I am not opposed to SVS, I have just always heard they are just flabby bass boxes and are not articulate. Opinions?
I think you have a misconception of the physics of LF reproduction, and subs in particular.
There are two aspects to arcuate articulate bass.
The first issue is resonance and the Q of that resonance. All bass reproducing systems are resonant, even sealed ones. There is a point though, where if the total Q of the system is below 0.5 then the system will sound essentially non resonant. The only two ways I know of getting an essentially non resonant sub, is by having and open baffle sub, which is highly inefficient, or using a critically damped pipe known as a critically damped transmission line. The latter is what I favor, but I have to design and build them.
The other issue is commerce. The wretched marketers want the designers to go for maximally low F3. Now, there is a conflict between maximally low F3 and low Q. An optimal ported design can, and often does have an acceptably low Q, even if not considered critically damped, which no reflex enclosure can be. However because of "my F3 is lower then your F3", designers get pushed to extended bass tuning, which raises Q. In my view this is the wrong trade off.
I have designed a number of subs for members here, and tuned for low Q rather then lowest F3. I think they have all been very pleased with their subs.
The next issue is transient response, and the ability to produce a square wave. This requires a broad frequency response, which a sub obviously does not have. It is a highly restricted FR. The only speaker that I am aware of that can produce a reasonable square wave is the Quad electrostatic speaker.
Good transient response requires, not only low Q and a broad frequency response, but also that there be no serious phase distortions across the frequency spectrum. In other words that all frequencies be in time with one another. Well as you probably know, all cone type speakers with crossovers are awash in phase/time anomalies. So transient response is highly suboptimal. When you talk about a sub separated in space, and therefore time, from the other speakers, then the problem is massively compounded.
That is why I have designed speakers that have an integrated TL bass system, keeping phase/time aberrations to the minimum. So I certainly produce low Q bass, better timed with the other frequencies. The advent of active designs with DSP I think will improve this situation enormously.
I have a feeling that it won't be long before we see a moving coil speaker that will produce a reasonable facsimile of a square wave, and not something that bears no possible resemblance to the square wave input which is the case at present.
The last point I need to stress, is that all instruments, including drums, and yes, the bass drum, have significant HF content, well above sub range. So how this range of frequencies is kept in time, has a big impact on the slam factor. The other is low Q, which when on the high side, adds a degree of resonance to the drum beat reducing the realism of the reproduction.
If you have recorded instruments live, which I have done, you become acutely aware of these issues. I suspect that you are now coming to terms with this reality, and asking no matter what mic you use and in what position, it never sounds like the real thing. I have given you that explanation. However some systems get an awful lot closer to the truth than others.
