Perlisten R212s Subwoofer Review

[kini]

Ya, he's definitely a strong type A personality, that's for sure.

They used to have data on their older model subs. I wish they would include data for their newer ones too. They've been listed with "coming soon" for years now...

I bought a couple of their subs a few years back and have been very impressed with them. Like I said, some of their older models were tested on databass and did quite well. Maybe James will get a newer one in to test sometime - that would be great.

I've always been skeptical about their speakers. Seems to me speakers are much more difficult to get right than subs. It would be interesting to hear more about your impressions of their speakers.

They sounded nearly identical to my Klipsch RF62IIs I was looking to upgrade. They did have a smoother top end. That was the only positive thing. They (MT110s) had zero bass. I get that they're marketed as HE speakers but my NHT SuperOnes had quite a bit more bass. In my room they needed a 120hz crossover.

My biggest issue was with their claimed 95db efficiency. In my room with my AVR they were 2db less efficient than my RF62s. This is where the owner argued that I was wrong and that you can't base efficiency off an AVR. All I know is that using the pink noise during setup, which for my AVR is 78db. Using this to calibrate the PSAs and then switching to the RF62s the RF62s would show 80db. I remember the RF62IIs as being tested to be around 92db, so that would make the PSAs 90db not the claimed 95db.

And when I was testing my Q750s against the RF62s the difference amounted to about 4.5db which is in line with Kef's claim of 88db for the 750s and 92db for the RF62s.

If one speaker plays louder with same input level than the other, doesn't that make it more efficient?

For me they were overpriced PA speakers. The Q750s are better in every way for the same or less $$$$.

 

[shadyJ]

They sounded nearly identical to my Klipsch RF62IIs I was looking to upgrade. They did have a smoother top end. That was the only positive thing. They (MT110s) had zero bass. I get that they're marketed as HE speakers but my NHT SuperOnes had quite a bit more bass. In my room they needed a 120hz crossover.

My biggest issue was with their claimed 95db efficiency. In my room with my AVR they were 2db less efficient than my RF62s. This is where the owner argued that I was wrong and that you can't base efficiency off an AVR. All I know is that using the pink noise during setup, which for my AVR is 78db. Using this to calibrate the PSAs and then switching to the RF62s the RF62s would show 80db. I remember the RF62IIs as being tested to be around 92db, so that would make the PSAs 90db not the claimed 95db.

And when I was testing my Q750s against the RF62s the difference amounted to about 4.5db which is in line with Kef's claim of 88db for the 750s and 92db for the RF62s.

If one speaker plays louder with same input level than the other, doesn't that make it more efficient?

For me they were overpriced PA speakers. The Q750s are better in every way for the same or less $$$$.

Pink noise is weighted toward low frequencies, so a speaker like the MT110 would not register to be as sensitive if that is the tone by which you are gauging sensitivity. The industry standard is to rate sensitivity from 300Hz to 3kHz. In that range, the MT110 should have an advantage over the Klipsch speakers. At least I would hope so given the drivers it is using.

 

[Golfx]

Well, when it comes to value I would put more weight on the sound quality and less on the other aspects than you do.

I think this is a nice looking sub with cool sounding technology, but I'm skeptical how much all of that translates into performance improvements that we can percieve over cheaper, more industrial, and more traditional designs.

Hence why he is the reviewer.

 

[Hubbard32]

Looks like a great sub.. wondering if readers here would prefer one of these, or two JL Audio E110 subs? Music is my first priority btw..

 

[kini]

Pink noise is weighted toward low frequencies, so a speaker like the MT110 would not register to be as sensitive if that is the tone by which you are gauging sensitivity. The industry standard is to rate sensitivity from 300Hz to 3kHz. In that range, the MT110 should have an advantage over the Klipsch speakers. At least I would hope so given the drivers it is using.

I'm confused on this then. It's what the AVR uses to set levels during setup. If it's not accurate then how does the level setup work?

As an aside to all this, using the AVR pink noise as a setup guide there was always a 1.5-2db difference in volume in favor of the Klipsch no matter the content, music, movies, TV or volume listened at...... doesn't that make the Klipsch more efficient?

 

[shadyJ]

I'm confused on this then. It's what the AVR uses to set levels during setup. If it's not accurate then how does the level setup work?

As an aside to all this, using the AVR pink noise as a setup guide there was always a 1.5-2db difference in volume in favor of the Klipsch no matter the content, music, movies, TV or volume listened at...... doesn't that make the Klipsch more efficient?

The discrepancy here is the standard that the industry uses to specify sensitivity and real-world use in home audio. At least partly. Basically, the Klipsch speakers should be a lot more sensitive in lower frequencies, where it will make more of a difference in normal home use. The MT110 should be more sensitive in mid and treble bands. If the reference frequency for level setting is low, like say a pink noise that is weighted more in bass than treble, than it will make the Klipsch sound louder with everything. If the reference frequency were something like 3kHz, I would expect the MT110 to sound louder for the dial in the volume knob. That should be the case with the kind of drivers that the MT110 was using. It's possible that the MT110 drivers just weren't optimally arranged for efficiency and were more used just for the headroom that they offered.

 

[3db]

Nice review James. Its a nice looking sub too but it's too expensive for ky soon to be retirement budget.

On another note, why don't we see any reviews on Funk subwoofers? I havent heard them mentioned in quite a long time

 

[shadyJ]

Nice review James. Its a nice looking sub too but it's too expensive for ky soon to be retirement budget.

On another note, why don't we see any reviews on Funk subwoofers? I havent heard them mentioned in quite a long time

I am certainly open to reviewing a sub from Funk Audio. If they want a sub reviewed, they would have to get in contact with us to make arrangements. Sadly, subwoofer testing season is drawing to a close here, so I won't be able to test any more subs until the spring, but if they are willing to have a sub evaluated next year, I am willing to look at one.

 

[zkchary113]

View attachment 57739​

One of the best subwoofers we ever tested was Perlisten’s D215s, their flagship subwoofer, but at $9k, it wasn’t for everyone. However, if you didn’t need quite as much sheer headroom as the D215s provide and aren’t looking to spend $9k on a subwoofer but are still interested in the technologies and design ideas of Perlisten, you could save a significant amount of money by looking at their Reference series products. The Reference series does scale down the extravagant build quality and feature set of the Signature series subs a bit, but the design ideas and promise of tremendous performance remains intact. The flagship of the Reference series subwoofers is the R212s, a $5k dual 12” subwoofer powered by a 1.3kW amplifier using state-of-the-art signal processing. This is the subwoofer we will be looking at in today’s review. The questions this subwoofer poses are: How much is given up by stepping down from the Signature series? Will you get much of the same performance but at a massive discount? How does the Reference fare against competing subwoofers from other manufacturers? Does the R212s represent the sweet spot of value in Perlisten’s subwoofer line-up? Read our full review here to find out answers to all of these questions and more! READ: Perlisten R212s Subwoofer Review

Nice review. I'm sure it's a lot of work. I appreciate being able to read through detailed reviews like this. Question for you - do you think all the expensive tech in this sub is worth it? It all sounds very cool, but I look at some similar offerings with much more traditional designs from some ID companies, but offer similar performance for less cost. Like one of PSA's subs?

 

[everettT]

Nice review. I'm sure it's a lot of work. I appreciate being able to read through detailed reviews like this. Question for you - do you think all the expensive tech in this sub is worth it? It all sounds very cool, but I look at some similar offerings with much more traditional designs from some ID companies, but offer similar performance for less cost. Like one of PSA's subs?

Not many, only a few and very expensive ID subs, have distortion numbers this low at max output. No PSA sub is gonna come close, and that it isn't what their customers are looking for or at.

 

[Ninjo]

How does this sub compare to the Perlisten D212s when used for both stereo and theater sound (my room is about 4000 cubic feet 20'x20'x10'ish). Can I hook this sub up to both my Pre and my Surround processor? (I use home theater bypass on the pre)

 

[Ninjo]

Has anyone compared the Perlisten D212s to the Perlisten R212? I'm curious about any differences you may have encountered.

 

[shadyJ]

How does this sub compare to the Perlisten D212s when used for both stereo and theater sound (my room is about 4000 cubic feet 20'x20'x10'ish). Can I hook this sub up to both my Pre and my Surround processor? (I use home theater bypass on the pre)

The D212s has double the amplifier power, beefier drivers, and a slightly larger enclosure. It will have at least a 3dB advantage over the R212s, and I would guess closer to a 4dB advantage. The D212s is THX Dominus certified, but the R212s is 'only' THX Ultra certified. It looks like the D212s would have maybe 60% more output than the R212s, so I would guess that the D212s is a slightly better value from a dB/$ ratio. The performance over price scale looks to be close though. In other words, you do get your money's worth if you spring for the more expensive D212s.

 

[everettT]

How does this sub compare to the Perlisten D212s when used for both stereo and theater sound (my room is about 4000 cubic feet 20'x20'x10'ish). Can I hook this sub up to both my Pre and my Surround processor? (I use home theater bypass on the pre)

Both would be satisfactory for your room size, after that I'd be more concerned with the dimensions of your room, square rooms reek havoc on bass. I'd consider dealing with that the most important. Using a room mode calculator or software will give you the information you need to address the issues with absorption of few types.

 

[Ninjo]

The D212s has double the amplifier power, beefier drivers, and a slightly larger enclosure. It will have at least a 3dB advantage over the R212s, and I would guess closer to a 4dB advantage. The D212s is THX Dominus certified, but the R212s is 'only' THX Ultra certified. It looks like the D212s would have maybe 60% more output than the R212s, so I would guess that the D212s is a slightly better value from a dB/$ ratio. The performance over price scale looks to be close though. In other words, you do get your money's worth if you spring for the more expensive D212s.

Thank you, that's very helpful information.

 

[Ninjo]

Both would be satisfactory for your room size, after that I'd be more concerned with the dimensions of your room, square rooms reek havoc on bass. I'd consider dealing with that the most important. Using a room mode calculator or software will give you the information you need to address the issues with absorption of few types.

Thank you, I will definitely spend some time figuring how I can improve the room, and yes it's a rectangle.

 

[MTK]

This subwoofer has me intrigued.

About a year ago (now that I'm an empty nester), I decided to upgrade my audio equipment. While my Sony DA4ES and Mirage speakers (my now basement system) still function well, I wanted something a little more high end.
I bought a pair of KEF LS50 Meta speakers, a pair of REL t7i subs and a Hegel H190 amp. I liked the sound, and it was better than what I had, but it was lacking to me. So, I sent back the LS50s and the H190 in exchange for B&W 805 D3s and a Hegel H390. They sound fantastic. Later, I added a center channel (B&W HTM71 S3) and 2 in-wall surrounds (CWM7.5 S2) and an Anthem MRX 740 8k. This will only be, at most, a 5.1 or 5.2 system as certain aesthetics will either shorten or prolong the duration of my marriage. She is fine with the amount of equipment in the room, and the placement of that equipment, as it stands right now. Currently, the subs are placed next to my L/R speakers...between them and a table that is underneath my TV.

All of the equipment I bought, I am very satisfied with....except the one, very noticeable, shortcoming...the REL subs. It's not that they sound bad, they don't. It's a matter of frequencies they noticeably can't produce and the intended impact in parts of music tracks and in movies...it just doesn't get there. I'm a drummer, so the impact of a bass drum, etc, is something I really like to hear and feel. So, I've been doing some research on something better suited. The system is used for music - maybe 60%, and theater - maybe 40%. The form factor of more upright subs, like this one and some of the Arendal subs, fits well with where I would have to place them.

So, after my long intro, here's are my questions....
- Would this sub get bored working with the equipment I have?
- As I'm not going to be in the market for buying 2 of these subs, at their price, would one of them suffice? As I know someone is going to ask for room size, it is 14' deep x 18' wide with cathedral ceiling (11' at the peak). The back of the room, beyond the 14' depth, is partially open to my kitchen (so, basically L-shaped as a contiguous space).
- Or would I be better off buying 2 of the Arendal subs for my space, configuration, and equipment matching?

Thanks in advance for any comments!

 

[Golfx]

This subwoofer has me intrigued.

About a year ago (now that I'm an empty nester), I decided to upgrade my audio equipment. While my Sony DA4ES and Mirage speakers (my now basement system) still function well, I wanted something a little more high end.
I bought a pair of KEF LS50 Meta speakers, a pair of REL t7i subs and a Hegel H190 amp. I liked the sound, and it was better than what I had, but it was lacking to me. So, I sent back the LS50s and the H190 in exchange for B&W 805 D3s and a Hegel H390. They sound fantastic. Later, I added a center channel (B&W HTM71 S3) and 2 in-wall surrounds (CWM7.5 S2) and an Anthem MRX 740 8k. This will only be, at most, a 5.1 or 5.2 system as certain aesthetics will either shorten or prolong the duration of my marriage. She is fine with the amount of equipment in the room, and the placement of that equipment, as it stands right now. Currently, the subs are placed next to my L/R speakers...between them and a table that is underneath my TV.

All of the equipment I bought, I am very satisfied with....except the one, very noticeable, shortcoming...the REL subs. It's not that they sound bad, they don't. It's a matter of frequencies they noticeably can't produce and the intended impact in parts of music tracks and in movies...it just doesn't get there. I'm a drummer, so the impact of a bass drum, etc, is something I really like to hear and feel. So, I've been doing some research on something better suited. The system is used for music - maybe 60%, and theater - maybe 40%. The form factor of more upright subs, like this one and some of the Arendal subs, fits well with where I would have to place them.

So, after my long intro, here's are my questions....
- Would this sub get bored working with the equipment I have?
- As I'm not going to be in the market for buying 2 of these subs, at their price, would one of them suffice? As I know someone is going to ask for room size, it is 14' deep x 18' wide with cathedral ceiling (11' at the peak). The back of the room, beyond the 14' depth, is partially open to my kitchen (so, basically L-shaped as a contiguous space).
- Or would I be better off buying 2 of the Arendal subs for my space, configuration, and equipment matching?

Thanks in advance for any comments!

You have begun an upgrade journey. I do not know how to stop one of those. I am addicted. If you buy the Arendals they will certainly impress you. They measured well and got a terrific review plus you will be complying with the “forum rule” of two. But the satisfaction will likely be temporary (and that is ok). At some point you will WANT the Perlisten and then another. So in the long scheme of things you might be saving yourself interim expense by buying one Perlisten. But that satisfaction will likely be temporary (and that is ok). And then you can buy the second Perlisten. And then………

 

[shadyJ]

This subwoofer has me intrigued.

About a year ago (now that I'm an empty nester), I decided to upgrade my audio equipment. While my Sony DA4ES and Mirage speakers (my now basement system) still function well, I wanted something a little more high end.
I bought a pair of KEF LS50 Meta speakers, a pair of REL t7i subs and a Hegel H190 amp. I liked the sound, and it was better than what I had, but it was lacking to me. So, I sent back the LS50s and the H190 in exchange for B&W 805 D3s and a Hegel H390. They sound fantastic. Later, I added a center channel (B&W HTM71 S3) and 2 in-wall surrounds (CWM7.5 S2) and an Anthem MRX 740 8k. This will only be, at most, a 5.1 or 5.2 system as certain aesthetics will either shorten or prolong the duration of my marriage. She is fine with the amount of equipment in the room, and the placement of that equipment, as it stands right now. Currently, the subs are placed next to my L/R speakers...between them and a table that is underneath my TV.

All of the equipment I bought, I am very satisfied with....except the one, very noticeable, shortcoming...the REL subs. It's not that they sound bad, they don't. It's a matter of frequencies they noticeably can't produce and the intended impact in parts of music tracks and in movies...it just doesn't get there. I'm a drummer, so the impact of a bass drum, etc, is something I really like to hear and feel. So, I've been doing some research on something better suited. The system is used for music - maybe 60%, and theater - maybe 40%. The form factor of more upright subs, like this one and some of the Arendal subs, fits well with where I would have to place them.

So, after my long intro, here's are my questions....
- Would this sub get bored working with the equipment I have?
- As I'm not going to be in the market for buying 2 of these subs, at their price, would one of them suffice? As I know someone is going to ask for room size, it is 14' deep x 18' wide with cathedral ceiling (11' at the peak). The back of the room, beyond the 14' depth, is partially open to my kitchen (so, basically L-shaped as a contiguous space).
- Or would I be better off buying 2 of the Arendal subs for my space, configuration, and equipment matching?

Thanks in advance for any comments!

A lot of the bass energy from drums comes from the speakers, not the sub. Subs mostly only do deep bass. Much of the punch of drums lay above the 80Hz crossover point that people usually use for subs. Your speakers have to share some of the blame for the lack of punch from your system. The Rel sub definitely isn't going to hit that hard as well. I would upgrade both the speakers and the sub. Get some tower speakers.

 

[highfigh]

Way ahead of you @ryanosaur on the drinking game....good for "fire relief"

As to finish/looks of these subs....a big meh as to most WAF acceptance I'd think just on size, the finish doesn't look that great to conquer that aspect.

Well, considering the fact that cosmetics have no effect on performance but large effect on price, I'm sure more WAF resistance would come from an additional $500-$1000, depending on what is used to make it pretty and the techniques needed.