SVS PB17-Ultra Subwoofer Reviewed!

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Please explain to me what the goal would be here? Especially considering the point if diminishing returns.

I already told you the “goal”.

Sell more products, increase interest by introducing new models, get people talking exactly like what we are doing now.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I thought, by far, the primary purpose of purchasing a big ported sub like this and others is to capture frequencies way below what is considered mid-bass.

Yeah I would agree that big 200-pound subs primarily purpose is to produce something like 10Hz at 120dB.

 

[Auditor55]

I already told you the “goal”.

Sell more products, increase interest by introducing new models, get people talking exactly like what we are doing now.

I must give credit where credit is due. SVS did add an OLED screen to the back panel. Can't wait for people to complain about burn-in.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I must give credit where credit is due. SVS did add an OLED screen to the back panel. Can't wait for people to complain about burn-in.

That would be hilarious. Does this sub really have an OLED screen? I wonder if the vibration will cause any issues with the OLED?

 

[rimmi2002]

Thanks for the great review. In terms of comparisons, was wondering if you can please share how this compares to Rythmic FV18? Thanks.

 

[Golfx]

Please explain to me what the goal would be here? Especially considering the point if diminishing returns.

Profit for SVS and dealers satisfying customers who desire bigger better more peer esteem.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

Please explain to me what the goal would be here? Especially considering the point if diminishing returns.

Well I certainly wouldn’t say diminishing returns isn’t present here. But my point to you is that not everyone has a listening space in a 10x10 suspended floor closet. For instance. My room is 16x25x10. That’s also connected to a matching sized kitchen and a foyer and a hallway. I won’t do the math for you, but to achieve MY goals, I need considerable subwoofage. Same reason people own 800hp street cars.
So is it even possible for you to see that someone might have a different use case than YOU? Or are you too narcissistic?

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

My room is 16x25x10. That’s also connected to a matching sized kitchen and a foyer and a hallway…to achieve MY goals, I need considerable subwoofage.

I think that’s what @Auditor55 was looking for.

So the GOAL (he was asking for) is to be able to produce enough bass for LARGER rooms.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

I think that’s what @Auditor55 was looking for.

So the GOAL (he was asking for) is to be able to produce enough bass for LARGER rooms.

Precisely.

 

[Steve81]

I thought, by far, the primary purpose of purchasing a big ported sub like this and others is to capture frequencies way below what is considered mid-bass.

That’s the reason the PB17 exists, but not crapping the bed at midbass frequencies contributes to that as well, even if that’s counterintuitive. That the PB17 doesn’t drop off in the upper frequencies indicates that it isn’t losing sensitivity/efficiency in that region, vs the PB16 which clearly is. Given that we’re listening to complex waveforms, the less amp power that’s wasted reproducing midbass frequencies, the more that’s available for the low end.

 

[TLS Guy]

That’s the reason the PB17 exists, but not crapping the bed at midbass frequencies contributes to that as well, even if that’s counterintuitive. That the PB17 doesn’t drop off in the upper frequencies indicates that it isn’t losing sensitivity/efficiency in that region, vs the PB16 which clearly is. Given that we’re listening to complex waveforms, the less amp power that’s wasted reproducing midbass frequencies, the more that’s available for the low end.

First off define mid bass please. As far as I know subs generally reproduce from 80 Hz or lower down to the last octave. Although on my fronts I do use one of the drivers in each line also to provide the BSC for the drivers above to offload them.

I am using four 10" drivers, (SEAS Excel) with Fs of 20 Hz. Total power to those drivers is 600 watts. I sure don't need 2,800 watts to do the job. When the grand kids are watching movies in the AV room those drivers can rattle the crockery downstairs, which is actually irritating. Actually the amps driving those four drivers, never even break a sweat.

I grant you, that my lines couple really well to the room, but 2,800 watts just seems way over the top to me.

Spending that money on subs leaves less money available for much more critical areas of the frequency spectrum.

 

[Steve81]

First off define mid bass please. As far as I know subs generally reproduce from 80 Hz or lower down to the last octave.

You know better than that doc. The LFE channel goes above 80Hz and crossovers aren’t brick walls. A sub shouldn’t be wheezing above 80Hz like the PB16 does, and the PB17 fixes that.

 

[TLS Guy]

You know better than that doc. The LFE channel goes above 80Hz and crossovers aren’t brick walls. A sub shouldn’t be wheezing above 80Hz like the PB16 does, and the PB17 fixes that.

I know that, and that you can set the crossover higher than 80 Hz. However once you do that you are getting into a more critical area of human hearing, and then you entering territory where a custom designed crossover is mandatory and not a receiver or AVP generic crossover. When I blend in my BSC to the long pipe drivers it is via an active crossover I have customized, just like I would for any other speaker I design.

I think it is generally accepted that the last two octaves are sub territory. I really don't like the term mid bass. As far as I'm concerned anything below 400 Hz is bass period. I would not argue if you want to extend the definition to 500 Hz. From there on out to around 4 KHz it is midrange, with the speech discrimination band being 400 Hz to somewhere between 400 Hz and somewhere between 3,500 Hz and 4000 Hz. Certainly anyone who has hearing deficits below 3,500 Hz becomes increasingly symptomatic with speech recognition becoming increasingly impaired below that, and profound at 1500 Hz and below. The ear is most critical of aberrations in and around the speech discrimination band, and that is the area where speaker FR irregularities are most objectionable and is the area that needs the greatest attention and care of the speaker designer.

In speaker design keeping the power demands across the frequency spectrum is absolutely crucial and generally not given nearly enough attention. I have the impression that this sub obsession has made matters worse, with increasing neglect of the frequency spectrum where power resources need to be devoted to.

In the UK there is now a return to basics of old, and some of the good classic drivers of even 60 years ago, being manufactured again. Good designs of those days are being dusted off and updated. One of the things that has been lacking is good large dome midrange drivers. The Dynaudio D 76 has been long NLA and the ATC dome mid kept proprietary. I am glad to report that Volt are now producing a range of really good high power dome mids. They are available in the US now from Madisound.

The reason these larger dome mids have higher power handling and deliver high Spl. is because the VC is much larger diameter than in a cone type mid. The problem is, that they are much harder to manufacture than cone type mids.

 

[Steve81]

I think it is generally accepted that the last two octaves are sub territory.

Indeed, but it’s like anything else in audio, you want a bit of margin at the nominal limits for optimal performance in the passband.

As for an obsession for subs causing neglect elsewhere… maybe with noobs. Most of the guys that really get into it have pretty formidable setups over the entire audio band from what I’ve seen.

 

[shadyJ]

This product is very much part of the reason, this AV avocation is in decline. This product might be at home in a huge cinema but in the home it is gross overkill.

Here we have 2,800 watts devoted to one driver, and a bandwidth where there is actually not much essential information and a power band that actually requires far less power than other regions of the audio spectrum.

Two points: I don't agree that this product is part of the reason for the decline of the AV avocation. SVS has much smaller and more reasonably priced subwoofers. If SVS had nothing but monsters like the PB17, you might have a point. I would guess their biggest seller is actually the SB-1000 Pro which is a diminutive sub.

Secondly, the reason for the size of the sub is the physical demands of producing deep bass at high SPLs. There is just no way around that. You need to allocate a lot of space as well as funds for a massive driver, and if you want a driver that could produce massive SPLs at deep bass to also maintain the same output at higher frequencies, you will need to be very generous with wattage. If you were to argue that there may be more elegant solutions, I might not disagree, but some people only have a spot for a single sub, and they want that sub to do it all. This sub can, so it has its place.

 

[TLS Guy]

Two points: I don't agree that this product is part of the reason for the decline of the AV avocation. SVS has much smaller and more reasonably priced subwoofers. If SVS had nothing but monsters like the PB17, you might have a point. I would guess their biggest seller is actually the SB-1000 Pro which is a diminutive sub.

Secondly, the reason for the size of the sub is the physical demands of producing deep bass at high SPLs. There is just no way around that. You need to allocate a lot of space as well as funds for a massive driver, and if you want a driver that could produce massive SPLs at deep bass to also maintain the same output at higher frequencies, you will need to be very generous with wattage. If you were to argue that there may be more elegant solutions, I might not disagree, but some people only have a spot for a single sub, and they want that sub to do it all. This sub can, so it has its place.

You last paragraph is certainly correct. The size of the bass lines in my front right and left speakers have those SVS beaten by a country mile. So, I'm not arguing that. The old adage of "Do speakers have to be large? No, but it really, really helps!" That absolutely applies and always will as you can shrink the wave length of lower frequencies.

However I find that prospective purchasers are put off by current systems. I would say especially by the lack of good affordable two channel gear, unless you go vintage, and that gear is getting old now. I just think that broadly the industry is "singing" to a limited audience.

When I was picking up my AV 10 last week, there was an overly large sound bar playing, which for some nonsensical reason had to huge needle VU meters on the front "dancing" to the program. It sounded absolutely awful and the sound reminded me of an old pre World War II table radio. It speech was audible but miles away from natural speech. I dared not ask what it cost, but I bet a small fortune. This is what is rampant and people need good practical affordable and architecturally acceptable products to enter this world. I fear more trouble ahead if this issue is not addressed.

This is all such a pity as there is so much good high quality program out there in the Internet. Which brings me to my last beef, and that is the restriction of program by proprietary streamers. If you use one of those you are cut off and shielded from a lot of amazing programming. So even those are wide of the mark, and why I don't and won't use them. I use better options.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

You last paragraph is certainly correct. The size of the bass lines in my front right and left speakers have those SVS beaten by a country mile. So, I'm not arguing that. The old adage of "Do speakers have to be large? No, but it really, really helps!" That absolutely applies and always will as you can shrink the wave length of lower frequencies.

However I find that prospective purchasers are put off by current systems. I would say especially by the lack of good affordable two channel gear, unless you go vintage, and that gear is getting old now. I just think that broadly the industry is "singing" to a limited audience.

When I was picking up my AV 10 last week, there was an overly large sound bar playing, which for some nonsensical reason had to huge needle VU meters on the front "dancing" to the program. It sounded absolutely awful and the sound reminded me of an old pre World War II table radio. It speech was audible but miles away from natural speech. I dared not ask what it cost, but I bet a small fortune. This is what is rampant and people need good practical affordable and architecturally acceptable products to enter this world. I fear more trouble ahead if this issue is not addressed.

This is all such a pity as there is so much good high quality program out there in the Internet. Which brings me to my last beef, and that is the restriction of program by proprietary streamers. If you use one of those you are cut off and shielded from a lot of amazing programming. So even those are wide of the mark, and why I don't and won't use them. I use better options.

So Mark. I’ll challenge you the same as A55.
Can you look past your own custom system for just a minute? The consumer market has nothing to do with you, or your custom, purpose built system. I’m not arguing that your system isn’t head and shoulders above what’s available. But that’s irrelevant. Can you understand that other people might may have the same means? Or want the same as you?
Why does that have to be wrong?

 

[TLS Guy]

So Mark. I’ll challenge you the same as A55.
Can you look past your own custom system for just a minute? The consumer market has nothing to do with you, or your custom, purpose built system. I’m not arguing that your system isn’t head and shoulders above what’s available. But that’s irrelevant. Can you understand that other people might may have the same means? Or want the same as you?
Why does that have to be wrong?

You have totally missed my point. What I have been advocating for here is easy to use cost effective neat systems. But we have a world where a two channel system costs more than an AVR and does not even have elementary facilities like bass management. My whole thrust in this thread has been how to make could AV in the home accessible and affordable.

 

[William Lemmerhirt]

You have totally missed my point. What I have been advocating for here is easy to use cost effective neat systems. But we have a world where a two channel system costs more than an AVR and does not even have elementary facilities like bass management. My whole thrust in this thread has been how to make could AV in the home accessible and affordable.

I may have missed point. But can you show me where you’ve advocated for such? All I see you saying is how nothing is deigned as well as yours and nobody knows why the hell they’re doing.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

All I see you saying is how nothing is deigned as well as yours and nobody knows why the hell they’re doing.

Hahaha.

Don’t forget the other 2 points that you missed:
1. All AVR are 100% TRASH
2. All passive systems are 100% TRASH

And you know NOTHING, Jon Snow!!!