SVS PB17-Ultra Subwoofer Reviewed!

[chuckychuck7]

As always, great review, James!

Well, I have 2 gigantic subs,

so the PB17-Ultra is small for me...

 

[TLS Guy]

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.

Here is one paragraph on post 36.

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.

The basis of my argument that spending large sums of money on subs takes funds from more important areas. I have said on a number of occasions that the sub is far from the most important speaker in the system which is far from the truth.

In these post I have long lamented the dearth of affordable good two channel gear. It tends to be higher priced and in general lack a lot of useful functionality, especially bass management. I certainly want to see the many enjoy good AV in the home without ending up bankrupt. That used to be a much easier goal than now and that is a problem that should concern us all.

 

[Danzilla31]

As usual, great review, James!

Well, I have 2 gigantic subs,
View attachment 73664
so the PB17-Ultra is small for me...

Good to hear from you! It's been awhile! P.S. I've always loved the look of your setup

 

[Trell]

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!!!

My 2015 mid-range model Denon is still doing great driving 4 Ohm speakers in a 5.1 setup. It's in daily use, btw.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

Here is one paragraph on post 36.

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.

The basis of my argument that spending large sums of money on subs takes funds from more important areas. I have said on a number of occasions that the sub is far from the most important speaker in the system which is far from the truth.

In these post I have long lamented the dearth of affordable good two channel gear. It tends to be higher priced and in general lack a lot of useful functionality, especially bass management. I certainly want to see the many enjoy good AV in the home without ending up bankrupt. That used to be a much easier goal than now and that is a problem that should concern us all.

You keep on promoting 2 points: 1) decrease COST and 2) Increase Audio Coverage/Exposure/population

But everything you say is promoting the OPPOSITE.

1. 2 Channel separates is A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE than an affordable 5.1CH AVR or Stereo Receiver.

2. Audio hobby is a limited to begin with. And in this hobby, 90% buy AVR, not separates. So you are promoting this 10% limited population, not promoting the vast majority population of people buying AVR (90%), which are also A LOT MORE AFFORDABLE.

The bass/subwoofer is just as important as the rest of the system. That’s why MOST people hate systems that don’t have enough bass for them.

Now, do they want a 200-pound $3K sub? Probably not most people. But all manufacturers offer a wide range of products for all their clients.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

My 2015 mid-range model Denon is still doing great driving 4 Ohm speakers in a 5.1 setup. It's in daily use, btw.

Yep. And 90% of the audio enthusiasts buy AVRs that can last 20+ years and sound/measure fantastic. And are often 100% more affordable than some 2CH separates that cater only to about 10% of the very limited population.

 

[Trell]

You keep on promoting 2 points: 1) decrease COST and 2) Increase Audio Coverage/Exposure/population

But everything you say is promoting the OPPOSITE.

1. 2 Channel separates is A LOT MORE EXPENSIVE than an affordable 5.1CH AVR or Stereo Receiver.

2. Audio hobby is a limited to begin with. And in this hobby, 90% buy AVR, not separates. So you are promoting this 10% limited population, not promoting the vast majority population of people buying AVR (90%), which are also A LOT MORE AFFORDABLE.

The bass/subwoofer is just as important as the rest of the system. That’s why MOST people hate systems that don’t have enough bass for them.

Now, do they want a 200-pound $3K sub? Probably not most people. But all manufacturers offer a wide range of products for all their clients.

I doubt that, in our hobby, that as many as 10% are buying separates. Most likely far less taking into account all the AVRs sold.

 

[Auditor55]

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.

I looked at the graphs for the PB16 vs PB17 published on the SVS website, at those frequencies, and they looked similar to me.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I doubt that, in our hobby, that as many as 10% are buying separates. Most likely far less taking into account all the AVRs sold.

I agree. I was just being "generous" and throwing him a bone.

Probably less than 10% are into separates. At least 90% buy AVRs.

But anyway, I point was not the specific 10% or 5%, but that he is promoting separates/LIMITED population and spending more money, but NOT focusing on the majority population and spending LESS money.

Same thing with his proposal of active/powered systems that only probably 1% of the audio population owns.
Many of these powered active systems cost a lot more than buying their passive speakers counterparts + AVR.

 

[AcuDefTechGuy]

I looked at the graphs for the PB16 vs PB17 published on the SVS website, at those frequencies, and they looked similar to me.

Well show us the graphs man!

 

[Steve81]

I looked at the graphs for the PB16 vs PB17 published on the SVS website, at those frequencies, and they looked similar to me.

The burst numbers here show the PB16 maxing out around 112-113dB at 125Hz; the PB17 can hit 120dB at that point. That’s a massive difference and means the PB17 can just shrug off content in that range in a way the PB16 can’t. Since we aren’t listening to sine waves, it makes a tangible difference.

 

[shadyJ]

Since we aren’t listening to sine waves, it makes a tangible difference.

Speak for yourself; I love listening to sine waves!

 

[Auditor55]

The burst numbers here show the PB16 maxing out around 112-113dB at 125Hz; the PB17 can hit 120dB at that point. That’s a massive difference and means the PB17 can just shrug off content in that range in a way the PB16 can’t. Since we aren’t listening to sine waves, it makes a tangible difference.

Be that as it may, my primary point here is that people that purchasing subs like those are doing so for extra high output at really low frequencies and not such much for enhanced so-called mid bass performance. They want hear something go "boom" real loud and low.