measure for distortion artifacts is what has been presented by the CEA and I am hoping more reviewers stop using these rudimentary (misleading?) 10% THD and start using the CEA distortion measuring approach.

 

[craigsub]

Craig, you knew the answers to the questions. You wanted to be rude and butt in, so I figured you wanted to get invovled.

If you don't want to add anything constructive, don't say anything.

SheepStar

Sheep, It is your position that asking if you have heard a speaker is not constructive ? Interesting line of thought you have, young man.

It was quite a simple question, and it was asked directly of you: Which speaker had you heard between the PB12-Plus and the EP-500 ?

Maybe things have changed, but in my years of experience in audio, finding out what someone's experience is with a product, especially a loudspeaker, is quite relevant to the conversation.

 

[craigsub]

I believe non linearities occur in all subwoofers and loudspeakers, its a question of degree and of course the related issue of how you want to measure it. The 10% THD measure is one of those measurements which is somewhat easier to do and accordingly many reviewers like to use them, but it doesn't follow that is the best way to represent all the distortion/noise coming from a sub. If it were it would follow that those SVS subs tested above are better sounding than the Paradigm Servo v2 which is just not right. After listening to the Paradigm Servo v2 for a couple of weeks I don't mind saying that sub performs better than any of the Axiom or SVS subs IMO.

The 10% criteria is a crude approach at best which does not acount for the more annoying artifacts higher up the frequency range nor does it track more irksome dynamic or IM distortions. Its not that useful a performance criteria because it doesn't incorporate many of the distortions which can have a greater impact on sound quality. The better way to compare and measure for distortion artifacts is what has been presented by the CEA and I am hoping more reviewers stop using these rudimentary (misleading?) 10% THD and start using the CEA distortion measuring approach.

Interesting findings, John. I have found the same to be true here with the DD-18. Of course, when doing the review of the Axiom EP-600 last September, the final statement was "The EP-600 is now my favorite PORTED subwoofer".

There is something about a well executed sealed design that belies a lot of the currently revered internet review data driven conclusions. In plain English, the best sealed designs sound better. The DD series from Velo, the Paradigm Servo-15 V.2, etc ...

I am looking forward too discovering how the new Maestro XL stacks up.

Please keep us informed of any updates you find on the CEA testing, too. You are doing a great job of getting the word out on what appears to be a major advancement in subwoofer reporting.

 

[Johnd]

After listening to the Paradigm Servo v2 for a couple of weeks I don't mind saying that sub performs better than any of the Axiom or SVS subs IMO.

Could that have anything to do with its incredible accuracy?

I can see why this doesn't matter much for the ht crowd...they just want to hit 10Hz. I guess I'm willing to give up a little lfe for accuracy...cuz I like music too. Cheers.

 

[Sheep]

Could that have anything to do with its incredible accuracy?

I can see why this doesn't matter much for the ht crowd...they just want to hit 10Hz. I guess I'm willing to give up a little lfe for accuracy...cuz I like music too. Cheers.

I heard that sub briefly, very nice indeed. Its amp had a problem though, sounded like a blowing air noise. Maybe I will go bakc and listen to it again today.

SheepStar

 

[craigsub]

Could that have anything to do with its incredible accuracy?

I can see why this doesn't matter much for the ht crowd...they just want to hit 10Hz. I guess I'm willing to give up a little lfe for accuracy...cuz I like music too. Cheers.

The accuracy is, of course, a major factor. It is what defines this accuracy that counts - for example, Subs like the DD series, the Servo 15, and the original Maestro, like any good speaker, excell at all aspects of sound reproduction.

When running the test on the Maestro vs. the B4+ 2 years ago, we would listen to identical movie scenes, at identical (according to TrueRTA) bass levels. The Maestro felt more powerful, even when the graphs said both were delivering the same SPL.

The DD-18 has this over the Axiom/Hsu/SVS subs we have here, too. War of the Worls is known for its bombastic bass - but a great subwoofer will deliver the bass present in the basement scene (Think Tim Robbins) with authority.

The EP-600 was the best ported subs of the Axiom/Hsu/SVS ... but all were beaten by the Velo.

Hopefully the new CEA standards will help with the "whys" of subwoofer performance. And even more importantly, hopefully people will start listening to subwoofers, rather than reading graphs alone.

The sealed subs also handled small bass signals better - the more subtle tracks will come through cleaner.

 

[jakeman]

Interesting findings, John. I have found the same to be true here with the DD-18. Of course, when doing the review of the Axiom EP-600 last September, the final statement was "The EP-600 is now my favorite PORTED subwoofer".

There is something about a well executed sealed design that belies a lot of the currently revered internet review data driven conclusions. In plain English, the best sealed designs sound better. The DD series from Velo, the Paradigm Servo-15 V.2, etc ...

I like rocking explosions and deep lightning strikes as much as the next guy but when it comes to tight melodic acoustic bass I'm inclined to sealed subs these days. And the better sealed designs also do an excellent job in the HT front as well. I thought the Velo DD-15 was right there with the Servo v2 so I can imagine how your DD-18 must sound. At the moment I've got the two EP600s, a EP500 and the SVS PC-Ultra all SMS equalized and combined level matched at 75db which really cooks for movies but for music...the Servo v2. I was trying to get another one set up to see how a pair would perform for HT but never got around to it.

As you an tell I've been very upbeat about the new CEA subwoofer standard since first hearing about it last year. Not only does it provide a level playing field, it resolves many of the unanswered questions from many hotly debated threads about how to properly measure subs. You have to admire how they chose to deal with the distortion issue by capping max SPLs depending on whether certain noise thresholds were exceeded over six bandwidth limited frequencies up to 10khz. It really puts to rest this dubious IMD and THD measurement stuff we've seen.

 

[RMK!]

Sealed Subs

The accuracy is, of course, a major factor. It is what defines this accuracy that counts - for example, Subs like the DD series, the Servo 15, and the original Maestro, like any good speaker, excell at all aspects of sound reproduction.

When running the test on the Maestro vs. the B4+ 2 years ago, we would listen to identical movie scenes, at identical (according to TrueRTA) bass levels. The Maestro felt more powerful, even when the graphs said both were delivering the same SPL.

The DD-18 has this over the Axiom/Hsu/SVS subs we have here, too. War of the Worls is known for its bombastic bass - but a great subwoofer will deliver the bass present in the basement scene (Think Tim Robbins) with authority.

The EP-600 was the best ported subs of the Axiom/Hsu/SVS ... but all were beaten by the Velo.

Hopefully the new CEA standards will help with the "whys" of subwoofer performance. And even more importantly, hopefully people will start listening to subwoofers, rather than reading graphs alone.

The sealed subs also handled small bass signals better - the more subtle tracks will come through cleaner.

The B4+2 was one of the subs I was interested in and SVS’s self proclaimed ubersub. That sub was not available when I was in the market, so I ended up with the DD-18. In hindsight, that was a fortunate sequence of events.

 

[Johnd]

...so I ended up with the DD-18. In hindsight, that was a fortunate sequence of events.

I'd have to agree.

 

[Sheep]

The B4+2 was one of the subs I was interested in and SVS’s self proclaimed ubersub. That sub was not available when I was in the market, so I ended up with the DD-18. In hindsight, that was a fortunate sequence of events.

You could be like mule, and get 2 B4+s for the price of one.

SheepStar

 

[RMK!]

You could be like mule, and get 2 B4+s for the price of one.

SheepStar

Guess you could say I opted for quality, not quantity.

 

[jakeman]

That's what I like about Rob...lots of common sense.

 

[Manic Miner]

I've had a look at the new CEA standard, and my first impression is that this will not reward subs with ultra low distortion. And that unless those subs are better then others at burst signals they will come out looking weak.

The other thing is the burst signal. From what I could tell they only specified the maximum duration, but no minimum duration (maybe I've missed something), I really hope that there aren't any loopholes in the specification as it would render it useless.

It is a huge step in the right direction tough, but it is no replacement for 3rd party tests. They way they report the score, and only reporting THD limited SPL does not tell the whole truth (not that I'm claiming that I know what does). As we get more data on different subs I hope that the eventual importance of GD and decay will become clearer.

 

[Nermuna]

This deabte is over

The svs pb-12 plus hands beats down the other two subs- and the price, why does axiom charge so much money for the EP-600 when the svs pc-ultra cylinder or pb-12 900watt would put the axiom ep-600 to shame for nearly 50% less, you can get NEARLY 3 times the power of the ep600 for the cost of 1 ep600.

I don't think the axiom subwoofers should have on product of the year- compared to svs- which is such a good contendor. Even the PB-10 IDS HOLDS UP TO THE EP500- as reviewed in Tom Andry's sbs-01 review.

 

[Sheep]

The svs pb-12 plus hands beats down the other two subs- and the price, why does axiom charge so much money for the EP-600 when the svs pc-ultra cylinder or pb-12 900watt would put the axiom ep-600 to shame for nearly 50% less, you can get NEARLY 3 times the power of the ep600 for the cost of 1 ep600.

I don't think the axiom subwoofers should have on product of the year- compared to svs- which is such a good contendor. Even the PB-10 IDS HOLDS UP TO THE EP500- as reviewed in Tom Andry's sbs-01 review.

Now now, lets not get the fire started again...

SheepStar

 

[Mark Seaton]

I've had a look at the new CEA standard, and my first impression is that this will not reward subs with ultra low distortion. And that unless those subs are better then others at burst signals they will come out looking weak.

The other thing is the burst signal. From what I could tell they only specified the maximum duration, but no minimum duration (maybe I've missed something), I really hope that there aren't any loopholes in the specification as it would render it useless.

It is a huge step in the right direction tough, but it is no replacement for 3rd party tests. They way they report the score, and only reporting THD limited SPL does not tell the whole truth (not that I'm claiming that I know what does). As we get more data on different subs I hope that the eventual importance of GD and decay will become clearer.

The burst signals are specified as 1/3rd octave wide tone bursts. By definition, this sets a specific time by limiting the burst to 1/3rd octave bandwidth. There isn't much wiggle room there. The standard won't define all parameters, but it does give a useful standard for peak output limits. If you combine these parameters with increasing level sweeps showing compression, you have a good concept of how a sub might perform. From there you generally need to give a listen to check that you didn't miss anything and make more subjective evaluations. Detailed distortion measurements can be insightful between similar designs, but as possible distortion mechanisms change, correlation is much less certain. The harmonic weighting of the distortion measurements of the CEA standard makes a worthwhile effort to better correlate the audible distortion limits.