SVS SBS-01 Speaker System Review

[MacManNM]

Huh? If the speaker is 8 ohms, than 1 watt/meter is equivalent to saying 2.83V/meter. If however the speaker is 4 ohms and the rating is 2.83V/meter than the speaker is being driven by 2 watts instead of one watt so you must scale back the rating 3dB to compare apples to apples.

Most people do not know the relationship between speaker Z and power. A lot of speaker MFGs try to hide the fact that their speakers aren't 8 ohms (usually less) from you, and boast a higher sensitivity rating, by using this method. Hence trying to fool you into thinking speakers are more sensitive than they really are.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Most people do not know the relationship between speaker Z and power. A lot of speaker MFGs try to hide the fact that their speakers aren't 8 ohms (usually less) from you, and boast a higher sensitivity rating, by using this method. Hence trying to fool you into thinking speakers are more sensitive than they really are.

SVS probably designed those speakers at 85dB to protect the drivers. They could have designed them with an 8ohm 93dB rating, but may have risked increased warranty claims.

 

[silversurfer]

SVS probably designed those speakers at 85dB to protect the drivers. They could have designed them with an 8ohm 93dB rating, but may have risked increased warranty claims.

What?

85db is what they are rated at for 1w/1m. If not 93dB as you stated, why not 86,87,88, 89, or 90? Do you think the drivers are that cheap or need that much protection?

Usually, and I am not a speaker designer, when designers lower effciency ratings is to increase bass response. Having the cone move more for bass is tougher on the cone than having it move less and louder.

This is not an efficient speaker by any means, which is interesting because of how folks praise how loud an SVS subwoofer can play.

 

[MacManNM]

What?

Having the cone move more for bass is tougher on the cone than having it move less and louder.

Cone movement is directly proportional to the amount of bass produced. What are you talking about?

 

[Sheep]

In my experience, I have liked the sound of less efficient speakers comapred to more. Headphones for example. Ones that are more efficient sounded very poor compared to my HD500's.

I always found 90+ dB speakers to get so harsh. Theres a few that were good, but most I didn't like.

SheepStar

 

[silversurfer]

Cone movement is directly proportional to the amount of bass produced. What are you talking about?

I am saying that possibly they are asking for more bass from the driver(more excursion), which lowers efficiency.

Maybe I misunderstood your 93dB rating. Can you explain?

 

[silversurfer]

In my experience, I have liked the sound of less efficient speakers comapred to more. Headphones for example. Ones that are more efficient sounded very poor compared to my HD500's.

I always found 90+ dB speakers to get so harsh. Theres a few that were good, but most I didn't like.

SheepStar

I agree...but I think it is because the more effcient speakers get louder sooner, which might mean the drivers break-up sooner as well.

 

[silversurfer]

In my experience, I have liked the sound of less efficient speakers comapred to more. Headphones for example. Ones that are more efficient sounded very poor compared to my HD500's.

Hey Sheep, a little OT, but speaking of headphones, I currently use Etymotic ER-6i's buds for my iPod when traveling, and some Sony 71's for knock around/working out. I don't like sticking the 6i's in my ear that much, although they do sound great. Do you have any suggestions?

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

silversurfer: What?

85db is what they are rated at for 1w/1m. If not 93dB as you stated, why not 86,87,88, 89, or 90? Do you think the drivers are that cheap or need that much protection?

Why not 86-90. Maybe we should ask them. I don't think they used cheap drivers at all. But for good reason, they chose to design the speakers at 85dB. An 85dB speaker most likely will handle everything an entry level receiver has up to audible distortion. And who's going to be buying these speakers? Probably guys with moderately priced receivers. They know a lot of guys who buy SVS subs push these subs to their limits. Don't you think that same market will test these speakers the same way. What better way to protect a speaker than design it a bit less efficient.

Usually, and I am not a speaker designer, when designers lower effciency ratings is to increase bass response. Having the cone move more for bass is tougher on the cone than having it move less and louder.

A woofer that moves less won't be louder. As Mac said, "Cone movement is directly proportional to the amount of bass produced."

This is not an efficient speaker by any means, which is interesting because of how folks praise how loud an SVS subwoofer can play.

How loud an SVS woofer can play and how loud people choose to play it are two different things. That's what a gain control on the sub is for. But I will agree with you that people push their SVS subs, and many get damaged. Maybe SVS is learning the hard way, and making some changes with these new entries.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

I agree...but I think it is because the more effcient speakers get louder sooner, which might mean the drivers break-up sooner as well.

Ask Ray "RLA" about Klipsch Reference speakers breaking up "sooner". He installs them for a living. The RF-7 boasts 102dB @ 2.83 volts/1 meter. These are anything but harsh sounding speakers.

 

[silversurfer]

Ask Ray "RLA" about Klipsch Reference speakers breaking up "sooner". He installs them for a living. The RF-7 boasts 102dB @ 2.83 volts/1 meter. These are anything but harsh sounding speakers.

Be smart Buck, that wasn't a blanket statement.

 

[silversurfer]

Why not 86-90. Maybe we should ask them. I don't think they used cheap drivers at all. But for good reason, they chose to design the speakers at 85dB. An 85dB speaker most likely will handle everything an entry level receiver has up to audible distortion. And who's going to be buying these speakers? Probably guys with moderately priced receivers. They know a lot of guys who buy SVS subs push these subs to their limits. Don't you think that same market will test these speakers the same way. What better way to protect a speaker than design it a bit less efficient.



A woofer that moves less won't be louder. As Mac said, "Cone movement is directly proportional to the amount of bass produced."



How loud an SVS woofer can play and how loud people choose to play it are two different things. That's what a gain control on the sub is for.

You don't protect a speaker by making it less efficient. You can always pump more power into them. The issue is how much does one need to spend on amplification for the application. Look at the competing speakers and their ratings.

Right, a woofer that moves less will not be louder. It is harder on a woofer to have more excursion, ie. play deeper, more extension.

SVS subs are capable of high output, are the speakers the same way?

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

silversurfer: You don't protect a speaker by making it less efficient. You can always pump more power into them. The issue is how much does one need to spend on amplification for the application. Look at the competing speakers and their ratings.

You mean designing a speaker which is less efficient isn't as prone to damage as one of higher efficiency? Sure, a lot depends on the user, and his toleration for distortion. Tom and Ron of SVS said on the AVS Forum that these speakers will play at ear bleeding levels in decently sized rooms with modest 100 watt surround receivers. That could mean pushing these receivers to their limits, which could cause damage. Who knows.

I think you bring up a valid point though. My question is - can these speakers keep up with an SVS sub at reference levels, not endangering modest receivers from overheating and possible damage? The shootout used a higher end Yamaha receiver capable of driving inefficient speakers. Hopefully Tom can chime in on this.

 

[Buckeyefan 1]

Be smart Buck, that wasn't a blanket statement.

You mean "don't be a smarta$$." Sorry, I had to list the RF-7. It was too easy.

Most of your better car subs are very inefficient, and sport huge voice coils and massive magnets. They take quite a bit of power to get going, but they sound awesome at low and high volumes. If SVS used oversized materials in their drivers, then I can see the reason for lower efficiency. It's simply an 85dB rating is among the lowest I've seen - comparable to some electrostats.

You shouldn't need a $1500 receiver, Krell, or pro amp to drive a set of surround bookshelves. I think Tom or Ron said to set the receiver crossover at 80Hz, which makes better use of an entry level receivers power.

 

[silversurfer]

On their website, they imply the speakers go hand in hand with with PB10ISD, so that is probably the level of output they are matched with.

I agree about pushing a receiver to its limits as well. As with their subwoofers, they put a lot of emphasis on headroom(maybe they don't, but their fans do), and I would think the same thought went into the speakers and what drives them.

Realize, I have not heard the speakers, but if I were putting together a "budget" system, I would look at the amplification and speaker having a good "match", whatever that might be.

 

[MacManNM]

On their website, they imply the speakers go hand in hand with with PB10ISD, so that is probably the level of output they are matched with.

I agree about pushing a receiver to its limits as well. As with their subwoofers, they put a lot of emphasis on headroom(maybe they don't, but their fans do), and I would think the same thought went into the speakers and what drives them.

Realize, I have not heard the speakers, but if I were putting together a "budget" system, I would look at the amplification and speaker having a good "match", whatever that might be.

With 64 W rms into those speakers they will play at 103db (which is quite loud). That does match up pretty well with the response of the PB10. Any normal receiver should drive that without a problem. Let's not forget that these are bookshelf speakers, and not meant to fill a huge room with sound.

 

[silversurfer]

But it seems they will have a fair amount of distortion:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_4/svs-sbs-01-speaker-system-11-2005-part-3.html

And what kind of receiver has true 64 W/rms?

 

[MacManNM]

But it seems they will have a fair amount of distortion:
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_12_4/svs-sbs-01-speaker-system-11-2005-part-3.html

And what kind of receiver has true 64 W/rms?

4% at 100Hz? not audible.

Any of the ~$400 receivers will put out 64 watts without a problem.

 

[silversurfer]

4% at 100Hz? not audible.

Any of the ~$400 receivers will put out 64 watts without a problem.

Yes.....I realize that, but I wonder what it would be at 80hz.

I am not too sure about the $400 receivers and 64watts in the real world. Are you familar with the Sound and Vision tests? I think only HK lived up to its rated output. Some receivers rated at 100watts bare spit out 35.

 

[MacManNM]

Yes.....I realize that, but I wonder what it would be at 80hz.

I am not too sure about the $400 receivers and 64watts in the real world. Are you familar with the Sound and Vision tests? I think only HK lived up to its rated output. Some receivers rated at 100watts bare spit out 35.

That was an all channels driven situation. Not real world operating conditions. Sound and vision does some good work, but if you do not know how to interpret their results they can be very misleading.

And at 80Hz, it would be slightly higher, but still inaudible.